Sarah Palin Sues New York Times Over Editorial Linking Her to Violence

The New York Times did not get its facts correct when it maligned Sarah Palin in a recent editorial. A later effort to set the record straight did not even mention her name, according to NBC.

The press (and the rest of us) are entitled to express our opinions about anyone, but we’re not allowed to make up “facts.” Palin will have to prove damages in order for a judge to set compensation if she does win the case. I can’t recall the details, but one case involving defamation saw the plaintiff win, but walk away with a dollar in damages. I’m pretty sure it involved the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s defamation suit against Hustler publisher Larry Flynt.

Unless the lawyers are taking Palin’s case on contingency (meaning they get 30 percent of any payout to her) then she’d better have deep pockets. This type of lawsuit is expensive to pursue.

Most of the time, these cases are settled before going to trial.

NBC News

Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, sued The New York Times on Tuesday alleging that the newspaper defamed her in an editorial that appeared to link her to political violence after the shooting of House Republican Whip Steve Scalise earlier this month.

The Times said it would “vigorously” fight the action.

Scalise, R-Louisiana, and three other people were wounded on June 14 by a gunman who fired a volley of shots at Republican lawmakers practicing in Alexandria, Virginia, for the annual congressional baseball game.

In an institutional editorial titled “America’s Lethal Politics” — an unsigned piece intended to represent the opinion of the newspaper — the Times’ editorial board included rhetoric by a political action committee associated with Palin among examples of “how vicious American politics has become.”

Citing the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, in Tucson, the editorial said: “Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

Palin strongly objected to the editorial in a Facebook post, calling it “sickening” and characterizing it as an attempt “to destroy innocent people with lies and more fake news.”

In fact, writings by the gunman in the 2011 case, Jared Loughner, made it clear that he’d been planning the attack for a long time before the Palin map was circulated. Moreover, the map didn’t depict Giffords and the other Democrats themselves in cross-hairs — only outlines of their congressional districts.

The Times soon corrected the editorial, saying there was no link between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting, as well as clarifying its depiction of the map. The correction didn’t mention Palin by name.

In the lawsuit (PDF), filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, lawyers for Palin accused The Times of having published “a statement about her that it knew to be false” and of following up with a correction that didn’t sufficiently make up for “the falsehoods that the paper published.”

“The underlying premise of the Palin Article is that there is a ‘sickening’ pattern of politically incited violence against members of Congress and that this pattern stems from Mrs. Palin’s direct and clear incitement of Loughner’s 2011 shooting in Arizona,” the suit argues.

“But The Times fabricated this supposed ‘pattern’ and Mrs. Palin’s role in it, resurrecting a debunked connection between Mrs. Palin’s political activities and Loughner’s 2011 rampage in Arizona. By doing so, The Times implicitly attacked the conservative policies Mrs. Palin promotes and drove its digital advertising revenues at Mrs. Palin’s expense,” it says.

Breitbart is also covering this story, going into more depth about the evidence than NBC.

White Man Sues Target Following Vicious Beating in Store Parking Lot by Two “Teens”

Derek Whitener, the gay man pictured above, went shopping in a Target store in the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas that has seen a lot of crime.

Whitener sought the help of store security in clearing the area of two menacing teens before he left the store. Guess the race of the thugs or check out the photo below.

Store security and an off-duty cop assured him that everything was A-OK.



A Dallas man who was viciously attacked in a Target parking lot earlier this year is now suing the retail giant, claiming negligence.

Derek Whitener and his attorney, Chris Hamilton, filed the lawsuit in Dallas County Thursday morning. They’re seeking more than $1 million in damages.

On January 14, two teenage boys severely beat Whitener with a wooden stick as he was leaving the Target store at 2417 N. Haskell Avenue in Dallas. The attack put him in a coma for several days.

Speaking to the media Thursday, Hamilton said they hold Target liable for the attack because the store had several opportunities that night to prevent it from happening.

“There are a series of things here that put this almost entirely on Target’s back,” said Hamilton.

In the lawsuit, he states Whitener spotted his attackers as he was entering the store and reported them to Target security, telling them two young men in masks appeared to be following him — an account backed up by Dallas police.

The suit claims the head of store security then told employees not to let Whitener call the police, insisting they would take care of it themselves.

Dallas Police have said Target security and an off-duty police officer working the shopping center approached the two teens, had a discussion with them, and told them to leave the property.

The suit claims Whitener finished his shopping, then asked security whether it was safe for him to leave the store. The head of security reportedly told him it was and that they had taken care of the young men.

But when Whitener left the store, the two teens approached him, and allegedly told him, “So, we heard you fear us. We are going to teach you what fear is.” That’s when they attacked him.

Hamilton insists Whitener saw no security or off-duty police officer in the parking lot at the time.

He said what makes this incident even more egregious is that this particular store has lengthy history of violent crimes occurring in its parking lot.

In the lawsuit, he documented 223 calls Dallas police responded to at the store between January 2014 and January 2017 — including robbery, suspicious persons, criminal mischief, theft, burglary of a motor vehicle, injured persons and major violent disturbances.

“This isn’t a situation of a random criminal act at an otherwise safe and properly operated location,” said Hamilton. “This is a situation where we have an unacceptable recurring pattern of violence. But even more — even if nothing like this had ever happened at this Target store before, even if there weren’t hundreds of prior violent criminal incidents, when a customer comes in and says there are men in masks armed with sticks out in the parking lot and I feel threatened, a store has an obligation to be honest with the customer, to not interfere with the customer calling police and to provide basic protection.”

Hamilton says Whitener is still suffering from his injuries, which include permanent brain damage, limited motor function in his right hand and speech impairment.

“What Derek wants to see happen is for Target to clean up their act, take responsibility for what happened, and take the steps to make sure this doesn’t happen again,” said Hamilton. “Rather than just continue to cover up the problem in a way that endangers the community.”

Because the lawsuit was just filed, a spokesperson for Target tells NBC 5 the company has not yet seen it — and therefore, cannot comment on the allegations.

Both teens have been arrested and are awaiting trial.

There’s the stench of negligence coming through this story. I strongly suspect that store management and security were nonwhite. Nonwhites seem to take a more casual attitude toward crime than whites do. It’s just one of the differnces in the races.

The Daily Mail story that appeared when the crime was committed can be read by clicking the link.

Unlike the American press, the DM published this picture of the thugs. Surprised?

Phiando Castile’s “Fambly” Paid $3 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over His Death

Once the dashcam video of the shooting of Philando Castile was released last week, it was clear that Officer Jeronimo Yanez should never work in law enforcement again.

Thus, the disturbing video, embedded below, suggests that civil liability was present, i.e., wrongful death.

Still, very few wrongful deaths end up with a $3 million payout. It is, I believe, excessive by a factor of 10. I suppose it can partly be chalked up to the city wanting to keep its fine black citizens from rioting over the not guilty verdict for ex-cop Yanez.


The mother of Philando Castile, who was fatally shot by a Minnesota police officer in 2016, agreed to a $3 million settlement, lawyers announced Monday.

Castile, 32, was shot during a traffic stop in St. Anthony, Minn., by Officer Jeronimo Yanez. The shooting was in the national spotlight as Castile’s girlfriend, a passenger in the car, live-streamed the shooting on Facebook. Her 4-year-old daughter was also in the car.

Yanez, 29, was acquitted on June 15 of manslaughter and discharge of a firearm, prompting several days of protests. Yanez was fired from the St. Anthony police force.

A statement from the government, and from lawyers on both sides of the case, was released Monday. It said in part, “The death of Philando Castile is a tragedy for his family and for our community. The parties moved expeditiously to resolve potential civil claims resulting from this tragedy in order to allow the process of healing to move forward for the Castile family, for the people of St. Anthony Village, and for all those impacted by the death of Philando Castile throughout the United States.”


The statement added that Valerie Castile will be paid though insurance funds, and that “no taxpayer monies” are involved.

Watch the disturbing video that shows a nervous Jeronimo Yanez, variously identified as Latino or Native American.

Many other deserving families of dead victims don’t get anything close to this kind of payout. Black privilege appears to be at work again.

Michael Brown’s Parents, City of Ferguson Reach Settlement Deal in Lawsuit


The parents of “Gentle Giant” Michael Brown hit the ghetto jackpot today.

How outrageous is that?

Read the paragraph I bolded to see just how weak and cowardly the fuxated city of Ferguson, Missouri was to settle the lawsuit.

NBC News

The parents of Michael Brown, the black teenager who was shot and killed in 2014 by a white police officer, have reached an undisclosed settlement with the city of Ferguson, Missouri, in a wrongful death civil suit, according to court documents.

The amount of the settlement agreement was sealed. U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber said in an order that, “Disclosure of the terms of the settlement agreement could jeopardize the safety of individuals involved in this matter, whether as witnesses, parties, or investigators.”

Brown’s parents, Michael Brown, Sr., and Lesley McSpadden, filed a wrongful death suit against the city of Ferguson, Wilson, and the town’s former police chief in 2015.

Michael Brown, 18, was fatally shot by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9, 2014. A grand jury later declined to indict Wilson. Wilson in November of 2014 resigned from the Ferguson Police Department.

The shooting sparked protests around the country over the use of deadly force by police against black men. The Justice Department in 2015 cleared Wilson of civil rights violations, but in a report found a pattern of biased policing in Ferguson, a city of around 21,000 west of St. Louis.

The wrongful death suit argued that Wilson used
profane language in his initial confrontation with Brown and another person as they walked in a road, which unnecessarily escalated the situation, and that excessive force was used. It also alleged a racially-biased mentality and culture in the Ferguson police department.

Former Ferguson police chief Thomas Jackson, who was criticized for his response after the shooting and his handling of protests, resigned in March of 2015. The Justice Department found that tactics used by several law enforcement agencies into the sometimes-violent protests made the unrest worse.

The amount of the settlement will be distributed among the two plaintiffs and their attorneys as stipulated in an agreement, the judge’s order says, and all claims against the city and those named in the suit were dismissed.

If things had worked out Brown’s way it would have been Darren Wilson dead instead of him.

There’s no good reason to settle the lawsuit. I believe the city would have won in a fair court.


Elderly Negress Plunges Through Sidewalk Access Door While Carelessly Distracted by Phone.

Damn! Even sidewalks are racist!

That sidewalk saw a black lady coming and it said to itself, let’s open our doors and give that N*gger a tumble.

If Obama were still in office, he’d be cracking down on these racist sidewalks. For sure, muh Nigga.

Daily Mail

Shocking surveillance footage shows the moment a woman plunged through a sidewalk access door in New Jersey because she was distracted by her phone.

The video shows the 67-year-old woman walking down Somerset Street in Plainfield.

At first she seems aware of her surroundings, even glancing at a store as she walked by.

But seconds later, the woman got distracted when she appeared to be texting on her phone.

She then plummeted six feet through the open door.

Authorities said the incident happened in front of Acme Windows shortly after noon on Thursday.


Some American states have laws against texting on cell phones when driving.

It looks like using a cell phone while walking can also pose dangers.

As one comment at the Daily Mail noted, you can get rich in America by being really stupid. Expect a lawsuit over this one, folks.

City Kicks Farmer Out of Farmer’s Market for Belief that Marriage is Between a Man and Woman


Farmer Steve Tennes performs wedding ceremonies on his beautiful farm. He won’t “marry” sodomites. For that, the city has refused him a license to sell his produce at the local farmer’s market.

This is an outrageous abuse of government power. Steve has filed a lawsuit in federal court to force the city to allow him to sell his goods alongside other farmers.

Lansing State Journal

LANSING – When the East Lansing Farmers Market resumes Sunday, produce from Country Mill Farms will be missing for the first time since 2010.

Steve Tennes, owner of Country Mill Farms in Charlotte, said he’s been excluded from the 2017 season because of views he expressed on Facebook regarding marriage.

The city’s decision to exclude Tennes from the farmers market prompted Tennes and a religious freedom advocacy group, Alliance Defending Freedom, to file a federal lawsuit Wednesday.

Tennes, who sold organic apples and produce at the farmers market, said his Catholic faith has made him a target of government discrimination.

“Our faith and beliefs on marriage and hosting weddings at our home and in our backyard of our farm have nothing to do with the city of East Lansing,” Tennes said at a press conference Wednesday. “Nor does it have anything to do with the produce that we sell to the people that attend the farmers markets who are from all backgrounds and all beliefs.”

The suit asks the court to restore Country Mill Farms’ freedoms, stop East Lansing’s “discriminatory policy,” and award damages to Tennes.

The city argues its policy is in line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling eliminating a ban on same-sex marriage.

The tiff between Tennes and the city revolves around Tennes’ decision to refer same-sex couples looking for a wedding venue to neighboring farms.

Tennes announced in August he would not schedule any more wedding ceremonies at the orchard because of push-back that followed a social media post where he explained his refusal to host same-sex ceremonies.

After the August post, East Lansing urged Tennes not to attend the next farmers market for fear of protests, according to the lawsuit. Tennes continued to sell at the market, and no disruptions ensued.

In December, Tennes announced via Facebook that he would resume scheduling weddings at the orchard, while reserving the right to deny a request that would violate his Catholic beliefs.

“It remains our deeply held religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and Country Mill has the First Amendment Right to express and act upon its beliefs,” the post said.

Tennes said he employs and serves members of the LGBT community and would continue to do so at the farmers market.

But when Tennes applied to be part of the 2017 farmers market, he said he was denied and his December social media post was referenced as an example of his violation of city ordinance.

“Ultimately, the city developed a new policy to target and block our farm from further participation in their city-run farmers market,” Tennes said.

City Manager George Lahanas said East Lansing has a long-standing civil rights ordinance addressing discrimination. He said that was clarified to include discrimination at “all business practices” in the 2017 policies for the city’s farmers market.

“When they applied, we decided to exclude them from the market based on that,” Lahanas said.

Watch the farm participate to help feed the hungry.

Steve and his family are clearly good folks. Let the sodomites not defile his farm with their ungodly demand that he “marry” them. They can get married elsewhere, so decency requires us to ask the LGBT group to leave him alone.

War on Normal White Men: UC Berkeley Professor Fired Over Sexual Harassment Accusations


Three women losers who are so dainty and delicate that a male flirting with them caused them to break down and lose their ability to function in school won a big victory when Professor Blake Wentworth was fired.

His flirtatious interest in three mildly attractive students who appear to be in their mid-20s has made international news for the last two years.

First the story, then some commentary.

The Guardian

The University of California has fired a professor who was accused of sexually harassing multiple students, nearly two years after campus investigators first concluded he had made unwanted advances and violated school policies.

The dismissal of assistant professor Blake Wentworth – who sued the women who filed harassment complaints against him – marks a rare instance of termination of a faculty member accused of sexual misconduct at the prestigious public university.


The allegations that the professor of south and south-east Asian studies at UC Berkeley sexually harassed and inappropriately touched female students he was overseeing contributed to a major scandal, sparking an international debate about sexism and discrimination in academia.

Two graduate students and one undergraduate shared their accounts with the Guardian last year, arguing that Wentworth’s mistreatment of them had derailed their studies and careers and that the university had repeatedly failed to support them and hold the faculty member accountable.

Attorneys for Wentworth – who filed a defamation suit against the three women in September and has sued the university – said in a statement on Wednesday that the university was trying to distract from an ongoing financial scandal and that he continues to deny the “false assertions, which are a pretext to discriminate and retaliate against him”.

Evidence in his pending lawsuit will show that UC embarked on a “campaign to ruin his career”, the lawyers added.

It’s unclear why the decision to terminate the professor took so long. The university substantiated the first claim of harassment against one of the graduate students in October 2015, and the three women filed formal complaints with state investigators more than a year ago.

The university concluded that Wentworth made unwelcome sexual advances against grad student Kathleen Gutierrez, who accused Wentworth of grabbing her hand and saying, “I could lose my job over this … but I’m just so attracted to you.” He also allegedly came up behind her and wrapped his hands around her head and made offensive comments about a strip club.


Erin Bennett, the other grad student, accused Wentworth of inappropriately touching her and making comments about sex during their one-on-one independent study in her first semester at the school. The process of reporting the harassment took a toll on her mental health and led her to take a leave of absence, she said.

Wentworth, a tenure-track professor, allegedly told undergraduate student Nicole Hemenway that she was a “gorgeous young woman”, calling her “honey bear” and saying that others in the department were “jealous that such beautiful young women are always coming and going from my office”.


More details on Mestizo Hemenway’s story reveal that Hemenway considers Wentworth to be middle-aged and that his attention to her made her skin crawl.

Victim mentality? Much!

The story also reveals that the professor’s “inappropriate touching” involved putting his hands on hers.

On Wednesday, Hemenway said that the dismissal would not have happened if the students hadn’t devoted significant resources to fighting the case.

“This firing was our doing. The university gets to put their name on the decision, but they were perfectly happy not doing anything,” she said by phone. “This was because of student organizing efforts.”

You won’t want to watch much of this boring video, but it does give you a good look at Blake Wentworth and his manner of communicating.

So what is going on here?

First, I can assure you that there is a huge amount of sexual activity taking place between professors and students at all universities. It’s virtually always consensual. It’s often student initiated. And a disproportionate amount of it involves feminist lesbian women professors seducing young coeds confused about their gender identity.

Secondly, no university that I am aware of has specific instructions regarding what is considered sexual harassment and what is OK. The general rule is that “romantic relationships” between a professor and his or her own students is forbidden. Once the teacher-student relationship is over, the parties are free to do as they wish.

Third, at my former university, the policy was always to side with the female when a complaint was lodged against a male professor. The idea of challenging some of the nut job feminist students who populate universities was off the table. I never heard of any female professor facing any consequences for her sexual indiscretions.

Now, coming to the specifics of the Blake Wentworth case, the following thoughts occur to me.

1. Two of the ladies are nonwhite and the third one has that short, feminist haircut and mode of dress that sets off alarms in my mind. Wentworth ought to have avoided all three. The two Latinas come across as having a grudge against whites. What’s interesting though is that THEY PICKED HIM TO WORK WITH. They could have picked anyone. Students have to seek out a professor to work with when doing one on one work.

2. Wentworth sexually assaulted no one. It’s ridiculous to call putting hands on hands “inappropriate touching.” This is not Victorian England. I guarantee you that all of these women are highly sexually experienced, with lewd sexual appetites. I only met a few “innocent” coeds during my time at the university and they were 18 year old freshmen.

3. I strongly suspect that these women were flirtatious with the professor. I cannot speculate what turned their willingness to play the mating game into a vendetta.

4. As I read the story, none of them explicitly told Wentworth that his flirtations were unwanted. This is another example of where women expect a man to read her mind.

5. Wentworth is stupid, but probably not evil. In a reasonable workplace setting a boss might have called him in and warned him to cool it.

6. I reiterate my general principle that every male has the right to woo any female of his choice, while she has the right to reject him. And believe me, these girls know how to reject guys in bars. Watching guys get shot down in Texas bars used to be one of my hobbies decades ago when I briefly explored the singles bar scene.

Am I wrong? Does Wentworth deserve to be fired? To have zero future job prospects? To be a target of hate from social justice warriors?