I use the word “friends” here sincerely. I have any number of friends and family members who voted for Hillary Clinton and have been all over Facebook the last day or two confessing how literally sick they are – to their stomachs even – that a person like Donald Trump could win.
I have been trying to warn them. When one Facebook friend posted an article last week predicting a Hillary landslide, I said “not so fast.” Two weeks ago, when I was in New Jersey, I got my quasi-liberal brother to offer me 7-1 odds on a Trump victory.
When my other relatives, most of them Trump supporters, asked why I thought Trump could win, I explained that I had spent the last two days in New York watching James O’Keefe roll out his devastating series of undercover videos on Democratic dirty tricks and voter fraud.
My brother was aware of the videos, but he thought them a mere blip on the media horizon. To him they were. But as I explained, within 24 hours of its release more than 5 million people had watched the first major O’Keefe video, this one on the incitement of violence at Trump rallies.
This was three times more people than watched Anderson Cooper on a given night even during the month of October, Cooper’s best month ever. Plus, the O’Keefe videos were powerful enough to move people to action.
To be sure, the media dismissed O’Keefe’s work as they always do. Cooper, for instance, introduced the videos by sniffing at O’Keefe’s “less than stellar reputation for accuracy.” As inevitably happens, he cited no examples of O’Keefe’s inaccuracies.
Cooper then turned the task over to CNN “investigative reporter” Drew Griffin who promptly upped the libel ante by referring to O’Keefe as a “discredited conservative activist.”
Again, there was no effort to prove the “discredited” label or the “conservative” one, for that matter. O’Keefe has never endorsed a candidate or taken a public position on anything more controversial than free speech.
And although some of O’Keefe’s stings have misfired, no one has ever discredited any of his reported stories.
The same cannot be said for CNN political contributor Maria Cardona. “James O’Keefe has zero credibility,” she insisted in the panel discussion that followed Griffin’s presentation. “He is the one who did the doctored videos of Planned Parenthood, which were completely false. He is a criminal, right?”
In less than 30 seconds, Cardona undid her own “reputation for accuracy,” however dim that may be. For starters, pro-life activist David Daleiden made the videos in question.
As to whether those videos are false, those who have had stomach enough to watch Daleiden’s fifth video would surely beg to differ. Shot at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, this video shows a clinician with a valley-girl accent picking through a tray filled with the parts – a lung here, an intestine there – of a “fetal cadaver.”
In this lengthy, unedited segment, she calmly discusses the viability of these parts for resale in the fetal tissue market. Earlier in the video, the director of research explained on camera how baby part commerce helped Planned Parenthood with the “diversification of [its] revenue stream.”
I do not have a friend or relative who would knowingly support the incitement of violence at political rallies, let alone the trafficking in body parts of perfectly healthy unborn babies.
The liberals I know are fundamentally good people. Many of them live admirable lives, but far too many of them are willing to remain ignorant to preserve their self-identification as liberal, and the media are only too happy to oblige them.
Perhaps for the first time in history, thanks to alternative media journalists like O’Keefe and Daleiden, many ordinary Americans know more about their nation than do the journalists who are paid to inform them.
For the media, this alternative information stream is part of what they call “the right-wing noise machine” and Hillary calls the “vast right wing conspiracy” (VRWC).
In late 2009, on “Meet the Press,” NBC’s David Gregory raised the specter of the VRWC with former President Clinton. “As you look at this opposition on the right to President Obama, is [the VRWC] still there?” Gregory asked with a straight face. “Oh, you bet,” said Clinton. “Sure it is.”
A few weeks earlier, Gregory and his guests – Tom Friedman of the New York Times and NBC’s anchorman emeritus Tom Brokaw – were fretting openly about the VRWC’s communication stream.
In lamenting the fate of former “Green Jobs” czar Van Jones, whom the VRWC had exposed as a believer in the 9/11 “inside job” theory and a supporter of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal, Gregory worried, “You can be a target real fast.”
“A lot of people will repeat back to me and take it as face value something that they read on the Internet,” cautioned Brokaw. “And my line to them is you have to vet information.”
Not to be out-preached, Friedman countered, “The Internet is an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information, left, right, center, up, down, and requires that kind of filtering by anyone.”
By the way, the same Van Jones the White House dumped for being too extreme is now a respected CNN commentator. He served on the open sewer of a panel that dismissed O’Keefe as a fraud and a criminal.
And last night Jones was telling America, “You have people putting children to bed tonight, and they’re afraid of breakfast. They’re afraid of ‘How do I explain this to my children?’ I have Muslim friends who are texting me tonight, ‘Should I leave the country?’ I have families of immigrants that are terrified tonight.”
This is same Van Jones my good liberal friends are now listening to and believing. Like his media colleagues, if he knew anything about anything, he would have prepared them for what happened on Nov. 8.
Media wishing to interview Jack Cashill, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.