Sarah Palin Information Blog

Sarah Palin Web Brigade

  • Upcoming Palin Events

  • Sarah Palin’s Endorsees

  • Sarah Palin Channel

  • Amazing America

  • The Undefeated

  • ‘Stars Earn Stripes’

  • ‘Game Change’ Lies Exposed

  • Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas

  • Our Sarah: Made in Alaska

  • America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag

  • Going Rogue: An American Life

  • Other Sarah Palin Info Sources

  • Login/RSS

  • Governor Palin on Twitter

  • @SarahPalinUSA

  • Governor Palin on Facebook

  • SarahPAC Notes

  • RSS SarahPAC Notes

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • SPWB on Facebook

  • SPWB on Twitter

  • @SarahPalinLinks

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Join the SPWB Twibe!

  • Posts by Date

    January 2011
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • __________________________________________
  • Top Posts & Pages

  • __________________________________________
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • __________________________________________

Archive for January 12th, 2011

Sarah Palin and the “Blood Libel” Controversy

Posted by Shane Vander Hart on January 12, 2011

imageFormer Alaska Governor Sarah Palin responded today to the Tucson shooting which killed six and wounded fourtneen, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).  She also addressed the rhetoric from the media and the left who implied, if not directly said, she (along with the Tea Party and conservative radio hosts) were to blame for the shooting.  Despite evidence to the contrary.  In her remarks she used the term “blood libel.”

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions.  And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Her use of the term “blood libel” has sparked another wave of criticism from the media and the left because of the terms historical origin dating back to the Middle Ages.  The term, in that context, refers to a prejudice that Jewish people used Christian blood in religious rituals.  This often led to persecution.

Sarah Palin wasn’t the first to link this term to rhetoric being thrown at her and other conservatives after the Tucson shooting, Glenn Reynolds in an op/ed at The Wall Street Journal published two days ago wrote:

So as the usual talking heads begin their "have you no decency?" routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?

To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.

Unlikely defenders have cropped up in light of this controversy.  Logan Penza (who is no Palin fan and he makes that abundantly clear) at The Moderate Voice writes:

Sarah Palin has it right — it is blood libel to accuse people of a heinous crime in the complete absence of any concrete evidence that they has any causal relationship to it.

Perhaps maybe we should listen to Jewish Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a liberal, who defended Palin’s use of the term “blood libel.”

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.

Also you can see the term has a much broader context than what some on the left will admit.  One controversy is falling apart as the facts become known about Jared Lee Loughner, so we should have expected they would latch onto another one.

Shane Vander Hart is the editor of Caffeinated Thoughts and Caffeinated Theology.  He is also the Communication Director for the Preserve Innocence Initiative  of American Principles Project .  Feel free to follow him on Twitter and friend him on Facebook.

Posted in Media | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

John Hayward: Top 5 Absurd Responses To The Palin Video

Posted by Adrienne Ross on January 12, 2011

By Adrienne Ross –

You already knew the feigned offense to Governor Palin’s video address today was absurd, but let’s go through the motions nonetheless. John Hayward writes “Top 5 Absurd Responses To The Palin Video: Eight minutes of video produces a full day of meltdown“:

I was going to write a nice introductory paragraph, but I think I’ll just say “For crying out loud…” and get on to business.

1. The phrase “blood libel” is an affront to Jews: I guess that would make Glenn Reynolds and me anti-Semites too, since we both used the phrase before Palin did. Well, we’re not, and neither is she.

Anyone who thinks they’re scoring points against Palin with this ridiculous complaint could not be more mistaken. The vast majority of Americans, listening to breathless liberals run through the detailed history of medieval slander they just memorized, will blink a couple of times and ask, “So what?”

“There are few more freighted phrases in the history of hate than ‘blood libel’,” Howard Fineman shrieked in the Huffington Post. Horsefeathers. Ninety per cent of the people trying to make hay out of the term heard it for the first time three hours ago.

Incredibly, AOL News quotes former Gore speechwriter Robert Lehrman describing the use of “blood libel” as a coded message to Jewish reporters. “Because the Right and some Tea Party people, like Tony Katz, talk about the Jewish-dominated media, the unspoken implication is this: Most people won’t get this, but you Jewish reporters know what I’m saying.” So the Tea Party is full of bigots who think Jewish reporters respond to dog-whistle language? Way to defuse that “Climate of Hate,” Mr. Lehrman!

Some Palin critics are even suggesting she’s too stupid to know what the “blood libel” was. Let me assure them I know exactly what the term means, and I knew before last week. I first heard “blood libel” used many years ago, as a metaphor for contemporary Palestinian propaganda against Israel, and became interested in the historical precedent. I consider the metaphor apt in this case as well. That’s why I used it.

“Blood libel” is not a capitalized reference to a specific event, like “Holocaust.” It has a history, but so do many of the terms we commonly use today. Let me give the floor to Alan Dershowitz for a moment:

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.

If you’re Jewish and sincerely find the use of this term offensive, I do apologize for inadvertently hurting your feelings. Obviously that was not my intent, or Sarah Palin’s. Your feelings are your own, and it is not my place to judge them invalid. I would only ask you to consider the massive propaganda effort of the last few days, designed to slather the blood of Tucson across the entire conservative movement, and decide for yourself if there is sufficient similarity to historical events to justify calling it a “blood libel.”

2. You can see a teleprompter reflected in Palin’s glasses during the video: I’m sorry, I’m laughing too hard to type a response to that one. Please insert your own Obama joke in this space.

3. Palin made the “Climate of Hate” worse by responding to the slander against her: I can see why liberals would try to double their bets by pushing this pathetic line, but if I were you guys, I’d shut up and hope to God everyone forgets I tried. The only people who will buy that argument are the ones who thought using the dead of Tucson as political props was a good idea in the first place.

Let me be blunt, liberal America: no one, outside your own fever swamps, trusts you to decide what discourse is “fair”, or where the “Climate of Hate” begins and ends. You don’t get to drop buckets of blood on Palin for days, then call her a hatemonger for responding. Your behavior over the last few days is a crime against discourse, and you did not get away with it.

4. Palin is trying to “insert herself” into the Tucson story: Boy, dehumanizing people is hard when they actually show up to respond, isn’t it? Once again, the Left is assuming Americans are too slow-witted to remember who dragged Sarah Palin into this terrible story. The Left is wrong, and looks absolutely foolish by trying to hypnotize millions of people into forgetting the last three days of wall-to-wall press coverage.

5. Palin should have been more “inclusive”: In other words, she should have pled guilty on a few of the murder counts against her, and cut a deal with her media prosecutors. Maybe she could have chuckled at the mischievous spirit of those lovable scamps who accused her of providing Jared Loughner with a hit list, and baking his mind in an oven of hateful rhetoric.

She did repeatedly call for unity and the peaceful resolution of our spirited differences, but she really should have flogged herself and promised to support ObamaCare, just to build some bridges with the Left. She could have won a victory over herself, and learned to love Big Media.

The Tucson blood libel was nothing less than a deliberate attempt, willingly assisted by top figures in the media, to end meaningful discourse by ruling one side completely illegitimate. It’s tough to be less “inclusive” than that. The proper response to the hatred of the Left is not submission, or negotiated surrender. Sarah Palin demonstrated leadership by sweeping both options off the table today. Now that we’re through with that nonsense, we can get back to our passionate arguments, clear in the understanding that no one will be able to silence anyone else. As Palin said in her video, that’s one of the reasons America is so exceptional.

Well said.

(h/t Hal)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Video: Sarah Palin: America’s Enduring Strength

Posted by Gary P Jackson on January 12, 2011

We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. ~ Ronald Reagan

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial.

But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

~ Sarah Palin

Full Text of video here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Is This How Loughner Was Radicalized?: Attended School Funded by Obama/Ayers Chicago Annenberg Challenge

Posted by Gary P Jackson on January 12, 2011

Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.

~ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

By Gary P Jackson

Here’s a little something for everyone to ponder. As our readers know well, When violent and unrepentant murdering terrorist William Ayers, and his convicted felon wife Bernardine Dohrn realized they couldn’t destroy America with violence, they decided to go communist Saul Alinsky’s route: Take a bath, cut their hair, and put n a suit and tie. Blend in, look respectable. Never mind the blood on your hands.

Both Ayers and Dohrn, still radical and unrepentant, chose education as their new medium for revolution. Ayers and his bunch spread the radical communist ideology they preach world wide, and infected the American education system as well. This was aided greatly when Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education, giving the federal government exceedingly more control over what used to be the function of state and local government.

Ayers and Dohrn were also part of the communist movement “Students For A Democratic Society” [SDS] and when they felt it wasn’t violent enough, Ayers and Jeff Jones, who has also re-invented himself, and actually wrote part of Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus package, formed the ultra-violent Weather Underground.

Anyhow, once they chose education as their pathway for the glorious communist revolution, they needed funding. Ayers set up several foundations, and picked street thug and rabble-rouser … er, I mean … “community organizer” … Barack Obama to run this operation.

Most of our readers know this story well, but I encourage everyone to learn more. It’s a fascinating story, actually.

Now we are hearing a lot more about the Arizona killer, Jared Lee Loughner. Reports are he didn’t like TV, didn’t listen to talk radio, and may very well have been apolitical. But all of the people who know him, went to school with him, and so on, describe him as “left-wing” a “political radical” and “very liberal.

We have been left wondering how this obviously disturbed kid became so radicalized. How did this kid come to hate the Constitution, and love videos of flag burnings, and consider the Communist manifesto his favorite book? Wonder no more::

Here’s some more background from vrajavala:

Jared Loughner was born September 10, 1988. Around that time, Barack Obama was enlisted by Bill Ayers to be the first Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. They funded the Small Schools Workshop and the school that Loughner later attended as a teenager. Mountain View H.S. curriculum was from the Small Schools workshop, designed by Mike Klonsky.

Ayers, Dohrn and Klonsky were all original members of the Students for Democratic Society, but later the group splintered with Klonsky taking a less aggressive approach, but still focusing on overthrowing the capitalistic system. Klonsky’s father had been convicted under the Smith Act in the 50’s for advocating the violent overthrow of the United States.

Mr. Klonsky later became the head of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (the October Party) and visited Beijing in the 70’s. The Real Barack Obama reports that in Beiiing, Klonsky was considered the head of the “official Maoist Party in the United States.” In the 90’s, Ayers recruited his old friend, radical activist, Mike Klonsky, to head the Small Schools Workshop. Klonsky still serves as director.

So, even though Small Schools Workshop has its main base at the University of Chicago, many schools throughout the States, including Jared Loughner’s, followed its curriculum. If you visit the website, you will see various books written by Ayers and Klonsky referring to “social Justice,” (the gospel that capitalism is racist, materialist, imperialistic, and unjust.) So, this is how the communist infiltrated our schools.

In 2008, Andrew McCarthy pointed out that as Chairman of the CAC, Obama had funded Klonsky to the tune of about 2 million dollars. Every teacher in this kind of curriculum, whether they be teaching math, English, botany, whatever, is able to inject the horrors of social inequities into the K-12 milieu.

I guess Malcolm X would say: “the chickens have come home to roost.”

Obama’s preacher of over 20 year, Jeremiah Wright might agree about those chickens coming home as well!

This is rare footage of 1969 interview with Michael Klonsky and Bernardine Dohrn, leaders of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) organization:

Nice huh. These are the people who Barack Obama knows intimately. Bernadine Dohrn used to baby sit Obama’s kids, and Obama’s political career was launched at a fundraiser in Dohrn and Ayers’ living room.

Ayers, through his efforts with the Annenberg Challenge, and others, sought to radicalize teachers, who would then spread their poison world wide. Instead of teaching kids the finer points of reading, writing, and math, their mission was to preach “social justice” and sew discord.

Look, the only person to blame for the shootings in Arizona is Jared Lee Loughner. Loughner is deranged. May even have mental defects. Who knows. But this mentally defective human being was definitely radicalized somewhere.

Most people can listen to the violent rhetoric of terrorists like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and realize there are loons just like Loughner. But unfortunately, the weak minded or the mentally deficient can’t.

While the corrupt media and left wing loons have been running around trying to blame Sarah Palin, talk radio, and everyone BUT Jared Lee Loughner, let’s remember where this kid likely picked up his anti-American rhetoric.

As 2010 turned to 2011 Francis-Fox Piven, who is very much a part of the SDS-Weather Underground-Ayers-Obama-Communist-Progressive Axis of Evil, called for violent revolution. In our report on this disgusting call for violence, we also talk about the Cloward-Piven strategy to destroy the Republic, and create a communist state.

As you read the report, and get to the video of former Weather Underground “field commander” Larry Grathwohl, please reflect on the sort of America the terrorists envisioned after they violently overthrew the United States government.

This includes communist style “re-education camps“and the cold hard fact they would “eliminate” those who refused to get with the program. By “eliminate” I mean KILL.

Barack Obama’s mentor, Bill Ayers and his group were fully prepared to murder 25 MILLION Americans, the estimated number of people who would NOT go along with their communist plans.

These are the people who created the curriculum at the school mass murderer Jared Lee Loughner attended.

In the end, no one put a gun to Loughner’s head and forced him to go on a violent rampage. The demons in his soul did that. But one can’t help but think putting a sick man in contact with such evil rhetoric was a good idea.

You can read more about the Obama/Ayers/Annenberg connection here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Uh Oh: The Foreign Media Isn’t Buying The Left Wing Lies About Sarah Palin Either

Posted by Gary P Jackson on January 12, 2011

So Palin’s accusers lie, and so foully that they commit the very hate speech they piously claim to deplore.

~ Andrew Bolt, Melbourne Herald Sun

By Gary P Jackson

The news hasn’t been good for the left wing losers and the corrupt media that has been carrying their water as they try to smear Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. People just aren’t buying their nonsense.

Earlier on Tuesday we reported that America just wasn’t buying the left wing lies about Sarah and the Arizona shooting. Even most democrat weren’t having it!

The Brits aren’t going for it. Tom Leonard tells readers in the UK the “eliteshijacked this tragedy specifically to attack Sarah Palin. An incredible ghoulish act by some of the worst society has to offer.

A friend sends me this editorial from the land down under. Andrew Bolt writing for the Melbourne {Australia] Herald Sun tells us about “The Framing of Sarah Palin“:

IT took just hours for the media to finger the villain responsible for the shooting of US Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
It was Sarah Palin what done it, officer. And other Right-wingers just like that witch.

Such is the deranged hatred that so many on the Left feel for the former Republican vice-presidential candidate.

The New York Times was one of the first to smear her, even before the alleged shooter of Giffords – and the accused killer of six bystanders – had been publicly identified as 22-year-old Jared Loughner.

It implicated Palin because nine months ago she’d posted a “controversial” map on her Facebook page showing where Democrats were running for re-election.

Gasp: “Those Democrats were noted by crosshairs symbols like those seen through the scope of a gun. Ms Giffords was among those on Ms Palin’s map.

Well, case closed. And so Markos Moulitsas, founder of the influential Left-wing DailyKos website, tweeted, “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin.” Jane Fonda likewise insisted Palin “holds responsibility”, as did “the violence-provoking rhetoric of the Tea Party” movement she’d encouraged – a movement that’s just a grassroots protest by middle class Americans against big government and record deficits.

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman used his newspaper column to also smear Palin, saying Giffords “might be a target” because she was “a Democrat who survived” an election challenge from “a Tea Party activist” and “was on Sarah Palin’s infamous ‘crosshairs’ list”.

Fellow Leftists in the Australian media gobbled the bait, hailing Giffords as a martyr to Palin and the Right.

Here is the ABC’s Jane Cowan on AM yesterday: “Political candidates, especially those aligned with the grassroots Tea Party movement, have increasingly invoked violent imagery.

A campaign website by . . . Palin put gun targets across several congressional districts including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ and urged voters to ‘reload’.”

The hunger to blame Palin and her political kind is palpable and no evidence is needed to proclaim her guilt.

As Michael Tomasky of Britain’s Left-wing Guardian exulted, the shooter “went to considerable expense and trouble to shoot a high-profile Democrat, at point-blank range right through the brain. What else does one need to know?” That was sufficient “to see some kind of connection between (Right wing) violent rhetoric and what happened in Arizona on Saturday”.

But there’s a few things wrong with this narrative. It’s false, it’s foul; and it’s savagely hypocritical.

For a start, there’s zero evidence that Loughner, the alleged shooter, is a Palin supporter or took any notice of what she said about Giffords or anyone else.

ON his MySpace and YouTube pages he never mentions Palin or health care, the issue on which she attacked Giffords.

Both sites suggest he’s simply deranged, raving about bad grammar, thought control, “conscience dreaming” and a “third currency”.

A typical post on MySpace – on December 30 – gives the temperature of his mind: “With every day on torture, the hours are my painful isolation; these dreams, which are realistic, vehemence feelings of greatness—finally!

Just add a gun to that explosive mixture of megalomania and angry failure and . . . boom.

Still, if you think it worth trying to detect a political orientation in Loughner’s shattered thoughts, you’d have to conclude it’s sure not Palin’s.

He was not a Christian, and his favourite film clip is of an American flag being burned. He denounced the US Constitution as full of “treasonous laws”.

Simon Mann, of The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, led his report yesterday by implying Loughner was a neo-Nazi, noting his victim was Jewish and he’d listed Mein Kampf on his YouTube page as one of his “favourite books”.

What Mann failed to add is that Loughner also loved A Communist Manifesto.

Another problem for the blame-Palin brigade is that Loughner’s hatred of Giffords seems to pre-date Palin’s rise to fame.

Caitie Parker went to school with Loughner, and played in the same band with this “loner” she describes as “Left-wing, quite liberal”.

She claims: “He was a political radical and met Giffords once before in ‘07, asked her a question and he told me she was ‘stupid and unintelligent’.”

So Giffords was allegedly shot by a madman with Left-wing notions who disliked her long before Palin hit the scene. Yet Palin is to blame?

Still, are her critics right to deplore the violent rhetoric of political debate in the US today?

Perhaps, although we should be clear there’s no proof this rhetoric affected the deranged Loughner, who is far more likely to have been influenced by violent movies and violent music.

We should also accept that politics is properly a contest of ideas and has long invited the language of war by all sides, which is why I have on my blog not just Palin’s “crosshair” graphic but examples of similar Democratic Party maps with bullseyes over Republican candidates.

But does this alleged culture of trash-talk really date from Palin’s rise, and who are the worst offenders?

In fact, no president has been more vilified than the Republican George W. Bush, who was even shown being assassinated in one gloating film.

And guess which president said this: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?

Whoops, that was Barack Obama? And which of Palin’s critics objected?

Palin herself seems more sinned against than sinning. The kind of commentators now accusing her of a nasty tone are the kind who falsely accused her of calling Obama “Sambo”, and of only pretending to be the mother of her disabled son to cover for her eldest daughter.

They sat by when TV host David Letterman joked that Palin’s 14-year-old daughter was “knocked up” by a baseballer during a game. They said nothing when Leftist comedian Sandra Bernhard warned Palin she’d be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” if she entered Manhattan.

Now these people demanding a more civilised discourse accuse Palin of inspiring a murder, when all the evidence suggests she’s guiltless.

So Palin’s accusers lie, and so foully that they commit the very hate speech they piously claim to deplore.

Indeed, the hate and lies from the left wing democrats is deplorable. The democrats and their media allies have purposely gone above and beyond to stoke the hate against Sarah Palin, possible trying to provoke a reaction from another loon. The only word to describe these disgusting human beings is evil. Pure evil.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Jews Stand with Governor Palin’s Use of ‘Blood Libel’

Posted by Adrienne Ross on January 12, 2011

By Adrienne Ross –

Early this morning, Governor Palin released a video address about the Arizona shooting this past Saturday.

The Governor expressed her sincerest sadness at this tragedy, her disappointment in those who have used it to promote their political agenda, and her hope in America’s enduring strength. Her message was the right one and one that we are the better for hearing.

Of course, because it was Governor Palin who delivered the message, many of the same people who disgustingly seek to blame her for the actions of a lone, deranged murderer, Jared Loughner, seek to find fault in the message she delivered. Because she called them out on their irresponsible, hateful attacks on her and others on the Right, because they make their money playing partisan games with real issues that affect all Americans, and because her name is Sarah Palin, they had to find something with which to find fault. What was it this time? The use of the term “blood libel.”

Their need to pick apart everything Governor Palin does and says is really getting tired, and Americans are growing weary. You’d think, after undergoing intense criticism from even some on the Left for playing politics with pain, they’d get a clue and cut out this ridiculous obsession with demonizing all things Palin. Their tactics haven’t worked–except to anger all fair-minded, truth-loving Americans–but they persist.

So today the complaint is that use of the term “blood libel” is an affront to our Jewish brothers and sisters. Well, we’re hearing quite a bit from some Jewish people, and they say something entirely different.

Pamela Geller commits her life to issues that affect Jewish Americans. She takes on the radical Left with unwavering fortitude and is never guilty of holding back. Would she agree with Governor Palin’s assessment that what has transpired since Saturday is indeed “blood libel”? She writes (emphasis added):

Today Sarah Palin responded to the vicious blood libel leveled against her by the army of destroyers. The ferocious, relentless attacks on Sarah Palin are a testament to her greatness, proof of how deathly afraid of her they are, like Dracula to the silver cross.

Obviously she agrees with the Governor’s assessment. So why, then, this attack–once again–on her? Geller continues:

Here’s the thing. The mission by objective of the haters, the party of destruction, is to ruin the best, the brightest, the good. The left has, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, trafficked only in ruin and destruction, focusing on the most effective leaders on the right.

Read Pamela Geller’s full piece here.

Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin also issued a statement today:

Sarah Palin got it right.

Falsely accusing someone of shedding blood is the definition of a blood libel – whether it’s the medieval Church accusing Jews of baking blood in Passover matzos, or contemporary Muslim extremists accusing Israel of slaughtering Arabs to harvest their organs – or our political partisans blaming conservative political figures and talk show hosts for the Tucson massacre.


“Blood libel” does not refer exclusively to accusations against Jews. It does not refer only to medieval episodes that resulted in pogroms. It is a term that has been, and continues to be, legitimately used in contemporary American political discourse by all sides. Governor Palin’s use of the term is accurate, reasonable, and squarely within the bounds of accepted political discourse. It is her opponents’ attempts to falsely connect her to the Tucson massacre which is inaccurate, and unreasonable, and beyond the pale of civilized discourse.

Click here to read this entire piece concerning historic and current use of the term.

Sheya of Conservatives4Palin, Organize4Palin, and PalinTV–and a devout Jew–shares his heartfelt thoughts. I will excerpt the piece, but please read it in its entirety:

As many of our readers know, I am an observant Jew. I observe the Sabbath and all the Jewish Holidays. I went to Jewish schools and so do my kids. Not only do I live by all the rules, I am part of the Jewish culture and I even look the part.

Ever since I was two years old, I was told stories of Jewish persecution and blood libels. I was told how the Jews were accused for using the blood of Christian children to bake matzoh bread. I was told the stories of how whenever there was a murder in town the Jews were blamed for it. Whatever the scenario, the chain of events were the same. The Jews were accused of a murder, followed by calls for their deaths, followed by riots and then killings of all the Jews. At all time when the Jews spoke up and defended themselves, they were told to sit down and shut up and further killings took place just for that reason alone.

After the horrific killings in Tucson this Saturday and the finger-pointing at Governor Palin begun, I was mad and I was angry. Not that I’m not used to seeing irrational criticism thrown at Governor Palin, I’m used to seeing that by now and frankly I have come to expect it. But this time it was different; this time it felt as if all those stories I was told as a kid were coming to life. A heartless murderer shot and killed innocent victims. Governor Palin, who is hated just because she exists, was blamed, and that was followed by a flood of calls for her death on Twitter and Facebook. If this isn’t a blood libel than nothing is.

I have just spoken to many of my Jewish friends. Neither myself nor any other Jew I know is offended by Governor Palin’s comments. On the contrary, based on what we know and were taught about blood libels, this is exactly what this was: a blood libel.

The term blood libel wasn’t invented to define what happened to the Jews; it’s just that what happened to Jews were blood libels, and this term fits perfectly to what happened to Governor Palin.


I am a proud observant Jew, and I am always proud to stand with Governor Palin, but today we are also partners in blood.

Read more here.

Adam Brickley, another C4P colleague and Jewish brother, shares his personal story in his piece, and this is some of what he says about the term:

The media is abuzz today about Gov. Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” to describe the left’s appalling exploitation of the Arizona tragedy to demonize conservatism. Supposedly, this is an insult to the Jewish community given that “blood libel” can be defined as a purely anti-Semitic act, which requires one to accuse Jews of using human blood in religious rituals (which is the origin of the term). So far the debate has focused on semantics, highlighting technical definitions rather than the spirit in which the act was carried out.


Now, fast-forward to 2011, and we are talking about whether it is appropriate for Sarah Palin to use the term “blood libel” to describe the fashion in which she was personally blamed, despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary, for a savage and demented mass murder. In my mind, there is no question. This was blood libel of the most savage kind. There is absolutely no difference between what I felt I feel now, as a member of a movement falsely accused of gunning down a Congresswoman, and what I felt when my family’s Judaism was used as supporting evidence in a campaign to falsely accuse us of psychotic threats of violence. I can’t imagine how Gov. Palin herself must feel after having been personally accused, considering that I was moved almost to tears simply as an anonymous member of the broader “tea party”.

“Blood libel” was coined as a term to describe false accusations of ritual murder against the Jewish people – but it’s an action verb, and it’s an act that can be committed in the future against anyone. We cannot and should not deny people the right to call this despicable act what it is. If we do so, we allow the perpetrators to continue using one of the most painful and traumatizing propaganda tactics ever invented.

Read Brickley’s full article and learn about his own experience with blood libels by clicking here.

There is much more out there, and perhaps we’re not done with this issue, but the bottom line is really the same bottom line it was yesterday, the day before, and the day before that. The Left simply wants to tear down Governor Palin no matter what she says or doesn’t say. Their issue with her has nothing to do with rational thought, honest debate, or issues of importance. Their issue with her is that she…well, that she is. They cannot figure out why she has not yet sat down and shut up, packed it in, turned off the lights. They have thrown absolutely everything at her–yes, even blood libel. Yet she continues to stand–and stand she will.

I stand with her.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Palin proves presidential potential

Posted by loricalabrese on January 12, 2011

Sarah Palin today released a video expressing her grief over Saturday’s shootings in Tucson and within minutes, it was analyzed, questioned, and picked apart. All of the questions have been asked. Should Palin have ended her recent video right after her expression of sympathy? Should Palin have addressed the criticism by liberals and the lame-stream media at all? Should Palin have released the video today? Should Palin have used the term ‘Blood Libel’? What does this video tell us about her presidential aspirations?

Palin remained largely silent in the wake of the deadly Tucson, Ariz., shootings with just cause. Her reactions were muted, one can assume because Palin understood that this tragic event was not about her, but the lives and families affected by this horrific event. However, for several days now, leaders on the right and left have been calling on Palin to speak up against the intense criticism she has taken in the past couple of days.

It’s unfair Palin has been dragged into this at all, and I can’t help but scoff at the headlines that insinuate that the Arizona shooting has hurt Palin’s presidential chances. In fact, I think quite the opposite.
Continue reading on Palin proves her presidential potential – National Sarah Palin |

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Governor Palin: America’s Enduring Strength

Posted by Adrienne Ross on January 12, 2011

By Adrienne Ross –

Governor Palin via Facebook:

Please click here to view the video of this statement.

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

– Sarah Palin

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

David Frum’s Ridiculous,Weak Defense Of His Palin Arizona Insta-Tweets

Posted by M.Joseph Sheppard At Palin4President2016 on January 12, 2011

Quoting an acquaintance, which sentiments would be led to believe David Frum agrees with one would imagine, otherwise why would he include it in his anti-Palin piece we find;

“You must always remember that no matter what happens, and no matter who it happens to, the real victim is always Sarah Palin.”

It is always terribly disappointing when one goes to a site where one expects to find a higher caliber of intellectual argument and finds instead a childish and puerile element.

Really Mr. Frum, what is to be gained by resorting to a statement which is impossibly silly-as if everything that ever happens everywhere  makes Palin a “victim”. For Frum this does him no good whatsoever, but for the observer it does a strong service as it exposes the shallowness, bitterness and absolute obsession of the liberal left with Palin-to the point where “strong men are rendered weak”.

Frum’s column-which is a poor defense, after being under righteous attack from Melissa Clouthier. 

This because of his near immediate reaction to the Arizona tragedy, including tweeting a copy of Palin’s so called “gun sight” map (with no mention that the Democrat’s had presented an almost similar map).

Frum joined a triumvirate of liberal commentators on Palin, attacked by Clouthier, whose comments included the  “extremely grave” one, to quote David Brooks, (of which Frum makes no defense notably) by Markos Moulitas of Daily Kos (“Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin”.)

Events have shown there is no possible connection between Palin and the clearly mad shooter. This is no doubt a terrible disappointment to the left “if it proves political, unfortunate will be a mild description of what’s to come.”  he notes.

However even though no connection was made with Palin, the left feel they have done a great job of making a victim of her-exactly the opposite of the tenor of Frum’s article-witness what one of Frum’s commentators advised on his site;

” I’ll say it again: We Swift Boated Palin (fist bumps all around”)

Frum joins the liberal backtracking and their/his defense is so weak that they demean themselves with it. He asks why Palin removed the “target” image. The obvious reason is it was prepared for the November elections and served no further purpose. She can’t win of course, if it had been left on the site no doubt we would have heard how terribly insensitive she was to leave it there-but there is no logic in liberal land.

He then asks, incredibly, why she (in fact it is her team who manages the Facebook site) scrubbed all criticism. In what universe is it incumbent on someone to leave the most disgusting, scurrilous, rabid, violent-to the point of calling for her children to be shot in the head-comments on her site? Would Mr. Frum countenance murderous attacks on his family-I doubt it but for Palin to do so is, again acceptable to leftists “standards’.

Ironically the Tweets he mentions on his site in defense of his actions are scrubbed-sauce for the gander.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

UK’s Daily Mail: How America’s Elite Hijacked A massacre To Take Revenge On Sarah Palin

Posted by Gary P Jackson on January 12, 2011

The rush to make political capital out of a mass shooting shows just how nasty U.S. ­politics has become. Under Barack Obama, America is more polarised than it has been for 40 years.

~ Tom Leonard

By Gary P Jackson

The dishonest effort by the left wing and their media partners to smear Sarah Palin, and blame her for the actions of a left wing nut job, have been so vile and over the top that even the normally left leaning British press is calling BS!

From the a report by Tom Leonard for Daily Mail:

On a sunny Saturday morning outside the local Safeway in Tucson,­ Arizona, a man pulls out a powerful handgun, opens fire – and engulfs the U.S. in a political ­firestorm.

Six people were killed on ­Saturday, including a nine-year-old girl. But it was the fact that the target was a ­Democratic congresswoman – who is fighting for her life – which has sparked such a furious row, not, as one might expect, over the nature of America’s gun laws, but over the vitriolic nature of its politics.

Defenders of gun rights like to say it’s not the gun that’s dangerous, but the user. Now the argument swirling across the U.S. is whether it’s not the user but violent political ­rhetoric that may have ­ultimately pulled the trigger.

In short, did the killer Jared Loughner – who has a history of mental instability and has made a series of bizarre postings on the internet – go out looking to kill because political voices told him to?

Could the inflammatory ­language used by some Right-wing politicians – in ­particular, Sarah Palin – have encouraged the killer to act as he did?

That’s the question at the heart of a febrile political blame game that started even before the most basic details had emerged about the background and possible motivation of the gunman. Already it has drawn in politicians, commentators, police and even the families of the victims.

Gabrielle Giffords was a Democrat and much – but not all – of the badly spelt, incoherent YouTube jumble that passed for the politics of her attacker was broadly ‘Right-wing’.

As a result, many liberal ­commentators and establishment figures have leapt at the opportunity to blame conservative politicians.

The rush to make political capital out of a mass shooting shows just how nasty U.S. ­politics has become. Under Barack Obama, America is more polarised than it has been for 40 years.

Conservatives have come to despise liberals, and vice versa, with an intensity the like of which few can recall. Right-wing anger with the high-spending Obama administration’s handling of the financial crisis, a weak economy and high unemployment has prompted thousands of ordinary Americans to break away from conventional two-party politics to support the Tea Party movement with its call for small government.

As the name (a reference to the 1773 Boston Tea Party) implies, Tea Party supporters see their movement as rooted in the rebellion against George III, and the language has ­inevitably been full of ­military metaphor.

{ …. ]

Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s former chief of staff and a ­figure compared to Labour’s Alastair Campbell, once said: ‘You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.

And those on his side of the political divide have clearly seen the Tucson tragedy as an opportunity to score points and settle scores.

None more so than with Sarah Palin, a politician who is almost as divisive as the President. The former Republican vice-presidential contender has become a spiritual figurehead for many Tea Party supporters, but is loathed by many on the Left.

So it was that within minutes of the Tucson shooting, anti-Palin internet bloggers and Twitter users were highlighting a so-called ‘target map’ Mrs Palin had posted on her Facebook page last March.

Controversially, it used gunstyle crosshair targets to flag up Democrat politicians whom Palin felt could be vulnerable at the polls: Miss Giffords was one.

Despite the lack of any ­evidence that the Tucson gunman had supported Mrs Palin, let alone seen the graphic, ­critics — including senior ­Democrats in Congress — have decreed she is somehow culpable.

Yet her critics choose to ­forget the crosshairs could be all a part of her image as a hunter of big game. (It is worth noting, too, that Miss Giffords had been photographed ­handling a semi-automatic weapon — no doubt aware it would appeal to a certain ­voting constituency.)

[Below is a photo of Congresswoman Giffords with her rifle ~ GP]

Palin’s favourite maxim — inherited from her father — is ‘Don’t Retreat, Reload’, a ­typically bullish phrase she’s been trotting out for months as an injunction on the faithful to stick to their political principles.

Since the Tucson shooting, Left-wing critics have leapt on the words as some kind of proof that she was encouraging ­supporters to use real weapons.

[ …. ]

Liberals have made much of the words of the Tucson sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, who yesterday launched into a diatribe about the ‘vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government’.

Even the actress and activist Jane Fonda waded into the row with a succession of internet tweets blaming Mrs Palin, the Tea Party and Glenn Beck, a rabble-rousing broadcaster on Fox News, for the shooting.

The Tea Party leaders have been rushing to condemn the shooting and distance themselves from the gunman.

Whether they should really have to do so is another matter. The reality is that there is as yet no evidence that the political Right, and the Tea Party in ­particular, has — as its opponents say — ‘blood on its hands’ over the Tucson murders.

While some liberals have slyly implied that Loughner was a Tea Party supporter, former classmates remember him as being ‘Left-wing’ and ‘liberal’.

Another said he was ‘on his own planet’, which seems nearer the mark. No existing political organisation – including the Tea Party – comes close to championing Lough-ner’s deranged world view.

Paranoid and nihilistic (he kept a miniature altar with a replica human skull in his backyard), he had clearly surfed the wilder shores of political views on the internet, preaching about the evils of religion, and even picking up and espousing a theory that the government was using grammar as a form of mind control.

History shows how dangerous it is to try to second-guess the motives of political assassins.

John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan because he was obsessed with the actress Jodie Foster, not because he hated Right-wingers.

Likewise, Lynette Fromme tried to shoot Gerald Ford because she revered the cult killer Charles Manson.

But those lessons from ­history won’t stop some Democrats exploiting the shooting of a nine-year-old girl and five others at the weekend with precisely the sort of foam-flecked over-reaction for which they love to condemn their opponents on the Right.

People often say the British and Americans are a people separated by a common language, and often the Brits, only having our corrupt media as a window in American politics, get things a bit wrong, but Tom Leonard absolutely nails it.

The left wing democrats [is there any other kind] and their moonbat followers have worked over time to turn a horrific tragedy into a circus, all in an attempt to smear Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party. Hoping to score cheap political points. It’s quite evil, but at least America, and the world, is getting a good long look at these bottom feeders and how they function.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »