The New York Times is one of several news sources that have been almost entirely negative when it comes to President Donald Trump. Like many liberal leaning media outlets, during the campaign, they spent the better part of a year in a desperate attempt to convince the American public that Trump was not qualified to be President for any one of number of reasons.
In the end, they were overruled by the Electoral College and the American Republic told the Obama administration to clear out its desk. Since then, the media, now painfully aware that its hold on popular opinion is nowhere near what they thought it was, is determined to undermine the Trump administration.
It’s difficult not to sense that there’s a dispostion championed by the Left that says if you can’t win an election, then you steal it. And if you can’t steal it, then do your best to ruin the outcome.
Earlier this year, the NYT published a front page article that consisted of one massive block of text that supposedly represented every lie Trump has uttered since the beginning of his administration. It’s an imposing looking piece and initially intimidating in that you can’t help but wonder if in the midst of all these indictments, there’s isn’t an element of truth. But upon closer inspection, it becomes evident rather quickly that this article is nothing more than just yet another part of the media’s resolve to deploy a “dirty glacier” approach to current events in order to feel justified in portraying Trump as a fiend.
The fact of the matter is, you can be wrong and not be guilty of lying. It’s only when you’re aware of the truth and you’re intentionally saying something to the contrary that you can be rightfully accused of being a liar. With President Trump, he exaggerates in some instances but to accuse him of lying is inappropriate, especially when you look at some of these indictments and realize that it’s the NYT who’s lying and not Trump.
In the end, at the bare minimum, what I’m trying to demonstrate here is that there’s a more comprehensive perspective to consider with each supposed accusation. With minimal “digging” you can uncover facts and truths that the NYT seems determined to either overlook or dismiss as irrelevant.
If you’re going to accuse someone of lying, your justification better be more than just an intentionally casual analysis of the situation. Then again, if you don’t expect anyone to pick up where you made a point of leaving off, perhaps your approach is purposeful which thus qualifies you as truly sinister and not merely irresponsible.
I hope that’s not the case…
Feel free to click here or on the image to the right and view a spreadsheet that details each of the NYT’s accusations and the rebuttal represented by a more thorough review of the facts that are readily accessible.
Also, below are ten questions I was asked to respond to as part of an internet based radio program hosted by Jack Watts. You can get an idea of what prompted this project and the conclusions that were drawn by reading through both the questions and the responses.
Go God, boo devil!
1) What prompted you to put this project together?
Converstation with you (Jack Watts). Initially a little intimidated but then determined to find out just how credible the accusations were.
2) Does Trump lie? Is the NYT and the liberal media justified in calling him a liar?
In order to qualify as a liar, it has to be proven that you’re aware of the truth and you’re intentionally saying something to the contrary. You can be wrong, you can exaggerate and still not be guilty of lying. The NYT doesn’t attempt to make that distinction. If Trump is wrong or if he’s stretching the truth, he’s demonized as a liar even when that kind of accusation is neither appropriate let alone accurate.
3) Why do you think the press is so determined to paint Trump as a villian?
Two reasons: First off, Trump was not supposed to have won. For an entire year, the press engaged in a campaign to destroy a Trump victory and even at one point predicting Hillary to be by 85% (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html). They were terribly wrong and while they proved to be flawed in their predictions, they simultaneously proved that they don’t have the kind of influence over the political process that they thought they did. The result was embarassing as well as telling as far as what their true agenda was.
Secondly, Trump is not a politician and therefore does not play games as far as sacrificing results on the altar of polls and mindless processes. That makes him a very effective force in dismantling a lot of what Progressives have in place as well as what their mandate would dictate. Therefore, Trump must be stopped.
4) What is “truthful hyperbole?”
It’s a phrase that Trump uses in his book “The Art of the Deal.” It’s how he describes ethically exaggerating things in order to sell his product or platform.
5) You went through over 100 accusations made by the NYT stating that Trump lied? Were there any that really stood out? Why?
The Lockheed F-35 is a military aircraft that was the subject of a deal Trump made with the company that wound up strengthening our military while saving a substantial amount of money. The NYT refers to this scenario repeatedly and insists the Trump contributed nothing and that the cuts were already in place. But Lockeed makes it clear that Trump was a significant part of the process and the Times isn’t accurate in calling him a liar let alone accusing him repeatedly.
The NYT ran an ad in the aftermath of the election that said it would “reflect on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on America and the world honestly.” While the words “We’re sorry” are never articulated, it’s obvious the NYT was confessing that there was room for improvement in the way they reported the news.
Obamacare is a hot mess. But the press will intentionally overlook certain aspects of it in order to maintain the idea that it’s a homerun. Consequently, when Trump criticizes it, the NYT insists that he’s lying. For example, when Trump says that Obamacare covers very few people, the NYT responds by saying that Obamacare increased coverage by a new of about 20 million. What they don’t tell you is that just because you sign up doesn’t mean you’re covered. You have to first pay your first month’s premium. That in and of itself dramatically affects who is truly being covered.
6) After having engaged this project, do you see the press as merely bitter or is there something more sinister behind their efforts to undermine Trump?
Definitely sinister. One does not have to “dig” much at all in order to secure a more comprehensive perspective. I mention at the top of the site that, if nothing else, what I’ve done demonstrates that there is always another side, another set of data that dramatically affects the conclusions the average reader is going to walk away with given the limited account the Times would assert as being the bottom line. When you see this being done over and over again, it becomes obvious that there is an agenda in place that govers the way in which the news is going to be reported. It will not be fair, it will not be accurate. In short, it will be intentionally crafted to undermine the President and promote a legislative and cultural paradigm that is godless, amoral and devoid of personal responsibility.
7) How should a Trump supporter respond to all of the vitriol?
John Adams once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Rarely does a person shape their convictions according to merely what they know. Their mindset represents a combination of facts and feelings – feelings crafted according to a lifetime of experiences that you’re not going to affect in the context of a single paragraph.
And what makes it more challenging is that the more emotionally invested you are in a lie, the less impact the Truth is going to make. The bottom line is that the true essence of this contest is spiritual. Only God can change a person’s heart. Even if you win an argument, all you’re doing is increasing their resolve to be better armed with more compelling talking points in the future. To change their mind – to affect real change – you’ve got to fight with the only weapons that make a difference and that’s the Power and the heart changing Utility of the Holy Spirit.
8) You hear a lot about the possibility of Russian interference with the election collusion on the part of the Trump campaign with Russia. Did the NYT indict Trump at all in this particular article about that?
More than once. It’s part of the Progressive Playbook right now and it will continue to be until it blows up in their face. You might even argue that it already has by virtue of the way the Clinton campaign was revealed as having given Russia a sizeable foothold into American Urianium mining (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html).
Trump’s having colluded with Russian elements in order to affect the outcome of the election is nothing more than an attempt to justify Trump having won while simultaneously portray Trump as a fiend. We’re 11 months into the allegations and there is still no evidence because there is no evidence. The thing that is disconcerting, however, is that doesn’t seem to be a factor in the mind of the Democrat party. If there isn’t evidence to support their claim, no doubt they’ll make an attempt to manufacture some.
9) Between ANTIFA, violent protests at universties where conservative commentators are scheduled to talk, the contoversy with the NFL – does America seem fractured to you and, if so, how does it get put back together again?
I think you’ve got to be able to sound intelligent when you present what constitutes a truthful rebuttal. You have to be familiar with the fact that this is a game of chess. It’s not about substance as much as it’s about “feelings.” We’re no longer asking what’s “right,” we’re asking what’s “Constitutional.” For that reason, again, the real contest is a spiritual contest…
Case in point: The Homosexual Agenda is based on the fact that “everyone has the right to be happy.” That’s true. You see that in our Declaration of Independence. But where does that right come from? According to the Declaration of Independence, we appeal to a Divine Standard for that right. Moreover, one’s right to be happy is subordinate to one’s reponsibility to be moral. But who defines what’s moral? Either God is your Absolute, or you are your own absolute which is both eternally lethal and practically unsustainable. Regardless of how you approach it, the underlying question is “Who defines what’s right?” And it’s because of that dynamic that our the only real Solution is a national revival (2 Chron 7:14).
10) If you were to make a prediction as to how the Trump administration is going to be perceived by future generations, what would you say?
Provided that Christians are able to rise to the occasion and leverage the opportunity represented by a Republican administration and pray for God’s Intervention, I think God through Trump can dismantle a lot of the damaging legislation that Obama has instituted and the tension he has amplified. If a true revival can occur, I think the Trump Administration will be remembered the same way as a truly great timeframe. Not because of who Trump was but because of what God did through Trump as far as getting our nation back on track.
And I think that’s the bottom line now and that’s always been the bottom line. Psalm 20:7:
“Some trust in chariots, some trust in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” (see also 2 Chron 7:14)
That’s always been the Solution. And it’s not so much God showing up and changing things through miraculous burning bush type episodes, as much as it’s godly individuals living out their faith in a way that convinces people that God is Who He truly claims to be and true success is measured in terms of one’s obedience to Him and being a conduit of the Power He makes available.