January 12th, 2011

Sarah Palin and the blood libel

It’s all over the blogosphere. Look at memeorandum’s top articles, and you’ll see they’re all about Sarah Palin’s video defense of herself in which she calls the attacks blaming her for the Giffords shootings a “blood libel.”

Even some on the right consider her choice of words unfortunate. Jonah Goldberg suggests that her use of the phrase in this context “is not ideal.” After all, it’s historically been employed as an anti-Semitic accusation against Jews, alleging that they murder Christian children in order to employ their blood in rituals. The goal of the blood libel is to incite pogroms and reprisals against Jews.

And at Harry’s Place the question of whether Palin even understands the term has been raised.

But what phrase would have been better? I actually can’t think of one. Yes, “blood libel” is not exactly correct. No one is accusing Palin of being a Jew who has killed a child to use its blood in making matzos. But, as I pointed out in my recent piece for PJ, most normal people understand figures of speech, and Palin is using an analogy here that is actually rather apt.

Sarah Palin is known for many things. One of them is that she doesn’t pull her rhetorical punches. We saw that in particular when she trotted out the phrase “death panels” to describe the direction in which she thought HCR was inevitably headed.

I believe that, like her or hate her (and I’ve gone on record saying I don’t think she’s a good candidate for the 2012 presidency), Palin chooses her phrases carefully and knows what she’s doing. And I would guess that, as a religious Christian and strong supporter of Israels and Jews, Palin knows exactly what the blood libel is and has an awareness of the history behind the use of the phrase.

I am wondering how it would feel to be reeling from hearing the dreadful news of the Tucson assassination/massacre, and then almost immediately to find oneself accused of inciting it by press and an opposition solemnly and sanctimoniously intoning the charge in transparently hypocritical hope of elevating the tone of political discourse while simultaneously pointing the finger of bloody guilt at their hated opponent. You know, the phrase “blood libel” might just come to mind.

What the left has done to Sarah Palin has been disgusting right from the start. But the accusation that she is responsible for the Tucson killings might just be a new low. So let’s see how the term “blood libel” might apply:

(1) The charge stems from irrational and long-term hatred of Palin for what and who she is.

(2) They are saying she is an accessory before the fact to an assassination attempt and several cold-blooded murders, including that of a child.

(3) The goal of the charge is to provoke a hateful backlash against her.

(4) It is part of a long-term pattern of stirring up irrational hatred towards Palin.

Fearless though Palin appears to be, it’s actually possible that, when she heard of the Giffords shooting, the thought passed through her mind that she’s similarly at risk from crazies stirred up by the hatred directed towards her from the other side.

Would I have used the term “blood libel?” Probably not. But I’m not Sarah Palin. I haven’t been the target of the most vicious campaign against a politician in modern memory. Within hours, death threats against Palin began to pop up on Twitter. I think Sarah Palin’s earned the right to use the term “blood libel” to describe what’s going on:

[NOTE: Instapundit’s Glenn Reynold used the term first to describe what’s been happening to Palin in the wake of the Giffords shooting, and he got only a little bit of flak for it.

(Am I still allowed to say “flak?”)

Here Reynolds points out previous political uses of the term “blood libel.” But they didn’t elicit a peep of protest because, as he also points out, the speaker wasn’t Sarah Palin.]

[ADDENDUM: Support for Sarah from a surprising source. Good for him.

Another surprise.]

[ADDENDUM II: Ace has more. (Hat tip: commenter “rickl.”) Some of the comments at Ace’s are pretty clever, too, like this one:

Did you know Palin wrote her speech in Tucsonese blood? True story.

Well, that’s actually not true… but she wanted to. Prove she didn’t!]

[ADDENDUM III: The Anchoress is spot on in her assessment.]

[ADDENDUM IV: This piece by Dr. Sanity is a few days old, but still relevant and well worth reading.]

141 Responses to “Sarah Palin and the blood libel”

  1. rickl Says:

    From the ABC News website:

    Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story.

    Right, because she wasn’t part of the story before today, despite being all but named as an accomplice to mass murder.

    Also from the same article:

    As ABC’s Karen Travers points out, “in times of crisis and tragedy, Americans have turned to their president for leadership and words of reassurance.” Today is one of those times.

    Biased? Perish the thought.

  2. neo-neocon Says:

    rickl: Yeah, I bet she was behind the left’s accusations, too, just to get herself some attention. That would be just like her.

  3. rickl Says:

    I got my link from Instapundit, but I see that Ace also has it now.

    Man, he is on a roll today. (And I’m supposed to be working.)

  4. Shouting Thomas Says:


    I hope the Palins have backups for the backups for their security.

    The left has manufactured a justification for murdering her.

  5. neo-neocon Says:

    Shouting Thomas: that’s exactly what a blood libel is about.

  6. Instapundit » Blog Archive » ALAN DERSHOWITZ: “The term ‘blood libel’ has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discou… Says:

    […] ANOTHER UPDATE: Neo-Neocon writes that if you look at what people were saying on Twitter, “blood libel” sounds about right. […]

  7. uncleFred Says:

    It is impossible for a reasoning person to watch that speech and accept the media’s caricature of Sarah Palin. There are a lot of people who have formed a negative opinion of Sarah Palin based on that caricature. They are going to find themselves reexamining that opinion and the media that formed it for them.

  8. Keith_Indy Says:

    The left sure do get themselves into the vapors awfully easy. It is amazing that they spew such hate, and yet excuse it for themselves, if they are taken to task over it.

    Why do they work themselves up so much over Palin?

    The best thing they could do would be to ignore her. As it is, every time they attack her, she grows more sympathetic.

  9. Mr. Frank Says:

    The intensity of Palin derangement syndrome is hard to fully grasp. The perpetrators are educated, intelligent people for the most part, and yet they are completely around the bend on this.

  10. neo-neocon Says:

    Keith_Indy: I think it serves a different function for them. It’s a joining experience promoting in-feeling for the group, like the Two Minutes Hate.

    Plus, they think they might actually influence a few non-haters of Palin here and there to join the camp. In that regard, I think they’re overestimating their influence these days.

  11. Shouting Thomas Says:

    I’m not on the Palin bandwagon (or off it).

    On a personal level, I like the woman. I can’t see what there is to hate.

    I really feel for her and her family, facing this savage threat from people they don’t even know and have never harmed in any way.

  12. jdm Says:

    It is impossible for a reasoning person to watch that speech and accept the media’s caricature of Sarah Palin.

    Not if it’s edited the right way before it’s broadcast. You know. To reduce the time and such.

  13. nyomythus Says:

    Charles Templeton, Canadian evangelical, who in his memoirs, “Farewell to God: my reasons for rejecting the Christian Faith” asked his one-time friend Billy Graham how can he go on believing and teaching this stuff. Graham basically replied that — it’s too late to stop now, lot of people are expecting of me, it’s an industry, it’s a business now. I think this sort of “defending the indefensible” is happening here, because those who have used violent rhetoric, from the Left or the Right, and it comes as equally as strong if not more from the Left, well you can’t paint your way out of it. It’s freaking shameful!

  14. On Blood Libel in Politics Says:

    […] Neo-neocon defends Mrs. Palin against the accusation that she doesn’t understand what “blood libel” is, or is somehow using it in bad faith. […]

  15. JTW Says:

    the term is EXACTLY correct as used by Mrs. Palin.
    After all, she’s accused of having caused/ordered/inspired the shooting of people, leading to 6 death and a dozen or more seriously injured including a political opponent for personal gain.
    Which is (taken in context) exactly what the original use of the term means when used to accuse Jews of killing Christian babies…

  16. Paul from Hamburg Says:

    Here is a fun drinking game to play: Go to any so-called “mainstream” website (NYT, WAPO) with some article and comments about the Tucson shooting. Take a drink every time a lefty bashes Sarah, Rush, the Tea Party or conservatives and tries to portray their opinion as a fact by using the word “clearly”.

  17. Sergey Says:

    Inability to understand metaphors is a clinical test for retarded development or utmost stupidity. Usually means that IQ is below 50. I can not believe that this is the case with media pundits, so they must just pretend that they do not understand what “death panels” or “blood libel” actually are metaphores in Palin’s speach. And very apt at that! See, they have no choice: if they recognize in public that these phrases are metaphors, they would be compelled to recognize also that Palin is smart. This they can not admit, so all that they left to do is making fools of themselves ascribing ubelievable level of stupidity to their opponents.

  18. Nero Says:

    The last thing the left wants to discuss is the potential for paranoid fixation on a female politician to lead to violence.

  19. Shouting Thomas Says:

    I am aghast at how this has developed.

    I was a leftist when I was young.

    How did the left find its way to this outright embrace of evil?

  20. elaine Says:

    People ask why the hatred of Palin is so strong and irrational. I think the answer is a lot of little things, and a couple of big ones. Of the big ones: First, she’s got far more balls than the sitting President. I mean, what have we, as a nation, needed, ever since this tragedy? We’ve needed someone to come out and say exactly what Palin did in her video statement. In short, she has more leadership abilities than our President has or ever will have. And she’s not even the president…

    The other main reason she gives the left the vapors is that she’s the first woman who really could have won the presidency (before the left began their concerted efforts to crucify her), and she’s a republican. How dare those damned republicans offer up an attractive, feisty, (and dare I say it?) intelligent feminist to be a possible presidential candidate, before we democrats could!

    The democrats wanted to have the first black president (and they succeeded), but they also want to lay claim to the first Hispanic president, as well as the first female president. Palin very nicely put the kibash on that dream. Heck, even now, they fear her. Oh, sure… they’ll talk a good game about how they think Palin winning the GOP nod in 2012 would be the best thing to ensure Obama a second term… but I don’t think they really believe it. So every day, they have to go about the business of tearing her down, in the hope that it’ll cost her a chance to be our first woman president.

    Funny thing, though, is that every time they attack her, they just help her prove the point that she’s more presidential than the current guy residing in the White House…

  21. Shouting Thomas Says:

    There’s only one explanation for this kind of murderous hatred.

    Palin’s attackers have convinced themselves that, whatever pain or lack that they experience in their lives, she is the cause.

    The craziest have come to believe that eliminating Palin will eliminated their pain and suffering.

  22. Sergey Says:

    JTW, the first victims of blood libel were not Jews, but Christians:
    Blood libel against Christians

    During the first and second centuries, some Roman commentators misunderstood the ritual of the Eucharist and related teachings. While celebrating the Eucharist, Christians drink red wine in response to the words “This is the blood of Christ”. Propaganda arguing that the Christians literally drank blood was written and used to persecute Christians. Romans were highly suspicious of Christian adoptions of abandoned Roman babies and this was suggested as a possible source of the blood.

  23. elaine Says:

    Shouting Thomas:

    I, too, was a leftist, back before I was 30. For me, the first thing that really started to derail that was when NOW defended President Clinton over the sexual harrassment charges by women he’d tried to take advantage of. I’d watched them hop on the Anita Hill bandwagon with the flimsy “pubic hair on my coke can” story, so I was certain they’d defend the women who stood against Clinton. Boy, was I wrong.

    That was the moment when I started seeing that NOW was far more concerned about helping their fellow democrats than helping women.

    From that moment on, I started seeing the left for what they truly are. And you’re right, the current crop have sunk so low into the gutter that there’s little to distinguish them from the purely evil. At this point, no outrage they can commit would surprise me. Sadden me, yes. Sicken me, certainly. But I don’t think I can be shocked by anything more from them.

    So is it any wonder that they’re using this tragedy to blame the right and try to silence any outlets of information and opinion on the right? Nope, not really. The difference though, is us. We can’t let them get away with that. Let them repeat their blood libels until they’re blue in the face; we have to be resolved that we won’t be swayed and we won’t let our neighbors be swayed.

  24. Palin puts Arizona massacre in perspective « The Home for Wayward Statisticians Says:

    […] back with the words “blood libel” has the thumbsuckers’ panties in a twist.  Neo thinks they had it comin’. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)I wish I were Smart!Sarah Palin Talks Illegal […]

  25. Shouting Thomas Says:

    Part of President Obama’s job tonight is to defuse this madness.

    We’ll find out a lot about him tonight, won’t we?

  26. Sergey Says:

    Times of acute national crisis are the only moments when masks slip and we see, at last, who is who. Now is one of these moments.

  27. Occam's Beard Says:

    I am aghast at how this has developed.

    I was a leftist when I was young.

    How did the left find its way to this outright embrace of evil?

    The left didn’t find its way, it was already there. They’ve just let the mask slip. And, as we get older, we become more perspicacious in perceiving this.

    The question is why they’re letting the mask slip now, instead of doing the Walter Cronkite and continuing to hide their true views. Perhaps are doing so because they think they’re on the verge of winning, and are overplaying their hand, Luxemburg/Liebknecht style. Or perhaps they are doing so because they see their historic chance slipping away, thanks to their assorted betes noire (sp?) – Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News, and most especially, Palin – publicly disputing what leftists try to portray as received wisdom, undaunted by the vituperation of the left, and striking a resonant chord with many people.

  28. MassJim Says:

    Lets see if I understand the left’s thought process. “Hate is evil and it is responsible for the Tuscon shootings. In order to express my concern in this regard I will voice my hate for Palin. Regardless of the fact that there is absolutely nothing to connect her even remotely to this horrendous act.”
    Is that about where the left is going on this? Amazing, simply amazing!

  29. Occam's Beard Says:

    As ABC’s Karen Travers points out, “in times of crisis and tragedy, Americans have turned to their president for leadership …” Today is one of those times.

    Well, there are worse things than disappointment.

  30. kaba Says:

    Palin’s response was understated and unbelievably gracious. Just try to walk a mile in her shoes if you would. For the last thirty months she and all of the beliefs she holds dear have been relentlessly attacked in the vilest of terms. More importantly her entire family has been subjected to the same treatment for no better reason than they happen to be related to her.

    And what has she done to deserve this treatment? Her worst sin is apparently that she is an effective and unapologetic spokesperson for traditional American values. That she refuses to be bowed or intimidated shows remarkable courage in my opinion and makes me admire her all the more. I only wish a few of those currently serving would display such courage.

  31. Jim Says:

    Paul from Hamburg – Thanks for the drinking game idea. Now I have alcohol poisoning.

  32. Jim Says:

    My cell phone battery died today. And no stores carry replacements because my phone is too old. Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin.

  33. fdcol63 Says:

    We need a revolution, but it needs to start with the Leftist propagandists in the MSM.

    Off with THEIR heads!

    The current status quo will not change until this occurs, and only then will we be able to trust the information coming out of news organizations like CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post, et al.

    And unless this change occurs, we the people will not have the critical information we need to make educated and informed decisions at the ballot box.

  34. Sergey Says:

    This outburst of witch hunt can severely destroy credibility of many journalists and publishers.

  35. neo-neocon Says:

    fdcol63: are you speaking metaphorically or literally here?

  36. newton Says:

    “Blood libel” is the correct term here.

    I will not be surprised if, a few months from now, we see some punk or two trying to put two bullets into her torso having the “noble” belief that killing Sarah Palin constitutes a “service to humanity.”

    No one should mistake the Palins for people who would not fight back if their lives were in danger. Having said that, if I were a security consultant of some sort or a member of their inner circle, I’d strongly advise them to drop out of the public radar for a while until some people’s feelings have dissipated.

    And even after that, I’d advise them to never leave home or town without a bodyguard or a bullet-proof vest. They can get some good pointers from Glenn Beck on this.

    I’d also advise them to stay together. In fact, if Bristol has already moved to AZ, I’d advise her to get the heck out of dodge this very minute. Her life and her son’s are definitely in danger. Too many crazies from CA or other states have moved or can drive themselves into AZ for her to be safe.

    Neither she nor her family have done anything wrong – except for existing, I guess. If Sarah Palin didn’t exist, someone would have had invented her.

    Also, IMHO. I don’t know if it can ever be done, but I sure wish Sarah Palin would hire the best attorneys in the country and sue Matthew Yglesias and Markos Moulitsas into the poorhouse. Why? They shot the opening salvos of this media slaughter, while the bodies of the dead were still warm. Let the amount of money to sue for constitute an albatross over their necks. That is the VERY LEAST those two sons of b****** deserve for all the evil they have done.

  37. Curtis Says:

    So, it is supposed that Sarah Palin, the hated evangelical who is named after a Jewish matriarch and is known by her support of Israel, doesn’t understand the meaning of the term, “blood libel.”

    Well. We’ve all put on our thinking caps, haven’t we. And poor old Sarah, bless her heart, just got left out in that department.

    What a bunch a crap from Goldberg.

    Consider: It makes every Jewish person stop and think about being the subject of irrational and intentional slander and hate meant to harm and kill you. How do Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan think about the analogy? The total number of Jewish persons in the media, academia, and entertainment is immense and influential. Most will find it hard not to identify. They will be forced to look at the facts and see if the analogy is apt. And if anything, it promotes a discussion about blood libel, something the forces we fight against don’t want.

    And true anti-semites will feel that warm glow of hate and blood lust. Sarah’s identification with Jews will bring forth the hate that Muslims and progressives camoflouge. So on the one hand, one group of people are given pause to reflect; on the other hand a group of people are inflamed and will radiate that inflammation. It will not be pretty, but no one should downplay the bullseye Sarah has painted on herself.

  38. fdcol63 Says:

    Metaphorically, of course. LOL

  39. neo-neocon Says:

    newton: and if, heaven forbid, something really bad were to happen to Palin or her family, the very same MSM and left would most likely say she brought it on herself. I don’t think you would see a lot of soul-searching there for their possible role in incitement.

    Although perhaps if she were really out of the way they could afford to be more magnanimous. Remember how nice they were to Reagan around the time of his funeral.

  40. M J R Says:

    “Fearless though Palin appears to be, it’s actually possible that, . . . the thought passed through her mind that she’s similarly at risk from crazies stirred up by the hatred directed towards her from the ^other^ side.”

    And should bodily harm ever come to Sarah Palin, it will have been ^her^ ^own^ ^fault^ for speaking her mind and stirring up passionate convictions. The deranged haters will be blameless.

    [ / sarcasm off ]

  41. M J R Says:

    Neo, it looks like you beat me to it by two minutes! But (alas) I’d been composing it and working on the wording . . .

    M J R

  42. Tom Says:

    Does anyone else find themselves asking how all this will end?
    I don’t mean Tucson. I mean the thought-clash.

    If we come to dominate politically in DC, what will we do to, or with, the bad-hearted Left? Tolerate them? Let them spew their poisons?

    They’ve been doing this for what seems forever in their Gramscian fashion. Do we just continue to tolerate their ugly intolerances, their ripping of our social fabric?

    They are pit vipers; when cool and hypoactive, they still remain full of lethal toxin, to be used when they warm up again.

    And if we do not gain control of DC, what then?

    This would all be grotesque comedy if we didn’t all have to live it.

  43. SteveH Says:

    “”The left didn’t find its way, it was already there. They’ve just let the mask slip.””

    The left was already there. But the average democrat comprising a huge swath of the American citizenry was not. Now they are and it’s frightening.

    All it took to get them there, was to be convinced that goodness was the problem of the world. That is exactly what they believe.

  44. Curtis Says:

    “I am going to back Sarah Palin for 2012 and John Bolton. I will not back soft, fickle Republicans like Gingrich or Pawlenty or anybody else who does not have the courage of his or her convictions. I’d rather lose with the right guy than win with the wrong one.”–Pamela Gellar

  45. Bob T Says:

    I am a pretty quiet person. At work today someone started to blame Sarah Palin for the Arizona shootings and I let him have it. in front of everyone I called him out for trying to use a tragedy to make political points. I called him a fool, a tool, a blackguard and humiliated him for being ill informed and mouthing opinions without understanding them. Later I was asked why I was so angry….I just said I will no longer be silent. For every lie, exxageratio and falsehood I will now call them on it. I will expose them and I will humiliate them. I have had it!!

  46. Cindy Simon Says:

    I continue to be astounded that hardly anyone (Chait being one exception) even many just left of center (which is actually what Giffords is) does not see the utter hypocrisy of the Left as they use manufactured lies to perpetrate action which is exactly what they criticize. With their own hyperbolic rhetoric, they are ramping up the poisonous political discourse to new extremes!

    And then, let’s not forget BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) which preceded this administration (and likely was one of the reasons Obama was even elected). I thought the hatred and vitriol then reached a new level of rhetoric, that with the aid of a liberal and irresponsible MSM, literally brainwashed many citizens of the US by means of nonstop repetition and ever more ramped up levels
    of poison and hatred.

  47. Oldflyer Says:

    One of the previous comments remarked that Sarah Palin’s attackers are intelligent and educated. Well, many of them are, but they have stirred up visceral hate that oozes from the depths of society. I have stumbled onto a couple of forums in which the comments could not have come from anyone with more than a 5th grade equivalent education;nor an IQ much above 85. Some of them represent a real physical threat to the Palin family.

    I believe that those whose contributions are calculated, may achieve their goal with this latest round. I find it hard to believe that Todd, and anyone else with influence, will let her bring her family into the lower 48. Even if Sarah, herself, were inclined to do so. They might as well take them on a stroll through an uncharted mine field; or indulge in a family game of Russian roulette.

    But, the chattering cowards best think carefully about unintended consequences. If anything did happen to the Palins, a monster monster they simply have not imagined could be unleashed. The rage they glibly speak of would seem like a childish tantrum in comparison.

    If Obama wants to tamp down emotions, he should tell his damned surrogates to back off. NOW.

  48. Oldflyer Says:

    Oh shucks. Just one monster. I need an edit function.

  49. neo-neocon Says:

    Oldflyer: Obama may indeed take the high road and condemn the Palin-haters (if only in a very general way and soft way, such as saying the tragedy shouldn’t be used for political gain). It would be best if he specifically targets his buddies on the left for raising the rhetorical heat. But if he does not, I think that will be telling.

  50. newton Says:



    – newton

  51. The Real Jeff Says:

    I saw a statistic the other day that really made me think. It said that the voting habits of liberals with more than a Bachelor’s degree was almost indistinguishable from those that had not even completed high school. Too much book learning crowds out any sembelance of common sense I guess.

  52. Green Says:

    Palin is no more an anti-semite than she is a leftist commie. It does not make any difference what she says about the Giffords shooting, the leftists will still hate her and will continue to say anything to hurt her – and with complete disregard for the truth, which they consider to be irrelevant. That is what all the sanctimonious post shooting finger pointing from the left is about. It is just another opportunity to trash the right and Palin is their biggest – dare I say – target.

  53. kaba Says:

    Unfortunately I agree with you. It could be easy to conclude that some on the left are deliberately attempting to provoke another incident.

    This is very scary territory here. We are witnessing levels of rhetoric that this country hasn’t witnessed since the 1850’s.

    I truly hope that Obama will make at least a token effort at calming the waters.

  54. Baklava Says:


    The only one who can’t paint their way out is you.

    Words mean things. Your words are all over the place and irresponsible (just like many before you)

    You never take responsibility for being erroneous.

  55. Baklava Says:

    Bob T,

    Or shall I call you Mr. T ! 🙂

    Good job – just don’t get fired !

    Here in the belly of the beast in Sacramento, CA – I can be under the thumb of so many people so quickly my head would spin.

  56. Baklava Says:

    BTW, The comment by Pawlenty has taken him off of my short list.

    He didn’t stay there long.

    hmmm. which tells me he – like Charles Krauthammer do not get it.

  57. Occam's Beard Says:

    We are witnessing levels of rhetoric that this country hasn’t witnessed since the 1850’s.

    Even more disturbing are the parallels to Spain in 1935.

  58. Curtis Says:

    There is a time for everything!

    I suppose the liberals could take that so literally and suggest some pretty atrocious things.

    There is a time for peace. There is a time for war. This is a time for war. And Pawlenty does not understand that his “moderation” is an agreement with slander and hate. Pawlenty’s comments show calculation for political gain rather than standing on principle. I am glad this event has revealed the character of one candidate. More to follow.

  59. rickl Says:

    Ayn Rand once said, “When good compromises with evil, only evil benefits.”

  60. GayPatriot » Sarah Palin: The Official Left-Wing Panty Buncher Says:

    […] Blogress Diva Regent neoneocon put it, What the left has done to Sarah Palin has been disgusting right from the start. But the accusation […]

  61. Baklava Says:

    For my view of Pawlenty, he may be right on the issues – but so is Palin.

    I want to see somebody with guts and backbone to stand up to the left in their time of ridiculousness.

    You have to pick and choose your battles.

    He could’ve said ‘nothing’ and I would’ve been fine – as most politicians are saying nothing.

    But he CHOSE to say something. And he was on the wrong side.

  62. Michael Says:

    The reason that I so approve of Mrs. Palin’s use of the term “Blood Libel,” is that it is very important to show up antiSemitism for the evil that it is. It is not evil because its targets are Jews. It is evil because it is a vicious lie. In using the term to describe what is being done to Conservatives, she identifies us with Jews and all other victims of vile slander, everywhere and at all times. That, my friends, is a most noble solidarity.

  63. SteveH Says:

    Obama has a logo for the Tucson tragedy? WTF?


  64. richard40 Says:

    Quote From Tom
    “If we come to dominate politically in DC, what will we do to, or with, the bad-hearted Left? Tolerate them? Let them spew their poisons?

    They’ve been doing this for what seems forever in their Gramscian fashion. Do we just continue to tolerate their ugly intolerances, their ripping of our social fabric?”

    I will answer you. We do nothing involving any kind of gov censorship. Even after complete conservative victory, we must maintain free speech, otherwise we become what we most hate now about the left.

    Let them spew their lies and hate. As long as we quickly counter any of their comments with truth, as was done with the Palin slanders, they just look even more foolish, and become even more marginalized. The MSM ratings and revenues will continue to decline, as long as we block the left from subsidizing them, and they will become more and more marginalized.

    The only way the left will come back is if the right loses their way, as we did under Bush, and in that case I dont mind if the left wins a temporary victory. It allows the right to reform itself and clean out deadwood, like the Tea Party did in many primaries. And we have learned, in both 1994 and 2010, that any leftist victory is very short lived, because leftists cannot resist overeaching and losing their mandate. Of course we do have to make sure we repeal any leftist follies passed when they have control, like Obamacare, but otherwise no damage is done that can’t be undone.

  65. Baklava Says:

    I hold Nyom responsible for this


    His hatred that he’s fomented here because Palin uttered the word “God” has been incredible.

    He can’t stick to the economic principles that Palin has been right on and Obama has been the virus on.

    It might’ve been Nyom himself that drove somebody to burn Palin’s church.

  66. Steve Says:

    I remember when Palin was hanged in effigy and when Sandra Bernhardt warned Palin not to come to Manhattan lest she be gang raped. Why is it that comedians are so unfunny? Maybe it’s the same reason leftists are so intolerant.

  67. rickl Says:

    Tom Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    Does anyone else find themselves asking how all this will end?

    I saw an outstanding comment at Ace of Spades earlier:


    I have a question, and I’ve been thinking about it for a while now.

    How does this end peacefully or amicably? I don’t mind partisanship. I don’t want to live in a one party state, or a country where both parties are the exact same thing.

    But it’s pretty clear that partisanship is entering uncharted territories here. I’m of the opinion there can never be a “calming down” or rhetoric. And before people flip out on me, i am mainly refering to how the fringest element of the Democrat party controls the debate within the party and the media. 20-30 years ago the “moderate” democrats and reasonable liberals controlled the Democrats and the media. As bad as people like Walter Cronkite were, it wasn’t anything near this.

    I just don’t see where we go from here. In 2008 the media went all out for Obama, which is understandable. He was their guy, they backed him. However, this has taken a drastic turn for the worse. Now, they realize all the fawning press can’t help Obama enough to stay afloat, so they have set their sites on destroying Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, etc.

    During the Town Halls, they would claim the people were mobs, and I didn’t think much of it at the time as that’s what they do to us in their coverage. However, the more I think about it, I believe they were being farsighted. They were trying to set up a narrative for when a Tea Partier or Conservative actually did make a political or some other killing. (to be honest, I am suprised someone even loosely affiliated with a tea party hasn’t killed anyone. If polls are right, there are tens of millions of Americans who affliate in some way with the tea party. That’s a really large group, and having one or two nutcases should be expected.) Digression aside, it is obvious to me now that the media has had this “extreme rhetoric” angle in the bag for some time now and they’ve been itching to pull it out. I’d be willing to bet that if you looked on journalists hard drives, they have mad lib like articles written and are just waiting to insert a Republican/Tea Party persons name.

    But it’s been 2 years and they have nothing. No killings, no murder sprees, no political assinations to blame on the right. I guess they’ve given up being patient and have decided to push a narrative full force in spite of the facts on the ground. I know that they loosely tried to put the Discovery Channel shooter and IRS attacker in the the tea party camp, but it wasn’t anywhere near as forceful as this.

    Within 2-3 hours of the shooting, every network, save Fox, were blaming Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. In fact CNN and the networks are still blaming Sarah Palin and the Tea Party despite the fact evidence points to insanity.

    I know we often joke and mock the media, but is this some sort of Rubicon they’ve crossed. Is there any going back? Bias is one thing, and as Purple Avenger pointed out, this isn’t even Yellow Journalism. This is wose. Yellow Journalism was about populism, this is about control, specifically liberal or democratic control through media. (the NYT uses grammar to control thought,heh).

    I am tempted to ask what can be done, but I think a better question is what is going to happen next?

    Posted by: Ben at January 12, 2011 12:13 PM (wuv1c)

  68. Don Rodrigo Says:

    I abandoned leftism and liberalism in large part because these ideologies have made it difficult to be a man and follow the dictates of the new liberalism. Too much estrogen on the left these days, and not just emanating from actual women, either.

    Women on the right think that men and their natural sensibilities still matter.

  69. rickl Says:

    I forgot to include a link to Ben’s comment, but it came from this thread:

    Sarah Palin Speaks On Tucson Murders; And The Loughner Left Has Gone Full “Conscience [sic] Dreaming”

    Ace’s post is worth reading, too. He’s essentially saying that the Left had entered the same fantasy world that Loughner inhabits.

    I said it before, but Ace is absolutely on fire today. He must have a dozen different posts up.

  70. Curtis Says:

    Where does it all end?

    Unless we stop it, it will end up as another victory in the liberal narrative.

    And we won’t overcome the lies this generation because we cannot instantly take over education, media, and entertainment.

    We must realize that just as the British controlled the seas so they controlled their destiny, we must control information. That is where the battle is and first and foremost we must take back what information our children our receiving.

    Take, for instance, in the inverse bizzaro world of liberals, Kevin Jennings makes schools “safe” for our children. Anita Bryant told us long ago that an agenda existed to sexualize our children and rob them of their innocence. We let her be savaged and slandered by Hollywood. Let’s learn from the past and stand strong with Sarah!

  71. nyomythus Says:

    Putting graphical cross hairs on political opponents (Palin/Kos), to placards with “God Loves Dead Soldiers”, to films like “Machete”, to the infamous anti-war banner, “We Support Our Troops When They SHOOT Their Officers.” I think I could site more explains from the Left, but violent political rhetoric is coming from the Left and the Right. It is not the cause of the Tucson shootings, but it ”immediately” reminds us of just how high the watermark is for cross-ideological hatred.

  72. Hong Says:

    It’s amazing that anybody would criticize a woman for defending herself from a political gangrape. If the situation were reversed and it was Hillary being accused of murder the media stalkerazzi would loudly and boorishly applaud such a turn of phrase. Everybody named Matthews on MSNBC would be ejaculating with sanctimonious praise for the woman!

    Palin doesn’t hold back. She’s proven that she will fight hard, and perhaps, even dirty. Palin has just kicked the Democrats and their media tools in their collective testicles.

    I think tonight Obama will have to briefly admonish the rhetorical hysteria from his party. Public opinion is against the liberals and he has much more to lose than Clinton in this ‘Oklahoma city moment’. Today we have 24/7 news cycle of cable, twitter, youtube and blogs that is unforgivably harsh. He will not succeed at evading scrutiny for striking a partisan tone.

  73. Otiose.... Says:

    Re: use of phrase ‘blood libel’

    I listened to Palin’s YouTube statement. I didn’t know the historical context/meaning for blood libel, but I understood what she meant in using it as I suspect do most people.

    All this discussion for the term especially by the conservatives seems to indicate a certain fear of Palin, more than any concern for proper semantics.

  74. Gringo Says:

    nyomythus @January 12th, 2011 at 3:23 pm,

    What is your point? I have never been a churchgoer, but have no problem with those who do. We make our choices. There are good people and charlatans who do not go to church, just as there are good people and charlatans who go to church.

    I do not see many commenters here trying to proselytize for the church they belong to. This is a political blog, after all.

    Come to think of it, I cannot recall anyone trying to convert others to their church.
    Except for you, a dedicated proselytizer for the un-church.

    You have a corncob up one of your bodily orifices about religion organized or otherwise. Get over it and try to contribute something useful to the discussion instead of endlessly repeating your obsessions against religion, organized or otherwise.

    This blog is about politics, not religion. It is run neither by Billy Graham, nor by Madelyn Murray O’Hare.

  75. The blood libel against Sarah Palin « Jim’s Blog Says:

    […] left have long been issuing exterminationist rhetoric, and this blood libel has led to an explosion of calls for the murder of alleged rightists. […]

  76. NJcon Says:

    Anyone subscribe to Sports Illustrated? Call and cancel your subscription… and tell them why.

    Christine Teigen – Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue in 2010.

    In the video above:

    “listen I don’t want much from sarah palin. i just want her
    to admit partial fault, then shoot herself in the face. is that wrong?”

    Anyone subscribe to the Philadelphia Inquirer? Call and cancel your subscription… and tell them why.

    In the video above:
    “RT @wayneandwax: guns don’t kill people, sarah palin’s website kills people // I hope she dies gnashing her teeth”
    @Merilynjune Merilyn Jackson [Merilyn Jackson writes on dance for the Philadelphia Inquirer and other publications. ]

    Sometimes it feels like we are holding back the ocean. But their desperation gives me hope…maybe, just maybe, it is they who are holding back the ocean. What’s going to happen next? Could be a tidal wave.

  77. nyomythus Says:

    Gringo, and your rather odd summation is equally mysterious I’m sure.

  78. Occam's Beard Says:

    “If we come to dominate politically in DC, what will we do to, or with, the bad-hearted Left? Tolerate them? Let them spew their poisons?

    Ridicule and parody both work, and they’re extraordinarily sensitive to each. (“That’s not funny!”) Good-naturedly embracing their rubbish and extending it to still more ridiculous lengths is highly effective (“Knuckle-dragging morons for America!”). From a legal point of view, we should definitely tolerate them, i.e., not try to use the legal system to silence them. That’s their modus operandi.

    The problem is that when Americans retake control of their government the bad-hearted Left will go underground and return to terrorism, just as they did in the 60s and 70s. Look for bombings and arson to take a dramatic upturn. That, of course, we cannot, should not, and must not tolerate. Vigorous prosecution and swift and sure punishment are the keys there.

  79. Curtis Says:

    Jim’s blog: the conflagration is coming much sooner than a decade or two.

    This concerted attack is a test probe. If the test is so egregious, how much further is there to go?

  80. Tom Says:

    If we “let them spew their lies and hate”, we are always on defense. That is a solution only if they enter a death spiral.
    I have been reading “Bonhoeffer”, a remarkable biography. The seeming similarity between the Nazis’ words and deeds in the ’30s to those we now witness may have me overwrought. But it troubles me deeply. I am well aware of Godwin’s Law, and make this comment with great reluctance.

  81. Curtis Says:

    I am contacting my congressman and senators and demanding that they make a statement about the fraudulent and criminal conduct of the media.

  82. Papa Dan Says:

    Well that settles it – if Sarah wants to run for the nomination she’s got my vote, at this point she’s earned it more than any Republican in the last twenty years. I have cringed at the thought of how the left and the press will try to butcher (can I say that?) her candidacy. After the horrible events of this weekend, and how the press and left tried to blame her, or Rush, or Beck, or the Tea Party. They can all go to Hell.

  83. Simon Says:

    It all seems a bit backwards this. I am used to conservatives blaming rap lyrics and the like for violent crime whilst liberals denounce these conflations as poppycock. Now the liberals have embraced the same irrational position.

    Not to say I don’t think either rap lyrics, or Palin’s hate speech could one day push some nutter over the edge. There are a lot of nutters out there after all, and it only takes one. In Palin’s case though, I do think it more likely she will get herself killed rather than any of her opponents. Those troubling tweets would sure indicate as much.

  84. Occam's Beard Says:

    Palin’s hate speech

    Except on planet earth, there is no Palin hate speech. None, Zip. Nada.

    Time to flush out the head gear.

  85. The Madness of the Mainstream Media UPDATED | Elizabeth Scalia Says:

    […] III: Neo defends Palin’s use of “blood libel” while pointing out its weakness, and Bookworm says no, she was […]

  86. rickl Says:

    I’ve been an enthusiastic supporter of Sarah Palin from the moment I first became aware of her in late August 2008. It was the political equivalent of love at first sight. I’ve never experienced anything like that with any other political figure. I even wrote her a thank-you letter after Election Day that year. Snail mail, not e-mail. I’ve never done that before, either. (I strongly suspect that she got many such letters.)

    Sometimes a true leader appears when they are most needed. America is sorely in need of a true leader and patriot right now. The forces of totalitarian collectivism seem to be on the march everywhere.

    This may sound like hyperbole, but I’ve said in several places that Sarah Palin may turn out to be America’s Joan of Arc. I sincerely believe that. The situation is so dire that we need nothing less than that.

    On the bright side, she’s already been burned at the stake by the media, so hopefully she’s gotten that part out of the way.

  87. JuliB Says:

    Simon said hate speech?!?

    Not in my universe, surely.

  88. nyomythus Says:

    ..Live Stream has been gracious so far….

  89. Occam's Beard Says:

    Nor mine.

    Equating Sarah Palin to one of those rap “artists?”

    Good Lord. What the hell is the matter with you?

  90. Baklava Says:

    nyom has not been gracious so far…

    He is full of blame – without understanding his hypocrisy.

    Full of hate and discontent for a person is Nyom.

    While we hear speak about issues and ideas.

    Nobody here advocated violence against people in government. Sarah Palin does not advocate violence against people in government.

    She advocates ideas.

    People have called for her assassination.

    I call for people to hear her ideas. Her ideas are sound and would bring more prosperity and security to this nation.

  91. Baklava Says:

    Obama says, “yes we have to examine all the facts”

    Then he says, “but what we cannot do is use this tragedy as an occasion to turn on each other.”

    Listen to your leader Nyom.

    Obama says, “Rather than pointing finger or assigning blame. Let’s listen to each other more carefully.”

  92. nyomythus Says:

    …our discourse …polarized …we should look for words that heal not wound …we need to challenge old assumptions to face such tragedies …and do so standing together…

    Hope this isn’t a prelude to anti-free speech legislation…

  93. Baklava Says:

    Tonight Obama says, “How well we have loved?”

    We love you Nyom. But you are plain wrong to point to Palin as any reason for this madman’s actions.


  94. Baklava Says:

    “Make them proud” Obama says.

    Make them proud Nyom.

  95. nyomythus Says:

    Here’s my quote on the very thing Baklava, “…I think I could site more explains from the Left, but violent political rhetoric is coming from the Left and the Right. It is not the cause of the Tucson shootings, but it ”immediately” reminds us of just how high the watermark is for cross-ideological hatred.”

  96. nyomythus Says:

    What’s up with that kids hair on the bottom right?

  97. Sarah Palin und die Ritualmordlegende « Aufklärung 2.0 Says:

    […] metaphorische Weise. Man könnte höchstens kritisieren, dass sie übertreibt. Aber wie der Blogger Neo-Neocon betont, übertreibt sie nicht, denn nachdem die Medien Palin für den Amoklauf verantwortlich […]

  98. Baklava Says:

    I read that Nyom. But you seem to lack perspective – and that is ok. We love you even with the lack of perspective.

    Sarah was not calling for violence against anyone.

    You fail to recognize the moral equivalence that you employ.

    Your vagueness does not help clarify.

    While there are idiots on both sides who libel/slander and call for violence – you seem obtuse to what has happened in the NYTimes/abccbsnbccnn concerning Sarah lately.

    This post is about that. People are calling for Sarah’s assassination and what are we hearing from you?

  99. Gringo Says:

    Palin’s hate speech.

    Please inform us of her hate speech. I am not aware of it.

  100. Curtis Says:

    I, like many others, can’t bear to watch Obama. Same goes for Reid and Pelosi. And Weiner. And Sharpton. And most of the media.

    I expect LIES, couched within reasonable statements.

    Like this: We need to challenge old assumptions to face such tragedies.

    No we don’t. So we’re not going to stand together while Obama challenges “old assumptions.”

    I hate their lies. I hate their attempt to subvert this country.

  101. nyomythus Says:

    I can’t un-know things that I know. That Gifford herself addressed Palin’s gun sight graphic over Gifford’s district — it’s a shameful tactic that appeals to the very worst, in this case, the very worst of the Right. Can’t un-know it, won’t un-know it.

  102. nyomythus Says:

    It’s not speech, it’s was a graphic, but you can “try to paint your way out of it” by insisting what hate speech?

  103. Baklava Says:

    Nyom, it wasn’t a call for violence.

    Do you think on some level you are being obtuse?

    Are you to blame for the person who burned Palin’s church?

    Just asking 🙂

  104. Baklava Says:


    Here is what a Democratic strategist has to say about your tactic.


  105. Curtis Says:

    Let it go, Nyo! You think it shameful, most don’t. It’s only shameful now that it can be used to slander.

    On another topic. Obama’s speech is a masterful turn to the center and he has well used the situation. His ratings will go up another 5%.

    Yet it did not unequivocally identify the wrong that was done by the media. In fact, he tacitly condoned it with this:

    “Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.”

    We haven’t seen a national conversation. We haven’t seen a debate. We’ve seen slander and lies. Obama was crafty to bury this mis-characterization of what the media is guilty of within all that needed to be said in the first place.

    Still a liar and deceiver.

  106. Baklava Says:

    Neo is linked on Powerlineblog 🙂


  107. Baklava Says:

    Powerlineblog says Pawlenty “failed the test” today


  108. Curtis Says:

    “And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.”

    This one is really good.

    “A simple lack of civility caused this tragedy.”

    That is the set forth and accepted truth. Hmmm. I wonder what “simple lack of civility” Obama might be referring to here? And who might have been responsible? Can someone say Palin?

    You see how slippery that it?

    It’s not what Palin did, it’s what we all can do, that can honor the dead.

    Obama’s a tricky creep! Deceit. Lies. It’s all he is about.

  109. Occam's Beard Says:

    That Gifford herself addressed Palin’s gun sight graphic over Gifford’s district — it’s a shameful tactic that appeals to the very worst, in this case, the very worst of the Right.

    Spread that on the wheatfields of Kansas and you’d double the crop.

  110. rickl Says:

    Sarah Palin und die Ritualmordlegende « Aufklärung 2.0 Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
    […] metaphorische Weise. Man könnte höchstens kritisieren, dass sie übertreibt. Aber wie der Blogger Neo-Neocon betont, übertreibt sie nicht, denn nachdem die Medien Palin für den Amoklauf verantwortlich […]

    Looks like you’re getting linked from Germany, neo.

    Expat? Translation?

  111. neo-neocon Says:

    Curtis: that’s a truncated quote about “simple lack of civility.

    Here’s the full quote:

    And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.

  112. newton Says:

    Google did a quick translate from German:

    Sarah Palin and the blood libel “Enlightenment 2.0 Says:
    January 12th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
    […] metaphorically. One could criticize the most, that she exaggerates. But as pointed out blogger Neo-Neocon, it is no exaggeration, because after the media for Palin rampage responsible

  113. Hong Says:

    A safe speech hitting the important note of not assigning blame on the rhetoric but a little too sentimental on Christina, in my view. It reminded me of the character on the Simpsons who often used the “for the children” refrain to justify social control. What I found inappropriate was the almost feverish behavior of the crowd. They cheered at the sight of Dupnick and seemed to forget this wasn’t meant to be a partisan pep rally but a memorial.

  114. S.Graham Says:

    I hope that Sarah Palin will not run.I fear for her and her family.Let her take the heat and then nominate somone else so there is less time to detroy THEM.
    The Bush hatred has just passed to her and it is appalling and I wonder about the effect on her family.

  115. You Want To See Real Extremist Rhetoric? « Blog de KingShamus Says:

    […] find, Neo-Neocon.  Disturbing, but necessary to […]

  116. Curtis Says:

    “There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High dwells.
    God is within her, she will not fall; God will help her at break of day.”

    The Scripture is Psalms 46, versus 4 and 5.

    Here, the “her” in “God is within her” is Israel. And we know that Gifford is Jewish. And so we have a very subtle accusation that Sarah Palin is not to be associated as a friend of Jews but as their enemy as further analysis of the psalm provides.

    It is a Psalms for one who believes in a battle between those who obey God (his chosen people-Gifford) and those who don’t (the nations-Palin). Some scholars believe it was written when Sennacherib’s great army that came against Israel was miraculously destroyed.

    Again, the implication, is that God is with Gifford and against Palin.

    Am I just reading this into it? I don’t think so.

  117. OlderandWheezier Says:

    The YouTube video has been removed. According to William Jacobson at the Legal Insurrection blog, one of those whose “tweets” was captured cited the YouTube video as an invasion of her privacy.

    Left-wing logic at its best – or worst – or I guess they’re one and the same.

  118. Curtis Says:

    Neo: I know it’s a truncated quote and a fuller explication would have made my truncation more defensible.

    The sentence is deceptive because the phrase can be read two ways: either as a completion of the idea:

    And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse . . . let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy

    or as the beginning of the idea:

    it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy . . . but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.

    You see how the second sentence assumes a different meaning of the phrase.

  119. Simon Says:

    Sorry i wasn’t referring to anything specific when I said “hate speech”. I just meant her incendiary language. I certainly wasn’t referring to that graphic thingy, which seems a much to do about nothing to me. I think I might need to think more before I hit submit on this blog.

  120. neo-neocon Says:

    Older and Wheezier: I thought tweets were in the public domain.

    Jacobson seems to agree.

  121. Baklava Says:

    Jacobsen says, “you can’t take it back on the Internet”

    So true.

    You can’t unmail a letter.

    If you send a death threat – you sent it. Now this young lady should probably apologize. I don’t believe she should see jail time. But there is a lesson here for people with irresponsible rhetoric.

  122. OlderandWheezier Says:

    Many have wondered whether the lapdogs of the left would have been so outraged had the victim been a conservative politician. Perhaps we should also wonder whether they would have been so vitriolic if they hadn’t had their asses handed to them this past November.

    And this may be the most illogical part of their pathetic arguments and accusations. The political outrage is far stronger at this moment from those on the left, who were naive enough to believe that real conservatism had been buried two years ago, and that their “brave new world” was finally inevitable.

    Of course, they’ve had their collective panties in a wad since the 2000 election. They’re afflicted with a terminal case of the “terrible twos.”

    (I would quip that at least I hope it’s terminal, but I’m sure that would place me on the radar of the self-appointed hate speech police.)

  123. Gringo Says:

    I think I might need to think more before I hit submit on this blog.

    Good idea. The commentariat on this blog is loaded with Fiskers.

    I am glad to see your response on the graphic thingy, which after all was similar to some previously used by Democrats.

  124. Occam's Beard Says:

    I just meant her incendiary language.

    Same objection applies.

    I think I might need to think more before I hit submit on this blog.

    We can but hope.

  125. Mike Mc. Says:

    Palin is the best pol out there – by a mile.

    She tells the truth. And every time they attack her, she actually gets better. They know the threat she is to them intuitively. What else can explain the utter insanity and derangement and shrillness and frequency of the attacks against her?

    If she really was no threat,; if she really was stupid; if she really only appealed to the deranged, then they would not be bothered by her. But her great asset is that she is normal. They have no idea what to do with that. Normal, good, decent, brave, bold, American = they can’t handle and don’t want.

    She is their greatest nightmare.

    I’d vote for her in a heartbeat with full confidence that she would be a fantastic President.

  126. Richard Aubrey Says:

    If gunsight/bullseye/targetting language or graphics are bad, are the bad only if Palin uses them?
    If somebody says an elected official should be stood up against a wall and shot, is that as bad as using printers’ crop marks on a map? Well, you can’t really answer that unless you know which of them was a dem and which a repub, now can you? Get real.

  127. Baklava Says:

    From Redstate’s mailbag:


    or how about this one:

  128. Simon Says:

    Death panels and palling around with terrorists, that kind of language. If incendiary is too strong a word, which it probably is if I think of its literal meaning, she isn’t shooting missiles out of her mouth after all, how about provocative? Though that seems a bit weak given she tried to make people believe Obama was no better than a terrorist.

  129. rickl Says:

    “Death panels” and “palling around with terrorists” are exactly, literally, correct and accurate.

    You have a problem with truth and accuracy?

  130. newton Says:

    “I hope that Sarah Palin will not run.I fear for her and her family.”

    She and her family are not the only ones whose life and safety are in danger.

    “Tucson Tea Party Chair Warned to ‘Stay Away From Public Places”

    As of right now, it is a safe bet to assume that EVERY SINGLE TEA PARTY LEADER IN THIS COUNTRY IS MARKED FOR ASSAULT, or worse. From local leaders to every single national leader, or any of their supporters.

  131. Baklava Says:


    Do you call the Iranian president, Bill Ayers, etc non-terrorists?

    If you pal around with those people – in their living rooms and such – who is to blame? The one pointing it out or the one doing it?

    If you have a panel of ‘experts’ determine due to budget reasons that they can’t afford a population over 60 getting hip replacement, lung transplants, etc or women under 50 getting mammograms – is it too strong to call that a “death panel”.

    It’s a phrase that wakes one up maybe. It’s a phrase that didn’t wake you up.

    Would you rather have the death panel and call it a life panel? Or maybe just a medical review board?

    Are you in favor of accuracy? If so – what would you characterize these panels as? What would you characterize hanging around with Bill Ayers as?

  132. Perfected democrat Says:

    Re: Saul Alinsky, from:


    “But it is not enough for the organizer to be in solidarity with the people. He must also, said Alinsky, cultivate unity against a clearly identifiable enemy; he must specifically name this foe, and “singl[e] out”[44] precisely who is to blame for the “particular evil” that is the source of the people’s angst.[45] In other words, there must be a face associated with the people’s discontent. That face, Alinsky taught, “must be a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall.”[46] Rather, it should be an individual such as a CEO, a mayor, or a president.”

    “Wrote Alinsky:
    “Liberals fear power or its application.… They talk glibly of people lifting themselves by their own bootstraps but fail to realize that nothing can be lifted except through power…. Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action — by using power…. Liberals protest; radicals rebel. Liberals become indignant; radicals become fighting mad and go into action. Liberals do not modify their personal lives[,] and what they give to a cause is a small part of their lives; radicals give themselves to the cause. Liberals give and take oral arguments; radicals give and take the hard, dirty, bitter way of life.”[13]

    “Alinsky summarized it this way: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.”[47] He held that the organizer’s task was to cultivate in people’s hearts a negative, visceral emotional response to the face of the enemy. “The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification,” said Alinsky, “will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure.”[48]”

    Jared is said to be smirking in his cell, he must think he is crazy like a fox. I think Jared was significantly more “political” than anyone realizes (admits), and clearly understood who the audience was that he was playing to for his fifteen minutes…

  133. IgotBupkis Says:

    So “Blood Libel” has now become the Jewish version of the “N-Word”, which only black people are allowed to use with impunity under ANY circumstance?

  134. More Dreck from the Despicable Klintoons — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami Says:

    […] disturbed individual to kill and maim.”  (Instapundit)ANOTHER UPDATE: Neo-Neocon writes that if you look at what people were saying on Twitter, “blood libel” sounds about right. Share and Enjoy:Join the discussion… Too small? Click hereThis is a satirical website. None of […]

  135. Sergey Says:

    We are now in uncharted waters, nobody can predict how it will play out. But some Rubicon was crossed, that’s for sure. The state of mass consciousness sounds schizophrenic now, not only polarized, but disorganized and confused, common meaning of words is lost, and with it ability of opponents understand each other. Many ideological conflicts grow unresolved for decades, and now all of them piled up and aggravate each other. A decisive battle is ahead, its outcome unknown.

  136. Gringo Says:


    Given Obama’s associations with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, “palling around with terrorists” is quite accurate. It is rather ironic that you consider “palling around with terrorists” to be “incendiary,” given that Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were among the four coauthors of Prairie Fire [link below], published in 1974. The book advocates dictatorship of the proletariat for the United States. The book is dedicated to “political prisoners,” among whom the book lists Sirhan Sirhan, the assasin of Robert Kennedy.

    Bill Ayers hasn’t changed in any significant manner, as shown by his here kissing up to Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s dictator, in a speech Ayers gave in 2006.

    President Hugo Chavez, Vice-President Vicente Rangel, Ministers Moncada and Isturiz, invited guests, comrades. I’m honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout Northamerica. Welcome to the World Education Forum! Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana! …..
    Capitalism promotes racism and militarism – turning people into consumers, not citizens…..
    This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane. Thank you, Luis, for everything you’ve done.

    It is no accident that Bill Ayers kissed up to the latest left wing dictator de jour.

    I would rephrase it to “palling around with F#%$K#%&G commies.” As I grew up in a small town with a number of refugees from Communism, I have very little tolerance for someone who has advocated dictatorship of the proletariat for the US and who kisses up to the latest leftwing dictator.

    If anything, Sarah Palin was mild in her language regarding someone who would associate with the likes of Billy Boy and Bernadine.

    http://zombietime.com/prairie_fire/ Prairie Fire
    http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/11/ Bill Ayers speech in Venezuela

  137. Ilíon Says:

    >After all, it’s historically been employed as an anti-Semitic accusation against Jews, alleging that they murder Christian children in order to employ their blood in rituals. The goal of the blood libel is to incite pogroms and reprisals against Jews.

    The anti-Semites did not themselves use the phrase “blood libel” — as though they’d roll into town, chant “Blood Libel! a time or two, and off to the pogroms we go! Rather, the term “blood libel” is the general descriptive-term applied by we anti-anti-Semites to denoted a specific sort of act and claim made by those seeking to instigate pogroms.

    THUS, Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” to denote how the leftists, and their “liberal” enablers, attempted to make political hay of the original moral outrage of the mass-murders, was exactly the right phrase to use.

  138. ziontruth Says:

    For what it’s worth, one of my first thoughts right after the news of the Left’s reaction to the shooting was, “They couldn’t even wait until the bodies cooled a bit to issue a blood libel on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party!”

    In a way, this is all an eye-opener in the manner of the Danish Cartoons Affair. Just as the Muslim riots were impossible to explain away (contrast 9/11 and the Blowback Narrative), here is concrete proof of media partisanship, solid evidence for what is otherwise usually dismissed as conspiratorial paranoia.

    And there is a larger lesson:

    The words of the best rhetor, be it Michelle Malkin (I think just about every conservative has seen her amazing riposte article) or the stalwarts of Israel’s case, are as valuable as sawdust if there are hostile gatekeepers on their way to the public.

    It’s not about this vote or that vote, it’s about undoing the entire Gramscian “March Through The Institutions;” taking the media outlets and education centers back from the Commies. Everywhere. On this issue, America, the European states, Israel and even India (according to pro-Hindutva posters who occasionally visit FrontPage Mag) are in the same boat. If you don’t take your country back from the Reds, you’ll live to see your nation in shreds.

  139. Twitter Trackbacks for neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Sarah Palin and the blood libel [neoneocon.com] on Topsy.com Says:

    […] neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Sarah Palin and the blood libel neoneocon.com/2011/01/12/sarah-palin-and-the-blood-libel/ – view page – cached It’s all over the blogosphere. Look at memeorandum’s top articles, and you’ll see they’re all about Sarah Palin’s video defense of herself in which she calls the attacks blaming her for the Giffords shootings a “blood […]

  140. Roy Lofquist Says:

    This nation was created as a republic – we would elect our servants to tend to the matters of government and subject them to periodic evaluation. People could get along with the business of living without being distracted by potholes and barbarians. This has served us remarkably, nay supremely, well.

    Every once in a while things go astray and the people take notice. Now is such a time. We The People are about the business of whipping the servants back into line. Take heart my friends. These tinpot dictators stand about as much chance as the Brits, the Nazis and the Japs. Buh bye!

  141. nycplummer Says:

    @ Roy Lofquist

    Well, I wish I woulda had the Au Gratin, thems mash taters shaw lookin’ rottin’, look away, look away, look away, ohhhh shut the f**k up.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge