I had to double take at this headline.

The New York Times has endorsed giving Trump the $4.5B he requested in funds for the border. Not just a single writer either, it’s the whole editorial board.

The New York Times editorial board urged Congress to give President Trump the administration’s requested $4.5 billion in emergency funding for the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border.

“President Trump is right: There is a crisis at the southern border,” the editorial board wrote Sunday in a piece titled, “Congress, Give Trump his Border Money.”

Crisis is the santizied word liberals like to use about the border because they are loathe to say “emergency” and possibly give Trump any credit. We all know what it is though. Over 100,000 people crossed illegally last month. The CPB don’t have the manpower or resources to handle the situation. Our asylum laws are being abused at a ridiculous level and Congress refuses to act.

If what’s going on at the border isn’t an emergency, then the word has lost all meaning.

While the Times manages to get the top line decision right, they still had to get their shots in.

“There is no pressing national security threat — no invasion of murderers, drug cartels or terrorists. No matter how often Mr. Trump delivers such warnings, they bear little resemblance to the truth,” it said.

They of course base that on absolutely nothing. When you have 100,000 un-vetted people crossing in a few weeks time, the idea that the drug cartels and gangs aren’t heavily taking advantage of that is nonsensical. They are out to make money, among other things. As the system is being overrun, it’s common sense that bad actors would work toward their own gain.  The Times assuming otherwise is pure gaslighting.

“None of the money would go toward Mr. Trump’s border wall,” it wrote. “Several hundred million dollars would, however, go toward shoring up border security operations, including increasing the number of detention beds overseen by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. This, for Democrats, is a nonstarter.”

“But until better policies are in place, Democrats need to find a way to provide money for adequate shelter,” the board continued, encouraging both Democrats and the White House to be open to conditions from the other side of the aisle.

Perhaps the Times should examine why it’s acceptable for Democrats to reject increasing the number of beds instead of just passing over it as a legitimate position to hold. That never made any sense and always seemed inhumane at best, yet the media have done nothing to put pressure on Democrats for holding CPB hostage. Instead, they spend all their time gnashing their teeth over whether Trump is accurately describing every asylum seeker properly.

You can almost feel the torture in every word as you read the Times’ article endorsing Trump’s funding request. They really, really would have preferred not to write this. What we are seeing here is a decision driven by pure pragmatism, even as they long to push their political narrative in a different direction. I guess that’s better than nothing though. Perhaps the Democrat party should try the same thing?