The mainstream liberal media has now reached dangerous new heights with their hyperbole, delusional, and fear-mongering opinions. Just tune into or read any media source and you’ll see they’re all perpetuating the notion that it’s the end of the world.
What’s worse is the far-left news publication, The Guardian, might have just eclipsed the most ridiculous of delusional claims about President Trump – and mind you, it’s only been less than a week into his presidency.
They recently warned that President Donald Trump intends to obliterate the human rights movement, knocking humanity all the way back to the pre-Civil Rights era.
It’s quite a bold statement, but if you have any knowledge of history and how democracy works, then you’d know that’s not even remotely possible – even if he hypothetically wanted to – which he doesn’t.
The Guardian’s Natalie Nougayrede recently posed this threat when she wrote,
“Global alliances, international trade and even fact-based discussion risks unleashing a tsunami that could sweep away the human rights movement as it has so far existed.”
She also falsely wrote that President Trump,
“overtly despises the notions of fundamental rights and human dignity,”
But what about bringing jobs back to the U.S.? Does that also align with your irresponsible agenda to slander him?
Breitbart’s Thomas Williams noted:
“The Guardian doesn’t explain how Mr. Trump intends to bring about his draconian human rights apocalypse, or even what this might look like, but assures readers that it will happen soon.
Across the world, the article states, ‘imprisoned dissidents, repressed journalists, censored writers, hounded political oppositions, stigmatised minorities are all set to lose out.’ As a defender of free speech and a vocal advocate of dissidents, however, Mr. Trump seems poorly poised to turn on them.
In point of fact, Nougayrède’s article is long on insults and short on facts, a trademark of modern Leftist discourse. So, according to the writer, Mr. Trump is ‘a crude bigot who has targeted women and religious and ethnic groups” as well as “a blatant racist, demagogue and would-be dictator.’
If Ms. Nougayrède’s essay were a high school homework assignment, her teacher might well laud her creativity, while counseling her to tone down the hyperbole. As a news piece, however, it fails completely.
It is true that Mr. Trump’s understanding of human rights, as well as the best means for defending and promoting them, may differ considerably from the Guardian’s.
The President has defended the right to life of unborn children, for instance, and promised to nominate pro-life judges to the Supreme Court and defund abortion giant Planned Parenthood, but these are not the sort of human rights that the Guardian cares about.
Neither is the right to religious liberty, which President Trump champions. One of his first acts as President was to issue an executive order to protect conscience rights and minimize the economic and moral burden of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
Despite the Guardian’s prophecy that “the very words ‘human rights’ are likely to disappear altogether from the official vocabulary’ of western diplomacy, this is not likely to happen any time soon.
What seems far more probable is that the Trump presidency will fuel a vigorous discussion on human rights and how best to guarantee them.”
The real tsunami here is the disillusioned writers who irresponsibly fear-monger and race bait their readers into blind, anti-Trump sheep.
Then, of course, they march.
After all, liberals have no original thoughts of their own – they just regurgitate false notions from failing publications that say and claim anything because they’re desperate to stay in business.