Sarah Palin dropped her latest rhetorical bombshell on Wednesday morning, claiming, in a widely circulated video, that media reports highlighting incendiary right-wing rhetoric (hers in particular) in the wake of the Tucson shootings was comparable to "blood libel." Palin lobbed the termâwhich has historically referred to the claim that Jews used the blood of Christian babies to make matzohâjust as the House was convening in Washington for the first time since Saturday. Hours before a congressional prayer service for the victims of the shooting rampage, Republican lawmakers made it clear they didn't want to go near the former Alaska governor's inflammatory remarks.
"blood libel"
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, said Ms. Palin "has every right to defend herself" from those seeking to link her to the crimes in Tucson. But, he added, "We wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a liberal Jewish political action committee, released a statement saying, "When Gov. Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words."
Ari Fleischer, once press secretary to former President George W. Bush, said it was understandable that Ms. Palin would defend herself. Still, he said, "She would have done better if she had gotten above the day-to-day politics, and focused entirely on healing, unity, suffering and coming together. Three quarters of her remarks were on that. It would have been better if 100% were on that."
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a liberal Jewish political action committee, released a statement saying, "When Gov. Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words."
Ari Fleischer, once press secretary to former President George W. Bush, said it was understandable that Ms. Palin would defend herself. Still, he said, "She would have done better if she had gotten above the day-to-day politics, and focused entirely on healing, unity, suffering and coming together. Three quarters of her remarks were on that. It would have been better if 100% were on that."
Alan Derchowitz Defends Sarah Palin's Use of Term 'Blood libel'
In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palinâs use of the term âblood libelâ from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:
The term âblood libelâ 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.
http://biggovernment.com/publius/20...defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/
In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palinâs use of the term âblood libelâ from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:
The term âblood libelâ 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.
http://biggovernment.com/publius/20...defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/
Glenn Beck Makes Sarah Palin the Victim
http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2011/01/glenn_beck_make.html
http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2011/01/glenn_beck_make.html
WOW....your another WORD/GRAMMAR judge! :eek:
"Former friends have recounted that Loughner had a fixation for grammar and words"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-grammar-extremist
*** OPTIONAL777 - Are you obsessed and fixating on WORDS used by Palin (who holds NO PUBLIC OFFICE)??? :eek:
Here's the speech:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9-fiNFCbsz8?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9-fiNFCbsz8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9-fiNFCbsz8?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9-fiNFCbsz8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
I think America is 90% in agreement now that Palin isn't presidential material and never will be.
She is perfecting the art of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. And her skin is way to thin to be in politics, hell it's too thin to be in any business. She is doing the right thing, being a political celeb, the political Paris Hilton, she's good in that role.
She is perfecting the art of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. And her skin is way to thin to be in politics, hell it's too thin to be in any business. She is doing the right thing, being a political celeb, the political Paris Hilton, she's good in that role.
I "get" how some in America feel disappointed by the Economy, how Govt. has let them down, etc., and that Palin's anti-Elite, anti-Intellectualism as the gun-toting soccer Mom pit-bull has some appeal among Americans . . .
But her 8-minute speech shows just how petty, ignorant, and NARCISSTIC she is. She could have transcended the moment, and talked about bringing the country together... like most political party leaders would.
Instead, her speech was ALL about her.
It was "Me! Me! Me!" and had nothing to do with the United States of America. Very petty, and totally absurd.
This kind of stuff makes John McCain look even more senile.
But her 8-minute speech shows just how petty, ignorant, and NARCISSTIC she is. She could have transcended the moment, and talked about bringing the country together... like most political party leaders would.
Instead, her speech was ALL about her.
It was "Me! Me! Me!" and had nothing to do with the United States of America. Very petty, and totally absurd.
This kind of stuff makes John McCain look even more senile.
"Palin effectively quoted Ronald Reagan arguing that the criminal alone is responsible for the crime. "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," she said. Good. Then she went on to say that "journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." Bad. You can't argue that words don't create criminals and then argue in the next breath that, actually, yes, they might."
http://www.slate.com/id/2280967/
http://www.slate.com/id/2280967/