Sarah Palin is about to get all mavericky in court. Indeed, the former Alaskan governor and vice presidential candidate just might be making new law in the area of defamation. Palin’s won a major victory in a decision by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who ruled that she could go to trial o a particularly outrageous editorial by The New York Times in June 2017. The editorial suggested that she inspired or incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz. The case also involves a curious twist due to the involvement of James Bennet, who resigned in the recent controversy over an editorial by Sen. Tom Cotton. I supported Bennet’s decision to publish that editorial and denounced the cringing apology of the Times after a backlash.
This ruling comes after Nick Sandmann was able to survive motions to dismiss in his own defamation lawsuits and settled with various news organizations like the Washington Post over false reports of his confrontation with a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
These actions are likely to increase as media plunges headlong into “echo journalism” where stories are framed to reaffirm the bias and expectations of their readers.
The ruling concerns an editorial by the New York Times where it sought to paint Palin and other Republicans as inciting the earlier shooting. The editorial was on the shooting of GOP Rep. Steve Scalise and other members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, of Illinois, 66, a liberal activist and Sanders supporter. The attack did not fit with a common narrative in the media on right-wing violence and the Times awkwardly sought to shift the focus back on conservatives. It stated that SarahPAC had posted a graphic that put Giffords in crosshairs before she was shot. It was false but it was enough for the intended spin: “Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”
The editorial was grossly unfair and falsely worded. Indeed, the opinion begins with a bang: “Gov. Palin brings this action to hold James Bennet and The Times accountable for defaming her by falsely asserting what they knew to be false: that Gov. Palin was clearly and directly responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011.”
The Times stated “the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin‘s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.” In reality, the posting used crosshairs over various congressional districts, which included Giffords district.
The ruling represents a reversal of fortune for Palin after an earlier complaint was rejected. In Dec. 2019, Palin filed an amended complaint that just passed judicial muster. A three-judge panel reestablished Palin’s defamation claim in an August decision.
What makes this ruling significant is that it is focused on an editorial about a public figure. Both elements make it difficult to sue. Opinion is generally protected under tort law and public figures have a higher burden to bring any defamation case.
The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, a litigant must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
Simply saying that something is your “opinion” does not automatically shield you from defamation actions if you are asserting facts rather than opinion. However, courts have been highly protective over the expression of opinion in the interests of free speech. This issue was addressed in Ollman v. Evans 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In that case, Novak and Evans wrote a scathing piece, including what Ollman stated were clear misrepresentations. The court acknowledges that “the most troublesome statement in the column . . . [is] an anonymous political science professor is quoted as saying: ‘Ollman has no status within the profession but is a pure and simple activist.’” Ollman sued but Judge Kenneth Starr wrote for the D.C. Circuit in finding no basis for defamation. This passage would seem relevant for secondary posters and activists using the article to criticize the family:
The reasonable reader who peruses an Evans and Novak column on the editorial or Op-Ed page is fully aware that the statements found there are not “hard” news like those printed on the front page or elsewhere in the news sections of the newspaper. Readers expect that columnists will make strong statements, sometimes phrased in a polemical manner that would hardly be considered balanced or fair elsewhere in the newspaper. National Rifle Association v. Dayton Newspaper, Inc., supra, 555 F.Supp. at 1309. That proposition is inherent in the very notion of an “Op-Ed page.” Because of obvious space limitations, it is also manifest that columnists or commentators will express themselves in condensed fashion without providing what might be considered the full picture. Columnists are, after all, writing a column, not a full-length scholarly article or a book. This broad understanding of the traditional function of a column like Evans and Novak will therefore predispose the average reader to regard what is found there to be opinion.
A reader of this particular Evans and Novak column would also have been influenced by the column’s express purpose. The columnists laid squarely before the reader their interest in ending what they deemed a “frivolous” debate among politicians over whether Mr. Ollman’s political beliefs should bar him from becoming head of the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland. Instead, the authors plainly intimated in the column’s lead paragraph that they wanted to spark a more appropriate debate within academia over whether Mr. Ollman’s purpose in teaching was to indoctrinate his students. Later in the column, they openly questioned the measure or method of Professor Ollman’s scholarship. Evans and Novak made it clear that they were not purporting to set forth definitive conclusions, but instead meant to ventilate what in their view constituted the central questions raised by Mr. Ollman’s prospective appointment.
There is however a difference between stating fact and opinion and the Times blew away that distinction in the rush to shift attention on political violence to Republicans like Palin.
What is striking about the opinion is how the court clearly lays out the case for malice by Bennet, the key element under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. The Court details how internal messages immediately raised the possibility of raising violence on the right.
The case addresses the more insular issue of whether a plaintiff must establish actual malice with respect to meaning as well as falsity. This addresses the use of words that may be misinterpreted as opposed to intentionally making false statements. The Court ruled that Palin will have to shoulder the burden on both meaning and falsity. That could generate further appellate fights.
I was also struck by how the court suggested that the later correction issued by the Times might be used by the jury to assume or discount malice. It is rare that such a correction would be raised as substantial evidence on intent:
The fact that Bennet and the Times were so quick to print a correction is, on the one hand, evidence that a jury might find corroborative of a lack of actual malice, as discussed later. But, on the other hand, a reasonable jury could conclude that Bennet’s reaction and the Times’ correction may also be probative of a prior intent to assert the existence of such a direct link, for why else the need to correct? Indeed, the correction itself concedes that Bennet’s initial draft incorrectly stated that there existed such a link. If, as Bennet now contends, it was all simply a misunderstanding, the result of a poor choice of words, it is reasonable to conclude that the ultimate correction would have reflected as much and simply clarified the Editorial’s intended meaning.
James Bennet gained national attention after he was forced to resign after pushing the Cotton editorial headlined, “Send In the Troops.” The op-ed discussed the basis for using troops to quell riots, which has been done repeatedly in history. The Times not only disgraced itself by abandoning its independence but promised to avoid such controversies in the future. (Later, some of the very figures who insisted that the op-ed was factually wrong — without having to explain that allegation — would push bizarre anti-police conspiracy theories). Bennet, who is being sued for bias in this case, was forced out for allowing dissenting conservative views into the paper this year. There is an irony that Bennet’s alleged bias against Republicans did not lead to a push for his removal but his merely publishing the view of a Republican led to his ouster.
The Palin case could create some major new precedent on issues like showing malice on the meaning of terms or words. It is also a standout as a defamation case going to trial on an editorial.
Here is the opinion: Palin v. New York Times
I am hoping that Sullivan will be overturned before Trump is out of office.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
– Lord Acton
__________
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America are absolutely in power and are absolutely corrupt.
The entire American welfare state is in violation of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and totally corrupt.
In a perfect world, under the U.S. Constitution, Sullivan, Obama, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Page, Strzok et al. would be in guillotines or prison by now.
If the courts blur the line between facts and opinions, then kiss the 1st and 14th amendment goodbye. SCOTUS has ruling already in place with Hustler Magazine v Falwell. Of course, don’t expect to see the far-right shed any tears about those amendments.
“If the courts blur the line between facts and opinions…”
The courts don’t have to do that. The MSM does it on a daily basis.
Fake News is the enemy of the people.
The history of journalism in this country is spotty at best with most generations living with dishonest, ideologically or economically driven reporters and publishers. Even Joseph Pulitzer, the print media’s icon, in competition with Randolph Hearst, gave birth to yellow journalism. In 1964, special protection was given to the media because of the justification for the First Amendment which is that if everyone is allowed to publish freely competing claims and ideas, regardless of how silly, something resembling the truth or reality will emerge. Obviously, the Sullivan rule predated advances in communications technology. With all of its wonderful features, instantaneous world-wide publications on hundreds if not thousands of platforms, can destroy a person’s reputation in the blink of an eye without any meaningful opportunity to rebut false facts or opinions based on false facts– even when the journalist or publisher knows the facts are false. Unfortunately, many people have been subjected to the type of malicious, false reporting that nearly ruined Nicholas Sandmann. Obviously to these “journalists” there is something far more important than any kind of ethical or public interest standard. My wish is that New York Times v. Sullivan would be revisited and that the special protections be removed. There no longer is any justifiable reason for shielding the media from their victims, public figures or not.
HLM,
Another area that needs reform but will never happen is the speech protections afforded politicians. I don’t care what party does it, but outright lying like we saw from Harry Reid from the Senate floor to influence an election should carry penalties consistent with treason.
“These actions are likely to increase as media plunges headlong into “echo journalism” where stories are framed to reaffirm the bias and expectations of their readers” Or to try and conform the bias and expectations of their readers to the bias of the media bias which after all like ‘spin’ is just another way of preaching propaganda and ‘lying.’ What else is the bulk of the main stream media good for?
I see a move by the court for taking a hard look at the First Amendment and trying to find where it says free press means intentional lying, bias, and propaganda or for that matter ‘peaceful assembly’ a license to riot, rape, loot and murder? If one reads the first articles of the Constitution we easily find the governments main and primary job is to protect the citizens. It has long been held that one cannot yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater especially when there is no fire.
Although this is a positive step towards holding those responsible for disinformation accountable, it’s far too slow of a process considering the lasting damage such propaganda has on a gullible population in real time. Elections don’t wait for decisions like this. The risk/reward assessment on being found guilty, years after the fact, largely favors the propagandizer. As we’ve seen, wars are started. Entire economies are impacted. Cultures are transformed. Rights are lost. People die. We need to attack this problem from the education front and the law. Accountability needs to be swift and so severe that the risk overwhelms the reward.
The way to stop the nonsense is to get into their pockets.
I see that federal courts intend to give Trump exactly what he wants, another cudgel to use to silence critics. The new rule seems to be that if you are rich and Republican you to can shut people up. They can’t have negative opinions ( that’s what an editorial is.) about you but you can say and do anything you want. Hurray, another blow for unequal justice under the law.
Kyle Rittenhouse….influenced, incited, empowered by Trump? You decide. I do hear people are saying it. Of course, I’m sure they are wrong, aren’t you?
Kyle Rittenhouse is a kid who made a dumb decision to help defend property owners and their private property, Holmes.
The 3 assailants made the dumb decision to physically attack someone that had a firearm. As a result 2 of them are dead, and the other one seriously injured. Had Kyle not used the gun to defend himself he would be the one who was killed or seriously injured.
“Kenosha: All Three Anarchist Rioters Shot Have Violent Criminal Histories”
https://national-justice.com/kenosha-all-three-anarchist-rioters-shot-have-histories-violent-crime
But the people ultimately responsible for the entire scenario are the rioters. However, next in the line of responsibility are the Mayor of Kenosha and the Governor of Wisconsin for not immediately allowing law enforcement to fully enforce the law, and instead allowing anarchy to reign in Kenosha. All for purely partisan political reasons, while ignoring the well being of the citizens of Kenosha. A common theme around the country since this all began back in May.
Just to make it even worse, the MSM and many Democratic Senators and Congressmen have condoned the violence by purposefully referring to rioters as “protesters”, and rioting, arson, assault, murder, arson, looting, and vandalism as “protests”.
As a result, Trump will win the election. You can thanks the psychotic Marxists in BLM and Antifa for that reality.
@Rhodes, Interesting piece on the “peaceful protesters” it gives you an idea what we’re dealing with. Too bad the politicians don’t support and unleash the police so these events stop.
You are so wrong. The murderer was not being attacked. Why did he leave Illinois with a weapon? Was it a long distance attack?
Fake News, according to Lin Wood he did not leave Illinois with a weapon.
I’ve seen the video, he was clearly being attacked.
The first person Kyle had to kill was age 36 Rosenbaum, who spent 12 years in an AZ prison (from age 18 to age 30) for raping an underage girl. A few minutes before Rosenbaum died there’s video of him commanding some men protecting property with rifles to kill him, using horrible expletives, calling white men with rifles the N word over and over again. Ros. was indeed (rot in hell) a certified violent nut case, the opposite of Kyle.
For absolutely no known reason, absolutely unprovoked, Ros. chases Kyle and catches him, just after another rioter 40 feet back shoots a pistol in Kyle’s direction, causing Kyle to turn around just as Ros. grabs Kyle’s rifle. (Multiple videos from different angles include audio of the shot, plus the muzzle flare.)
Kyle has the smarts and probably practiced the proper technique, being to twirl the rifle out of the hands of his attacker, then thank God, Ros. won his well deserved prize, a rifle bullet to the head and soon after his dirt nap (rot in hell scum bag).
Oh,did I forget to mention Ros. lobbed a fire bomb directly at Kyle a few S before Ros. died? If the bomb hit Kyle on the back and the bomb lit (it did not AFAIK) Kyle would have likely died the most horrific death over 5-10 minutes, smelling his flesh burn, either the smoke or pain causing him to eventually pass out, then death.
Then later as Kyle attempts to turn himself into police, running for his life from more murderers, one of them, a guy convicted of twice beating and strangling his girlfriend (red hair, beard, late 20s still riding skateboards), whacks Kyle on the back full swing with his skateboard, knocking Kyle to the ground. While Kyle is on the pavement, he gives girl-beater his reward, thank God in Heaven, a high speed rifle bullet to the chest and death (rot in hell Biden-voting scum).
The difference in severity of injury between a chest shot with a pistol and that rifle is nothing short of amazing. If you know the visual cues differentiating life and death, you knew this guy punched his card, “DRT” like we said in the business, dead right there. Hoo-ray #2 for child-warrior Kyle. Kyle 2, Biden-voting scum 0.
The 3rd and last guy to try to murder Kyle has a concealed pistol. Pistol man sees Kyle’s kill shot on skateboard man. Pistol man raises his hands straight in the air in classic surrender fake, then grabs his hidden pistol. (Pistol man arrested and charged prior for violent felony, unsure if convicted of same.) Pistol man aims at Kyle to kill him. Superchild Kyle replies by promptly shattering pistol man’s upper shooting arm. Blood splatter everywhere; Kyle could have answered that with a kill shot but he spared that attempted murderer’s life, at grave risk (pistol man’s pistol still in his hand but barely, resting against the pavement, on his knees, 2nd guessing his antifa hero status). We can only hope he dies a miserable death soon.
Of all people an employee of the NYT collected every then-available video (there’s tons) of the above events, and uncovered the rioter I mentioned above shooting a hand gun in Kyle’s direction in the first event.
Please someone post me to a betting link for odds on Kyle being convicted of murder. If they give even odds count me in for $1k on “nay.”
According to the charging document, the first “victim” was actually hit several times, the head shot was a graze.
“The murderer was not being attacked. ”
What is your source of information and where did they get their information from. If they are continuously wrong and don’t provide the sources of information you should stop reading that type of news for it tarnishes your reputation.
Allan, this kid will have his day in court. Then the retaliatory law suits will commence.
Independent, there is no doubt that he will have his day in court but will the judicial system be fair to him? Will they find a jury that reacts to the facts or to the leftist media. Will the prosecutor, should the facts turn out in favor of the kid, be able to do his job and not try an innocent person.
I am not confident of our system of justice will do the right thing. We have the courts and prosecutors acting politically rather than following the rule of law.
Right now I am neutral and will remain so until the evidence comes out. The reporter was very convincing.
Oh hell yes. If justice prevails Kyle’s only potential criminal conviction is misdemeanor minor possession of a weapon. Hopefully the DA will be so embarrassed at that point that he drops even that charge.
And then a mountain of civil lawsuits against all the news outlets lying about Kyle now, settled out of court. Kyle is the most amazing child warrior I’ve ever not seen. A little naive, maybe a lot, and a little misguided, but that guy is otherwise better prepared and weapons trained than most anyone not named Paul Harrell.
I agree with your comment.
But where in the hell are the Arrest by the DOJ & FBI for those that are funding this illegal Insurrection against the US & their Rioters, the Fascist Commies BLM/Antif???
Remember just a few months back some American hating azzhole/s had ordered pallet loads of Bricks from Acme Brick & had Acme Brick place them at the bus stops in the cities where the BLM/Antif would arrive.
Acme Brick with a doubt had/has those invoice numbers to those deliveries & who ordered & paid for them.
People please tell me what possible excuse could the DOJ/FBI have for allowing this ongoing Coup against the US to continue with the mur.ders piling up, 1000’s injured & actual damages over a billion at least at this point?
Correction: I was assuming AMCE Brick is the only brick company in the US & delivered them for someone to get the bricks to rioters. Now I ask: Is there another Brick Company in the US & could they have been the ones that made the deliveries???
I’m not sure now if it was AMCE but there’s likely damn few other brick companies & it’d be plenty easy enough for the DOJ/FBI to have found out who paid for the bricks.
Rhodes, I agree with you but I would place the democrat party leaders on the top of those responsible. The democrats are receiving a fortune in donations from those that are formenting the rioting. They put power above the safety of the people. They are fascists. That blame includes the democrat mayors and governors followed by the professional agitataors of BLM and Antifa. That is followed by the stupidity of their followers that may be our neighbors.
Immediate action with arrests stops such activities immediately. Any statues torn down since a law was passed incarcerating people for 10 years convicted of such an act?
If people say it is unfair to blame democrats then have them check their policies, sanctuary cities, releasing violent people from jails, refusing to help ICE deport MS-13, defunding police, etc.
I see that federal courts intend to give Trump exactly what he wants, another cudgel to use to silence critics.
ROTFL.
What would the world do without clowns?
A woman called 911 saying a man had just sexually assaulted her
The man had a knife and fought with police before getting shot
Joe Biden defended him and called for the officers to be held accountable
People gave $2M to him
The left has gone insane
https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/this-is-why-jacob-blake-had-a-warrant-out-for-his-arrest/
Hurray, another blow for unequal justice under the law.
“James T. Hodgkinson, the man identified as shooting a Republican member of congress and four others on Wednesday morning, was a small business owner in Illinois who defined himself publicly by his firm support of Bernie Sanders’ progressive politics — and his hatred of conservatives and President Donald Trump.
This is based on CNN’s review of Hodgkinson’s Facebook profiles, public records, and three years of impassioned letters to his local newspaper.
“Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” he posted on his personal Facebook page on March 22.
“Republicans are the Taliban of the USA,” he posted in February….”
James Hodgkinson….influenced, incited, empowered by Bernie Sanders, CNN, Rachel Maddow and the outright lies and irresponsible rhetoric all over MSNBC?
Absolutely. But we never hear about him in the media, do we?
Can somebody please explain to me how a racist organization that has been causing riots and now hate crimes all over the country is being supported by major companies and politicians….Why are we letting this be allowed?
First, the constitution does not allow for the feds to do much, other than protecting federal properties, within states., Next, most, if not all riots are happening in blue states and cities. Demonstrations, not riots, are happening nationally. The object is to create chaos and misdirection with the riots during an election, trying to create a situation such as one that goes back to the ’70’s where massive demonstrations impacted elections. The support seems to be the hope that the riots will create a feeling of insecurity created by hate leadership from Washington.(Hate leadership used as others thinking, not mine)
I would think this will backfire nationally, but maybe not in the liberal controlled cities/states it is happening in.
Many of the previous court rulings were based on actions by reporters and media based on totally different situations. One can report the truth, have it reflect poorly on another, public or private, and be constitutional and protected speech. In todays journalism, truth is what a reporter or media wants it to be. It is now the courts to decide what “truth” means in reporting.
So, given the Palin and Ollman decisions, the formula for a lawsuit-proof, intellectually dishonest smear under the rubric of opinion seems to be to “question” querulously, with knit brows and pursed lips, the credibility, character, and actions of your target, but to deny that you are making any declarative statement either of opinion or fact about the target that you yourself brought up. You’re only “questioning”, even if there’s no basis whatsoever for the questions other than the fact that you do not like the target’s politics. The saturation of your readership with the questions you raised, owing to the prestigious reputation of you or your publication, will do the rest. This is a tried and true propaganda technique, but just because a question is raised does not mean that it warrants an answer or any serious reflection. We need to become more sophisticated about this, whether the questions issue from the New York Times or Rush Limbaugh or any yahoo public official.
However, Palin’s victory here does not mean that she is not, or has not been, part of a political movement on the right side of the U.S. political spectrum that has encouraged the symbolism of violence against one’s political opponents, mainly connected with the culture of firearms. She most certainly has been at home among this set, and has egged it on. She should have won the case here, as she did, but it’s a thin defense to the moral charge of obliquely cultivating violence with firearms that the crosshairs were focused on the districts as opposed to on actual people. Is this the best we can do? Maybe so.
>> However, Palin’s victory here does not mean that she is not, or has not been, part of a political movement on the right side of the U.S. political spectrum that has encouraged the symbolism of violence against one’s political opponents, mainly connected with the culture of firearms. <<
Not sure what you are saying here. Palin is absolutely supportive of the 2A. Most Republicans are. They support and encourage the use of firearms for sport, hunting, and self defense. It is true that some Republicans running for office have used guns as props in their political campaigns. So have Democrats. See Jason Kander's campaign ad:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?416281-1/missouri-senate-campaign-ads
BTW, I can cite plenty of examples where the "left side of the political spectrum" has used symbolism of violence against its opponents. Before the 2008 election, to demonstrate their hatred for Sarah Palin, Democrat voters hung her in effigy. Also during the 2008 campaign, Barrack Obama talked about how Democrats need to bring guns to knife fights. (Of course, he was excused by the left wing pundit class because he was quoting a line from a movie.)
In 2006, a movie was produced in which the plot centered on assassinating GWB, who was the sitting president.
Kathy Griffin literally held up a bloody, severed Trump head. Madonna publicly fantacized about blowing up the White House because Trump won the election. Just this past week, "the left side of the political spectrum" erected a guillotine and placed a figure created to resemble Trump under the knife blade to symbolize his beheading.
Point taken. Are you saying then that the threat of political violence is equal on the right and left?
No. I’m not saying its equal. I haven’t seen reliable, unbiased data that I trust.
I’m more interested in you explaining and defending what you mean in the part I excerpted.
It is self-evident that there’s a culture on the right side of the political spectrum that is married to guns. The marriage might be mostly innocent on the surface (guns only for hunting and self-defense, etc.), at least traditionally, but there’s also something darker in it whose moral and cultural destructive power is foolish to ignore because it valorizes gun use: sometimes it’s a very dangerous neo-Nazism or white supremacy (https://www.c-span.org/video/?469238-1/white-supremacy-military), sometimes it’s a hyper-individualism and hatred of society and maybe a death wish (as Charlton Heston used to say: “out of my cold, dead hands”).
At any rate, if these are sufficiently encouraged by the right rhetoric in high places over a sufficient period of time, it will inevitably translate into the horrific shootings that have become staples in the U.S. It is easier than ever to trace the virtually direct connections between hair-trigger violence against one’s political opponents and the verbal support it receives from public officials, e.g. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/01/trump-rittenhouse-kenosha-support-407106. Not that that’s the only cause of gun violence, or the general violent degradation of American society, and not that that means that the espouser of the rhetoric should be legally responsible for specific acts of violence that they did not themselves commit.
Palin associated herself with that culture in this case, or made herself an expression of it. She might have done it innocently, but not purely innocently. Again, while her cross-hairs were fixed on Democratic political districts, and not on Gifford herself, that’s still damning, and a very weak defense to the moral charge of inciting or legitimizing gun violence, even if she should win the case. It’s not the bottom of the barrel but it’s nothing to write home about.
There have been over 4 million hand guns sold in America this year. July alone saw gun sales skyrocket with over 2.6 million sold. First time gun owners are the largest majority of these sales. (All of this is searchable).
The sales of these guns, especially the surge, is not limited to the skin head neo-Nazis. It is not limited to individuals that get off on gun ownership. This surge can be traced directly to the lack of law enforcement and the fears people have in their own safety with all the riots going on in the country. One can have demonstrations in their small towns, never knowing when that demonstration will turn violent. Who knows if you are out to dinner that someone leading a demonstration will not lead it past the restaurant you have just left. Few can have the protection that Rand Paul and his wife had after leaving the D.C. GOP convention gathering. Business owners that would never have purchased a weapon are now using them for protection of themselves and their business. When a riot breaks out, the business can be destroyed before the police ever arrive. Individuals that work nights, such as second and third shift nurses are beginning to arm themselves.
This is all traced back the the lack of trust in government today by those who see what is happening in cities across America. Are the police really going to respond to a call, or is there a “blue flu” that day? And for some, just the total lack of trust in anything government does results in self security.
Yes there are some, a small number, that feel all strong and manly when packing. But these are far a few considering the number of people who own weapons today. There are at last estimate 393 million guns owned by 47% of Americans today. When you consider the latest demographic place about a third conservative, a third liberal and a third moderate centrist,, that means a large percent of moderates, as well as some liberals also own guns.
Say whatever and follow the liberal press if you wish, but gun ownership in this country has little to do with anything but hunting and personal safety, even when considering the gangs in the large cities that are not burning.
Hopefully this will open the flood gates so that the MSM sticks to the truth.
For PaintChips, a lot of what you say is based on false statements by your favorites, WP and NYT. You hate Project Veritas based on the fact that their videos are accurately portraying the indecensy
The email was accidently sent before it was finished.
For PaintChips, a lot of what you say is based on false statements by your favorites, WP and NYT. You hate Project Veritas based on the fact that their videos are accurately portraying the indecency of the people you support and the MSM. Your media lies and you repeat the lies. However, to date I think it is now 319 retractions and 8 suits in a row won by Project Veritas. That is lies against one tiny company imagine the number of total lies. This demonstrates what a bunch of liars are behind the news that you read.
AS an aside Project Veritas is collecting large checks from these organizations. I believe it is $200,000 in the short recent time period.
You may have heard that six Democratic mayors in Northern Minnesota broke ranks with the Democrat party and endorsed President Trump. It was noteworthy enough locally that the ‘journalists’ at the Duluth News Tribune were forced to report on it, but they just can’t abide. So the article includes pointed, partisan ‘fact’ checks and mask shaming. Too, somebody at the paper is probably going to get in trouble because the article included inspiring photos of Trump supporters, including a woman holding her baby and a black man. Can’t have that.
————————————————————————
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/government-and-politics/6628320-Iron-Range-mayors-pitch-Trump-with-Pence
It’s that old free speech thing again. If newspapers are to be judged on the veracity of what they print, and they should be, opinions should be included. The opinion is included in the same rag that prints ‘facts’ like the weather, sports, etc. Papers can be biased without resorting to libel and/or untruths. Just printing Palin’s own words will paint the picture clearly enough that she is not Vice Presidential material. Just printing Trump’s words says it all, that the liar, buffoon, and poltroon was and is a mistake. There is no need for opinions in a well designed article; and no reason for legal action.
It has less to do with protecting the targets of these sloppy tirades as they have typically outed themselves with their own words. It has more to do with creating a framework out of which reasonable journalism can evolve. To understand just how perverse a newspaper can get one has only to read the Washington Times or FoxNews.
Perhaps after reigning in the slander and libel of newspapers the courts can go after politicians. Imagine a liar like Trump, with no immunity, being called on what he said/tweeted. The newspapers and our leadership would be forced to be honest and focused on real issues, not those that come from addled minds. It’s that old freedom of speech, to be a liar under; as opposed to the responsibility to tell the truth.
“It has more to do with creating a framework out of which reasonable journalism can evolve.”
Indeed, and that “framework” has devolved into propaganda masquerading as “responsible journalism” in MSM news organizations. Where fact checking sources for stories no longer occurs, or even worse outright lies are presented as truths, as was the case regarding the NYTimes and Palin.
See: “crosshairs” in the story above, Isaac.
BTW, have you expanded and tidied up your safe space? You’re really going to need it in a couple of months.
I think you’ll find that the epitome of fake news, ‘sky is falling’ routines, lies and threats, can be found in just about anything that is spewed out by Trump. There are those of us who recognize the slants to untruths that can be found in most journalism, regardless of ideological bent. Personally, I start with BBC and Reuters which are as close to neutral as it gets. Then I scan the left and right to get an idea of MSM bias. Consistently, the right wing rags tend to be further from the truth. The left wing rags also perform in un journalistic manner, but nothing approaches the slant one gets from Foxnews or the Washington Times.
From your comment about a ‘safe place’ I see that you are easily duped by the right wing extremists. Step back and take a moment to analyze the situation. Biden does not equal the end of the world. Biden equals what America had under Obama, measured and consistent success after a recovery from a Republican caused recession. If the first year and a half to two years is the hangover from the previous administration then Obama’s six plus the first two of Trump’s took the US to record unemployment and growth. The exceptionally large increase in debt under Obama was directly attributable to the scope of the recession caused by Bush. The deficit under Obama was turning downward and this continued under Trump. Obama created the momentum that offset the catastrophe created by Bush. Trump rode the momentum with a little juicing along the way. Trump is responsible for lowering unemployment a half percent. Obama lowered it 7 percent.
Check out the graphs and statistics first. Then listen to Trump’s lies. If you still believe Trump, well, ’nuff said.
Still waiting for the most significant lies from Trump. You have complained enough, now cough it up.
Look up the graphs of statistics of the six year upswing of the economy and the reduction of unemployment from well over ten percent to four percent, both of which continued improving during the overlap two years into Trump’s administration and then revisit the lies Trump spewed to get elected. Take a chance. Use your head. It won’t hurt, that bad. You will be a better person for learning the truth. It might be refreshing. Come out of the muck and mire of Trump’s sewer of lies and blaming.
Issac, if an economy is used to producing $100 per year and falls to $50/y then the leader brings that economy to $100 in 8 years is a failure even though the average growth rate is 12.5%. The economy should have returned to $100 in perhaps 1 or 2 years so the actual growth rate for years 2-8 are zero.
If the following leader takes 8 years to make $200 then he will be at the same 12.5% but in reality he did a fantastic job compared to the failure of the former 8 years.
Same with unemployment. As the unemployment rates start to get close to normal unemployment, it will decrease at a lower speed. Despite that Trump rapidly brought unemployment to such a point that it was the lowest for blacks, hispanics and women.
What you call a lie was actually a fantastic job but you wouldn’t know that because you don’t know how economies increase and unemployment is supposed to fall. You are spoon fed garbage that you believe. Take out some books from the library and see what happens during recessions. If you ever do so and put your mind to it you will be embarrassed by the ignorance you have displayed.
Trump did a good job on the economy and unemployment. The fair question is how good was the job. Obama did a terrible job. The fair question is how terrible the job was.
You surely have been Trump washed. Look at the graphs, statistics, etc. Then take a breath. Then look at them again. It is a given that the first year and a half to two years of a Presidency is more the results of the previous administration, momentum either up or down. This makes Obama’s administration responsible for 2009/2010 to 2017/2018. Unemployment dropped from over 10% 2009/2010 to less than 4% 2017/2018. Unemployment dropped a further less than half a % under Trump, before Covid-19. The primary reason for the drop in unemployment was that the economy was reversing itself from tanking under Bush and millions of baby boomers, who delayed retiring because of the recession, felt confident enough to retire. These are facts, not opinions. These two phenomenon were well managed under the Obama administration.
GDP growth under Obama for eight years from 2009/2010 to 2017/2018 averaged more than 2.3%. Trump averaged 2.6% for the time he was directly effective but still on an Obama upswing. Obama managed an upswing in GDP from -2.5% to 3.5% with a drop off to 1.7% 2016. After seven years of increasing GDP a correction was inevitable. Trump is certainly not responsible for 2017 or most of 2018. The economy has never responded so immediately to a new administration, any administration. If you pay attention you will have noticed that the economy was correcting downward in the Sumer of 2019, after Trump juiced it. The same thing happened with Reagan and Bush. First come the tax cuts then the missing revenue, then the spending. Reagan explained that on TV. Obama made tax cuts which increased the deficit.
The one instrument Obama availed himself of to manage a swift and effective rebound was spending. The deficit did go up under Obama. However, the deficit did also go down under Obama and is swiftly rising under Trump, even before Covid-19. Tax cuts + spending=deficit. Simple math. Even Reagan understood, later.
No matter how you pervert it, Obama is the single main reason for the economic rebound. Trump rode Obama’s tailwind. Obama accomplished this fighting Bush’s headwind.
Your arguing the point puts you right up there with Trump as a teller of lies and manipulator of information, all sizzle, no steak, all shoulda, coulda, woulda. Trump, a six time bankrupt, failure at twelve businesses. Obama, turned the economy around from the greatest recession since the Great Depression, and created the upswing that the liar Trump says he did. How obtuse can you be?
Issac, apparently you know zero economics.
You can’t compare what happens immediately after a recession with high unemployment to unemployment when the economy is functioning significantly post recession,
As numbers fall towards the normal expected unemployment rates, the rate of fall in unemployment decreases. Because we always have people shifting jobs the unemployment stops falling many points above zero.
If you take the last 22 months of Obama and compare with Trump based on known trends Obama should have beaten Trump by significant numbers because unemployment started at a higher level. Look at the U 3 and U 6 and you will find that Trump significantly beat Obama during this time period. Clinton’s unemployment (U 3) at best was 3.8 for one month. but in his last several years 3.8 -4.6. I think one could effectively call that near zero unemployment.
One doesn’t expect to go much lower than what is considered near zero unemployment. After Trump’s first year until Covid Trump kept unemployment down below 4 with many of those months below Clinton’s best rates. Not only that but the U 3 doesn’t take into account all unemployment (u 6) Trump was pulling out people from the U 6 and employing them as well increasing employment numbers substantially.
Obama should have been there years before… He failed. He made a recession worse. Start looking at the raw numbers. Start looking at the unemployment rates and forget about what everyone else is telling you. Use the raw numbers as your guide.
As your position has degenerated to random blather, we have to accept that we have no common ground. I rest my argument on simple facts, recorded in history with statistics on graphs, and history itself. I’m done here.
“I’m done here.”
Of course you are done, Issac. You don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. When one looks at the actual numbers one sees how foolish you are being.
Just look at Obama’s last year 2016 U 3: Jan 4.9 to Dec. 4.7
Unemployment fell 0.2
Look at Trump’s first year 2017 Jan 4.8 Dec 4.1
Unemployment fell 0.7 or more than 3X faster than Obama’s rate.
You are not interested in debate rather you only want to use another person’s spin to prove your case, but that spin fails as soon as one uses the real numbers.
Most of the signs of a healthy economy were faltering the last year or so of Obam’s Presidency.
Do you know what got Trump elected in 2016? Obama
Do you know what will get Trump elected in 2020? Joe Biden
“Trump rode Obama’s tailwind.”
I shall let that stand alone. And just add this: Holy effing God there is something the matter with you.
“[Obama] as a teller of lies and manipulator of information, all sizzle, no steak, all shoulda, coulda, woulda.”
Now you have it correct. Holy smokes, man. Get a grip on reality.
Trump is all sizzle AND steak. Obama is all sizzle and NO steak. We see it now. Obama? Poof! All gone! O rode off into the sunset on his way to living his Billionaire Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous – all he ever wanted. He did nothing for anyone but himself. Open you eyes man. The rest of us did a long time ago.
Newspapers lies. When they print a story about some who died and say cause of death was lung cancer they lie. Cause was smoking tobacco. 485,000 die each year and the media is focused on covid.
Note, since New York Times v. Sullivan, reporters and editors have been largely free from the threat of civil defamation suits, with predictable results. It’s time to eliminate this little bon bon that the Supreme Court bestowed on the media in a reward for fawning coverage.
So, we’ve long had a careless and dishonest press. Nowadays, they’ve quit reporting for 24/7 narrative manufacture. If you want to find out what’s happening in Kenosha, you have to consult British newspapers (whose reporters are trained with reference to the matrix provided by British defamation law).
Of course, their contention in re Gov. Palin was facially absurd. Glenn Reynolds description of contemporary journalists – ‘garbage people who get paid to lie for the Democratic Party’ is spot on here.
Palin should go to the street outside the Times and carry a gun. She should shoot when the liar comes out. Protest. Free speech.
Have you ever thought of becoming a Constitutionalist and a REAL whole citizen?
Palin “is beyond The Pale”. Pale refers to Palentate. That ain’t no potato. All the news that’s fit to print does not include lies.
“In order to prevail, a litigant must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.”
*******************************************************************************************************************************
Since Brennan, Clapper and the rest of the gang that couldn’t shoot straight testified under oath that there was no evidence of collusion and then went on national television and said the exact opposite, haven’t they met the standard?