New York Null Values

A widely-circulated editorial about Donald Trump didn't reach viral popularity until it was misattributed to the magazine 'The New Yorker.'


Claim: The New Yorker published a surprisingly effusive item praising the political acumen of Donald Trump, penned by a Bloomberg reporter.

Incorrectly Attributed

Amazingly, this piece originated with The New Yorker.
Should be framed in every conservative's room. I
bet you're gonna agree with 99.9% of it. You know
voters blame the president (no matter who it is) for
spending, but it is CONGRESS that has the ultimate
control (or, in reality, lack of it) over the budget and
expenses. And the GOP has been in charge for long enuf
to have done something constructive, but didn't and
won't. The average Joe is coming to realize both
Dems and Repubs only want POWER.

This pretty well explains Trump's appeal to so many
people.

THE NEW YORKER

_____________________________________________________________________________

I received the following email and am trying to find out who wrote it or is it just an anonymous rant...

The author is the political correspondent for Bloomberg and wrote extensively about Obama even before he was elected and he did it with facts and more facts.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Attached is a message I recently received.

THE NEW YORKER on Trump

No matter who your favorite candidate might be … the article is an interesting read.

The author is the political correspondent for Bloomberg and wrote extensively about Obama even before he was elected and he did it with facts . This article is a reminder that history shows presidential candidates are often elected based on the state of the union and mood of the people in a particular election cycle. If either Hillary or Bernie is elected, better start preparing for the collapse of America as we know it. The author seems to understand that and is sending a warning.

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

THE NEW YORKER: Monday, February 1, 2016 11:29 AM, Excellent read. The author is the political correspondent for Bloomberg.

The better question may be, “What is Donald Trump?” The answer: A giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment.

Some Trump supporters are like the 60s white girls who dated black guys just to annoy their parents. But most Trump supporters have simply had it with the Demosocialists and the “Republicans in Name Only.” They know there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Hillary Rodham and Jeb Bush, and only a few cents worth between Rodham and the other GOP candidates. Ben Carson is not an “establishment” candidate, but the Clinton machine would pulverize Carson, and the somewhat rebellious Ted Cruz will (justifiably so) be tied up with natural born citizen lawsuits (as might Marco Rubio). The Trump supporters figure they may as well have some fun tossing Molotov cocktails at Wall Street and Georgetown while they watch the nation collapse. Besides, lightning might strike, Trump might get elected, and he might actually fix a few things. Stranger things have happened. (The nation elected a Marxist in 2008 and Bruce Jenner now wears designer dresses.)

Millions of conservatives are justifiably furious. They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014 and have seen them govern no differently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Yet those same voters are supposed to trust the GOP in 2016? Why? Trump did not come from out of nowhere. His candidacy was created by the last six years of Republican failures.

No reasonable person can believe that any of the establishment candidates will slash federal spending, rein in the Federal Reserve, cut burdensome business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, etc.). Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate the Department of Education. (Of course, getting shot at tends to make a person less of a risk-taker.) No reasonable person can believe that any of the nation’s major problems will be solved by Rodham, Bush, and the other dishers of donkey fazoo now eagerly eating corn in Iowa and pancakes in New Hampshire.

Many Americans, and especially Trump supporters, have had it with:

Anyone named Bush
Anyone named Clinton
Anyone who's held political office
Political correctness
Illegal immigration
Massive unemployment
Phony "official" unemployment and inflation figures
Welfare waste and fraud
People faking disabilities to go on the dole
VA waiting lists
TSA airport groping
ObamaCare
The Federal Reserve's money-printing schemes
Wall Street crooks like Jon Corzine
Michelle Obama's vacations
Michelle Obama's food police
Barack Obama's golf
Barack Obama's arrogant and condescending lectures
Barack Obama's criticism/hatred of America
Valerie Jarrett
"Holiday trees"
Hollywood hypocrites
Global warming nonsense
Cop killers
Gun confiscation threats
Stagnant wages
Chevy Volts
Clock boy
Pajama boy
Mattress girl
Boys in girls' bathrooms
Whiny, spoiled college students who can't even place the Civil War in the correct century
. . .and that's just the short list.

Trump supporters believe that no Democrat wants to address these issues, and that few Republicans have the courage to address these issues. They certainly know that none of the establishment candidates are better than barely listening to them, and Trump is their way of saying, “Screw you, Hillary Rodham Rove Bush!” The more the talking head political pundits insult the Trump supporters, the more supporters he gains. (The only pundits who seem to understand what is going on are Democrats Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell and Republican John LeBoutillier. All the others argue that the voters will eventually “come to their senses” and support an establishment candidate.)

But America does not need a tune-up at the same old garage. It needs a new engine installed by experts—and neither Rodham nor Bush are mechanics with the skills or experience to install it. Hillary Rodham is not a mechanic; she merely manages a garage her philandering husband abandoned. Jeb Bush is not a mechanic; he merely inherited a garage. Granted, Trump is also not a mechanic, but he knows where to find the best ones to work in his garage. He won’t hire his brother-in-law or someone to whom he owes a favor; he will hire someone who lives and breathes cars.

“How dare they revolt!” the “elites” are bellowing. Well, the citizens are daring to revolt, and the RINOs had better get used to it. “But Trump will hand the election to Clinton!” That is what the Karl Rove-types want people to believe, just as the leftist media eagerly shoved “Maverick” McCain down GOP throats in 2008—knowing he would lose to Obama. But even if Trump loses and Rodham wins, she would not be dramatically different than Bush or most of his fellow candidates. They would be nothing more than caretakers, not working to restore America’s greatness but merely presiding over the collapse of a massively in-debt nation. A nation can perhaps survive open borders; a nation can perhaps survive a generous welfare system. But no nation can survive both—and there is little evidence that the establishment candidates of either party understand that. The United States cannot forever continue on the path it is on. At some point it will be destroyed by its debt.

Yes, Trump speaks like a bull wanders through a china shop, but the truth is that the borders do need to be sealed; we cannot afford to feed, house, and clothe 200,000 Syrian immigrants for decades (even if we get inordinately lucky and none of them are ISIS infiltrators or Syed Farook wannabes); the world is at war with radical Islamists; all the world’s glaciers are not melting; and Rosie O’Donnell is a fat pig.

Is Trump the perfect candidate? Of course not. Neither was Ronald Reagan. But unless we close our borders and restrict immigration, all the other issues are irrelevant. One terrorist blowing up a bridge or a tunnel could kill thousands. One jihadist poisoning a city’s water supply could kill tens of thousands. One electromagnetic pulse attack from a single Iranian nuclear device could kill tens of millions. Faced with those possibilities, most Americans probably don’t care that Trump relied on eminent domain to grab up a final quarter acre of property for a hotel, or that he boils the blood of the Muslim Brotherhood thugs running the Council on American-Islamic Relations. While Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s greatest fear is someone giving a Muslim a dirty look, most Americans are more worried about being gunned down at a shopping mall by a crazed lunatic who treats his prayer mat better than his three wives and who thinks 72 virgins are waiting for him in paradise.

The establishment is frightened to death that Trump will win, but not because they believe he will harm the nation. They are afraid he will upset their taxpayer-subsidized apple carts. While Obama threatens to veto legislation that spends too little, they worry that Trump will veto legislation that spends too much. You can be certain that if an establishment candidate wins in November 2016, his or her cabinet positions will be filled with the same people we’ve seen before. The washed-up has-beens of the Clinton and Bush administrations will be back in charge. The hacks from Goldman Sachs will continue to call the shots. Whether it is Bush’s Karl Rove or Clinton’s John Podesta who makes the decisions in the White House will matter little. If the establishment wins, America loses.

Origin:In January 2016, the above-reproduced piece began appearing in our inbox. According to the e-mail, its content was written by "the political correspondent for Bloomberg [who] wrote extensively about Obama even before he was elected and he did it with facts and more facts." Initially, however, no name or source publication appeared in the e-mail forward. The item wasn't particularly popular until February 2016, when it suddenly carried a new attribution— The New Yorker magazine:

The author is the political correspondent for Bloomberg and wrote extensively about Obama even before he was elected and he did it with facts . This article is a reminder that history shows presidential candidates are often elected based on the state of the union and mood of the people in a particular election cycle. If either Hillary or Bernie is elected, better start preparing for the collapse of America as we know it. The author seems to understand that and is sending a warning.

However, there were many inconsistencies. The author of the piece was still only described, not named, and we were unable to find a published article by The New Yorker that matched the item. The piece also didn't seem to be written in the same style as the rest of the pieces in that magazine. The earliest versions of the item included the Bloomberg claim, but lacked the subsequent The New Yorker element. Around the same time, other versions began to appear, all with the same publication claim.

As it turned out, it wasn't written by anyone at The New Yorker or Bloomberg, and didn't appear anywhere in either publication.  The piece was small-government advocate and President Obama birth certificate conspiracy theorist Don Fredrick's work, and was originally published on his blogThe Complete Obama Timeline. Readers apparently confused Fredrick with Bloomberg Politics writer Don Frederick (not Fredrick), a completely different person with no relation to the writer of the Trump piece.

While some readers obviously found Fredrick's opinion piece agreeable, it originated neither with The New Yorker nor Bloomberg's Don Frederick.

Last updated: 29 February 2016

Originally published: 29 February 2016

Kim LaCapria is a New York-based content manager and longtime snopes.com message board participant. Although she was investigated and found to be "probably false" by snopes.com in early 2002, Kim later began writing for the site due to an executive order unilaterally passed by President Obama during a secret, late-night session (without the approval of Congress). Click like and share if you think this is an egregious example of legislative overreach.



Snopes