Monday, June 23, 2014


*EXASPERATED SIGH* (but read this anyway as you may find the information about the law very useful) 

More on the dealings with those who endlessly attack the Tea Party Fire Ants. Why this instead of Benghazi per se? Because while awaiting larger Benghazi news of significance to break, along with showing you good ways to be Conservative activists, we can focus on the "truth" part of Benghazi-Truth, and it helps you in dealing with people online. Every major news outlet has had a story, and sometimes several, on Twitter abuses and related subjects, and always there is something new to learn which proves important to know.

From US

"Defamation is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are subcategories of defamation. Defamation is primarily covered under state law, but is subject to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion."

Those of you who have been following the growth and successes of the Tea Party Fire Ants are probably well-acquainted with a pretty twisted form of reasoning being used by people with a long history of seemingly, IMO, doing the following to us: shaming, ridiculing, holding in contempt, and lowering in the estimation of the community, and worse. What are the reactions of those who attack us (and our conservative friends) to our responses which amount to posting screenshots of what they said? Being accused by the attackers of engaging in defamation! (?!?) This word is being used more and more by those attacking us so let's clear the air on this nonsense.

To the best of my knowledge, the person who has been using the term "Defamation" the most - or most visibly IMO - has been Harriet Baldwin.  Here are a couple of the screenshots of statements she has made in public, which if memory serves, our posting of which she appears to be calling  "defamatory":

IMO the only thing being defamatory about those screenshots is that, IMO, they appear to maliciously defame the Tea Party Fire Ants. As TPFA  Janson Smithers on twitter has pointed out often, they come to us and attack us, we don't go to them. Here is Harriet  using the word defamation, repeatedly (If I am in error in any of this, I will correct it, but there has to be solid evidence of that, not just strident demands, badly phrased)

Needless to say, I was never visited by the FBI, so I think Harriet owes it to everyone to explain who her "good authority" was, because IMO that really is defamation. Big time. Especially considering she is asking people to "RT" it("Retweet" it, spread the message far and wide on 250-million-per-day active Twitter)

And there is this, parenthetically, but on-topic....

... Maybe it's just me, but IMO the appearance is that Harriet Baldwin publicly and stridently shouts out marching orders to Jerome Corsi to eliminate these screenshots, including at least one from @ClarenceSilkwow, who is well known for endlessly antagonizing the Fire Ants, the whole point of the article...

... and, Corsi appears to obey Harriet's demand, even though he did not research or write the story?! What the hell is this all about? Kathy sent Corsi an e-mail with screenshots and when Corsi responded his response was, "Do not send any more." WHAT?! Maybe someone can explain all this in the comment section, below. We'd really like to know.

And why is Hollywood-based Hillary Clinton documentary producer, Bettina Viviano, Whom Corsi thanks in the screenshot, above, and with whom I have had absolutely no interaction of any kind whatsoever, getting looped into Harriet's attacks against me for the past year? IMO, Jerry Corsi needs to have a very serious talk with Bettina and find out why, apparently, Viviano told Corsi, presumably, that Harriet was well-meaning in all this. I, for one, would like to know. Harriet's communications to and about me are very well-represented by the screenshots in this article, and they are not cordial. I'll bet that Benghazi-Truth's thousands of readers would also like to know why Viviano apparently went to bat for Harriet, and why, if true, Corsi believed that enough to remove the screenshots from Leo's genuinely outstandingly researched article, which should be regarded as a model example of its kind.


So they saying that WE are being defamatory is just plainly silly logically, especially since I have never seen them provide evidence - ever - that we have defamed any of the people Harriet mentions, including her (we like evidence, thanks, but I guess we're supposed to take her word on that). But the infuriating absurdity goes much further than that. According to law, defamation (slander and libel) has a MUCH higher threshold when applied to public figures. Here is part of what says about defamation and public figures.

"Examples of public figures are numerous and could include, for instance, celebrities, prominent athletes, or advocates who involve themselves in a public debate."

"A person may also be considered a "limited purpose" public figure by having thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."

"public figure - Legal Definition

A person who is famous or notorious or who has willingly become involved with a public issue or controversy"

So, by using her own actual name voluntarily and interjecting herself VERY strongly into a series of  very public debates (Twitter is a public forum which claims to have 250 million users daily and that's about as public as it gets), IMO it seems plain that Harriet has volunteered of her own accord and actions to be a public figure. Therefore, for her repeated and IMO strident claims of defamation, which IMO are insultingly absurd on the surface, anyway - to have merit, she must prove that those of us responding to her often unilateral and initially provoked personal attacks must be doing so with "Malice".  


Readers here know the primary reason we post screenshots is to back up any claim we make. So the term "malice" by us toward Harriet is absolutely, patently absurd, of course.  I, for one, never even heard of Harriet Baldwin, frankly, until informed that she had posted this call for others to engage in a "surgical strike" against me (she has never offered any evidence for the following assertion, either): 

Responding, we plainly have only ever been asking them to do one thing: stop attacking. That demand/request often comes in unflattering forms, to be sure, but we're grown-ups who live in a real world. 
*screenshots showing we ask and/or demand that they stop the attacks*

If Harriet wants the posting of this evidence of what we have endured to stop, all she needs to do is stop the attacks, SAY she is stopping the attacks and call for people to stop the attacks publicly as vigorously as she publicly rallied for them to "Surgical strike" and "Instablock" me and other TPFA members and advocates. 

This talk of defamation has serious consequences, because if you accuse someone of defamation, you better be right, because if you are knowingly making the claim falsely, it seems legit to say that you are, ironically, defaming them - and that would be indeed malicious and that would then include public figures.

For you to post screenshots of a public figure who is, IMO,  shaming, ridiculing, holding you in contempt, and lowering you in the estimation of the community, as IMO Harriet is seen doing here...

... and some of her online friends...

... and you, as a rebuttal, include an editorial, like this one, that in your opinion that that public figure is not being nice to you, that is not "defamation". That is called "Free Speech", and this country was built upon that foundation and the ideals it carries. 

Additionally, IMO, one must wonder about the conservative sincerity of the critics of the Tea Party Fire Ants, since some of them have attacked us so relentlessly every day that we feel they must be getting paid for it. Thankfully, the attacks have subsided very dramatically since the two World Net Daily articles about it. Indeed, IMO the fact that the attacks have subsided since the WND articles carries interesting implications; IMO, the applicable legal term is, Mens Rea, Latin for "guilty mind"

It should be said again that we thank WND for the respite from the attacks that their articles appear to have created, and we thank them very sincerely. You can read them in full, here, and they are both excellent:

Leo Hohmann's outstanding investigative piece …

And Jack Cashill's terrific Op Ed … 

Why have these people attacking the Tea Party Fire Ants not only attacked us at every turn, but never even begrudgingly thanked or complimented the group for its manifest Conservative achievements? Not ever? not even a little.... once, if they are indeed true conservatives? This strikes me as beyond being a reasonable example of "two groups who just don't agree on how to reach the same objective." 

If you see the recent promo video for TPFA there are several seconds of what is presented in visual eye candy form showing a sort of floating internet environment, in which there are shown many Tweets from people who are casual conservatives to several members of congress, all thanking us and giving us superlative kudos (which we appreciate since this can occasionally be pretty hard work).

Here are a few, for example:

.... You get the idea. We have 100's like this. If you are a regular reader you have likely seen them by the score.

The three thank you letters from House Representative Frank Wolf were confirmed to be legit - and confirmed that the Fire Ants are a legit grassroots conservative group - by Wolf's office itself directly to World Net Daily which reported it: 

Here is another one reported in WND, this time from GOP House Representative Tom Rice

Indeed, for yet additional TPFA credibility, were any needed (and you can read through this blog for other TPFA accomplishments), you can see we are now working physically (as opposed to many months merely online, as before) with the group, Overpasses For America. We sent that excellent activist group the Full Color Benghazi banner shown which was designed, created and paid-for by us - to them - for free, and all we asked is that they use it. Since media techniques are our focus and their specialty is effectively organizing boots-on-the-ground protest activism, we call that, "conservative groups happily working on a grassroots level together for the greater good." They agree.

Yet the people who attack us not only never even begrudgingly gave us credit as one "conservative" group to another, they did not even have the good grace from what I have seen as of this writing to apologize to us and all TPFA for saying (or strongly implying) that the letters from Representative Wolf were fakes, fakes they said were created by us, as you see a few saying, here:

I feel a public apology by them to us is now absolutely in order. 100%, and they need to say it as many times and over as long a period of time as they posted their claims that the letters were fakes. That's fair, right? RIGHT! We're waiting for them to do it, and I bet you thousands of Benghazi-Truth readers are, too. 

A recent example of another, newer, tactic: Someone recently took out a fake Facebook account in Kathy Amidon's name - or created a Photoshop of it - and posted with it an ant cartoon seen regularly in the past postings of Clarence Silkwow and other of Harriet's apparent online friends who have been less than gracious to us to say the least. You see this screenshot shows them trying to make it seem as though Kathy is or at one time claimed to be a liberal democrat. These tactics, to confuse third parties and ruin reputations, is the classic example of what trolls do.

Public figures saying that people are defaming them - in the context of which they are known as public figures - when they likely understand their claims are false is pretty serious business. Indeed, to repeat, IMO it is perfectly legit to say that by so doing, they are, in fact, likely engaging in the very act of defamation, themselves.

So to put it in common language -  in which as shown here Harriet Baldwin has engaged in pretty strong terms... 

... I say to all who attack the Tea Party Fire Ants:  Stop the attacks, SAY you are stopping the attacks very publicly and do so repeatedly so the message is heard loud and clear and override your, IMO, past (and present) countless endeavors to defame the Tea Party Fire Ants and its friends and supporters. Also, stop filling up #TPFA, the  Tea Party Fire Ants hashtag, with a similar acronym with IMO the plainly obvious intent to diminish our ability to communicate with the rest of the world as seen in these screenshots

... and generally, stop acting like, IMO, jerks.  Thanks for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.


By the way, referring to no one in particular, but to the many Obama Twitter trolls being employed by the White House as reported by Reuters; watch your asses when the GOP House investigation comes. If Obama threw one of his best friends and his pastor under the bus for his political advantage, don't think he'll bother to issue you any pardons to get you out of prison. Obama clearly has zero loyalty when he gets in trouble.

On a very related note, we continue to get very strong confirmations from congressional offices that the GOP House will soon act to investigate the rampant, apparently criminal cyber-bullying on Twitter and we look forward to the hearings and testimonies of the witnesses. We believe in free speech, but also feel it is critical that Conservative Government take an active role in coming to the aid of many thousands if not millions of innocent people who are shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt and lowered in the estimation of the community - and worse - by others; others who do so in many cases with the obvious sole purpose to attempt to silence the free speech of their victims.

No comments:

Post a Comment