The meltdown of the American legacy media is now complete. Conservatives are sadly aware of the decline of The New York Times, the supposed "newspaper of record," as the benchmark for legacy media in general.
Now, with an election that threatens the status quo for the establishment, the curtain has finally been completely pulled back, leaving no room for imagination about the condition and intention of establishment journalism.
Case in point: an editorial from The New York Times, remarkable not just in the absence of any sort of effort to appear sober in its assessment of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, but a shocking (even for them) screed targeting his supporters.
"How Can America Recover from Donald Trump?" A strange headline for the editorial considering Mr. Trump has not presided over a record number of Americans dropping out of the workforce, an increase in the number of blacks thrown into poverty, or the rise of a zombie terrorist army scorching the earth and committing genocide.
Considering the dire condition of our country and the world, if one was concerned about recovering from someone, President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton should be at the top of the list. Instead, The New York Times offers up an unhinged diatribe hoping for Mr. Trump to "go down in flames," and then noting, "But while that will solve an immediate problem, a larger one will remain. The message of hatred and paranoia that is inciting millions of voters will outlast the messenger. The toxic effects of Trumpism will have to be addressed."
Really? As though "Trumpism" exists and it's a virus, or perhaps a disease? Shall we isolate people with this condition who dare to challenge the status quo? Shall we send to re-education camps those who have the gall to finally reject an establishment, including the legacy media, that has protected those responsible for an economic disaster, helping those who perpetuate a culture of lies and corruption?
Historically, arrest and "re-education" have been the preferred choices of leftists worldwide, so it's no surprise the notion seeps into their panicked diatribes today.
The editorial is the hallmark of projection, or the assignment of your intentions and beliefs to others. They complain about "hatred" from Mr. Trump, yet how about The New York Times editorial opening with an idiotic and vile comparison of Mr. Trump to the Hindenberg (I can hear it now in the editorial board room, "Yeah, great idea! It's a Nazi thing and people died!") to going after his supporters in a vein that would make Mr. McCarthy quite proud.
Their main complaint? Mr. Trump's policies on immigration, which are directly linked, during this time of world war, to his national security platform. His proposal to pause immigration from nations with a history of terrorism, and the implementation of an ideological values test for those seeking visas are things that apparently pushed The New York Times into the abyss.
"[Trump] says he wants to bar immigrants from most of the world, except for a few who pass religious and ideological tests. "Extreme vetting," he calls it, bringing the Alien and Sedition Acts and McCarthyism into the reality-TV age. Yes, Mr. Trump speaks frontier gibberish. Outright nativism remains a fringe American phenomenon. ..."
The Times might be surprised to learn that a majority of Americans agree with Mr. Trump's immigration proposals. A new Morning Consult poll found most Americans, immigrants and descendants of immigrants, agree with both the pause in immigration from countries with a history of terrorism and the ideological test.
On the issue of the values test for visas, the "all voters" contingent support it 62-23 percent, while immigrants support it 61-26 percent.
On the issue of pausing immigration from countries with a history of terrorism, Morning Consult notes, "Immigrants, or children or grandchildren of immigrants, also hold similar views to the entire electorate on Trump's proposal to temporarily ban entry to the U.S. from people residing in countries with a history of terrorism. But there were small differences among those voters who differ by generation."
They find immigrants support the test 52-39 percent. First-generation immigrants support it at 68-22 percent. Second-generation support the policy 59-32 percent, while third-generation immigrants embrace it 55-34 percent.
Despite what the left and their water-carriers like The New York Times would like Americans to believe, their fellow citizens, especially immigrants, also want their families to have a future better than their own; they want to live in peace; they want to know the future will be one of their making, not one of war, fear and violence.
We know America must survive as the Founders intended, not just for ourselves but for all who come after us. The actual nativism and bigotry? Liberal policies destroying this country and her economic and cultural strengths, erasing it as an immigration option for generations to come.
So here's a news flash for Democrats, The New York Times and all the establishment apologists: Concern for our families transcends race, sex and national origin. We're Americans, and we know we deserve to survive. Wanting to live in a safe community, demanding law and order, being able to defend our homeland here and abroad, doesn't describe "hateful, paranoid nativists," it makes us good parents and decent human beings. And, yes, Trump supporters.
• Tammy Bruce, author and Fox News contributor, is a radio talk show host.