The New York Times seems shocked that retired four-star Marine general John Kelly is patriotic, and that he shares in President Donald J. Trump’s vision for America, according to a new editorial Wednesday by writer Peter Baker, who hinted that Americans had been deceived.

In the story titled, “Pitched as Calming Force, John Kelly Instead Mirrors Boss’s Priorities,” the writer laments that Gen. Kelly may not be the “grown-up” Trump detractors were hoping for, as he is “more aligned with President Trump than anticipated.”

“For all of the talk of Mr. Kelly as a moderating force and the so-called grown-up in the room, it turns out that he harbors strong feelings on patriotism, national security, and immigration that mirror the hard-line views of his outspoken boss,” Baker wote.

Baker also didn’t like Gen. Kelly’s comments about things that should still be sacred in America (see video below).

“And in lamenting that the country no longer holds women, religion, military families or the dignity of life ‘sacred’ the way it once did, Mr. Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general whose son was killed in Afghanistan, waded deep into the culture wars in a way few chiefs of staff typically do,” Baker states. “Conservatives cheered his defense of what they consider traditional American values, while liberals condemned what they deemed an outdated view of a modern, pluralistic society.”

The Washington Free Beacon points out: “The most troubling revelation for the Times is that Kelly may share Trump’s views on enforcing immigration law.”

The reference is to this tidbit from Baker, who wrote: During a speech in April, Mr. Kelly rebuked members of Congress who complained about what they called overly aggressive immigration enforcement.

“If lawmakers do not like the laws they’ve passed and we are charged to enforce, then they should have the courage and skill to change the laws,” Mr. Kelly said defiantly. “Otherwise, they should shut up and support the men and women on the front lines.”

The Times writer also expressed dismay that the former Secretary of Homeland security not only wants to “curb refugees coming into the country,” but that he also “embraced Mr. Trump’s various attempts to close the border to visitors from a group of predominantly Muslim countries.”

The Times feels duped, as “Mr. Kelly’s focus on improving information flow and decision making in the West Wing gave the impression of a good soldier mainly concerned with process.” However, since Kelly shares the president’s views on strengthening the border and deporting illegals, he is no longer the “steady, non-ideological figure trying to restore order in the White House in the face of a radical president,” according to one source.

Kelly, who began in the Trump administration as the Secretary of Homeland Security, is now the president’s chief of staff. In an impromptu press conference appearance last week, Kelly said the most challenging part of his new role was dealing with the media’s version of the inner workings of the White House.

Many thought Kelly’s introduction into the West Wing would mean the former general would take a controlling hand with President Trump, and that the president would resist such efforts. Soon, there were rumors that the two were having a serious conflict of interest.

The Washington Post reported that Trump was pining “for the days when the Oval Office was a bustling hub of visitors and gossip, over which he presided as impresario,” and that he was “on an inevitable collision course with White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly.”

Vanity Fair insisted Kelly was ashamed of Trump’s comments after the Charlottesville, Virginia riots, “memorably hanging his head in frustration.” They wrote: “A rift is growing between Trump and Kelly, for the same reasons rifts developed between the president and all the other former members of his staff: Kelly’s just doing his job, which is managing Trump, which is essentially impossible.”

The Times also reported about a rift, saying “sources” in the administration said there was tension between the president and Kelly, and that Kelly was aware of the president’s resentment.

Last week, Kelly defended the president, announced he had no desire to leave his current position, and said he had been assured his job was secure for now.

The NY Times expressed their dismay, quoting Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant Homeland Security secretary in the Obama administration, who said, “Kelly has been an enabler of Trump’s mission. Judge him that way.”