The New York Times publishes letter to the editor speculating on health of Trump marriage
One of the more despicable aspects of the liberal media’s incessant efforts to undermine and destroy President Donald Trump is the subversive manner in which they constantly pick at and attempt to sow division within his marriage to First Lady Melania Trump.
That push continued on Sunday when The New York Times published a letter to the editor which strongly implied there was a significant rift between the president and first lady over the issue of poverty in America.
A split on poverty?
The daily newspaper posted the letter in question in its Op-Ed section. It was written in reference to the outlet’s coverage of the first lady’s “Be Best” campaign.
“Every now and then amid the grotesque spectacle of the Trump presidency, I wonder what the relationship between the first couple must be like,” wrote the Times reader.
The reader quoted a line from the article about the first lady and the goals of her campaign and noted that he believed she was “sincere” in her efforts to make the world a better place for the less fortunate among us, in part by promoting programs that provide assistance to such individuals.
However, the reader wrote, “On the same page in the print edition, another article described how the Trump administration is proposing regulatory changes that would cut millions of low-income children off food stamps, Head Start, school lunches and health care.”
“The cognitive dissonance is mind-boggling. I’m trying to imagine what the two of them talk about. It is surreal,” the reader concluded.
What is “surreal” about all of this is the fact that the Times would feel compelled to publish this letter
There was no call for this sort of speculation about the status of the president’s marriage or the content of the first couple’s private conversations, regardless of the societal issue at play.
Furthermore, encouraging people to “Be Best” and informing them of available assistance programs is not mutually exclusive from regulatory reform or efforts to tighten the federal government’s loose fiscal purse strings.
You can, in fact, have a compassionate country that cares and provides for the less fortunate without massive federal government involvement, as well as one that does not require taxpayers to bear the full weight of that sense of moral duty.
One can only wonder if the Times would similarly attempt to drive a wedge between Barack and Michelle Obama or Bill and Hillary Clinton. But we already know the answer to that.