Posted on 01/12/2011 10:57:10 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin issued a statement yesterday condemning the "reprehensible" response to Saturday's shooting in Tucson by some members of the media. "Within hours of a tragedy unfolding," she wrote, "journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."
Some have keyed on the use of the expression "blood libel" as inapt. The term usually refers to the centuries-old accusation that Jews use the blood of gentile children in making matzos for Passover. The appearance of the blood libel is often the prelude to massacres or other forms of anti-Semitic persecution and is alive and well in some parts of the world, especially the Middle East.
Mrs. Palin is well within her rights to feel persecuted. Since the Saturday bloodbath, members of the liberal commentariat have spoken in a unified voice, charging her and other conservatives with being indirectly or somehow directly responsible for the lunatic actions of accused gunman Jared Loughner. Typical of blood libel, the attack against Mrs. Palin is a false charge intended to generate anger made by people with a political agenda. They have made these claims boldly without evidence and without censure or consequence.
This is simply the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers. The last two years have seen a proliferation of similar baseless charges of racism, sexism, bigotry, Islamophobia and inciting violence against those on the right who have presented ideas at odds with the establishment's liberal orthodoxy.....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
“within hours”
ha. I bet they were doing it before the bodies were picked off the pavement of Safeway.
The libel media is what I will call them now.
Plus I cannot wait to see what Rush says about the kickoff of Obama2012 at the “memorial service”.
What Foxman blathered is a matter of “mind over matter”. I don’t mind his ravings because he doesn’t matter!
In the Jews’ and in Palin’s cases, the ‘blood libel’ is a baseless, farfetched, illogical accusation that the object has killed your own for some evil reason.
I'll second that.
According to Alan Dershowitz (who should probably be able to tell the presstitutes to STFU on this issue), "blood libel" has been universally accepted by scholars to mean EXACTLY what she said;
"The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term."
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/
"Perhaps she didn't know of the context of that phrase," NBC correspondent and MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell said.
"Maybe she was ignorant of it, to give her the benefit of the doubt," Mitchell added.
Ignorance, thy name is Andrea. And the rest of the jourbalists that jumped all over this. This is really p*ssing me off, the way they are trying to Bork Sarah Palin before she even announces anything.
Andrew Sullivan used the term to describe anti-gay behavior. No one gave him any grief.
“within hours”
Dupnik’s first verbal attack referencing Palin was less than 45 minutes after it happened. Then he spent most of Sunday on either TV or the radio blasting the Tea Party for he attack. On Monday, he went on TV accusing Limbaugh.All the while he knew that Loughner was threatening people for the past 5 years, and in fact a peace officer had pulled Jared over on Saturday Morning, and had let him go. Dupnik is a miserable failurend he is obviously hiding something
For a supposedly unsophisticated non-thinker Sarah sure has a knack for distilling the crux of the issue down to a couple of words. Like “Obama death panel” the libs are weeing themselves over “blood libel”, but once again it’s justified and correct. They just aren’t used to having the targets of their slander fire back, let alone hit bullseyes. And yes, that’s a metaphor.
“They just aren’t used to having the targets of their slander fire back, let alone hit bullseyes. And yes, that’s a metaphor.”
Heh heh ... yep ... this must be killing them.
Make no mistake. The editorial writers of this essay used the word "pogrom" on purpose to counter the phrase "blood libel."
Let's now be re-educated on the meaning of a "pogrom" as we were re-educated on the meaning of the words "blood libel."
-PJ
"journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel"
This evening Kieth Olbermann tried to diminish Palin's bite by accusing her of an apparent callous abuse of the term "blood libel." Historically, the term relates to false accusations against Jews for using the blood of murdered Christians, particularly children, in the making of matzos for Passover.
In Olbermann's view Palin's analogy amounts to an offense against Jews who as a group have been victim to this libel. To give some kind of credibility to the claim against Palin, he brought on Simon Greer who runs Jewish Funds for Justice to explain why he and other Jews were offended by Palin's misuse of the term. Basically, Greer wants the term exclusively restricted to describe accusations against Jews and the persecution resulting from those accusations. What Greer wants from Palin seems to be an abject apology.
As a political term, Palin once again has introduced a neologism and done so with excellent flare and perfect application. In my opinion, accusations against Conservatives in the liberal media and among liberal posters pretty much reeks of a Blood Libel. In context, I don't see how any person can mistake the false accusations against Conservatives for the historical slander against Jews.
What the two meanings share in common is the intensity of hatred directed at an identifiable group. We should use the political aspect of Blood Libel as often as possible to describe the false accusations leveled against Conservatives and those who support Conservative causes.
Nope, the usual Republican response is to assume the fetal position while whimpering. Except, of course for W. His response was silence.
I would like to point out that the Wall Street Journal ran a piece by Prof. Glenn Harlan Reynolds (Instapundit) on Jan. 10, titled The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel. Reynolds uses the term in the text.
Liberals setting new rules for the use of metaphors - imagine that.
Did you notice something different about Palin in her Tuscon video? I get the sense she’s matured the equivalent of 5 hard political years within the span of days. If this is any indication of the future, this is her Country.
Abraham Lincoln was a different man after 4 years of civil war, Generals Washington, Jackson, Grant and Eisenhower after their respective wars and Ronald Reagan after dealing with the communists who infested his union. Steel sharpens steel.
This is Palin I’ve been waiting for save the circumstances.
This is the Palin I’ve been waiting for save the circumstances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.