MSM Goes Hog Wild With Constant Anti-Trump Fearmongering

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)

Barack Obama promised to radically transform the United States, and he did to an extent. But he dropped the radical posse and surrounded himself with people from within the system --- like the Clintons -- once he was elected.

But that's not what presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has in mind. He's no Swedish-style socialist. He's a radical, revolutionary communist who has surrounded himself and his campaign with people who openly advocate for Marxism and even support authoritarian governments.

On Wednesday's radio program, Glenn Beck broke down the biggest differences between former President Obama and highlighted just how dangerous Comrade Sanders' vision for America's future really is.

Watch the video below:



Don't miss Glenn Beck's special, "Bernie's Radicals: The Fires of Revolution," exposing the radicals who are running Bernie Sanders' campaign. From top to bottom, his campaign is staffed with hard-left extremists who are eager to burn down the system. The threat to our constitution is very real from Bernie's team, and it's unlike anything we've ever seen before in a U.S. election. Join Glenn on Wednesday, at 9 PM Eastern on BlazeTV's YouTube page, and on BlazeTV.com. And just in case you miss it live, the only way to catch all of Glenn's specials on-demand is by subscribing to Blaze TV.

Use code GLENN to save $10 off one year of BlazeTV.

The number of people serving life sentences now exceeds the entire prison population in 1970, according to newly-released data from the Sentencing Project. The continued growth of life sentences is largely the result of "tough on crime" policies pushed by legislators in the 1990s, including presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Biden has since apologized for backing those types of policies, but it seems he has yet to learn his lesson. Indeed, Biden is backing yet another criminal justice policy with disastrous consequences—mandatory drug treatment for all drug offenders.

Proponents of this policy argue that forced drug treatment will reduce drug usage and recidivism and save lives. But the evidence simply isn't on their side. Mandatory treatment isn't just patently unethical, it's also ineffective—and dangerous.

Many well-meaning people view mandatory treatment as a positive alternative to incarceration. But there's a reason that mandatory treatment is also known as "compulsory confinement." As author Maya Schenwar asks in The Guardian, "If shepherding live human bodies off to prison to isolate and manipulate them without their permission isn't ethical, why is shipping those bodies off to compulsory rehab an acceptable alternative?" Compulsory treatment isn't an alternative to incarceration. It is incarceration.

Compulsory treatment is also arguably a breach of international human rights agreements and ethical standards. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have made it clear that the standards of ethical treatment also apply to the treatment of drug dependence—standards that include the right to autonomy and self-determination. Indeed, according to UNODC, "people who use or are dependent on drugs do not automatically lack the capacity to consent to treatment...consent of the patient should be obtained before any treatment intervention." Forced treatment violates a person's right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment.

It's a useless endeavor, anyway, because studies have shown that it doesn't improve outcomes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. A review of nine studies, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, failed to find sufficient evidence that compulsory drug treatment approaches are effective. The results didn't suggest improved outcomes in reducing drug use among drug-dependent individuals enrolled in compulsory treatment. However, some studies did suggest potential harm.

According to one study, 33% of compulsorily-treated participants were reincarcerated, compared to a mere 5% of the non-treatment sample population. Moreover, rates of post-release illicit drug use were higher among those who received compulsory treatment. Even worse, a 2016 report from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found that people who received involuntary treatment were more than twice as likely to die of an opioid-related overdose than those with a history of only voluntary treatment.

These findings echo studies published in medical journals like Addiction and BMJ. A study in Addiction found that involuntary drug treatment was a risk factor for a non-fatal drug overdose. Similarly, a study in BMJ found that patients who successfully completed inpatient detoxification were more likely than other patients to die within a year. The high rate of overdose deaths by people previously involuntarily treated is likely because most people who are taken involuntarily aren't ready to stop using drugs, authors of the Addiction study reported. That makes sense. People who aren't ready to get clean will likely use again when they are released. For them, the only post-treatment difference will be lower tolerance, thanks to forced detoxification and abstinence. Indeed, a loss of tolerance, combined with the lack of a desire to stop using drugs, likely puts compulsorily-treated patients at a higher risk of overdose.

The UNODC agrees. In their words, compulsory treatment is "expensive, not cost-effective, and neither benefits the individual nor the community." So, then, why would we even try?

Biden is right to look for ways to combat addiction and drug crime outside of the criminal justice system. But forced drug treatment for all drug offenders is a flawed, unethical policy, with deadly consequences. If the goal is to help people and reduce harm, then there are plenty of ways to get there. Mandatory treatment isn't one of them.

Lindsay Marie is a policy analyst for the Lone Star Policy Institute, an independent think tank that promotes freedom and prosperity for all Texans. You can follow her on Twitter @LindsayMarieLP.

President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani joined Glenn Beck on Tuesday's radio program discuss the Senate's ongoing investigation into former vice president Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and reveal new bombshell documents he's currently releasing.

Giuliani told Glenn he has evidence of "very, very serious crime at the highest levels of government," that the "corrupt media" is doing everything in their power to discredit.

He also dropped some major, previously unreported news: not only was Hunter Biden under investigation in 2016, when then-Vice President Biden "forced" the firing of Ukraine's prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, but so was the vice president himself.

"Shokin can prove he was investigating Biden and his son. And I now have the prosecutorial documents that show, all during that period of time, not only was Hunter Biden under investigation -- Joe Biden was under investigation," Giuliani explained. "It wasn't just Hunter."

Watch this clip to get a rundown of everything Giuliani has uncovered so far.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

For most Americans, the 1980s was marked by big hair, epic lightsaber battles, and school-skipping Ferris Bueller dancing his way into the hearts of millions.

But for Bernie Sanders — who, by the way, was at that time the oldest-looking 40-year-old in human history — the 1980s was a period of important personal milestones.

Prior to his successful 1980 campaign to become mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders was mostly known around the Green Mountain State as a crazy, wildly idealistic socialist. (Think Karl Marx meets Don Quixote.) But everything started to change for Sanders when he became famous—or, in the eyes of many, notorious—for being "America's socialist mayor."

As mayor, Sanders' radical ideas were finally given the attention he had always craved but couldn't manage to capture. This makes this period of his career particularly interesting to study. Unlike today, the Bernie Sanders of the 1980s wasn't concerned with winning over an entire nation — just the wave of far-left New York City exiles that flooded Vermont in the 1960s and 1970s — and he was much more willing to openly align himself with local and national socialist and communist parties.


www.youtube.com


Over the past few weeks, I have been reading news reports of Sanders recorded in the 1980s — because, you know, that's how guys like me spend their Saturday nights — and what I've found is pretty remarkable.

For starters, Sanders had (during the height of the Soviet Union) a very cozy relationship with people who openly advocated for Marxism and communism. He was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party and promoted the party's presidential candidates in 1980 and 1984.

To say the Socialist Workers Party was radical would be a tremendous understatement. It was widely known SWP was a communist organization mostly dedicated to the teachings of Marx and Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution.

Among other radical things I've discovered in interviews Sanders conducted with the SWP's newspaper — appropriately named The Militant (seriously, you can't make this stuff up) — is a statement by Sanders published in June 1981 suggesting that some police departments "are dominated by fascists and Nazis," a comment that is just now being rediscovered for the first time in decades.

In 1980, Sanders lauded the Socialist Workers Party's "continued defense of the Cuban revolution." And later in the 1980s, Sanders reportedly endorsed a collection of speeches by the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, even though there had been widespread media reports of the Sandinistas' many human rights violations prior to Sanders' endorsement, including "restrictions on free movement; torture; denial of due process; lack of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; denial of the right of association and of free labor unions."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Comrade Bernie's disturbing Marxist past, which is far more extensive than what can be covered in this short article, shouldn't be treated as a mere historical footnote. It clearly illustrates that Sanders' brand of "democratic socialism" is much more than a $15 minimum wage and calls for single-payer health care. It's full of Marxist philosophy, radical revolutionary thinking, anti-police rhetoric, and even support for authoritarian governments.

Millions of Americans have been tricked into thinking Sanders isn't the radical communist the historical record — and even Sanders' own words — clearly show that he is. But the deeper I have dug into Comrade Bernie's past, the more evident it has become that his thinking is much darker and more dangerous and twisted than many of his followers ever imagined.

Tomorrow night, don't miss Glenn Beck's special exposing the radicals who are running Bernie Sanders' campaign. From top to bottom, his campaign is staffed with hard-left extremists who are eager to burn down the system. The threat to our constitution is very real from Bernie's team, and it's unlike anything we've ever seen before in a U.S. election. Join Glenn on Wednesday, at 9 PM Eastern on BlazeTV's YouTube page, and on BlazeTV.com. And just in case you miss it live, the only way to catch all of Glenn's specials on-demand is by subscribing to Blaze TV.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is editorial director of The Heartland Institute and editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com.