Every conservative who has ever engaged in politics on social media has, at one time or another, felt the wrath of a full blown hissy fit from a member of the Left. They’ve been called racists, sexists, Islamophobics, and any other word that liberals can think of as an insult.
Nowhere was this more evident than during the 2016 Presidential election. However, the sources of the online attacks during the 2016 Presidential election were different in that these attacks were also coming from those who claimed to share our ideology and our values. Some of them were new to politics. Others had involved themselves in political debate for years.
Then there were the long-time conservative talk show hosts and writers who, inexplicably, decided to put the full weight of their celebrity behind a life-long Democrat with no accountability record in real politics. They threw their support behind a man who had been a long-time friend of and donor for the woman who he would ultimately face in the general election; a man whose politics had aligned with a plethora of other politicians who didn’t even come close to sharing the values these conservative talk show pundits have claimed to themselves hold.
Of course, the man I’m writing of is Donald Trump: a man who wrote a book named “The Art of the Deal,” (more appropriately titled “The Art of the Con”). In the book, Trump details how he lures people into believing that he will fulfill their fantasies, all the while knowing he never would.
The conservative talk show hosts I speak of began with a correct premise, and that was the allure. They believed that Washington was thoroughly corrupt and that the GOP was really far more aligned with the Democrats than with the GOP’s espoused conservative principles. These hosts weren’t wrong. The problem for the rest of us, however, started when these hosts wanted us to support a lifelong Democrat. To follow their logic: the solution to hollowing out a corrupt GOP who worked for the Democrat agenda was supposed to be a guy who had been a Democrat most of his life. What? They wanted us to support a man whose daughter was close friends with Chelsea Clinton, and a man whose wedding to his current wife was attended by the Clintons? This should have given everyone – and I mean EVERYONE – who had ever listened to these people, a moment of pause.
For some of these “conservatives,” their support of the “latest thing” wasn’t surprising in the least. Take Ann Coulter, for example. She had already sided with every liberal Republican that had come along in a decade: Christy, McConnell, Romney. During the 2014 mid-terms, when asked about Matt Bevin running against McConnell in the primaries on Sean Hannity’s radio shown, she said “This isn’t the time for primaries,” and “McConnell is a conservative.”
Frankly, if you cared at all what she had to say after that statement, then I own a bridge in Brooklyn I’ll sell you.
I could write an entire article breaking down just those two statements and how utterly asinine each statement is, but I’m going to give my readers the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re smart enough to understand this on their own. The only thing I WILL mention is that during that election McConnell had a PAC who’s aim was to destroy conservative opposition to him.
Do you know who donated $50,000 to that PAC? Donald Trump.
What about Lou Dobbs? I certainly hope the Fox Business News host is better at financial analysis than he is at political principle, but that’s obviously not true. His knowledge of Trump came, naturally, from their mutual presence in the business world. Dobbs should have known from this experience alone that Trump was a con man and that Trump didn’t mean a word he said. Yet, Dobbs led his viewers down the primrose path anyway.
As for Rush Limbaugh, the “Mayor of Realville,” he seemed to become completely disconnected from reality as the 2016 election progressed, diving deeper and deeper into the insanity of the inexplicable: Trump popularity within the GOP.
Sean Hannity too. Perhaps no one dove off the deep end more than he. Though he claimed impartiality all throughout the GOP primary process, his manner toward Trump verses the other candidates revealed the fallaciousness of that claim. To anyone who observed Hannity, even casually, it was clear that he was in the bag for Trump. Worse was Hannity’s insistence that anyone who was conservative MUST vote for Trump once he won the nomination. This came after years of arguing with liberal callers to his radio show that “I’m not a Republican, I’m a registered conservative.” Yet, now Hannity had become a mouthpiece for the GOP he had claimed to not be a part of for years.
Hannity, and others, told us we HAD to support Trump just to stop Hillary Clinton. This was a legitimate, yet pointless argument coming from someone like Mark Levin who reluctantly boarded the Trump Train. This argument wasn’t only coming from those like Hannity. On a tray of 17 sandwiches of various appeal, Hannity et al picked the crap sandwich and then expected us to eat it just to avoid eating the crap sandwich the Democrats were serving. No thanks. Those of us who don’t like crap sandwiches decided to keep our integrity and wait for the next meal.
Back to the present, the reactions of all of these pundits to Trump’s recent collusion with Democrats over his signature campaign issue of immigration has been varied, but equally hilarious.
Ann Coulter has tweeted some revisionist history in the last week. She claimed that there was no alternative to Trump, that there was no one who had his ideas and was more trustworthy. This of course was a flat out lie. Rubio, Cruz, Walker – any of these would have been far superior to the lifelong Democrat and Clinton supporter. The truth was that Coulter saw an opportunity to use Trump’s popularity to write and sell books, making herself a quick buck in the process.
Hannity and Limbaugh blame Congressional Republican leadership. While, yes, men like McConnell and Ryan definitely share the blame for not pushing a conservative agenda, Trump has hardly had the laser like focus it takes to push through an agenda opposed by nearly half the country and most of the mainstream media.
Fourth rate commentators like Bill Mitchell and Mark Simone have maintained the fiction that Trump is a genius who is luring Pelosi and Schumer into a false sense of security, and that this is all part of an amazing strategy we’re all just too stupid to understand.
Then, there is Mark Levin and a few others who feel like they have been betrayed. I, and others like me, have no sympathy for them. They have not been betrayed in any way. Trump made no secret of who and what he was. Yet, Levin, after reluctantly throwing his support behind Trump following the GOP convention, became hostile toward those who would not follow him in supporting Trump.
We knew who and what Trump was. It wasn’t difficult to know. You didn’t need to listen to hypocritical Left-wing media types going on and on about his womanizing while ignoring Hillary’s enabling of her husband’s sexual assaults. You didn’t need to listen to hilarious ramblings about how Trump wasn’t a real Republican from Jeb Bush and Lindsay Graham, two politicians who have only just barely held a conservative position their whole lives.
Really, you only needed to listen to Trump himself. “Everyone is going to be covered and the government is going to pay for it,” Trump said of healthcare. His protectionist trade policies sounded good on paper. So too did Bernie Sanders’ policies. They were exactly the same, after all.
Hannity, Ingraham, Dobbs, Coulter, Limbaugh – All of them, and more, were wrong from the start and, now, they are desperately trying to place blame elsewhere in the hopes that you won’t notice how wrong they’ve been.
So, here’s my recommendation: Don’t be fooled. When the next set of elections comes around, figure out who was right last time and listen to them. Plenty of great political opinions are out there who didn’t sell their souls for Trump. Ben Shapiro, Erick Erickson, Glenn Beck, Kimberly Ross, and, dare I say, many of those who are now staff writers here at NOQReport, were right about Trump from the start. Decide for yourselves who might be worthy of listening to and stop listening to those who just want your money, but who lack the conservative principles to back them.
I understand why some might have been fooled by some of these voices in 2016. Those who, like Coulter, have been wrong for so long deserve no benefit of the doubt. Then again, given the display that many of the others have put on since 2016, they don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt either. Why would you want to listen to those who have been so horribly wrong, especially when it was so obvious? That’s for you to decide, readers.
I, for one, don’t watch or listen to any of them anymore. I see their tweets and that’s enough to know they’ve lost their minds and their principles, assuming they ever had any. Oddly, even people who have recognized that these pundits are wrong seem still to continually give them attention by watching and listening to their programs, even if it’s just to hate on them. Why do it? That’s what they want. Attention. Attention equals advertising, which equals money in their pockets regardless of what kind of attention it is. That’s all they really care about. That much, they’ve proven.
It’s unreasonable to ask people who have jobs (often more than one), families to raise, and houses requiring upkeep to fully know the details of every politician. We all need reliable political analysis to make informed decisions. Everyone now knows, or at least should know, that some of the biggest names in political commentary, and plenty of people you never heard of before Trump (looking at you Bill Mitchell) aren’t the ones to listen to the next time an election comes ‘round.
2020 hopefuls lurching leftward to appeal to radical progressive base
The great primary evolution is already starting. We saw it in 2016 as every Republican candidate tried to “evolve” their views to cater to the conservative base. No evolution was more striking than candidate Trump’s, who went from supporting gun bans and partial birth abortion as a younger man to being one of the most conservative candidates during the primaries.
We’re seeing it now with the Democratic candidates and potential candidates as they try to plant their ideological flags as far to the left as possible. Former Trump pollster John Mclaughlin gave his opinion on the leftward lurch of the field, focusing on Elizabeth Warren, Cory “Spartacus” Booker, and Kamala Harris. Each has attempted to paint themselves as the radical progressive the primary-voting base desires. All of them were much more moderate in the past. Warren was even a Republican in the 1990s.
The thing that makes this trend most disturbing is that the “far left” of the past is nothing compared to the radical progressivism of today’s Democratic base. By the time the primaries really heat up, most if not all will be full-blown socialists.
NY Times invokes Martin Luther King Jr. to attack Israel
When a nation the size of New Jersey is surrounded by enemies and is the subject of incessant condemnation from the United Nations, it’s natural to assume thoughtful people will take a complete look at its circumstances before deciding which side of a contentious debate to support. This is why many Americans still choose to support the nation of Israel despite mainstream media’s efforts to frame it as evil.
Unfortunately, the debate is so complex, most Americans form their perspectives based on very limited data. Passions are so strong on both sides that it often comes down to which side’s message is loudest in the ears of those deciding who to support. The Israel-Palestine debate has been ongoing since the tiny nation was first formed and ramped up greatly following the attacks on Israel in 1967 that resulted in necessary expansion.
Today, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights are all considered “occupied” territories by a majority around the world, at least among those who are paying attention. Despite clear evidence that the very existence of Israel would be threatened if these lands were “returned” to the Palestinians, most of the world calls for the two-state solution as the path to peace.
On top of the disputed lands, the way that Israel maintains peace within its own lands is labeled as oppression against Palestinians living there. The core of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement’s message is that the Palestinian people are being persecuted. To support this premise, an activist at the NY Times is invoking Martin Luther King Jr and his opposition to the Vietnam War as the roadmap by which BDS activists should muster their own courage and build more support to fight the nation of Israel.
Reading King’s speech at Riverside more than 50 years later, I am left with little doubt that his teachings and message require us to speak out passionately against the human rights crisis in Israel-Palestine, despite the risks and despite the complexity of the issues. King argued, when speaking of Vietnam, that even “when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict,” we must not be mesmerized by uncertainty. “We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.”
To be clear, King was opposed to a war that resulted in the deaths of 1,350,000 people, which is nearly the same amount of Arabs living in Israel currently. King was opposed to a war in which no Americans were attacked prior to us getting involved. Israel is attacked regularly from multiple groups in and out of the nation who support the Palestinian movement. King was opposed to a war that took focus and resources away from his cause.
As he said, “We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.”
To be fair, the author of the NY Times article, Michelle Alexander, was using his anti-war speech to demonstrate the courage King displayed as inspiration for the courage she feels BDS supporters need today. Had she left it there, then there wouldn’t be much of a need to respond. However, she continued in the article to speculate King may not have been happy with Israel back then. Worse, she implied that he could have been a supporter of the BDS movement today.
This opinion is beyond questionable. King’s motivations for not wanting to outwardly support Israel’s actions following the Six Day War were for the sake of his movement, not based on personal feelings on the matter. It made sense to not take a side in a debate in which many of his supporters of African or Middle Eastern descent may have objected.
It is becoming increasing common in the BDS movement to point solely towards the actions of the Israeli government while ignoring the reasons for these actions. They often talk about homes being bulldozed, but they ignore the fact that punitive demolitions are a result of terrorist attacks. I am not in favor of these demolitions, but I would never hide the facts to support my claims. The BDS movement realizes calling out Israel for bulldozing Palestinian homes is most effective if the reasons are never mentioned.
As pro-BDS articles go, this one was strikingly coherent. This is a bigger problem than the unhinged hate articles we often see from BDS supporters. It’s easy to see how this one-sided portrayal in a publication as strong as the NY Times that invokes an icon like Martin Luther King Jr can garner support for the movement from those who would otherwise never consider it. The article is very careful to cut off cries of antisemitism and is written for rational thinkers rather than emotional feelers.
But therein lies the problem. It invokes King and his famous speech knowing full well few will actually read it. If they take the time to read or hear it, they’ll wonder what any of that has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The NY Times is betting on the easy odds that nobody’s going to take the time.
None of the seven reasons King gives for opposing the Vietnam War could be applied to Israel. Invoking the speech and insinuating he would have been a BDS supporter is a disingenuous attempt to equate his righteous activism to the BDS movement itself.
PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trump’s physical barrier claims as “Mostly False”
Pulitzer Prize winning fact checking agency PolitiFact has been accused of leaning dozens if not hundreds of their fact checks to favor the Democratic perspective on most issues. In one of the most egregious examples of partisan hacking, they declared a statement made by President Trump during his televised address to the nation as “Mostly False.”
Here’s the statement: Senator Charles Schumer “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected president.”
This is undeniably 100% true. It’s demonstrable that Schumer and many Democrats have supported physical barriers along the border in the recent past. Their support for changed sharply once then-candidate Trump started talking about needing a border wall, so technically speaking that portion of President Trump’s statement wasn’t entirely true. He said their support changed after he was elected, but it started changing a few months after he first entered the race.
Here’s a graph from Cato Institute that shows support from Democrats at over 40% in October, 2015, when it still seemed far fetched that he would win the nomination, let alone the general election. From that point, it took a nose dive.
The portion of the PolitiFact article in which the author tries to justify the “Mostly False” rating attempts to distinguish between the differences in security barriers proposed by the President and accepted by Democrats in the past.
Schumer, along with tens of other Democrats including former President Barack Obama, voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized building a fence along about 700 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. That’s the majority of the barrier in place today along the southern border.
However, the fence was mocked as a “nothing wall” by Trump in the past and was far less ambitious, both politically and physically, than the wall Trump wants to build now.
This logical gymnastics is farcical when we read the statement that is allegedly “Mostly False.” The President did not suggest nor has he ever believed the Democrats supported the type of wall he’s requesting. That’s why he was very specific in stating Schumer and the Democrats “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past” instead of saying they supported his wall. This is important because for a fact-checker, the details are important.
They have repeatedly judged against conservatives for the tiniest nuance in their statements to attack. But when the statement is properly worded, as the President’s was, this fact checker decided to dig into intent rather than fact checking the statement itself. He penalized the statement as being false because he reconstructed what the President said as meaning something different. This is convenient selective inference on their part. But they’re completely unbiased. Just ask them.
When even the “trusted” fact checkers are willing to abandon ethics and call an obviously true statement false for the sake of political expediency, it’s no wonder so many Americans are frustrated with the entire mainstream media mechanism.
This is why we humbly request you support us with a donation so we can try to counterbalance the horrid leftism present in mainstream media.
2020 hopefuls lurching leftward to appeal to radical progressive base
NY Times invokes Martin Luther King Jr. to attack Israel
Harden scores 48 points, Rockets beat Lakers 138-134 in OT
Pirro: Democrats putting politics over people
This nation deserves a better class of news outlets
As media, Democrats turn to other topics, we need to keep up the pressure for the wall
As progressive tariffs continue, China scores biggest trade surplus in history
3 reasons to build the wall despite polls showing it isn’t popular
Understanding the real crisis at the border and how to frame it properly
A reminder to GOP lawmakers from Justin Amash
What Allen West has been saying for years is extremely relevant today
Art Laffer on why a trade deficit is a good thing
Thomas Sowell isn’t a fan of tariffs
Rand Paul didn’t like the Democrats raising foreign aid as the border wall goes unfunded
Culture and Religion2 days ago
How ‘Progressives’ are a small but vocal political minority
Democrats2 days ago
The Onion’s take on Kirsten Gillibrand is hilarious (and not completely satirical)
Media2 days ago
Mueller’s office debunks Buzzfeed’s report
Culture and Religion1 day ago
Does Matthew 22:29-30 indicate Jesus was referencing the Book of Enoch?
Conspiracy Theory1 day ago
Ezekiel’s prophecy and the truth about false prophets
Culture and Religion1 day ago
The ‘church fathers’ and the Book of Enoch
Immigration1 day ago
No national emergency declaration: Trump’s “major announcement” will be an offer Democrats can’t refuse
Democrats1 day ago
Cartoon: Is that another huge immigration caravan?