Posts

Poll: Florida Governor DeSantis Far More Popular Than The Media

A new poll has found that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is enjoying overwhelming public approval among Floridians regarding his year-long handling of Covid and the vaccine distribution. The media? Not so much.

Cygnal, a less well-known firm that the New York Times called the most accurate polling firm in 2018 and which had the highest number of correct Congressional projections in 2020, conducted a survey of 800 likely general election voters in Florida. Considering the unrelenting, Democrat-operative attack media in Florida and nationally over the past year, the results are stunning.

The statewide Cygnal survey conducted April 8-11, 2021, shows that DeSantis is viewed favorably by a substantial number of likely voters. He is +17 among uninformed voters but +25 among informed voters. So the more a voter knows the issues, the more likely that they approve of the Governor. (I suspect this dynamic of more issue knowledge translating into higher approval is true of Republicans in general.) But even casual voters give him strong approval. Meanwhile, the poll found that the mainstream media has a negative approval rating of -14.

DeSantis’ handling of the Covid virus has even higher approval among Floridians than President Biden’s handling — 60 percent for DeSantis and 58 percent for Biden, while former President Trump’s stood at 49 percent.

A whopping 72 percent of Florida voters in the poll said they approve of the state’s vaccine distribution. Seventy-four percent of voters said they approve of DeSantis’ decision to prioritize the elderly and vaccinate seniors first; 72 percent approve of making Florida one of the first states where anyone over 18 can get a vaccine; and 58 percent approve of keeping the economy open throughout the year of Covid when most states locked down for a short or long period.

The last one was one of his most controversial decisions, and one the media slammed him on repeatedly. Likely a poll six months ago would not have been as positive, but the data is incontrovertible now and Florida voters see it, even if the media is reluctant.

As someone who firsthand watches the Florida media savage Gov. DeSantis in blatantly unfair, opposition operative ways — 60 Minutes is hardly alone in that respect, they just got nailed because of the video and a couple of brave Democrats stepping up to call them out — it is particularly heartening to see how many Floridians distrust the media and rightly approve of the DeSantis decisions that the media assailed.

The survey has a margin of error of 3.46 percent.

RELATED ARTICLE: DeSantis spurns CDC advice, says vaccines are effective and ‘you’re immune, and so, act immune’ – Geller Report News

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Like Rod’s new Youtube channel

Federal Judge: ‘The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions’

The American press is the enemy of the people and has done incalculable, irrevocable harm to our Constitutional Republic.

Federal judge pens dissent slamming decades-old press protections

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe amounted to an assault on a Supreme Court decision
Politico reports: A federal appeals court judge issued an extraordinary opinion Friday attacking partisan bias in the news media, lamenting the treatment of conservatives in American society and calling for the Supreme Court to overturn a landmark legal precedent that protects news outlets from lawsuits over reports about public figures.

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe, contained in his dissent in a libel case, amounted to a withering, frontal assault on the 1964 Supreme Court decision that set the framework for modern defamation law — New York Times v. Sullivan.

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman’s diatribe amounted to an assault on a Supreme Court decision that set the framework for modern defamation law.

Could the Courts Wheel on the Press?

Special to the NY Sun, March 20, 2021:

Could the United States federal courts turn against the press that emerged in the Age of Trump? Feature the dissent uncorked Friday by one of America’s greatest judges, Laurence Silberman of the District of Columbia circuit. In an otherwise prosaic libel case, the judge seems to have taken a satisfying swig of the ink of liberty before issuing a blistering rebuke of a press that he reckons has become dangerous to our democracy.

Pass the flask, we say. We bow to no one in our fealty to the press. We get that the First Amendment was designed to protect an irresponsible press (the non-irresponsible press, after all, has never really needed protecting). Yet we’ve never seen anything like the nihilism that has entwined our biggest newsrooms with the woke Democratic Party. At some point our courts are bound to take notice.

The case that ignited Judge Silberman was levied by two former officials of Liberia. They claimed that a human rights organization called Global Witness defamed them by publishing a report, as the court put it, “falsely implying that they had accepted bribes in connection with the sale of an oil license.” The District Court allowed them to shelter under the Supreme Court precedent known as Times v. Sullivan.

That case, decided in 1964, involved an advertisement that was run in the Times by supporters of the Reverend Martin Luther King. The police commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan, won a $500,000 libel judgment. It was overturned by a U.S. Supreme Court that, at the time, was all too willing to proclaim rules that hadn’t been passed by any legislature and didn’t appear in the Constitution.

The justice who wrote up Sullivan, William Brennan, would later craft the most famous farrago of judicial law-writing in American history, Roe v. Wade. In Sullivan, the rule the Court produced did not involve trimesters of pregnancy and the like. What Sullivan established was a system of unequal justice, where private citizens had an easier time suing for libel than public figures.

Public figures would have to prove any libel had been uttered with “actual malice.” That is, the libel would have to be not only untrue and defamatory but also made with “with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.” We newspaper roughnecks loved that license, since we could accuse public officials without knowing what was true. Henceforth, the press ruled the roost.

In Global Witness, Judge Silberman spent the first part of his dissent arguing that the court majority had tried to “stretch the actual malice rule like a rubber band.” He then announced outright that he was “prompted to urge the overruling of New York Times v. Sullivan.” He proceeded to do so with astonishing bluntness, even while acknowledging the uphill nature of the legal contests ahead.

In one footnote, Judge Silberman likened the precedent on libel to the Brezhnev Doctrine, named after the Soviet party boss who proclaimed that, as Judge Silberman paraphrased the point, “once a country has turned communist, it can never be allowed to go back.” Wrote Judge Silberman: “Apparently, maintaining a veneer of infallibility is more important than correcting fundamental missteps.”

The Sullivan precedent, Judge Silberman warned, has allowed the press “to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.” That, he averred, would be one thing were it a two-sided phenomenon. The “increased power of the press,” he averred, “is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions.” He singled out the Washington Post, the Times, and even National Public Radio.

“Our court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of the press leading to a ‘bland and homogenous’ marketplace of ideas,” Judge Silberman warned. “It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat.” He doesn’t map out how he thinks all this can be won, but he seeds his opinion with grist for the Supreme Court to focus on.

It is a moment to remember that our doctrines on libel, as on other things, can change. When America’s first great libel case, was brought by New York’s colonial governor, Wm. Crosby, against the printer John Peter Zenger, the doctrine was the greater the truth of a defamation, the greater the libel. Zenger began the process of turning truth into a defense of libel. A time of reckoning could well be at hand where truth gets the premium part.

RELATED ARTICLE: Jewish groups condemn CNN’s Don Lemon for vile antisemitism in remarks suggesting Black and Brown Jews don’t exist

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Bezos-Owned Amazon Opposes Mail-In Voting For Union Election


Online retail giant Amazon opposed mail-in voting for a union election, according to a filing with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Amazon’s position on mail-in voting conflicts with that of the Washington Post editorial board’s position on mail-in voting. Both companies are owned by Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man.
In a petition filed with the NLRB on Jan. 21, Amazon argued that mail-in voting would decrease turnout and create security concerns in a unionization election at the company’s Bessemer, Alabama warehouse.
Amazon argued in the petition, uploaded by The Verge, that “concerns about election security run particularly high” due to the use of “an unreliable electronic signature platform.”
Amazon further claimed that mail-in voting in union elections is fundamentally different from that in political elections. In political elections, the Amazon lawyers wrote, a “continuously updated voter address roll” and the ability to vote in person or by mail “promote security and voter turnout.”
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized Amazon on Twitter, saying that the company had to let its workers form unions.


The company’s position on mail-in voting contradicts that of owner Jeff Bezos’s other major company, the Washington Post. The Post’s editorial board ran multiple articles assailing then-President Donald Trump’s criticisms of mail-in voting. One op-ed, published August 17, called his comments “bogus fear-mongering.”
Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron said in 2019 of Bezos’s tenure as owner of the newspaper, “He hasn’t interfered with a single story. He hasn’t suggested a story. He hasn’t squelched a story. He hasn’t critiqued a story, hasn’t criticized a story,” according to Deadline.
If Amazon’s efforts to force an in-person vote fail, the Bessemer warehouse will hold the union election between Feb. 8 and March 30, according to AL.com
COLUMN BY

MICHAEL GINSBERG

General assignment reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:
Trump On Mail-In Voting: ‘It Puts The Election At Risk’
REPORT: Joe Biden Rode Record-Breaking ‘Dark Money’ Donations Into The White House
Biden Breaks His Own Mask Mandate
Cindy McCain, Jeff Flake And Gov. Doug Ducey Censured By Arizona Republican Party

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.