Just as it seemed Donald Trump was settling into the Presidency and ushering in a new era of smooth prosperity, his mouth struck. Again.

In a now infamous episode, the President is reported to have referred to El Salvador, Haiti, and a collection of countries in Africa as “shitholes” during a bipartisan meeting on immigration.

The President denies it, but there’s a consensus in the media that the word did, in fact, leave his lips.

It’s certainly unpresidential language, and language I myself will not attempt to defend other than to say that you can acknowledge the corruption and institutional shortcomings of developing nations without believing the victims of said corruption and institutional shortcomings are bad people.

After all, when Barack Obama referred to Libya as a “shitshow,” surely it wasn’t an attack on Libyans themselves. And when Hillary Clinton referred to millions of Americans as “deplorables,” surely . . . er, nevermind.

But transgressions by fellow Democrats are all but irrelevant to a press hellbent on toppling Number 45 by any means necessary, an effort occasionally abetted by the President’s habit of shooting from the hip.

Seizing on Trump’s “shithole” moment to prove his bigotry, however, is an odd strategy for a profession with a penchant for shamelessly labeling entire portions of the United States as, well, shithole-like.

Examples abound, but my personal favorite is a Politico piece by Michael Lind lovingly titled “How the South Skews America,” in which the author spends paragraph after paragraph lamenting the fact that Southerners are standing in the way of America’s evolution into mediocre socialism.

“A lot of the traits that make the United States exceptional these days are undesirable, like higher violence and less social mobility. Many of these differences can be attributed largely to the South . . . Minus the South, the rest of the U.S. probably would be more like Canada or Australia or Britain or New Zealand—more secular, more socially liberal, more moderate in the tone of its politics and somewhat more generous in social policy.”

Translation: without the shithole South, we could be the Europe our forefathers never intended! One can only imagine Lind’s livid reaction to the President’s comments, and his effort to prevent this country’s descent into the chaos caused by unchecked immigration across the Pond.

An equally bigoted, though less eloquent, rant at The Hill titled “America is held hostage by flyover states” describes the citizens of Middle and Southern America thusly:

“They either want their country back or they’re tired of being ignored. They regularly blurt the latter as justification for electing right-wing theocrat/closed minds, austerity minded, cultural fascists to office . . . They hate progress. Their idea of American values is straight from circa 1870.”

Make no mistake, every American alive today would consider the America of 1870 a shithole.

Both of the aforementioned examples pale in comparison, however, to the New Republic’s “A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR SEPARATING BLUE STATES FROM RED,” a self-explanatory screed that longs for a future when blue-state elites will be free from their political associations with the Neanderthals that make up the vast majority of the country, that gigantic red region of Shitholia that dominated the electoral map in November of 2016.

The author opens with a lengthy, unabridged version of the classic claim that “red states spend more than they pay in,” a narrative parroted by the press as evidence that most of America is essentially a shithole.

It’s a particularly hypocritical argument given that it is simply the flip-side of the right’’s “welfare queen” trope brandished by Democrats for years as evidence of Republican racism. But that hasn’t stopped the mainstream media from devoting precious headlines to the idea that conservative America is on the permanent dole.

From the Washington Post’s “Blue states already subsidize red states. Now red states want even more.” to the New York Times’s “Robbing Blue States to Pay Red,” America’s mainstream media titans savagely and frequently mock supposed red state poverty to further their own elitist political agendas.

Of course, such calculations are complex and are dependent on numerous factors that can be reconfigured to arrive at a number of outcomes. And nevermind the fact that red states are now forced to receive the hundreds of thousands fleeing the high-crime, high-tax blue-state socialist utopias, or that our benevolent benefactors threw a Category 5 tantrum when the recent tax bill ended red-state subsidization of skyrocketing blue state taxes.

Facts no longer matter in the Age of Trump, hence the idea that Texas is basically Haiti.

Comparing such analyses with the current outrage over Trump’s recent comments reveals a particularly tragic personality trait among the modern left and, by extension, the modern mainstream media: they are openly putting the interests of foreigners over those of their own countrymen, and would rather feed a family from El Salvador than a family from Mississippi.

It is beyond ironic that the very people who scream “racism!” at the drop of a hat, often unjustly, are so brazenly open about their disdain for those who happened to be born and raised in a different part of the country.

But it’s not surprising; after all, their jig is up.

As Donald Trump’s election clearly demonstrated, the country is growing wise to the mainstream political press’s habitual hypocrisy.

Even the uneducated troglodytes in Kansas and Alabama, who cling to their guns and religion, recognize that when Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper go on vacation, it isn’t to El Salvador.