Editor called to testify in Sarah Palin defamation lawsuit says that article wanted to illustrate charged political rhetoric's connection to violence, not accuse Palin of directly influencing the shooting of Gabby Giffords.

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

The editor of The New York Times editorial page testified on Wednesday that he did not intend in an editorial to blame the former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin for a 2011 mass shooting, but was instead trying to make a point about the heated political environment. The editorial is the focus of a defamation lawsuit brought by Ms. Palin against the news organization. 

The editor, James Bennet, said he had wanted to draw a link between charged political rhetoric and an atmosphere of political incitement after a gunman opened fired in June on a baseball field where Republican congressmen were practicing, injuring several people including Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana. But Mr. Bennet said he was not trying to make a direct connection between a map of targeted electoral districts that Ms. Palin’s political action committee had circulated and the 2011 shooting in Arizona by Jared Loughner that severely injured Representative Gabby Giffords. 

“I did not intend and was not thinking of it as a causal link to the crime,” Mr. Bennet said. During cross-examination, he said he did not know if Mr. Loughner had seen the map and “did not know if the map incited him to his conduct.”

I think that what Mr. Bennet wrote is a valid observation on the effects that violent rhetoric has on the behaviors of certain individuals.

We just saw that same thing take place in Charlottesville, where people reading White Supremacist postings online showed up ready to incite violence and kick ass.

We have seen this happen time and time again, what SarahPAC did with that map is nothing new, but it DID help to create an atmosphere of hostility that could be tapped into by people with certain violent tendencies.

The judge is still considering the idea of throwing this whole thing out, and if he does I really hope the Times counter sues Palin for everything she still has left.

This is perfect.

Today's @BillBramhall cartoon | SEE MORE: https://t.co/HcIQn5FXso pic.twitter.com/tv8ZUukAdL

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) June 17, 2016

Is anybody not mocking Bernie Sanders right now?

Hey look! Track Palin is now famous enough to have an editorial cartoon published about him.

Of course we know that Track spent far less than even a year in Iraq, but other than that this is a great editorial cartoon.

Political cartoonist, David Horsey, illustrates the problems with Palin's newest book quite eloquently.

Here is what Horsey had to say in his Los Angeles Times commentary:  

I'm a big fan of Christmas, but I'm not inclined to join Sarah Palin's pro-Christmas crusade. Her new book, "Good Tidings, Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas," lays out the case that Christmas is under attack by stringing together a litany of slights against the holiday -- real, imagined and exaggerated -- that do not add up to much more than her usual chip-on-the-shoulder complaint against anyone outside her narrow definition of "real Americans." 

A column by Michelle Cottle of the Daily Beast includes a pretty good summation of Palin's book: "From the first chapter, it is clear that, whatever her concerns about 'a Christ-less Christmas,' Palin has found a convenient frame on which to hang her rage at pretty much everything: Obamacare, Obamaphones, Nancy Pelosi, the national debt, gay marriage, sexual sin, crony capitalism, the preferential treatment of Muslims (whoo-wee! does she get rolling on that one), the lamestream media, Chick-fil-A haters, abortion, Mitt Romney’s hair, and on and on. No liberal stereotype, from Birkenstocks to the French, vegans, and NPR, is too tired to sneer at." 

The book is also peppered with complaints about her treatment at the hands of pretty much everyone during her run for vice president in 2008. It's amazing how put-upon Palin still feels, given that she has turned her very thin political resume and limited intellectual gifts into a lucrative celebrity enterprise that has included a cable reality show, TV commentator gigs and bestselling books (although her Christmas book may not be setting the publishing world on fire). She should be immensely pleased with how far she has gone from her days as a lowly city council member in a remote burg in the Alaskan outback. 

Very well put!

As many of us here at IM have pointed out in the past, essentially Palin is on a never ending "woe is me" tour, and whether she is giving a Fox News interview, having a Facebook post written for her, or contributing lunatic ideas to a ghostwritten book about Christmas, the central theme never changes.

Which is by the way, "I almost had it all, and then those liberal media assholes took it away from me. Fuck Obama!"

Sarah Palin has somebody write an op-ed about the recent mass shooting for her to take credit for. Prepare to be underwhelmed.

Courtesy of National Review:

All of us were horrified by the murders at the Washington Navy Yard this week. Once again, in the aftermath of a shooting, a new installment of the debate about gun laws has broken out. But what we really need is a new discussion about what kind of people we are and what kind of country we want to be. (We are a gun obsessed kid of people, and instead we should be a country that solves its problems without resorting to deadly force. There, how's that for a discussion?

It’s no secret which side I’m on in any debate involving the Second Amendment (or the whole Constitution, for that matter). (Personally I don't think she knows ANY other amendments beside the second and perhaps the first.) We call Alaska America’s Last Frontier, and firearms are a big part of our lifestyle here because they are part of our frontier tradition. And, as I tell my daughters, the ability to use a firearm responsibly and to defend yourself is also part of our heritage as American women. ("Frontier tradition?"  "Heritage as American women?" WTF? Alaskans owned guns because there were big scary animals all around them, and they were trying to stay alive in a dangerous and harsh environment. However allow me to point out that the Native Alaskans survived up here for thousands and thousands of years before they ever even saw a gun.)

The iconic musket over the fireplace wasn’t just for the menfolk on the frontier. ("Menfolk? Who talks like that?") Those stalwart women who crossed oceans and wilderness to settle our country knew how to protect themselves and their families. (Yes they were considered the property of their men, and were therefore protected just like the cows, sheep, chickens, and other breeding stock.) (One of my favorite scenes in the miniseries John Adams is when Abigail Adams, alone with her children in besieged Massachusetts while her husband is away at the Continental Congress, shoulders the family musket to protect her little ones when she hears the distant sounds of battle. That’s our heritage, ladies.) (She DOES realize that's a movie, right?)

Hunting is an integral part of our lifestyle in the 49th state. Using guns isn’t just recreation for us; it’s how many of us get our dinner. Granted, today, with a grocery store on virtually every corner, there isn’t the actual necessity to live a “subsistence lifestyle” that there was a generation ago in Alaska when I was growing up, (Hah! She finally admitted it!) but my family still lives by the motto “We eat; therefore, we hunt.” We live off the healthy organic protein provided by Alaska’s wild fish and game. (Which is why the dress up in camouflage when they drive over to the local Taco Bell for a protein rich Crunchwrap Supreme.) 

Todd and I have taught our kids how to handle firearms responsibly, just as my dad taught me. (Then why did Levi have to show her how to use the gun under her bed, and why did her daddy have to load her rifle for her during the filming of SPA?) In fact, we took our girls for a special hunt on Mother’s Day this year at our cabin looking out at the distant majestic peak of Mt. McKinley, 
 

Courtesy of Facebook

and we had a blast teaching twelve-year-old Piper mounted shooting in warm Montana this summer. 

Also courtesy of Facebook.

I’m proud of my frontier heritage, and I’ll fight vehemently against anything that would limit the constitutional rights of Americans. But I can certainly sympathize with the many well-meaning Americans who desperately feel the need to find a way to prevent these senseless killings. Who among us doesn’t feel sadness, anger, and even despair after these tragedies? (Well I'm guessing you.)

But we must remember that emotion won’t make anybody safer or protect our rights. Beware of politicians who exploit our emotions in an attempt to pass laws that even they admit wouldn’t have prevented the violence. 

CNN’s Don Lemon recently saw the light on this issue and highlighted the Centers for Disease Control study showing that so-called military assault rifles account for a small fraction of gun violence. The overwhelming majority of gun-related deaths are inflicted with handguns, (True.) but a ban on handguns is not only politically untenable (Sadly also true.); it would also hinder the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves (especially Americans who live in troubled urban areas where the police are slow to respond to emergency calls). 

Instead of offering real solutions based on facts, reactionary politicians offer us the politics of emotion, which is the opposite of leadership. It is the manipulation of the people by the political class for their own political ends. It is so very self-serving, but, worse, it is destructive. (You mean like when George Bush convinced Americans that we should attack two blameless countries after 9-11?)

The first thing politicians ask after these tragedies is essentially: “What can we do to limit the freedom of the people?” 

And that is the wrong question. The question we should be asking is: “What can we do to nurture and support a people capable of living in freedom?” (Did Sarah Palin's ghostwriter actually ascribe a desire to nurture others to a woman so cold and aloof that her own children call her by first name, and the little boy with Down syndrome keeps hitting her in the face?)

Earlier this year I spoke at the NRA convention and reminded a conscientious, patriotic audience that our country’s Founders asked themselves that question and knew the answer. They understood that a free people must either nurture morality or lose their freedom. John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (Ahh, the call for more religion. I wondered when that would be inserted into the conversation.) Not coincidentally, he wrote that to the officers of the Massachusetts militia when the young republic was on the verge of war with France. He reminded those officers who were charged with leading armed men that the freedoms secured by the Constitution take for granted a decent and civil society. 

This isn’t just a question for American society. It’s a civilizational question for all humanity. Margaret Thatcher spoke eloquently of this co-dependence of freedom and morality. She said, “Freedom will destroy itself if it is not exercised within some sort of moral framework, some body of shared beliefs, some spiritual heritage transmitted through the Church, the family, and the school.”  (Shout out to Margaret Thatcher. Check!)

I’m reminded of that quote (That her ghostwriter just looked up for her.) every time I see politicians reach for the easy answers instead of asking the hard questions after tragedies like the one this week. When they seek to strip away our Second Amendment rights instead of suggesting that those who hide behind the First Amendment need to act more responsibly, they are helping freedom destroy itself. When Hollywood glorifies violence with its movies and music, but then underwrites efforts to take away our rights, it is helping freedom destroy itself. When those incorporating virtue into their lives are criticized, mocked, and bullied while pop culture’s kingmakers elevate and celebrate a self-centered “I’ll do what I want and consequences be damned” mentality, those kingmakers and bullies are helping freedom destroy itself. And when We the People shrug our shoulders and duck our heads while society becomes more cynical and our sense of family and community atrophies, we’re all helping freedom destroy itself. (So to be clear, it is not too many guns, which are too easy to get, that are the source of all of these bullets flying around. But it IS Hollywood, video games, and a lack of religious instruction. That about right?)

Americans have always had access to firearms. Guns certainly aren’t any more pervasive now than they were back when the Minutemen were stockpiling weapons at Lexington and Concord. (Those were single shot muskets!)But something definitely has changed since then. It’s not the weapons. (Yes it is!) It’s us. (You mean politicians who glorify guns and fight against any rational gun control? Because if you do, I agree.)

Instead of rushing to find some magical legislative solution, we need to ask ourselves a few hard questions: Are we creating a culture that can live and thrive in freedom? Do we have bold leaders willing and able to nurture such a culture? Do we have artists whose works reflect and inspire such a culture? Consider the answers to these questions carefully, because, if the answers are no, then we are in much more trouble than any new law can fix. 

A decent and moral society is guided by voluntary self-restraint. The less moral we are, the more legalistic we become. (So we were MORE moral when we had slaves and denied women the right to vote, and less moral when we passed laws to free the slaves and give rights to women?) But more laws can’t protect a civilization that has lost its way. At most, they’re just tiny speed bumps for a runaway truck. 

The solutions we seek won’t be found in the halls of Congress or state legislatures. Might I humbly suggest that we step back from the TV, take a breath, hug our kids, reach out to friends and neighbors, and say a prayer.

Yes hugging our children and praying will stop gun violence. Why didn't I think of that?

I don't think that any of us who have had the misfortune of reading something Palin actually wrote, (Another example here.) or heard her speak off the cuff, think ANY of this was written by her. 

However I felt the need to share it because we have been wondering when she would weigh in on this recent mass shooting, and now we know.

Essentially her message, as attributed to her SarahPAC paid consultants, is that we don't need no stinking new gun laws, we just need strong moral leaders in Washington, less TV, and more praying.

Yup, that should certainly solve all of our problems.

Moron!

Rick Perry gets very angry at editorial cartoon which points out that his lax regulation policies resulted in the death of 14 fellow Texans. So sensitive!

So the editorial cartoon is above, you can decide for yourself if it is in good taste or not, but it does clearly point out that Governor Perry has often bragged about the fact that businesses come to Texas due to fairly watered down regulations, and that. curiously enough, is also being blamed for the explosion of that fertilizer plant.

Now did old Perry take that lying down? Oh hell no!

He done wrote a letter to the paper that featured it:It was with extreme disgust and disappointment I viewed your recent cartoon. While I will always welcome healthy policy debate, I won't stand for someone mocking the tragic deaths of my fellow Texans and our fellow Americans. Additionally, publishing this on the very day our state and nation paused to honor and mourn those who died only compounds the pain and suffering of the many Texans who lost family and friends in this disaster. The Bee owes the community of West, Texas an immediate apology for your detestable attempt at satire. -- Gov. Rick Perry, Austin, Tex.

Interesting. 

However I have to wonder that if, after a disaster of this magnitude, Perry will start to see the common sense in making sure that businesses which manufacture products that might go boom, poison the atmosphere, or leak into the ground soil or streams are properly regulated for safety?

Or was the EPA perhaps one of the branches of government that Perry famously forgot to list when asked which ones he would get rid of if elected President?

Gabby Giffords responds to yesterday's cowardice in the Senate.

Courtesy of The New York Times:  

Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them. 

On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count. Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. 

Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them. 

I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending. 

Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I’m furious. I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your children safe. We cannot allow the status quo — desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation — to go on. 

I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated. I am asking for mothers to stop these lawmakers at the grocery store and tell them: You’ve lost my vote. I am asking activists to unsubscribe from these senators’ e-mail lists and to stop giving them money. I’m asking citizens to go to their offices and say: You’ve disappointed me, and there will be consequences.

I am still stunned that when confronted by the bravery of Gabby Giffords and those Newtown families that these Senators could STILL  cave to pressure from the NRA.

Personally I would be consumed with shame right now, and be unable to show my face in public.

But I guess that is why I am only a blogger and not a politician.

I agree with everything that Gabby says here, and will join her in going after these cowards in the Senate.

P.S. Here is a list of the Senators and how they voted on the issue.

Woman writes op-ed explaining how, even though she had given up on Obama, he had not given up on her.

This is an amazing editorial from a woman named Spike Dolomite Ward, who learned that, despite what she had been told about Obama failing to reform healthcare, what he accomplished may have saved her life.

I am going to post the entire letter here so that you can read it in from start to finish, but I want to give credit to the source, which was the LA Times. Directly below is the editorial. It is a little long, but I encourage you to read it til the end:

I want to apologize to President Obama. But first, some background. 

I found out three weeks ago I have cancer. I'm 49 years old, have been married for almost 20 years and have two kids. My husband has his own small computer business, and I run a small nonprofit in the San Fernando Valley. I am also an artist. Money is tight, and we don't spend it frivolously. We're just ordinary, middle-class people, making an honest living, raising great kids and participating in our community, the kids' schools and church. 

We're good people, and we work hard. But we haven't been able to afford health insurance for more than two years. And now I have third-stage breast cancer and am facing months of expensive treatment. 

To understand how such a thing could happen to a family like ours, I need to take you back nine years to when my husband got laid off from the entertainment company where he'd worked for 10 years. Until then, we had been insured through his work, with a first-rate plan. After he got laid off, we got to keep that health insurance for 18 months through COBRA, by paying $1,300 a month, which was a huge burden on an unemployed father and his family. 

By the time the COBRA ran out, my husband had decided to go into business for himself, so we had to purchase our own insurance. That was fine for a while. Every year his business grew. But insurance premiums were steadily rising too. More than once, we switched carriers for a lower rate, only to have them raise rates significantly after a few months. 

With the recession, both of our businesses took a huge hit — my husband's income was cut in half, and the foundations that had supported my small nonprofit were going through their own tough times. We had to start using a home equity line of credit to pay for our health insurance premiums (which by that point cost as much as our monthly mortgage). When the bank capped our home equity line, we were forced to cash in my husband's IRA. The time finally came when we had to make a choice between paying our mortgage or paying for health insurance. We chose to keep our house. We made a nerve-racking gamble, and we lost. 

Not having insurance amplifies cancer stress. After the diagnosis, instead of focusing all of my energy on getting well, I was panicked about how we were going to pay for everything. I felt guilty and embarrassed about not being insured. When I went to the diagnostic center to pick up my first reports, I was sent to the financial department, where a woman sat me down to talk about resources for "cash patients" (a polite way of saying "uninsured"). 

"I'm not a deadbeat," I blurted out. "I'm a good person. I have two kids and a house!" The clerk was sympathetic, telling me how even though she worked in the healthcare field, she could barely afford insurance herself.