Palin wins first battle with NYTimes in her libel lawsuit

This should be entertaining: A federal judge has ruled that the New York Times editorial writer who smeared Sarah Palin in an editorial will have to testify under oath about that editorial.

The editorial tried to blame Palin for the 2011 Tucson mass shooting by an insane man, even though the New York Times’ own reporting had previously shown without doubt that no such link existed. In order to avoid losing their case, the editorial writer is going to have to claim that he doesn’t read his own newspaper, and thus did not know about the Times own reporting on this story. Otherwise, it will appear that the editorial was malicious and a lie, and thus libelous.

Like I said, this should be entertaining. Either Palin wins the lawsuit hands down, or the New York Times will have to make itself look like a piece of junk. Which, by the way, it has mostly been for the past three decades.

“News Media Now Giving Trump the ‘Full Palin.’”

Working for the Democratic Party: The expected full-media assault on the Republican Party candidate has begun. As the author at the link notes,

There have been few conservatives who have been more critical of Trump since the start of this insane campaign than me, and he deserves every bit of condemnation he has gotten for needlessly mishandling the Khan situation. However, there is also no doubt that the media became obsessed with the story because they want Trump to lose, got a bit freaked out about his very temporary convention bounce, and smelled blood.

Hillary, while she is less likely to be stupid enough to so publicly take on the parents of a fallen war hero, would also never have been lured by the media into the conflict to the extent Trump was. If she had somehow stepped in it, the news media would have let it go far sooner than they did for Trump (for instance, how many voters are even aware of the controversy over her basically calling some family members of Benghazi victims liars?).

This story has seemed to open the floodgates now on Trump in much the same way that the infamous Katie Couric interview did with regards to Sarah Palin in 2008. Now, everything Trump says seems to be instant fodder for the media’s intensified “gaffe watch.”

It is very important to recognize one more additional fact: Any Republican candidate would have been treated this way by the now openly partisan and decidedly bankrupt mainstream media. The question now is whether the low-information public has finally become aware of this game.

The Palin endorsement of Trump

I usually avoid posting much about campaign stuff, as most of it is foolish childish blather. To me, what is important is what politicians actually do when they are in positions of power, not what they say while they are campaigning.

However, Sarah Palin’s endorsement yesterday of Donald Trump requires a few words, because this is an action by Palin that confirms a great deal about her (not Trump) that I have thought since the day she resigned as Alaska’s governor. To paraphrase one headline, yesterday’s endorsement was a Reality TV Star Endorsing a Reality TV Star.

Sarah Palin, the host of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” and “Amazing America with Sarah Palin,” has endorsed the star of “The Apprentice” and “The Celebrity Apprentice”

This article is more blunt:
» Read more

Photos from various tea party protests across the nation today.

Photos from various tea party protests across the nation today.

The protesters wearing targets on their backs were especially clever, considering the vicious attacks after the Tucson shootings two years ago against Sarah Palin for using tiny target graphics in some of her literature. Back then, Palin and conservatives got slimed for this irrelevant act, something they had nothing to do with the Tucson murders. Now, the IRS has made them real targets. And it both cases, they are innocent, doing nothing more than expressing their beliefs and ideas.

The modern liberal press, described in one paragraph

The modern liberal press, described in one paragraph:

“I call them ‘dumb arses,’” she said. “They think by trotting out this old Gingrich divorce interview — that’s old news and it does feature this disgruntled ex- that claimed that it would destroy a campaign. All this does is, Sean, is incentivize conservatives and independents who are so sick of the politics of personal destruction because it’s played so selectively by the media.” [emphasis mine]

It isn’t that the accusations against Newt Gingrich shouldn’t be looked at, it’s that the press is only interested in accusations like this against Republican and conservative candidates. Where were they while John Edwards was simultaneously having an adulterous affair and running for President, even as his wife was dying of cancer? Similarly, the mainstream press didn’t think Anthony Weiner’s sexual exploits were worth coverage, even though those exploits ended up destroying his career. And of course, there is Bill Clinton’s history, which for the liberal press, was irrelevant because it was “his personal life.”

But when it comes to Republicans, all bets are off.

Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t mind the press going after politicians like this at all. What I mind is, as Palin notes, the selective manner in which the press goes after politicians. Their partisanship in favor of Democrats has become so obvious it is disgraceful. They should be ashamed.

Lame-duck Barney Frank joins effort to repeal Obamacare “death panels”

A bit late, ain’t he? Lame-duck Barney Frank joins the effort to repeal Obamacare’s “death panels.”

Note also that Frank has now essentially admitted that Sarah Palin was right about these panels (though he of course hasn’t come out and said it). Rather than be partisan back when she first brought this issue up, why couldn’t Frank have acted more responsibly and voted against the bill in the first place?

Update: I reworded the above paragraph because the original language gave the impression that Frank had actually said he now agreed with Palin, something he has not done.