OH. HELL. YEAH

July 5th, 2009

Go get the filthy lying bastards (PDF link):

The Sports Complex was built in 2002. It is now 2009. While the Federal Government has a process to follow, and that process sometimes takes time, we can categorically state that we are not aware of any “federal investigation” that has been “pending” for the last seven years. We are aware of no subpoenas on SBS regarding the Palins. We are aware that the Federal Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation have been helpful, responsive and
diligent in prosecuting the email hacker and in cleaning up Alaska’s corrupt legislators. To be blunt—this “story” was alleged during the campaign, evaluated then by national media and deemed meritless. Nothing has changed.

To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those “responsible for the abuse of that right.” These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.

Thomas Van Flein, for
Governor Sarah Palin

“Action” the hell out of the sons of bitches. Can’t remember where, but somewhere in my internet wanderings the last few days I saw the notion advanced that Palin quit because as governor she was legally constrained from siccing the lawyers on the miserable Democrat Socialist worms who have been filing frivolous ethics complaints against her (15 of 15 dismissed so far) and otherwise smearing, defaming, and generally tormenting her and her family for the past year or so, in an effort to harass her out of politics and destroy their lives because of her political beliefs. This person, whoever it was, said that Palin’s primary motivation for leaving was that she couldn’t devote proper time to her duties as governor and at the same time fight back against the swinish thugs as she wished. Looks like that just might’ve been the case.

Sue them, bankrupt them, ruin their lives, destroy their careers, shut down their blogs and other propaganda outlets, get ’em locked up wherever possible. Kick them in the teeth again and again, until they howl in pain from the gutter they roll in. Scorch the very earth under their feet. Unleash pure hell on them, and make every single day of their lives a horror and a misery — just as they did to you, just as they’ve done to so many other decent men and women who have the temerity to disagree with their anti-American ideal of what this country should be. Liberal asswipes have gotten away with this sort of thing for far too long.

Palin’s political career is over, you say? If she takes the fight to the villainous curs and sees to it that they get what they so richly deserve for abusing our legal system and undermining our system of government, every true conservative in the country will cheer her loud and long, and will eagerly cast their votes for her in whatever election she decides to contest — which would be a welcome change from dragging ourselves to the polls with reluctance and dismay. Hopefully, this is but the opening salvo in a long, vigorous, and thorough fight. We’ll see. If Palin keeps after them, the sky will be the limit for her. We’ve been waiting for this a long time, and she’s just the person to make it happen.

Reap the whirlwind, you odious, gutless, evil pricks. We’ll fix your little red wagon yet; wait and see if we don’t.

(Via Purple Avenger)

Update! Via Bill, FBI confirms it’s a lie:

Despite rumors of a looming controversy after Palin’s surprise announcement Friday that she will leave office this month, some of them published in the blogosphere, the FBI’s Alaska spokesman said the bureau had no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity.

“There is absolutely no truth to those rumors, that we’re investigating her or getting ready to indict her,” Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. “It’s just not true.”

Of course it isn’t. Now’s the time to teach the drooling Left idiots that the truth matters — even though they’d rather it didn’t.

Updated update! Doug Ross:

I believe she’s prepared to go on offense against a “media” that provided the most unbalanced coverage of two candidates (Obama versus Palin) in the history of American politics. Simply compare the questions ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked of both in his one-on-one interviews to understand the callous disregard the media has for American voters. She reduced David Letterman to a quivering tub of goo; look for that to occur in other venues now.

She can, and she must. Take it to the useless dirtbags, Sarahcuda. There are an awful lot of us out here who’ll be wholeheartedly behind you every step of the way.

Update to the updated update! Preee-cisely:

What Palin has — along with folks known as the conservative base — is a lot of common sense. The kind of common sense that is so easy to get while studying at the University of Idaho, hunting moose in sub zero temperatures or managing a little league hockey team.

It seems out of reach for folks who all went to the same pretentious schools K thru Ivy and who spend their entire adult life in the D.C. to Manhattan corridor giving each other jobs for which they are not qualified and worryng incessently about what the press is saying about them.

That is not how Sarah Palin thinks or lives. It is not how the people who made this country great think or live. And folks who are trapped in that mentality are simply not able to figure out someone like Palin or the millions of voters who were energized by her addition to the McCain ticket.

…And the battle is this. Our way of thinking made the country what it is. Their way of thinking will destroy it. The Palin V. Pundit contest is but one battle on a huge stage in a vital war.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. And then there’s this:

The fight is between an out of control government led by media and government elites and common sense Americans, of both parties, who have had enough. Sarah Palin is in the enviable, although personally painful position, of being the “anti elite” voice of common sense and shared American values.

The vicious left put her there and now they may live to regret it.

We all need to do everything we possibly can to see to it that they do — profoundly, and forever.

Share
Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site, and may be deleted, edited, ridiculed, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. Thank you.
  1. July 6th, 2009 at 16:47 | #1
    Nah, he's a liberal, Rob, and they never, ever do that. The big, bad ol' right-wing boogieman they're so courageously unintimidated by might get 'em.
  2. Sir Charles
    July 6th, 2009 at 17:04 | #2
    Mike,

    Freedom always wins out -- that's touching -- were that the case. I don't see a whole lot of empirical support for that proposition. Interestingly, I consider myself a supporter of freedom too -- but I have a broader view of freedom I suspect. One that is not limited to the ability to avoid paying taxes, bashing gays, busting unions, restricting womens' reproductive rights and bombing the crap out of whomever you fear.

    Rob,

    I think there is already a pretty nice industry in Obama rumor mongering in your circles. And oddly enough, I don't think it should be legally actionable, because . . . I actually believe in freedom. I didn't think you guys like resorting to litigation to resolve problems.

    My legal analysis stands on its own regardless of whether my name is attached -- the cases say what they say. If Uh-oh or anyone else can come up with something that is contrary to what I've asserted, by all means do so. Otherwise, it's just another half-baked opinion.

  3. July 6th, 2009 at 17:06 | #3
    I really do wonder if the lefties have thought through the standards they're claiming are the law. Do they WANT to live in a nation where the least bit of public attention -- present or past -- makes even the most horrific lies about you perfectly legal? Do they REALLY want to make that the standard of public discourse?
  4. Uh-oh
    July 6th, 2009 at 17:11 | #4
    "I really do wonder if the lefties have thought through the standards they're claiming are the law. Do they WANT to live in a nation where the least bit of public attention -- present or past -- makes even the most horrific lies about you perfectly legal? Do they REALLY want to make that the standard of public discourse?"

    Of course they do. They've got a media that selectively reports what is said, by whom, and about whom and - if need be - will bald-faced lie to their viewers to further the agenda. It's a win/win for them...a lose/lose if you're their enemy.

  5. July 6th, 2009 at 17:15 | #5
    "I think there is already a pretty nice industry in Obama rumor mongering in your circles."

    Not about Obama. About his kids. His aunt. Everyone within N degrees of relation to him. Are they fair game, like the left has made of the Palin family?

    "And oddly enough, I don't think it should be legally actionable, because . . . I actually believe in freedom. I didn't think you guys like resorting to litigation to resolve problems."

    So free speech is unlimited? There have NEVER been -- and never should be -- any bounds on what can be said about a public figure or their family? You truly believe that freedom means never having to answer for spreading lies in the hunt for political power?

    You really, really, REALLY need to consider the non-standard you're putting forth. You're saying that someone can stand up and make up any old shit about anyone remotely connected to public life without any consequence.

    "My legal analysis stands on its own regardless of whether my name is attached..."

    Sure. But my opinion of YOU is that you're too much a coward to stand behind your legal analysis. Why are you so afraid to put your name to what you're saying? If it's solid analysis, you should be proud of it.

    Why are you so ashamed of what you're saying? Is it because you're defending the "right" to slander people out of public life?

  6. Uh-oh
    July 6th, 2009 at 17:16 | #6
    "My legal analysis stands on its own regardless of whether my name is attached -- the cases say what they say."

    That's funny...I quoted verbatim right from the decision itself. Your "analysis" consisted of denying and contradicting the plain meaning of every reference I quoted.

    Hmm...maybe that means you really are a lawyer.

  7. July 6th, 2009 at 17:19 | #7
    "Of course they do. They've got a media that selectively reports what is said, by whom, and about whom and - if need be - will bald-faced lie to their viewers to further the agenda. It's a win/win for them...a lose/lose if you're their enemy."

    And, again, I wonder -- do they really WANT the society they're building? Or are they so blinded by their bigotry they're willing to enslave themselves to spite the "wingnuts"?

  8. July 6th, 2009 at 17:19 | #8

    "Interestingly, I consider myself a supporter of freedom too -- but I have a broader view of freedom I suspect."

    Broader? When the pResident you support (along with the various dictators he does his best to support) objectively and obviously opposes it? Don't make me laugh. You wouldn't know true freedom if it bit you on the ass. Which - with a little luck and a lot of organization on the part of the more adult among us, who understand that it does not and cannot encompass the "freedom" to have the almighty State make all our decisions for us -- it will, and soon.

    One that is not limited to the ability to avoid paying taxes, bashing gays, busting unions, restricting womens' reproductive rights and bombing the crap out of whomever you fear.

    Wow, what a nice little platoon of strawmen you've set up there. I'll leave you to play with 'em yourself, though; people like you are never really worth arguing with for long, and I have magazines that need loading. See ya at the barricades, chump.

  9. July 6th, 2009 at 17:31 | #9
    Mike, invariably, the person claiming a "broader" freedom means they view themselves as being free to confiscate the labor of others for their own profit.
  10. Sir Charles
    July 6th, 2009 at 18:04 | #10
    Mike,

    Give me one example of a freedom that you no longer enjoy since Obama became preident?

    Uh oh,

    I've explained a number of times that what you quoted from Butts is not a majority holding and has never, so far as I can tell, been cited by eiher the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts as the basis to hold anyone liable in these cases. Again, legal anlysis involves a little more than pulling one quote out of one case. You are welcome to prove me wrong.

    And I'm not ashamed that I think people should be able to vilify their political leaders pretty much as they please. I didn't notice too many people on the right sweating this issue during the Clinton era.

    Rob,

    I remain anonymous because I have a professional life and I'd prefer not to entangle it with the blogging world.

    As for confiscating the labor of others, I don't know what to say -- I'm lucky enough to be in the top tax bracket and I would feel rather churlish bemoaning my fate.

  11. ucoksuker
    July 6th, 2009 at 18:37 | #11
    Take it to the useless dirtbags, Sarahcuda

    You're such a badass you will let a woman do you're fighting for you.

    What a bunch of weak-ass bitches!!!!

  12. July 6th, 2009 at 19:32 | #12
    "I remain anonymous because I have a professional life and I'd prefer not to entangle it with the blogging world."

    In other words, you're not willing to stand behind your words.

    "As for confiscating the labor of others, I don't know what to say -- I'm lucky enough to be in the top tax bracket and I would feel rather churlish bemoaning my fate."

    You truly do not understand. It's almost as if you're incapable of understanding.

  13. July 6th, 2009 at 19:33 | #13
    "You're such a badass you will let a woman do you're fighting for you."

    Equal rights, ucoksuker.

  14. sugarbiscuit
    July 6th, 2009 at 20:17 | #14
    "BUTTS WAS FOUND TO NOT BE A PUBLIC FIGURE," screamed Sugarbiscuit.

    You're really embarrassing yourself but are probably too stupid to realize it. Here, let me help you see yourself the way others see you; it'll hurt, but you'll grow.

    =============================================================
    Boy, you really are an obnoxious creep. If you had any reading comprehension skills at all, you'd note that I was referring to the appeal process prior to the SCOTUS decision. That was the point of the SCOTUS taking this case, was to clarify that Butts was a Public Figure and the Malice standard was satisfied to support a jury award for Butts for defamation.
    ==========================================================

    Once more, from the Butts decision:

    2. The New York Times rule...should not be inexorably applied to defamation actions by "public figures" LIKE THOSE HERE, where different considerations are present. Pp. 148, 152-154.

    Well lookee there. The court found Butts to be a "public figure," just like Palin will be when she resigns.

    Let me put that in a way you may comprehend...

    Butts = public figure who sued and won.

    Palin = public figure to be who will have grounds to sue and win.

    You clearly are just ignorant and lazy, Biscuit. Go away and stop embarrassing yourself and wasting the grown-ups time. And take Charles with you, he's more useless than you are.
    ===============================================================
    You know, simply stating that Palin is going to "win" is the type of magical thinking that drives this whole Palin worship at its core. Why would Palin win? That was the thrust of my post to which you were supposedly replying.

    Explain how there are any facts, particularly when compared to the seminal cases, to support an action by Palin against Moore for defamation of a Public Official. Simply gossiping and spreading rumors about a public official potentially be under investigation for corruption as the basis for a defamation suit will not get past any Summary Judgment challenge.

    Finally, the fact that Palin will be converting to a Public Figure once her term is office is ended by her resignation, does not have retroactive effect. When Moore made the statements in question, Palin was a Public Figure and that is locked into the facts. Palin doesn't get to change that simply by resigning.

    But go ahead and pick one sentence out of this thoughtful response of mine and scream vitriol at my sound reasoning until it magically appears unsound and ignore the substance of my point: you have to have facts to make your case and you haven't any.

    bye.

  15. July 6th, 2009 at 20:26 | #15
    "“Action” the hell out of the sons of bitches."

    Turns out those trial lawyers aren't so bad, when YOU want to use them, huh?

    Hypocrite.

  16. Sir Charles
    July 6th, 2009 at 20:53 | #16
    Rob,

    Again, my words stand on their own. Refute my legal analysis if you can. (As to why anyone wants to invite politicans to sue people for insulting them -- Jesus, that's amazing. I wouldn't want Clinton or Obama to have that right, why would you want Palin to have it. Talk about being in the tank.)

    I don't understand what you are alleging I don't understand. Let me lay it out for you. I make enough money that I am in the top rate of the federal tax bracket every fucking year. I don't mind paying a little more for the greater good. I can afford it and it's not too much to ask. How complicated is that?

  17. Chicago Frank
    July 6th, 2009 at 21:59 | #17
    I don't understand what you are alleging I don't understand.Don't worry, they don't understand it either. It just sounds like something a phony tough guy in a movie would say. A very bad movie.
  18. July 6th, 2009 at 22:21 | #18
    He IS incapable of understanding, Rob. He's a good, docile subject, a deep affront to his personal dignity that he can't subconsciously abide without dragging the rest of us into chattelry with him. He "doesn't mind paying more for the greater good;" he's accepted the bit, and can't begin to understand why the rest of us see this as a great, fundamental wrong, acceptance of which stands in opposition to every ideal this country was founded on. It's the government's money to redistribute as it sees fit, not his.

    He's just fine with the government telling him what kind of car he must buy, what gas mileage it gets, how big it is, what engine it may or may not have. As long he gets to choose between a green one or a red one (black will be made illegal soon, as is already being considered in California), he will continue to maintain that he's a free, sovereign individual. He straps himself in as mandated by his government and drives at the modest speed they allow him to, for safety's sake. He doesn't even see the fetters winding progressively around every aspect of his life.

    And once government health care is established, and even more of his income is stolen to pay for restricting his health care choices and rationing its delivery, he'll be thankful to be relieved of yet another cumbersome responsibility by Big Mommy government. The government's hegemony over his -- and our -- every decision will then be complete. He's fine with that. We ...aren't.

    He's outwardly content with his serfdom; it's so much easier for everybody than taking the risks that come with honorable self-reliance. And his inner shame demands that better men than he must also bow down to the almighty State. If they offer resistance, they must be denounced in whatever terms he can manage to come up with, from "selfishness" to "greed" to "racist" to "knuckledraggers" and so on, all the way up to the liberal-smear pièce de resistance, "rightwingNazihomophobicbigot." Matters not a whit whether any of that actually applies -- and it almost never does -- just so long as it shuts down the debate, and the voice of his better self whispering words of humiliation and weakness in his ear is silenced.

    The rest of us simply must be forced to go along, in the name of "progress." Otherwise, the whole house of cards comes crashing down around him, and the Great Project fails. Just as it has everywhere else it's been tried.

    As for the other dope's assertion of the "hypocrisy" of advocating the proper use of the legal system to restrain individuals with no scruples, no ethics, and no qualms about hounding someone out of office, or at best rendering them unable to do the job they were elected to do due to continual frivolous and politically-motivated harassment, using lies and slander as weapons, well, whatevs. I don't really see the need to respond to an assertion as vapid and puerile as that one.

  19. July 6th, 2009 at 22:33 | #19
    "As to why anyone wants to invite politicans to sue people for insulting them -- Jesus, that's amazing. I wouldn't want Clinton or Obama to have that right, why would you want Palin to have it. Talk about being in the tank."

    Insulting? No. LYING about them. Intentionally spreading stories they KNEW were false, and attacking not just the politician, but her entire family, including two children that haven't even seen their first birthdays yet.

    It's amazing that you demand that your argument be taken on its own merits, ignoring your credentials (or lack thereof), yet when it comes to political arguments, you're in favor of ad hominem becoming the PRIMARY level of discourse.

    Oh, and you'll notice I'm not saying Palin should be able to win a suit against these creeps now, while she's in office. I just think that once she becomes a private citizen, continuing to repeat demonstrably false claims about her is no different than doing the same about any other individual.

    I'm also not the one claiming that people have NO RESPONSIBILITY to verify the truth of rumors before spreading them. Is that the standard you want? That people can say ANYTHING and just say "hey, it's just a rumor I heard"?

    "I don't understand what you are alleging I don't understand. Let me lay it out for you. I make enough money that I am in the top rate of the federal tax bracket every fucking year. I don't mind paying a little more for the greater good. I can afford it and it's not too much to ask. How complicated is that?"

    I don't give a rat's ass how much you make, or how much you send to the taxmen. I don't care if you do it for the "greater good" or because pixies whisper the idea in your ear while you sleep.

    It has nothing to do with you, but what you (or, more properly, those on your side of the political aisle) demand from others.

    To be honest, I have no idea what you consider the "broader view of freedom" -- though based on the original comment you made it in, I doubt you do, either -- you were getting your hate on for us "wingnuts" by trotting out a list of what you believe are our universal sins. In my experience, though, when people natter on about a "broader view of freedom" they start demanding that "government" provide people with things that, in ages past, were considered individual responsibilities, or even luxuries. And since "government" has no money but what it can confiscate from working people, that "broader view of freedom" invariably means working people, regardless of how much they make, are less free. They end up working not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of those the government has declared worthy -- plus a big cut for the bureaucrats, of course.

  20. July 6th, 2009 at 22:36 | #20
    Chicago Frank -- life is bigger than movies.
  21. Sir Charles
    July 6th, 2009 at 22:40 | #21
    Yeah Mike, freedom is having Blue Cross tell me what doctor to see and what hospital to have my treatment at. And then they get to jack my premium by 20% a year. That is really free.

    And I make a point to buy an American car, which is more than I can say for many of your right wing brethren.

    Finally does this mean you are really sorry about the the millions of dollars of legal fees your pals cost the Clintons over the eight years of unmitigated bullshit that you put him through. At least he didn't quit.

  22. D. Vitter
    July 7th, 2009 at 00:13 | #22
    I fucked Sara Palin in the ass.
  23. jim
    July 7th, 2009 at 02:40 | #23
    Palin isn't going to sue anyone - it's just yet more of her usual bunk to rev up the mouth-breathers, because she knows they'll never call her on it when it comes to naught. Get a bloody clue: she's going broke from her current legal bills now as it is. Good to know that there are still legions of fools willing to take a proven liar at her word every time she pulls out another whopper, no matter how ridiculous - & able to forget her last lie by the time she winks & drops the next one.

    Oh, & that crazy speech just torpedoed her national political aspirations - permanently. Nobody in their right mind wants a two-time quitter with no discernable intellect & a radical extremist mindset running a country with nukes - she's got long-running ties with the Constitutionalist Party, & they make the AIP look like Democrats ... she may think she's living in a made-for-TV movie, but the rest of us don't have that luxury.

    Now put down the lotion & wipe up, sunshine.

  24. July 7th, 2009 at 08:26 | #24
    Okay, this comment thread has gone about as far as I care to allow it, and is now closed. I'll leave those last two up, just to show the typical honesty and intellectual depth -- the warp and weave, as it were, but mostly warp -- of the liberal argument. "Black is white! Lies are truth! Beat off! Ass fucking! Hraack! Hraack! Caw caw caw!" Slink back to your noisome holes and congratulate yourselves on your great victory.

    And above all: stay classy, guys.

Comment pages
1 2 15532
Comments are closed.
Renegade Motorhome - Costa Rica - Guitar Lessons - British Virgin Islands