The left's new anti-Christian smear backfires — exposing its deepest fear



The left's new favorite boogeyman — so-called "Christian nationalism" — is back in the headlines. But don't be fooled by the narrative. The real story isn't about Christian extremism but an obsession with tarring faithful conservative Christians.

After police arrested Vance Boelter — the man accused of targeting two Minnesota politicians and their spouses, which included murdering state Rep. Melissa Hortman (D) and her husband — the media seized on Boelter's associations with charismatic Christianity and his background as a preacher.

If there is anything Americans should be concerned about, it's the leftist ideology that seeks to replace God with government and silence dissent in the name of progress.

Quickly, a narrative was born: Boelter is yet another example of "Christian nationalism" and far-right extremism.

  • Wired: The Minnesota shooting suspect’s background suggests deep ties to Christian nationalism
  • The Forward: Understanding accused Minnesota shooter Vance Boelter’s ties to Christian nationalism
  • Washington Post: Minnesota shooting suspect went from youthful evangelizer to far-right zealot
  • New York Magazine: The spiritual warfare of Vance Boelter
  • MSNBC: Killings in Arizona and Minnesota shine light on the crisis of Christian extremist violence

At the New York Times, evangelical columnist David French wrote about the "problem of the Christian assassin," using Boelter as a cudgel to smear Christians — and take a shot at President Donald Trump.

"And right now — at a time when the Christian message of grace and mercy should shine the brightest — America’s Christian extremists are killing people, threatening and intimidating public servants and other public figures who oppose Trump and trying to drive their political opponents from the public square," French claimed.

In the view of leftists and media pundits, this heinous act of violence wasn't the result of one individual's sin but the inevitable fruit of "Christian nationalism." If you hear them tell the story, Boelter's views of Christianity gave him license to act. But it's a lie.

Guilt by faith

Let's be honest about what's happening here: The media, leftists, and opponents of President Trump use the label "Christian nationalism" to smear conservative Christians.

In the media, "Christian nationalism" has become an elastic term that is stretched to cover anyone who believes a biblical worldview should influence public life and anyone who wants their communities to be more Christian.

Do you oppose the LGBTQ+ agenda? Christian nationalist. Do you oppose giving children "trans-affirming" drugs? Christian nationalist. Do you believe that life begins at conception? Christian nationalist. Are you a Christian who supports President Trump? Christian nationalist. Do you believe that America was uniquely founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Christian nationalist. Jesus is Lord? Christian nationalist.

The goal of the "Christian nationalist" panic is clear: to discredit and silence Christians for refusing to go along with the leftist agenda.

By connecting isolated violent acts to "Christian nationalism," they make all conservative Christians guilty by association. This is their narrative: Your faith is suspect, your convictions are dangerous, and your faith, if taken seriously, is a threat to democracy — or worse.

Faith, not extremism

The media and leftists who fearmonger about "Christian nationalism" are intentionally omitting basic truths.

Loving your country and wanting it to flourish is not the type of "nationalism" (i.e., fascism) they accuse conservative Christians of advocating for. Believing in biblical truth and voting in alignment with biblical values is not "extremism," and it certainly isn't an attempt to impose a theocracy on everyone else. Christians who speak about Christ publicly — and want their communities to reflect Christian values — aren't calling for a state religion.

Despite their accusations, conservative Christians are not inclined toward violence.

We want moral sanity. We don't want the progressive agenda shoved down our throats. We want to raise our families in healthy, peaceful communities. We want every American to know and experience the goodness of God and the riches of a relationship with Him.

It's not radical, and it's certainly not extreme.

What they really fear

The heinous acts that police accuse Vance Boelter of committing on the morning of June 14 are not Christian. They are pure evil.

No faithful Christian would disagree with that assessment. And yet, the media rushed to connect an isolated act of evil to all conservative Christians in the name of "Christian nationalism" when there is no link at all.

Not only is it dishonest, but it underscores yet another leftist double standard.

When far-left progressives commit violence, the media instructs us not to rush to judgment. When leftist ideologies produce bloodshed, we're told to wait for the full story. But when an alleged conservative or Christian commits violence (two claims about Boelter that remain more tale than truth), the entire conservative Christian movement is put on trial and swiftly condemned.

The distinction between what the media and leftists define as "Christian nationalism" and actual conservative Christianity is important. Not just for the sake of truth — although truth is important — but for the sake of every Christian trying to follow Jesus in a world that increasingly calls evil "good" and good "evil."

If there is anything Americans should be concerned about, it's the leftist ideology that seeks to replace God with government and silence dissent in the name of progress. The real story here isn't that Christianity turns people violent or results in extremism; it's that people with an agenda who hate Christianity use any excuse to try to turn Americans against faithful believers.

The real nationalism the left fears is a nation that still believes in God and Christians who won't be silent. Don't let them win.

Flipping cars for ‘justice’ — then back to poli-sci class



Some images linger like bad philosophy. One such image: a masked individual standing triumphantly on a vandalized car, waving a giant Mexican flag, at a protest against mass deportations. It’s not a political cartoon. It’s the radical left’s icon. And it perfectly captures the confused moral universe behind the Los Angeles riots and the so-called “indigenous land” movement.

— (@)

As a professor at a secular university, I can assure you this isn’t fringe lunacy. It’s the tip of the philosophical iceberg. Beneath that smoldering car is a massive ideological structure that has been meticulously constructed over decades — paid for, ironically, by federal and state tax dollars.

These rioters don’t actually want to return the land. They want the luxury of moral superiority minus the inconvenience of coherent thought.

If it were possible, I’d love to survey the people flipping cars and heaving concrete blocks at police cruisers. I strongly suspect many of the ringleaders hold degrees in the liberal arts — more specifically, degrees in identity activism. You know the type: gender studies, black studies, Latinx studies, queer theory, or some intersectional combination thereof.

Don’t worry — they went to college

If you visit the department websites of these programs at any given university, you’ll often find “activist” listed as the No. 1 career path. No need to wonder what you can do with a $120,000 degree — you can become the ideological arsonist who trains the next generation to believe the United States is irredeemably Christian, unjust, and colonial — and maybe even get in some looting of the capitalist luxury stores.

So when you see a rioter in Los Angeles shouting on CNN about how the land was “stolen from Mexico,” just know: That’s the university curriculum talking. In one now-viral clip, a young woman (yes, I just assumed her gender) yells at a police officer, “As long as you feel OK with capitalism, racist, imperialist state.” Asked if she even knows what she’s saying, her reply is priceless: “Yes, b***h, I'm in college.”

Exactly.

These students have never been taught about the establishment of land ownership in world history or even the basic historical facts of the American Southwest. They don’t know that Mexico owned it for only 27 years, yet they think it is their ancestral homeland. If anything, Spain should be in the mix, asking for it back from Mexico.

And remember: We’re all paying for that education through state funding — drawn from taxes paid by ... wait for it ... capitalists. No gratitude. No irony. Just tuition-funded tantrums.

RELATED: The lie that launched a thousand riots

Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

A modest glance at history will remind you that the United States conquered large parts of Mexico in 1848. But here’s the twist: The U.S. didn’t just grab the land and walk away whistling. No, it gave back a substantial portion, paid Mexico $15 million (a princely sum at the time) for the remaining territory — including what is now California — and forgave the Mexican government’s outstanding debts.

But the student activists aren’t interested in political history. And they don’t really want to live in Mexico. Even if they did, Mexico's immigration laws are strict, its economy is difficult, and it most certainly doesn’t tolerate foreigners burning down public property in the name of “revolution against the government.”

Marxism underwritten by capitalists

These rioters don't actually want to return the land. They want the luxury of moral superiority minus the inconvenience of coherent thought. They want their air conditioning, DoorDash, TikTok, and virtue signaling ... on stolen land. Any one of them could sell the assets they acquired within the capitalist system and donate the proceeds to an indigenous cause. But they want to make other people do this with their money.

At their campus protests and university-sponsored events, they perform ritualized “land acknowledgments,” reciting that their college stands on “unceded indigenous territory,” as if confessing to a metaphysical sin. But the penance never includes selling their house and giving it to a tribe. And why?

Because the first tribes are lost to history — conquered by later tribes, who were themselves conquered, until eventually the Spanish brought law and order to warring tribes. The cycle of conquest is not new; it is one of the oldest stories in human civilization. What’s different now is the selective outrage.

Here lies the real problem: Modern activist ideology seeks to appeal to justice but lacks a standard by which to define it. This is why all of this activist nonsense we are paying gender studies professors to teach is so empty. It appeals to justice without any standard by which to adjudicate the question.

If the land was stolen, then: Who stole it? From whom? And what court now has jurisdiction?

Even if you could answer the first two — and in most cases, you can’t — the third is impossible under their belief system. If you begin playing “we were here firsties,” you have to go all the way back.

Theirs is a godless appeal to justice, and godless justice is just another word for mob rule. It is ultimately just mob rule stirred up by malcontents to motivate masses of discontents — which is why they are simply called Marxists. Not because they’ve read “Das Kapital” but because they’re looking for a framework that legitimizes their rage and offers power without accountability. And in Marx, they find a convenient excuse to tear down everything that came before — especially anything remotely Christian.

All of their disappointment in life is aimed at the outward object called “the United States.” No reflection on their own condition — just rage against the machine.

God has the last word

But for those who believe that God is the final judge, the phrase "Let God judge between us” is not a cliché. It’s a fearful thing. It means a moral order lies beyond human manipulation. It means that even if we don’t see civil justice now, true justice is ontological, everlasting, and inescapable.

Marxist rioters cannot make this appeal. They live in a world of only immanent causes and material grievances. No final judge and no moral standard above power awaits to hold their actions accountable — therefore, no peace. They rage because they must. Their rage is at existence itself. And when they finish one protest, they must invent another. Their revolution has no eschaton — only exhaustion.

So they flip over cars and set fires. Some loot — not just because they're angry at injustice or need a new pair of shoes, but because they have no vision of the good, only a fixation on the bad. And in seeking a purely material form of justice, they have lost their souls.

They complained about the one who supposedly stole land while forgetting about the one who can cast their soul into hell. The prospect of God’s justice should make all of us repent.

It is time to stop funding this madness. It is time to restore an education grounded in truth — not truth as a tool of power but truth that judges us all.

Until then, don’t be surprised when your car is flipped by someone with a $100,000 degree in “decolonial eco-poetics.” And don’t be shocked when they scream “justice!” without the ability to define what it is.

After all, they went to college.

Let the Airstrikes Roll, Israelis Say While Dodging Missiles. Plus, Iranian Plot To Kill Trump Moves Through Court.

Can't stop, won't stop: Israelis have spent the last week ducking daily ballistic missile barrages as their leaders work to destroy Iran's nuclear weapon capabilities—and they're showing no signs of fatigue. That's according to a new Agam Labs-Hebrew University poll obtained by the Free Beacon's Andrew Tobin in Tel Aviv. It shows that 83 percent of Israeli Jews—and 70 percent of the overall public—"support the campaign to take out Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities." Only 1 percent of Jews and 16 percent of all Israelis "would have preferred continued nuclear diplomacy with Iran."

The post Let the Airstrikes Roll, Israelis Say While Dodging Missiles. Plus, Iranian Plot To Kill Trump Moves Through Court. appeared first on .

Why the right turned anti-war — and should stay that way



After the COVID lockdowns, the Western global leadership class had little credibility left. So it seemed insane when they immediately pivoted to a new crisis — but that’s exactly what they did.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered demands from elites in Europe and America for NATO-aligned nations to involve themselves in the conflict. Many Republicans were initially on board, with Fox News and CNN marching in lockstep behind intervention. But the Republican base quickly soured on the war once it became clear that U.S. involvement didn’t serve American interests.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

In a strange inversion, the right became anti-war while the left championed military escalation.

That reversal matters now, as some in the GOP look to drag the country into another long conflict. We should remember what Ukraine taught us.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded, many conservatives instinctively aligned with Ukraine. The Soviet Union had been an evil empire and a clear enemy of the United States. It was easy to paint Russia as an extension of that threat. President Biden assured Americans that there would be no boots on the ground and that economic sanctions would cripple Russia quickly.

But the war dragged on. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed to Ukraine while America entered a painful economic downturn. Conservatives began asking whether this was worth it.

Putin was no friend of the U.S., and conservatives had valid reasons to distrust him. But suddenly, anyone questioning the war effort was smeared as a Russian asset. Opposition to the war became an extension of the left’s deranged Russiagate conspiracy, which painted Donald Trump as a blackmailed Kremlin agent.

Some Republican politicians kept pushing the war. Fox News stayed hawkish. But much of the conservative commentariat broke ranks. They knew that the boys from Appalachia and Texas — exactly the kind of red-state Americans progressives despise — would again be asked to die for a war that served no clear national purpose.

From that disillusionment, conservatives drew hard-earned lessons.

They saw that U.S. leaders lie to sustain foreign conflicts. That politicians in both parties keep wars going because donors profit. That Fox News can become a mouthpiece for military escalation. That you can oppose a war without betraying your country. And that American troops and taxpayer dollars are not playthings for globalist fantasies.

“America First” began to mean something real: Peace through strength didn’t require constant intervention.

Unfortunately, many of those lessons evaporated after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

That attack was horrific. No serious person denies the brutality of Hamas or questions Israel’s right to defend itself. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has treated the attack as a green light to target longtime adversaries, including Iran. As a sovereign nation, Israel can pursue its own foreign policy. But it cannot dictate foreign policy for the United States.

In 2002, Netanyahu testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He said toppling both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes would bring peace and stability. He was wrong.

He wasn’t alone, of course. Many were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War. But Netanyahu’s track record is highly relevant now. While conservatives once fervently supported the Iraq invasion after 9/11, many — including Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza — have since apologized. They admit they got it wrong.

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

Blaze Media Illustration

Afghanistan, while flawed, had clearer justification. The Taliban had harbored Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the lies about weapons of mass destruction and failed nation-building in Iraq turned that war into a conservative regret.

In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran had not resumed efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Gabbard, like Trump allies Robert Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth, was chosen precisely for her skepticism of the intelligence bureaucracy. Trump remembers how his first term was sabotaged by insiders loyal to the status quo. This time, he selected appointees loyal to the voters.

Gabbard’s assessment contradicts Netanyahu, who claims Iran is months away from having a bomb. That’s a massive discrepancy. Either Iran hasn’t restarted its program, or it’s on the brink of building a nuke.

So which is it?

Did U.S. intelligence fail again? Did Gabbard lie to Congress and the public? Or did she simply say something the ruling class didn’t want to hear?

Trump, Gabbard, and Vice President JD Vance understand how Iraq went wrong. They know Americans deserve evidence before another war — especially one that risks dragging us into a region we’ve already failed to remake at great cost.

Yet the war hawks keep repeating the same lie: This time, it’ll be quick. The United States is too powerful, too advanced, too economically dominant. The enemy will fold by Christmas.

Biden said the same about Ukraine. And hundreds of billions later, we remain in a grinding proxy war with Russia.

Now, while still financing that war, Americans are told they must back a new war — this one initiated unilaterally by Israel. The U.S. faces domestic strife, crippling debt, and an ongoing open-border crisis. Involvement in yet another conflict makes no sense.

Israel may be right about Iran. Tehran may indeed have developed a nuclear program behind the world’s back. But if Israel wants to wage a war, it must do so on its own.

The Trump administration has made clear that it wasn’t involved in Israel’s pre-emptive strikes and didn’t approve them. If Israel starts a war, it should fight and win that war on its own. America should not be expected to absorb retaliation or commit troops to another Middle Eastern project.

These wars are never short, and they are always expensive.

Even if Iran’s regime collapses quickly, the aftermath would require a long, brutal occupation to prevent it from descending into chaos. Israel doesn’t have the capacity — let alone the political will — for that task. That burden would fall, again, to America.

So before conservatives fall for another round of WMD hysteria, they should recall what the last two wars taught them.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

But don’t sleepwalk into another forever war.

CNN star and Biden flack cash in on too-late confessions



We were told to follow the science. We were told to trust the media. We were told the “adults” were back in charge.

Now, after years of narratives that often disguised more than they revealed, two prominent figures — CNN anchor Jake Tapper and former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre — have released books that strategically admit what much of the public already knew: The full truth wasn’t offered when it mattered most.

Redemption begins with humility, not a hardcover release date.

Tapper’s new book, “Original Sin,” co-authored with Axios’ Alex Thompson, presents itself as a political thriller. But its real value lies in what it reveals — consciously or not — about the political and media class’ calculated suppression of uncomfortable truths.

According to Tapper’s reporting, President Joe Biden’s inner circle was “rattled” by his apparent mental and physical decline — yet worked to shield it from being seen by the public. The book describes a White House where denial wasn’t just a strategy — it was a requirement.

‘Truth’ grifters

The Wall Street Journal described “Original Sin” as capturing “a conspiracy in plain view” — a culture in which aides and allies chose silence over honesty, spin over transparency, and, ultimately, their own job security over the voters’ right to know.

This admission, coming now in 2025, would land differently had Tapper not been one of the very voices leading the national chorus of “nothing to see here!” In fact, many of the same journalists now embracing post hoc honesty were the ones who derided and dismissed concerns about the president’s cognitive health as partisan smear or conspiracy theory.

And the American people noticed.

Despite extensive promotion across CNN and various media platforms, “The Lead with Jake Tapper” experienced its lowest ratings since August 2015. According to Nielsen data, the program averaged only 525,000 total viewers between April 28 and May 25, marking a 25% decline from the same period last year. This significant drop occurred despite the high-profile release of “Original Sin” and an accompanying media tour, the New York Post reported.

The book is following a similar trajectory, having only sold just over 54,000 copies in its first week of release. Compare that to Bob Woodward’s “Fear: Trump in the White House,” which sold over 1 million copies its first week.

Cue Ronald Reagan’s famous line, “There you go again,” as Jean-Pierre’s forthcoming memoir, “Independent,” also seeks to reframe her time in the public eye. From her position behind the White House lectern, Jean-Pierre frequently repeated talking points that proved to be misleading or outright false. She insisted the border was secure, the economy was strong, and the president was sharp — all while video clips, inflation rates, and rising crime told another story.

In fairness, press secretaries are paid to spin. But spin becomes something more troubling when it is used to insulate a president from basic scrutiny — or when it misleads the public during moments of national consequence. If Jean-Pierre is now prepared to acknowledge the strain of carrying water for bad policies, that would be welcome. But the timing — conveniently aligned with a book launch — raises an unavoidable question: Why didn’t the truth matter until it could be monetized?

I believe in second chances. I believe in forgiveness. But as someone who also believes in responsibility and truth-telling, I have little patience for public figures who withhold candor until the book advance clears. Redemption begins with humility, not a hardcover release date.

If Tapper and Jean-Pierre had come forward years ago — if they had endured the risk of telling the truth in real time — they might be worth celebrating. But this isn’t courage. It’s career rehab.

An actual truth-teller

Now consider someone like Tulsi Gabbard.

As a sitting Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate in 2020, Gabbard called out her own party for embracing censorship, racial essentialism, and permanent war. She stood on a debate stage and denounced what she called “an elitist cabal of warmongers,” earning the scorn of her colleagues and the legacy media. Hillary Clinton even baselessly smeared her as a Russian asset. Gabbard didn’t wait for the polling to shift or a book contract to come through — she risked her future in real time.

Eventually, she left the Democratic Party, but not before paying a price for telling some highly inconvenient truths. That’s what integrity looks like. You don’t wait for the winds to change — you stand firm when they blow hardest.

Contrast Gabbard with Tapper and Jean-Pierre. Their books reveal what many Americans suspected: that much of what we were told during the Biden years — from the state of the president’s health to the “success” of his policies — was concocted more for optics than accuracy.

RELATED: Who ran the White House? Ask Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson under oath

Photo by Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images

But their revelations come not from principle, but from convenience. It’s safe to speak out now. The public mood has shifted. Their platforms are shrinking. The political protection is gone.

America continues to suffer the consequences of schools closed, churches locked, speech silenced, borders breached, and families squeezed by inflation. These outcomes weren’t accidental. Leaders defended them at the time, then later pretended they had known better all along. They chose opportunism over accountability.

The darker concern runs even deeper: This cycle has become routine. Politicians and pundits lie or mislead while the incentives favor silence. They play along when it pays. Then, when the polls shift and the public turns sour, they rebrand — posing as truth-tellers who claim they always had doubts, always saw what others missed.

Next come the book deals, podcast tours, and cushy contributor gigs.

We now live in a country where consequences get outsourced and apologies turn into revenue. Lie when it’s profitable. Confess when it sells. And hope the public forgets who helped dig the hole in the first place.

But many of us do remember. We, the people, remember.

If Tapper and Jean-Pierre want to make amends, they should start with a simple, unqualified apology — not to their publishers or media friends, but to the American people. The public paid the price for the misinformation they amplified and defended. That’s who deserves the truth now.

Trump doesn’t threaten democracy — he threatens its ruling class



For years, I’ve heard the same complaint from friends, family, and the nightly news: Donald Trump is his own worst enemy. The real problem, they say, is the man’s personality. If only he weren’t so obnoxious, if only he didn’t speak off the cuff or insult his critics, then maybe his enemies would stop calling him a Nazi. Maybe the protests would stop. Maybe the country could calm down.

It’s true that Trump’s tactlessness and unreflective speech can grate, even on those who support him. But let’s not pretend his critics hold anyone else to the same standard. Where was their outrage when Joe Biden declared that Trump supporters were “the only garbage I see,” smeared the GOP as “semi-fascists" and "terrorists,” or cursed at reporters who dared ask unscripted questions?

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly.

The same people clutching pearls over Trump’s tone cheered on mouthy scolds like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. They ignored threats by former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who warned Supreme Court justices against overturning Roe v. Wade outside their own courthouse. When it comes to rhetoric, Democrats don’t offend them — only Republicans do.

And the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. Anti-white racism is commonplace among Democrats. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) mocked Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) as a purveyor of “white tears” for disagreeing with her. Crockett also derided “mediocre white boys” who oppose race-based preferences and once referred to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott as “Governor Hot Wheels” without consequence. No apology. No media outcry. Just applause.

At some point, the conclusion becomes obvious: The outrage over Trump’s rhetoric has little to do with his words. It has everything to do with the groups he opposes. His critics don’t hate how he speaks. They hate what he threatens.

If rhetoric really mattered, then Democrats would call out their own side for the endless stream of vile speech and political violence. But they don’t. They won’t. Because they know it’s not about tone. It’s about power.

Would the Trump-haters change their tune if a more well-mannered Republican — House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), or even Dr. Oz — pushed Trump’s policies? Don’t bet on it. Democrats didn’t tone down their vitriol even after two assassination attempts against Trump, the second by a man, Ryan Routh, who explicitly cited Democratic rhetoric and media hysteria as his motivation.

Legacy media rage against Trump not because he speaks crudely, but because he disrupts their agenda. He guts bloated agencies, cuts funding to woke nonprofits, and works to dismantle bureaucracies like the Department of Education — which caters to teachers’ unions but has done zilch to improve American learning.

Trump also dares to enforce immigration law. After Democrats spent years encouraging waves of illegal immigration, he tried to reverse the damage — and they called him a “tyrant.” He asserts that men are men and women are women, even as the ruling class invents new genders and demands compliance.

RELATED: Progressives’ ‘democracy’ is just a cover for unaccountable power

Blaze News Illustration

The ruling class can get away with its double standard because its multiple armies close ranks to defend any lie or exaggeration from its government placeholders. When Biden labeled Trump’s voters as terrorists, the foreign policy blob, the think-tank class, and the media all fell in line. Groups like the Council on Foreign Relations echoed the claim, amplifying a fantasy of right-wing extremism while excusing left-wing bigotry.

Search engines bury criticism of Democrats while promoting glowing defenses of their nastiest remarks. The same media that spent years covering for Biden’s obvious cognitive decline and told you it’s a conspiracy theory to question his mental fitness to serve now say they had no idea anything was wrong. Trust them.

And don’t forget the cultural cleanup crews. During Pride Month, every major corporation, institution, and media outlet falls in lockstep. No dissent. No nuance. Just forced applause for whatever new orthodoxy the cultural left pushes. (Though that might be changing.)

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly. Even modest success in weakening their grip on government, culture, or education terrifies them. Because once that monopoly breaks, their entire edifice could fall.

That’s why Trump provokes such hysteria. Not because he insults people. But because he threatens the system that protects their power.

And maybe, just maybe, that’s a good thing.

New York Times’ Hypocritical ‘Tale Of Two Flags’ Coverage Encapsulates Media’s Seething Bias

To the media a flag is just a flag, after all — unless it can be used to destroy a conservative.

NYT: Hamas Tunnel Under Gazan Hospital 'One of the War's Biggest Rorschach Tests'

The New York Times confirmed Sunday that Hamas operated a tunnel beneath the European Gaza Hospital—weeks after casting doubt on its existence. Instead of condemning Hamas for using a hospital as a terror base, however, the paper framed the tunnel as a matter of clashing narratives.

The post NYT: Hamas Tunnel Under Gazan Hospital 'One of the War's Biggest Rorschach Tests' appeared first on .

WATCH: Media Shrug Off LA Rioters as ‘Peaceful People’

Liberal pundits and politicians spent the weekend insisting that the anti-ICE riots across Los Angeles were peaceful, even as split-screen footage showed cars engulfed in flames. "At this point, this has been very peaceful. It has been tense at some points, but we haven't seen any violence happening here," CNN correspondent Julia Vargas Jones said as the network showed rioters on motorbikes circling a car on fire in the middle of an intersection.

The post WATCH: Media Shrug Off LA Rioters as ‘Peaceful People’ appeared first on .

Lies, flags, and firebombs: Just another ‘mostly peaceful’ riot in LA



I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

RELATED: Why Trump had to do what Gavin Newsom refused to do

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.

Want more fromGlenn Beck? Get Glenn'sFREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.