USA Gov Policy – News & features affiliated with the New York Analysis of Policy & Government

The American Analysis of News and Media, Inc. (AANM) is a unique 501 (c) (4) organization founded for the specific purpose of providing well-researched, authoritative and timely information to the general public that the major media does not, or chooses not, to cover. AANM produces: a radio program broadcast in numerous cities; a television program carried on local public access stations and Roku; a website that provides a new research column each day, Monday – Saturday; and a weekly summary of our latest articles and research distributed to a list of over one thousand newspapers, decision makers, and donors. Each week, our volunteer staff appear as guests on numerous media outlets.

Press Contact, Mailing List Sign-up or Email: Contact

To contribute via PayPal, use the Donate button below, or send a check to: American Analysis of News & Media, 3148 Fairmount Avenue, Throggs Neck, New York 10465. Contributions to a 501(c)(4) are not tax deductible. The American Analysis of News and Media does not endorse candidates or political parties, and does not perform lobbying activities.

Initial reports indicate that the drug may tadalafil for sale cheap enhance endurance, especially when competitors are breathing in polluted conditions or at high altitudes. One reason you may have been turned down after you applied for unemployment is that you didn’t earn enough income. 5mg generic cialis mouthsofthesouth.com At a time that was unthinkable, today, that is possible. cialis tadalafil tablets mouthsofthesouth.com Enhancing Male Libido Here are the fruits and vegetables rich in antioxidants is to choose the colorful fruits cialis samples http://mouthsofthesouth.com/locations/personal-property-of-gordon-polly-clapp/ and vegetables such as red, orange, blue, and yellow.

Quick Analysis

Defamation Cases Brought by Conservatives are Back on the Docket

It has become commonplace for the left to defame and slander those on the right. But it has also become a matter of course for conservatives to fight back. However, whether or not the right-leaning person is successful in suing the slanderer often depends on whether or not the target of the attack is a private figure, or a public one. According to Andrew Stebbins and Christina Williams of the law firm Buckingham, Doolittle and Burroughs of Cleveland, “[t]he designation of public versus private figure for a plaintiff in a defamation claim is important because it governs the burden of proof a plaintiff has in proving the mental state of the defendant. A public figure must prove that a Defendant acted with ‘actual malice’ in publishing a false statement about the plaintiff. Actual malice means that the person either knew the statement was false or showed such reckless disregard for the truth that they should have known the statement was false. A private figure, however, only has to show that a defendant was negligent in making the false statement.” This distinction made an important difference for the cases brought by Nicholas Sandmann, a high school student who was in Washington DC for a Pro-Life Rally in January of 2019. Sandmann was confronted by a Native-American activist, who banged a drum and chanted directly in front of Sandmann, who stood still with a smile on his face. Much of the media immediately assumed that Sandmann, wearing a MAGA hat, was a racist. “A video that shows white high school students in Make America Great Again hats and shirts mocking a Native American elder shocked the country,” according to CNN, “leading to widespread denunciations of the teens’ behavior.” Those denunciations of Sandmann came fast and furious. According to Robby Soave, writing for Reason, “The Detroit Free Press described the video as depicting ‘[the Native-American activist] peacefully drumming and singing, while surrounded by a hostile crowd’ and suggested that this ‘illustrates the nation’s political and racial tensions.’ The Daily Beast’s story was filed under ‘AWFUL’ and described the video as ‘disturbing.’ Its first several paragraphs quote directly from [the activist]. NPR asserted that the boys had mocked the Native American man.” These reactions were calm and measured compared with the torrent of abuse directed at Sandmann on social media. As described by Soave, “Reza Aslan, a scholar and television pundit on CNN, tweeted that Sandmann had a ‘punchable’ face. His CNN colleague Bakari Sellers agreed. BuzzFeed’s Anne Petersen tweeted that Sandmann’s face reminded her of Brett Kavanaugh’s – and this wasn’t intended as a compliment. Vulture writer Erik Abriss tweeted that he wanted the kids and their parents to die. Kathy Griffin said the high schoolers ought to be doxxed. As a USA Today retrospective noted, ‘comedian Patton Oswalt called the students in the video ‘bland, frightened, forgettable kids who’ll grow up to be bland, frightened, forgotten adult wastes.’…Writer Michael Green, referring to Sandmann’sapparent smirking at the Native American man, wrote: ‘A face like that never changes. This image will define his life. No one need ever forgive him.’…Huffington Post reporter Christopher Mathias explicitly compared the students to violent segregationists.'” In their rush to judgment, none of these media figures considered that Sandmann had done nothing wrong. The video shows him merely standing still, with a smile on his face. He does not speak; he does not threaten; Sandmann doesn’t even move. “Within 48 hours,” Soave writes, “the truth had emerged. A longer video, which showed [Sandmann’s] prior harassment at the hands of the Black Hebrew Israelites, made it clear that [Sandmann] had not directed racist invectives at [the Native-American activist].” What these media figures also never considered is that Nicholas Sandmann was a private figure, a high school student, who could easily show that the media companies he eventually sued were negligent in making false statements about him. Many had no choice but to settle with Sandmann and his attorneys – he had them dead to rights. “CNN confirmed…that it has settled for an undisclosed amount with Nick Sandmann…smeared by multiple news outlets after a video of a ‘standoff’ between the teen and a Native-American activist went viral”, reported the National Trial Lawyers Sandmann had originally sued CNN for $275 million dollars. The Washington Post also settled with Sandmann for an undisclosed sum as did NBC. Not all of Sandmann’s lawsuits were successful. In 2023, the Sixth Circuit denied his appeal of the 2022 dismissal of his case against “Gannett, The New York Times, Rolling Stone magazine, ABC News and CBS News…[the lower court], Circuit Judge Jane B. Stranch said…[r]eporting by the media outlets offered multiple accounts of the event and linked to some version of the video…leaving it to readers to decide what Sandmann’s intentions were during his interaction with [the activist].” But overall, Sandmann prevailed in the majority of the cases he brought because he was a private citizen, and the media had a lower standard of proof applicable to their behavior than would be used in comments involving a public figure. In March of 2022, we discussed the case brought by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin against The New York Times. After Republican Congressman Steve Scalise was shot by a deranged gunman, The Times published an Editorial blaming rhetoric from the right for the shooting, and specifically pointed to a political advertisement put out by Palin years before the shooting of Scalise that placed a map of the District of Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords under crosshairs. Palin sued, but her case was dismissed during trial by Federal District Court Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York, who “ruled that [Palin’s] lawsuit…should be thrown out because her lawyers failed to produce adequate evidence that the newspaper knew what it wrote about her was false or acted recklessly toward indications it was false.” Judge Rakoff applied the higher standard for public figures which was established in the seminal US Supreme Court case of New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 US 256 (1964). There, the Court stated that “(t)o sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false […]

Our Latest Television Program

New Era in World Affairs

There will be a dramatic change in Washington in the aftermath of the election. What will this mean for America’s national security and foreign affairs? Our guests, former CIA officer and Vice President at the Center for Security Policy Clair Lopez, along with ret. Col. John Mills, (author of The Nation Will Follow) provide extraordinary insights. If you missed the program on your local station, catch it here: https://rumble.com/v5oonnb-the-american-political-zone-november-12-2024.html