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)

5 SURPRISING ways space tech is used in your daily life

NASA / Handout | Getty Images

Is your vacuum cleaner from SPACE?

This week, Glenn is discussing his recent purchase of a Sputnik satellite, which has got many of us thinking about space and space technology. More specifically, we've been wondering how technology initially designed for use outside Earth's atmosphere impacted our lives down here on terra firma. The U.S. spent approximately $30 billion ($110 billion in today's money) between the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957 and the Moon Landing in 1969. What do we have to show for it besides some moon rocks?

As it turns out, a LOT of tech originally developed for space missions has made its way into products that most people use every day. From memory foam to cordless vacuums here are 5 pieces of space tech that you use every day:

Cellphone camera

LOIC VENANCE / Contributor | Getty Images

Have you ever seen a photograph of an early camera, the big ones with the tripod and curtain, and wondered how we went from that to the tiny little cameras that fit inside your cellphone? Thank NASA for that brilliant innovation. When you are launching a spaceship or satellite out of the atmosphere, the space onboard comes at a premium. In order to make more room for other equipment, NASA wanted smaller, lighter cameras without compromising image quality, and the innovations made to accomplish this goal paved the way for the cameras in your phone.

Cordless vacuums and power tools

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

When exploring the moon, NASA wanted astronauts to use a drill to collect samples from the lunar surface. The problem: the moon has a severe lack of electrical outlets to power the drills. NASA tasked Black & Decker with developing a battery-powered motor powerful enough to take chunks out of the moon. The resulting motor was later adapted to power cordless power tools and vacuums in households across America.

Infrared ear thermometer

BSIP / Contributor | Getty Images

What do distant stars and planets have in common with your eardrum? Both have their temperature read by the same infrared technology. The thermometers that can be found in medicine cabinets and doctors' offices across the world can trace their origins back to the astronomers at NASA who came up with the idea to measure the temperature of distant objects by the infrared light they emit.

Grooved pavement

Bob Riha Jr / Contributor | Getty Images

This one may seem obvious, but sometimes you need a massively complicated problem to come up with simple solutions. During the Space Shuttle program, NASA had a big problem: hydroplaning. Hydroplaning is dangerous enough when you are going 70 miles an hour in your car, but when you're talking about a Space Shuttle landing at about 215 miles per hour, it's an entirely different animal. So what was NASA's space-age solution? Cutting grooves in the pavement to quickly divert water off the runway, a practice now common on many highways across the world.

Memory foam

BERTRAND LANGLOIS / Stringer | Getty Images

If you've ever slept on a memory foam mattress, it probably won't come as a shock to find out that the foam was created to cushion falls from orbit. Charles Yotes was an astronautical engineer who is credited with the invention of memory foam. Yotes developed the technology for the foam while working on the recovery system for the Apollo command module. The foam was originally designed to help cushion the astronauts and their equipment during their descent from space. Now, the space foam is used to create some of the most comfortable mattresses on Earth. Far out.

5 most HORRIFIC practices condoned by WPATH

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Whatever you know about the "trans movement" is only the tip of the iceberg.

In a recent Glenn TV special, Glenn delved into Michael Schellenberger's "WPATH files," a collection of leaked internal communications from within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Glenn's research team got their hands on the WPATH files and compiled the highlights in Glenn's exclusive PDF guide which can be downloaded here. These documents reveal the appalling "standards" created and upheld by WPATH, which appear to be designed to allow radical progressive surgeons to perform bizarre, experimental, and mutilating surgeries on the dime of insurance companies rather than to protect the health and well-being of their patients. These disturbing procedures are justified in the name of "gender-affirming care" and are defended zealously as "life-saving" by the dogmatic surgeons who perform them.

The communications leaked by Schellenberger reveal one horrific procedure after another committed in the name of and defended by radical gender ideology and WPATH fanatics. Here are five of the most horrifying practices condoned by WPATH members:

1.Trans surgeries on minors as young as 14

One particular conversation was initiated by a doctor asking for advice on performing irreversible male-to-female surgery on a 14-year-old boy's genitals. WPATH doctors chimed in encouraging the surgery. One doctor, Dr. McGinn, confessed that he had performed 20 such surgeries on minors over the last 17 years!

2.Amputation of healthy, normal limbs

BIID, or Body Integrity Identity Disorder, is an “extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or who desire a paralysis.” As you might suspect, some WPATH members are in favor of enabling this destructive behavior. One WPATH commenter suggested that people suffering from BIID received "hostile" treatment from the medical community, many of whom would recommend psychiatric care over amputation. Apparently, telling people not to chop off perfectly healthy limbs is now considered "violence."

3.Trans surgeries on patients with severe mental illnesses

WPATH claims to operate off of a principle known as "informed consent," which requires doctors to inform patients of the risks associated with a procedure. It also requires patients be in a clear state of mind to comprehend those risks. However, this rule is taken very lightly among many WPATH members. When one of the so-called "gender experts" asked about the ethicality of giving hormones to a patient already diagnosed with several major mental illnesses, they were met with a tidal wave of backlash from their "enlightened" colleges.

4.Non-standard procedures, such as “nullification” and other experimental, abominable surgeries

If you have never heard of "nullification" until now, consider yourself lucky. Nullification is the removal of all genitals, intending to create a sort of genderless person, or a eunuch. But that's just the beginning. Some WPATH doctors admitted in these chatlogs that they weren't afraid to get... creative. They seemed willing to create "custom" genitals for these people that combine elements of the two natural options.

5.Experimental, untested, un-researched, use of carcinogenic drugs 

Finasteride is a drug used to treat BPH, a prostate condition, and is known to increase the risk of high-grade prostate cancer as well as breast cancer. Why is this relevant? When a WPATH doctor asked if anyone had used Finasteride "to prevent bottom growth," which refers to the healthy development of genitals during puberty. The answer from the community was, "That's a neat idea, someone should give it a go."

If your state isn’t on this list, it begs the question... why?

The 2020 election exposed a wide range of questionable practices, much of which Glenn covered in a recent TV special. A particularly sinister practice is the use of private money to fund the election. This money came from a slew of partisan private sources, including Mark Zuckerberg, entailed a host of caveats and conditions and were targeted at big city election offices— predominantly democratic areas. The intention is clear: this private money was being used to target Democrat voters and to facilitate their election process over their Republican counterparts.

The use of private funds poses a major flaw in the integrity of our election, one which many states recognized and corrected after the 2020 election. This begs the question: why haven't all states banned private funding in elections? Why do they need private funding? Why don't they care about the strings attached?

Below is the list of all 28 states that have banned private funding in elections. If you don't see your state on this list, it's time to call your state's election board and demand reform.

Alabama

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Arizona

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Arkansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Florida

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Georgia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Idaho

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Indiana

Photo 12 / Contributor

Iowa

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kentucky

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Louisiana

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Mississippi

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Missouri

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Montana

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Nebraska

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

North Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

North Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Ohio

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Oklahoma

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Pennsylvania

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Tennessee

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Texas

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Utah

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Virginia

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

West Virginia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Wisconsin

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

POLL: Was Malaysia Flight 370 taken by a WORMHOLE?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It's hard to know what's real and what's fake anymore.

With the insanity that seems to grow every day, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what's true and what's not, what to believe, and what to reject. Anything seems possible.

That's why Glenn had Ashton Forbes on his show, to explore the fringe what most people would consider impossible. Forbes brought Glenn a fascinating but far-out theory that explains the decade-old disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 along with riveting footage that supposedly corroborates his story. Like something out of a sci-fi novel, Forbes made the startling claim that Flight 370 was TELEPORTED via a U.S. military-made wormhole! As crazy as that sounds, the video footage along with Forbes' scientific research made an interesting, if not compelling case.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the U.S. Government can create wormholes? Did they use one to abduct Flight 370? Is the government hiding futuristic tech from the rest of the world? Let us know in the poll below:

Does the military have the capability to create wormholes?

Is the U.S. military somehow responsible for what happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

Is the military in possession of technology beyond what we believe to be possible?

Do you think American military tech is ahead of the other superpowers?

Do you think there would be negative consequences if secret government technology was leaked?