We live in an era of perpetual outrage because outrage distracts people from focusing on more important issues (like the fact that American workers’ real wages have been stagnant for decades thanks to deindustrialization and illegal immigration policies favored by globalists). Because some elites benefit by keeping the public distracted, the liberal media constantly bombards us with “outrageous scandals” like the story about the hunter who killed Cecil the Lion or the clothing company that marketed a sweater bearing the phrase “coolest monkey in the jungle” with a cute black child model—which sparked “outrage” until the boy’s mother shut it down.
Nick James | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
Nick James is a trial attorney in the D.C. area who formerly worked for the United States Department of Justice as an award-winning federal prosecutor.
The holiday season should be a time of joy and introspection, in which Americans bask in the innumerable freedoms that we enjoy. Yet, right after Christmas, three activist judges desecrated two of our most hallowed constitutional rights: the right to religious freedom and the right to freedom of expression.
Apparently, you can't teach an old dog a new trick. This is why, in every era of history, the elites who run the Democratic Party have always promoted and exploited lynch mob "justice" for political gain.
Like a headless turkey running around in circles, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s anti-Trump investigation is dead, even if he does not yet realize it. While his investigation stumbles onward, with life support provided by the biased media, from a legal perspective the viability of any criminal case that Mueller could possibly bring has been effectively gutted thanks to the news (suppressed for months by Mueller’s team) that the FBI’s “key agent” in both the Russia investigation and the Clinton email probe was an ardent Hillary supporter with an anti-Trump bias.
Let's get this straight: The agent who led the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s potentially illegal use of a private email server turns out to be an ardent supporter of hers who opposed Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election? And yet the mainstream liberal media, which foams at the mouth at any whiff of scandal involving Republicans and frequently publishes bogus anti-Trump news, is essentially sweeping this obvious conflict of interest under the rug? How on earth can they all get away with this?
When Trayvon Martin was killed by a "white Hispanic," President Barack Obama had a lot to say. "If I had a son," Obama reminded the nation, "he'd look like Trayvon." If the 6'3 Obama had a son, his hypothetical teenager might also look a lot like LiAngelo Ball, Cody Riley, or Jalen Hill, the three UCLA basketball players who were recently detained in China for shoplifting. According to reports, the three were caught on surveillance footage stealing luxury goods from high-end designer stores such as Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Yves Saint Laurent, while the Bruins were overseas to showcase U.S.-China sporting cooperation.
During last week’s confirmation hearing for Senator Jeff Sessions, three members of the Congressional Black Caucus staged a tawdry, theatrical performance more befitting of the Three Stooges than politicians entrusted with the important task of improving the lives of their constituents.
Over the weekend, liberals and Democrats have seized on Congressman John Lewis’ mantle as a “civil rights legend” to criticize President-Elect Trump for having the gall to acknowledge that the Democratic politician is “All talk, no action.”
Over the past several days, Democratic operatives like Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chair John Podesta, with the aid of anonymous “official sources,” have been “peddling conspiracy theories that Russians successfully hacked the election to make Donald Trump the next president.” This narrative has been loyally parroted by the liberal press, with the admittedly-biased New York Times asserting that U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and to boost Trump.
Sadly, but predictably, the usual suspects in the racial grievance industry seek to trivialize what was perhaps the greatest political revolution in the modern era by simplistically depicting President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a clash of whites against blacks. According to CNN contributor Van Jones, Trump’s defeat of Clinton represents a “whitelash against a changing country [and] a whitelash against a black presidency.” Similarly, Slate writer Jamelle Bouie has stereotyped Trump voters as men and women who are supposedly bent on the “restoration of white authority” after “eight years in which cosmopolitan America asserted its power and its influence. . . .”