An Open Letter to the New York Times Regarding Paul Krugman
Update (5:03 pm): The Times responds. See the full response below.
Below is the full text of an email I sent Friday afternoon to Arthur Brisbane, Public Editor of the New York Times. In it, I detail a serious error made by Times columnist Paul Krugman in his Sunday column - documented at NB - and request that the Times correct the record, in keeping with its own ethics policies. If Mr. Brisbane or another member of the Times's staff responds, I will post the response as an update.
Even if the Times does correct the record, however, Krugman's error has already filtered into and throughout the media echo chamber. Others, such as MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, have repeated Krugman's false claim, illustrating the inevitable consequences of journalistic negligence.
Mr. Brisbane,
I write to alert you to a fairly egregious error in Paul Krugman's Sunday column, headlined "Climate of Hate". Mr. Krugman insists that the political right - far more than their ideological counterparts on the left - are guilty of using "eliminationist" rhetoric, which he defines as "suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary."
Mr. Krugman provides a single example of "eliminationist" rhetoric from conservatives: a statement by Rep. Michele Bachmann that she wants her constituents "armed and dangerous."
Mr. Krugman took those three words completely out of context, and in doing so distorted Ms. Bachmann's actual statement. The full quote reads: "I'm going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back."
Clearly, Ms. Bachmann was not stating her desire for a constituency that is literally "armed and dangerous." She used the phrase as a metaphor - she wanted her constituents "armed" with information so that they would be "dangerous" to cap and trade legislation and Democrats' energy agenda.
The wisdom of using martial metaphors in political rhetoric has of course been a subject of hot debate over the past week. But one need not take up either side of that debate to see that Mr. Krugman misrepresented Ms. Bachmann's actual statement. Whether or not politicians should use such metaphors is irrelevant. Mr. Krugman clearly implied that Ms. Bachmann wanted her constituents to literally bear arms in a political context. The full quote belies that implication.
Either Mr. Krugman did not make even the slightest effort to seek out the full quote and therefore was unaware that he was distorting Ms. Bachmann's statement, or he deliberately distorted it in an attempt to bolster his case that violent rhetoric is "coming, overwhelmingly, from the right." In either case, Mr. Krugman got it wrong and should correct the record.
The Times's ethics guidelines, which state that they apply to columnists as well as reporters, claim: "We correct our errors explicitly as soon as we become aware of them. We do not wait for someone to request a correction. We publish corrections in a prominent and consistent location or broadcast time slot." If the Times wishes to remain true to those guidelines, a speedy correction to Mr. Krugman's Sunday column should be issued.
Thank you.
Lachlan Markay
Contributor, NewsBusters.org
*****UPDATE: I recieved this email minutes ago:
Lachlan, thanks for writing. As you can imagine, we’ve received quite a few emails this week regarding Mr. Krugman’s column from Monday and we are looking into them accordingly. Since Mr. Krugman’s columns appear in the opinion section, he is granted a wide degree of latitude to express his opinion. We know his remarks have upset some readers, and these concerns are duly noted with our office.
Once again, thanks for writing and have a nice weekend.
Best,
Joseph Burgess
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
While I of course appreciate someone from the Times getting back to me, the response really does not address any point made in my initial email. Could the Times have received so many letters in response to that column (or other Krugman columns) that Brisbane's office had to draft a form letter on the topic?
I say that for two reasons. First, as I mentioned above, Mr. Burgess did not specifically address any point I raised. His language was extremely vague, and in no way specific to my letter.
In fact, and this is another reason I think it's a form letter, I touched on the issue of Times ethics policies as they relate to columnists vs. reporters. Here is the exact wording of the Times's ethics policy (linked above):
These guidelines generally apply to all members of our news and editorial departments whose work directly affects our content and its reputation, including those on leaves of absence. They include writers, reporters, columnists, editors, producers, editorial writers, photographers, picture editors, art directors, artists, designers, graphics editors and researchers.
The use of the qualifier "generally" notwithstanding, that passage is fairly unequivocal in lumping columnists in with virtually every other Times staffer as far as the ethics policy is concerned. Mr. Burgess's statement that Krugman "is granted a wide degree of latitude to express his opinion" has no bearing on my charge: that he was flat-out wrong, and needs to correct the record. The issue is not Krugman's opinion. The issue is the factual inaccuracy in his column.
Krugman is clearly in violation of Times ethics policies. We will see if the Times takes further action, but this response from the Ombudsman's office is wholly inadequate.
*****UPDATE 2: If you'd like to take some action - maybe let the Times know just how inappropriate Krugman's claim was and urge them both to do the right thing - head over to MRC Action.
- Lachlan Markay's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Hold your breath........
Submitted by richflanj on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:16pm.
Hold your breath........
Good luck wit dat.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:16pm.
.
The political left is,
Submitted by Smartypants on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:21pm.
The political left is, generally, devious and plotting. Reality has no bearing on their agenda. They have hijacked a tragic shooting in Arizona and turned it into a referendum on conservative media outlets, despite a dearth of evidence that supports the idea that the shooter was motivated by anything but lunacy. Tragic events are regularly turned into political opportunities which must be seized upon. I'd bet my house Krugman knew he was taking the quote out of context, but it just doesn't matter to his ilk. The ends justify the means.
Liberals share a trait with muslims.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 5:03pm.
Muslims don't consider it a sin to lie if it furthers the aims of islam. In fact, it is considered a virtue.
Liberals will lie, cheat, steal, and, yes, even kill if it will advance their agenda.
Awesome
Submitted by Master-of-Disaster on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:20pm.
Lachlan, that was excellent! Great Job in the full tradition of an American! We the People rely on a free Press and one that is ethical and responsible. You called them on it and I anxiously await their reply. Dang that's a Santelli moment right there. Keep up the great work, now where did I put that NYT, I have some fish to wrap............
Thank you, DM
Submitted by Lachlan Markay on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:37pm.
Not sure I'm deserving of the Santelli comparison, but your praise is greatly appreciated.
"Do not make an argument if you cannot make it elegantly, and honestly." - George Will
I like it Lachlan, but do not
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:22pm.
I like it Lachlan, but do not let the sound of crickets get to you waiting for a response.
That being said, maybe we at NB should copy your letter and email, snail mail or fax it to the NY Times.
It is high time we start calling these loons out.
By all means!
Submitted by Lachlan Markay on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:35pm.
Feel free, Scuba Dude. Krugman needs to be called out on his hackery. Unfortunately, he has a history of refusing to abide by the Times's ethics policies. Hopefully that changes. But in any case, it can't hurt to make a stink!
"Do not make an argument if you cannot make it elegantly, and honestly." - George Will
Ahhh, the Times ethics policy!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 5:06pm.
That kind of ranks right up there with a whore house virginity pledge?
Scuba
Submitted by Seashell on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 5:05pm.
It is high time we start calling these loons out.
You are right. It's time these guys realize we're tired of this crap. I will email a copy of the letter also.
I suspect...
Submitted by jdlybrand on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:24pm.
...someone well trained in the 'Heimlich Manuever' would need to be present if Krugman were to issue an apology.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Good call. We shall see if
Submitted by conflag on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:24pm.
Good call. We shall see if they uphold their own ethics....
Krugman
Submitted by StarAZ on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:28pm.
He's at it again this morning--I kind of glazed over and then remembered I was not reading him again.
Krugman is the Olbermann of the NYT - he's above it all
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:44pm.
If they DO issue a "correction" (which I highly doubt) I bet they bury it in just the online version, another favorite tactic.
Lachlan
Submitted by RightRealDeal on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:45pm.
Lachlan: This is great work on your part. It is wonderful that there is someone to call them out on their deliberate omissions, spins or just simply, ignorance.
We thak you and please stay diligent.
In the meantime, use your vacation days as you see fit, do not wait to use any in anticipation of a correction and/or apology.
Thanks, RRD
Submitted by Lachlan Markay on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:46pm.
We will see.
"Do not make an argument if you cannot make it elegantly, and honestly." - George Will
I'd send Krugman a letter too...
Submitted by KyWriter on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:47pm.
...if I knew the zipcode for hell.
You don't know the zipcode for hell?
Submitted by StarAZ on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 4:04pm.
There was a show about it--90210.
I thought the zip code for
Submitted by JoeBob on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 5:44pm.
I thought the zip code for hell was whereever you were when you saw 90210.
Good letter
Submitted by Walker01049 on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:48pm.
But don't hold your breath. The NYT will die a slow death one of these days due to lack of readership. Oh, sorry, I should use that terminology. Bad me.
Krugman ought to write a
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:53pm.
Krugman ought to write a personal apology to Congresswoman Bachman, which the Times will then put as their front page Headline article of this coming Sunday's paper.
Then on Monday...they should fire him.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Take it directly to Krugman
Submitted by ThisnThat on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 7:26pm.
Krugman is on the Sunday shows a lot, with his stupid cup of coffee. Bachman should find out the next one, get herself invited, and then bring this topic up very directly, very loudly, and very publically. Put Krugman in his place on national TV. And call him what he is -- a biased, contemptable person who knows no shame, and would do anything -- lying included -- to further his cause and to delibertly harm people.
Then == she should demand an apology, right there on the spot. And just as soon as Krugman begins to justify his lies (which he will), politely ask to be excused by the host, and leave the table until Krugman is forced to recant.
Now that's a Sunday show that even I would watch!
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
The Official response form Paul Krugman is..
Submitted by redright88 on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 3:55pm.
.."Nobel Prize winners are above you puny Journalists, and are not bound by accuracy or integrity. And one more thing before I go...RAISE TAXES!"
Knowing Krugman's past work,
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 4:01pm.
Knowing Krugman's past work, he deliberatly distorted her quote. He knows what she said, and how and why she said it. Krugman is a self serving communist. The Joseph Gobbels of the NYT's. The times should be proud.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
What!!!!?????
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 4:11pm.
The Old gray senile cantanckerous lady admit to a mistake of this caliber and then correct it?
Are you serious??!!!
Besides, as many others have no doubt pointed out, it was not a mistake it was a purposeful distortion to make the case for an idea that is based on ideology and had absolutley no documentable facts to support it at all.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
duplicate post
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 4:14pm.
oops
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
OK Mr. Quixote
Submitted by MacWell on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 4:13pm.
Lachlan, how dare you question the motives of the greatest mind that has ever graced the pages of the NYT. Why this great man is a Nobel prize winner, he can't possibly be wrong.
Oh, and by the way, being the greatest mind at the times is about the same as bragging that he smells better than Dog Poop.
Good job, but, I wouldn't wait on them to do anything about it.
If Krugman wanted an example - should use Gov. Manchin
Submitted by Gary Hall on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 4:27pm.
Lachlan illustrated how Krugman took Michelle Bachman's quote out of context and then misused the excerpt. Seeing that Bachman was referring to the cap and trade bill, perhaps a far better example (yet still inappropriate) for Krugman to have used would have been in the actual use of a firearm in shooting at the cap and trade bill.. literally.
Dead Aim - Joe Manchin for West Virginia TV Ad
Oh, those Democrats!
(;~> gary
Never Would Have Thought
Submitted by CoolShades on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 7:04pm.
On September 11, 2001, in the mist of confusion, death, and carnage, I truly thought our country would pull together politically. Just like we did during WWII. I thought, together as a nation, we'd fight these bastards that flew those planes into our great buildings - without forgetting Flight 93. I was wrong.
I thought after the terrible tragedy last Saturday after the shootings in Tucson, AZ, we'd pull together politically and call a truce to all the vicious partisan attacks. Even, within a graceful 24 hour period of time, to allow some to vent and than think... I was wrong. Maybe after 48 hours some will come to their senses and relent. I was wrong.
I now know, it's all an on-going campaign to manipulate young Americans and young minds. It saddens me, just like post 911, that Democrat's really don't care. They don't care about the dead. They don't care about the wounded. They don't care about the families and communities involved. They only care about scoring political points while completely ignoring every shred of evidence to the contrary.
We, as a nation, can never prosper within this dynamic. If we can't pull together during a time of tragedy, we can never stand together as one. For it was standing as one that made this great country we call or called the United States.
I feel violated as I sit here and wait in earnest for a measly retraction. One retraction of many for blame of the horrible tragedy last Saturday in Tucson, AZ. The Democrats just don't care.
CoolShades,
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 7:07pm.
While I understand how you feel I would like to narrow the field a little to just a handful of Democrats, the media en masse and on air liberal activist.
For the most part the Democrats have been silent and I would guess care greatly except for the usual suspects. However, it is difficult to draw the line because of the support the media give the Democrats and I am most definitely empathetic with your overall message.
CoolShades...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 7:44pm.
No offense, but were you out of the country on and after 9/11? Contrary to your assertions, there was extraordinary unity and bi-partisan co-operation; Democrats overwhelmingly stood behind President Bush; all of the members of Congress appeared on the steps of the Capitol, joined hands and sang God Bless America; the Clintons were out rallying support for Bush [even as some righty talk jocks were proclaiming the terrorist attacks to be "all Bill Clinton's fault" and that he had "blood on his hands"]; Bush's popularity shot up to a stratospheric 90%, and the Patriot Act was passed with near-unanimous bi-partisan endorsement. Your suggestions that it was otherwise are shockingly off base.
Jer
I'm afraid you're writing fiction
Submitted by Plumb Bob on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 8:18pm.
Jer wrote:
I'm afraid you're making that up.
No "righty talk jocks" proclaimed that the 9/11 attacks were all Clinton's fault -- at least, not while the entire nation was recovering from the shock of the attack.It took all of about 3 weeks for the Democrats to recover their tongues, crank up the character assassination machine, and begin blaming the Bush administration for the 9/11 attack, which they did, non-stop, for the next 4 years at least. Remember Michael Moore's obsession with "My Pet Goat?" Remember all the conspiracy talk about Cheney ordering planes to shoot down passenger airliners? Remember the entire "Truther" movement, with which something like 1/2 of all registered Democrats agreed?
And, do you remember how the Democrats packed the 9/11 Commission with former Clinton Administration appointees, who proceeded to slant the investigation, bury evidence of Clinton's malfeasance, and attempt to whitewash their former boss? Remember Warren Christopher stuffing Clinton administration memos into his pants in an attempt to prevent them from seeing the light of day? Remember Jamie Gorelick attempting to blame her own policy on John Ashcroft, and Ashcroft jamming her own memo down her throat? And, do you remember GW Bush demanding that Ashcroft take a different tone and apologize?
Some obscure idiots on the right did blame the Clintons, most of it coming as a counter-offensive after the lefties starting hurling blame at Bush. The "righty talk jocks," on the other hand, uniformly insisted that we blame the terrorists for the attack.
The comment about Clinton having "blood on his hands" came from Wayne Lapierre, the President of the National Rifle Association. He said it in March of 2000; it had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, but was instead a complaint about the Clinton administration's improper policies toward gun ownership. Candidate Bush said that Lapierre had "gone too far."
Interesting, though, how Democrats remember history so selectively. It's one of the best bits of evidence supporting the thesis that liberalism is a mental disorder.Let me just correct you right off the bat, Plumb Bob...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 8:36pm.
I'm not making anything up. Both Kim Peterson and Neal Boortz said just what I indicated on the talk shows they hosted. I heard them both make the statements. Peterson's "blood on his hands" comment was on the afternoon of 9/11 and Boortz said virtually the same thing the following day.
So unless you somehow can divine what I heard or didn't hear, let's cool the "you're making it up" nonsense. OK?
Jer
Yes
Submitted by CoolShades on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 8:28pm.
Yes, I was here. I did notice the unity, as you mentioned. But, for me, it didn't last long enough.
CoolShades...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 8:38pm.
I agree with you on that point, but both sides were guilty for the unraveling.
Jer
Right on, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 8:59pm.
In fact, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy, each agreed of a certainty that Saddam Hussein had WMD, and it was absolutely necessary to neutralize him.
Only later did we find out they could say anything they wanted and the MSM would act like they never said any such thing.
Yeah, we got stung big time by the cowardice of the Left to stand by their own words when it became apparent they could tell a totally different story later.
Don't be surprised if we're a little slow to sing along in the Kumbaya at the campfire this time. Let's wait until after the inevitable headline:
REMORSEFUL CONSERVATIVES PROMISE NEW ERA OF CIVILITY
AND SO IT GOES . . . . Kurt Vonnegut
→ Thanks, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:08pm.
That's exactly what I thought you'd say.
You're welcome, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:28pm.
Now here's what I will say:
Despite the bi-partisan support for Bush by the Dems after 9/11; despite their overwhelming support for the Patriot Act; despite Democratic support in passing the Iraq War Resolution...
George Bush still went out on the campaign trail for the 2002 mid-term elections and skewered Democrats who had supported him--such as Max Cleland--for allegedly being more interested in politics than national security. Ridiculous.
That is what I meant by both sides contributing to the unraveling of bi-partisanship.
Jer
Link, Jer?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:48pm.
I'm not denying your claim, but you might want to provide a link.
On the other hand:
Just prior to the start of the Convention, Cleland told reporters that Kerry’s opponent, had “flat-out lied” to gain congressional authorization for the War in Iraq. He accused the President of launching the war to “be Mr. Macho Man” because “he concluded that his daddy [President George H.W. Bush] was a failed president” for not removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War.
So please provide information predating THIS claim if you're going for the argument these things were said in response to President Bush's comments.
Again, please provide you link.
Or is this, once again, a complaint by the left that Conservatives don't know how to turn the other cheek?
Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:15pm.
This article will give you an overview--especially the last half--including GWB's "not as interested in national security" theme.
Jer
Jer, that's absolutely diabolical
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:19pm.
I did not realize "Saxby Chambliss" was actually a cleverly crafted anagram of "George W. Bush"
Wow, you really got me there!
Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:29pm.
Cleland was one of the senators Bush targeted with the soft on national security narrative. And the basis was the failure to vote for the Republican version of the Homeland Security Act, even though the Dems had been the ones to first propose it. I assume you read Bush's statement in the article I linked. That was the same meme thrown at Cleland.
Jer
It's OK, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:56pm.
If I didn't like you, I wouldn't let you off the hook like this.
Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 12:03am.
Whew!
Jer
Why single out the NYTimes? Journalism as a whole stinks!
Submitted by merly1 on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 5:06pm.
I followed the shooting from the first breaking moments.....everything about its reporting was wrong. First, Gabby was dead, then she wasnt. A boy died, no it was a girl. It was a right wing ex-Army type = hardly. Even worse, unlike the Ft Hood shooting, ie "dont rush to ascribe motives," here the dentally challenged Buford T Justice type sheriff was front and center and trying to smear a certain political group. Even worse, the sheriff now looks to have been in major CYA mode with this mental guys history. Krugman, NYTimes are just PART of the problem, but it really is industry wide!
I wouldn't expect to see a correction, let alone an apology
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 5:41pm.
The NYT will merely assert that the three words were uttered by Bachmann, and therefore Krugman did not misquote her. They don't care about context.
Same with Palin's use of the phrase blood libel. First, the MSM went into a high warble because their favorite bogey-gal -- Sarah Palin -- spoke the words, which 500 years ago referred to an anti-Semitic myth. Then they had to explain the context so that the public (and most of the airhead anchors on TV) would understand the outrage.
But they never explained Palin's use of it -- in other words, it's context. Even leftist law professor Alan Dershowitz has dismissed any negative connations claimed to be in her use of it, saying that it has long ago entered the political lexicon and lost its original meaning.
Nor did the NYT cite its prior use by columnists Mike Barnicle and Pulitzer-Prize winner Eugene Robinson.
Context isn't important to the NYT. It gets in the way of their "narrative."
Krugman is nothing but a sniper
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 7:27pm.
And the Times definition of civility is obviously severely lacking.
THE OLD GRAY LADY HAS BECOME AN OLD WHORE
Submitted by Metsie62 on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 8:08pm.
There is a headline that you would attribute to Helen Thomas not Paul Krugman. Your newspapper is packed with venomous lies and disgusts me
So that;s why
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:17pm.
Spitzer always has a copy under his arm.
Anagram for New York Times:
Submitted by Mad Greg on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:31pm.
Anagram for New York Times: Monkeys write.
History of Distortion
Submitted by Gat New York on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:45pm.
Beginning with the era of FDR the left and Democrats have always conducted their arguments to appeal only to emotion using distortion and lies because their views lack facts and history.
This has been the most heinous abuse perpetrated by the left and was led by the earliest AP report which did not get the name of the perpetrator right or the sex of the 9 year old child who was killed. But they were sure to implicate Sarah Palin in their very first press piece. That was followed Sunday morning with Clyburn baseless insinuations on Chris Wallace's show
This issue should not go away and I do not want to see a single Republican sitting with Democrats during the SOTU unless EVERY Democrat member openly rejects charges leveled at Conservatives - especially the flame thrower Clyburn.
By now people should know
Submitted by tinydancer on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 12:35am.
By now, most people should know that Krugman is living in that very small, liberal bubble, called NYC. It's called The New York Times for a reason. Since most of NYC is populated by uber leftists, why is it a surprise that he gets away with writing what he does in this paper?
The problem as I see it, is that too many people are still reading the NYT thinking it's a 'real' newspaper.
Well, surprise, surprise! It's not. It's not even 'left leaning'. It's propaganda for the far left and they are preaching to the converted.
Just stop reading the NYT. I mean, is it really worth reading anymore?
The state-run media is the enemy
Submitted by gunguru on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 7:55am.
pure and simple. I admire your attempt to gain a retraction, and spotlight the contemptible Mr. Krugman's latest lie, but all I can say is "good luck with that". We will just have to stay vigilant against Krugman and the rest of his ilk. Inform your friends, your family, and everyone who doesn't pay attention like we do. Don't let the left control the debate; be sure that we take control and keep it. In my opinion, we are now (more than ever) in a fight for the future of freedom in our country and our enemies are numerous and powerful. Good job Lachlan, and we will all fight with you to overcome the lies of the left.