Woman who was fired for flipping off Donald Trump's motorcade is suing her former employer.

Courtesy of the Washington Post: 

Juli Briskman, the Virginia cyclist who flipped off the presidential motorcade and lost her job last fall, doesn’t think we should be afraid to speak our minds. 

That’s why she went to court Wednesday to sue Akima, the government contracting firm that fired her. 

“I filed this lawsuit against my former employer today because I believe that Americans should not be forced to choose between their principles and their paychecks,” Briskman said.

Now you might think that Briskman does not have a firm leg to stand on, after all the 1st Amendment only protects from retaliation by the government, it does not force a company to keep you on if your actions embarrass them or make it untenable to keep you employed.

However the company that Briskman worked for was a government contractor.

Our right to free speech may protect us from punishment by the government, but it’s not clear whether it protects our jobs when our bosses don’t like how we behave. 

But Briskman’s legal team of Maria Simon and Rebecca Geller argue there is a big difference in Briskman’s case. 

"Akima’s actions — forcing Juli to resign out of fear of unlawful retaliation by the government — violated the basic tenets of Virginia employment law,” Simon said.  

See, Briskman’s bosses didn’t take a moral stand against her action. They didn’t worry that an obscene gesture offends her fellow employees or sullies the good name of her company. 

I wasn’t successful in reaching anyone at Akima for comment. But the firm is a government contractor, and it made it clear to Briskman that it was worried about retaliation from this administration. 

“Defendant forced plaintiff to resign for the stated reasons that the photograph of her would have an adverse effect on its ability to obtain government contracts,” the lawsuit said.

THAT makes this case a little different from the ones where a neo-Nazi was fired for attending a rally, or a TV station fires an employee for sending antisemitic emails.

If it can be demonstrated that Briskman lost her job because her company feared retaliation by the government, that would indeed constitute a breach of her 1st Amendment rights.

Personally I hope she wins.

The right to flip off Donald Trump should actually be added as another amendment to the Constitution. And I bet a lot of other people would agree with that.

Louisiana teacher gets handcuffed and manhandled for daring to ask the School Board about pay raises.

Courtesy of The Hill:

A teacher in Louisiana was removed Monday night from a school board meeting after a confrontation regarding teacher's pay. 

During the public comments portion of the Vermilion Parish school board meeting, Deyshia Hargrave, an English language arts teacher at Rene Rost Middle School, asked questions to the board regarding teacher's salaries, according to a report from KATC. 

She raised questions about the school board considering a $38,000 raise for the superintendent, saying she felt that giving raises to any person of leadership was a "slap in the face" to all the teachers, according to WGNTV. 

She was told she was out of order and that the public comments portion of the meeting was not a question-and-answer period. 

The teacher was called on a subsequent time and asked the board another question, according to the report. 

She was then removed from the meeting by an Abbeville city marshal and handcuffed outside. She could be heard in a video taken of the incident yelling that the officer pushed her to the ground and she was told by the officer to "stop resisting."

That poor woman is clearly not resisting, she is simply trying to stay on her feet.

There is absolutely NO excuse for treating a person like this. Especially one who dedicates their lives to teaching our children.

I was horrified when I watched this video, but I guess you will be happy to know that the school board did not press charges against the woman for exercising her 1st Amendment rights.

So I guess there's that at least.

Jury acquits six inaugural day protesters of all charges.

Courtesy of Think Progress:

None of the six men and women facing felony charges tied to an anti-Trump Inauguration Day protest committed a crime, jurors decided Thursday. 

The six defendants had faced seven charges each. The jury returned 42 separate not-guilty verdicts. 

The charges — conspiracy to riot, engaging in a riot, and five counts of criminal property destruction — came despite the government’s acknowledgement that it has no evidence any of these half-dozen people engaged in violent personal action that day. It was in effect a legal argument they were as guilty as those who had actually smashed a window, because they chose to show up in black and stay with the group as it moved through the city. 

The verdict resolves only the first handful of cases in the sweeping felony prosecutions of black-clad marchers rounded up in downtown Washington, D.C., last January. Hundreds more face similar charges.

This was the beginning of Trump's attempt to America into a police state, and it fell flat on its face.

And the prosecution's overreach was apparent at the very outset.

One defense attorney compared the government’s case here to prosecuting everyone who happened to be wearing the same jersey at a football game because one group of fans in matching garb started a fight. 

“The law makes clear that you can be present while others are rioting, and you don’t have to leave,” Steve McCool, who defended Oliver Harris in the case, said in his closing argument. “Think about where we would be if they could simply call protesters criminals.”

McCool also reminded jurors of evidence of political bias among some key police officers involved both in managing events on Inauguration Day and in investigating the hundreds arrested that afternoon. Key video in the case was provided by James O’Keefe’s notoriously dishonest Project Veritas group, prompting McCool to invoke the specter of right-wing revenge against left-wing anti-Trump protesters.

Oh look, another abject failure by James O'Keefe.

How many is that now? 

So that is one for the 1st Amendment, and zero for Donald Trump's attempt to undermine our constitution.

Now they should just drop the charges against the other protesters and save the taxpayer money to prosecute real criminals.

Journalist Sarah Kendzior explains that the end of net neutrality may also signal the end of the resistance against Donald Trump.

Courtesy of the the Globe and Mail: 

We Americans may be a captive audience to our reality-TV star who thinks he's an authoritarian, but we are a chatty audience, and our loquaciousness has been our salvation. For nearly a year, we have exercised First Amendment rights like we were working a defibrillator on democracy's damaged heart. We debunked lies, catalogued crimes, demanded justice and created a vast, informal movement dedicated to the pursuit of truth over alternative facts. 

But that may be about to end. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission announced it was planning a sweeping rollback of net neutrality, allowing corporations to decide what content is available online while pricing most citizens out of equal access to information. 

For nearly a year, America has stood at the crossroads of a damaged democracy and a burgeoning autocracy. If net neutrality is destroyed, we will cross firmly into the latter, and our return is unlikely. 

The threat to net neutrality highlights the reliance on social media and an independent press for political organizing in the digital age. Should net neutrality be eliminated, those avenues will likely become curtailed for much of the public or driven out of business due to loss of revenue. Without the means to freely communicate online, citizens will be far less able to challenge the administration. It doesn't matter what cause someone prioritizes: The elimination of net neutrality will impede the ability to understand the cause, discuss it and organize around it.

She's not wrong.

The best bulwark we have against fascism is our 1st Amendment which has now evolved to include our ability to communicate online in a variety of social media platforms.

Including this one.

This is one of those moments in history where a people are confronted with a choice which may determine the survival of their society as it exists in the present.

Just imagine for a moment what it would be like if Donald Trump and his cronies were able to use their connections to big telecom companies to put the squeeze on CNN, MSNBC, Raw Story, Mother Jones, Politico, etc., and quiet their voices to a low murmur in the background.

If you do not think that is ultimately the plan then you have not been paying attention.

P.S. For those of you who do not know who Sarah Kendzior is, here is video of her going off on a representative from Breitbart.

This video went viral again, so a little context. It's from a late Nov 2016 panel at the News XChange conference in Denmark. I was responding to Matthew Boyle of Breitbart, who is seated at the end of the row. https://t.co/OCMuaglwvD

— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) November 26, 2017

We are dealing with a lot of important issues right now, but arguably net neutrality is one of the MOST important.

Donald Trump Twitter attacks CNN again.

We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2017

This of course follows Saturday's attack during which Trump accused CNN of spreading fake news around the world.

"Fake news" of course being Trump speak for "factual news about his presidency."

Trump did not did not leave MSNBC out of the cross hairs either, as evidence by this retweet with a comment. 

The good news is that their ratings are terrible, nobody cares! https://t.co/I7h4Ryin3h

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2017

I don't believe we have ever had a man in the White House who has attacked the 1st Amendment so aggressively for simply doing its job.

Even the notoriously combative Richard Nixon was nowhere near this thin skinned when it came to press coverage, and that press coverage cost him the presidency.  

Texas woman with "Fuck Trump" sticker on her truck has a similar sticker for the sheriff who harassed her for it.

Woman with F-Trump sticker adds Sheriff Troy Nehls to display on truck https://t.co/S0wU5n1TxL #KSATnews pic.twitter.com/MmTvlToeI3

— KSAT 12 (@ksatnews) November 20, 2017

Courtesy of Mother Jones:

In Fort Bend County, Texas, the debate over free speech has come down to a now-infamous bumper sticker: “FUCK TRUMP AND FUCK YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM.” 

Last week, Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls suggested in a Facebook post that the owner of the truck bearing the remark could be arrested and charged with disorderly conduct after the sheriff’s office received complaints about it. That owner happened to be Karen Fonseca, who, a day later, was arrested on an outstanding warrant on fraud charges from 2015. Nehls, who is considering a bid for Congress in 2018, later deleted the Facebook post. Then, over the weekend, Fonseca struck back in her own way, adding another decal to her white GMC Sierra: “FUCK TROY NEHLS AND FUCK YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM.”

Not all heroes wear a cape. 

Vastly outnumbered by protesters, white nationalists cancel second rally.

Courtesy of CNN: 

White nationalists groups that rallied Saturday in Shelbyville, Tennessee, were met by a large police presence and dozens of shouting counterprotesters. Hours later, a second rally planned in nearby Murfreesboro was canceled. 

The demonstrations, which organizers called the "White Lives Matter" rally, were planned by The League of the South, a Southern nationalist group, according to Brad Griffin, the organization's public relations chief. Other extreme-right and neo-Nazi groups joined them in the protests wearing black and bearing helmets and shields. 

The groups had planned to start at Shelbyville and then head to Murfreesboro about 20 miles to the north, but the Murfreesboro rally was canceled, Griffin said. 

About 800 to 1,000 counterprotesters had gathered in Murfreesboro to oppose the demonstrations, Rutherford County Sheriff Mike Fitzhugh and Murfreesboro Interim Police Chief Michael Bowen said in a joint statement. 

Griffin announced the rally was canceled on Twitter saying that Murfreesboro was a "lawsuit trap" and that holding an event there was not worth the risk.

Just goes to show that showing up to protest DOES work. 

These were expected to be the largest white nationalist rallies since Charlootesville, and they were shut down by people who are sick and tired of seeing racists taking over their streets.

That is definitely one for the good guys.

People have every right to exercise their freedom of speech, even racist POS, however they should expect to be met by others who are also exercising their rights to freedom of speech.

And if they cannot take that kind of heat, they need to stay the fuck home.

So today was the day Donald Trump decided to stop pretending he's not a fascist. Update!

Fake @NBCNews made up a story that I wanted a "tenfold" increase in our U.S. nuclear arsenal. Pure fiction, made up to demean. NBC = CNN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 11, 2017

(In Trump's world being compared to CNN is the worst possible insult imaginable.)

With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 11, 2017

WTF? Did this orange tinted turd just threaten to have the FCC look into repealing NBC's license because they told a truth that he did not want told?

Oh, you KNOW it's the truth when the pussy grabber gets this bent out of shape.

Here is how the New York Times reported on this story: 

He repeated his complaint later in the day when reporters arrived to cover his meeting with the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau. “It is frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write,” Mr. Trump said. 

The comments immediately drew criticism that the president was using his office to undermine First Amendment guarantees of free speech and free press. And, in fact, the networks themselves — and their news departments — do not hold federal licenses, though individual affiliates do. 

“Broadcast licenses are a public trust,” said Tom Wheeler, who until January was chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, appointed by President Barack Obama. “They’re not a political toy, which is what he’s trying to do here.” 

In suggesting that a broadcast network’s license be targeted because of its coverage, Mr. Trump once again evoked the Watergate era when President Richard M. Nixon told advisers to make it difficult for The Washington Post to renew the F.C.C. license for a Florida television station it owned. A businessman with ties to Mr. Nixon filed paperwork to challenge The Post’s ownership of the station. The Justice Department under Mr. Nixon also filed antitrust charges against the three major television networks.

I think the Times compared Trump to Nixon because they did not want to just come out and make the Hitler comparison that most of us are already making in our heads.

However I don't have a problem making the comparison because it is indeed the correct comparison.

Trump LOVES dictators and wants to be one in the worst way.

The only thing stopping him is the media that he despises to much, and the 65% of the country that think he is a fucking lunatic.

Update: Doubling down.

Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2017

I wonder if Donald Trump has ever said a stupid thing that he did not decide to make stupider?

Texas teen sues after being expelled for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Courtesy of ABC News:  

A lawsuit says a Houston student's Constitutional rights were violated when she was expelled for not standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. 

Randall Kallinen, an attorney for 17-year-old India Landry's family, said the civil lawsuit was filed Saturday against the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District and a high school principal. 

The lawsuit says Landry, who'd been sitting for the pledge in class, was expelled Monday after doing that in the principal's office. The lawsuit says Landry returned to school Friday after the principal reversed course, saying Landry could sit. 

Landry, who is black, told KHOU she doesn't think "the flag is what it says it's for, for liberty and justice and all that." 

Denying a child an education because they are exercising their 1st Amendment rights?

Oh Texas, you never disappoint.

So now Trump sets his sights on the 1st Amendment. Knew this was coming.

Why Isn't the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2017

Courtesy of The Atlantic:  

Frustrated with a set of damning reports about his relationship with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson—including the nugget that Tillerson called him a “moron” (perhaps with an R-rated modifier)—the president offered a new suggestion on Twitter Thursday morning: Why not explore government censorship of the press?

Trump had been relatively quiet on Twitter for a few days, following the massacre in Las Vegas and his trip to hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico, but the Tillerson stories on Wednesday set off a new tirade of tweets against the press. Most of them are the standard “Fake news!” variety—never mind that there have been stories of Trump-Tillerson tension for months, and that multiple outlets have confirmed the “moron” anecdote—but the president is calling for something different here. He is suggesting that the Senate bring its investigative powers to bear on news reports that are, from all indications save Tillerson’s non-denial denial, entirely accurate.

Those of you who have been paying attention, may remember that this is not the first time that Trump has threatened the American press.

Courtesy of an NPR story from back in February 2016: 

Feeling maligned by the media, Donald Trump is threatening to weaken First Amendment protections for reporters if he were president and make it easier for him to sue them. 

“I love free press. I think it’s great,” he said Saturday on Fox News Channel, before quickly adding, “We ought to open up the libel laws, and I’m going to do that.” 

The changes envisioned by the celebrity businessman turned Republican front-runner would mean that “when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” he said at a rally Friday in Fort Worth, Texas. 

Trump added that, should he win the election, news organizations that have criticized him will “have problems.” He specifically cited The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Make no mistake, Trump does not see himself as a president. He sees himself as a dictator.

And just like his idols Adolph Hitler and Vladimir Putin he has no patience with a press that insists on reporting accurately about him and his administration.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions to crack down on the real problem with the Trump Administration. The journalists who keep reporting on its incompetence.

Courtesy of The Independent:  

Attorney General Jeff Sessions says that the Department of Justice (DoJ) is reviewing policies for subpoenaing reporters during investigations of federal intelligence leaks, an indicator that the US government may consider more aggressive tactics to try and force journalists to identify their sources. 

"One of the things we are doing is reviewing the policies affecting media subpoenas," Mr Sessions said, announcing his administration's crackdown on leaks during a press conference. "We respect the important role that the press plays, and we will give our support. But, it is not unlimited. They cannot place lives at risk with impunity." 

Mr Sessions said that he had instructed his Justice Department to review its leak prosecution policies earlier this year, and that the results "concerned" him. There were too few referrals for prosecution over classified leaks, too few investigations, and an insufficient amount of resources dedicated to those investigations, he said. 

"We will not allow rogue anonymous sources with security clearances to sell out our country," Mr Sessions said. "These cases, to investigate and prosecute, are never easy. But cases will be made and leakers will be held accountable."

Yeah well the thing is that the leakers are not so much trying to "sell out our country," as they are trying to "rescue our country from the clutches of a mad man."

Of course the truly pathetic part of this, besides you know the whole attack on our first amendment, is that Sessions is totally doing this just to save his job.

He knew he was next on the chopping block so he pulled out some bullshit like this to hold on for a little bit longer.

Kellyanne "Oh god I woke in a pool of my own vomit again" Conway has also suggested that the White House staff might be forced into taking lie detector tests.

Because nothing says we are one big happy family, like strapping somebody to a machine and then drilling them under hot lights for an hour.

Chuck Todd has already essentially declared what the media's response will be to any subpoenas from the Justice Department concerning their sources.

If DoJ media source threat is real (I assume it's not; just a show presser to please WH) then I look forward to ignoring that subpoena

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) August 4, 2017

Well played.

Donald Trump's lawyers are desperately trying to get the Summer Zervos defamation case thrown out.

Courtesy of the Hollywood Reporter:  

Donald Trump is looking to end a defamation lawsuit brought by season-five Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos — or at least delay it until he leaves office. 

The dispute arose after tape was published of Trump boasting to Access Hollywood's Billy Bush about grabbing women's genitals. As Trump was under fire for his comments, Zervos came forward to accuse him of kissing her twice in 2007 and attacking her in a hotel room. “I never met her at a hotel,” responded Trump, who would also attack allegations from his accusers as "100 percent fabricated and made-up charges, pushed strongly by the media and the Clinton campaign." 

Zervos claims she's been branded as a liar, and while she's only seeking $2,914 in actual damages (though potentially more in punitive damages), her attorney, Gloria Allred, has expressed that she is looking forward to taking “far-reaching” depositions and asking "many questions he may not wish to answer, but will be required to answer."

Trump's lawyers are using a number of tactics to get this case thrown out, such as accusing Zervos' attorney Gloria Allred of being politically motivated, saying that you cannot sue a sitting president in a New York court, and finally that Trump's statements are protected by the First Amendment,

No seriously, the 1st Amendment:

"The allegedly defamatory statements were made during a national political campaign that involved heated public debate in political forums," writes Kasowitz. "Statements made in that context are properly viewed by courts as part of the expected fiery rhetoric, hyperbole, and opinion that is squarely protected by the First Amendment."

So essentially the lawyer is suggesting that Trump just said controversial things to attract support and did not necessarily mean any of it to be taken literally.

So when he accused Zervos of being a liar, that was just political hyperbole?

Somehow I don't think that is going to pass the smell test.

Also keep in mind that though this is a defamation case the initial accusations were that Trump sexually assaulted this young woman, and the fact that he is hiding behind the 1st Amendment to keep that from being discussed in open court is pretty damn despicable.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus suggests that they might change libel laws so that Trump can sue the press.

Q: Is POTUS considering a constitutional amendment to change press laws?

PRIEBUS: "I think it's something that we've looked at." pic.twitter.com/fwZRMvsEjz

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 30, 2017

Courtesy of Mediaite:  

While he was still a presidential candidate, Donald Trump floated out the idea of changing the libel laws to make it easier to sue media outlets over their reporting. Now that he’s president, it appears that this is potentially one promise that he’s looking to keep, commenting last month about changing the laws to go after the New York Times. 

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was pressed on this and he let it be known that the administration is considering going down that path. (Of course, it isn’t clear what they can do as libel laws are different in every state.) 

“I think it’s something that we’ve looked at,” Priebus told host Jonathan Karl. “And how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story.”

“So you think the president should be able to sue the New York Times for stories he doesn’t like?” Karl asked. 

After Priebus said news agencies “need to be more responsible” with their reporting and Karl pushed back that the real issue here is whether Trump should “have a right to sue them,” the Trump advisor merely said he answered Karl’s question and that they are looking into it.

Okay personally I think that on the New York Times Christmas wish list is that Trump try to sue them over one of their stories about possible Russian collusion.

Could you even imagine what they would do for their journalistic credibility?

Through the roof my friends, through the roof.

By the way it took Adolph Hitler almost a full year to take over the press and bend it to his will.

So if Trump wants to outdo his idol he has a little time to work on this. 

Twitter sued Trump Administration for attempting to force it to unmask anti-government tweeter.

Courtesy of Variety:

Twitter has sued the Trump administration over attempts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to unmask the identity of users behind an account critical of the government. The account in question, @ALT_USCIS, is one of several alt-government accounts which were launched after the new administration took office and proceeded to silence some official Twitter government accounts. 

The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, alleges that the DHS tried to use a “limited-purpose investigatory tool” to find out who is behind the account in question, which has been critical of the immigration policy of the current administration. “The rights of free speech afforded to Twitter’s users and Twitter itself under the U.S. Constitution include a right to disseminate such anonymous or pseudonymous free speech,” the lawsuit argues. 

The lawsuit goes on to argue that many of these alt-government accounts, including @ALT_USCIS claim to be run by government workers, in this case employees of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services. These users have taken to Twitter to voice their dissent with official government policies. 

DHS summoned Twitter in March to unmask the user or users behind the account in question, but Twitter argued in its lawsuit that the means of this summons wouldn’t apply to this particular case. But the company went further than that, arguing that compliance with the summons would have a chilling effect on free speech, and effectively threaten other anonymous or pseudonymous Anti-Trump accounts.

So I guess unmasking is only bad if it is does to a Trump associate. Is that right?

By the way the Trump Administration has withdrawn its request now.

Yet another loss for Donald Trump, and another win for the Constitution. 

Donald Trump fears the press because he knows what the press can do.

All of those accusations of "fake news" are just obvious attempts by Donald Trump to undermine a free press that he knows will soon uncover information that will lead to his downfall.

That was something that the ghostwriter, Tony Schwartz, who actually wrote "The Art of the Deal" warned us about four months ago.

Courtesy of The Independent:  

“On day one he would end a free press,” he said, speaking from Washington DC. “In any way that he could, he would use the government to shut down a free press, and listen, he has plenty of precedents for doing that, including his hero Vladimir Putin.”

So far Trump has been unable to do this.

However by constantly undermining their credibility and claiming they are the enemy of the American people, he has come frighteningly close.

Donald Trump demonstrates his fitness to be president by once again attacking the press on Twitter.

The failing @nytimes story is so totally wrong on transition. It is going so smoothly. Also, I have spoken to many foreign leaders.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 16, 2016

I have recieved and taken calls from many foreign leaders despite what the failing @nytimes said. Russia, U.K., China, Saudi Arabia, Japan,

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 16, 2016

Australia, New Zealand, and more. I am always available to them. @nytimes is just upset that they looked like fools in their coverage of me.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 16, 2016

Geez, I guess we were wrong, it looks like Trump really does have the temperament to be the leader of the free world.

By the way I have some bad news.

I have been pinching myself pretty hard for over a week now, and I am beginning to think that all of this is NOT just a bad dream.

I'm going to keep on pinching, but I'm starting to lose hope here. 

President Obama weighs in on the Colin Kaepernick kerfuffle essentially agreeing with his right to protest. Right Wing freak out in 3..2..1

Courtesy of Mediaite:

“I think there are a lot of ways you can do it, as a general matter when it comes to the flag and the National Anthem and the meaning that that holds for our men and women in uniform and those who fought for us, that is a tough thing for them to get past to then hear what his deeper concerns are,” Obama said. 

“But I don’t doubt his sincerity based on what I’ve heard,” he continued. “I think he cares about some real legitimate issues that have to be talked about. If nothing else what he’s done is he’s generated more conversation around some topics that need to be talked about.”

A reasonable measured response that defends Kaepernick's 1st Amendment right to free speech and suggests that he is bringing up issues that the American people need to be talking about.

Oh yeah the Right Wing is going to lose their minds over this.

In other news Kaepernick now has the number one selling jersey.

Update: Kaepernick now the top-selling jersey on 49ers site, was 20th a couple weeks ago https://t.co/da5ozdvxem pic.twitter.com/Wq1OkG9fbW

— Mike Rosenberg (@ByRosenberg) September 3, 2016

Just when you were wondering what to buy your football loving conservative racist uncle.

Another day, another court date for Levi and Sunny Johnston.

As has been mentioned earlier on this blog Levi and Sunny appeared in court this morning, even though the custody case has been settled.

Most of you have already guessed why Bristol is still able to drag Levi through the court system, though I am apparently not supposed to state it definitively here on IM. Let's just say that today's hearing, as you can determine for yourself by visiting Court View, should be entitled the "Shut Gryphen up!" hearing.

Apparently, if my sources are correct, Bristol seems to believe that Levi controls me and can somehow keep me from posting anything that could prove damaging to her.

For the record, no he cannot.

However I think that once that part has been established today in court that the next plan will be to simply take Levi back to court as often as they can in the future and punish him financially for every negative story I write about her or her family with information that he may, or may not have provided during our conversations. (I DO have other sources still.)

In fact I learned yesterday that CSSD cleaned out Levi's accounts, and took all of the money that he had in there earmarked for the building of that house for his mother.

If I had to guess I would imagine that SOMEBODY notified the department about the Johnston GoFundMe account and tried to make sure that the money would not reach their lawyer. However the lawyer money was paid so instead they simply got the money for Sherry's house.

Just more dirty tricks my friends.

So let me take a minute to explain what I don't think a lot of people understand about Levi's case.

It may seem to simply be a child custody case, but in fact it is a 1st Amendment case.

Let me explain what I mean by that.

You see ever since Levi and Bristol split up, she and her mother have used Tripp, and other tactics, to keep Levi quiet about the things that he saw while living with them, and while dating her.

In my opinion Sherry Johnston's drug conviction was just one of those tactics. (Trust me, how she came to be arrested and the length of her conviction were HIGHLY unusual.)

When Levi hooked up with Rex and Tank (And remember that was just an attempt to get his son back in his life as well.) he started to tell the media those very stories, but at some point his handlers were compromised and once again Levi became afraid to speak freely.

(For instance do you remember when Levi supposedly apologized publicly to the Palins for the things he said in the media? Yeah? Well he never did that, in fact he only found out about it AFTER it had been published. But he was too intimidated by what they might do to correct that story.)

If you have been paying attention, EVERY time Levi came off of his leash, even to simply explain that he did NOT owe the amount of child support that was being reported in the media, he has suffered consequences. Which most of the time resulted in a loss of contact with his son.

After awhile you become afraid to even say your name to a reporter, much less tell your story.

To put that into perspective that would be like if YOU were constantly afraid that if you talked about your child, your ex, or some seemingly innocuous part of your life, with ANYBODY, that it might show up in a tabloid or blog somewhere and you would suddenly have no contact with your child or you would be viciously attacked in the press.

So when Levi came to me, after exhausting all other possibilities, you have understand how desperate he had become.

I gave him the money for his lawyer with no strings attached, but Levi felt it was only right to answer some of my questions, and so he did. Even though at the time he worried about the backlash, I assured him that nothing would be reported until AFTER the custody case was decided.

And I kept my word.

I must explain in my defense that I carefully laid this whole thing out for Levi and explained how he would be safe from retaliation if he were only to avoid a couple of missteps.

One of those missteps was to ever put trust into any deal from Bristol or her attorneys, or to believe that they would ever keep their side of any bargain.

Unfortunately I was not able to attend Levi's hearings with him and not everything went the way it was supposed to. For that reason we now find ourselves where we are today.

Today's hearing was closed so I will not be told what happened, and therefore cannot share it here.

I can tell you that Levi and Sunny have been under assault for this entire week, and that is most likely why Sunny has deleted her Facebook page.

I don't know what comes next for Levi and Sunny but I do know that I have no intention of being silenced.

In the meantime those who are helping to destroy this young couple's life seem to be largely untouched by any such drama.

Courtesy of Bristol's blog:

Dakota and I have a dilemma probably biweekly. He thinks clean shaven looks the best. 

But, I disagree! I like him scruffy. 

He says if I’m right – and people agree with me more – he’ll keep it scruffy. 

If I’m wrong – he can shave whenever. 

HELP ME OUT! Vote which look is best!

Yes while Levi and Sunny fight to keep their family together and pay their bills those with the means simply get to debate the importance of grooming.

Must be nice.

Sarah Palin at Politicon.

Courtesy of Snowdrift Snooki's Facebook page:

In the hot seat with moderator James Carville at Politicon today (the convention is like comiccon minus the costumes... though I consider politicos' bowties as costumes). I love a challenge when sharing diverse worldviews - which Clinton's former chief strategist and I certainly pressed into on the stage today! Disagreements on the 2nd Amendment were pretty fierce (I'm a fan, not a dimwit opponent of that most important right); as were par-for-the-course false suggestions of racism. Liberals didn't change my mind one iota, and I'm sure they weren't swayed by me, but our civil discourse reflected the general passion both sides feel as we vet our next President. I respect Carville's politically encyclopedic mind. (Though I insist he's dead wrong on who's fit to serve as America's next Commander in Chief.) 

At least is was a blast catching up, sharing laughs with my buddy and former Fox colleague, Sally Kohn (now with CNN); laughing backstage with "Cheers" John Ratzenberger (I'm the biggest Cliff Clavin fan!); and was floored with how pretty Roseanne Barr looks as she graciously shared with me her concerns for our country's challenges. 

It was an interesting day "entertaining democracy" in beautiful Pasadena. Thank you to all the tremendous law enforcement personnel there for protecting our First Amendment rights!

 - Sarah Palin

(Nice to see that Palin is reinforcing the importance of 1st Amendment rights, let's see how she feels about that in the next coming days and weeks.)

Here is the video of the entire interview conducted by James Carville.

As we feared Carville mostly lobbed softball questions at her and there was very little substance to her answers.

Of course she took inordinate credit for Trump's success and kept inferring that she was connected to the way "real Americans" think. Gag me.

Here was one exchange that did get a little more heated courtesy of Variety:

Carville, the Democratic strategist, said to the former vice presidential nominee: “When you say you want to take back the country, what is it you want to take back?” 

“I want to take back the interpretation of our constitution that is being wrongly interpreted today,” Palin said. 

“Where are we going haywire on the Constitution?” he asked. 

Palin’s response: the Second Amendment. 

“It is black and white, and we have a right, of course, to bear arms,” she said. “People who can interpret that to, ‘Oh that means not everybody has that right.’ Or to take certain things like ammo, ‘Well that doesn’t apply.’ Or we can get rid of AR-15s because AR-15s weren’t invented for hunting. I say, ‘Yeah, the Second Amendment wasn’t written in the case the moose turn on us.’ Of course it wasn’t mean for hunting.” 

Carville, though, pressed her further. 

“Do I have a right to possess a bazooka? Do I have the right to have a surface to air missile and live close to the Los Angeles Airport?” 

“Well, that is such a stupid question,” Palin responded.

As it turned out the hardest question for Palin seemed to come from a ten year old reporter in the audience:

The first question from the audience came from a ten-year-old boy who also said he was a reporter. Carville asked him to come up on stage, and the boy noted that Palin had said that she “hated” countries that didn’t treat women right and didn’t want them to be part of the United Nations. 

Palin tried to interrupt, but the boy asked her to “please” let him finish. 

Given her comments about those countries, the boy said, “How come you are endorsing Donald Trump after he said, Megyn Kelly ‘has got blood coming out of her wherever.'” 

There were cheers and some laughs from the crowd. 

Palin answered, “Donald Trump isn’t sexist. If he were, I wouldn’t be endorsing him.”

Yeah, right. Sexism only exists in the minds of the Palins when they think it is directed at them.

Perhaps Carville should ask that ten year old boy for some pointers. 

Essentially this is Palin continuing her role as a political oddity who can always be counted on to say something scandalous or idiotic which the media can then latch onto for the purposes of mocking her.

Clearly at this point she simply doesn't care so long as people are still paying attention to her, and of course paying her, for the privilege of those laughs at her expense.

Donald Trump threatens to change laws so that he can sue journalists who write unflattering stories about him if he becomes President.

Courtesy of Right Wing Watch: 

At a rally today in Texas, Donald Trump said that if elected president, he would push to significantly change libel laws so he and others can sue journalists who write stories he finds “dishonest,” apparently not concerned with the Constitution’s First Amendment protections of free speech and the freedom of the press. 

Trump told his supporters, who have become notorious for threatening journalists and demonstrators, that he intends to “open up the libel laws” in order to file lawsuits against reporters — particularly from the Washington Post and the New York Times — and “win money.” 

“One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope I do and we’re certainly leading, is I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposefully negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Trump said. “We’re going to open up those libel laws.” 

Gee I wonder if this law will be made retroactive so that  President Obama can go back and sue the crap out of Fox News for all of the outright lies they told about him during his presidency?

Clearly Trump neither understands nor respects what makes this country great.

The very idea that he would threaten our first amendment rights simply because he is too thin skinned to deal with a little criticism is pathetic.

What a fucking crybaby!

In fact Trump is so pathetic that none other than Mitch McConnnell is threatening to not only pull Republican support away from him but to even help Hillary Clinton defeat him in the general: 

While still hopeful that Mr. Rubio might prevail, Mr. McConnell has begun preparing senators for the prospect of a Trump nomination, assuring them that, if it threatened to harm them in the general election, they could run negative ads about Mr. Trump to create space between him and Republican senators seeking re-election. Mr. McConnell has raised the possibility of treating Mr. Trump’s loss as a given and describing a Republican Senate to voters as a necessary check on a President Hillary Clinton, according to senators at the lunches.

Still think Donald Trump has a chance against Hillary?