Connect with us


Jenna Ellis: NYT Critique of President Trump Is ‘BatSh*t Crazy’



New York Times building

If we thought they couldn’t sink any lower, The New York Times’ is the Titanic of fake news embarrassment. They sunk further into the murky depths of slimy yellow journalism by publishing a hate-filled anti-Trump hit piece, full of malicious and outlandish rhetoric. And that’s putting it nicely.

The headline ran, “This is What Happens When a Narcissist Runs a Crisis.” The author begins, “Since the early days of the Trump administration, an impassioned group of mental health professionals have warned the public about the president’s cramped and disordered mind, a darkened attic of fluttering bats.” It goes on….and on…..and on. With rabid absurdity.

I’m literally laughing out loud at how desperate this is. She tries to soften her utterly baseless “assessment” by the caveat, “Their assessments have been controversial. The American Psychiatric Association’s code of ethics expressly forbids its members from diagnosing a public figure from afar.” Okay, but can you also point me to the page in the DSM of any legitimate professional diagnosis including a “darkened attic of fluttering bats” mind?

The writer is, according to her bio, apparently a book critic. Sounds about right, as she seems to be borrowing from the children’s book “The Grinch” by Dr. Seuss with her entirely fictional descriptions worthy only of the same type of writing that made Seuss famous for made-up words and exaggerated characters.

But this isn’t a fanciful novel she’s critiquing. She’s talking about a real, current public health crisis that a real American President is managing and real American people are very concerned and scared.

This is impacting everyone, from health to financial concerns to our daily lives being disrupted. For The New York Times to run this malicious piece in the middle of a pandemic is irresponsible and reckless at best, but evidences clearly that they hate President Trump far more than they care about the American people or doing actual journalism and reporting facts.

Are they so afraid Trump is doing such a good job managing this that they have to invoke malicious pejoratives and hope someone is stupid enough to believe them?

The piece also makes some dangerous and false factual claims: “The president’s pathology is endangering not just institutions, but lives.” This presumes her “bat attic mind” diagnosis is an actual “pathology,” and that such “pathology” is actually in some provable way endangering lives. That’s a leap too far.

The legal bar on criticism of a public figure is high. This is intended to ensure that controversial opinions are not silenced. But maybe it’s time the law reevaluates this standard. Should “fair comment” rationally and legally include a book critic making mental health diagnostics of a public figure she’s never met? This is dangerous. It’s also hate speech. Making statements that a person (even a public figure) has a loathsome disease is libel per se. Shouldn’t that include wildly false, reckless statements accusing someone of having a mental health disorder that could affect public perception?

This seems intentionally targeted toward the 2020 election. Maybe it’s time the law doesn’t allow intentionally reckless claims of bat attic minds or bat-sh*t crazy “analysis” to get printed under the auspices of legitimate journalism and “fair comment.” There is nothing fair or legitimate about this.

Jenna Ellis is a constitutional law attorney and the Senior Legal Adviser to the Trump 2020 campaign. She is an attorney to President Trump and author of “The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.”

You may like

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Biden Administration Proposes Rule to Fortify Federal Bureaucracy Against Republican Presidency



Joe Biden

In a strategic move, the Biden administration has unveiled a proposed rule aimed at reinforcing the left-leaning federal bureaucracy, potentially hindering future conservative policy implementations by Republican presidents. This move has raised concerns about the efficacy of democratic elections when a deep-seated bureaucracy remains largely unchanged, regardless of electoral outcomes.

Key points of the situation include:

Presidential Appointees vs. Career Bureaucrats: Of the 2.2 million federal civil workers, only 4,000 are presidential appointees. The vast majority, made up of career bureaucrats, continue in their roles from one administration to the next. This continuity is facilitated by rules that make it exceedingly difficult to discipline or replace them, resulting in a bureaucracy that tends to lean left politically.

Union Political Affiliation: A striking 95% of unionized federal employees who donate to political candidates support Democrats, according to Open Secrets, with only 5% favoring Republicans. This significant political skew among federal workers raises questions about the potential for political bias in the execution of government policies.

Obstructionism and Challenges for GOP Presidents: Some career bureaucrats have been accused of obstructing Republican presidents’ agendas, leading to policy delays and challenges. For example, during the Trump administration, career lawyers in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division declined to challenge Yale University’s discrimination against Asian American applicants, prompting Trump to seek legal counsel from other divisions. The case was subsequently dropped when Joe Biden took office.

Biden’s Countermeasures: President Biden has taken steps to protect the bureaucracy’s status quo. In October 2020, Trump issued an executive order aiming to reclassify federal workers who make policy as at-will employees, but Biden canceled it upon taking office.

Proposed Rule and Congressional Actions: The rule unveiled by the Biden administration seeks to further impede a president’s ability to reinstate Trump’s order. Additionally, some Democrats in Congress are pushing to eliminate the president’s authority to reclassify jobs entirely. This has been referred to as an attempt to “Trump-proof the federal workforce.”

Republican Candidates’ Pledge: GOP candidates such as President Donald J Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Ron DeSantis have pledged to address this issue. According to reports from Fox News, Ramaswamy has gone further, advocating for the elimination of half or more of civil service positions, emphasizing the need for accountability.

Debate on the Merit of the Civil Service: While Democrats and their media allies argue that civil service protects merit over patronage, critics contend that the system has evolved into a form of job security for federal workers with minimal accountability. Federal employees often receive higher salaries and more substantial benefits than their private-sector counterparts.

In summary, the Biden administration’s proposed rule and broader actions to protect the federal bureaucracy have sparked a debate over the role of career bureaucrats in shaping government policy.

Republican candidates are vowing to address these concerns, highlighting the need for accountability and ensuring that government agencies work in alignment with the elected president’s agenda. This ongoing debate raises important questions about the relationship between the bureaucracy and the democratic process in the United States.

Information in this article was retrieved from Fox News.

You may like

Continue Reading