By my count the New York Times published 16 articles in its Monday edition that were directed at President Trump. Every one was negative. At the same time I didn’t find one critical comment about Democrats. I guess liberals are perfect in the eyes of the Times’ editors and reporters even though voters didn’t think Hillary was perfect in 2016.

Is this fair and balanced reporting? Do you think this newspaper is sincerely trying to provide its readers with the facts so they can decide for themselves whether Trump is doing a good job? Or do they think all of us are too stupid to grasp liberal ideology?

The stories include the following subjects:

• An impending battle between the Federal Reserve Bank and the Trump administration relating to the growth of the economy. The Fed will likely raise interest rates to slow growth as Trump does whatever he can to accelerate it. Why is the NY Times suggesting that Trump’s high growth strategy is a bad thing for America? Won’t every American benefit by economic prosperity? It seems to me the Fed’s likely decision this week is the less desirable alternative at this point.
• The slow transition of the White House. Democrats have done everything humanly possible to deter the confirmation of Trump nominees to his cabinet. The recruitment of hundreds of subordinates has been delayed as a result. Perhaps the press should be pointing fingers at liberal lawmakers for impeding the confirmation process.
• Trump is hiring border officials who are bigots. There have been reports of abuse. Thousands are need to stop the flow of illegals. Is it any wonder that a few would be bad apples? Is it a surprise that many of the guards are enthusiastic about stopping the flow of undocumented people from Mexico into our country?
• The G.O.P. health care plan will be bad for all Americans except rich ones. How many times have you heard this bit of liberal rhetoric? The paper reviewed various elements of the proposal by the House of Representatives and reiterates that they will create a situation worse than what we have with Obamacare (not possible). The assessments are totally biased and don’t consider the fact that the current plan will be amended significantly before it becomes law. In fact many Republican senators are anxious to propose changes, and Trump has said he is open to compromise.
• Trump is changing the rules of engagement for counter terrorism actions by the U.S. To this point concern for collateral damage is a principal reason why ISIS has flourished. This particular enemy hides like a coward among the innocent so aggressive military action is impossible without affiliated deaths of non-combatants. This is a legitimate debate that should be considered by the administration. If the U.S. is overly cautious it will extend the life of ISIS.
• Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, was “fired” by the Trump administration because he wouldn’t resign like his fellow colleagues. Every administration dismisses U.S. Attorneys when a new party is elected to the White House. Why should Bharara receive a dispensation? He should have resigned and not burned any bridges or had a hissy fit. Bharara should consider a political job (like mayor of New York City). He said he’s not interested in an elected position.

Five Trump articles appear in the op-ed section. Every one attacks him. It should be noted that this is the section of the newspaper where editors, columnists and readers are supposed to state their opinions. The Times allows reporters great freedom to opine in other sections of the paper.

I’m not suggesting that Trump’s agenda should be accepted without debate. There are and there should be push back to important initiatives. But the treatment of the new president is downright disrespectful.

Trump hasn’t made it easy for skeptics to connect with him although he’s had good meetings with union members and other groups that you would expect to oppose him.

Making America great is a noble objective. At least this aspect of Trump’s agenda should be lauded. Yet respectful pushback is healthy for our country regarding specific important issues. The process would be more productive if the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle was tempered. Unfortunately the combatants have taken the low road.

I hasten to remind everyone that Trump will be our president for at least four years unless Democrats can figure out a way to impeach him. We all know that’s not going to happen so Americans should be open minded about Trump’s agenda. Consider each item of it independently apart from Trump’s bravado and you might see a good plan that will make America great.