“Palin’s use of a notoriously anti-semetic term as a way of describing herself as a victim of the media, especially given that the real victim here is Jewish, is either grossly ill-informed or intentionally belligerent. Either one is stupid. Not my fault if you don’t see it.”
Palin was subjected to reckless and utterly baseless accusations of abetting murders (recall there was many more than one victim in this shooting). The accusations tell us more about the accusers than the accused.
Referring to this as a “blood libel” is not too big a stretch of the meaning of the phrase. The intent of a traditional “blood libel” and of what’s being done to Palin is very similar; similar also are the accusations that are made.
I’m trying to find support for this concept, but I can’t find any real definition of “blood libel” that isn’t tied to false accusations that jews were killing children and using their blood.
I don’t see any real evidence of this “modern usage” that others have called out, nor do I see a particularly good parallel between “blood libel” and what the left has been doing to us.
They are accusing us of inciting violence, not of killing people to use them for religious or political purposes. It’s just a stretch; and since we aren’t saying the left is looking to have us put to death, that aspect of “blood libel” doesn’t exist either.