Each
weekday, a Boston-area college radio station that I regularly listen
to pauses their musical programming for an hour to air the syndicated
show Democracy
Now!
What's labeled as underground journalism or alternative news free
from corporate influence is actually nothing more than far-left
propaganda. Host Amy Goodman (whose gravelly voice is unbearable)
pushes a liberal agenda by not only selecting topics and guests that
further her favorite causes, she manipulates the very language of
her reporting so that it's biased against conservatives.
While
talk show host Rush Limbaugh clearly stated his political leanings,
Amy Goodman pretends to be nothing more than an objective
investigative journalist just doing her job to uncover the truth.
Like a coward, she often lets her guests make some of the more
inflammatory statements that push her agenda while she simply nods in
agreement.
Ironically,
Amy Goodman's disdain for what I'd call western capitalist values
regularly places her in the same camp as those who would like nothing
more than to destroy many of the freedoms she supposedly fights for.
Her early reports on America's involvement in the Ukraine War had her
siding with Vladimir Putin because how dare the west try to secretly
influence a former Soviet republic.
Of
course, the biggest target of Democracy
Now!
in recent years has been Israel. Amy Goodman's sympathy for
oppressed people is so strong, that she allies herself with those who embrace
radical Islam. In her warped left-wing mind, white western people
must be wrong and brown people from exotic lands must be correct.
She disproportionately criticizes free western nations like Israel
and the United States because she can. There's not as much zeal when
it comes to highlighting the atrocities of oppressive dictatorships or
intolerant Muslim fanatics, however.
Amy
Goodman also links the rhetoric of President Donald Trump to an
increase in hate crimes. Of course, she talks with various “experts”
on the subject to hammer that point home but would the shoe fit if it
were on the other foot?
In May of last year, Yaron Lishinsky and Sarah
Milgrim were killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washinton
D.C. by a gunman who shouted, “Free, free Palestine!” upon being
arrested. The young Jewish couple had just left an event that was
focused on building a coalition to support Gazans. Clearly, this was
a hate crime and all the rhetoric the left had spewed against Israel
played a part in their deaths but would Amy Goodman take any sort of
responsibility for this shooting? Of course not. Democracy
Now!
featured a Jewish guest who briefly offered condolences but then proceeded to blame the shootings on Israel's treatment of the
Palestinians. Several comments on left-wing websites were more blunt
saying Yaron and Sarah got what they deserved and more “Zionists”
needed to die.
Right
after this shooting, I thought a new liberal mascot could be “Not
Me” from the comic strip Family Circus. When the parents in that
comic accused their children of mischief-making, the little ones
denied it by saying, “Not me!” and an invisible phantom by that
name was drawn as the cause of all the trouble. My idea seemed to
gain even more relevance with the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk.
I
never heard of Charlie Kirk before September 10th
of 2025 but news of his murder really bothered me. Firstly, it was
surprising to see the large audiences he attracted on college
campuses because I had long written off academia as being too
liberal. Here was a man who often spoke of moral values that
sometimes aligned with the Catholic Church's most controversial
teachings and he was actually changing hearts and minds. Secondly,
the shooting was all about silencing a voice that liberals didn't
agree with. How the left reacted to the death of Charlie Kirk was
very telling.
In
the immediate aftermath, everyone seemed shocked and saddened but
very quickly, the left's ugly side would be revealed. Some mockingly
asked, “Charlie Kirk who?” With the identity of the shooter
still unknown, more than a few liberals took joy in posting comments
and memes that said conservatives were now sweating because the
shooter might be white. Then they began to cherry-pick Charlie
Kirk's comments to paint him as a white supremacist, anti-woman and
anti-gay. No doubt some of these statements were taken out of
context and this prompted gay YouTube personality Amir
Odom to create a video that debunked the biggest lies told about
Charlie Kirk. In fact, Amir credits meeting the conservative speaker for
inspiring him to launch his own YouTube channel. I wasn't sure what
to believe since I was unfamiliar with Charlie Kirk's views, but it
became clear that many on the left abandoned decorum in order
to celebrate this man's death. Since he was killed while talking
about gun violence, they called it poetic justice. A few people on
YouTube were so disgusted by the celebration of Charlie Kirk's death,
they pledged to give up being liberal.
Some
on the left engaged in “what-about-isms” by noting the right's
lack of sympathy for the June 14, 2025 shootings of Melissa and Mark
Hortman and John and Yvette Hoffman. I think a big reason for this
disparity was the fact that Charlie Kirk was nationally known and his
murder was captured on video in front of a large crowd but if we are
to engage in what-about-isms, what about Yaron Lishinsky and Sarah
Milgrim? Their deaths were quickly forgotten by the media because it
didn't fit a certain narrative.
As
a clearer picture of Charlie Kirk's shooter started to emerge, the
left continued to twist the facts. They claimed since Tyler Robinson
was raised in a pro-Trump household and even dressed up as Trump for
Halloween once, he must be an extreme right-winger. They gleefully
asserted Charlie Kirk was killed by "one of his own" and that it was an
inside job even though children routinely rebel against their
parents' moral beliefs.
Soon they concocted a cockamamie theory that
Tyler Robinson was a far-right “groyper” who followed the
teachings of Neo-nazi Nick Fuentes. Amy Goodman loves to criticize
many of Trump's statements by prefacing his quotes with the words,
“Without proof, Donald Trump said...” In the case of the Charlie
Kirk shooting, this so-called underground journalist reported that Utah's Republican governor claimed the shooter had leftist ideology but did not share any evidence then she stated, “There's also been speculation Robinson may have been influenced by a far-right movement known as groypers which is tied to the white nationalist Nick Fuentes.” We should
rename her show Hypocrisy
Now!
for having such double standards about things not proven.
This
outlandish groyper theory was starting to fall apart as more
information emerged about the shooter but that didn't stop late night
talk show host Jimmy Kimmel from promoting it during one of his
anti-Trump monologues. With the prompting of the FCC, he was
suspended by the ABC Network. Liberals saw this as a freedom of
speech issue with many feeling Jimmy Kimmel did nothing wrong. The
talk show host returned to the airwaves a few days later to cry
crocodile tears without ever acknowledging how inappropriate his
groyper remarks were. Some liberals even accused conservatives of
behaving like the “snowflakes” the right often criticized. In
other words, “It's okay for the left to be overly sensitive and
employ cancel culture tactics but how dare the right stoop to our
level.”
Society
seems more fractured than ever because two incredibly large groups of
people hold dear very different values but in my experience, liberals
tend to think they're so much more enlightened than conservatives.
When complaining about this divisiveness, they refuse to look in the
mirror and consider that maybe, just maybe they're part of the
problem too. “Not me!”