[Colonel_Flagg]

I'm doing no such thing. I'm drawing a comparison between two similar attacks -- the attack of a totalitarian government on 1930s Germany on people with whom it disagreed and the attack of individuals who would surely like to be totalitarian upon us.

But, if you disagree with me, you might want to check out the words of Alan Dershowitz on the subject:

"“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.” ~ Alan Dershowitz

But hey, Abraham Foxman agrees with you. Your trip to the shrink will be shorter than mine, sir.

[Domalais]

The term blood libel comes from long before the Nazi party. It’s much more closely related to attacks upon the Jews coming from various Christian churches and groups. The reason it’s called blood libel is because it was alleged that the Jews killed young Christian boys in ritual sacrifices and used their blood to make matzo for Passover.

I disagree with Alan Dershowitz.

I don’t think that Palin should be lynched or anything; I just think that it was a poor choice of words and an attempt to make more of the situation than what really is.