Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    The Dilemma of Someone Libeled – Palin Edition

    The Dilemma of Someone Libeled – Palin Edition

    I didn’t get to see the Sarah Palin interview on Sean Hannity’s show last night, so I had the misfortune of reading the reviews before seeing the actual interview.

    You will be shocked to learn that the reviews by the left-wing and supposedly moderate blogs bear little relationship to reality.  I can’t help but wonder whether these people actually watched the interview, or simply projected their own imagined conclusions. 

    I now have viewed the interview (via Right Scoop), and Palin did very well.  If Palin were a liberal Democrat, she would be receiving accolades in the mainstream media.

    Palin started out the interview with a discussion of how the focus should have been on the dead and injured, and how she wishes them well.  The interview then went into the details about how her husband Todd almost immediately after the shooting began receiving calls from the mainstream media for Palin to comment due to the (false) allegations that Palin’s electoral target map inspired shooter Jared Loughner.

    The most interesting segment was in the middle when Hannity went through a litany of threats against Palin and vile statements regarding Palin dating back to 2008.  So much for Obama supporters’ “civil discourse.”  Palin also mentioned how not only she, but also her children, have received death threats.

    Palin cannot just ignore the obvious libel against her.  That is the strategy pursued by the Bush administration in the face of false accusations that Bush “lied us into war.”  We saw how that strategy of silence worked.

    There is not a shred of evidence to date that Loughner ever saw Palin’s electoral map, yet 56% of Democrats (and 35% of people overall) believe that the map was connected to the Tucson shooting.

    This puts Palin in an impossible position, one faced by many people who are falsely accused.

    If Palin does not defend herself vigorously, the silence is taken as acquiescence and an implicit admission of guilt.  If she does defend herself, she is criticized for making the issue about her and she further spreads the defamatory accusations (so-called “self-publication”).

    One last point.  Did some of Palin’s harshest critics even watch the interview?  I think not, because one of the story lines is that Palin did not acknowledge in the interview the historical meaning of the term “blood libel,” but Palin clearly did (see the last video segment at Right Scoop, starting at 0:45):

    “The historical knowledge that people have of the term blood libel it goes back to the Jews who were falsely accused back in medieval European times of using the blood of children ….”

    Palin is correct to fight back forcefully against people for whom the truth about the Tucson shooting is just a set of inconvenient facts to be ignored for a false political narrative. 

    If Palin did not fight back, the slanderers and defamers surely would win.  The truth may not prevail here because of the strength of the Democratic message machine, but it is worth fighting for.

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Persnickety | January 18, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    @Robot: nice name, very appropo.

    :Holy cow! So let me get this straight, you folks all think we *actually found* all the WMDs in Iraq and that Bin Laden and Saddam were best buds? Wild stuff."

    Why, no. Are you aware of Hillary Clinton's, Bill Clinton's, and the majority of congress' beliefs re: Sadam and WMD at the time?

    Incidentallly, I am very glad Abu Nidal was captured. You can probably look information on Nidal up online.

    No one is saying Sarah is the victim here….the victims are either dead or still in the hospital or recovering in a mental ward somewhere. What is the matter? your full understanding of the Klingon language won't allow you to see the truth, so you have to resort to slander? dweeb. yes, I called you a name, get over it.

    Yes I wish Palin would take a Mark Levin stand here.

    Bush didn't fight back, because it is below the office of POTUS to dignify detractors in this way. A memo the current POTUS didn't get when he won the election.

    sort of runic rhyme | January 18, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Palin doesn't have to fight in a court of law, she's already won in the court of (minority fierce and logical) world opinion. I'll be sending her my measly $ for any upcoming campaign, and promise her my vote out of self-interest and high regard for our country, which are one and the same.

    Enough is enough. Time to queue up, kids.

    The news seems to more and more resemble orwelian newsspeak (infospeak?), A story is told about a picture or event that is in fact totally disconnected from the dialogue.

    This absurdity can't continue…

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend