Your point may become true, but there is a discrete difference between “blood libel” and “death panels”. Death panels was/is coined to define a portion of the new healthcare law. Blood libel, OTOH, has a very precise, historical definition. One that has been deluded over time, but nonetheless precise.
The problem with the term is that it doesn’t encapsulate what the left does in its original definition. Therein lies the potential problem. Am I upset with Sarah for what she said? Absolutely not. Am I concerned about the use of that particular term overshadowing the proper debate? Yes. If it doesn’t that remains to be seen.
I think the term “libel” in-and-of-itself may well have been used in context to great effect.
That's PRE CHRISTIAN.
The next literary reference concerned a Jew who accused Christians of killing Jewish children to use their blood in making Communion wafers.
Just so you know it has a really precise historic origin!
You can find the guy's reference by reading around through the several other threads on this topic.
I still think it's something that probably dates back before Judaism.
The idea undoubtedly draws on the original propaganda which goes "Remember, in all cases, people who are strangers ~ not of our kind ~ nor our nation ~ simply don't love their children like we do. Right? And if they don't love their own children imagine what they think of ours ~ just sheep for the slaughter".