Welcome

Welcome to my blog. Here you will find information that is both interesting and useless. You can even see how Steve, my camera, sees the world through my eyes, or get your hands on my latest novel, Jihad Joe at:

http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/119633

Thanks for visiting. Hope you enjoyed the coffee and cake. Sorry we ran out of donuts.


Thursday, July 27, 2017

Sarah Palin going after the "Gray Lady"

Photo: Fox News
Sarah Palin plans to subpoena about two dozen New York Times staffers in her defamation lawsuit against the canary cage liner.

Lawyers for The Times arguing for the case to be dismissed said that Palin's lawyers served notice that she plans to subpoena "23 non-party current and former Times reporters, editors and other employees--most of whom had nothing to do with the editorial issue," as per the court documents obtained Wednesday by the New York Post.

The former governor of Alaska's legal team apparently plans to ask the "Gray Lady" to produce "every internal communication it has has since 2011," in order to obtain "documents that might reveal, among other things, their 'negative feelings' toward her," the Times told the judge on Wednesday.

The so-called 'paper of record' had no comment.

Palin's lawsuit stems from a Times editorial on June 14, just a few hours after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot and seriously wounded at a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va. Ms. Palin alleges the editorial tied her to the January 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D- Ariz.). 

The editorial, attributed to the Times' editorial board titled "America's Lethal Politics," initially linked Palin's rhetoric to the shooting that killed six people and wounded thirteen others, including Giffords.

The Times posted a correction the following day, admitting that "no such link was established," and at least a dozen people read the correction because that's generally something people skim over or disregard because it's so small and visually insignificant.

In addition, the editorial claimed, wrongfully, that an ad from Palin's political action committee put "Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs" [apparently suggesting they were being targeted with a rifle scope].

The Times also corrected that statement, admitting that the crosshairs on the map targeted "electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers."

Well gee, it's almost the same thing . . . if you're the fake news New York Times

The lawsuit stated "The Times used its false assertion about Mrs. Palin as an artifice to exploit the [Scalise] shooting." It added, "The Times published and promoted its editorial board's column despite knowing . . . the false assertion that Mrs. Palin incited [Tucson shooter Jared] Loughner to murder six people. In doing so, the Times violated the law and its own policies."

The substitute pooper scooper has reportedly claimed that Ms. Palin has no case because she can't claim malice, the legal standard for claiming defamation.

Perhaps the NRA can claim malice for her if it's proven she cannot because the Times is no longer unbiased--they clearly have a leftist agenda. But really, they always did.