patrick.net

Yesterday, the UK Guardian ran a story headlined, “ ‘Alarming but not unexpected’: NYT lawsuit just latest example of Trump’s presidential lawfare.” President Trump filed a new defamation lawsuit, this time against the New York Times, alleging $15 billion in damages— which exceeds the Times’ entire net worth.

Apparently, even applying its incredibly broad definition of ‘expert,’ the Guardian was still unable to find a single ‘expert’ who liked Trump’s lawsuit or thought it had any merit. (Portlanders: in other words, the article was completely one-sided, violating who knows how many journalistic ethics rules. But never mind.)

Trump’s new 85-page case was filed in the sunny climes of Tampa, Florida. The next step will be for the Times’ lawyers to move to dismiss, probably arguing that President Trump failed to sufficiently state a claim for defamation. But, as the story admitted, so far, three major news platforms have settled similar cases with Trump for millions.

Call it turnabout or FAFO, but it’s fun. The Times used to throw office parties whenever a new lawsuit was filed against President Trump. But now, he files one case against them, and you’d think it was the End of Democracy or something.

Do the managers of The New York Times actually still believe the Russia Collusion story they were awarded a Pulitzer for, or their 1619 Project Woke-rewrite of US history? Or their mulish defense of the Covid vaccines. Or their florid esteem for the leadership of “Joe Biden.” Or are they simply ruled by blind Trump derangement? (Or do they receive instructions from nefarious others about how to report and opine on things?)

For most of my life, nasty progressive reporters have hidden behind an effective framing game called “How Do You Respond.” At press events, they’ll “gotcha” a conservative official by asking a sincere-sounding question like this: “how do you respond to critics who complain your policy stinks like room-temperature French cheese— and kills children?”

It is the laziest reporting imaginable. It’s a fake way to pretend to be unbiased. The reporters aren’t actually quoting critics. They are just making stuff up, fishing for an awkward soundbite, leaving officials fumbling to answer, since they’ve always been forced to be “professional” and treat the reporters’ fake question as if it were perfectly fair and appropriate and not based on a lie.

But this year, Trump officials began pushing back. Now, whenever a reporter starts a question with “how do you respond to critics who say…”, Trump’s officials jump right down the reporter’s throat. They immediately ask, “What critics?” Without waiting for an answer, they demand, “who is saying that?” It is wonderful. The moron reporters are left with an unsolvable riddle. They can either answer, “AOC and Bernie say that,” which will draw a guffaw from everyone in the room. Or, humiliated, they can mumble something illegible and move on, which is what they usually do.

The Times tried to mount a lame defense. It did actually round up a bunch of complaining critics, all of them inherently biased. For instance, the article quoted the president of “Americans United for Separation of Church and State,” an atheist NGO; a VP from a libertarian think tank; and a ‘religion and culture professor’ at a Canadian university. Okay.

The gist of the critics’ complaint seemed to be that federal officials’ mere recognition of the holiday’s religious basis somehow amounted to “establishing a state religion.” Okay again, Scrooges.

This fracas, if you can call it that, evidences the real motive behind the effort to secularize Christmas. It’s never been about being “inclusive.” It is intended to erode the undeniably Christian religious roots of the most popular American holiday of all. Without a secular version of the holiday, how can critics deny the fact that Christmas has always been a national religious holiday— from the first time George Washington slipped on a new pair of military boots?

The bottom line is that a courageous, muscular Christianity is back at the helm. This is not new. It has only returned to active duty.