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

    July 2019
    S M T W T F S
    « Jan    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • __________________________________________
  • Top Posts & Pages

  • __________________________________________
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • __________________________________________

Posts Tagged ‘blood libel’

NY Assemblyman Dov Hikind: Vilifiyers Of Sarah Palin Are Engaging In Blood Libel

Posted by Gary P Jackson on January 18, 2011

By Gary P Jackson

From Vos Iz Neias

New York – Statement By Assemblyman Dov Hikind in defense of Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel”

As someone whose grandparents were slaughtered in the Holocaust; whose parents survived the horrors of Auschwitz; and as the Assembly representative of the largest contingency of Holocaust survivors, I resent the recent attacks on Sarah Palin for her use of the term “blood libel” in defense of accusations lobbed against her by those wishing to lay blame for the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona. This is nothing more than an attempt to vilify and malign her, and I am not a Palin supporter. I would argue that those who continue to demonize her are themselves engaging in a blood libel.

H/T: Benyamin Korn at JewsForSarah.com

Advertisements

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

Ed Koch: Sarah Palin Has Defeated Her Harsh And Unfair Critics

Posted by Gary P Jackson on January 18, 2011

Ms. Palin you are in a certain sense an example of the American dream: You have the courage to stand up and present your vision of America to its people. Your strength and lack of fear make America stronger and are examples to be emulated by girls and boys, men and women who are themselves afraid to speak up. You provide the example that they need for self-assurance.

~ Ed Koch

By Gary P Jackson

Former New York City Mayor, Ed Koch, has joined in with other [liberal] Jewish leaders standing with Sarah Palin as she has been attacked by the rabid left and their media partners.

Being a liberal, he has to get his shots in, but this is strong support and what civility looks like. [emphasis mine]

As I see it, in the current battle for public opinion Sarah Palin has defeated her harsh and unfair critics.

After the January 8 shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others in Tucson, Arizona, some television talking heads and members of the blogosphere denounced her and held her in part responsible for creating a climate of hatred that resulted in the mass attacks.

An example is Joe Scarborough and his crew on the “Morning Joe” show, which I watch and generally enjoy every morning at 6:30 a.m. when I rise to start the day. Because Palin designated Congresswoman Giffords and others for defeat in the November elections by the use of crosshairs on website maps of the Congressional districts, they blamed Palin for creating an atmosphere that caused Jared Loughner (whom everyone now recognizes as being mentally disturbed) to embark on the shooting and killing spree.

[ …. ]

While the charge of responsibility against Palin was dropped, the Scarborough crew continued to assail her for defending herself on her website where she stated that she had been the subject of a blood libel. Her critics were incensed that she should use the term “blood libel.” That was the description given by Jews to the charge of Christian clergy who falsely accused Jews of killing Christian children in order to make matzos (unleavened bread) during the Passover holiday. That libelous accusation was intended by those using it to cause pogroms that killed and injured thousands of Jews. It started in the early centuries A.D. and continues to date, according to Wikipedia. That same charge – blood libel – is now repeated by the media in Arab countries to stir up the anger of the Arab street against the Jews in Israel. The libel continues to do damage.

Today the phrase “blood libel” can be used to describe any monstrous defamation against any person, Jew or non-Jew. It was used by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when he was falsely accused of permitting the Lebanese Christian militia to kill hundreds of defenseless and innocent Muslim men, women and children in Lebanese refugee camps. The killings were monstrous and indefensible revenge for earlier killings by Muslims of innocent Christian civilians.

Time Magazine published a story implying that Sharon was directly responsible for the massacres. He sued the magazine. At trial it was determined that the magazine story included false allegations, but since Sharon was a public figure, he received no monetary damages.

How dare Sarah Palin, cried the commentators, use that phrase to describe the criticism of her by those who blamed her for creating the atmosphere that set Loughner off in his murderous madness. Some took the position that it proved their ongoing charges that she is not an intelligent person and probably did not know what the phrase meant historically. In my opinion, she was right to denounce her critics and use blood libel to describe the unfair criticism that she had been subject to.

[ …. ]

Why do I defend Palin in this case? I don’t agree with her political philosophy: She is an arch conservative. I am a liberal with sanity. I know that I am setting myself up for attack when I ask, why did Emile Zola defend Dreyfus? Palin is no Dreyfus and I am certainly no Zola. But all of us have an obligation, particularly those in politics and public office, to denounce, when we can, the perpetrators of horrendous libels and stand up for those falsely charged. We should denounce unfair, false and wicked charges not only when they are made against ourselves, our friends or our political party but against those with whom we disagree. If we are to truly change the poisonous political atmosphere that we all complain of, including those who create it, we should speak up for fairness when we can.

In the 2008 presidential race when Sarah Palin’s name was first offered to the public by John McCain as his running mate, I said at the time that she “scared the hell out of me.” My reference was to the content of her remarks, not to her power to persuade voters.

It was McCain who lost the presidential election, not Palin. Since that time she has established that she has enormous power to persuade people. A self-made woman who rose from PTA mother to Governor of Alaska, she is one of the few speakers in public life who can fill a stadium. Her books are enormous successes. Her television program about Alaska has been a critical and economic success. When Sarah Palin addresses audiences, they rise to their feet in support and applause. She is without question a major leader of the far right faction in the Republican Party and its ally the Tea Party.

I repeat my earlier comment that she “scares the hell out of me.” Nevertheless, she is entitled to fair and respectful treatment. The fools in politics today in both parties are those who think she is dumb. I’ve never met her, but I’ve always thought that she is highly intelligent but not knowledgeable in many areas and politically uninformed. I don’t believe she will run for president in 2012 or that she would be elected if she did. But I do believe she is equal in ability to many of those in the Republican Party seeking that office.

Many women understand what she has done for their cause. She will not be silenced nor will she leave the heavy lifts to the men in her Party. She will not be falsely charged, remain silent, and look for others – men – to defend her. She is plucky and unafraid.

While I disagree with her and I am prepared to oppose her politically, in the spirit of longed-for civility I say, Ms. Palin you are in a certain sense an example of the American dream: You have the courage to stand up and present your vision of America to its people. Your strength and lack of fear make America stronger and are examples to be emulated by girls and boys, men and women who are themselves afraid to speak up. You provide the example that they need for self-assurance.

You can read more here.

Obviously we disagree with Mayor Koch on his assessment of Sarah’s politics, and just as he is “scared” of Sarah’s politics, we are angered by the destruction his party has caused to America. And unlike Koch’s “fears” the devastation brought on by the democrat party is real.

Something tells me, since the two have never met, Koch would find he and Sarah would agree on more things than they disagree on.Hopefully at some point the two will meet-up and have a chance to talk about it all.

One must applaud Koch. It takes a strong person to go against the grain, knowing they are from a party that doesn’t take dissent kindly. We live in a heated atmosphere. The American people are very angry. We have a radical leftist in the White House, and for four years we had a radical leftist Congress. Their policies have America on the edge of the abyss.

While it’s hard to contain this anger, Mayor Koch reminds us it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

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

A Reminder Of Who The Corrupt “Journalists” Are

Posted by Gary P Jackson on January 17, 2011

By Gary P Jackson

With the democrat’s blood libel against Sarah Palin, it’s a good time to remind people who their media partners are. Last year the JournoList scandal broke, as e-mails revealed their was a conspiracy among some of the nation’s top “journalists” and members of academia to shape the news to fit the left wing narrative, as well as a concerted effort to harm Sarah Palin, and protect Barack Obama. To hide his radical past, and shady associates, from the American people.

We wrote numerous articles at the time, including: Journolist Media And Academic Members Exactly What You Expected: Communists, Socialists, And George Soros Stooges.

Here are the 151 known members of the JournoList conspiracy. See how many you recognize as contributors to the blood libel of Sarah Palin, and the attacks on all Conservatives, for the actions of a left wing mad man.

1. Spencer Ackerman – Wired, FireDogLake, Washington Independent, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect

2. Thomas Adcock – New York Law Journal

3. Ben Adler – Newsweek, POLITICO

4. Mike Allen – POLITICO

5. Eric Alterman – The Nation, Media Matters for America

6. Marc Ambinder – The Atlantic

7. Greg Anrig – The Century Foundation

8. Ryan Avent – Economist

9. Dean Baker – The American Prospect

10. Nick Baumann – Mother Jones

11. Josh Bearman – LA Weekly

12. Steven Benen – The Carpetbagger Report

13. Ari Berman – The Nation

14. Jared Bernstein – Economic Policy Institute

15. Michael Berube – Crooked Timer, Pennsylvania State University

16. Brian Beutler – The Media Consortium

17. Lindsay Beyerstein – Freelance journalist

18. Joel Bleifuss – In These Times

19. John Blevins – South Texas College of Law

20. Sam Boyd – The American Prospect

21. Ben Brandzel – MoveOn.org, John Edwards Campaign

22. Shannon Brownlee – Author, New America Foundation

24. Rich Byrne – Playwright

25. Jonathan Chait – The New Republic

26. Lakshmi Chaudry – In These Times

27. Isaac Chotiner – The New Republic

28. Ta-Nehisi Coates – The Atlantic

29. Michael Cohen – New America Foundation

30. Jonathan Cohn – The New Republic

31. Joe Conason – The New York Observer

32. Lark Corbeil – Public News Service

33. David Corn – Mother Jones

34. Daniel Davies – The Guardian

35. David Dayen – FireDogLake

36. Brad DeLong – The Economists’ Voice, University of California at Berkeley

37. Ryan Donmoyer – Bloomberg News

38. Adam Doster – In These Times

39. Kevin Drum – Washington Monthly

40. Matt Duss – Center for American Progress

41. Gerald Dworkin – UC Davis

42. Eve Fairbanks – The New Republic

43. Henry Farrell – George Washington University

44. Tim Fernholz – American Prospect

45. Dan Froomkin – Huffington Post, Washington Post

46. Jason Furman – Brookings Institution

47. James Galbraith – University of Texas at Austin

48. Kathleen Geier – Talking Points Memo

49. Todd Gitlin – Columbia University

50. Ilan Goldenberg – National Security Network

51. Arthur Goldhammer – Harvard University

52. Dana Goldstein – The Daily Beast

53. Andrew Golis – Talking Points Memo

54. Jaana Goodrich – Blogger

55. Merrill Goozner – Chicago Tribune

56. David Greenberg – Slate

57. Robert Greenwald – Brave New Films

58. Chris Hayes – The Nation

59. Don Hazen – Alternet

60. Jeet Heer – Canadian Journolist

61. Jeff Hauser – Political Action Committee, Dennis Shulman Campaign

62. Michael Hirsh – Newsweek

63. James Johnson – University of Rochester

64. John Judis – The New Republic, The American Prospect

65. Foster Kamer – The Village Voice

66. Michael Kazin – Georgetown University

67. Ed Kilgore – Democratic Strategist

68. Richard Kim – The Nation

69. Charlie Kireker – Air America Media

70. Mark Kleiman – UCLA The Reality Based Community

71. Ezra Klein – Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect

72. Joe Klein – TIME

73. Robert Kuttner – American Prospect, Economic Policy Institute

74. Paul Krugman – The New York Times, Princeton University

75. Lisa Lerer – POLITICO

76. Daniel Levy – Century Foundation

77. Ralph Luker – Cliopatria

78. Annie Lowrey – Washington Independent

79. Robert Mackey – New York Times

80. Mike Madden – Salon

81. Maggie Mahar – The Century Foundation

82. Dylan Matthews – Harvard University

83. Alec McGillis – Washington Post

84. Scott McLemee – Inside Higher Ed

85. Sara Mead – New America Foundation

86. Ari Melber – The Nation

87. David Meyer – University of California at Irvine

88. Seth Michaels – MyDD.com

89. Luke Mitchell – Harper’s Magazine

90. Gautham Nagesh – The Hill, Daily Caller

91. Suzanne Nossel – Human Rights Watch

92. Michael O’Hare – University of California at Berkeley

93. Josh Orton – MyDD.com, Air America Media

94. Rodger Payne – University of Louisville

95. Rick Perlstein – Author, Campaign for America’s Future

96. Nico Pitney – Huffington Post

97. Harold Pollack – University of Chicago

98. Katha Pollitt – The Nation

99. Ari Rabin-Havt – Media Matters

100. Joy-Ann Reid – South Florida Times

101. David Roberts – Grist

102. Lamar Robertson – Partnership for Public Service

103. Sara Robinson – Campaign For America’s Future

104. Alyssa Rosenberg – Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive

105. Alex Rossmiller – National Security Network

106. Michael Roston – Newsbroke

107. Laura Rozen – POLITICO, Mother Jones

108. Felix Salmon – Reuters

109. Greg Sargent – Washington Post

110. Thomas Schaller – Baltimore Sun

111. Noam Scheiber – The New Republic

112. Michael Scherer – TIME

113. Mark Schmitt – American Prospect, The New America Foundation

114. Rinku Sen – ColorLines Magazine

115. Julie Bergman Sender – Balcony Films

116. Adam Serwer – American Prospect

117. Walter Shapiro – PoliticsDaily.com

118. Kate Sheppard – Mother Jones

119. Matthew Shugart – UC San Diego

120. Nate Silver – FiveThirtyEight.com

121. Jesse Singal – The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly

122. Ann-Marie Slaughter – Princeton University

123. Ben Smith – POLITICO

124. Sarah Spitz – KCRW

125. Adele Stan – The Media Consortium

126. Paul Starr – The Atlantic

127. Kate Steadman – Kaiser Health News

128. Jonathan Stein – Mother Jones

129. Sam Stein – Huffington Post

130. Matt Steinglass – Deutsche Presse-Agentur

131. James Surowiecki – The New Yorker

132. Jesse Taylor – Pandagon.net

133. Steven Teles – Yale University

134. Mark Thoma – The Economists’ View

135. Michael Tomasky – The Guardian

136. Jeffrey Toobin – CNN, The New Yorker

137. Rebecca Traister – Salon

138. Tracy Van Slyke – The Media Consortium

139. Paul Waldman – Author, American Prospect

140. Dave Weigel – Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent

141. Moira Whelan – National Security Network

142. Scott Winship – Pew Economic Mobility Project

143. J. Harry Wray – DePaul University

144. D. Brad Wright – University of NC at Chapel Hill

145. Kai Wright – The Root

146. Holly Yeager – Columbia Journalism Review

147. Rich Yeselson – Change to Win

148. Matthew Yglesias – Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly

149. Jonathan Zasloff – UCLA

150. Julian Zelizer – Princeton University

151. Avi Zenilman – POLITICO

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

Voices of Reason on AZ Shooting, Governor Palin, and ‘Blood Libel’

Posted by Adrienne Ross on January 15, 2011

By Adrienne Ross – http://www.motivationtruth.com

What are people saying about Governor Palin since the Arizona shooting tragedy a week ago? You have obviously heard much of the nonsense, but there are some voices of reasons, as well. Michael Savage, Dennis Prager, and Rev. Franklin Graham speak up.

Michael Savage, whom I usually listen to only in small portions, makes a statement about her leadership in this situation and compares it to that of others who are considered 2012 hopefuls. Clearly, Governor Palin’s video address about last Saturday had nothing to do with 2012; however, Savage’s comments on her leadership merit a listen (courtesy of PalinTV).

Dennis Prager, a Jewish American, discusses the “blood libel” on his radio show. He, of all people, understands what a blood libel is–and he knows that she used the term correctly. He also discusses the irrational hatred people have for the Governor. Prager passionately takes apart the idea that she needs to offer an apology, as some have demanded–including a Congresswoman. He captures how utterly insane this is. Governor Palin has been accused of being responsible for murder and bloodshed, and she is supposed to apologize?! He calls the response to her and the treatment she endures “gratuitous hatred,” “over the top,” and he says it “puts morality on its head.” He adds, “They owe her an apology.”

In Prager’s appeal for moral honesty, he discusses that the Left engaging in this blame-game either hate Governor Palin, are a bunch of liars, or both. I say both! Hey, disagree on the issues, yes, but with the Governor it runs deeper than that–always. Prager states, “I don’t care if you like her or not. I care whether you like virtue or not, whether you like moral standards or not.” These people absurdly blamed her for the shooting. Then when she spoke up, they picked apart her words where she called them out for using this tragedy to engage in disgusting political posturing, assigning the term “blood libel” to it. So they follow that up with labeling her anti-semitic. These are further examples of their moral depravity and their diabolical hatred, as if anyone needed more evidence. The bottom line, as explained by Prager: “She has been lied about with regard to murder. That is a blood libel!”

Listen to Prager’s broadcast:

Rev. Franklin Graham discusses Governor Palin’s character as well as the inappropriateness of using death and destruction for political gain. David A. Patten reports:

“I have been shocked at the reports from those suggesting that former Governor Sarah Palin has some level of responsibility for the horrific shooting in Arizona,” Graham said in the statement posted Tuesday on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) website.

“I got to know Governor Palin when she served as governor of Alaska,” stated the younger Graham, who is BGEA’s president and CEO.

[…]

Graham went on to praise Palin as “a kind and compassionate, God-fearing woman who believes with all her heart that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

Graham’s statement strongly suggested that he views political attacks based on the tragedy to be highly inappropriate.

“Whether you agree with her politics or not, it is outrageous to suggest that her political opinions encourage violence toward anyone,” Graham declared.

[…]

“Hasty accusations have already been made before much information is known and an investigation has occurred,” he stated. “I believe this is counterproductive and could in itself incite hatred.”

Of course, the reverend is correct. The Left’s reactions do incite hatred, and Governor Palin has been dealing with a plethora of death threats–even more than she normally has to contend with. It’s insane. Earlier this week, I posted a YouTube video which was a compilation of disgusting threats and death wishes directed at the Governor. Interesting, YouTube decided to remove the video in the name of privacy protection or something. No, we need to unmask the hateful souls who publicly called–and are still calling–for the death of Governor Palin.

On this issue, I turn to Big Journalism:

As you can imagine, after the video first posted to YouTube, viewers were disgusted. In fact, quite a few from both the right and the left were sickened enough to let some of those Twitter users know that their behavior was reprehensible. And when the heat got to be too much for one user, she complained to YouTube about her precious privacy. Because she was “just voicing anger” in a public tweet and doesn’t want anyone “attacking her” back on Twitter.

This of course after publicly wishing death on a public figure.

Read the full report about that here.

The video is still out there because someone else posted it. It can be seen here. The hatred is intense and real, and who’s going to do something about that? Will the far-Left radicals come out on this? Point fingers on this? Work to stop this? Or are they too busy demanding an apology from Governor Palin for simply existing? Sadly, we already know the answer.

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

Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin: Sarah Palin is right about a ‘blood libel’

Posted by Gary P Jackson on January 13, 2011

Sarah Palin wearing her trademark U.S.-Israel flags pin

~ Benyamin Korn

By Gary P Jackson

In Sarah Palin’s powerful video address to the nation she spoke of the blood libel she has been targeted with in the wake of the mass murder in Arizona. As we reported, this blood libel has borne fruit.

Of course, the left went insane, knowing that people will understand EXACTLY what Sarah was talking about, and their media allies couldn’t wait to carry their water. The left protests she was not “allowed” to use the term, as it was “offensive” to Jews, …. or something. .

Benyamin Korn offers up examples of the use of the term, and stands in support of Sarah:

Statement of Jewish American for Sarah Palin regarding Gov. Palin’s use of term ‘blood libel

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.

In medieval Europe, beginning with the Norwich blood libel of 1144, such accusations were used to incite mob violence against Jewish communities. Blood libels also appeared in the Arab world, as recently as the infamous Damascus blood libel of 1840.

In more recent times, prominent voices in the American Jewish community have characterized extreme and irresponsible attacks on Israel or Jews as “blood libels,” even when those libels did not necessarily result in violence.

For example, the Anti-Defamation League has said that a Swedish newspaper’s claim that Israeli soldiers murder Arabs to harvest their organs was a “new blood libel” (Sept. 14, 2009); that an Abu Dhabi Television cartoon of Israel’s prime minister drinking Arab blood was an “anti-Semitic blood libel skit” (Nov. 19, 2001); and that a Syrian diplomat’s remark that Israeli children sing songs about drinking Arab blood is similar to “the ancient blood libel against Jews.” (June 14, 2010)

Likewise, former New York City mayor Ed Koch has said that anti-Israel accusations made by Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks were “comparable to the age-old blood libel used by anti-Semitse to incite pogroms in Europe.” (August 17, 2006)

Beyond the Jewish community, the term “blood libel is periodically used by political partisans of all stripes. During the 2000 Florida vote recount, for example, Congressman Peter Deutsch said that some Republican accusations against Democratic nominee Al Gore were “almost a blood libel.“* Newsday editor Les Payne said in 2008 that criticism of African-American journalists’ coverage of the Obama candidacy were a “blood libel.”** Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin said that John Kerry’s 1971 testimony about alleged war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam was “a blood libel.”*** Alex Beam of the Boston Globe said that anonymous Globe staffers who accused former colleagues of privately making racial slurs were “making charges that amounted to ‘blood libel.’”****

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.

* Cited in National Review Online, January 12, 2011

**Associated Press, July 28, 2008

***National Review Online, September 8, 2004

****Boston Globe, January 14, 2005

More to come ….

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

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 – http://www.motivationtruth.com

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 »

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

Posted by Adrienne Ross on January 12, 2011

By Adrienne Ross – http://www.motivationtruth.com

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 »