Posted on 01/12/2011 5:42:46 AM PST by reaganaut1
Sarah Palin, who had been silent for days, on Wednesday issued a forceful denunciation of her critics in a video statement that accused pundits and journalists of “blood libel” in their rush to blame heated political rhetoric for the shootings in Arizona.
“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” she said in a video posted to her Facebook page. “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 that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
Ms. Palin’s use last year of a map with crosshairs hovering over a number of swing districts, including that of Gabrielle Giffords, had increasingly become the symbol of that overheated rhetoric. In and interview with The Caucus on Monday, potential 2012 rival Tim Pawlenty, the former Republican governor of Minnesota, said he would not have produced such a map.
But in the video, Ms. Palin rejected criticism of the map, casting it as a broader indictment of the basic political rights of free speech exercised by people of all political persuasions.
She said that acts like the shootings in Arizona “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,” she added. “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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
A poor choice of words that has come to haunt you. Seeing how it was used by the founder of Daily KOS in 2008 in this statement: 2010 will be primary season. . . . the corrupt, the tone-deaf, and the reactionary within Democratic ranks will face the possibility of primary battles.
If you'll scroll down, you'll see it's the third quote on the page. Ironic, isn't it, that in an attempt to criticize Sarah Palin, one falls into their own little trap of using leftist catch-phrases...
No, I don't mean to imply you're a leftist, or part of the anti-Palin cabal (although you make one wonder). But on this pro-Palin forum, you can expect to be picked clean, just as you attempt to do with her writing...
Sarah is right as usual — 100 percent!
If Newt Gingrich is nominated, you can kiss the Oval Office good-bye for another four years.
Please, no Bob Dole Part Deux.
No nomination is owed to these elder Republican statesmen. They can serve in cabinets and policy positions. But to beat Obama it will take someone who is younger, faster and hopefully, without three marriages to his discredit.
How bout this one from Slate in 2007?
You can’t teach an old lapdog new tricks. And Tony Blair was barking up the wrong tree yet again last week in his first major appearance since he skulked ingloriously away from office back in June. Blair seized the opportunity of a New York speech to trumpet the “blood libel” that Iran is now the embodiment of the entire “global ideology” of Islamic extremism, explicitly conflating the Tehran regime not only with al-Qaida but also with Nazi Germany
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/10/24/selling_war
Don’t let any libs and their collaborators here, redefine the term “blood libel” for the sole purpose of bashing Palin. They don’t own the words and their attempt to redefine the term demonstrates their own ignorance, not hers.
This is willful ignorance so liberal commentators, and their collaborators here, can feel good about themselves. Notice, they can’t claim not to have made the false accusation that the Tea Party and Sarah Palin caused the Arizona shooting. So instead of defending it, which they can’t, they’ll just quibble about the words Palin used.
What are you talking about?
And Chris Floyd did not stop using it to describe Blair:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m26116&l=i&size=1&hd=0
Karl Rove’s Blood Libel
Chris Floyd
U said u could not find alternate uses of Blood Libel on google...
Be well my friend...the posts are not intended to inflame you.
My God! That's it! She's a diabolical genius! Sarah Palin orchestrated the shooting from behind the scene, knowing she would be blamed. Then, because the kid is psychotic, she is able to deflect the hatred and come out looking better.
(Think I'm kidding? Some Lefty is likely to come out with something along these lines.)
Don’t owe Gingrich anything...he happens to be my preferred possible candidate at this time....the odds are highly unlikely against a Republican Presidential victory in 2012...history is against it, however we will see a Republican takeover of the Senate which will set up the battle of 2016...that’s going to be the Palin shot..2012 will clear out the last runs of Romney, Huckabee, and Gingrich...magritte
Palin defended by a famous liberal Jew; it sounds like the silly talk of this being a mistake is not working: http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/
Thanks for posting.
“””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.”””
Leftist media and politicians have dug themselves a hole they cannot get out of when Alan Dershowitz praises Sarah Palin for her use of the words “blood libel.”
Look what it has dredged up out of your fingers, as well as the other sycophantisizers in the liberal/leftist camp.
then you would complain that she was bringing up old news for political gain. Face it, she can't please you or the media.
I was referring to confronting the left in regards the vicious attacks upon the tea party, conservatives, talk radio, sarah palin, etcetera .
NO, Romney does not have to defend that which he does not represent -that IS my point. Romney is not attacked by the left on this issue -why? I contend because he is NOT a threat to the left -he is the left...
Second!
That’s right, Romney could have defended conservatives, but he didn’t....
Reagan would have disagreed with your theory. 8~)
Your thoughts noted.
Now, perhaps you could tell me exactly what it is that separates us from this particular government taking over the most worthwhile aspects of American life and the justification they would use to do it?
If your answer isn't the Second Amendment, you should guess again. And you might want to re-think your position.
Our ideological enemies have already begun the process of seizing our property through their plans to redistribute wealth. What's next on the agenda, and what lie will they use to perpetrate it? More importantly, where have you been for the last two years?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.