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)

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


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.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

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.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

We've heard a lot about critical race theory lately, and for good reason: It's a racist ideology designed to corrupt our children and undermine our American values. But most of what we see are the results of a process that has been underway for decades. And that's not something the mainstream media, the Democrat Party, and even teachers unions want you to know. They're doing everything in their power to try and convince you that it's no big deal. They want to sweep everything under the rug and keep you in the dark. To fight it, we need to understand what fuels it.

On his Wednesday night special this week, Glenn Beck exposes the deep-seated Marxist origins of CRT and debunks the claims that it's just a harmless term for a school of legal scholarship. Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer joins to argue why we must ban critical race theory from our schools if we want to save a very divided nation.

Watch the full "Glenn TV" episode below:

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.