New York Times goes bipolar on Trump’s border control success
By Thomas Lifson www.americanthinker.com
I confess to a tiny drop of pity for Trump-haters within the tidal wave of amusement I experience watching them deal with the successes President Trump already has experienced. The worst of it for TDS sufferers right now must be the border, where within mere weeks, and to the enthusiastic approval of the American people, President Trump has stanched the flow of millions of unvetted foreigners down to an almost undetectable trickle.
Consider the dilemma this creates for the Ministry of Progressive Propaganda, also known as the New York Times. What should be the Party Line (Progs always need a Party Line to know how to react to new developments) when the steps Trump has taken already have been anathemized by them, yet the results are popular and resonating with the public in a way that surely induces shudders and could lead to doubts about the wisdom of electing Democrats?
The stress has led to the TDS-infected Times going bipolar, in the words of a friend of mine. Here’s the headline:
How Trump’s Hard-Line Tactics Are Driving Down Migration
Hard-line is bad and migration is good, according to most Times readers, so the tone is one of concern verging into alarm. The subhead is where they go bipolar:
Building on Biden-era policies, President Trump is strong-arming regional leaders, deploying military force and shredding decades of precedents when it comes to the U.S.-Mexico border.
“Building on Biden-era policies” right from the start of the article? Who actually believes that? Only people paying no attention. Trump’s hard-line tactics and strong-arming leaders are shredding decades of precedent. And yet, he’s building on Biden era policies? No explanation about how those awful tactics of 2021–2024 work under Trump but not Biden. If Trump were actually building upon Biden’s policies, thousands of people would still be crossing the border daily, and “migrant caravans” would be being organized, underwritten by taxpayer funds laundered through USAID and NGOs.
The Gray Lady wants to have it both ways throughout the article.
Now, President Trump has choked off the flow of migrants even more drastically, solidifying a sweeping turn in U.S. policy with measures that many critics, especially those on the left, have long considered politically unpalatable, legally untenable and ultimately ineffective because they don’t tackle the root causes of migration.
Lots more negative words like “drastically”, “unpalatable”, and “ineffective” to soften the good news of “paradigm change.” “Ultimately ineffective” translates to: “We (dear readers and Times staffers) are correct, but you just need to be patient.”
A bit further in, the Times tries to make its case:
Mr. Trump’s hardened stance on migration is, in some ways, an extension of Mr. Biden’s moves at the end of his term. Mr. Biden had promoted less-restrictive policies that swelled the number of migrants entering the United States during his first three years in office.
But as the backlash to the surge grew, Mr. Biden barred asylum for migrants if they crossed illegally and pressured the Mexican and Panamanian governments to do more to curb migrant flows, delivering to his successor a relatively calm situation at the border.
This executive order was signed while Biden was still running for re-election, and at the time the Times reported that he claimed he was “forced” to do so by those terrible Republicans, who were completely dominated by Donald Trump.
In remarks at the White House, Mr. Biden said he was forced to take executive action because Republicans had blocked bipartisan legislation….
So, Trump is following those few policies Biden said he was “forced” to adopt by Trump’s GOP minions, and somehow that means that Trump is “building upon Biden-era policies.”
This is pathetic, but it’s all that Democrat propagandists have got.
No comments:
Post a Comment