Posted on 01/12/2011 9:49:55 AM PST by CedarDave
The use of the term “blood libel” in non-Jewish contexts is out of bounds, eh?
Andrew Sullivan, October 10, 2008:
A couple of obvious thoughts. Paladino speaks of “perverts who target our children and seek to destroy their lives.” This is the gay equivalent of the medieval (and Islamist) blood-libel against Jews.
Ann Coulter’s column, October 30, 2008:
His expert pontificator on race was The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson, who said the Pittsburgh hoax was “the blood libel against black men concerning the defilement of the flower of Caucasian womanhood. It’s been with us for hundreds of years and, apparently, is still with us.”
From a the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, September 30, 2009:
Almost immediately following the aftermath of the shooting, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation was the unlikely voice that called for the safeguard of Muslims in the armed forces.
Within hours of the news breaking, MRFF founder and president Mikey Weinstein called upon President Barack Obama to “immediately issue a statement as Commander-in-Chief making it clear that there would be a zero-tolerance policy against any member of the U.S. military inflicting harassments, retribution or reprisal against an Islamic member of the U.S. military.” …
He criticized former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin for saying that she was “all for” profiling against Muslims.
“We’re not painting all Jews as thieves for Madoff’s economic crimes,” said Weinstein, comparing Palin’s comments to a “blood libel.”
[snip]
In the grand scheme of things, the idea that Palin used a phrase associated with one particular, egregious and historically recurring false accusation to rebut a modern false accusation seems like little reason for outrage. For perspective on what really is worth outrage, the services for 9-year-old victim Christina Taylor Green are tomorrow.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Oh yeah!! Whose retrospect? Yours?
Bull!
To the permanently outraged, any reason is a good enough reason for outrage.
And to the propagandists obsessed with Palin, any libel is good libel. Its your stock in trade.
FYI
Rush just started to talk about this now...
Whatever you care to call it, clear & definable actionable violations have been trespassed by media companies with deep pockets that some law firms will go fishing for.
So where do we commoners go to ask permission to use FACTUAL words/phrases? The politically correct drama queens are cowards.
It was pitch perfect.
And THAT is why her enemies, and their collaborators here...hate it.
Maybe we should stop saying “Blood Libel” and call it “Waving the Bloody Shirt?” That might be more accurate.
Exactly.
Blood libel is accurate. Its no different than the nazis blaming all the German problems on Jews as a means of eliminating the Jews and siezing control.
Sarah was SPOT ON. The fact that the Leftist media has taken another one to the head does not make that any less TRUE.
It was perfect and once again shows Shadow POTUS living rent free in their heads...
I see the mass media constantly do media lynchings and character assassinations.
Blood libel in this context is NOT accidental Edited on Wed Jan-12-11 12:38 PM by nadinbrzezinski
she is reaching to her zealots, who see themselves as the new people of Israel persecuted by the secular world.
She is telling them, in this dog whistle from hell, that they can and should expect a progrom. This is what is going on.
So yes, Sarah does know what the term means. So does the rest of the right. As horrific as the term is, no, I will not give her a pass. They know exactly what they are saying.
Blood libel is a very charged term historically, and they are not talking of the Jew shot on Saturday. THey are talking of themselves as Jews... and telling us what is going on in the media IS a progrom.
Jayzus, next I know they will claim we want to put them in concentration camps... This is quite the step up in the rhetoric
Keep digging, MSM, there’s plenty to put in that grave.
Actually, the first thing that I thought of when the ‘rats started their “blame Sarah Palin/talk radio/Tea Party” routine was the tendency of the Muslims in the Middle East to blame every disaster, tragedy, and terrorist attack on “The Joos.”
Whether I agree with its use in the speech is irrelevant. However, the phrase will hurt her in the public’s view after the MSM and press (which a majority of the country still listen to) get through skewering her. Its use overshadows what in its entirety is an excellent presidential speech, well reasoned and striking exactly the right tone.
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.