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)

New York mom ARRESTED after son shows school nurse his new tattoo

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The mother of a 10-year-old boy was arrested in Highland, New York, for allowing her son to get a permanent tattoo on his forearm.

Crystal Thomas was charged with endangering the welfare of a child after a school nurse discovered her son's new tattoo, his name in large block letters, and reported it to school officials. Thomas faces up to one year in prison if convicted, and her two children were both taken away by child protective services. The tattoo artist was also arrested.

In New York, it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to get a tattoo, even with parental consent.

In New York, state officials have introduced a bill that would ensure that parents who allow their young children to receive so-called "gender-affirming care" — which may include puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — are protected under the law, as well as the physicians who provide such "care."

"Can [you] hear the cognitive dissonance in this story?" asked Glenn Beck on the radio program. "You have got to be kidding me."

Watch the video clip below to catch more of Glenn's reaction. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.


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.

Chloe Cole says she began to be "brainwashed" by the gender ideology she saw all over social media when she was only 11 years old. By the time she turned 13, Chloe was convinced that she was a boy, and her parents didn't know how to respond. So they turned to the so-called "experts," who rushed Chloe into life-altering hormone treatments and surgeries. Not only did these experts give "no alternatives" to transitioning, but they lied to Chloe's parents behind her back to scare them into compliance.

Chloe joined "The Glenn Beck Podcast" to share her heartbreaking experience and to expose the dark world of “gender-affirming care,” which she believes no teen should ever be subject to — from hormone blockers to mastectomies: "This is all wrong. I regret every single step, and this shouldn't have happened."

She also had a warning for parents about what led her to make those decisions in the first place, and she provided some key advice on how to react compassionately to situations like hers.

Watch the full podcast with Chloe Cole 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.

Nearly two years after the January 6 riot at the Capitol, the mystery of who planted two pipe bombs outside the Republican and Democratic National Committee offices remains unsolved. Thankfully, the bombs were found and disabled before they could cause any harm, but with their potential for devastating consequences — not to mention the massive investigations into all things relating to Jan.6 — why does it seem like this story has practically fallen off the face of the earth?

No one in the corporate media has even tried to look into it, and the government's narrative that the bombs were meant to be a diversion for the Capitol riot doesn't make sense when you look at the timeline of events.

So, on this week's episode of "Glenn TV," Glenn Beck broke down the timeline of events that led up to the discovery of the bombs and how the facts appear to point toward one sinister conclusion:

  • Security footage reportedly shows that the two pipe bombs were planted in front of the DNC and RNC the day before the riot.
  • Neither bomb was concealed.
  • Then-Vice President-elect Kamala Harris entered the DNC headquarters at approximately 11: 30 am on January 6.
  • At approximately 12:40 pm on January 6, the first pipe bomb was discovered sitting in plain sight outside the DNC headquarters, raising questions as to why the incoming vice president didn't have better security.
  • The pipe bomb had a one-hour kitchen timer that had apparently stopped with 20 minutes left on the timer. (Remember, the bombs were planted on January 5.)
  • The Secret Service reportedly erased their communications from January 5t and January 6 by "accident."

"It doesn't really hit you unless you look at it as a timeline, and then you're like, 'wait a minute that doesn't seem right.' The unsolved mystery of the pipe bomb has been used by the government to show that January 6 riot was part of a larger coordinated attack ... that the bombs were a diversion to get the Capitol police away from the Capitol," Glenn explained.

"But the bomb had a one-hour timer and it was planted at 8 p.m. the night before. So the bomb would have to go off the night before at about 9 p.m. on January 5. How's that a diversion? It's not physically even possible."

Watch the video clip below to hear more or find the full episode of "Unsolved Mysteries: 7 Deep-State SECRETS Biden Wants Buried" here.


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.