The New York Times has a tenuous relationship with the truth. 

The paper blasted off, losing touch with reality, a long time ago.  When ten million Ukrainians were killed under the communist boot, they published Walter Duranty's piece, "Russians Hungry, but Not Starving."  Such terrible reporting was a good opportunity to learn and correct the Times' distorting leftist ideology.  Unfortunately, the paper is content to remain in orbit.

Mark Landler's recent front-page story on the NYT could be written only by someone who doesn't live here on Planet Earth among us humans.  He claimed that President Trump, "breaks with 70 years of American foreign policy."  Now, there are plenty of legitimate ways to critique Trump's foreign policy, but claiming Trump is a radical "insurgent" is not one of them.

Almost every move Trump has taken has been to moderate Obama's actions.  Obama was a dilettante who took America far off course.  Trump is a return to center. 

One of Landler's first pieces of evidence is Trump's removal of America from the Paris Accords.  Really?  When did Eisenhower say America should submit to a supranational organization to control the world's climate?  If the NYT wants to argue that Americans must subordinate domestic policy to communists in Beijing, please do so, but it is illogical to claim that Trump is an "insurgent" because he ended Obama's singular policy of linking global warming to national security.

Landler brings up Trump's role in denouncing the Iran deal as further evidence that Trump is out of line.  In fact, Trump hasn't even ended the deal yet.

But okay, let's assume Trump does end the Iran deal at some point in the future.  By ending a deal that "paves Iran's path to the bomb," Trump would be reaffirming long-term American policy of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. 

Incidentally, as long as Landler is writing about "insurgent" actions, it is hard to imagine a policy change more radical than one where America helps Iran – the world's number-one state sponsor of terrorism, a country with a policy of killing Americans and who had a major roll in 9/11 – obtain nuclear bombs.

No leftist NYT hit piece on Trump would be complete without a mention of his tweeting habits, which Landler feels are "fanning fears of war" with North Korea.  If Kim Jong-un is so volatile that a tweet could cause Kim to start a war, then Obama made an unforgivable mistake by standing around with his hands in his pocket while North Korea obtained nukes and ICBMs. 

It was American policy, dating all the way back to Truman, to contain China and North Korea.  Trump is doing nothing more than stating the truth, recognizing adversarial powers, and taking steps to stop their expansion when he tweets that China was caught "RED HANDED" letting oil through to North Korea.

Incidentally, Trump called out China and North Korea the morning Landler released his article, where he quoted a NeverTrump saying "[t]he Chinese are playing" Trump.  When one's framework of understanding is contradicted the exact same day it's spammed to the entire world, perhaps it's a good time to re-evaluate.

Perhaps most telling of all is Landler's complaints about Trump's "strange" relationship with Vladimir Putin. 

Left unstated is that if Russia is such a problem, why did Obama change century-old American policy and grant the Russians permanent normal trade relations?  Obama's move is reminiscent of fellow leftist Franklin Roosevelt's decision to recognize the USSR in 1933 (that worked out well, didn't it?), the same year the NYT published Duranty's piece. 

Now, once again, the NYT wants to lecture people about Ukraine, stating that Trump has "little idea of Ukraine's importance."  However, Trump recently approved the sale of sniper rifles and anti-tank Javelins to Ukraine.  This is a tough decision for Ukrainians: do they prefer leftists who cover up the Holodomor and normalize trade relations with Putin?  Or the president who sells them arms to defend their sovereignty?

Notwithstanding leftist gaslighting, Trump is putting America back on a path to be proud of, a policy that Truman, JFK, and Reagan would recognize, standing against adversaries, supporting friends, and putting the security of Americans first.