Blue Press Journal 9/19/2025 – In a humiliating blow to President Donald Trump, a federal judge has dismissed his defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, citing a complaint that was deemed too lengthy and rambling to meet the basic standards of federal court. The lawsuit, filed earlier this week, accused the newspaper of defaming Trump in an opinion piece that suggested his campaign had a secret deal with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
Judge Steven Merryday, a George H.W. Bush appointee, threw out the complaint under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires complaints to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In a scathing rebuke, Merryday reminded Trump’s attorney that a complaint is not a platform for “vituperation and invective” or a “megaphone for public relations,” but rather a concise and legally sound statement of claims.
The dismissal is a significant setback for Trump, who has a history of using lawsuits to silence his critics and intimidate the media. The lawsuit was widely seen as an attempt to bully The New York Times into retracting its opinion piece and apologizing for its criticism of Trump. However, the judge’s ruling makes it clear that Trump’s complaint failed to meet even the most basic standards of legal pleading.
The ruling is also a victory for the First Amendment and the freedom of the press to criticize public figures without fear of reprisal. The New York Times and other media outlets have been subject to repeated attacks by Trump, who has labeled them “fake news” and “enemies of the people.” However, the judge’s ruling suggests that such attacks will not be tolerated in a court of law.
In a week that began with Trump’s bombastic and overwrought complaint, it is fitting that it should end with a judge throwing out the lawsuit and reminding Trump’s attorney of the basic rules of legal pleading. As Merryday’s ruling makes clear, the courts will not be used as a platform for Trump’s personal vendettas or public relations campaigns. The rule of law applies to everyone, including the President of the United States.
Blue Press Journal – In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s tragic killing, a striking paradox has emerged: conservatives, once vocal critics of cancel culture, are now embracing it with alarming fervor. The impulse to condemn those who celebrated the murder is understandable, but the hypocrisy is glaring. Conservatives, who long championed free speech and open discourse, are now calling for individuals to be fired and ostracized for online remarks, effectively mirroring the very “progressive scolds” they once denounced.
This about-face is particularly galling, as it echoes the same dynamics that drove some to support Donald Trump in 2024. The “woke right” has adopted a more aggressive and official approach to censorship, potentially violating not only the spirit but also the letter of the 1st Amendment. The Attorney General’s threat to prosecute printers who refuse to print vigil posters and to target individuals for “hate speech” is a chilling example of this trend.
The First Amendment’s sacred right to freedom of speech boldly stands as a fierce guardian against the oppressive grasp of government censorship, ensuring that not only can we express ourselves freely, but we also have the unassailable right to receive information! It fiercely dismisses any discrimination against speakers, protecting the voice of every individual, while shielding them from unjust tort liability for their words. Furthermore, it vehemently prohibits the government from imposing its will on individuals and corporations, refusing to allow anyone to be coerced into uttering or financially endorsing speech that goes against their deeply held beliefs!
The irony is compounded by the fact that conservatives are now advocating for the same kind of coercive measures they once criticized progressives for. The demand that printers must produce images for vigils is eerily reminiscent of the controversy over bakers being forced to cater to gay weddings. The Charlie Kirk Data Foundation’s searchable list of individuals who posted mean tweets has already led to a purge, with prominent figures like Jimmy Kimmel facing suspension.
As comedian Tim Dillon astutely observed, the Trump agenda bears an unsettling resemblance to the dystopian scenarios once warned about by conspiracy theorists. The erosion of values, morals, and principles in favor of political expediency is a grim reality. The notion that free speech, limited government, and fiscal restraint are sacrosanct only when convenient is a stark reminder that, in the Trump era, hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Blue Press Journal – In a move that has sent shockwaves through the media landscape, ABC has pulled “Jimmy Kimmel Live” from the airwaves of its Nexstar affiliates. This isn’t just a scheduling change; it is a stark, chilling capitulation to political pressure, a profound attack on the fundamental principles of free speech, and a betrayal of the public trust that demands an immediate, unequivocal response: a boycott of ABC and Nexstar.
The decision, made by Disney CEO Bob Iger and Entertainment chief Dana Walden, comes in the wake of escalating threats from FCC Chair Brendan Carr. As Status’s Oliver Darcy reported, Carr’s intimidation tactics were explicit and alarming. He didn’t mince words, stating, “This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” This is not the language of a regulatory body upholding standards; it is the language of coercion, a thinly veiled threat designed to bend corporate media to a specific political will.
And whose will might that be? None other than President Donald Trump, who, after previously attacking Kimmel, celebrated ABC’s move. Not content with this victory, Trump then urged NBC to similarly drop late-night shows featuring Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers. This pattern is deeply concerning and unmistakably clear: a deliberate attempt to silence dissenting voices and consolidate media narratives in favor of a particular political agenda. This must stop, and we – the American public – must be the ones to stop it.
The Dangerous Precedent: Free Speech Under Siege
This isn’t merely about a late-night comedian or a specific set of comments attributed to Charlie Kirk that supposedly triggered this chain of events. This is about the chilling effect such actions have on the entire ecosystem of free expression. When major media corporations, supposedly bastions of information and diverse viewpoints, bow to political threats, the very foundation of a democratic society is eroded. The free press serves as a check on power, a platform for debate, and a mirror reflecting the realities, however uncomfortable, of our nation. To allow it to be manipulated by political strong-arming transforms it into a propaganda machine.
The historical echoes are deafening. The suppression of independent media, the demonization of critical voices, and the push for a monolithic narrative are not new tactics. As the provided context rightly warns, “Hitler did this same thing in the 1930s by eliminating all news but this propaganda machine.” While such comparisons must always be made with extreme caution, the underlying principle of silencing opposition and controlling information is a dangerous path, regardless of who walks it. It is a path that every citizen who values a vibrant, open society should recognize and resist with every fiber of their being.
A Glaring Double Standard and the Call for Consistency
Adding insult to injury, this swift and decisive action against Kimmel and ABC contrasts sharply with how other media outlets handle equally, if not more, egregious controversies. Political commentators have highlighted this hypocrisy, stating, “Fox News continues to employ people who called for the murder of homeless people… This is so utterly pathetic.” They rightly ask, “When was the our rage in that he is still on Fox with little more that a slap on the wrist?”
Why is one show yanked over comments from a figure, while other personalities making offensive statements continue broadcasting without repercussions? The motivation is clear: it’s not about protecting public sensibilities, but about political control and silencing dissent. The banning of Jimmy Kimmel was set in motion by Donald Trump’s FCC Chair Brendan Carr, whose threats were a direct order to “take action on Kimmel or there will be additional work for the FCC ahead.” This is not regulation; it is weaponization.
Our Moment to Act: Boycott ABC and Nexstar
We cannot sit idly by and watch as our media landscape is reshaped by political intimidation. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of principle, of protecting the integrity of our press and the sanctity of free speech. The time for passive disapproval is over. We must take concrete action.
Boycott ABC and Nexstar.
Yes, Boycott ABC and Nexstar.
Don’t watch their channels. Don’t engage with their content. Make a conscious choice to stand up for press freedom and free speech. We must send an unmistakable message to these corporations: their choice to bow down to the Trump Administration and the MAGA crowd will not come at a cost only to Jimmy Kimmel or a few late-night hosts. It will come at a cost to them – a cost measured in viewership, advertising revenue, and ultimately, public trust.
We are not a silent majority that approves of the direction this nation is taking under such pressures. On the contrary, the data suggests that 56 percent of the American public disapproves of his administration.We are a powerful majority, and our silence must now become a roar of dissent.
This is our moment to demonstrate that the American people will not tolerate the erosion of free speech and the weaponization of regulatory bodies against independent media. We must make ABC and Nexstar feel the weight of our collective disapproval.
Boycott ABC and Nexstar. Let our actions speak louder than any silenced voice.
Blue Press Journal – We’ve all felt it – a rising tension in our society, an undercurrent of anger that often boils over into something more destructive. As we witness an increasingly polarized America, we, as observers, must ask ourselves: what fuels this escalation, and what role do our media landscapes play?
For some time now, we have been watching a concerning trend unfold. Platforms traditionally associated with right-wing media, including prominent figures like President Donald Trump and a growing number of right-wing podcasters, have utilized their considerable reach to disseminate rhetoric that, at times, veades dangerously into hate speech. This isn’t just about political disagreement; we are talking about language that demonizes opponents, incites fear, and in many documented cases, appears to lay the groundwork for real-world violence.
The connection isn’t always direct, a simple cause-and-effect. Yet, when we see a consistent pattern of inflammatory language coupled with a rise in violent incidents, we cannot ignore the potential correlation. It’s a sobering thought: are the words echoing across our airwaves and internet channels contributing to a more violent America?
The Data Speaks: An Asymmetry in Violence
When we examine the data and various analyses conducted by civil society organizations and research institutions, a disturbing trend emerges. While violence can regrettably stem from any part of the political spectrum, evidence consistently suggests that a disproportionate amount of politically motivated violence and threats in recent years has originated from individuals and groups identifying with the right.
This isn’t to say that the left is entirely without fault in rhetorical excesses or occasional violent outbursts, but the scale and frequency differ significantly. As one analyst put it, “While all forms of political violence are reprehensible, ignoring the dominant source of this aggression is to willfully misunderstand the present threat landscape.”
To illustrate this, let’s consider a generalized overview based on observed trends:
Ideological Origin (Generalized)
Examples of Violent Incidents/Threats
Observed Frequency of Major Incidents
Right-Wing Extremism
Domestic terrorism, hate crimes, political violence, threats against officials, anti-government actions
Higher
Left-Wing Extremism
Property destruction, clashes with authorities, targeted threats (less frequent than right-wing)
Lower
Note: This table presents a generalized observation based on available aggregate data and analyses, not an exhaustive statistical breakdown. Both categories can exhibit rhetorical extremism, but the progression to physical violence has shown an observable asymmetry.
The numbers compel us to confront an uncomfortable truth: the ecosystem of right-wing media, with its potent blend of grievance politics, conspiracy theories, and often dehumanizing language, appears to be a significant accelerant in the engine of violence gripping our nation.
Beyond Group Blame: Focusing on Individual Accountability
However, we must also be careful not to fall into the trap of collective blame. While we identify trends and highlight the influence of platforms and figures, the ultimate responsibility for violent actions lies with the individual perpetrators. It is crucial for us to stop blaming entire groups for the actions of a few, or even many, and instead focus on holding individuals accountable for their specific words and their specific actions.
This means demanding accountability from those who wield significant public platforms. When a President or a popular podcaster uses language that can be reasonably interpreted as inciting violence, they must understand the weight of their words. As the late Justice Louis Brandeis famously stated, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but lacking in understanding.” Their zeal, even if perceived as well-meaning by some, can have profound and dangerous consequences when translated into inflammatory rhetoric.
We must also empower individuals to critically evaluate the information they consume and to resist the urge to act on hateful impulses. Our collective future depends on our ability to discern truth from incitement and to uphold the values of peaceful discourse and democratic process.
Ultimately, we have the power to change this trajectory. By acknowledging the problem, examining the evidence, and holding both influential figures and individual actors accountable, we can begin to mend the divisions and reclaim a more civil, less violent America.
At the heart of the issue is Trump’s insistence that all NATO countries must agree to stop buying Russian oil before the US moves forward with sanctions. However, this demand is seen as unrealistic, given the strong trade relationships between Russia and certain NATO member countries, such as Hungary and Turkey.
The senator’s comments come as Russia launched a massive drone and missile attack against Ukraine last week, marking the largest aerial barrage of the three-and-a-half-year war. This escalation has only added to the sense of urgency among lawmakers to take action against Russia.
Senators Lindsey Graham and Thom Tillis, both Republicans, are leading the charge to pass the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025. Graham and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, the lead Republican sponsors of the bill, plan to push for its inclusion in the continuing resolution that must pass by September 30 to avoid a government shutdown.
Tillis expressed disbelief over the lack of progress on sanctions legislation, arguing that passing the bill would send a strong signal to Russia. “It’s irrational to me to think it would not raise the awareness on Putin’s part that the Senate has spoken,” he said. “Why on earth we’re not taking it up, I don’t see the strategic advantage of that.”
As the situation in Ukraine continues to deteriorate, Senate Republicans are growing increasingly impatient with Trump’s approach to Russia. With the deadline for passing the continuing resolution looming, lawmakers are facing a critical test of their ability to work together to address the crisis in Ukraine and hold Russia accountable for its actions.
Blue Press Journal (Opinion) – In a shocking display of politicization, President Donald Trump immediately seized upon the tragic murder of a young man from a pro-Trump MAGA family to further his own agenda. Before the shooter’s identity was even known, Trump began to spin the narrative to his advantage, demonstrating a staggering lack of empathy and a blatant disregard for the truth. As he often does, Trump resorted to divisive rhetoric, proclaiming, “We must take a stand against the enemies of our great nation.”
Trump’s oval office address was a masterclass in doublespeak, as he eulogized the victim, Charlie Kirk, as an “icon of free speech” while simultaneously vowing to silence progressive voices that criticize Kirk’s pro-gun, pro-violence, and white nationalist views. This blatant hypocrisy is a hallmark of Trump’s presidency, and it is nothing short of appalling. As Trump himself has said, “We’re going to take back our country, and we’re going to make America great again.” Great for what and who?
The President’s words are not just empty rhetoric; they have real-world consequences. By demonizing Democrats and labeling them “scum” and “the enemy within,” Trump is creating an environment in which violence against his opponents is not only tolerated but encouraged. The consequences of this toxic rhetoric are all too real. From the violent attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband to the plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, the list of incidents inspired by Trump’s words is growing.
As Trump said, “The fake news media is the enemy of the people.” But it is not the media that is the enemy; it is the divisive rhetoric and the violence it inspires that pose a threat to our democracy. Trump’s silence on the Minnesota legislator and her husband who were murdered just two months ago is deafening. His failure to condemn the torching of the Pennsylvania governor’s home or the school shootings that have become all too common is a stark reminder of his priorities.
In a democracy, political differences are meant to be resolved through peaceful means, not violence. But Trump’s actions and words suggest that he is more interested in exploiting tragedy for his own gain than in leading the country towards a more united and peaceful future. As he tweeted, “The Democrats are trying to steal the election.” But it is not the Democrats who are stealing the election; it is Trump who is stealing the narrative, using his platform to spread falsehoods and incite violence.
The American people deserve better. We need a leader who will bring us together, not drive us further apart. We need a leader who will condemn violence in all its forms, not just when it suits their political agenda. As Trump himself has said, “We’re going to win so bigly.” But at what cost? The cost of our democracy, our freedom, and our very lives.
It is time for Trump to take responsibility for his words and actions. It is time for him to recognize the harm that his rhetoric has caused and to work towards healing the divisions that he has created. As the great American poet Maya Angelou once said, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.” Trump must do better. He must be better. For the sake of our country, for the sake of our democracy, and for the sake of our very lives.
The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets are under fire for spreading false information about the recent shooting of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in Utah. The initial report claimed that the assassin had left behind symbols of “transgender ideology” at the scene of the crime, sparking widespread speculation and blame-shifting towards the transgender community.
However, it was later revealed that the report was based on an unverified bulletin from the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which was not confirmed by ATF analysts and may have been misread or misinterpreted. The Wall Street Journal’s source for the initial report was Steven Crowder, a far-right influencer known for his anti-transgender views.
On Friday, officials identified the suspect as Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old cisgender white man, debunking the false narrative that had been perpetuated by right-wing activists and media outlets. Despite the lack of evidence, many conservative influencers and media outlets had jumped to blame the transgender community for the shooting, using dehumanizing rhetoric and fueling a false narrative of a “transgender violence epidemic.”
Data from the Gun Violence Archive shows that out of over 5,300 mass shootings in the past decade, only four were committed by individuals who identified as transgender or nonbinary. This has led many to criticize the media and right-wing activists for spreading misinformation and perpetuating hate towards the transgender community.
The incident has sparked outrage and calls for accountability, with many demanding a retraction from the Wall Street Journal and apologies from journalists who spread the false information. “Nearly 48 hours of relentless anti-trans propaganda and news reports over the murder of Charlie Kirk, and all of that for not a single shred of evidence that trans people or trans rights had anything to do with it,” said Erin Clymer, a critic of the false narrative. “When do we get a retraction from the Wall Street Journal for erroneously claiming the assassination was related to trans people?”
In the aftermath of the tragic death of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) has come out swinging against conservatives who are hastily blaming Democrats for the fatal shooting at Utah Valley University. Crockett’s scathing critique highlights the hypocrisy and lack of evidence behind the conservative narrative.
“I hate that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle immediately came out and said, ‘This is on the Democrats,’” Crockett said during a press conference on Friday. “Like, we don’t even know who did what, and they’re already pointing fingers.” Numerous conservatives, including Fox News host Jesse Watters and President Donald Trump, have jumped to conclusions, accusing Democrats and the media of being responsible for Kirk’s death.
However, a closer examination of the facts reveals a different story. The suspected killer’s family appears to have ties to MAGA policies, and previous attempts on Trump’s life have been linked to individuals with Republican affiliations. Thomas Matthew Crooks, who attempted to assassinate Trump in Pennsylvania last year, was a registered Republican, while Ryan Routh, who allegedly tried to shoot Trump at his Florida golf club, had once supported him.
Crockett argues that the conservative blame game is a deflection from the real issue at hand: the pervasive influence of white supremacy ideology in these violent incidents. “We’re not going to talk about the fact that the vast majority of these shootings, whether they are seen as political or not, are linked to white supremacy ideology,” she said. “But we don’t want to do anything about that.”
The congresswoman’s persuasive argument exposes the flaws in the conservative narrative and highlights the need for a more nuanced and evidence-based discussion. Rather than prematurely pointing fingers, Crockett urges her colleagues to engage in a constructive conversation about the root causes of violence and work towards finding solutions. As the investigation into Kirk’s death continues, one thing is clear: the blame game must stop, and the pursuit of truth and justice must begin.
Kirk called the, “The Democrat Party is a party of division, a party of hate, and a party of intolerance.” Such statements fueled the passions of many conservatives, who felt that their values and beliefs were under attack. Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, became a hub for young MAGA conservatives, providing a platform for them to express their opinions and mobilize against the perceived progressive/liberal agenda.
Kirk’s rhetoric was not only but also damaging to the fabric of American society. By demonizing the opposing party, Kirk contributed to the erosion of civil discourse and the polarization of the country. As former President Barack Obama once said, “If you watch the news, you’ll see that the animosity, the division, the polarization – it’s all gotten worse.” Kirk’s actions, while intended to rally his base, ultimately added to this toxic environment.
Charlie Kirk openly expressed bigoted, homophobic, and Islamophobic views, stating that Islam threatens America. His evangelical Christian beliefs heavily influence his politics, leading him to reject the separation of church and state (part of our constitution) and advocated for a Christian state against “wokeism”. He consistently attacked mask/vaccine mandates during Covid-19, which took millions of Americans lives, and targeting progressive academics with the “Professor Watchlist”, targeting liberal academics, which has been denounced as a form of harassment comparable to a McCarthyite witch-hunt. Additionally, Kirk denied climate change, supported fossil fuels over renewables, opposed DEI programs, and called white privilege a “myth,” the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a “huge mistake,” and Martin Luther King “overrated.”
A couple of years ago, after mass school shootings, Kirk made a comment about some gun deaths in the U.S. being “worth it” to ensure the continued existence of the second amendment to the U.S. constitution, which is the right to keep and bear arms.
“It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights,” he said during an April 5, 2023, appearance at the Salt Lake City campus of Awaken Church. “That is a prudent deal.”
During an appearance with Trump in Georgia last fall, he claimed that Democrats “stand for everything God hates”, adding: “This is a Christian state. I’d like to see it stay that way.”
As Republican strategist, John Weaver, noted, “The problem is that we’re in an era where people are more interested in being right than in being truthful.” Kirk’s approach, while effective in galvanizing his supporters, contributed to this problem. By prioritizing partisan gains over factual accuracy and respectful dialogue, he and others like him have made it more challenging for Americans to engage in constructive debate and find common ground.
Charlie Kirk was a significant figure in the MAGA movment and for Donald Trump, his anti-Democrat “bomb throwing” had a corrosive effect on American politics. By promoting division and spreading misinformation, Kirk’s actions ultimately made America worse. As the country moves forward, it is essential to recognize the importance of respectful discourse and factual accuracy in rebuilding a more united and informed society. As the late Senator John McCain once said, “We need to remind ourselves that we’re all in this together, that we’re all Americans, and that our shared values and interests are more important than our differences.”
It is essential to express that our thoughts and prayers are with his family during this difficult time, and we believe that violence is never a solution to political discourse.
When asked by Nobles if Republicans should be held accountable for the shooting of two Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota, Mace’s response was telling. Nobles referenced the killing of former Democratic Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, as well as the injuring of Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, in a separate attack. Mace’s attempt to deflect the question only served to highlight her own hypocrisy.
Mace’s initial claim that “Democrats own” Kirk’s death was widely criticized, with many arguing that it was premature and irresponsible to assign blame without knowing the facts. By attempting to shift the blame to Democrats, Mace was accused of engaging in the very same divisive rhetoric that she condemned. As Nobles pointed out, if Mace’s logic is applied consistently, then Republicans would also be responsible for the violence perpetrated against Democratic lawmakers.
The exchange has sparked widespread condemnation, with many labeling Mace’s comments as a clear example of Republican partisan hypocrisy.
Blue Press Journal 