President Trump Declares National Day of Prayer for Harvey Victims

President Trump Declares National Day of Prayer for Harvey Victims

President Donald Trump is declaring Sunday a National Day of Prayer for victims of Hurricane Harvey and “for those suffering in this time of crisis.”

In proclaiming Sept. 3 a “National Day of Prayer for the Victims of Hurricane Harvey and for our National Response and Recovery Efforts, the president noted that from the nation’s beginning, “Americans have joined together in prayer during times of great need, to ask for God’s blessings and guidance.”

Advertisements

History Facts: Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity; Rise of the Smear Campaign

History Facts:

Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity; Rise of the Smear Campaign

The 2016 Election and the Demise of Journalistic Standards

Hillsdale Imprimis Part 1

Michael Goodwin
The New York Post

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.

It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species.

History of Media Bias

For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.

Promote Big Government, Not Report Truth

During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do.

Habit of thinking: Create Victim Groups

Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.

The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

A New Dimension

I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics.

 In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.

As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press, and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.

Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media’s tone grow more serious.

One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion.

The realization that they had helped Trump’s rise seemed to make many executives, producers, and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that.

The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline “American Journalism Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes,” I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.

Historic Smear Campaign of a Presidential Candidate

The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction—toward Clinton and away from Trump.

For the most part, I blame The New York Times and The Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.

The Presidency as a First Job for an Outsider?

On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds during the campaign.

But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a “D” after its name. Think of it—George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And The Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.

All Pretense of Fairness Dropped

But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him? [But it was A-OK for Obama to cozy up to anti-American dictators? ~C.D.]

If you can’t be fair, you shouldn’t cover the candidate—Cover Sports or Entertainment

I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that’s actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn’t cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn’t be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you’ve already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was “normal” and Trump was not.

What happened to fairness? What happened to Journalistic Standards? New York Times Eliminated Them

I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I’ll tell you what happened to them. The Times top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”

Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.

New Formula: Who, What, When, Where, and Why + OPINION

With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where, and why, he added the reporter’s opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper—all the tools that writers and editors have—were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.

Liberal Lies Never Exposed

Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as “you can keep your doctor” and “the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.”

From Journalistic Integrity to Cheerleading

Indeed, the Times and The Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty. They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as “I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,” “I turned over all the government emails,” and “I never sent or received classified emails.” All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.

 

Moral Support: Veterans Affairs Reform Under Way

Moral Support:

Veterans Affairs Reform Under Way

Draining the swamp: President Trump fires over 500 employees from an agency that he criticized last year

Carlos Garcia

“Drain the swamp” was a favorite chant during President Donald Trump’s campaign, and it looks like he’s kept his promise at the office of Veterans Affairs.

A new report says more than 500 employees have been fired at the agency, and another 200 have been suspended.

The Daily Caller reported on statistics released by the department because of Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin as a part of their commitment to transparency.

“Those disciplined include 22 senior leaders, more than 70 nurses, 14 police officers, and 25 physicians,” it was reported.

Trump repeated the promise constantly during his campaign that he would fix the scandalous reports from the Veterans Affairs offices. In July during his presidential campaign last year, then-candidate Trump promised “never again will we allow any veteran to suffer or die waiting for care.”

Trump said that the country would “take care of our veterans like they’ve never been taken care of before,” adding,  “we will pick up the bill … it’ll cost us less money and the care will be amazing.”

While some VA offices provide admirable care to our military, others have been crippled with inefficiency and incompetence to such a degree that they’ve been accused of causing deaths among those seeking health care.

In August, a veteran killed himself in the parking lot of a Veterans hospital in Long Island after being turned away for the help he was seeking. The 76-year-old went back to his car and shot himself.

According to another report in February, veterans seeking help on a crisis hotline were sent to voicemail for lack of resources. The calls were never returned.

In January, a VA official was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting a patient in Tomah, Wisconsin. The mental health employee faced seven charges of taking advantage of a vulnerable patient/veteran.

Conservative critics of the Veterans Affairs office have advocated for a free-market-based solution where those veterans seeking medical help would be given a voucher to arrange for their own health care instead of having to be funneled into the government-provided care. Shulkin has indicated that he wants to seek private industry solutions to the problems plaguing the care the government provides to veterans.

Moral Support: Congress Bills, President Trump seek to end Human Trafficking

Moral Support:

Congress Bills, President Trump seek to end Human Trafficking

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed three bills that seek to end human trafficking, and the President is urging the Senate to pass these bills so that he may sign them into law.

Truth in Journalism: Rescue Dying Baby in UK from Socialized Medicine in United Kingdom

Truth in Journalism about Moral Support:

Rescue Dying Baby in UK from Socialized Medicine in United Kingdom

(Newsmax)

Trump Offers to Help Dying British Baby

President Donald Trump on Monday offered the nation’s help to Charlie Gard, the terminally ill British baby with a rare genetic disease and brain damage.

In a tweet, the commander in chief said:

If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.

Last week, his parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard lost a heart-wrenching legal battle to jet him to the United States for experimental therapy that British courts concluded will not work.

The Great Ormond Street Hospital in London was set to turn off Charlie’s life support Friday. But the hospital later decided to give the parents more time with him.

And on Sunday, Pope Francis called for the parents to be allowed to do everything possible to treat the 10-month-old tot, reversing a previous Vatican position after a swell of complaints.

Charlie’s parents raised nearly $1.7 million to pay for his treatment in the U.S. Twitter users have decried the British single-payer healthcare system for its refusal to let their son get treatment.

Charlie is unable to breathe on his own and relies on assistance from an oxygen machine.

If Trump does choose to intervene, it wouldn’t be the first time he’s sent help for a critically ill little boy.

Chelsea Schilling

(WorldNet Daily)

In 1988, Trump reportedly sent his private 727 to Los Angeles to medically transport 3-year-old Andrew Ten, an Orthodox Jewish boy who had a rare and undiagnosed breathing illness, to New York for treatment. Commercial airlines had refused to transport the child.

On July 20, 1988, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s Daily News Bulletin reported:

Trump made his plane available for the special trip to New York after the boy’s parents, Judy and Harold Ten, called Trump and told him of their plight.

Commercial airlines refused to fly the child because he could not travel without an elaborate life-support system, which includes a portable oxygen tank, a suction machine, a breathing bag and an adrenaline syringe.

“Mr. Trump did not hesitate when we called him up. He said ‘yes, I’ll send my plane out,’” 29-year-old Harold Ten recalled shortly after he landed here Tuesday morning.

Asked why he thought Trump made his private jet available, Ten replied, “Because he is a good man. He has three children of his own and he knows what being a parent is all about.”

Major Networks Censor the Story

In the current case, major broadcast networks have censored news about Baby Gard, according to NewsBusters.org. Despite public outcry over the story, ABC and CBS have yet to report on Gard’s case.

The Daily Caller reported Monday that NBC reporter Matt Bradley accused President Trump of exploiting Baby Gard.

History Facts vs. Liberal Lies and Smear Campaign against President Trump

History Facts vs. Liberal Lies and Smear Campaign against President Trump

After decades of indoctrination in the schools, liberals know no truth at all about history, and prefer to believe lies.  Let us be diligent in studying and learning true history and its patterns, for Satan goes about deceiving whole nations. ~C.D.

UPDATE: Look what has been caused by irresponsible reporting of lies and rumors!

This hoax is getting people shot! ~Rush Limbaugh

Understanding Trump Derangement Syndrome

The following article is a bit long, but please study it carefully. It provides insightful understanding of reasons why the Left would ally itself with such dark and satanic influences. ~C.D.

Bizarre Alliance. The honest truth is: The alliance between the left and Islam can best be explained biy the overarching reality that they share a common enemy, Christianity. Thus does the left warmly sidle up to Islam, which, truth be known, were it in charge would destroy the left, throwing members of the left’s main constituent groups off buildings or hanging or stoning or otherwise executing or enslaving them. ~David Kupelian, May Whistleblower, 6.

David Kupelian on reasons the left is going insane with rage, delusion, violence

President Trump compared to Hitler in Smear Campaign

Islamists were tight with Hitler during the World War 2 era, as they shared the desire of racial supremacy over the Jews. ~C.D.

Related Post:

History Facts: ISIS and Nazi Germany

Liberal Lies

First, let’s agree on what is indisputably true: The left frequently compares Trump to Hitler, and I’m not talking about just Facebook rants and anti-Trump protest signs. The Washington Post, as I documented last October in a pre-election article titled “5 Washington Post writers liken Trump to Hitler,” spent 2016 explicitly and continually comparing Donald J. Trump to one of history’s most evil and universally reviled genocidal monsters.

In reality – Hitler murdered 11 million innocent people, while Trump, a billionaire New York real estate developer who wrote one of the best-selling business books of all time and got himself elected president, has never killed anyone.

Media Bias engages in Specific Kind of Demonization

Class warfare is to socialism as race warfare was to Nazism. Today, the leftist Democrat Party has managed to adopt both. ~Rush Limbaugh

It’s no coincidence the word “mad” is used to mean both angry and insane, for being angry enough can make you insane.

The worst, most depraved acts of evil you can think of – war, mass-terrorism, genocide – are preceded by the total demonization of the adversary, just as we’re seeing in the left’s hysterically evil characterizations of President Trump.

So “this demonization,” he said, “included two specific components:

“First, the victims had to be perceived as a clear and present threat, so that the killers were convinced they were acting in self-defense.

Second, the victims were dehumanized, so that the killers convinced themselves that they were not destroying real human beings.”

So, what does this say about the Washington Post – and others in the “mainstream media” who consider themselves America’s arbiters of truth – continually comparing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with Hitler? Does such “journalism” legitimize threats and violent attacks on Trump and his supporters?

I arrived at this chilling conclusion: “If someone, God forbid – convinced he is a modern-day von Stauffenberg, heroically attempting to rid the world of this generation’s Hitler – were to shoot Donald Trump, would the Washington Post [and other hateful media] deserve any of the blame? I say yes.”

At war with reality

Beyond the left’s post-election meltdown and its ongoing campaign to overturn voters’ decision by demonizing Trump in hopes of crippling, impeaching and prosecuting him, there is yet a second reason the left hates the right – a reason even more vexing and profound.

It’s because these positions represent reality, truth, common sense.

Next question: Why do you suppose left-wing mayhem erupts on college campuses when conservative speakers like Ann Coulter are scheduled to lecture?

What is so offensive about Coulter’s (and other conservatives’) advocacy of sane immigration policies that riots, criminality and totalitarian attacks on free speech should inevitably result?

If you look carefully, you’ll discern that in almost all cases, it’s somebody speaking sensibly and truthfully that inspires the holy rage of the left. No such outrage accompanies college appearances by dangerous lunatic anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan or communist (and Obama pal) Bill Ayers.

No, it’s almost always a conservative and/or Christian speaking common-sense truth that reliably elicits the now-familiar hysterical, shrieking, violent response of the left.

Prick of Conscience provokes Anger

Let’s put this strange phenomenon under a microscope with one final example, to bring what is really at play into sharper focus:

For decades, pro-life “sidewalk counselors” have stood outside abortion clinics, speaking in a respectful, persuasive manner to women entering these killing facilities intent on ending the little life within their womb. Many women have been penetrated by these words and changed course; if not, pro-lifers wouldn’t engage in this kind of intervention day in and day out, year after year, decade after decade.

But occasionally, the woman entering the clinic becomes enraged at the sidewalk counselor’s plea that she spare the life of her unborn child. The woman may later swear that the sidewalk counselor was abusive, threatening, intimidating, screaming – perhaps even violent.

It’s not true, of course. But the psychic shock the woman experienced from having been confronted, however lovingly, with the truth she had been running away from felt to her like an act of great cruelty. After all, she felt awful after encountering the sidewalk counselor, so therefore the sidewalk counselor must have done something awful. Right?

Wrong. All that happened is that the conscience she had worked so hard to deny, suppress and evade popped out and spoke to her from within another person. (If you think about it, this is a key reason for Christian persecution.)

http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/understanding-trump-derangement-syndrome/

 

Related Post:

History Facts: ISIS and Nazi Germany

 

 

Heritage Foundation Report: Exit from Paris Climate Agreement good for America

Heritage Foundation Report:

Exit from Paris Climate Agreement good for America

4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement

Nicolas Loris, Katie Tubb

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.

The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nil to address climate change.

If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

In withdrawing from the agreement, Trump removed a massive barrier to achieving the 3 percent economic growth rates America is accustomed to.

Simply rolling back the Paris regulations isn’t enough. The Paris Agreement would have extended long beyond the Trump administration, so remaining in the agreement would have kept the U.S. subject to its terms.

Those terms require countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020. Staying in the agreement would have prevented the U.S. from backsliding or even maintaining the Obama administration’s initial commitment of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent.

The Obama administration made clear in its commitment that these cuts were only incremental, leading up to an eventual 80 percent cut in the future.

In terms of climate benefits produced by Paris, there are practically none.

Even if every country met its commitments—a big “if” considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions, and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges—the changes in the earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.

In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020.

The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.

The Obama administration ended up shipping $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorization from Congress.

Some of the top recipients of these government-funded climate programs have in the past been some of the most corrupt, which means corrupt governments collect the funds, not those who actually need it.

No amount of transparency negotiated in the Paris Agreement is going to change this.

Free enterprise, the rule of law, and private property are the key ingredients for prosperity. These are the principles that actually will help people in developing countries prepare for and cope with a changing climate and natural disasters, whether or not they are caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.

The media is making a big to-do about the fact that the only countries not participating in the Paris Agreement are Syria and Nicaragua.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a bad deal. Misery loves company, including North Korea and Iran, who are signatories of the deal.

Some have argued that it is an embarrassment for the U.S. to cede leadership on global warming to countries like China. But to draw a moral equivalency between the U.S. and China on this issue is absurd.

China has serious air quality issues (not from carbon dioxide), and Beijing has repeatedly falsified its coal consumption and air monitoring data, even as it participated in the Paris Agreement. There is no environmental comparison between the U.S. and China.

Other countries have a multitude of security, economic, and diplomatic reasons to work with America to address issues of mutual concern. Withdrawal from the agreement will not change that.

Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.

However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the U.S. is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.

Some proponents of the Paris Agreement are saying that withdrawing presents a missed opportunity for energy companies. Others are saying that it doesn’t matter what Trump does because the momentum of green energy is too strong.

Neither argument is a compelling case for remaining in the agreement.

Whether it is conventional fuel companies or renewable ones, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative and competitive in the marketplace, not build their business models around international agreements.

There is nothing about leaving the agreement that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies.

The market for energy is $6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040. Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy.

That’s a big market incentive for the private sector to pursue the next energy technology without the aid of taxpayer money.

The U.S. federal government and the international community should stop using other peoples’ money to subsidize energy technologies while regulating affordable, reliable energy sources out of existence.

The Paris Agreement was an open door for future U.S. administrations to regulate and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on international climate programs, just as the Obama administration did without any input from Congress.

Now, that door has thankfully been shut.

Truth Matters: Media Bias blacks out President Trump Memorial Day Patriotism

Truth Matters: 

Media Bias blacks out President Trump Memorial Day Patriotism

On Memorial Day, Trump Does Something That Would’ve Put Obama on Every Front Page

Joseph Curl

President Trump on Monday marked his first Memorial Day as commander in chief, heading to Arlington National Cemetery through the throngs of motorcycles participating in Rolling Thunder to place a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

The large audience packed into the cemetery’s amphitheater cheered when Trump was introduced, and the president delivered a powerful tribute to America’s fallen service members, calling them “angels sent to us by God.”

“To every Gold Star family, God is with you, and your loved ones are with him,” Trump said. “They died in wars so that we could live in peace. Every time you see the sun rise over this blessed land, please know your brave sons and daughters pushed away the night and delivered for us all that great and glorious dawn.”

Of course, you wouldn’t know that Trump did that if you looked at the top newspapers in the country. In fact, you wouldn’t even know that Monday was Memorial Day, or that nearly every town across the United States held a parade to honor America’s troops.

The New York Times didn’t have anything on its front page about Memorial Day. It used a small teaser box at the bottom left corner to tout a story about “a soccer star’s farewell to A.S. Roma,” whatever that is. Not a word or a picture dedicated to America’s military branches and their sacrifice.

The Washington Post front page was full of anti-Trump stories, “Serving Intelligence to Trump in Small Bites” and “Budget Would Cut Civil Rights Position,” to name a few. And the main art showed a factory in Kentucky, not Trump or America’s veterans. The paper, whose new motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” did feature one tiny picture at the bottom of the page with a referral to the Metro page for a story about Memorial Day, but no mention or photo of Trump.

Only USA Today, among the country’s biggest papers, featured a shot of Trump laying the wreath, with a reference to an inside story and more pictures.

But above is the shot that, had former president Barack Obama done it, would’ve put him on every front page across the country. Since it was Trump, though, the country’s liberal papers decided not to print it.

Moral Support: President Trump Taxpayer First Budget

Moral Support:

President Trump’s Taxpayer First Budget

Defunds Planned Parenthood

President Trump’s first proposed budget shows respect for the people who pay the bills. The administration’s proposal reverses the damaging trends from previous administrations by putting our nation’s budget back into balance and reducing our debt through fiscally conservative principles, all the while delivering on President Trump’s campaign promise not to cut Social Security retirement or Medicare. The budget’s combination of regulatory, tax, and welfare reforms will provide opportunities for economic growth and creation. Get the facts about President Trump’s budget.

Balance & Cutting Spending

Unlike any budget proposed by the previous administration, the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget achieves balance within the 10-year budget window and begins to reduce the national debt within that same window.

The policies in this Budget will drive down spending and grow the economy. By 2027, when the budget reaches balance, publicly held debt will be reduced to less than 60 percent of GDP, the lowest level since 2010.

No Cuts to Medicare & Social Security

The President’s Budget does not cut core Social Security benefits. And the President is fulfilling his presidential campaign promise not to cut Medicare benefits.

Saving Taxpayers Money

President Trump’s budget saves the American people billions of dollars through welfare, tax, and regulatory reform.

Supporting Our Military

The President is requesting $54 billion, or 10 percent, more than the defense level President Obama signed into law for both the 2017 CR and the 2018 budget cap. This increase balances the need to rebuild the military with the need for disciplined, strategy-driven, executable growth.

 

Keeping Americans Safe

The Budget includes over $2.6 billion in new infrastructure and technology investments in 2018 to give CBP frontline law enforcement officers the tools and technologies they need to deter, deny, identify, track, and resolve illegal activity along the border.

 

Putting American Families First

President Trump’s budget provides national paid family leave for the first time in the history of this country.

Find out more information about President Trump’s Taxpayer First Budget at WhiteHouse.gov/taxpayers-first.

Patriotism: President Trump and Children write Gratitude Letters to brave members of United States Armed Forces

Patriotism:

President Trump and Children write Gratitude Letters to brave members of United States Armed Forces

President Donald J. Trump joins participants at the Easter Egg Roll writing letters to the brave men and women serving in the United States Armed Forces, Monday, April 17, 2017, in Washington, D.C. This is the first Easter Egg Roll of the Trump Administration. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead).

VE Day: 72 Years Since 1945 Allied Victory over Germany in Europe Celebrations