The Sunday edition of the New York Times has a separate opinion section, called "Sunday Review." The weekday Op-Ed section covers two pages. This past Sunday the Review was 10 pages, all dedicated to one topic - Donald Trump. The first page above the fold has this: "Lies, Anger, Corruption, Incompetence, Chaos, Decay." Below the fold: "End Our National Crisis. The Case Against Donald Trump. By The Editorial Board." Each page has one or more issues discussing Trump's alleged failures. In case you were wondering if the Times gave up any of those 10 pages for any pro-Trump voices, for a little balance...you're kidding, right?
Page 7 for example is titled "His Incompetent Statesmanship." The sub-headline tells us "For all the sound and fury, Trump's foreign policy has few accomplishments." The best (by which I mean most outrageous) line in the piece is this: "The troubles of the world are not all Mr. Trump's doing." Wow! That is some concession. So, maybe the Times blames the President for only 95% of the world's troubles? The Times is particularly unimpressed with the President's efforts in the Middle East, calling it "...a bag of gifts for the Israeli right, effectively undermining America's potential as a mediator with the Palestinians." There is simply no other way to put it - the editorial writers at the Times are sick!
Let's review. Obama/Biden accomplished nothing, notwithstanding their appeasement of the Arab and Muslim world. Obama/Biden asked Israel to forego developing settlements for 9 months, with the hope of forging peace talks. Israel complied. But Abbas and the Palestinians refused to negotiate during that time. However, Obama/Biden rewarded them anyway, as lame ducks in December, 2016, and sold out Israel at the UN by refusing to veto a Security Council resolution that established a Palestinian state on the 1967 (which were the 1949) borders. In other words, Obama/Biden punished our strong ally Israel, and rewarded the terrorist led Palestinian Authority, even though they refused to negotiate. Very impressive.
And Trump? Moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the Israeli capital of Jerusalem, as every recent president promised to do but never did. Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights. Trump stopped funding the PA with US taxpayer money until such time as they stop paying their people to kill Jews. And, for the first time in over a quarter of a century, Trump brought about new peace deals in the Middle East, between Israel and the UAE and Israel and Bahrain. But the Times editorial board was clearly not impressed by two Arab countries recognizing Israel and establishing normal relations, as they made no mention of it. Apparently, peace is no good. And not starting new wars is no good either. See below.
Of course, the Times criticized President Trump in his dealings with North Korea. The President may not have been more successful than other presidents with North Korea, but he was no less successful either. He tried though. Ironically, the Times complains that, after promising to bring troops home from overseas, we still have troops in various locations. This, of course, is criticism for the sake of criticism. It is highly unlikely that the Times would like to see all US troops from everywhere around the globe come home. And, no mention was made that Trump is the first president in a long time to not get the US involved in any new military conflict. Because war is good?
Needless to say, the Times was quite upset with Trump pulling the US out of various international agreements. No, the editorial writers did not mention the new and better trade deal Trump negotiated with Mexico and Canada, replacing NAFTA. They did complain that Trump backed out of the Obama/Biden Iran nuclear deal. Yes, the NY Times favored giving Iran, the leading state sponsor of terror, 150 billion dollars. Obama/Biden favored international organizations. Obama/Biden put the US back in the UN Rights Council, after Bush took the US out. Trump took us out again, but no fear, Biden promises to put us back in. Why is that a problem? Let's see - the 3 newest members of the Council are China, Russia and Cuba, all stellar paragons of protecting human rights. And the anti-Semitic Council condemned Israel 85 times between 2006 and 2019 (as reported in the 10/19/20 Wall Street Journal) - which is more times than they condemned the 17 top leading human rights offenders, such as Iran, China, Russia, North Korea and 13 others combined.
A brief comment on race. Under the headline "Black Lives at Risk," the Times writes: "One of the most consequential events of the Trump era has been the roughly eight minutes that a police officer knelt on George Floyd's neck, suffocating him." What has Trump got to do with the officer kneeling on George Floyd's neck? I'm willing to bet that the Times never said that "One of the most consequential events of the Obama/Biden era was the fatal shooting of 17 year old Trayvon Martin." Or, "the fatal shooting of 18 year old Michael Brown." Are not those two deaths part of the Obama/Biden era?
Speaking of race, I believe it is fair to say that Biden's record on race is, at best, problematic. Biden opposed busing in order to accomplish school integration, calling it "the most racist concept you can come up with." He referred to Obama as "the first sort of mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean." In 1975, the Biden Amendment to a $36 billion education bill, stipulated that none of the money was to be used "to assign teachers or students to schools...for reasons of race." It was, according to the NAACP "an anti-black amendment." Edward Brooke, the Senate's only black member at the time, called it "the greatest symbolic defeat for civil rights since 1964."
Let us not forget that Biden referred to Strom Thurmond as "one of my closest friends." Thurmond opposed the major civil rights legislation of 1964. Biden: "poor kids are just as bright, just as talented, as white kids." Biden, to a group of black and Hispanic journalists: "...unlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things." And, further cementing his belief that blacks are unable to think for themselves, Biden told Charlamagne tha G-d, and his largely black audience, that "if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."
At the Trump-Biden debate, Trump was given an easy, albeit obnoxious, question by Chris Wallace, asking him to denounce white supremacy. In my opinion, Trump flubbed his answer. He should have said: "You know what, Chris, I've condemned white supremacists numerous times. I've condemned the neo-Nazis. I've condemned the Ku Klux Klan. But I'm challenging you to ask Joe Biden if he will condemn all the racist, segregationist Senators he calls friends. Will he condemn himself for his past stance on school integration? Ask him about his obvious racist comments about Obama, and blacks not being able to think for themselves. What about it, Chris?"
Incredibly, Biden recently told a reporter that the public did not deserve to know whether he would agree to expand the Supreme Court if he won - a scheme that is referred to as "packing the Court." (An aside. As the left is wont to do, the Democrats now define "court packing" to mean President Trump nominating someone to fill an actual vacancy, not expand the size of the Court. Let's be clear, the phrase "court packing" never meant filling a vacancy. And it definitely never meant trying to fill the Court with Justices who a president hopes will align with his own view of the world.)
Anyway, at Biden's recent town hall with George Stephanopoulos (are we sure it's not Snuffleupagus?), Biden said that his position on packing the Court "depends on how this (the Barrett nomination) turns out, if there's actually real, live debate on the floor (of the Senate)." Otherwise? "I'm open to considering what happens from that point on." Clearly, Biden is susceptible to pressure from his party to pack the Court. The Democrats have made it very clear - if they take the White House and the Senate, and keep the House, the rules of the game will change. They will pack the Court. They will pack the Senate with 2 or 4 new Democratic Senators by adding Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico as states, hoping to guarantee Democratic control of the Senate for the foreseeable future. If they cannot eliminate the electoral college directly, they will make an end run around it. The structure of our government will change, and it will change for one reason only - to cement the Democrats' lock on the reigns of the federal government. Remind me again - who is it that acts as a dictator?
