There are three types of Republicans on Capitol Hill. There are the avid supporters, whether of the President himself or of his agenda. There are the haters, most of whom have decided to not run for reelection or have kept a low profile. Then, there are people like Representative Mia Love (R-UT) who supports the President’s agenda while still being willing to call him out.

She’s the type of representative Republicans need in DC if they’re going to stay credible and achieve what they set out to accomplish after President Trump won the White House.

Every President has sheep on Capitol Hill. That’s not intended to denigrate them; belief in the man or his agenda will yield an unquestioning regard towards him, as it should. Every President will have detractors. It’s the conscientious few who take everything case-by-case before deciding whether to agree or not that gives a government the stability it needs. Without them, a party can fall too closely in line with pieces of the agenda or actions by the man himself that they normally wouldn’t follow, but fear of repercussions make them do it anyway.

An example of this was the “s–thole countries” comment the President allegedly made regarding certain third-world nations. It’s the type of phrase he would use based upon his history and in context it makes sense. Multiple people claimed to have witnessed him saying it, so despite his denials, reports were almost certainly accurate.

Love called him out.

Some would not give her much credit for the statement since it was her heritage that was allegedly attacked by President Trump, but she could just as easily said she believes he didn’t say it. She took a stand against her own party and her own President. That type of courage deserves to be rewarded.

Currently, she’s the only black Republican woman in Congress. Losing her would serve to confirm allegations that the GOP is a racist patriarchy. The people of Salt Lake City need to give her another term.

The “I have a dream” speech given by Martin Luther King Jr. in August 1963 is considered a signature moment in the struggle for civil rights in America, and the crowning achievement to King’s mission to see freedom and equality for every American.

But if Donald Trump had been president at the time, King wouldn’t have been allowed to give his speech because protests at the National Mall where he spoke during his March on Washington would have been illegal.

Always on the lookout for ways to silence anyone who refuses to praise him as the embodiment of perfection itself, Trump is seeking new regulations to ban demonstrations and protests using the National Park Service as his muscle.

The proposed regulations would not only ban protests at the National Mall, but also Lafayette Square across from the White House, and the Pennsylvania Avenue sidewalks in front of Trump International Hotel. If enacted, the proposal would close off 80 percent of the White House sidewalks, place new limits on spontaneous demonstrations, and force “approved” protestors to pay a fee to exercise their right to free speech.

Hey! Maybe charging people to exercise their rights is how Trump and the GOP plan to fix the budget.

But seriously, this is just the latest example of how Trump puts his egomaniacal narcissism ahead of the Constitutional rights of the peasants and commoners he sees as obstacles to his dictatorial ambitions.

Trump has attacked freedom of the press with his “Fake News” spiel and has called unfavorable media “the enemy of the American people;” attacked the right to bear arms by supporting Democrat anti-gun proposals and supporting efforts to seize guns without due process; attacked privacy rights by expanding NSA spying and renewing FISA702; and attacked property rights by expanding civil asset forfeiture laws.

This isn’t the first time Trump has suggested making protests illegal, but with the current state of affairs in Washington, we could see this latest effort become law now that Trumpservatives are making conservatives extinct.

The GOP has bought into Trump’s anti-free speech rhetoric. For example, Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY) recently proposed 15-year jail sentences for wearing a mask while injuring, oppressing, threatening, or intimidating someone else who is exercising their constitutional rights. While appearing to address criminal activity, the title of the bill (Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018) reveals its true intent — shutting down a specific group of political activists who happen to oppose the GOP.

George Orwell once said that ”If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” We used to believe that in America, but in the Age of Trump, we could soon see the day where the voices of those who dare to tell the President or others in Washington what they don’t want to hear are silenced by Big Brother.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Truth is in the eye of the bewildered.

That is the unofficial motto of mainstream media. They’ll never admit it, not even to themselves in many cases, but every headline, opening paragraph, and bit of information packed into their reports are designed with slant in mind. It’s done on both sides, but the prevalence of leftism in the biggest media outlets creates a tremendous imbalance of bias.

All of this can be boiled down to something I like to call “snippet propaganda.” In every individual component, or snippet, of a news report or commentary, there are various attempts to spin the receiver (viewer, reader, or listener) in one direction or another.

Overtly, they tell us what to think about. Subtly, they tell us how to think about it.

Our always-connected, high-speed society is comprised of millions of individuals who rarely spend the time necessary on any one topic to gain true understanding. They see or hear the parts they want to ingest and then draw conclusions from it.

This is magnified by social media. I’ve had literally thousands of experiences where comments on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, or the comment sections of my sites themselves react to a single, misunderstood element of what I post. In all of these cases it’s clear the comment was made by someone who didn’t actually read the article. They were just replying to the sentence or paragraph that was easily accessible.

That can be a huge annoyance to those of us who spend hours a day writing, all the while knowing we’re going to be judged on a headline or descriptive paragraph. Debates get started over issues that are covered in the article, but when people are only reading the snippet, they have no idea they’re arguing the wrong point altogether.

Mainstream media takes advantage of this. They know the masses will see a headline and description on social media and spread the information about it based on their worldviews with the assumption that the actual news report itself backs it up even if they don’t take the time to read it.

Let’s look at a story from left-wing ThinkProgress.

Every aspect of this story, from headline to snippet to the body of the story itself, is tilted to the left with the intention of harnessing the rage leftists feel towards far-right organizations. Here’s the problem. The vast majority of protesters were Antifa. The vast majority of “skirmishes,” as the publication put it, were started by Antifa. Even most mainstream media outlets covered these stories with the fair and indisputable assertion that Antifa was the source.

News outlets post an inflammatory headline with a damning snippet as the description. The people react. In many cases the reality isn’t nearly as outrageous as the headline and snippet would suggest, but it’s enough to get comments, likes, and shares. Today’s news serves us Big Macs because we can grab them quickly, easily, and inexpensively. Yet for some reason, the people then wonder why they’re not satisfied with their news meal.

Let’s look at a different example, this time from right-wing Breitbart.

As much as I oppose illegal immigration and voter fraud, that was not what Abrams was suggesting. Breitbart spun her comments to tap into an anger many on the right feel towards illegal immigration, especially if it’s used as a tool by Democrats to get elected. Here’s the actual quote by Abrams:

“The thing of it is, the blue wave is African American. It’s white, it’s Latino, it’s Asian-Pacific Islander, it is disabled, it is differently-abled, it is LGBTQ, it is law enforcement, it is veterans,” she said. “It is made up of those who’ve been told that they are not worthy of being here. It is comprised of those who are documented and undocumented.”

She isn’t referring to illegal immigrants voting. Yes, as Breitbart asserts, the “blue wave” is driven by voters, but in context it’s clear that Abrams is discussing the sentiment of the people who are fueling the blue wave. She’s not saying that illegal immigrants are going to be voting her into office.

What’s good for the goose shouldn’t always be considered good for the gander. We unabashedly defend conservatism, federalism, and originalism, but we do so knowing we have the right ideas. There’s no need to use propaganda techniques. We have the truth on our side. It behooves right-leaning news outlets to tell stories accurately and honestly.

Now, onto the story that riled up the President.

NBC News has totally and purposely changed the point and meaning of my story about General Robert E Lee and General Ulysses Grant. Was actually a shoutout to warrior Grant and the great state in which he was born. As usual, dishonest reporting. Even mainstream media embarrassed!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2018

Shortly after backlash from the right against NBC for misrepresenting the President of the United States, they issued a correction.

Thank you to NBC for the correction! https://t.co/L2mX3vREOl

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2018

This final technique of snippet propaganda is arguably the most egregious. It’s when media outlets willfully misrepresent their political foes, then issue a “correction.” The problem is the original story has already reached the masses. How many of them will see the correction? How many people are walking around today claiming the President of the United States gave kudos to a man who fought to keep slavery.

This was blatant and intentional. It was an act likely committed by a very small number of people at NBC, but it was done with the intention of spreading a lie. Once the lie spread and the backlash began, those with more journalistic integrity issued the correction, but at that point the damage was done. The mainstream media and leftist narrative that the President is a racist was hammered home. The correction only served to justify the damage done without actually mitigating it.

The President and right-leaning media will mitigate the damage by highlighting the correction, but there will still be a large number of people who never hear the truth.

Shame on you, NBC.

This methodology may not be isolated to the left, but their skill in manipulating public sentiment is arguably the biggest reason the progressive movement continues to exist. It’s repugnant, which is why conservative media must expand.