Posts

NYT ‘Disinformation’ Experts Blame Online Conservatives, Not Rioters, for LA Riots

/0 Comments/in , /by

Steven Lee Myers, the aptly titled “misinformation and disinformation” writer for The New York Times, published a piece on Tuesday blaming conservatives for the anarchy in Los Angeles. He warns readers not to believe their eyes because, he claims, many social media posts about the rioting have “misleading” photos “rehashing old conspiracy theories and expressing support for President Trump’s actions.”

To bolster his point, he found a so-called expert, Darren L. Linvill, a researcher at the Clemson University Media Forensics Hub, which receives funding from the left-leaning John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Linvill told Myers that “conservatives online were ‘building up the riots in a performative way’ to help bolster Mr. Trump’s claims that Los Angeles had been taken over by ‘violent, insurrectionist mobs.’” Linvill argued that as conservatives call attention to the rioting with social media posts, more protesters will show up, making the posts “a bit self-fulfilling.”

In Myers’ misinformation world, social media posts depicting lawless looting, flaming vehicles, and violence against law enforcement are “intended to stoke outrage toward immigrants and political leaders, principally Democrats.” (Read more from “NYT ‘Disinformation’ Experts Blame Online Conservatives, Not Rioters, for LA Riots” HERE)

Jury Rules New York Times Did Not Libel Sarah Palin in Defamation Case

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal jury ruled that the New York Times did not libel former Alaskan Republican Gov. Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial in the latest update to the years-long lawsuit.

The jury reached its decision after deliberating for about two hours following both sides delivering their closing arguments to the Manhattan federal court civil trial. The trial was in its second week.

In a comment to Fox News Digital, NYT spokesperson Danielle Rhoades said, “We want to thank the jurors for their careful deliberations. The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Palin’s legal team for comment. It is unclear yet whether she plans to appeal the decision.

Palin, who became a national figure as the 2008 Republican vice presidential pick of the late Sen. John McCain, first sued the paper in 2017 for defamation after claiming an editorial falsely linked her to the deadly 2011 mass shooting that wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., and killed six people. The editorial was published in response to the 2017 mass shooting at a Republican congressional baseball practice that severely wounded Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La. (Read more from “Jury Rules New York Times Did Not Libel Sarah Palin in Defamation Case” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

NYT: Democrats Have Only 1 Year to Save Planet

/0 Comments/in , /by

Many, many warnings – and deadlines – for extremists to “save the planet” by imposing radical green agendas have come and gone.

Now comes the New York Times, with the newest from columnist Farhad Manjoo, who blared “Democrats have a year to save the planet.”

He, according to the report in Newsbusters, “screeched” that “this could be the treat turning point – an opportunity for the United States to finally take grand action to curb the worst effects of a climate barreling toward catastrophe.”

But similar warnings, from no less than Al Gore, have come and gone – without “catastrophe.”

Manjoo claimed, “A century from now, our descendants may look back on the next year or so as a hinge in history. … Picture the saga as it unfolds across the central gallery of the Biden presidential library: In the jubilant aftermath of a pandemic, a president campaigns tirelessly for an ambitious set of investments to mitigate the next great threat. Congress, shaken into action by a restive citizenry, somehow rises to the occasion, overcoming just enough partisan resistance to adopt a breakthrough environmental agenda. The global effort to curb planet-warming emissions had been foundering, but suddenly there was new hope. The earth may be parched and sweltering, but all is not lost, for Americans finally got in the game.” (Read more from “NYT: Democrats Have Only 1 Year to Save Planet” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

NYT Hacks, Electoral College Edition: Hey, Let’s Blame EVERYTHING on Slavery

/0 Comments/in , /by

Modern leftists have a habit of blaming things they don’t like on slavery — like Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) with opponents of Obamacare. Today’s lesson in “but slavery” is The New York Times on the Electoral College. The Times Editorial Board echoes the 2016 leftist narrative that the Electoral College was created to give “slave states” more power.

The notion is plainly not true, nor supported by the historical record. The Electoral College was designed to give smaller states, slave or not, a more equal say in the selection of the executive branch. It is a guardian against mob rule by pure democracy. It has worked well — remarkably so this year.

Here’s what the Times Editorial Board had to say:

The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin. When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes.

There is so much wrong with this statement. It is hard to know where to begin. The first fact, ignored by the Times, is the vast majority of states were slave states at the time of the Constitution. Only five of the thirteen states — Vermont did not join the Union until 1791 — had fully or partially abolished slavery by law at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Those states were Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Of those states, only Massachusetts had abolished slavery completely. The other four enacted laws gradually abolishing slavery, and there were chattel slaves in those states until the 1800s.

Contrary to what the Times would have you believe, only one of the 13 states present at the Constitutional Convention was a true “free state.”

The abhorrent 3/5 provision had more to do with apportioning seats in the House of Representatives than the Electoral College.

The proposal for apportionment for the determination of each state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives became an issue when the Constitution was being drafted in 1787. Aside from being a complex system and method for calculating the population through the census and then establishing a number of seats for representation, the issue as to who was eligible to be counted for the population was a topic of controversy. However, it is no surprise that this agreement is known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, for the Constitution itself was born out of compromise between the Framers of the Constitution.

This fact doesn’t fit the leftist narrative stating, “Everything that is bad in the United States is because of slavery.” Which, of course, is a lazy argument. The Times Editorial Board further explains what they really want, which is the National Popular Vote initiative. By calling the Electoral College racist, they think they can get their way. How did that work for them this election?

Unfortunately for the Times, the real reason the Electoral College exists is the exact problem they have with it. The Electoral College was a solution to stop the country from devolving into a mobocracy. The founders studied history and realized that previous pure democracies descended into majority mob rule. That’s why the Electoral College is there. It was to give smaller states (remember all of the states but Massachusetts were slave states at the time) a more equal say in the government. It is the same reason why there is a U.S. Senate and not a unicameral legislature found in many Westminster parliamentary systems.

The Times asks:

Conservative opponents of a direct vote say it would give an unfair edge to large, heavily Democratic cities and states. But why should the votes of Americans in California or New York count for less than those in Idaho or Texas?

The answer is because we are a federal republic of semi-sovereign independent states. The federal government was never meant to supplant the state government as a primary governing body. It was envisioned to provide for the common defense and ease interstate commerce. It was, by and large, a mutual defense and free trade pact. People in different states, while all American, have different values. The Electoral College and the Senate ensure those values have a seat at the federal table.

In effect, the Electoral College is the furthest thing from racism. It is a most elegant solution for representing the rights of the minority. (For more from the author of “NYT Hacks, Electoral College Edition: Hey, Let’s Blame EVERYTHING on Slavery” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.