Palin Calls Criticism ‘Blood Libel’

New York Times ^ | January 12, 2011 | MICHAEL D. SHEAR

[ETL]

Re: "heated political rhetoric"

"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at"
--Bill Ayers (1970), quoted in New York Times, September 11, 2001:

Article: "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
_____________________________________________________

"Dig It. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!"
-Weather Underground leader and wife of Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, referring to the Manson murders

Article: Allies in War -by David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, September 17, 2001
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=63512670-BF7C-42A0-B41D-5D0FB9E09C09
_____________________________________________________

"It was at the Chicago home of [Bill] Ayers and [Bernardine] Dohrn that Obama, then an up-and-coming 'community organizer,' had his political coming out party in 1995. Not content with this rite of passage in Lefty World — where unrepentant terrorists are regarded as progressive luminaries, still working 'only to educate' — both Obamas tended to the relationship with the Ayers."
Article: The Company He Keeps:
Meet Obama’s circle: The same old America-hating Left
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=&w=MA==

[ETL]

Re: "heated political rhetoric"

"Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal".--James (Jim) Cone,
African American Religious Thought: An Anthology (Paperback)
by Cornel West (Editor), Eddie S. Glaude Jr. (Editor)
____________________________________________

SEAN HANNITY: But Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not backing down and has not for years and in his strong stance on the teaching of black liberation theology is nothing new. He had the same things to say last spring when he appeared on "Hannity & Colmes:"

WRIGHT: If you're not going to talk about theology in context, if you're not going to talk about liberation theology that came out of the '60s, systematized black liberation theology that started with Jim Cone in 1968 and the writings of Cone and the writings of Dwight Hopkins and the writings of womynist theologians and Asian theologians and Hispanic theologians, then you can't talk about the black value system.

HANNITY: But I'm a — reverend

WRIGHT: Do you know liberation theology, sir?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354158,00.html

[pillut48]

Amen a hundred times! I’m standing right next to you!

I also felt the same way, we are witnessing history—and hopefully witnessing the *rebirth* of American politics the way the Founding Father intended! Not with name calling divisiveness and threats (”if they bring a gun, we bring a knife”) but A CALL FOR UNITY. Hear, hear!!

If that wasn’t a presidential speech by Palin, I’ll eat my hat.

[frposty]

Sarah’s article/video is the best summation of the Arizona violence that I expecct to hear.

[driftdiver]

You said

“How about damned stupid. The term blood libel has always been a clear indictment of Jews by Christians. It has never had any other meaning in common use.” in post 37.

and then you said

“Maybe I’m more aware of its strictly anti-semetic meaning because I grew up in a pretty Jewish neighborhood. It is an arcane phrase which makes palin’s use of it even more baffling. “ in post 50.

So by stating the term is “strictly anti-semantic” you are inferring Palin is anti-semantic. Words have meanings but much of communication goes beyond the words. While condemning Palin over those two little words and ignoring everything else you are showing your agenda.

Perhaps your words from post 50 “If it is her intention to escalate then she has succeeded but one would ask why? “ should lead us to ask you Why?

[DManA]

Not a wise use of the word. It is the same as calling something that was done to you a holocaust.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I know that google can give different people different results.

But in my search for “blood libel” on Google, the first was the wikipedia entry, which describes it as a specific false accusation of killing for religious sacrifice, made “almost always” against Jews.

The second says it is “the accusation that Jews murder Christian Children”.

The third says “The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews”

The fourth set are the news stories about Palin, then some twitter responses to Palin.

The next non-Palin reference links to a page titled “Christian myths against Jews”.

And the next non-Palin reference is Answers.com, to a page headed “Encyclopedia of Judaism: Blood Libel” which starts with: “(also “ritual murder”). False allegation that Jews used the blood of slain Christian children for ritual purposes”

So I don’t think the facts at all back up your contention that the word has now become broader use such that it has lost it’s tie to the original meaning, and my google search doesn’t back the claim you made about it.

Now, I’m not particularly bothered by her use, and certainly don’t think she was trying to say anything more than what she said. But it is clear that the term is primarily focused on accusations against Jews, and is tied to the murder of jews in Europe.

As such, I agree that it was a bad term to use. Palin’s message is a good one, and whether it should be or not, it is obscured by what everybody understands or WILL be led to understand about the term “blood libel”. That Giffords was Jewish will only make the use of the term worse.

Plus, in the end, part of being a good communicator is picking words that will enhance your message, not obscure it or take people off message. In that sense, the use of “blood libel” is demonstratably an error, because it HAS taken the discussion off what Palin was trying to say, and in a bad way.

And for that, you don’t have to agree with how others interpret “blood libel”, because it makes no difference — the results of the use of the word are clear, and it makes no difference whether that result is justified or not, because reaction simply “is”, and a good politician has to be able to predict reaction, and choose words that maximize the proper reaction.

[Fido969]

Media is in full panic mode:

Oliphant - Los Angeles Time: “Sarah Palin Unapoligetic”

Rooters: “Sarah Palin Accuses..”

Capehart Washingtom Post: “Sarah Palin Doesn’t get It.”

Clyburn: “Clyburn: Palin ‘Intellectually’ Incapable Of Understanding Arizona Shootings”

Haven’t these people learned anything?

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

what about common sense ?

the word “blood” and the word “libel”

combine them with the definition from each word.

[TMA62]

“Blood Libel” (2011)
“Death Panels” (2010)

Sarah’s on a Roll!!! You Go Girl!!!!

[RandallFlagg]

After some research on the term, “Blood libel,” you are correct about that term. And the enemedia’s obviously going to attempt to use those two words alone to attack her.

However, mvpel’s post #106 is correct, too. Jewish voters might not read into is as the enemedia will (as Anti-semetic). And if/when the enemedia does as they so willingly have in the past -going after Sarah for those two words, they might actually see her point a little clearer.

It might also create yet another firestorm amongst others. Increasing the anger towards the left for the pained and desperate volleys to knock Sarah down.

Sarah gained more supporters with this.

The left gained none.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Blood libel? Wierd way of putting it. That normally applies to an ethnic group.

It's the correct way to put it. This particular blood libel applies to a demonstrated majority of the American electorate.

It needs to be said over and over and over again until liberals lose control -- as we know they will. Our opposition is ruthless and unprincipled and they are going for our throats. We just resist and we must call their tyranny of words exactly what it is.

It is, in fact, a blood libel.

[r9etb]

Oh, genius, how would you describe the attempts of the MSM, in defiance of all evidence, to pin this on the Tea Party and Palin and Beck.

Very nice theory ... but look at the reality of what the MSM is focused on. The term "blood libel." Nothing else. Why? Because the term sounds unhinged, and is right in line with the image of Sarah Palin that they've been painting.

That's why they've jumped on it. Sarah Palin should have known better. The rest of her statement is actually pretty good -- but she threw them red meat at the start.

Funny, that is exactly what the MSM is saying about the entire Tea Party. And they just want us to shut up, period.

You know what I'd like? I'd like the Tea Party people to stop whining, and stop shouting, and start talking about serious issues in a way that shows what they plan to do, rather than just what they're against.

It seems to me that you are the one who should take a moment and think about what you are saying, given you are parroting the MSM here.

I'm just looking at the evidence.

[dirtboy]

But in my search for “blood libel” on Google, the first was the wikipedia entry, which describes it as a specific false accusation of killing for religious sacrifice, made “almost always” against Jews.

Tell me when "almost always" became the same as 'always' as claimed by wtc911. You made my point for me.

[downtownconservative]

If I knew I was wrong, I'd be more than happy to admit it. As a human being, attained perfection fails me continuously. The relationship between "Blood Sport" and Blood Libel" may be a bit more tenuous than I thought at first glance, and thanks for pointing that out, but that does't prove your point. Which begs the question, what is your point???

[CedarDave]

Blood libel? Wierd way of putting it. That normally applies to an ethnic group.

She wasn't the first to use it. See here:

The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel

[gogogodzilla]

I'd say it's a brilliant political move by Palin. (and I don't really care one way or the other about her)

What the media is doing is much like the traditional blood libels of medieval Europe. Where the ‘voice of authority’ declares that one group or person is responsible for a wrongdoing without any proof, then whips up the townsfolk into a rage... leading to tragedy. Back then, that was usually a clergyman, but now it's the media.

But like you said, it is escalatory. And that's the whole point. The liberal media will *NOT* be able to refuse the bait and they *WILL* run with her comments. So they'll not be able to spin up new ‘blood libels’, but instead try to refute *HER* points. And once you get a political enemy talking about *YOUR* ideas, *YOUR* agenda... you are already halfway to victory.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

If Palin said the sky is blue, they would find reasons to find fault with it.

That said, if the media goes back to the ‘historic’ views of the term, seeing/hearing them defend Israel would be a nice change. Are they even capable of that?

[bushpilot1]

[Aria]

I never heard that Blood Libel has “always” been directed at Jews...and I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.

I took it to mean that the rats are inciting a lynch mob to hang her....which is exactly what they are doing. They would have blood on their hands and they would gladly use the occasion to beef up their ratings. They’re rabid sociopaths.