Mediaboss Marketing

Rarely do you see a court case with a title as tasty as the one thats coming on Feb. 1 in federal district court right here in Manhattan: Grab your popcorn for Palin v. New York Times.

Unlike, say, Batman v. Commissioner (1950, federal tax court), however, this one is about exactly who you think its about. Fun!

But this trial is not only entertaining, it will address an important principle: you dont get to make up nasty stuff about somebody you dont like and print it anyway. Reminding us that there is punishment in store for those who do this could move us a half-a-baby-step closer to restoring civility in the discourse.

After a madman shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Arizona in 2011, when Sarah Palin was the most despised woman in America on the left because of her merciless and effective put-downs of Barack Obama three years earlier, lefty pundits were desperate to find some way, however far-fetched, to link the shooting to her. They tried to make a banquet out of a crumb: they discovered Palins PAC had put out a map about defeating Obamacare that was illustrated with crosshairs to identify congressional districts as potential pickups for the GOP. Target, campaign, crosshairs and the like are long-standing military metaphors used in election battles. (Battles. Theres another one.) Nobody goes, Aaaaaugh, youre trying to get me killed! when a press release mentions that this or that incumbent is being targeted.

Did Giffords shooter ever see this map? No, not that we know of. Moreover, he had no clear political views. Instead, he simply harbored an obsessive hate for Giffords specifically, which was documented back to three years before the maps existence. Three days after the shooting, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler wrote, The charge that Palins map had anything to do with the shooting is bogus.

Yet six years later, after a far-left Bernie Sanders-loving terrorist shot and nearly killed Republican Congressman Steve Scalise on a Virginia baseball field, the Times tried to change the subject back to the Giffords shooting to deflect blame from the left. Its unsigned editorial of June 14, 2017, stated that in the Giffords attack, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palins political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts and claimed that the Scalise shooting showed no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack.

Awful stuff, and completely untrue, as the Times acknowledged in a corrective note: In fact, no such link was established. Much less a direct or clear one. The whole Palin link was simply made up because the left hates her, and the Times editorial board stepped in a mess out on Bullspit Boulevard.

Ill sue you for libel, you ink-stained bastard! is the kind of idle threat heard by every reporter six times a day before lunch. No, you probably wont! And if you do, I like my chances. American libel law strongly favors the press rather than the people we write about, and for excellent reason. Opinions, even extremely nasty ones, are protected. Hurrah! What a dim, gray, Soviet-scented discourse wed have in this country if it were otherwise. Also, the media can be forgiven for honest mistakes. Believe it or not, Were too dumb to know what we said was false is a legit defense.

Its pretty hard to lose a libel case, but the Times has put itself in a dicey spot. The Times smeared Palin, plain and simple. They thought theyd get away with it because Palin is a public figure, and the national press has been unloading on her since the day John McCain picked her to be his running mate. But Palins lawyers are the ones who trounced Gawker so badly in the Hulk Hogan case that the site went under.

If I were the Times, Id be looking forward to this trial about as much as you would spending winter in Juneau.

Go here to see the original:
Why Sarah Palin has a case against the lying liberals at New York Times - New York Post

Canadians from coast to coast to coast have dealt with extreme weather this past year. From the extreme heat, catastrophic fires and floods in British Columbia, tornadoes in Ontario, and more floods in Atlantic Canada, people have lost their homes and even their lives as a result.

There is also a high financial cost. Last year alone, Canadians had $2.1 billion in insured losses. But many Canadians cannot access disaster insurance and small communities cannot afford the rebuilding costs under present cost-sharing models.

It's clear that these extreme weather events are not going away. In addition to having a strong plan to fight climate change, the federal government needs to invest in improved infrastructure and preventative action to help stop catastrophic natural disasters. This should include fully funding the FireSmart program, increased floodplain mapping and updating important infrastructure around communities and along the nations highways.

The Liberals cannot wait for disasters to happen before reacting, they need a proactive approach. New Democrats will continue to push for the government to invest in infrastructure upgrades and urgent action on the climate crisis before these disasters occur.

Read the original here:
Liberals need to invest in emergency preparedness with more extreme climate events on the horizon - ndp.ca

Liberals making up voting rules as they go

Your favorite football is tied in the fourth quarter, poised for a big upset of the home team.

Suddenly the officials announce a rule change. Your team will get the ball on their own 5-yard line, with only one chance to score from there. The home team will get the ball on your teams 2-yard line, with 10 chances to score.

Not fair, you yell.

Favorite baseball team is poised to win the World Series, tied in Game 7 in the ninth inning. Suddenly, umpires announce that your team will get one out in their last at bat, while the other team will get 10 outs in their last at bat. Not fair.

Favorite basketball team is close to winning the final NCAA game, when the officials stop the game with five minutes to play, and wheel out new baskets. Your teams will be slightly larger than the ball, while the other teams will be the size of a large trash container. Not fair.

Sound ridiculous? Cant change the rules of these games anytime you feel like it?

No kidding, but isnt this exactly what liberal Democrats are trying to do with their filibuster rule changes and laws to totally turn voting regulations topsy turvy? Why not?

They do believe the constitution is a liquid document, to be bent, re-configured and interpreted any way that fits their agendas.

Joe Maschue

Altoona

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Originally posted here:
Letter to the editor: Liberals making up voting rules as they go - Altoona Mirror

OTTAWA According to a new report from Oxfam, the worlds ten richest men have seen their wealth double during the pandemic while most of the worlds population saw their incomes reduce. In Canada this same pattern exists with the top 100 CEOs incomes rising since March 2020. While the Liberals continue to let the ultra-rich get away with not paying their fair share, New Democrats are committed to making sure the wealthiest among us contribute fairly to the pandemic recovery.

Canadians are bearing the brunt of soaring inequality while the Liberals help the rich get richer, said the NDPs Critic for Tax Fairness and Inequality, Niki Ashton. The Liberals had an opportunity during the fall economic update to stop pandemic profiteering, make the ultra-rich pay their fair share and close tax havens and loopholes. Instead, they chose to protect the profits of the ultra-wealthy while everyday Canadians struggle.

In the six years Justin Trudeau has been Prime Minister, the super-rich have only gotten richer while everyday Canadians are finding it harder to get by. The Liberals gave away millions in subsidies to big corporations with no strings attached while cutting pandemic benefits for people who needed them as COVID-19 cases spread through the country. With inflation rising and the cost of everyday essentials like rent and food going up, everyday Canadians need a government that is there for them.

The recovery from this pandemic is going to cost us, but it should be paid for by those who profited off of this pandemic, not Canadian families who have been struggling, said the NDPs Critic for Finance, Daniel Blaikie. Its time the Liberals stood up for everyday Canadians instead of protecting their rich friends.

New Democrats are committed to giving Canadians the help they need to make ends meet and making sure ultra-rich and big corporations pay their fair share for the pandemic recovery.

See the article here:
Under the Liberals, wealth inequality is growing - ndp.ca

With two provincial byelections coming in the first half of 2022, Manitoba's Liberal party likely calculated that concentrating on the one in Winnipeg was better than spreading their resources between both.

Although virtually everything about the legally required byelection to fill the vacancy left when Thompson MLA Danielle Adams died in a car accident last month is unknown, the Manitoba Liberals have come out publicly to say that they will not be running a candidate out of respect for the late NDP representative.

That a byelection will be held is certain. Under Manitoba law, a byelection must be held within six months of a vacancy opening up unless there is a scheduled general election within a year. The next scheduled provincial election in Manitoba isnt until 2023, so the government will be required to hold a race to fill the seat.

Apart from the fact that it must take place by early June, when they byelection will happen is up in the air at this point. However, given that there must be another byelection in the Fort Whyte electoral division in Winnipeg, the seat previously held by former premier Brian Pallister and that that byelection must be held by the end of March (a date for that one has not yet been set either), odds are that Thompsons will happen in either April, May or the first week of June. It just seems unlikely that the Progressive Conservatives would like to run simultaneous byelections. When it comes down to it, the party certainly wants to keep Fort Whyte in its roster of seats. Thompson will not be a priority.

That said, it doesnt seem that likely that the PCs will do what Manitoba Liberal leader Dougald Lamont has encouraged them to and also decline to run a candidate in Thompson.

There is some merit to the Liberals argument that the government should just let the party that already held Thompson keep it, since it wont make any difference in the legislature. The PCs will still have a majority and be able to pass the legislation that they wish to. On the other hand, that argument goes for any byelection. Except in a case where there isnt a majority government or the second- and third-place parties have an equal number of seats, there isnt any real immediate advantage to be won from winning a byelection, per se. There are, however, other reasons to seek success in them.

For the Progressive Conservatives, Northern Manitoba is a bit of a white whale to their Ahab. In recent history, it has been dominated by the NDP, which often takes all the seats of the region The Pas-Kameesak, Flin Flon, Thompson and Keewatinook under the current electoral division map. In the last election, those seats accounted for more than 20 per cent of the opposition partys total. Having the ability to whittle that down by even one would certainly make it tougher for the NDP to form a provincial government in a general election, since their support is mainly in the north and in Winnipeg.

Of course, a byelection win wont give the NDP a chance to form a government but there is going to another general election in a year or two and no one knows precisely what the political landscape will look like then. From this perspective, a Thompson byelection can be viewed as a dress rehearsal for the real deal and the PCs would probably like to get someone to run to see if they have enough support to win this time, or to potentially win the next time, though it wont be a perfectly calibrated predictor of the next general election, since byelections usually motivate far fewer voters to cast a ballot.

Six or seven years ago, the PCs might have been tempted to abstain from running a candidate in a Thompson byelection. Prior to them ousting the NDP from government in 2016, the riding had been held for 35 years by Steve Ashton, who was defeated by political rookie Kelly Bindle in his first foray into politics. Three years later, however, Bindle lost to Adams by about 1,000 votes, indicating perhaps that any imagined breakthrough in support levels that the PCs experienced was more about the unpopularity of a government that had been in power for over 17 years and a feeling that Ashton had outlived his usefulness. In short, it might not have had anything to do with the PCs at all, deep down.

While the Liberals decision not to contest the race to capture the vacant seat is honourable, its probably also pragmatic. The Manitoba Liberals currently have only three seats and less money than the other parties. It doesnt make a lot of sense for them to spread their resources between two back-to-back byelections. And although they were nowhere close to winning Fort Whyte in 2019, they did come close to matching the NDPs vote total. Although the odds are still long, they would have a better shot this time, simply because they are not up against the sitting premier. In Thompson, on the other hand, they finished with less than 10 per cent as many votes as the NDP in 2019 and were fourth in the riding, behind the Green Party. Thompson has been a Conservative or NDP (mostly NDP) riding since it was created. Hoping for a miracle in the upcoming byelection wouldnt do anything for the Liberals chances of increasing their seat total in the next election. And politics, it has been said, is the art of the possible.

Here is the original post:
Multiple reasons Liberals won't run in Thompson byelection - Thompson Citizen