MSM Goes Hog Wild With Constant Anti-Trump Fearmongering

November 22, 2016

WRITER

At this point, one might think the media would take a break from the constant effort to come up with some means of destroying the Trump presidency in its infancy, before it has even come to be. Perhaps they might focus on Obama's legacy for his last few months in office? Maybe they could, for whatever reason, decide they had better things to do than constantly fearmonger about Donald Trump destroying the country.

"They really seem to think that we are on the precipice of the, I don't know, the annihilation of the United States of America," Buck Sexton said Tuesday, filling in for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program.

One of their favorite fearmongering topics of late is the so-called "white nationalist, white supremacist" movement, giving it a disproportionate amount of attention and making it seem as if the vast majority of Trump voters fit into this demographic.

"They're finding some means to tie a hateful, but obscure and unimportant group to a Trump presidency. And the connective tissue between these two things is flimsy, and so it's a lot of insinuation," Buck said.

There will always be a few wackos associated with one party or another. Does that destroy the legitimacy of a political party? Are conservatives to be held responsible for the actions of a small minority?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

BUCK: You would think at this point perhaps the media would at least take a break from its constant effort to come up with some way, some means of destroying the Trump presidency in its infancy, in fact, destroying it before it has ever come to be, maybe they would focus on Obama's legacy for his last few months in office. Maybe they would decide for whatever reason that they had other things to do than just try to constantly fearmonger and come up with different reasons that Donald Trump is going to destroy the country.

It's not an exaggeration. I wish I could say it was. It's not actually something that is beyond the pale for a lot of the writers out there, a lot of the journalists. They really seem to think that we are on the precipice of the -- I don't know, the annihilation of the United States of America. Something along those lines.

And one of the ways that they're trying to get that point across is to suggest pretty openly that there is some major rise in what you would have to -- well, what they term "white nationalism, white supremacism." All these different, terrible ideologies are supposedly on the rise now because of Donald Trump.

So much so that the New York Times gave -- what is this? Just a day ago they were writing a piece about the alt-right exulting in Donald Trump's election with a salute, heil, H-E-I-L, as in the German, victory.

So I suppose we're supposed to take from this that the Trump presidency is somehow, what? Tied to neo-Naziism, tied to white supremacy and white nationalists? That's the connection that she seem to want to make.

And you have to ask yourself, is this the only instance in which a tiny fringe group that has no political power in this country, that is widely and rightly and completely reviled, that is a few hundred people -- we'll get into the numbers in a moment. There was actually a fantastic piece that was making the rounds last week from somebody who hates Trump saying, "I've got an idea: Stop pretending that Trump is a Nazi, stop pretending he's Hitler, stop saying that white supremacy is the only reason that anyone voted for Trump. You are, as the title of the piece stated, crying wolf again."

This is what they are doing. This is the what the left-wing media, the New York Times, all the rest of them. They are crying wolf.

They're finding some means to tie a hateful, but obscure and unimportant group to a Trump presidency. And the connective tissue between these two things is flimsy. And so it's a lot of insinuation. It's a lot of, "Well, we heard that some of the group's members are very happy about the Trump victory."

You could find all sorts of wackos out there who have politics of one sort or another. If you go back and look at some of the biggest mass shooters in US history, some of them had long political manifestos that supported maybe one party or another, or one candidate or another at some point in time.

Does that destroy the legitimacy of that political party? Are we to be held responsible? We being anybody for whomever votes within the party that we affiliate -- or, that we are affiliated with?

Given that we're talked about tens of millions of people, there's going to be some crazies in there. There's going to be some bad people.

But it's not about accuracy for the left with this anti-Trump mania. And it really is a mania. It's gone beyond anything that is rational.

I keep telling my Democrat friends, I'm trying to explain to them on a regular basis, "You got a better candidate for your interests with the Trump victory, than many of the other options that were out there on the right."

Trump is going to make deals with you. I think it was even this past weekend there was an SNL sketch where Trump said he -- oh, the wall, forget it.

This Obamacare, leave it. I don't think he's going to do that because the people who voted for him would turn on him and be very unhappy. But on a lot of other issues -- gay marriage, for example, one of the ones that gets a lot of attention for those who are hyperbolic in their hatred for Trump. No indication that he would touch that. In fact, there's plenty of indication that he's been -- that he is rather supportive of gay marriage.

And when you had that bathroom bill fight over transgender rights, Trump said that people can use whatever bathroom they want, if you will recall. It didn't get a lot of attention on the campaign trail from the media because that wasn't really part of anti-Trump script. What do you mean he's open to letting transgender -- individuals who are transgender use whatever bathroom they want. That's not the Trump we're trying to create out there in the media. We're trying to create some kind of monster, Attila the Hun with a swooping side part. We're trying to make people scared.

But Trump is not Hitler, not by a mile, not even close, and to say so is irresponsible and it's wrong. To insinuate that that's the situation is wrong and irresponsible. And it just damages all of us. It hurts the prospects of reaching some sort of accommodation in the middle, finding issues upon which left and right can at least agree somewhat. They are out there. They do exist.

How much coverage have you seen, for example, of Donald Trump wanting to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure?

Obama's been talking about spending money on infrastructure for quote a while. We're 20 trillion in debt. I'm sure a lot of you who are limited government and not particularly enthusiastic about the idea of running up Uncle Sam's credit card further into the red, but maybe Trump will do a good job. Maybe there's a case he made for some infrastructure spending. At least it's a conversation we could have.

You'll hear none of that. No, instead the New York Times, the Washington Post, they want to cover a neo-Nazi rally in Washington, DC. The alt-right and neo-Nazis, whatever the connections are between those two -- alt-right, a term that I just heard for the first time, and I'm on the right -- certainly not on the alt-right -- maybe six months ago. Eight months ago. Something like that.

So this seems to be a relatively new phenomenon of mostly internet trolls, who, of course, have a magnified presence on the web because the whole point of being a troll is that you say the sorts of things -- you act in a way with your digital presence, whatever it might be, that you get maximum attention, that you, now, people.

So you have a band of digital trolls. You have a few hundred white supremacists. You go and look on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, for example, and you'll see what the estimates are for how many actual white supremacists there are in the country. You can take a look at the numbers.

Actually, back to that piece on Slate HEP Star Kodax. I have the author's name here. I will get to it. Scott Alexander. Hates Trump. Thinks he's terrible. Thinks he's a liar. Thinks he's a buffoon.

Also hates it when people say that he is a Nazi or that he's supported by Nazis, and that means that, therefore, he's a part of national socialism in America or any of that, not just intellectually lazy, but dangerous stuff that's out there. This is dangerous to say.

Some of us were warning for quite a while, for example, that Black Lives Matter wasn't just a movement meant to reform police activity and to improve police community relations in predominantly minority areas of the country, because the rhetoric that they were using, "Stop killing us, stop murdering us," rhetoric that I heard myself at rallies, signs that I read, photos that I was able to take at those rallies, that made it seem as though the overwhelming idea behind this wasn't reform. It wasn't bringing people together. It wasn't stopping police brutality. It was that there is a plague of racist, murdering cops who hunt young black men in this country that sort of rhetoric leads to violence because some people will believe it and act upon it. And that has happened in the past. It may have happened within the last few days as well.

So rhetoric matters. Saying that Donald Trump is in some way a closet neo-Nazi or a member of the alt-right or any of this, that major newspapers are spending much of their time trying to create these affiliations, trying to make it seem like that's happening, just shows you how desperate they are to destroy this administration from the get-go.

No leeway. No honeymoon. No effort at all to even allow the possibility of national unity on any issue. Destroy. They are in seek and destroy mode with Donald Trump. They want to do nothing else other than that.

The media wants to make sure that his campaign, or rather that his candidacy comes to naught. You see this coverage that's happened of the meeting in DC. And part of me feels bad talking about it. Although, it's already out there in the major newspapers, right? We shouldn't give this more attention, in a sense.

And I understand this -- the push-pull, the back and forth between whether you want to debunk the breathless exaggerations and lies of the leftist media, or you want to just move on to other issues. I promise you today we'll also talk about some of the Trump promises for the future, some of the things that he says will happen in the first 100 days of his candidacy, the very interesting and worthwhile back and forth between those in the Trump campaign and the Republican Party whether TPP, for example, the Transpacific Partnership, is a good idea.

These are things that affect all of us. These are issues that affect the economy. These are issues that may have a direct impact on your job, whether we're talking about taxes or trade agreements, perhaps even infrastructure spending. Any number of those things. But those are areas that they have to engage with the ideas of not just Donald Trump, but now the Republican Party, which is in quite a powerful position.

They'd rather not do that. They'd rather write articles talking about how Donald Trump has expanded the Overton window, named for a guy called Overton. Last name Overton. Who figured that there was sort of acceptable political discourse and there was some things considered extreme and some things that were considered within that window, and that some politicians and some figures can come along and either contract or expand the window of what is allowable to discuss in public and what is not.

Donald Trump has expanded the Overton window here, but he's done it in such a way that there's more speech, not less. He's done it in a such a way that now we can have a worthwhile back and forth over whether this country has become so politically correct, that it stifles even the most important issues of public policy and debate, never mind trying to be sort of polite around your relatives over the Thanksgiving holiday or something.

We're talking about a political correctness where all of a sudden half the country isn't allowed to feel the way it feels, because the other half is going to shout them down, call them racist. Part of what upsets the left os much here and why you see the doubling down of a racism at all costs and racism -- racism accusations at all costs and that as the primary strategy to undermine the Trump administration, is because the institutional left media has such an investment in that, has created such an infrastructure for using accusations, really, of racism.

There are others out there too. Misogyny, xenophobia, Islamophobia.

Those really don't destroy people. Racism destroys people. Racism, as an accusation, ends careers, gets people fired, makes their friends and neighbors not want to be seen with them or talk to them. It's become an incredibly powerful tool.

Donald Trump withstood all of that. The media doesn't want to let it go. The New York Times, Washington Post, all the rest of them, they don't want to let it go. They have to finish Trump's presidency with, "He is a racist." If that doesn't happen, if they haven't convinced enough people in the country that either he is racist or you are racist for supporting him, by the way, they feel like he will have failed.

It's immature. It's a mania. It's deeply destructive to everything that's happening in this country, to all the discussions that we should have. But there are reasons why, once again, they are crying wolf. This has this has been the most effective strategy they have in the past.

They don't want to have to engage in ideas. They'd rather just throw names out there and give a huge platform and a lot of attention to a couple of hundred imbeciles getting together, pretending that somehow they know something about history and Hitler, a bunch of buffoons. A bunch of morons. Nobody cares except for the New York Times and the Washington Post, because they can highlight these imbeciles and say, "How far are these idiots from the 60 million who voted for Donald Trump?" The New York Times, they're just asking questions. They're just asking questions. It's a disgrace, isn't it?

Featured Image: President-elect Donald Trump steps outside the clubhouse to greet Jonathan Gray, member of the Board of Directors at Blackstone, before their meeting at Trump International Golf Club, November 20, 2016 in Bedminster Township, New Jersey. Trump and his transition team are in the process of filling cabinet and other high level positions for the new administration. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.