President Trump Vs. The
New York Times
by
R.E. Prindle
The press
continues to represent President Trump as a fool. The New York Times, one of the most
unbalanced of the President’s critics ran an article by Peter Baker titled ‘Will
Trump Take Brutally Forthright Advice From General McMaster?’
The Times
seems to think the President and McMaster are equals rather than superior and
subordinate. Trump is not only the Chief
Executive of the US but he is also the Commander In Chief of the military. That means he has a higher rank than any General
or Admiral of the armed forces. Each and
everyone including McMaster, a Liberal plant, owes the President not only
obedience but the respect due to a higher rank.
General
McMaster does not speak brutally to his Commander In Chief. Hopefully all his advice as a subordinate
will be given in a forthright manner so as to leave no room for
misunderstanding but respectfully. If
what Mr. Baker of the Times means by his title is whether President Trump could
take in new information or a different representation of facts, I think the
answer is a resounding ‘Yes.’
Consider
that as a builder Mr. Trump had to rely on a number of specialists to construct
his buildings who knew much more of their specialty than Mr. Trump did. For instance, if Mr. Trump wanted a feature
that was impossible it was the architect’s duty to say whether or not the
request could be done and suggest an alternative if it couldn’t. There is no reason to suppose the President
would be less reasonable in dealing with General McMaster’s suggestions not
based on alternative politics.
However, if,
as the Times’ Mr. Baker suggests, McMaster disagrees with President Trump’s
ideas on immigration that is outside the field of a military man’s competence
and becomes a mere different political opinion.
I hope Mr. Baker can tolerate my own blunt disagreement with his own
opinion. However, as always the Times
prints opinion pieces and calls them news.
Always the pieces are not only critical of the President but demeaning
to him.
Mr. Baker
goes on to quote a Max Boot of the CFR, obviously Mr. Baker considers him an
ultimate authority:
The difficulty is that Trump has a lot of crazy ideas in his head- like we should steal Iraq’s oil or we should kill the relatives of terrorists or we will ban Muslims coming here.’
Was
President Trump responsible for that, or were the Iraqi people crazy too?
As far as
killing your enemy’s relatives, historically this is more or less de riguer
while ISIS seems to practice it along with other medieval barbarities. The logic being those seeking revenge are
eliminated. While I personally do not
endorse the practice along with Mr. Baker does he mean to call Moslems crazy
too?
That makes
his third crazy idea difficult to grasp.
Mr. Boot of the CFR thinks President Trump is crazy for wanting to ban Muslims. As various surveys point out a strong
majority of Americans agree with the President and disagree with Mr. Boot of
the CFR and Mr. Baker of the NYT. Are
they, or we rather, crazy too?
Mr. Baker
approvingly says that Mr. McMaster ‘brutally’ disagrees with the President on
this issue, which is beyond his competence.
This is strange, need I say very strange because Moslem paramilitaries,
commonly referred to as terrorists by those of Baker and Boot stripe are a
danger everywhere. As paramilitaries
these Moslems are busily at work in most countries of Europe and the US causing
discord and civil strife.
For some
inexplicable reason, Messrs. Baker, Boot and McMaster and Liberals in general
refuse not only to acknowledge Moslem asymmetrical warfare but deny it and that
makes them accomplices. Not to be snide,
but one wonders how much they are being subsidized to deny the reality. Is the New York Times on the take?