Posted on 01/13/2009 1:43:28 PM PST by season_bug
From the socialist center of our society come the assassins of truth. In ideology, the agnostics from the folds of the extreme Left assassinate the truth … the truth that our belief in God is a reality in one’s life. Liberal atheists, whether from the ghetto or the academe, think that religion is unreal … it is just hypocrisy. That the existence of God is doubtful is their mantra of public attraction.
Attracted like how magnet draws metallic objects from the swirling dust of ignorance, in the name of freedom and civil liberties, Justices of the high courts who are too liberal for their own good and for the good of this country, took away God from the classroom. The goal of the protesting Left in the streets and in the Bench, is to create a Godless society for America under the promise of freedom to everyone.
In journalism, a story is killed or the truth is murdered. On July 5, 2007 the liberal website of American Chronicle [AC] and its online publication network run by a left-leaning editorial staff published an article informing the public that this nation has a president that “urinated” on the Constitution. The 4th paragraph of the radical article also described the Vice President of the United States as a “fat slug”, a personal attack … a falsely published libel of the VP that could neither be justified nor countenanced.
AC and its liberal-left-leaning online network murdered the truth even before this. An editorial report written by the Left’s anti-Bush activist, was published on July 3, 2007 libeling the person of George W. Bush as president of the United States with a “syphilis-ravaged” brain.
Because none of these was true, the American public was outraged. Read full story at http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/433/2/
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalwriterssyndicate.com ...
For instance, the lie being promoted is that global warming is not caused by Nature but man-made, arguing that population explosion will lead to the demise of this planet. They celebrate by asking funds from the government they hate, and more contributions from the public to finance their “crusade” to “save” the environment! They cry out loud: Too much carbon dioxide from human emissions and excretions!
There are only about six billion humans on the planet but there are over ten quintillion insects belonging to the phylum Arthropoda classified in that category by Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus and since 1735 have been crowding the planet. In a euphemistic way of putting it, this largest class of earth inhabitants in the animal world outnumbering all other animals, multiplies at such horrendous speed say, at 100 mph on the highway that in comparison the human birth rate is just like a car pulling out of the garage!
Like humans, this environmental menace “has an elaborate social structures too in which the various forms of activity necessary for the feeding, shelter, and reproduction of the colony are divided among individuals especially adapted for the various activities.” It has its peculiar way of devastating farms, tearing down homes and destroying the planet. And yet, is the Left complaining of “overcrowding”?
Their silence is a vulgar way of murdering the truth and the leftist Media enjoys in burying it! The Left went hammer and tong murdering Gov. Sarah Palin’s reputation when she ran for VP in the last election. The radical Media made a hell out of it.
A “nuisance Republican” candidate for president attacked Bush and the Republican administration in the last election… that 9/11 was not the fault of terrorists but of the American people for meddling in the Middle East. How can the Media made a feeding frenzy out of this Left’s outrageous badmouthing amounting to treason that the American people are “little Eichmanns” [Eichmann was Hitler’s gas chamber’s mass murderer in Holocaust], is mind-boggling! This infamy was exposed by a freelance journalist who was known to be politically neutral, and leftist supporters swarmed on him like insects tearing him down with unprintable names.
The leftist attacks on the persons of Pres. Bush and VP Cheney were brutal causing incalculable damage to their reputations and that of their respective families.
Leftist members of AC’s editorial staff were warned to remove personal attacks on Pres. Bush and VP Cheney that were utterly false, or else drastic measures would be taken against them. AC complied. http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/400/2/
And what would those be? Bush and Cheney are public figures. Calling someone a 'fat slug' is well within the realm of political criticism, even if it is a loathesome claim.
Count me out if you wish to take drastic actions against free political speech you disagree with, unless it is a boycott or some other such action. 'Drastic action' implies more than that.
Because none of these was true, the American public was outraged. So was I. On July 18, 2007, I wrote the owner of the American Chronicle with a warning as follows: “This one I will recommend to proper authorities for the filing of libel in court if not removed immediately.”
Do you have any understanding of libel law as it pertains to public figures, and especially national politicians?
...Attracted like how magnet draws metallic objects from the swirling dust of ignorance..."
Nationalwriterssyndicate???
Sometimes the 1960s street rabble and their ideological issue murder for real.. and others of all sorts protect the murderers.
season_bug
Calling Cheney a 'fat slug' or spreading false rumors about Bush having syphillis is not gonna cross that threshhold. Libel against a city councilman has a much lower threshhold than libel against the president, and you should know better. Horrible claims and names have been made against presidents over the years. Now show me one libel suit regarding presidential libel during your career that has been successfully torted by anyone. I'm waiting.
season_bug
You mentioned "threshhold" not once but twice. What threshhod are you talking about? Show me a Supreme Court declared "threshhold" in defamation jurisprudence that you alone seem to know, and then show me a defamation case launched by an out of control radical offender that the president has a syphilis which you said does not cross that threshhold ... then I will thank you in advance for enriching my legal research and court files.
season_bug
You really think a libel suit can be made against someone who claims the president has syphillis? You are confusing what is right with what is possible. And, once again, please show me, during your career as a laywer, where someone successfully torted a libel suit against any president.
I did no such thing. And you need to ping someone when you mention them, especially when you are in turn attacking them falsely.
Are you implying a threat with this statement?
Yours: Are you implying a threat with this statement? My response to you: Pls. calm down. I used to say this to my students who rushed themselves to diving into an empty swimming pool ... just switching on the light of knowledge.
With your exclamatory statement[?],I do not feel the way you do as if you are ready to punch in with a declaration of war! Threatening anyone is not within my vocabulary, although those with ill-will may interpret what I have just said as a prelude to World War III.
I would like to learn from you, but if you think this is war, then this is the last time you will hear from me. I have already gone too far in the academe, and I could no longer go back to or go down to this level. Thank you.
Yours truly,
season_bug
Still waiting for you to show where someone successfully torted a libel suit against a sitting president during your 35-year legal career.
Fitzgerald filed suit against Nixon, Butterfield, and others. I did file a brief in that case. I have a copy of it around somewhere, that Ernie Fitzgerald was kind enough to sign.
John / Billybob
Has a president won a libel suit against someone for making false claims against him, such as saying he had tertiary syphillis?
But you bravely claim that the defamation in question does not cross the "threshhold" for libel. What "threshhold"?
If you are just imagining this "threshhold" you are saying, then you will just be wasting my time.
So again, I return you to my previous posting:
To dirtboy from season_bug: Falsely accusing the president in public that he has syphilis is not crossing that threshhold? Do you know that it goes beyond his person and crossed the boundary line down to his family ... his wife, children and grandchildren, that they two were infected of syphilis that the president have. You mentioned "threshhold" not once but twice. What threshhod are you talking about? Show me a Supreme Court declared "threshhold" in defamation jurisprudence that you alone seem to know, and then show me a defamation case launched by an out of control radical offender that the president has a syphilis which you said does not cross that threshhold ... then I will thank you in advance for enriching my legal research and court files.
season_bug
Yours: Still waiting for you to show where someone successfully torted a libel suit against a sitting president during your 35-year legal career.
Mine: You can't have it if you don't have a "threshhold" to show me which you claim you have. Repeat: If you are just imagining it, you will just be wasting my time.
season_bug
John / Billybob
Ditto Dirt_Boy. In the Supreme Court case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with “actual malice”. In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with “actual malice” and did not award any damages.
In addition to ‘malice’ being difficult to prove (I would venture one would need to have documented evidence of malice intentions), if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.