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?

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.  

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. 

August 11, 2020

https://www.siriusxm.com/clips/clip/aa47060e-355d-4c3a-aed3-39861943d3ba/b050d980-fcea-48e1-a121-c878c75c3ad9

June 29, 2020 interview with Steve Cortes available here.