new

 

No serious political observer believed that anything good or positive would come out of a meeting between then-President-elect Donald J. Trump and the high-minded, self-congratulatory band of editors and reporters at The New York Times when they all met in November, a few weeks after the billionaire businessman handed Hillary Clinton her second presidential defeat.

But what the heck, Trump might have been thinking, maybe something good will accidentally come of such a meeting. Maybe The Times will reverse a century’s worth of bias against anything and anybody not in line with a far-out, far-Left agenda for everything from economics to immigration to public policy.
No, in all fairness, it’s safe to say that Trump didn’t really believe any good would come from the meeting; he’s too smart, too shrewd, too savvy. Most likely, he agreed to meet because the optics were good, and maybe he thought he could pick up some intel about how his media enemy thinks, how it operates and how it can be defeated. That’s what billionaire businessmen do; that’s how they operate.

So, it’s not surprising that Trump and The Times have had a running war of words since that November meeting. And frankly, no one should expect that it’s going to end anytime soon. Trump is Trump, The Times is the Times, and the two, they aren’t a-changin’. (RELATED: To hold the mainstream media to account visit MediaFactWatch.com)

Still, it’s beneficial to point out that if there is high ground here, it’s Trump’s for the taking. The Times has a shameful public record of defending crooks, liars, thieves, terrorists and every policy and position imaginable under the sun that denigrates traditional American values and the tens of millions of Americans who hold to them. In 1922, the paper even took it easy on a rising nationalist of the era, Adolph Hitler.

Trump, on the other hand, has been branded a bigot, a racist, a misogynist and, well, Hitler, in the pages of The Times, though he has never sounded a racist tone; never supported bigotry in its various forms; has promoted women to high (and high-paying) positions in his former company; and is about the furthest you can get from being Hitler, given his humanitarianism, love for the Jewish people and capitalist proclivities.

So, when The Times tries to take Trump to task for issuing an executive order based on a 1952 law that the five previous presidents before him all used, and that Times darling President Obama used often, and for the same reasons, well, I just can’t let that slide.

In a recent editorial, The Times lambasted Trump’s executive order placing a 90-day ban on persons attempting to enter the U.S. from seven countries that are known hotbeds of terrorism. Trump, correctly, framed the order as part of his campaign pledge to keep Americans as safe as possible, a very rational, common sense position in this age of terrorism for export. For justification, see France – and San Bernardino, Boston and Orlando.

To trash an executive order singling out the very same “countries of concern” identified in similar orders issued by Obama, the Times, in a piece by “The Editorial Board,” quoted part of a memo written by a mid-level State Department careerist who claimed, comically, that the order “stands in opposition to the core American and constitutional values that we, as federal employees, took an oath to uphold.” (RELATED: Keep up with the Trump administration at WhiteHouse.news)

No such memo citing “core American and constitutional values” was initiated and circulated during the 19 times Obama issued similar executive orders “suspending entry into the United States” of certain people from the same terrorism-infested regions of the world – most of which just happen to also be predominantly Muslim countries. And as for the State Department, Trump spokesman Sean Spicer hit the nail on the head when he said of some careerists’ refusal to back the president, that they should “either get with the program or they can go.”

And no such proselytizing was forthcoming from The New York Times, either. In fact, The Times cheered Obama on, time after time, like in November 2014, when he issued an executive order granting some illegal aliens temporary legal status. In breathless praise, the paper reported:

“President Obama chose confrontation over conciliation on Thursday as he asserted the powers of the Oval Office to reshape the nation’s immigration system and all but dared members of next year’s Republican-controlled Congress to reverse his actions on behalf of millions of immigrants.”

The New York Times, along with the rest of the Washington establishment media, has no moral standing to lecture Trump about “traditional American values.” After decades of playing cheerleader for a host of counter-cultural trends, the last thing The Times and the “mainstream” media represent are “traditional America.”

Advertisements