Take the Constitutional Quiz Take the Constitutional Quiz

NiceIn another two days, I will be publishing a blog that Trump has been behaving like a bully in his dealings with Mexico. (I’d do it today as well, but I don’t want to overburden my loyal followers who are kind enough to actually read what I write!)

Trump’s not the only one behaving like a bully these days.

The media is doing much the same in their treatment of Trump. Trump’s a big boy. He can take it. But that’s not the point.

Madonna may run around shouting “F___ Trump. I want to blow up the White House.” If she wants to behave like a moron, that’s her right. The media isn’t behaving much better. As Trump and his aides are quick to point out. I refer in particular to the so called liberal elite media.

Somehow, I expect more of our media. I think they need to act more responsibly. To give Trump a chance. Especially since Trump is not likely to back down on his own, especially if the media continues to provoke him, which is so, so easy to do.

But it seems like the media is just trying to . . . oh, I don’t know how best to put it, why don’t we just say . . . out-Trump Trump. I can’t see what constructive purpose that serves.

For example, Trump recently signed an Executive Order imposing greater limits on letting non-U.S. residents into the United States. Not forever and not everyone. But those already against Trump lashed out without having a clue what they were talking about. And our elitist media, who should have a clue, just flamed the fires. Irresponsibly. Consider just a few points:

Some people entering, or trying to enter, the U.S. last Saturday were stopped at airport points of entry, mostly in New York and Los Angeles. Do you know how many were delayed? The answer, in round numbers, was about 300. Do you know how many were admitted that same day? The answer, again, in round numbers was over 30,000! So, “only” 1% were “inconvenienced.” I don’t make light of the inconvenience, but most of them were “quickly” cleared and admitted that same day or the next day. A handful were wrongfully rejected. Sometimes life sucks. No one is owed a rose garden, not in this day and age. Trump didn’t start terrorism. He’s trying to respond to it. He’ll work out the hiccups. Without assistance from the elitist media. But it would be nice if they gave him a chance before jumping his bones at every one of those hiccups. How easy it is to be a backseat driver.

Has anyone bothered to notice how uneven, and uneven handed, the elitist media is? Those seven countries that train and harbor terrorists that have been singled out in Trump’s Executive Order: They weren’t selected by Trump. Obama and both Houses of Congress did that in 2016 before Trump was elected. Wouldn’t you think our media would have known that? But they quickly condemned Trump for not also designating other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Trump answered, “Give me a little time; I’m working on it. One step at a time. I thought I should start with the seven countries already designated by President Obama and Congress.”

And so many, inside and outside the elitist media, have condemned Trump for abandoning our American traditions of supporting immigrants, especially the refugees clearly in need of help. Really? Trump has come way off his original campaign rhetoric in this regard and, give or take, is allowing just as many annual refugee admissions as Obama did during his eight years in office and as Bush did before Obama! Shouldn’t our elitist media have focused on that before they hurried to empower those who don’t know the facts? Want to read a more objective summary on all of this? Read here.

I would like to see the media display some of the maturity that seems beyond Trump’s capacity. I’d like to see the media declare a truce. A grace period, if you will. For, say, 100 days.

And I’d like to see it start with the New York Times. I’d like to see the New York Times lead by example for others in the media to follow. And maybe for Trump to then respond in kind.

More specifically, I’d like to see the New York Times swear off attacking Trump for 100 days. I know it’ll be tough, but during this 100 days, the New York Times should treat Trump the way they’d like Trump to treat them:

No gratuitous criticisms or condemnations.

When they believe Trump is handling something improperly, they should do stories in which, instead of jumping on his bones, they instead say “Dear Mr. President, here’s another way you might consider going about this. How about if you were to _______________?”

Try it, turn the other cheek, lead by example, just for 100 days. Who knows, it can’t hurt, and just maybe it’ll help.

So, New York Times, what do you think of this idea?

“Hey! Now, now, now. Cut it out. That’s no way to talk. I didn’t call you names.”

Editor’s Note: And for those unduly influenced by the U.S. District Court Judge who issued a partial stay last Saturday night. That decision was correct in protecting those few, and only those few, who were indeed unfairly caught up in the transition. She wanted to maintain the status quo until she could examine the facts. Fair enough. I would have done the same. I wouldn’t be surprised if Judge Donnelly ends that limited stay at the next hearing she’s scheduled a few days down the road. And if she doesn’t, there’s a pretty good chance a higher court reviewing her actions will, the ACLU notwithstanding. After this blog was written, but before it was published, on Sunday night, Trump, clarified that he did not intend for his Executive Order to be interpreted as broadly as the ACLU and others have asserted, but, on Monday, Obama nevertheless still publicly challenged the constitutionality of Trump’s clarified Executive Order (seems Obama is not quite ready, if ever he will be, to give up the public spotlight, and Trump’s critics refer to Trump as the narcissist!), after which the acting Attorney General (appointed by Obama), who will hold that position only until Trump’s nominee is presumably confirmed by the Senate later this week, ceremoniously announced that she is not convinced Trump’s Executive Order is constitutional and therefore will not defend it in court. Maybe the Democrats and the media are both the opposition parties! Trump, not to be outdone, reportedly then fired the acting Attorney General for defying him, and appointed still another holdover to be the acting Attorney General, who said he will enforce Trump’s Executive Order. What a bunch of backseat drivers, and political hacks and counterproductive opportunists, who don’t think the courts can sort this out if need be without their “help.” A pox on all of them!


 Join the discussion either by logging in just below or by signing into your favorite social media outlet. If you’re having trouble, please follow these instructions to guide you! Thanks!