The Subtle Twists of the Mainstream Media that Rob Americans of Choice

The media lies to and manipulates the American people. In 2012, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote a piece in The New Yorker connecting Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. That’s the same connection the Bush administration was using to argue for the Iraq War. Goldberg’s story was ultimately debunked—long after Americans had deliberated and the die had been cast. So, sometimes the media makes very big, false allegations. But the media is also always gently distorting the truth in day-to-day reporting, and thereby shaping national opinion based on falsehoods. The below snippet is from an article in The Daily Beast, and it is quintessential mainstream media reporting. In an article reporting on the ACB hearings, The Daily Beast said:

This was not an admission. Barrett was making a statement of fact, not expressing an opinion. Barrett made clear to Klobuchar how she defined “super-precedent” in the article. Here is the transcript of Barrett’s point:

The way that [super-precedent] used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you’re reading from was to define cases that are so well-settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category. And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled. But descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling. 

All over mainstream media (e.g. The Washington Post), Barrett’s comments to Klobuchar have been framed as “an admission.” By leaving out the definition that clearly makes her point purely a descriptive one, the media is telling the public that Barrett confessed she is gunning for Roe. This type of subtle twisting is typical of the mainstream media. When every single issue has this type of distorted slant, it deforms our whole society in furtherance of an agenda. 

Remember Goldberg of the Iraq War debacle? He was the author of the anonymously-sourced Atlantic piece alleging Trump has disdain for the military. Every article you read from a mainstream source—whether it is on Trump, police brutality, foreign affairs/China, the Supreme Court—has these sleights of hand that warp the truth and deceive you.  It is ok for Americans to disagree, but Americans deserve the truth so they can freely make up their minds. If you are reasoning from falsehoods, your conclusion is not your own—it has been predetermined by someone else through the manipulation of the facts. Stop swallowing whole what your side of the aisle is telling you and start critically thinking for yourself. Do you hold your views because you reasoned to them from solid premises, or because you were deftly handled by media with an agenda?

Trump Can’t Break His Contract With America

Donald Trump should choose his nominee from the 2016 list—not from the recently expanded list. Republicans all seem to agree that Trump should nominate immediately, but whom he should choose has less consensus. The two front runners are reported to be Judge Amy Coney Barret and Judge Barbara Lagoa. Judge Barrett has widely been assumed to be the likely nominee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat, and between these two women, Trump should nominate Judge Barrett.  Whatever Judge’s Lagoa’s qualifications, she was not on the list in 2016. The President made a promise when he was candidate Trump, he can’t break his word now. 

The President has a contract with America—Trump’s SCOTUS List.  The original list was part of Trump’s pitch to the nation in 2016, when the Supreme Court was one of the primary motivating factors in that election. Trump released the list to the public many months before the election and committed to choose someone from that list if the American people put their trust in him. Americans considered the list and elected Donald Trump to the White House.  The 2016 list of Supreme Court nominees is not just Trump’s list, it has been vetted and ratified at the ballot box by the American people. 

Those persons added to Trump’s list recently—however qualified—are part of his pitch to the American people for the second term.  The expanded list is Trump’s proposed contract, which I have every expectation the nation will accept, but it is not the contract under which we are operating now. If Trump were to choose someone only recently added to his expanded list, it would be substantively the same as straying from the list in 2018 to nominate someone not on the list—Trump would be breaking the contract. He would be breaking the promise he made to choose a nominee from the list he presented to voters in 2016.  Should another vacancy arise on the Supreme Court during his second term, the expanded list could be used, but until the election, anything but a choice from his 2016 list is a breach. 

Trump should ignore anyone who is unwisely urging him to consider his electoral prosects.  He will take Florida regardless, and the President’s power to choose the nominee for the Supreme Court should be above politics. 

The nation, both Trump’s supporters and haters, have expected Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement to be Barrett for some time now, and she has been doubly approved by the American people.  She is on the original 2016 list, so the country accepted her when it agreed to its contract with Trump, but they reaffirmed that choice when, in 2018, voters expanded the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. In a surprise move, Trump should pivot from his penchant for unpredictability, and nominate Barrett, because with that choice he carries with him the full force of the American electorate. 

Additionally, Republicans shouldn’t stop playing hardball—we should press the advantage and protect our nominee. With Barrett, the ghastly abuse that is the confirmation process right now can be mercifully streamlined. Because everyone knew Barrett was the likely replacement for Ginsburg, she received a SCOTUS level scorching from the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017, where her Catholic faith provoked the Democrats to attempt an unconstitutional religious litmus test.  Barrett should only have to go through a very quick day of hearings and the nomination should be put to a vote. 

Donald Trump made a contract with America.  Although an updated contract is pending review and acceptance, we are still operating under the terms proposed and agreed upon in 2016.  Promises made, promises kept is more than a slogan, it is a reality that has fueled Trump’s stratospherically successful first term, it will propel him to the White House, and it will Make America Great Again in a second term.  He can’t stop now, right at the eleventh hour. Donald Trump vowed to choose a nominee from the 2016 list, and he should nominate Amy Coney Barret to the High Court.  

Why A Conservative Can (And Should) Defend Trump’s 1776 Commission EO

In recent weeks, Donald Trump has made clear his intention to counter subversive and seditious programs in public schools across the nation, and I want to make sure—very quickly and briefly—that conservatives understand that we can wholeheartedly support this effort without compromising our stance for limited government and respect for our system of federalism and states’ rights.  

Yesterday (September 17th), Donald Trump announced his intention to sign an executive order to create the 1776 Commission that will promote patriotism in education.  This initiative will be tasked with countering the subversive and frankly seditious 1619 Project launched by radical Leftists and the New York Times

A lot of conservatives think we have to be entirely hands-off.  They think that because education is a state issue (and I fully support it remaining a state issue), the federal government and the President have no role. They are wrong. In a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Thomas made some simple points that are important to consider in light of this debate. 

The case was Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc. (Yes, Soros) Soros’ group challenged a government policy that requires foreign organizations to articulate a public stance against prostitution and sex trafficking to receive federal funds from one of our aid programs. 

The Court determined that *foreign* organizations (here, Soros affiliates) must comply with this policy or forego the U.S. funding. Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he made an excellent point that is good to consider in the context of this dust up about the 1776 Commission.

Thomas said: “’The First Amendment does not mandate a viewpoint-neutral government.’ Thus, the Government may require those who seek to carry out federally funded programs to support the Government’s objectives with regard to those programs. After all, the Constitution itself ‘impos[es] affirmative ideological commitments prerequisite to assisting in the government’s work.’ It excludes viewpoints such as communism and anarchism, stating that those engaged in government work must swear an oath to support our Constitution’s republican form of government. See Art. VI, cl. 3.” (internal citations omitted). 

Thomas makes very good sense. The states accept a lot of money from the federal government, and comply with the various requirements that Congress attaches in order to receive those funds (hello, South Dakota v. Dole in which SCOTUS held that highway funds can be conditioned on a drinking age of 21–every state complied). Public schools receive federal funds. The idea that America has to stand by while public schools teach our children to hate their own country is suicidal and downright insane. We don’t have to fund seditious programs; we can mandate pro-America curricula.

Throughout this whole debate is the underlying reality that, as a society, we have lost the idea of objective truth. People no longer think they can make a definitive judgment on what is right and what is wrong. That’s a terrible error. We have to have the courage to make real judgments again and defend our principles.  I am very proud of President Trump for taking this step, because all our efforts are in vain if the next generation thinks this country and its Constitution are oppressive and evil.  Let’s support Trump in this and help him defend the Constitution. 

Vindman’s Attitude Is Typical of the Rebellious Bureaucracy Undermining the Constitution

On Sept. 14, The Atlantic ran a profile on Alexander Vindman. Vindman was one of the National Security Council officials who listened to President Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman “blew the whistle” and became the star witness in impeachment proceedings against the president.

The Atlantic article cast Vindman as an idealistic patriot. Vindman, who lists “Defender of the Constitution” on his Twitter bio, referenced his reverence for democratic ideals and the U.S. Constitution multiple times throughout the interview.

Leftists and militant Never-Trumpers throw two terms around as if they are sacred, but in practice trample all over the principles the words represent. One word is Constitution, the other is democracy. The left claims to champion democratic values ad nauseam, yet they have betrayed the most basic of those values in America—the primacy of the will of the people in the peaceful transition of power… The rest of this article is available here.

If You Don’t Want To Be Forced Into A Mandatory Vaccine, Start Protesting Now

On Sunday of Labor Day weekend, former Olympian Kerri Walsh Jennings declared on Instagram her rebellion against mandatory masking. Jennings explained she had recently been inspired to resist restrictions more actively because “our freedoms won’t come back unless we are willing to push back and stand up for them.” She shared that her small act of pushback was to go to the grocery store without a mask.

Predictable condemnation ensued, and on Monday Jennings published a quasi-retraction she titled “Truce.” While Jennings repeated parts of the formulaic apologies typical of stars who incur the wrath of the mob, she didn’t capitulate entirely… Read the entire article at The Federalist here.

Photo Jernej Furman / Flickr

The Federalist/Governors Can’t Use Coronavirus to Indefinitely Declare a State of Emergency

Published on The Federalist on August 11, 2020

Antonin Scalia often noted that the primary safeguard of our constitutional liberties is the structure of our government.  Every banana republic has a bill of rights, he once said, but the strength of the American system is the separation of powers.  At the federal level, there are three separate, co-equal branches of government that must operate together for our representative republic to function properly, and this balance of power is mirrored at the state level.  Unhappily, our system today is not functioning as designed.

Since March, the separation of powers has been off-kilter—shifted disproportionately to state executives who are ruling outside the boundaries of their proper authority.  In a moment of national panic, Americans permitted their state and local executives to take power—to declare states of emergency and to implement lockdowns—and now those executives won’t give that power back.  

American Greatness/Don’t Take A Knee

Published on American Greatness, June 21, 2020

The protests and riots that have ravaged the country this past month have brought with them demands made to police and military personnel to kneel in solidarity with protesters.  Donald Trump is under increasing pressure to soften his stance against protest kneeling.  Kneeling is billed as a small concession to make—an easy olive branch, but Trump is right not to take a knee, and as the Commander in Chief and the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, he needs to set a strong example for our soldiers, police, and the American people. Taking a knee is not a small concession, it signals support for a growing movement of people who believe that America is a systemically racist nation and who are bent on destroying the Constitution and remaking America in an unrecognizable new mold.