The LA Times Looks Back on Trump's First Year

In one of their 01/21/18 editorials, the LA Times discusses "Year One of the Trump era." They begin with this assertion: (Trump) "is temperamentally and intellectually unfit to serve as president of the United States." Temperamentally, Trump is, among other things, a brash New Yorker. It is rather clear that he does not care about political correctness. And, he has no hesitation in fighting back against an extremely hostile mainstream media and extremely hostile Left. Would I, at times, prefer that he be more circumspect in his speech? I have said so on various occasions. Intellectually unfit? That is elitist nonsense. Jimmy Carter is said to have been one of brightest Presidents - and not a very good one. Trump managed to defeat 16 Republican challengers in the primaries. Not because he is stupid; rather, he was able to read the American people and what their concerns were.

Still, the Times says they will take a look at what Trump has actually done. They start with this: "In brief, it's bad." So, let's see. The Times: "Despite some early drama over NATO's budget, Trump has followed a fairly traditional policy of supporting the postwar alliance." So, not bad then? "...Trump signed legislation imposing sanctions on Russia." Also not bad. Trump "approved selling lethal weapons to help Ukraine fend off pro-Russia separatists." Still not bad.

The Times says Trump "no doubt deserves some of the credit for routing Islamic State from strongholds in Iraq and Syria," although they claim he was building on Obama's policies. Even if true, Trump let the military loose so they could win. In any event, still not bad. The Times gives Obama credit for the booming economy (unemployment down, stocks up, wages up), but begrudgingly adds "those trends have continued on his (Trump's) watch, boosted by his business friendly agenda." So, still not bad. They do say there is "wide income inequality," but that was true under Obama already.

Then this: "Trump has been successful in quietly reshaping the judiciary...most (of his judicial appointments) have been the sort of well-credentialed conservative jurists that any GOP president would be likely to appoint." While Leftists would not be happy with conservative jurists, those appointments would hardly qualify as Trump doing something "bad." In fact, by now I am sure most of you are wondering where all the bad stuff is; and in light of all the good things noted above, I think that we can say that the Times should have said Trump's first year was "good," or, at worst, "mixed" (like most Presidents). Were the Times editorial writers being disingenuous in saying Trump's first year was "bad," or, are they "intellectually unfit" for the writing of logical editorials? But let us move on.

Let's get right to some of the things done by Trump and his Administration that the Times believes are, in fact, bad. "Attorney General Jeff Sessions (ended) federal oversight of troubled police departments." Are there bad cops? Sure, as in any other profession or endeavor. But Sessions and Trump have declared war on criminal gangs, such as MS-13. Personally, I prefer a war on gangs over a war on cops. But that's just me. Sessions endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government to seize someone's property even when not charged with a crime. On this, the Times is correct. While asset forfeiture has been used to deprive criminal gangs of drugs and money, it has also been used against individuals never convicted of any crime. It is improper and unjust in a free society.

The Times complains about Trump "appointing foxes to oversee such henhouses as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau." This complaint is akin to the comment about Trump's judicial appointees. The Times may not like the appointments, but conservatives do. A difference in political ideology does not make these appointments "bad." The Times is unhappy with what they call Trump's "opposition to immigration." That is just a blatant lie often stated by those on the Left. Trump opposes "illegal" immigration as do most conservatives; but the Left makes no distinction between "legal" and "illegal."

Then the Times claims that Trump ended DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program put into place by Obama. This assertion is only partly true. When Obama issued his executive order putting DACA in place, he essentially acknowledged that he did not have the legal authority to do so. Trump, Obama's intellectual inferior to the Times, saw the inappropriateness of a President trying to make laws that is entirely within the purview of the Congress. In ordering the end of DACA, Trump said he wanted to encourage Congress to actually carry out their responsibilities and finally deal with the issue of immigration, and would defer enforcement of his order until at least the end of March in order to give Congress time to act. It seems that the intellectually inferior Trump understands the responsibilities of the three different branches of government better than do Obama and the LA Times.

The Times: Trump "has been less than supportive of the United Nations, withdrawing the U.S. from UNESCO and cutting aid to the agency that works with Palestinian refugees..." Now, the best that I can say about the Times is they have entered the arena of lunacy. The Palestinian relief agency, UNRWA, should not even exist 70 years after it was established. Every descendant of every refugee, or others who entered Gaza and the West Bank, are treated as "refugees" - and apparently will be in perpetuity. It is nonsense. Worse, UNRWA works hand in glove with Hamas, whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel. UNESCO is the UN agency that declared the holiest Jewish sites to be Palestinian. I thank G-d for Trump (and Nikki Haley) acknowledging the truth about these UN agencies.

The Times: Trump's "decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital seems certain to damage the prospects for peace in the region." Trump's intellect clearly outshines the "intellects" who wrote this editorial. The Times editorial writers actually believe that the continued appeasement of the Palestinians will achieve peace, as if that approach of the last 70 years has worked so well. The appeasement has only encouraged the Palestinians to engage in war after war, terrorist attack after terrorist attack, and missile attack after missile attack. For years I have argued that we need a President who will tell the truth to the Palestinians, because as long as the Palestinians only hear fairy tales and lies there will be no movement towards peace. Trump is the President we have needed because Trump is the President to tell the truth about Israel and the Palestinians.

The Times' editorial did discuss some other issues. However, I think it is fairly clear at this point that the Times has no support for their proposition that Trump's first year, in brief, has been "bad." Nor is there support for their allegation of Trump's intellectual unsuitability for the office of President. I would, however, like to see more honest, logical and well reasoned editorials by the Times - assuming they are intellectually up to the task.