” He is harmful in expression, document and action”.
” He puts personal over state”.
He detests the laws that govern us.
Thus begins Thursday’s New York Times newspaper, dangerously casting the comments against a black-and-white picture of an American flag fluttering in the background. The Times presents these charges with the gravitas of a funeral, much like Moses ascends a mountain with marble tablets in hand. In fact, the Times has proven it’s totally unfit to assess the health of presidential hopefuls, whether it’s Joe Biden or Donald Trump.
Less than a week before the first presidential debate of 2024, if the Times had been able to inform the American people about Joe Biden’s heath, they would not have been misled. The Times called clips of Biden’s miscues “deceptive” and “misleading”, parroting the White House’s tale about” low fakes” and denouncing “wild and false promises”.
Earlier this year, in the midst of Robert Hur’s review and Biden’s gaffe-laden response, the Times newspaper committee said Biden “must do better”. Despite referencing the president’s age and infirmities, the Times did n’t question Biden’s fitness for the presidency. If not in 2020, therefore undoubtedly in February 2024, it should have. Otherwise, the editorial board urged Biden to “do more to demonstrate to the people that he is fully capable of holding office until he reaches the age of 86 .”
The Times journal board’s writing in this manner was deceptive or insane. Biden was” not fully capable of holding office until age 86,” according to everyday citizens who had access to far less information than the Times ‘ editors ( whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate, and some long-held values ). However, these people were vilified or also called obscene, even after The Wall Street Journal reported that Biden was” slipping.”
The Times journalistic board’s repeated requests for Biden to withdraw after his conversation crisis fail to give the paper any reliability. Because it now views him as unelectable because he can no longer express the fundamental communist ideas, the board called for him to leave because it already knew he was inadequate.
Trump’s unfitness for business editor from The Times also undermines its credibility. It petulantly repeats the rest about Trump’s “very good people on both sides” feedback. After waiting seven years, Snopes just fact-checked this fabricated fabrication, and Trump repeatedly stated that he was speaking about people on both sides of the controversy over destroying old statues, not about white supremacists or Nazis. The Times even said Trump’s telling the Proud Boys to” stand up and walk down” in a September conversation was “literally” an attempt to flood the Capitol Building on Jan. 6, which is quite an odd use of the term “literally”.
Before making personal attacks on Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito two sentences later, The Times continues to criticize Trump for” subvers ] the rule of law.” Trump is turning to compassionate judges, according to the Times, who is” not content to work within the law to support himself.” Working outside the rules, however, means taking a case to the Supreme Court, which is the absolute description of working within the laws.
Of course, the newspapers even denounces Trump’s “disregard for democracy”. The Times eventually makes the claim that the will of primary voters may be overturned, saying that” the Republican Party is making its decision next year,” but it’s unclear what exactly the Times means by “democracy” around. Really, the choice has already been made, and it was made by the people, never the group.  ,
The Times just makes the most vehement objections to Trump because he is a dramatic oddity, not because he is a Republican, is perhaps the most deceptive argument the editorial makes against him. A curious readers would soon wonder if there was ever a time when the Times described the Republican Party as “great,” even though the editorial board refers to it as “once great.” Glowing links to Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney follow.
However, Reagan’s position on contraception must have been quickly forgotten by the Times. Reagan reportedly remarked,” I’ve noticed that everyone who is for pregnancy has already been born.” Reagan expressed lament for signing a striking California abortion bill. Reagan would become vilified if he were to run for president now given the editorial board’s dramatic pro-abortion stance.
The simplest explanation is that these men ( who lost three national tribes to Democratic candidates ) no longer represent a political risk to leftist goals if the Times portrays the former three Republicans as heroic politicians.
Even thus, it should be noted that Times ‘ view of Romney in 2012 was not so excellent. Romney was described as a” class hero” who was attempting to pit the wealthy against the bad for political gain in a 2012 Times newspaper. It accuses him of “bone-chilling skepticism and vile smugness,” which is odd given that readers are now taught that Trump is the only right-leaning politician with those traits.
Another 2012 Times journal asserted that” Romney has a problem with adult electors”, blasting Romney for his roles on abortion, contraception, and when life begins. Romney made fun of his comments about Russia following the first presidential debate, saying,” His comments either demonstrate a disturbing lack of knowledge about foreign affairs or just savage politics. Either way, they are foolish and undeserving of a major national candidate”.
The purpose of mentioning this is to highlight how dishonest the Times is when it demonizes Republicans so it can describe Trump as the social arch-villain. One of the biggest lies in the media is that if a Republican candidate were only moderate enough, they would support him and give him the same amount of congenial coverage as Democrats. But the internet favor just Joe Biden “moderates”, politicians who support abortion until baby, gender ideology and the amputation of children, unhindered illegal immigration, and out-of-control investing.
Even if a Republican held these kinds of positions, the media would still demonize him if he threatened to undermine Democrats ‘ hold on power. Regardless of who the Republican nominee is, the left does n’t intend to let go anytime soon.
Joshua Monnington works for The Federalist as an assistant editor. He graduated from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and previously worked as an editor for Regnery Publishing.
