Of the 100 largest newspapers in America, 57 made editorial endorsements for Hillary Clinton. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, received four endorsements. Four did not endorse a candidate but urged a vote against Trump.
Two newspaper editorial boards endorsed President Trump.
And President Trump won the election – 304 electoral votes to Clinton’s 227.
Yes, Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes but her margin of victory in California was 4.3 million votes or 61.5% – dramatically exceeding the 53.5% margin in her other winning states.
In the popular vote outside of California, Trump won the rest of nation by 1.4 million votes – Trump received 58,474,401 votes to Clinton’s 57,064,530 votes. And as I note in “A Voter Fraud-Friendly Environment“, California has specifically codified legislation and processes that directly encourage – and assist – illegal immigrant voter registration.
Whatever your views on the popular vote and voting in California, consider this for a moment.
President Trump had absolutely no support from the mainstream media. None. Newspapers that had never endorsed any candidate came out for Clinton or against Trump. And yet Trump won the Electoral College – and the popular vote outside of California. Newspapers are supposed to be a reflection of their readers – at least to some extent. How is it that 98% of them campaigned directly or indirectly against half the nation’s population? Their actions were not accidental. They were purposeful and intentional. It was a coordinated, concerted effort.
One that failed against President Trump’s groundswell of support.
As a result, President Trump and his Administration believed it was important to begin delivering on his campaign promises immediately. And deliver he has. Deregulation efforts are underway in Congress. The poorly designed Trans Pacific Partnership killed. A hiring freeze implemented. A highly qualified nominee for the Supreme Court put forth. A focus on national security returned. These first weeks have been a whirlwind of activity – full of future promise.
Financial Markets have taken notice of President Trump’s plans. Markets are unemotional, forward looking, and contain the latest and best information available. The markets have been moving in anticipation of tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks – the Dow is up 10.5% over the last three months – a huge move. Yet the media continues to portray Trump’s actions in a negative light wherever possible.
Which brings me to this point. We are in the midst of a coordinated, collaborative effort to change perceptions – the public mindset – surrounding President Trump’s actions.
We currently find ourselves in a media-driven frenzy over President Trump’s Travel Ban. And yet here are the basic facts:
The United States had 325,000 foreign visitors land on U.S. soil in the 24 hours after the Travel Ban was issued.
109 were detained. All were released.
The Travel Ban impacted .003% of all foreign travelers in the first 24 hours in which it was enacted.
Trump’s Executive Order calls for a temporary halt on immigration from seven troubled countries – countries selected by the Obama Administration for Visa Waiver suspension – while we improve our vetting process. I have been through the Executive Order in excruciating detail. This is not a Muslim ban. This is a rational response that directly impacted very few Americans. It’s a response I wish had been implemented in my ancestral country of Sweden. But it’s not being portrayed that way by the media.
Over the weekend, reports began to circulate from a GOP meeting that tax cuts might be delayed – possibly until early 2018. And the markets reacted – having their biggest down days since Trump assumed the Presidency. News headlines everywhere shouted “Financial markets react to Trump’s Travel Ban”. But the 1% market pullback was solely related to the possible delay on cutting taxes. It had nothing to do with the temporary travel ban. But you wouldn’t know that from the major headlines.
In another example, the recent Women’s March was ostensibly about women’s rights. And for many participants it most certainly was. But it was also about something else. As I detailed in Women’s March – Hidden Agendas, women’s rights were not at the forefront of the national organizers agenda. Their mission statement opens with the following: “The rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened many of us – immigrants of all statuses, Muslims and those of diverse religious faiths, people who identify as LGBTQIA, Native people, Black and Brown people, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault”. As organizers noted, “we made a deliberate decision to highlight the plight of minority and undocumented immigrants and provoke uncomfortable discussions about race”. Linda Sarsour, the march’s national co-chair – and executive director of the Arab American Association of New York – is a proponent of Sharia Law. I admit I’m a bit surprised in the choice of a proponent for Sharia Law as a National Co-Chair for the Women’s March – given that Sharia Law explicitly relegates women to a status inferior to men. Of course, Sharia Law also promotes Islamic Supremacism which calls for the conquering and domination of all competing cultures and faiths. Ms. Sarsour’s beliefs and agendas did not get much media coverage – but the event and associated protests surrounding President Trump’s inauguration sure did.
U.C. Berkeley was the site of a major “protest” – riot is a more accurate description – last night in advance of a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo is an outspoken, conservative 33 year-old who is an editor at Breitbart News. He is also openly gay and a sometime critic of Islam. He once ironically noted; “The growth of Islam should be one of the most disturbing things in the world for liberals. Here is a religion that forces women into submission, that executes gays, that tries to kill non-believers.” For this event, Milo had planned on a more sedate topic, intending to discuss Cultural Appropriation – the adoption or use of the elements of one culture by members of another culture. His event was cancelled. The core group of “protestors”, comprised of about 150 young men in masks with many carrying shields, arrived together and from outside the area. These were professional, paid anarchists using commercial-grade fireworks among other items. A coordinated effort. And an oft-used tactic. Take a normal college protest and turn it into a major, national news-drawing event using professional agitators. One that gets replayed in the media as being the result of President Trump’s policies.
These protests – organized, planned and funded – make for wonderful news segments and are served up as validations of Liberal claims. As I write these very words, a member of the prior Administration is on FOX News, claiming the record number of protests are proof that the “vast majority of people do not support President Trump”.
Liberals are aghast over what has happened. They still cannot come to grips with the fact that they have lost the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the majority of Governorships and State Legislatures…and the Supreme Court. But they have lost.
Now comes their effort to convince you otherwise. That Trump didn’t really win – or deserve to. That his agenda is characterized by cruelty, caprice…and recklessness. That his Presidency and Cabinet are in turmoil. That you are in the small minority if you support President Trump’s policies. Or an old favorite of Democrats – you are racist and xenophobic. None of this is true.
But the media – and groups like George Soros’ Open Society Foundation – want you to think it is.