Hate Trump's Love

When reading through the news stories of the Huffington Post, CNN, and some other leftist outlets, I feel as though I am peeking into a perverted mind. Whatever Trump says or does is presented with a hateful smear, facts are either twisted or ignored, and not even a feeble attempt of being objective is being made. No, they are not insane. They attack the president intentionally. The stories are full of references to Trump's racism — at the peak of the lowest unemployment among blacks and Hispanics.

Traditionally, there are lots of accusations in "disgusting misogyny," where both womanizer Trump and a good family man Mike Pence are pictured as "sexist pigs" — at the peak of the lowest unemployment among women and an astounding number of women at senior-level positions in the White House. How sexist was it of Trump to double the child tax credit to $2,000 per child, which is not a deduction, but a direct tax bill offset, meaning a mother with two kids now saves $4,000 as a result? This tax legislation also makes the first $1,400 of this credit refundable, meaning that low-income mothers get a payout in addition to their regular tax refund. It also creates a tax credit for non-dependent children for the first time, allowing ordinary mothers to keep more of their hard-earned money. Media's reaction? Crickets chirp. What about the six weeks of paid family leave in the president's budget proposal for the new parents? "Here's what it will cost you," warns CNBC. Seriously? We can afford to pay $93 trillion, or approximately $600,000 per household, for the insane "Green New Deal," but it's "excessive" to cover roughly $6 billion per year to support young families? Isn't it one of the issues that left-wing politicians have fought so hard for for decades? What about that epic fight over the border wall? It has truly become a dividing political symbol. But it hasn't been just recently — prominent Democrats, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer, voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico. The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting to curb illegal immigration and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles. Why did they favor it then and call it "immoral" and "ineffective" now? Ah, but because it's Trump's initiative, they can't let him succeed, never mind the economic and social consequences for the country. How about the constant claims of Trump's dictatorship, mainly supported by the "evidence" of Trump's "admiration" of the "strong leaders around the world" and "offensive things" he dares to say about his opponents? Trump's very first veto, blocking a congressional resolution that would have prematurely terminated the national emergency he declared in February in an attempt to unilaterally fund the construction of the wall on the southern border, was expectedly called a "move straight from a playbook of a dictator." But Bill Clinton used this veto right 36 times, and Barack Obama 12 times? Undoubtedly, for the media, they had a greater good in mind. What about Trump's "intimidation" of the media, which he once called "enemy of the people"? Never mind that they misinform; blatantly lie; and demonize Trump himself, members of his family and administration, and all those who are on board with the MAGA agenda, be they senators, schoolchildren, women, celebrities. The mainstream media's smear machine does not discriminate and takes no prisoners. Is the president too far from truth calling them "fake news"? Is their reporting factual and fair? Thus, according to the report of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, the share of negative assessments of Trump's presidency has surpassed those of his predecessors three times over. On the eve of the 2018 midterm elections, negative coverage of the Trump's administration reached a whopping 92 percent. At the same time, the coverage largely ignored the administration's remarkable economic achievements — a topic crucial to the public. Now the mainstream media have managed to turn a tragic shooting in New Zealand into a Trump-smearing campaign, clumsily comparing a racist gunman to the U.S. president. Among others, the Washington Post's editorial board has harshly criticized Trump for not admitting "white nationalism" as a rising threat and calling it a "small group that have very, very serious problems." The Post's board insisted that "instead, he ought to state unambiguously that the New Zealand suspect's 'replacement' ideology is an unacceptable trope in civilized discourse." Of course, any form of aggressive ideology and, moreover, violence should be condemned, strictly prohibited, and harshly punished. But let us be fair and condemn all sorts of hateful fundamentalist ideologies, shall we? Let's condemn radical Islamist terrorism and white nationalism alike. Let us go farther, and take intellectual courage, and admit that the policies and practices of multiculturalism, which allows excessive immigration without proper and meaningful integration of the newcomers — which requires a working proficiency in a local language, basic obedience of the law, and a resolution to become a productive part of society — is doomed to fail and inevitably results in a social fragmentation, where minorities get alienated and citizens grow resentful. Old-world Europe has given us extensive empirical evidence of that. Why not study and report on Europe's lessons? Sure, President Trump is no angel. His personal style and off-the-cuff remarks have contributed to the image of an unpredictable and brutish person. Simultaneously, his rejection of political correctness and willingness to speak directly and unapologetically about society's pressure points makes him stand out from the political "swamp" on both sides of the aisle. Most of all, Trump's outstanding leadership and real achievements speak for themselves and unveil the fundamental belief of the leftist establishment and NeverTrump Republicans: poor and dependable people are easier to manipulate and govern. That is why, as long as Trump keeps working for the good of America, they will oppose and smear him by whatever means necessary.