There are two major things that should concern the American people about mainstream media. We’ve seen one of them very blatantly rear its hypocritical head since the start of election season in 2015: major left-wing bias. The other is even more dangerous and if we don’t take hold of the first, we’ll be faced with the second.

Before we get into the more severe threat of mainstream media, let’s focus on the one that’s clear and present. Mainstream media has been “left-leaning” for over four decades. Some may remember a time when the media was actually right-leaning. Those days are obviously behind us; anyone who doesn’t qualify for Social Security benefits has likely never seen right-leaning mainstream media (other than arguably Fox News and WSJ) in their adult life. The major shift that we witnessed in the most recent election cycle is unabashed bias. There was still a semblance of subtly in their bias during the Bush43-era. Today, they’re loud and proud about being leftists.

There are righteous cries by conservatives to do something about this problem. The Democratic Party’s propaganda wing has become so engrossed with their own rhetoric that they’re having a hard time understanding why there’s any opposition to them at all. It’s imperative that conservatives do what they can to simultaneously denounce mainstream media’s bias and to promote independent and conservative media that needs help in being the countermeasure to liberal talking heads.

It must be the people who bring about this change. It cannot be the government. This brings us to the bigger threat that could engulf us: state-run media. Today, it’s practically impossible for anyone to imagine a press that’s controlled by the government. It’s never been the case in America (despite rumored efforts by the “Deep State,” the CIA, and other powerful government entities) for the government to have control over the media, so very few are concerned about it. We should be.

If recent history has taught us anything, it’s that the sentiment of the American people can be shifted very quickly. In the beginning of Barack Obama’s presidency, nearly 70% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage. Even Californians outlawed it for a time. Today, less than 40% of Americans oppose it. In less than seven years, the sentiment on this topic was changed through liberal indoctrination in colleges, massive propaganda campaigns in the media, and pressure put on those who would oppose the practice.

What we’re seeing happening with the media is not indoctrination from one side. Both liberals and conservatives are starting to see needs for “restraints” on the media. Not to sound too conspiratorial, but the rise of the “fake news” narrative is designed to get us to not trust ANY media. There has always been fake news. In fact, it’s not any worse today than it was a decade ago. The difference is that we’ve put more of an emphasis on it through social media. We’ve given it a tangible name and defined it as a bogeyman to be feared.

Tearing down the 1st Amendment freedom of the press concept won’t start off as state-run media. It will start as “limits” to what can be reported. It has already started with calls by powerful people in government to rein in their reports by forcing verification before news can be published. This comes in the form of strengthening libel laws that yield consequences if reporters get a story wrong. All of this is being packaged in a way that the people can get behind without realizing that they’re supporting restraints that harm the Constitution itself.

The problems of fake news and liberal bias are real. The battle must be waged by the people, not the government. If we call for the government to take action, the only way they can solve the problem is by taking us several steps closer to the bigger problem of state-run media. Instead, we have the power as Americans to fight it through our voices and our dollars. I would love to help lead this effort, but there’s already too much on my plate. Someone needs to do it. Someone needs to step up and start directing the grassroots to fight the liberal bias and fake news problem without the government getting involved.

Mainstream media outlets must be made aware that if they’re going to be biased, they won’t get our money nor our page-views in the form of clicks. That’s not to say that there’s not room for commentary or op-eds, but those must be clearly delineated. Smaller media sites, particularly those who adhere to neutrality, need our support. As for conservative media, we’re currently outnumbered and outgunned. We need help to be the commentary that opposes our liberal counterparts.

All of this sounds hard. It will be. The alternative is for the government to step in and take action. That is not a valid solution. Once they start, history tells us they cannot help themselves. They’ll take it further and further until the media is a shell of what it once was. To those who say that this would be a good thing, remember that if they’re just a shell, someone will be pulling the strings. I’ll take a left-wing mainstream media over a government-controlled media any day of week. At least bias can be countered through discernment and spreading the word. Once the government gets involved, it quickly turns into oppression. If that’s allowed, it will be almost impossible to reverse.

The only righteous way to tackle the problems we’re seeing in the media is for the people to address it from the grassroots. Calls for media oversight from DC will not end well for Americans. We need a free press to stay free. We need free Americans to change the media’s ways with our voices and our dollars. We do not need anything that will harm the 1st Amendment regardless of how appealing that may seem to some today.

There are plenty of plans to repeal, replace, tweak, fix, improve, dismantle, and otherwise make changes to the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. I’m going to keep this short for the sake of simplicity because the answer isn’t hard. Repeal it. What you do after that will work out just fine.

Some will say, “But we need to have a plan in place or the GOP will get slaughtered in 2018 and 2020!” I don’t completely disagree, but there’s an important caveat to note.

There is no plan that doesn’t include installing some variation of socialized medicine that will prevent everyone from losing their coverage. The math simply doesn’t add up. You can’t take something as fiscally obtuse as Obamacare and replace it with something that yields the same results without being essentially the same thing. Yes, people will lose coverage. Yes, the media will play it up. Yes, the Democrats will point to it as a reason to regain power.

The only way to prevent the Great 2018 Slaughter of the Republican Party is to fulfill the promise that they made to repeal it, to invoke the mandate that the last election gave them, and to work like crazy to fight the negative optics associated with it. The sooner they do step one, the better. There are some who are secretly pushing to repeal Obamacare but to not have it take effect until after the election. This is unacceptable. Rip it off like a putrid old band aid and then govern the country amazingly going forward. That’s the only hope.

Here’s the thing. This isn’t new. The GOP has claimed to want to repeal Obamacare for six years. There has been more than enough time to plan it out, prepare for the consequences, and enact a plan to mitigate political damage done. Why are they now acting like this is a brand new development? Why aren’t they embracing perfectly good plans such as the Paul-Sanford bill? Why aren’t they following the lead of people like Ted Cruz who want to fulfill the promise they made?

There. I said it would be short.

What they do after this economic abomination is repealed will work out as long as it doesn’t include a similar monstrosity. The window of opportunity has been open. If they don’t take decisive action now that they have the chance, then they deserve the routing that they fear will happen by doing what they said they were going to do in the first place.

President Ronald Reagan was an enigma. His goals and the results he produced were often achieved by contradicting the accepted paradigms. He was known for strength and military prowess, yet America participated in fewer battles under him than any President in modern history. He helped individuals and small businesses at the bottom rung by letting money “trickle down” from the top. He was strong on immigration, yet gave amnesty to many.

Historians and political scientists are still trying to unpack how he was able to produce desired results by addressing the problems from directions opposite of Presidents before and after him. One of the least discussed but most profound contradictions in Reagan’s arsenal was “new Federalism.” Like President Richard Nixon before him, Reagan believed that if you take the power-balancing ideas of the original Federalist Party and apply them to modern problems, you can fix the broken aspects of American government.

His first challenge was overcoming the stigma associated with the early Federalists. Both their name and the twisting of their goals would seem to oppose what he wanted done, but this is a misconception. They wanted a stronger federal government than their opponents who believed in the primacy of the states. Federalists wanted a balance between the states and the national government. The anti-federalists didn’t want the national government to have much influence at all – no substantial army, no navy at all, and no ability to sign binding treaties with other nations. In essence, the Democratic-Republicans of Thomas Jefferson wanted every state to be sovereign to the extreme. If France wanted to sign a trade pact or alliance treaty, they’d need to do so with each individual state rather than with one United States of America.

Reagan’s vision of modern Federalism is to achieve the same goals of the original Federalists but from the opposite end of the spectrum. He realized that the national government was quickly becoming too powerful. He embraced the Federalist approach of checks and balances between the states and Washington DC that empowers either to properly represent their citizens. If someone in Michigan was being oppressed by the federal government, they could go to the state to seek protections. If it was Michigan that was oppressing this person, they could call on DC for help. Only through balance of powers can this country be properly managed. Only through balance of powers can the people’s freedoms be properly protected.

The reason it’s not discussed much is because he didn’t come close to completing his mission. Despite his charisma and intellect, he soon realized that the government he ran was extremely reluctant to give up any of its powers. This, more than anything else, is why we’ve formed a new Federalist Party. Even someone as strong and well-liked as Reagan was not able to break through the DC cartel’s self-aggrandizing addictions. We need a party that truly believes in reining in DC overreach to start winning seats at local, state, and national levels of government. Reagan needed help and the GOP was unwilling to give it to him.

Today, we need Reagan’s concepts of Federalism even more than we did in the 80s. Things have gotten worse. DC is a swamp, and while President Donald Trump is trying to drain it as quickly as possible, he can’t get it all done. In fact, his focus on reducing bureaucracy is righteous but is only one small part of the overall formula. Reining in government overreach requires a three-pronged attack and draining the swamp will only go after one of those prongs. We need more. Just as GOP leadership didn’t support Reagan’s efforts, we cannot expect them to initiate the purging of their own powers any time in the future, either.

Thankfully, we’re not starting from scratch. There are those in DC such as Mike Lee, Louie Gohmert, Ted Cruz, Justin Amash, and Ben Sasse who have demonstrated an understanding of the need to rein in federal power in all three branches, including their own. They are a minority even in their own party. This is why Federalists must coalesce around a party that’s willing to support them and bring fresh blood into the halls of government at every level.

Reagan had a wonderful vision of small-government Federalism that remains unfulfilled to this day. It’s time to put people into office who will truly take up his mantle and act to reduce the power being accumulated in Washington DC. As Reagan once said, “Government does not solve problems. It subsidizes them.” The time to solve the problem is soon. The way to solve them is being built today.

There’s an old saying that makes its rounds at law schools across the country. The most talented law students become lawyers and eventually judges. Those who can’t make it as lawyers become professors. While this is meant as a derogatory statement students make about their law professors, there’s a bit of truth in it. No, I’m not suggesting that law professors are or were bad lawyers, but it’s no surprise that even in the relatively-conservative profession of the law, a majority of educators tend to lean left.

It’s much worse in other professions. I don’t have to convince you that higher education is a infested with leftist educators and administrators. Any debate about that reality has been thoroughly quashed in the last few years. Instead, it’s important for us to come up with a plan to address this issue going forward.

Here’s the biggest problem. They’re embedded. It would be nearly impossible for a conservative revolution to happen in college leadership or among professors because they already own the entire market. They run the schools. They run the departments. They hire and promote the professors they want and the vast majority of them are leftists. This is a problem that we won’t be able to solve from the top, so we have to address it from the bottom up.

We have to start with the students.

This is often framed as a challenge for America’s future, but that’s only half the story. As adults, we often view college students as relatively impotent. Perhaps in the past they were, though one can argue that most major movements in our history have started with passionate students operating within their collegiate environments. Today, they’re even more empowered because of social media. The always-on aspect of American society gives the professors and students a much louder megaphone. Instead of having to contest with bad television coverage from protests, we are now faced with a generation that has more reach than ever before. They can reach each other and they can reach the rest of the world.

To fight this, we have to do three things.

Prepare our Children

As a parent of a college student and another about to enter, I have been spending a great deal of time preparing them for the attempt at indoctrination they’re bound to experience. The only surefire way around it is to not send them to college (and yes, that’s a valid option in today’s economic construct). If you’re unwilling to do that, then it’s imperative that you get them prepared.

How it’s done is up to you. I was blessed with children who are quite discerning for their age. They both came to the conclusion that they were conservatives without me bombarding them with propaganda or putting posters of Ronald Reagan on their walls as children. When they had questions, I answered them. We’ve shown them the correctness of fiscal and social conservatism, but it must be taken a step further.

As good as conservative philosophies are to those who will listen, it’s still challenging to overcome the onslaught of leftist thoughts that they’ll experience in college. There’s no real way around it, so it’s important to do two things: prepare them before they go and be open to questions once they’re in the belly of the beast. So far I haven’t had to explain away any liberal ideas that started creeping into their mindset, but I’m prepared to do so at any point.

Call out Hypocrisy

The other bastion of liberal ideologies is the mainstream media. With few exceptions, they are also populated with a majority on the left. This makes for a great tag-team effort between schools and the media. The leftists at colleges make a fuss and the leftists in the media paint their fuss in a positive light.

It’s up to bloggers, video producers, and social media users to call them both out when they’re hypocrisy is apparent to us. Because of the nature of our situation, we can’t expect them to do it themselves. We’re the voice of dissent against leftist hypocrisy in higher education. The media will not do it for us.

Engage in Discourse

We’ve seen conservative speakers shunned by colleges across the country. This is no reason to stop trying. In fact, we need to do it more.

It’s not just up to public speakers who attempt to speak at colleges. We also need to be active on college forums. We should be replying and being the voice of reason on college publications. We should address them directly on social media. The best friend of leftist indoctrination is a silent right.

Can we convince a leftist professor that free markets yield better results than heavy regulations and obtuse tariffs? No. However, when we engage publicly with them, it’s the audience watching the exchange that has the opportunity to see the right way.

It’s not going to be easy to take on the leftist juggernaut of higher education in America, but it must be done. Conservatives can only win through legislation as long as we have enough voters putting conservatives in office. This will trend away from us if we let the left have carte blanche on the biggest future (and current) voting block.

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.