A fantasy lawsuit

By Don Frost

© 2023

            I have a dream – a fantasy, really. In it a man is libeled by a major news organization, say the Associated Press, and the libel runs in major newspapers all over the country. The libel makes its way to television newscasts. This is where libel becomes slander – a printed defamatory statement (libel) becomes slander when the statement is spoken. This man is a multi-millionaire; he has the resources to sue the AP, the newspapers, and the TV networks and he does.

            His case is predicated on a Supreme Court ruling in a landmark decision rendered in New York Times vs. Sullivan in 1964.

            The 1^st Amendment requires that the plaintiff in a libel suit must show that the defendant knew the statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish it without investigating whether it was true or false.

            For a libel suit to succeed, malice must be shown and malice is interpreted to mean knowing that the statement is false or there was gross recklessness rather than intent to defame.

            The libel/slander in my fantasy lawsuit is the published and aired implication that this millionaire is a racist. He has impeccable credentials, unassailable evidence, and unimpeachable testimony that he is not a racist. He has been humiliated by the implication that he was a racist, he’s furious, and so he sues.

            He charges the AP, newspapers, and networks were grossly reckless when they published and aired – without investigating whether the implication was true or false – that he was a racist.

            A definition and one (forgotten) rule of the journalism profession are in order: Merriam Webster: Race baiting is, “The unfair use of statements about race to try to influence the actions or attitudes of a particular group of people.” Journalism 101: Never mention race in news stories unless race is relevant to that story.

            The South and West Sides of Chicago are black. Killings there are routine. News reports of those murders never say, “Two black youths were killed when a black man opened fire from a moving car.” That would be racist because the races are not relevant to the story. It would also be race baiting because – since race was irrelevant – it tended to portray black people as mindless killers.

            But somehow it is not considered racist to report “White cop kills black man,” though race is not relevant to the story. And somehow it is not considered race baiting because – since race was irrelevant – it tended to portray white cops as mindless killers of black people.

            But back to my fantasy libel suit. It begins with a typical headline, reinforced by the news story: “White man kills black man.”

            Those five words infer the white man killed the black man because he’s a racist who hates black people. Five words that have the power to cripple a man’s career and make his life a living hell. This is the “new journalism,” this is “advocacy journalism.” It is practiced by an irresponsible press that has become the norm in America. This race baiting periodically plunges the country into race riots.

            Hundreds of examples of libel/slander identical to this have appeared in the media for decades. It goes unchallenged because it puts the white man in the impossible position of having to prove a negative as in the old joke: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” No matter how vehemently he denies ever beating his wife, it always comes off as, “That’s exactly what a wife beater [racist] would say.”

            But in my fantasy case the libeled man has news clippings showing him marching arm in arm with Martin Luther King Jr.; business records show he has personally hired and promoted hundreds of black people in his far-flung enterprises; he has cancelled checks for donations to the Black Lives Matter Co.; he has reams of his written correspondence in which he capitalizes “black” when referring to race; and he can parade before a jury dozens of black neighbors and friends who cheerfully attest to his good heart.

            In my fantasy the jury does not buy the defense argument that it was okay to imply that when a white man kills a black man it’s racist because “all media does it.” Nor does it buy the argument that white people killing black people “is a national trend and it’s just responsible journalism” to point this out in their coverage.

            The beauty part of my fantasy comes after the man wins a monstrous judgement: All news media – not just the ones named in the lawsuit – rediscover their moral compass, their code of ethics. They finally realize it is wrong (and financially dangerous) to mention race in any news story “unless it is relevant to that story.” Then they stop doing it.

            If you hit ’em where it hurts – their bank accounts – just maybe the media will become responsible members of the community – at least as far as race is concerned.

Dems never tire of a political circus

By Don Frost

            Donald Trump has done many deplorable things. He has said many outrageous things. He has committed many despicable acts. His presidency was a disaster. But does the Democratic Party and its allies in the press never weary of tying the country in knots over their pathological hatred of him? Has the party and the press no shame, no sense of fair play, no ethics?

            There was the manufactured scandal over Trump’s so-called collusion with Russia in the 2016 election in which he was portrayed, if not an active Russian agent, at least a pawn, a stooge, of Russian boss Vladimir Putin. Almost daily we were treated to the most outrageous, sometimes salacious, rumors and innuendo. After millions of dollars in a taxpayer-funded investigation all were shown to be a smear bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

            Failing to convict Trump in that mess the party tried again with the House committee “investigating” the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. The quote marks are necessary because anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew the committee would conclude that the riot was all Trump’s fault.

            But when the hearings were over and as its six “impartial” Trump-loathing committee members crept back to their chambers on Capitol Hill they had one more headline-grabbing task to perform. They urged Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland to file criminal charges against Trump. It has been 3½ months since they disbanded and Democrat Garland still hasn’t filed any such charges. He’s smart enough to know Trump would have been found innocent, contradicting the Jan. 6 committee’s findings and exposing it for what it was: A political circus.

            Had Garland charged Trump, his attorneys would only have needed to subpoena the transcripts from criminal trials of rioters taking place down the street from the Jan. 6 committee meetings. There rioters – QAnon, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and similar unaligned lightweights – were found guilty of planning and executing the riot. Even knowing this the committee still insisted Trump was to blame.

            Now we have the New York indictments. If there was ever any doubt that these are yet another political circus (there wasn’t) it can be dispelled by reading just one – pick any one – of the 34 indictments lodged against him, to wit:

            “The grand jury of the County of New York, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of Penal Law s175.10, committed as follows:

            “The defendant in the County of New York and elsewhere on or about Feb. 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated Feb. 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump revocable trust and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.”

            There are 33 other indictments – aka charges – brought against Trump by the ambitious Democratic district attorney, Alvin Bragg. All 34 say basically the same thing, creating the impression that Trump must have done something truly awful to be charged with so many different crimes. In politics impressions are more important than facts.

            Bragg and the Democratic Party know that no one’s going to read all 34 indictments. There may be some hair-splitting, legalese mumbo-jumbo that required 33 additional charges, but in common sense understanding that’s B.S. The extra 33 charges were tossed in simply to swell the total to a point calculated to shock and to force the trial to drag on and on as each indictment is dealt with one by one.

            In “liberal” news report shorthand the issue will always be described only as “34 felony/criminal counts.” And count on that media to use those words “felony” and “criminal” frequently. It sounds ever-so much more sinister than what it actually is. And what is that?

            Nothing more than how Trump got hush-money payments to people who may have had embarrassing information about his personal life. The “victim” in Trump’s crime? His own company.

            The strategy is identical to the House committee “investigation” of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Democrats and their allies in the media kept that fraudulent exercise festering in the news right up to the 2022 midterm elections. The end goal of these indictments is the 2024 presidential election when the party will again force all GOP candidates to run with the Trump albatross dangling around their necks.

            Let us pause a moment in sympathy for the hapless taxpayers of New York County. The whole country will suffer through these indictments, key to the party’s 2024 campaign. But the citizens of New York will be stuck with the bill.

            When all is said and done if Trump is found guilty of violating Penal Law s175.10 history will record this hush money was proven to be not a business expense, but a personal expense, filed in the wrong column. In other words, Trump would be found guilty of dishonest bookkeeping. Thus, Democrats and pundits will trumpet, Bragg saved the republic and proved that “no one is above the law.”

            And do remember the name, Alvin Bragg. Before these indictments who, outside of New York City, ever even heard of the guy? Several years from now – when the 34 indictments issue has been laid to rest – look for his party to quietly reward him. An ambassadorship? A federal judge’s post? A party-financed nomination to a “safe” seat in the House? In the Senate? Whatever, these indictments put Bragg’s star in ascendance.

Crying ‘racism’ is a good career move

By Don Frost

            It pays to accuse white people of racism.

            Citing sources such as Forbes, Wikipedia, and IMDB, Google can estimate the net worth of almost anyone. Colin Kaepernick, a black ex-pro football player, showed his contempt for “racist America” by kneeling instead of standing for our national anthem at the start of games. He parlayed that gesture, after his playing days were over, into an estimated $20 million fortune.

             Jesse Jackson, who masquerades as a minister, may well have been the first to play the race card back in the ’60s. He sallies forth from his Chicago base to anywhere in the country where television cameras are in evidence and he can use the term “systemic racism” while he sows the seeds of racial discord. It has netted him a fortune estimated at $9 million.

            Al Sharpton is another “minister” who found his true calling in accusing white people of racism. He and Jackson often find themselves at the same events, outwardly playing nice with each other while jockeying for the attention of the TV cameras. Sharpton’s net worth is estimated at $5 million.

            U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), when not pushing the Socialistic agenda in Congress, frequently accuses white people of racism. She’s worth an estimated $20 million.

            The Black Lives Matter organization was co-founded in 2013 by three entrepreneurs: Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal/Ayo Tometi. Cullors’ net worth, $5 million; Tometi’s, $4 million; and Garza’s, $1 million to $5 million.

            These people, among others, have tapped into what Thomas Sowell calls The Race Industry led by “race hustlers” like Jackson, Sharpton, and a multitude of other black activists.

            Jackson, he says, hasn’t been good for black people: “He’s good for himself. What will serve his interests is to keep people paranoid, keep them dependent on him, dependent on government. . . . the black leaders, the activists, the race hustlers want black people to be poor and dependent on them rather than dependent on themselves . . . the people who are most hurt by playing the race card are black people themselves.

            “Hopelessness is one of the big products of the race industry. I remember giving a talk at Marquette and at the end of the talk a young black man got up and said to me, ‘Even though I’m graduating from Marquette University, what hope is there for me?’ I told him twice as much hope as his parents had; 10 times as much as his grandparents had.

            “Having gone through college in the ’50s I don’t remember any blacks saying that in the 1950s, when there were a lot more obstacles to overcome than there were when this guy was graduating from Marquette. But you have to produce that kind of feeling [hopelessness] in order to serve the interests of those in the race industry.

            “Now you’ve got a whole generation of black people believing it’s hopeless. They’re being told this by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton; you can run through a whole list of them. All sorts of white people are telling them the same thing, too. These people have a huge investment in fostering this feeling of hopelessness among blacks – money, power.”

            Sowell’s observations are hard to dismiss. He’s a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, the author of 45 books, and he’s black.

Biden lies on gun control legislation

By Don Frost

            President Biden falsely claims he’s a helpless victim when he passes the buck to Congress on gun control legislation. “Falsely claiming” he’s helpless in this matter is a polite way of calling the president a liar. It is not possible for him to be so ignorant, so clueless that he genuinely believes all he can do is sit on his hands and moan, “Gee whiz. I sure hope Congress comes up with something on guns.”

            I’m disrespecting the office by calling the president a liar? Spare me. “Liberals” don’t object when news reports say Donald Trump “falsely claims” he won the 2020 election.

            Biden is not helpless and he knows it or he has scrambled eggs for brains. When he was vice president he stood by and watched his boss, Barack Obama, routinely bypass Congress when he enacted, by presidential fiat, things he knew he could never get Congress to pass.

            DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals): With a stroke of his pen Obama overrode standing immigration law. The Constitution is unambiguous in stating that passing and changing federal laws is the prerogative and duty of Congress, not the president.

            The Paris Climate Accord: This agreement had the full effect of a treaty. The Constitution is unambiguous in stating that treaties with foreign governments must be approved by Congress, not the president.

            The Iran Deal: (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA.) This pact also had the full effect of a treaty. The Constitution is unambiguous in stating that treaties with foreign governments must be approved by Congress, not the president.

            In all of these matters Obama never played the “helpless victim” card. He just went ahead and put himself above the law.

            Fast forward to Nashville, March 27, 2023. A disaffected woman went into a school toting an AR-15-style rifle, killed people, was then killed by police, and knees jerked in unison all across America with the familiar refrain: We need tougher gun laws!

            It’s really irrelevant to the national debate, but for the record, this young woman (she preferred to be a man and so claimed she really was one) shot up Covenant School, killing six people.

            Pundits pontificated, as usual, puzzling over what motivated her. But without exception they determined her motive didn’t matter anyhow. She did it, they trumpeted, because guns were available and she bought them legally. Pundits and news reporters just love to hammer on the legality of her purchase. There are an estimated 16 million AR-15-style rifles on the loose in America at this very moment. Oddly, none of them (or their owners) are on murderous rampages. In fact, an infinitesimally small minority of them has killed anyone.

            The science on mass killers has been ignored for years. Psychiatric evaluations of those who survived their attacks have shown they’re garden-variety copycats with a deadly twist. They didn’t do it because they could legally buy a gun. They did it because they envied others who committed mass murder and were rewarded with great notoriety. For most, if not all, it was the first time anyone noticed them. The certainty that their attacks could end in their deaths was not a deterrent. I will not name the Nashville murderer here. It’s my small contribution to denying future murderers their go-to motive for killing.

            Nashville police say their killer left a manifesto, so maybe one day the world will know her twisted motivation, or maybe not. It doesn’t matter. She did it because she knew she could die with the knowledge that a) an irresponsible press would see to it that people all across America would know who she was, b) her manifesto would explain how horribly the world treated her, and c) the world would at last understand her; feel sorry for her; and, perhaps, mend its wicked ways so others need not suffer as she did.

            Whatever the fallout of the Nashville killings, count on politicians to yield to the plaintive cry, “We’ve just gotta do something!” There are votes in those voices. But Biden insists he’s helpless and that it’s up to Congress to “do something,” not him. That’s a lie because he knows better and he doesn’t even have to follow Obama’s illegal blueprint of running roughshod over the Constitution. Presidents are legally entitled to draft legislation. They simply write it, summon their party’s Congressional leaders, and give them their marching orders: “Get this bill passed.”

            So with poor Joe Biden sitting helplessly by, sucking his thumb, politicians will launch their usual exercise in futility, ie., doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Whatever pointless gesture they settle on (perhaps an additional box to check on the mandatory FBI background check?) it’s just a matter of time before the next disaffected man or woman decides it’s time to get his or her slice of the notoriety pie and go on a killing spree. Just like the last time, the time before that, and the time before . . .

            Columbine, Sandy Hook, Littleton, Newton, Uvalde, Highland Park, Parkland . . .

            Those killers had their 15 minutes of fame. Now they’re forgotten. But the next killer doesn’t care. He or she will settle for 15 minutes, just like the Nashville shooter did.