Donald Trump took hard shots from the media for months before he was elected. From his victory until inauguration day, those shots increased in frequency and strength. Upon taking office, the media was in a state of frenzied panic spraying every bullet they had in haphazard manner like an 80s action hero. The President deflected them all. That may be changing.

The latest focal point for media outrage isn’t what Trump is doing but rather who’s making him do it. The conspiracy theories that’s floating around in major publications like the New York Times and TIME all surround his top adviser Steve Bannon. Their current narrative is that Bannon is really in charge and pulling Trump’s strings.

Trump replied with attacks on NYT:

Unfortunately, it isn’t just liberal media. Even some on the right are starting to ask questions about Bannon’s role, including reliably favorable Fox News. None of it’s sitting well with Trump who prides himself on calling his own shots:

This needs to be put to rest immediately and it’s going to take more than a few Tweets to do it. In fact, it will take more than Sean Spicer or a press release. Trump needs to come out and address the media directly. That’s when he’s best. He needs to boldly declare that Bannon is his top adviser, but that’s all he is. As these reports continue to circulate while the President fails to address them properly, it only encourages the media to believe that Bannon really might be in charge. Despite initially dismissing it all, I’ve had my own concerns about Bannon’s seemingly exceptional influence.

The media will perpetuate this narrative for as long as it has legs. Liberals want to believe it. Conservatives are starting to wonder. It’s time for Trump to express his indignation about rumors of Bannon’s control. A few Tweets will not be enough. He needs to get in front of the press and put them in their place.

The majority of things that come out of Washington DC do not require our assistance. President Trump lays down an order, Congress passes a law, or some agency puts out a regulation and the citizenry does what it can to comply. It sounds Draconian but it’s a system that works. Our participation in the republic is to vote in representatives, empowering them to keep order and hopefully assist us in prosperity.

Today’s rumors that Trump is about to take religious liberties onto his plate will, if true, require our actions. He will need our help. Defense of religious liberties has been a hot topic since before the country was even formed and will continue to be a hot topic long after we’ve left this world. That’s the nature of the most polarizing aspect of human existence.

For eight years, faith-minded Americans have witnessed a government that has positioned religious freedom as a form of discrimination. They say that a baker can’t practice her religion in her own private business and must bake whatever cakes people order. They say a wedding photographer must take pictures at an event even if her religion tells him it isn’t really a wedding. They say that religious organizations cannot express their political opinions because they’re a religious organization.

All of these things are (hopefully) about to change under Trump’s administration. If they do, it’s up to us to support it appropriately.

This is a tricky subject. The cultural promotion of religious freedoms isn’t a black and white issue even though it probably should be. We’re going to have to make tough choices in the near future. One of the toughest is acceptance of other religions. The Judeo-Christian faiths are, in my humble opinion, the most accepting of the other religions. We need to take this up a notch if and when religious freedoms are taken up by the administration. True tolerance is accepting that everyone’s religion, even those with values that run contrary to our own, has an equal right in America. There are those who will say, “but we’re a Christian nation.” I agree, but part of being a Christian nation is accepting the commission to spread the Word of God. It doesn’t mean that we’re supposed to accept others of our faith and ignore or reject other faiths. It’s our right in the Constitution to share our faith and it’s a calling in the Bible to do the same.

When Trump makes his move, it will be first positioned by the left as an attack on LGBT rights. Then, it will be positioned as an attack on atheists. Then, the narrative will shift to this being about Christians only and that other religions aren’t going to be allowed to share in the same freedoms. All of these narratives are pre-packaged and easy to fight, but the President cannot fight them alone. Those of us, regardless of personal religious beliefs, who embrace the freedoms that the 1st Amendment grant us must be vocal in our defense. We must support all righteous decisions at all levels of government. Moreover, we must denounce all perversions of the 1st Amendment that attempt to use the freedoms against us. Yes, that’s going to be a thing at some point in the near future. Watch for it.

Between travel bans, walls, and a flurry of executive orders, it will be easy for religious freedoms to get lost in the sea of issues. It’s our duty as Americans, whether we’re religious or not, to defend the rights of individuals and organizations to freely practice their beliefs. This is the battleground that requires us all to take up spiritual arms. It’s time to stand up for what’s right.

I can be critical of Donald Trump because I’m fair. When he does well (and in a short time, he’s done more to help America than Barack Obama did in eight years), I praise his actions. When he messes up, I’ll call him out. As a Federalist, the ability to assess appropriately is important. The same cannot be said about a vast majority in leadership or media roles on the left. Trump has them completely unhinged and their arguments are starting to betray the reality that they don’t think about subjects beyond the surface emotional response.

Attacks against Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban” have been a mixed bag. There are some valid complaints coming mostly from the right; the countries banned have had zero immigrants commit fatal acts of terrorism on U.S. soil while countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Afghanistan are conspicuously left off the list. However, the majority of complaints have been extremely hypocritical. Let’s look at some.

“The ban puts Americans abroad at greater risk”

To be fair, this is actually a potentially true statement. Why would I call it hypocritical? Because it goes against their standard “religion of peace” narrative. In many ways, it makes the case for Trump’s ban. If Americans are in danger because radical Islamists will be more likely to attack them now that the ban is in place, why would we argue for bringing them into the United States? The left’s argument is basically saying that radical Islamists are a danger to Americans if we keep them out of the country, but if we let them in they’ll be less likely to commit the terrorist acts they are currently committing abroad.

If that sounds ludicrous, you’ve gone beyond the surface emotional reaction and started thinking about the situation thoroughly. Congratulations. You’re probably not a liberal.

“President Obama wouldn’t have done such a thing”

Except he did.

Folks, this is the real world. There are circumstances that demand actions that won’t be popular with everyone. Part of being a sovereign nation and continuing to exist involves making those tough decisions. President Trump isn’t the first to make such a decision and won’t be the last.

“The American people don’t want this”

Except they do.

This isn’t something that Trump pulled out of his hat to shock everyone. He’s been talking about this in different forms for over a year. If anything, this is more aligned with the Cruz/Paul recommendations when they were on the campaign trail instead of Trump’s initial policy proposal of a total temporary Muslim ban.

Americans knew Trump intended to do this and they voted him into the White House anyway. Did they think he was bluffing? Were the convinced that he was just a standard politician who makes promises on the campaign trail only to backtrack once he’s in office? On that last point, time will tell, but in these early days he’s been doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

Moreover, this politically incorrect perspective on immigration is one that allows for a vocal opposition, but it’s very likely a popular concept. While there’s no way to test the theory, I would say it’s a likelihood that deep down a majority of Americans want some variation of dramatically improved vetting to occur to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country.

“It’s illegal and/or unconstitutional”

On social media, everyone’s a lawyer. With access to Wikipedia, everyone is able to pass legal judgments.

Fortunately, the law doesn’t operate through social media and judges don’t refer to Wikipedia. We will, in the coming weeks, find out just how legal and constitutional Trump’s executive order really is. I won’t be shocked if it’s struck down entirely nor would I be shocked if it’s vindicated in court. That’s the unfortunate nature of our federal legal system. Activist judges are everywhere, so the legality and/or constitutionality of the executive order will be determined more by who hears the case rather than whether or not it’s valid.

This brings me to a minor conspiracy theory. I’d like to believe that the administration is generally competent. With that said, this roll out has been exceedingly sloppy:

To call it amateur would be giving it too much credit. They announced on Holocaust Remembrance Day, an event notorious for the last time people were killed after being denied as refugees by America. Staff at airports were confused and often misinformed. Known positive contributors from interpreters helping U.S. armed services to scientists invited for medical research were turned away. The administration’s legal department embarrassed itself by being unprepared. The optics were the worst to come from the White House since Benghazi.

Conspiracy theory: What if Trump wants this executive order to be shot down in the courts or restricted by Congress so he can rally his base and begin the process of consolidating power to the executive branch? Okay, so it’s much more likely that they simply rushed it all through and made mistakes along the way, but to dismiss Trump’s ability to control situations and spin them to his favor would be a huge mistake. All I’m saying is that it’s possible this is an immaculately designed ploy. We’ll leave it at that.

“World leaders are against it”

Of all the silly liberal arguments against the executive order, this is my favorite. It’s even better when they invoke that the U.N. is against it. To those who make this argument, I have one word for you: “Good.”

We’ve done enough interfering in the rest of the world and we’ve received plenty of interference as a result. If there’s one aspect of Trump’s ideology that I embrace, it’s that the globalist mentality must be addressed appropriately. We are a sovereign nation. How we defend our borders and protect our citizens is our business.

That’s not to say that the world’s opinion is irrelevant. We are the centerpiece of the world economy which means that we need free trade just as badly as they need us to freely trade with them. However, this is a security issue. It should be very tightly handled between us, the nations on the list, and nations that are directly affected by our actions.

“Other nations don’t ban based upon nation of origin”

Except they do.

The United States isn’t banned by other countries because they need our money. That’s it. Do you think that if we weren’t an important part of their economies that they wouldn’t ban us? To answer that question, we simply need to look at Israel.

There are 16 nations that ban entry from anyone with an Israeli passport. Let’s be clear: Israeli terrorists do not go around the world committing acts of terrorism like radical Islamic terrorists often do. It’s just not part of their standard operating procedure. It should be noted that of the seven countries on Trump’s list, Somalia is the only one that doesn’t ban Israelis.

Trump’s executive order has problems, but not the ones you’re hearing from mainstream media or liberal politicians. The echo chamber of leftist anti-Trump dissent is falling further into hypocrisy. It’s getting to the point that their messages are being drowned out by the laughter of those hearing them.

There’s one overarching philosophy that mainstream media will rarely cover and never in a positive light: social conservatism. If an event or newsworthy occurrence is pro-life, in favor of traditional marriage, or in defiance of the LGTQ agenda, the media will find some way to hate on it while covering up or avoiding altogether any positive message that can come from it.

We’ll get to see this clearly tomorrow as March for Life hits DC. It’s newsworthy by itself, but this year there are three factors that make it an even bigger story. First, it follows last week’s pro-abortion Women’s March. That was covered by every news outlet in America. The only comparison coverage March of Life will receive will be estimates of attendance that makes it look as small as possible.

The second factor is the new President. For the first time in 16 years, there’s a freshly inaugurated President with a pro-life agenda to promote. That should pull in coverage if only to see how hopeful the participants are knowing they have an opportunity this year to truly fight abortion at the national level.

Lastly, this will be the first time that a sitting Vice President speaks at the event. Mike Pence will be on stage. Certainly, that means every network will cover him just as they covered Ashley Judd and Madonna, right? No. They may show him speaking briefly before cutting away and talking about how small the crowd is compared to the Women’s March.

The last eight years have empowered the media to believe their own personal agendas are fair to promote through the free press. Technically, they are correct. From the perspective of an expectant populace that desperately craves unbiased reporting in the age of fake news, it seems like everyone’s now a commentator. Editorializing everything has become the status quo. For Pence and March for Life, that means that they will have any credit they’re due minimized while any criticism they’re open to (whether deserved or not) will be magnified.

The sad state of our national media means that the pro-life movement is on its own. Those of us who fight for life must learn to assume most of mainstream media’s storytellers are against us. That’s why it’s so important to read more from sites like this one and less from the New York Times or TMZ.

In college, I learned that generalizing is a bad thing for reporters and commentators. It’s ironic that I’m breaking my own training by generalizing about the craft that I studied all those years ago. Mainstream media in general is unabashedly opposed to Donald Trump. They need to be put squarely in their place. Then deserve the “Trump Treatment.”

I thought it was bad during the campaign. That was nothing. The complete and utter meltdown of respected journalists over Trump’s inauguration, Sean Spicer’s first press conference, and every little move the administration has made in the three days since Trump became President of the United States has placed them even further down on the trust scale. We’re no longer seeing subtle leanings or hidden propaganda. Many of the biggest names in journalism are making mockeries of themselves and the government they’re attempting to cover.

The Trump Treatment is this: disregard their reports, offer an alternative, and allow Americans to choose which truth to believe. In any other situation, this would be the type of Kremlinesque attack on media that I would oppose. Considering how badly the media is botching their jobs, I see it as unfortunately justified.

Their bias is blatant. There’s no longer a need to pretend otherwise. For example, here’s WaPo:

WaPo Headline

If you’re thinking that the article may not be as insulting as the headline, don’t. It’s actually worse.

Another example surrounded the report that Trump had MLK’s bust removed from the Oval Office. To the credit of the TIME reporter who made the initial claim, he quickly and adamantly tried to correct the record and displayed genuine remorse for spreading such an inflammatory rumor. Other journalists who had reported it weren’t as loud with their retractions and even took offense when I tried to call them out on it.

It would be different if we were used to this sort of thing. After all, we just had a failed Presidency for the past eight years. Where was the media through the many debacles at the hands of the Obama administration? Instead of rebuking him, they were fawning over him. As Mollie Hemingway pointed out, their treatment of Obama is one of the reasons they have no credibility in their attacks on Trump.

How are they getting away with this? As has become the custom for those who push fake news (which today seems to be just about everyone in mainstream media), their technique is a straightforward three-step process:

Now is the time that conservatives should be helping to guide Trump through advice and dissent. We should be encouraging him when he does the right thing and calling him out when he does the wrong things. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is positioning us in a way that forces many to take Trump’s side even when we don’t fully agree with his perspectives. This polarization forced by media is hurting the nation in many ways while helping only those ignorant enough to feel vindicated by negative press reports about him.

It would be easy for conservatives to push Trump in the right direction if we didn’t have to defend him constantly against unfair attacks. We’ve seen that he listens; the immigration “softening” during the campaign is an example of a proposed idea that he shifted based upon outcry from conservatives. Instead of being a voice of reason whispering in his ears, we’re forced to fight the corrupt liberalism launched at him from mainstream media. This is going to be a long four years for the press if they don’t change their ways quickly.

Democrats generally hate Donald Trump. That’s to be expected; November was the most stinging and unexpected defeat their party has suffered in over a generation. How they’ve handled it since then has been a complete embarrassment for both the party and the nation. It’s almost all bad as they do their best to taint the President before he actually takes office.

Almost all bad.”

There’s good news. I was talking to one of my children, a high school senior, when she pointed out something that I’d speculated about recently. Some in her school were planning a walkout to protest the inauguration. It was canceled essentially over shame. The kids who were going to do the walkout got sick of hearing about giving Trump a chance. They grew sick of being called conspiracy theorists over Russia’s influence in the election. Most importantly, they couldn’t get enough students together who were willing to label themselves as victims.

That’s really what we’re seeing: self-proclaimed victims of a system that didn’t give them what they thought they deserved. By being so opposed to the concept of a Trump Presidency before it’s even a reality, they’re throwing their own credibility out the window. Perhaps they perceive a future when Trump fails and they can come back and say, “I told you so.” Unfortunately for them, if he doesn’t fulfill their vision of a political apocalypse descending on the nation, even their mild criticisms in the future won’t be able to hold water. Why? Because they’ve overplayed their dissent in the weeks preceding his inauguration.

It’s one thing to oppose bad policy. The Federalist Party, which (for full disclosure) I’m helping to build, is ready to oppose bad policies regardless of which party or politician proposes them. We have nothing against Donald Trump, the Republican Party, or any other party for that matter. In fact, a good chunk of what the GOP and Trump have proposed ahead of his inauguration fall right in line with the small-government, pro-freedom philosophies we espouse.

What many Democrats are doing is attacking the person rather than waiting for him to do something tangible that they oppose. We saw this to some extent before when Barack Obama won the election in 2008, but pre-inauguration opposition from Republicans was nowhere near the opposition we’ve seen from the Democrats towards Trump. This is very bad for them. It makes them seem less like ideologues and more like blind dissenters flailing around in search of a pillow to beat up. They’re making themselves look like victims before Trump even has an opportunity to prove their point.

This is driven by the media. It’s hard to tell who is more infantile between left-wing journalists and pampered Hollywood crybabies. Both are bad, but the media is the one that still holds some sway over the populace. Thankfully, most people, even Democrats, are ignoring or laughing at the celebrities who are throwing tantrums. The press, however, is getting Democrats juiced up. They’ve pounded several ideas into the heads of easily influenced liberals. It was Comey. It was WikiLeaks. It was the Russians. It was Podesta. It was Weiner. It was… it was…

Lest we start fist-pumping in celebration, we have to remember that this is a silver lining, not a win. Sadly, the left knows how to play the victim card adeptly and they’re reaching people. These protests, obstructions, and disruptions have a negative effect on the psyches of millions of Americans. Moreover, it puts Trump in a poor position on the international stage as propaganda around the world will paint America as a nation that doesn’t believe in its own leaders. Now more than ever, we need Trump and the GOP Congress to come out of the gates with clear victories and stunningly positive results to silence the critics as best they can. The ones that won’t be silenced can be made to look like fools for continuing to oppose prosperity. There were a lot of careers ruined in the early 80s when Ronald Reagan’s achievements made his opposition look like fools. We need that to happen again.

If the GOP can get some policy wins that positively affect the nation, the liberals playing the victim card can be neutered. It won’t be easy. There’s opposition coming from every angle. However, this is a grand opportunity to do further damage to the Democratic Party by showing voters (and the world) that their loss was everyone else’s gain.

Contrary to popular belief, liberal mainstream media bias is not the same ol’ narrative that conservatives have had to fight since the 1970s. Starting with the Bush administration and as a direct result of the rise of the internet, liberal journalists have dramatically increased their blatant favoritism towards progressive agendas. They don’t even try to hide it anymore.

We see a lot of publications like Newsbusters reporting on the bias. This is a good thing, but it’s not enough. As conservative citizens, bloggers, and social media users, we have to do more than point out the bias because most people are already aware that it exists. Sure, there are still pockets of hardcore progressives who claim the media is biased against them rather than the other way around, but we won’t be able to reach those people. Our focus should be on the masses who accept that media bias exists but who still allow themselves to be indoctrinated by it.

This is where fighting “smarter” comes into play. Most have seen examples of or even participated in the insult wars against people who share biased news. I’ve done it many times in the past, often referring to the “sheep” who hang on every declaration on The View or who share Paul Krugman links every time he writes a condemnation of conservative principles. We have to stop. The ball is in our court. We have the opportunity to start real political discourse. It won’t be easy. The passions on the left are heavy and have been stung repeatedly since November. We need patience and intelligence. We need to take the high road.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aggressive with our strategies. One of the easiest arguments to make is calling out hypocrisy. It’s hard to deny when presented the right way, particularly in the current situation. It’s hypocritical of everyone on the left who fought for a smooth transition of power and acceptance of election results until it was their side calling the election results into question. You can’t tell us we need to accept the results if Hillary Clinton won, then decline to accept the results because she lost. This is just one example of the hypocrisy.

As I’ve noted in the past, both the media and liberal politicians are going to go after Trump’s biggest weakness: his thin skin. They know that he’ll respond to attacks, so that’s exactly what they’re going to do. However, it’s in the way they’re going to spin it that the damage can be done. They will attack, then wait for the counter-attack and report mostly on the latter. Today, we see it in the “feud” between Trump and Congressman John Lewis. The Congressman drew first blood by calling the legitimacy of Trump’s Presidency into question, for which he was rewarded by the press as being brave and righteous. When Trump attacked back, the media unleashed the hounds to highlight Trump as being racist (Lewis is black), misinformed (Trump called out Lewis as all talk, no action, despite his very real actions during the civil rights movement), and a bully (okay, that one’s accurate).

Trump Tweeted insults at a man who attacked him. How is that bigger news than a respected American politician calling into question the legitimacy of a Presidency based upon an intelligence briefing that admits the actual effects of Russia’s attempts are unclear? Are we supposed to unify behind Barack Obama but revolt against Trump? That’s essentially what Lewis is calling for, but you’d never know that based upon media coverage.

As noted on TNA, conservatives must go on the offensive against the bias:

What’s the right answer to the media bias problem? Fight back. Spread real news. Correct those who fall for the bias. Scorn those who report with bias. A free press is there to keep Americans informed, not indoctrinated. It’s time to make the media realize their agenda is not our agenda.What’s the right answer to the media bias problem? Fight back. Spread real news. Correct those who fall for the bias. Scorn those who report with bias. A free press is there to keep Americans informed, not indoctrinated. It’s time to make the media realize their agenda is not our agenda.

This is why we must fight harder. Despite the election results, we are losing this battle. The left is regrouping. The attacks from the media are incessant and increasing in ferocity. It’s up to conservatives to not only highlight when the media reveals their leftist agenda, but to also offer alternatives to those narratives. We have the truth on our side. It’s time for us to make others see it for what it is.

Today, the DoJ entered the fray to put an asterisk next to Donald Trump’s Presidency. They announced that they’re investigating the FBI for their pre-election actions. As you may recall, FBI Director James Comey was the first scapegoat offered up by the Democrats about why they lost so badly.

According to The Blaze:

The inspector general’s office at the Department of Justice announced Thursday that it will investigate the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state, as well as FBI Director James Comey’s decision to send a letter to Congress stating that the bureau was reopening its case involving the Democratic nominee for president just days before the Nov. 8 election.The inspector general’s office at the Department of Justice announced Thursday that it will investigate the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state, as well as FBI Director James Comey’s decision to send a letter to Congress stating that the bureau was reopening its case involving the Democratic nominee for president just days before the Nov. 8 election.

It’s been over two months since their devastating losses and we’re still seeing liberal publications scratching their collective heads. They simply cannot comprehend that Americans could say no to their agenda that they believe has worked out so wonderfully the last eight years. As a result, they’re doing everything in their power to make it appear as if they were robbed rather than accepting that their message simply isn’t resonating.

They’re looking for as many bogeymen as they can find to attach to Trump’s Presidency. They want this to be an unmitigated disaster from day one, so they’re employing jamming and propaganda techniques to force that perspective onto the American public. This, more than anything else, is why BuzzFeed did what they did.  They intend to beat all of Trump’s horses, living or dead, until a majority of Americans believe that they’ve made a terrible mistake.

DC politicians are working behind the scenes to do the same thing. There are questions that the DoJ rightly needs answered by the FBI, but those questions can be done privately and without a full blown investigation. The reason they’re taking it as far as they are is simply a well-timed statement to the public. In essence, they’re saying, “In the midst of this Russian problem, don’t forget that Trump had help on the inside as well.”

Their plan would actually be quite entertaining if it were put into a fictional realm. Imagine the story line (read in a deep movie-trailer-guy voice): “They thought they had the perfect plan to rule the most powerful nation on the planet, but they got trumped. Now, the Democrats have a plan to wreak havoc on the political system and teach the people once and for all that the left is right. No one is safe. No action is too disgraceful. In 2017, they’re out for blood and they’ve got nothing left to lose.”

The Democrats aren’t trying to gain more power or affect public policy. They want one thing: retribution. Their actions are designed to make as many Americans as possible regret their choices in 2016. This year is going to be about making us feel bad so they can feel better about themselves.

If Hillary Clinton opened up a hamburger joint, would you eat there? If George Soros wrote a book and went on tour, would you buy his book and wait in line at Barnes & Noble to have him sign it? Did you run out and buy a Dixie Chicks album after they attacked George W. Bush?

Why, then, do conservatives continue to support Hollywood when the vast majority of people in it are pushing a left-wing agenda? Many of them spend more times promoting their political narrative than making movies and television shows. Most of them allow those narratives and agendas to leak through in their performances and movie choices.

As I write this, the Golden Globes are being watched by millions of Americans. A good chunk of those watching are conservatives. This isn’t intended to condemn any of you; I had aspirations to be part of the Hollywood world at one point in my life and even moved to southern California to pursue it. Over the last decade, I watched as the liberal underpinnings of Hollywood emerged into blatant attacks on many of the things that I believe. Recently, the progressive rhetoric has reached a crescendo to the point that they don’t even try to pretend they’re only entertainers. They’ve come out feverishly opposed to the philosophies that make America awesome and in favor of the socialist, lawless, liberal ideology that is leading us towards oblivion.

There are few institutions that are easier to generalize than Hollywood. Save for a handful of brave and outspoken conservatives, the vast majority of actors, directors, and producers are as left-wing as they come. Last year brought more of them out of the political closet as the fear of Donald Trump prompted policy commentary from the strangest places. Today, they are outspoken and angry.

Most of Hollywood is pro-choice. They support the ideas of giving greater rights to members of the LGBTQ community than to average Americans. They want open borders as long as the illegal immigrants aren’t in their neighborhoods. They want total gun control except for their bodyguards. They oppose school choice while their children go to private schools.

They support Obama, oppose Trump, and they’re going to do everything they can to subvert his presidency.

As conservatives, we should not support them. We shouldn’t buy tickets to their movies. We shouldn’t bump up the ratings on their television shows. We shouldn’t be fawning over them at awards shows or idolizing them in any way. Like it or not, they have power through influence of their huge audiences. Some of them reach millions of people every day with their ideologies.

It’s hypocritical for us to condemn their politics but support their careers. Every time we buy a ticket to movies written, directed, and performed by liberal activists, we’re giving them money that will be used to promote their agenda. How many of them gave to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and other liberal politicians? Which ones held fundraisers to promote the progressive agenda? We empower them to attack our philosophies.

We need to make better entertainment choices. As much as I’d love to call for a boycott, it’s unrealistic. As conservatives, we can choose to watch movies by those who aren’t fighting us. They don’t even have to be outspoken conservatives as long as they’re not militant liberals. There’s a reason that Mark Wahlberg seems to be in every patriotic retelling of real events from Lone Survivor to Patriots Day. Clint Eastwood directs a movie every year or two. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson could be the next Ronald Reagan. Chris Pratt and Denzel Washington might not speak too much about politics, but they’re open about their faith.

We have choices. We don’t have to kiss the ring of the Hollywood elites or risk boring ourselves with Fox News all night. If we spend our entertainment dollars supporting people and stories that align more closely with conservative philosophies, Hollywood will eventually take the hint. Even if they don’t, at least we can feel better knowing we’re not supporting the engines of our own demise.

Hate is a real issue. Americans have plenty of it. They demonstrate it all the time. The difference between hate today and hate in the recent past is that it’s now manifesting in the form of hoaxes perpetrated mostly by the left. They don’t want to be seen as hateful, so they turn their own hate into “clever” ruses to paint the right as the “real “haters.

Fake news is a real issue. As an obsessive consumer of political media, I’m a fake news hipster. I’ve been calling it out since before it was cool.

Today, we’re seeing the two collide in spectacular fashion. They’ve always had a secondary relationship in that hoaxes would be perpetrated and the media would investigate and report if necessary, but the boundary that separated them has collapsed. Today, the media’s standard operating procedure is to report the hoax first, investigate (or maybe not) later.

Why did this happen? Did the media become suddenly more gullible? No. This is willful. Ever since about a month and a half before the election, mainstream media started their “ready, fire, aim” stance on hate hoaxes because they realized they needed it to propagate their narrative agenda. They’ve learned two important things: falling for a hoax will not decrease ratings/readership, and they can source each other rather than investigate in order to justify their choices.

Here are four major hate hoaxes that have been reported in the last 24 hours:

In all four cases, there were reasons for the media to doubt the stories. In all four cases, the narrative of white and/or conservative and/or Trump-supporting and/or bigoted “people of privilege” persecuted and/or harassed and/or discriminated against some variation of minority. In all four cases, the hoax was reported before confirmed and later it was revealed by law enforcement or conservative media that we had all been duped.

Here’s the core of the problem. Mainstream media has a narrative agenda that has failed miserably. They did everything they could to hand the White House and Senate to the Democrats. In the past, that’s all that needed to happen; if the media united behind a cause, they could bend the will of the people. In the case of the 2016 election, their agenda backfired, so they now have two choices. They could learn their lessons and return to a bygone day when reporters actually reported and commentators made absolutely certain their perspectives would not be confused with news.

Predictably, mainstream media has chosen option two. They’re doubling down. The lesson they think they learned from their mistake is that they can’t allow a sliver of doubt to creep in. They actually think they were too easy on Donald Trump. They think they didn’t push enough of their narrative on Senate races. They think they now need to promote their agenda in full force, working overtime if necessary.

They’re going to get away with it, too, if we let them. Nobody calls out the original source. All it takes is for one media outlet to report something as real and the rest will jump on the bandwagon rather than investigate if for themselves. It’s not that they believe it to be true. It’s that they hope for it to be true. That’s enough. They’ve lost their way.

As conservatives, we need to take two stances. We need to call out the media when hate is faked and we need to call out the real haters. We’re not innocent in this. Many conservatives will turn a blind eye or even mount a feeble defense when real bigotry or hatred is present. To stay consistent, we have to stick with the truth regardless of whose side is to blame. The only way we can defeat the liberal media narrative agenda is if we take the high road every time.