This isn’t just frustrating—it’s downright dangerous. The View’s narrative is part of a larger effort by the mainstream media to mask the reality: the left’s hatred of Trump has reached a boiling point, and it’s manifesting in real threats to his life.
On The View, the assassination attempt was discussed, but not given the context it deserved. Instead of discussing the very real and growing threat posed by left-wing extremists who have been radicalized by years of Trump-bashing, the ladies of The View took a different route. They pivoted to the old narrative of “both sides” being responsible for political violence.
Alyssa Farah, a former Trump administration official, even pointed out how difficult it is to secure a golf course. Sure, that’s a logistical challenge, but is that really the point? No. The issue isn’t how hard it is to secure a golf course. The issue is that someone felt justified in trying to kill a former president. And why? Because the left-wing media, including shows like The View, have spent years demonizing Trump, portraying him as an existential threat to democracy.
Let’s not beat around the bush. The left has been spewing hatred toward Trump since he first announced his candidacy in 2015. They’ve compared him to Hitler, labeled him a dictator, and painted his supporters as dangerous extremists and deplorables. This rhetoric isn’t harmless; it’s toxic. It creates a climate where violence against Trump is seen as justifiable by some.
According to a University of Chicago poll, 26 million Americans believe that violence is acceptable to stop Trump from regaining the presidency. That’s a shocking number, but it’s not surprising when you consider how the media has consistently vilified him. And yet, The View didn’t address this alarming statistic. Instead, they took the easy way out by blaming political violence on “both sides.”
As always, The View couldn’t resist taking a swipe at Trump’s rhetoric. They implied that his tone and language somehow contribute to the violence directed at him, as if his speeches are inciting assassination attempts. This is classic gaslighting. Trump may speak bluntly, but that’s not an invitation for violence.
The real issue isn’t Trump’s rhetoric—it’s the left’s nonstop portrayal of him as a threat to democracy. For years, the mainstream media has pushed this narrative, and it’s only gotten worse. They’ve created an environment where violent acts against Trump are seen as not only acceptable but perhaps even necessary. Yet, this reality was completely ignored by the hosts of The View.
The View, like much of the mainstream media, has played a significant role in fanning the flames of hatred toward Trump. For years, they’ve dedicated segments to attacking his character, mocking his policies, and questioning his legitimacy. They’ve labeled him a tyrant, a racist, and a misogynist. Is it any wonder that some people feel justified in using violence against him?
But when the assassination attempt came up, they glossed over this fact. Instead of having an honest conversation about how the media has contributed to the climate of hate, they diverted attention to other instances of political violence, like the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, J6, and Gun Violence as a whole. While those were terrible events, they’re not part of a sustained media campaign to demonize a political figure. What’s happening to Trump is different, and it deserves to be treated as such.
The sad reality is that violence against Trump is becoming normalized. We’ve already seen multiple assassination attempts, and the media barely blinks. If this had been President Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris, the outrage would have been deafening. The media would have been calling for investigations, stricter security measures, and a crackdown on right-wing extremism. But when it’s Trump, they downplay it, offering only passing mentions before moving on to the next topic.
The left’s hate for Trump isn’t just political—it’s personal. They’ve painted him as the embodiment of evil, and for some people, that justifies violence. But the media refuses to acknowledge this. Instead, they push the narrative that political violence is an “all sides” issue, conveniently ignoring the fact that the left has spent years dehumanizing Trump.
Watching The View discuss this assassination attempt is a masterclass in media bias. Notice how they were careful with their words, never fully addressing the fact that Trump has been the target of left-wing hatred for years. Instead, they acted as though political violence is just a fact of life in modern America, something that happens to everyone.
But let’s be honest. This isn’t just happening to “everyone.” Trump has been uniquely targeted, not only by hitmen, but by the Justice System, and that’s because the left has made him their boogeyman. The media has spent years building a narrative that Trump is a threat to democracy, and now they’re reaping what they’ve sown. Yet, The View won’t admit this. They can’t, because to do so would be to acknowledge their own role in the problem.
Political violence is a serious issue, but not for the reasons The View would have you believe. The truth is that the left’s hatred of Trump has reached dangerous levels, and it’s being fueled by a media that refuses to take responsibility for the climate they’ve helped create. Shows like The View are part of the problem, not the solution.
The next time you hear them talking about political violence, pay close attention to how they frame the issue. They’ll talk about “both sides,” but they’ll never address the fact that the left’s vitriol toward Trump is what’s driving much of this violence. Until they do, we’ll continue to see more of the same: a media that downplays violence against Trump while amplifying anything that makes him look bad.
We’d love to hear your thoughts! Please comment below.
Jimmy
h/t: Steadfast and Loyal
]]>But here’s where it gets interesting: Routh is a convicted felon. In fact, he has a rap sheet that includes charges for possessing a weapon of mass destruction—yes, you read that right. Back in 2002, he was convicted in North Carolina for having a fully automatic machine gun, and that’s not where his criminal history ends. He’s been in and out of the system for years, including being the subject of an FBI investigation in 2019. So how did someone like this manage to get so close to one of the most protected individuals in America?
We know Routh was once a Trump supporter, but by 2020, his admiration for the former president had taken a dark turn. He went from supporting Trump in 2016 to calling him a “fool” and a “buffoon” in a self-published book. Even more chilling, he wrote that people were “free to assassinate Trump” for his handling of the Iran nuclear deal. This isn’t just some harmless ranting from a disgruntled citizen; this is a man with a violent past, who clearly had his sights set on the former president.
Here’s what’s even more concerning: Routh wasn’t just some isolated nutcase. He was deeply involved in current political events, including the war in Ukraine. He spoke out publicly about his support for Ukraine and even offered to join as a volunteer soldier. The New York Times reported that Routh saw the war as a black-and-white issue—good versus evil. This level of political engagement raises the question: Was Routh acting alone, or was he being influenced or even directed by someone else? Could there be more to this plot than meets the eye?
And let’s not forget—Routh had a lot of guns. His neighbors in North Carolina described him as someone to be feared, saying his house was filled with weapons. But still, despite all these red flags, he managed to get dangerously close to Trump not once, but twice. What does that say about our current security situation?
One aspect that simply can’t be ignored is Routh’s obsession with Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. This was a major turning point for him, and his rhetoric surrounding this decision is deeply unsettling. In his writings, he explicitly encouraged violence against Trump over this issue, suggesting that Trump’s actions justified assassination. Is it possible that this wasn’t just personal vendetta, but part of a larger political agenda? Could foreign actors, like Iran, be quietly pulling the strings behind these attempts?
Let’s be clear—Iran has never hidden its disdain for Donald Trump. After all, he’s the man who ordered the killing of Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s top general. They’ve been out for revenge ever since, and they’ve made no secret of their threats against both Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Pompeo himself admitted that Iran had threatened his life, and he remains under government protection because of it. Could Routh be a pawn in a much larger game, one that involves foreign governments and organized plots to take out Trump?
How is it possible that someone with Routh’s background was able to get so close to the former president? This isn’t just a failure of security; this is a systemic breakdown. Routh’s gun had an obliterated serial number—this was no spur-of-the-moment decision. He planned this. He waited. And for 12 hours, he was just steps away from Trump’s golf club, poised to strike.
In an era where political violence seems to be escalating by the day, this incident should be a wake-up call. Former President Trump is one of the most targeted figures in the world. He should be receiving the highest level of protection, yet here we are, witnessing not one, but two close calls in just a few months. And let’s not forget, Routh wasn’t just targeting Trump. According to reports, he also had his sights set on President Biden and Republican candidate Nikki Haley.
Governor Ron DeSantis has announced that Florida will conduct its own investigation into the assassination attempt, but is that enough? Shouldn’t we be looking deeper into how a convicted felon with a history of weapons charges was able to slip through the cracks? And if Routh isn’t acting alone, who else is involved?
This brings us to the most chilling question of all: Is Ryan Wesley Routh just one piece of a much bigger puzzle? His political leanings, his connections to Ukraine, his violent rhetoric about Iran, and his criminal history all point to something far more complex than a lone gunman with a grudge. Could this be the beginning of a broader conspiracy to take down Trump?
We’ve seen this before in history. When powerful figures get too close to shaking up the establishment, attempts are made to silence them. Trump, whether you love him or hate him, represents a threat to the status quo. His America First policies, his rejection of globalist agendas, and his willingness to stand up to foreign adversaries like Iran have made him a prime target. The question now is: How far will his enemies go to take him out?
We can’t afford to shrug this off as just another crazy guy with a gun. There are too many unanswered questions, too many coincidences, and too many red flags to ignore. Is Ryan Routh the tip of the iceberg? And if so, who’s pulling the strings?
This assassination attempt should concern every American, regardless of where you stand politically. The fact that a man with Ryan Routh’s background was able to get so close to former President Trump is an indictment of our current security measures. But more than that, it raises serious questions about whether we’re witnessing the early stages of something far more sinister.
Is this just the beginning of a coordinated effort to take down Trump, orchestrated by foreign powers or domestic enemies? We can only hope that the investigations underway will reveal the truth. But until then, we must remain vigilant and demand that our leaders take these threats seriously. Because next time, we may not be so lucky.
WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW.
JIMMY
h/t: Steadfast and Loyal
]]>Let me make something crystal clear: ABC’s Linsey Davis and her co-moderator David Muir were not debate moderators. They were liberal mouthpieces, hand-picked to stack the deck against Donald Trump. And now, thanks to Davis’ own admission, we have proof of what we already suspected—the entire debate was rigged. What’s even more infuriating is the fact that they don’t even try to hide it anymore.
In a post-debate interview with the Los Angeles Times, Linsey Davis came right out and said it: They fact-checked Trump because CNN didn’t do a good enough job during an earlier debate between Trump and Biden. Let that sink in. According to Davis, liberals were upset that CNN moderators didn’t challenge Trump enough, so ABC decided they would “fix” that. How? By turning a supposedly fair debate into a biased attack on Trump.
What’s even worse is that Davis admitted she and Muir didn’t feel the need to fact-check Kamala Harris at all. You read that right: Trump gets hammered with five fact-checks, while Harris gets off scot-free. This isn’t just unfair; it’s a blatant attack on democracy. The role of a moderator is to be neutral, to give both candidates an equal platform to make their case. But when ABC decided they were going to be the purveyors of truth, they crossed a line. Who do these people think they are?
Let’s break this down further. In a debate, if you’re going to fact-check one candidate, you need to fact-check both. Otherwise, you’re not moderating a debate; you’re controlling the narrative. Davis and Muir knew exactly what they were doing. They set out to put Trump on trial while giving Harris a free pass. That’s not journalism—that’s activism.
And it wasn’t just the fact-checking. The moderators made sure Trump had no chance to defend himself. Every time Trump pointed out Harris’s record, especially on abortion, the moderators would swoop in to “correct” him. But as we now know, many of those “corrections” turned out to be flat-out wrong. In one viral moment, Davis told Trump, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” She was referring to Trump’s comments about former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s disgusting remarks about late-term abortions. And guess what? Davis was wrong. Several states have late-term abortion laws that allow this, yet Harris wasn’t called out on any of her lies about abortion restrictions.
As Trump himself said, it wasn’t a debate; it was three against one. Republicans everywhere saw it for what it was—a coordinated effort to take Trump down. And now, thanks to Davis, we know it was deliberate. She admitted they felt pressured by liberal backlash from the CNN debate. So instead of moderating fairly, they decided to lean into the liberal narrative and go after Trump.
This is disgusting. Moderators are supposed to facilitate a debate, not control it. But Davis and Muir weren’t interested in a real debate. They were interested in protecting Kamala Harris and taking shots at Trump. It was a rigged game from the start, and now they’ve admitted it.
Now let’s talk about Kamala Harris. Harris made several false statements during the debate, including blatant lies about abortion laws. Yet, Davis and Muir didn’t seem interested in fact-checking her. Why? Because Harris is their candidate, and they were there to protect her.
One of the most egregious examples was Harris’s claim that late-term abortions are illegal in most states. This is patently false, as even ABC’s own map shows several states have no restrictions on how late an abortion can be performed. Yet Harris got a free pass. Where was the fact-check? Where was the “journalistic integrity” we keep hearing about?
Let’s be clear: If you’re going to fact-check Trump on everything he says, you better be ready to fact-check Harris as well. But they didn’t. And now they’re admitting they never intended to.
This isn’t just about one debate. This is part of a larger war on Trump by the mainstream media. From the moment he announced his candidacy, the media has been out to get him. And they don’t even try to hide it anymore. Whether it’s CNN, ABC, or The New York Times, the message is the same: Get Trump.
But this latest admission from ABC should be headline news everywhere. It proves what we’ve known all along—the media is rigged against Trump. They aren’t interested in fairness or truth; they’re interested in pushing their liberal agenda. And now they’re admitting it.
Every American, whether you support Trump or not, should be outraged by this. The media is supposed to hold power accountable, not take sides. When moderators decide to become activists, the whole democratic process is undermined.
This isn’t just about Trump; this is about the future of political discourse in this country. If the media can rig a debate against one candidate, what’s stopping them from doing it again? If we allow this kind of bias to go unchecked, we’re letting the media decide who wins elections, not the American people.
It’s time to stand up and demand accountability. Linsey Davis admitted the debate was rigged, and yet the mainstream media remains silent. Where are the headlines? Where’s the outrage? If the roles were reversed and Trump had received such favorable treatment, you can bet the media would be in an uproar. But because it was Harris who got a free pass, they’re fine with it.
This is the moment to call out media bias for what it is—an assault on democracy. ABC’s Linsey Davis and David Muir betrayed their responsibility to the American people by turning the debate into a one-sided attack on Trump. This should never happen in a democratic society, and we must demand better.
We know the media will continue to protect their chosen candidates, but we will not be silenced. It’s time to hold them accountable for their blatant bias and make sure this never happens again.
We’d love to hear your thoughts! Please comment below.
Jimmy
h/t: Steadfast and Loyal
]]>