The legacy media's double standard for Christian politicians was on full display last week.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) is a lawmaker known for speaking openly about his Christian faith. Last week, he appeared on "CBS Mornings Plus" to promote his new book, "One Nation Always Under God: Profiles in Christian Courage." But instead of asking about the book, CBS News anchor Adriana Diaz chose to challenge the legitimacy of Scott's faith with a now-familiar line of attack.
The faith test becomes just another political weapon — one wielded not to clarify the truth but to embarrass political opponents.
"As a practicing Christian, how do you reconcile your support for President Trump when many people see his actions as lacking Christian values?" Diaz asked.
It's the same question we've heard repeatedly asked of Trump-supporting Christians, and, to his credit, Scott did not flinch.
But the question reveals something much bigger than Scott, Trump, or even the Republican Party. It exposes the media's asymmetrical "faith test" — one applied rigorously to Trump-supporting conservatives but never to Democrats.
The question itself is a rhetorical sleight of hand. It implies that supporting Trump is inherently anti-Christian and that real Christianity is whatever Trump isn't. By that logic, Scott stands guilty until proven innocent.
But the problem isn't just the question. It's the blatant double standard.
If it's fair to interrogate Tim Scott on whether his support for President Trump squares with the teachings of Jesus, then surely it's fair game to press professing Christian Democrats on whether the policies and people they support align with Christian theology and ethics, right?
Except that almost never happens.
When was the last time a news anchor interrogated a Democrat — like former President Joe Biden, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), or Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), for instance — on how the support for abortion comports with 2,000 years of unambiguous Christian teachings about protecting innocent life, especially of the unborn?
Has any Democrat, for that matter, been grilled on whether endorsing the LGBTQ agenda — including radical trans procedures for children — is consistent with biblical ethics?
If such questions have been asked of Democrats, they've gone unnoticed, which is telling because these aren't minor theological quibbles. They're fundamental biblical issues, and Christianity has been clear-eyed about them for thousands of years.
Diaz's question reveals an underlying assumption: that Christianity naturally aligns with progressive politics.
That's why journalists feel compelled to question Trump-supporting Christians about the congruency of their politics and theology, but never think to challenge a Democrat for supporting policies that clearly contradict Christian orthodoxy and biblical teaching. It's because they don't recognize or perceive the obvious inconsistency.
This double standard is as dangerous as it is subversive.
It redefines Christianity in the public imagination, not as an ancient faith with its own transcendent moral authority, but as a soft and therapeutic set of values (i.e., tolerance, inclusion, "compassion"), conveniently shaped to match the political priorities of the left.
RELATED: How the liberal media twists 'church and state' to hide what it truly fears
The media isn't actually interested in theological nuance or serious conversations about faith and politics. Their agenda is clear: to police the boundaries of acceptable public religion.
And in their eyes, supporting Trump is a grave sin.
If journalists truly believe that public officials should be held accountable to the moral standards of their faith, that's fine. But that standard must be applied equally. You can't grill Republicans for supporting Trump but never interrogate Democrats championing abortion, the LGBTQ agenda, and the destruction of the traditional family.
Otherwise, the "faith test" becomes just another political weapon — one wielded not to clarify the truth but to embarrass political opponents who dissent from the liberal consensus.
If the press were honest and intellectually serious, they would apply the faith test fairly.
It would look something like this:
These aren't "gotcha" questions. They're parallel to what Scott faced last week — only aimed in the other direction. And if politicians can't answer these questions without spin and deflection, that would tell us something important.
Scott handled himself with grace and focus. But Trump-supporting Republicans shouldn't be the only side forced to reconcile their faith and politics on the public stage. If the media wants to play referee on Christian consistency, they need to enforce the rules on both sides.
Fairness — and honesty — demands equal scrutiny.
Anything less is not journalism. It's partisanship dressed up as moral concern, and it's why Americans no longer trust the mainstream press.
Diaz tried to weaponize Christ against Scott and MAGA Christians. But the shot backfired, exposing yet another double standard in the media.
“Conspiracy theory” is the go-to smear against those of us who questioned any aspect of the government’s authoritarian response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But as the great Austrian economist Murray Rothbard once observed, the smear serves one purpose: to divert the public’s attention away from the truth.
“An attack on ‘conspiracy theories,’” Rothbard writes in “The Anatomy of the State,” means that the subjects of a regime “will become more gullible in believing the ‘general welfare’ reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions.”
The democratization of information means that censorship just doesn’t work as well as it used to.
“A ‘conspiracy theory,’” he continues, “can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the state’s ideological propaganda.”
The more I dig into the origins of the COVID pandemic, the more “despotic” our state seems to become — and the more “conspiratorial” I get.
I am trying to put together the final pieces of the puzzle of what I consider among the greatest public policy scandals of my lifetime — not only who did it, but more importantly, why would they do it?
A few months ago, I spent a day with Matt Taibbi, the iconoclastic muckraker and “Twitter Files” reporter, for the latest episode of my BlazeTV investigative series, “The Coverup.”
As he dug through the trove of emails and texts, Taibbi discovered the conspiracy to blacklist and silence Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the subject of the first episode of “The Coverup” and now the head of the National Institutes of Health. Taibbi soon learned that the same tactics and tools — and even many of the very same deep-state actors — have their fingerprints all over both the Russia collusion hoax and the COVID cover-up.
Recently released documents from Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard reveal that the so-called Russia collusion hoax wasn’t just wrong — it was deliberate. The Obama administration orchestrated the fabrication, pushing U.S. intelligence agencies to leak a report suggesting Vladimir Putin had helped Donald Trump steal the 2016 election.
That leak, repeated endlessly by the press, fueled a national narrative branding Trump’s presidency as illegitimate — despite those same agencies having already dismissed the claim.
This kind of manipulation would be outrageous if it weren’t so familiar.
Five years after the COVID lockdowns stripped millions of Americans of basic liberties, we’re still uncovering how the deep state used propaganda to silence dissent. Throughout the pandemic, scientists and doctors raised alarms about the damage lockdowns would cause — and did cause. Some of the world’s most respected experts signed the Great Barrington Declaration to oppose the government’s heavy-handed response.
But the public never heard from them. Bureaucrats and media allies moved swiftly to smear, suppress, and sideline these voices using one of the oldest authoritarian tactics: control of information.
In fairness, public health agencies didn’t have to twist many arms. The legacy media followed their lead willingly — even when the guidance contradicted itself or defied basic logic.
But unlike the days of Project Mockingbird, when the CIA could shape coverage by nudging the New York Times or CBS, controlling the old guard wasn’t enough. The rise of social media — decentralized, fast-moving, and open to anyone with a computer or phone — posed a new challenge. The administration needed a more aggressive strategy to dominate the narrative.
In episode 5 of “The Coverup,” I ask Taibbi how they pulled it off. As one of the first journalists to dig into the Twitter Files, Taibbi exposed the machinery behind the censorship regime. Americans suspected that platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube were suppressing dissent during COVID. But the Twitter Files confirmed what many feared: They weren’t acting alone. They took orders from the FBI directly.
And these weren’t polite requests, either. When the government “suggested” something, tech companies treated it as a command.
It all traces back to — surprise, surprise — the Russia hoax.
In 2017, Congress hauled tech executives into hearings and accused them of letting Russian disinformation run wild. Essentially, they were given an offer they couldn’t refuse: Allow the government to play a role in content moderation or prepare to be regulated into submission.
RELATED: On the 9th anniversary of Russiagate, the hoax is finally crumbling
Their surrender gave U.S. intelligence agencies de facto control over what Americans could say online. The feds told platforms which posts to delete, which users to silence, and how to suppress the rest. You could post your opinion — as long as no one could see it. “Shadow bans” became the preferred method of censorship: clean, quiet, and deniable.
Thanks to Taibbi — and a handful of journalists who still value truth over access — we now see how the government sold Americans on fiction. Russia hacked the election. COVID came from a bowl of bat soup. Question either and you’d vanish from the digital public square.
Millions believed these lies. And under their influence, they did real damage — locking down schools, closing businesses, and sowing doubt about fair elections.
But truth has a way of leaking out.
It’s taken time, but the lies are unraveling. And that’s the silver lining. In a world where information moves faster than censors can keep up, suppression doesn’t work like it used to. So long as we have truth-tellers willing to dig and defy — like Taibbi — the regime won’t have the last word.
We won’t get fooled again.
Episode 5 of “The Coverup” premieres Thursday, July 31.
When one of Donald Trump’s strongest voting blocs starts to fall off after just six months of a largely successful second term, it’s time for some soul-searching.
Not just because the midterms loom or because 2028 is already on the horizon. The demographic in question — young men — will shape, defend, and lead this country well beyond the next election. If they’ve grown too cynical to bother, the rest of us may be left holding the bag.
When the past and present betray a generation, expect that generation to reshape the future.
Trump’s 2024 performance with 18- to 29-year-old men marked the best Republican showing since George W. Bush won that demographic in 2004 — the last time the GOP won the popular vote. Young men backed Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, then defected to Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Bush 43 pulled them back temporarily, but by the time Obama, Hillary, and Biden came along, Democrats had captured their hearts — and their votes.
Yikes. That’s no way to live. Yet today’s young men are angrier, more cynical, more disruptive — and more serious. They don’t want to “save” Social Security. They want to be saved from it. They aren’t starting out wide-eyed like the Boomers. They didn’t get the luxury of being idealists first and realists later. They started with realism, forged by debt, disillusionment, and betrayal.
These young men want a way of life back. They want accountability for the people who stole it from them.
The average 25-year-old white male is already more “based” than his Reagan-voting grandfather ever was or ever could be. And he’s not finding any comfort in Fox News. So the question is: Will anyone offer him a white pill before he plants the flag of “I just don’t care any more” at the 50-yard line of American life?
This generation won’t follow unless they’re given a mission worth sacrificing for. Trump’s brand won’t carry them forever. They can’t afford homes. They can’t find wives who aren’t steeped in feminist dogma. They can’t compete in a DEI-rigged job market. And now they’re expected to watch the people who ruined their future skate by without consequences?
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
Young men like my son don’t want slogans. They want justice. They want our leaders to treat domestic traitors at least as ruthlessly as we’ve treated our allies in trade negotiations. They’ve seen enough memes. If the memes don’t end in prison time, they’ll see them as mockery. They want consequences — and they want them handed out with severe prejudice.
That’s the instinct of men who’ve been cornered for too long. Dread it, run from it — it’s coming. Unless we offer them something better, they’ll start making something worse.
Don’t count on them to keep voting Republican just because the Democrats are just that bad. That’s a losing bet. These young men reject the old paradigms — left, right, Reagan, Bush. Whatever. They’ve even begun questioning the biblical dispensationalism that guided American foreign policy for decades.
When the past and present betray a generation, expect that generation to reshape the future.
Our shot at shaping that future is now. If we fail to hold the deep state accountable yet again, then we’d better produce an economic boom big enough to distract from the urge to burn everything down.
We’ve convinced ourselves that soft, passive men define the modern male. But history — and nature — doesn’t work that way. Sooner or later, the animal comes roaring back — and a new generation rises, looking to settle scores.
Better get ready.
www.theblaze.com