Palin, blood-libeled?

Print More

With her usual flair for dramatic self-victimization, Sarah Palin has taken to her Facebook page to charge her critics in the media with one of the most odious accusations in Western culture:

If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that
vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But,
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 they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Yeah, well, let’s remember what blood libel actually means. It’s falsely charging a Jew with murdering a Christian child in order to make matzoh for Passover.

Palin has been accused of is not ritual murder but helping to incite
the attempted assassination of a Jewish member of Congress–based on her
publication of a map that put Gabrielle Giffords in the crosshairs for
(political) elimination. For one of the country’s most prominent
Christians to call that a blood libel is, at the very least, bad taste.

  • You Betchya!

  • To be fair, Palin probably doesn’t understand that “blood libel” is in bad taste. It’s a line she got fed by someone else, and she’s not smart or curious enough to ask questions.

  • To everyone who is calling for more invasive handgun bills following the calamity in Tucson, might I proffer this little tidbit: If weapons kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars get d-u-is, and spoons make people obese ! Bear in mind: Deem the individual accountable for their conduct, not the instrumentthey may wish to misuse.

  • Mark Silk

    And so why try to keep the Iranians from acquiring a nuclear weapon, so long as we deem them responsible for their future conduct?