Yes, It Is A Libel, And It Is Bloody

Let’s make this short.

Sarah Palin uses the phrase “blood libel” in her response to the round-the-clock assertions that she was directly responsible for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

Everyone accuses Sarah Palin of insensitivity and even in some extreme cases, anti-Semitism.

Every leftist or left-leaning publication declares – once again – that Sarah Palin’s presidential chances are ruined.

Are you bored yet?

Sarah Palin WAS the target of some kind of “blood libel”, for two reasons.

First, what else do you call it when one of the first articles to come out in a major publication is titled “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ blood is on Sarah Palin’s hands after putting cross hair over district?” That was Michael Daly of the NY Daily News. And our old friends Krugman and Olbermann, not to mention dozens of other left-wing commentators, kept the libel going over the next few days.

No one thought that using the word “blood” while actually engaging in libel would be combined as “blood libel” because no one was thinking at all when they made these morally repugnant and shameless accusations. As everyone on the left is forced in the most begrudging manner to admit, Palin was probably only borrowing the phrase from earlier conservative commentators such as Glenn Reynolds.

Secondly, scores of leftists have expressed their desire to murder Sarah Palin in the most vicious ways, to spill her blood. This video contains graphic and vulgar language – it is a reel of tweets that display of the sort demonic rage and hate that Palin inspires in many leftists, who sound as if they really might not mind using her blood to bake a cake.

I think Palin’s response was about as rational as one can be under this sort of constant attack. The level of psychopathic dishonesty it takes to a) first make the shooting entirely about Palin and then b) criticize Palin for making her response mostly “about her” is unfathomable. It takes reserves of bad-will and malice that I am glad I wouldn’t know how to muster if I wanted to.

Whether or not I would support her as a presidential candidate, I have to say, on this matter, I am firmly with Sarah Palin. Sometimes you can just judge a person’s worth by the nature of those who hate her the most.

17 Responses to Yes, It Is A Libel, And It Is Bloody

  • I don’t know what judgments you can make about Sarah based upon the vitriol of those who hate her, but you can certainly make judgments about those who hate her based upon the baseless vicious attacks they make.

  • This is a classic example of a blood libel. As in the case of those who falsely accused Jews of engaging in ritual murder, political adversaries, not only of Palin but of anyone to the right of Obama, have mounted a false accusation of conservatives causing a lunatic, who was completely unconcerned with politics apparently, to engage in murder. The forces of the Left in this country have been caught playing a very dirty game and hence their increasingly hysterical reaction. Palin is right on target.

  • Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because some leftists use inappropriate language doesn’t excuse the fact that Sarah Palin does.

  • Alan Dershowitz of all people is defending Palin’s use of the term:

    I think the Far Left is rapidly sawing a branch they are perched on.

  • Heated rhetoric is a part of politics and always will be. Sarah Palin bears none of the blame for a psychopath who decided to snap one day and shoot innocents. Her response was spot on.

  • What inappropriate language, David? I agree two wrongs don’t make a right – I disagree with the notion that Palin did something wrong.

  • Anyone else noticing a trend here?

    The comment from David above is at least the 4th different comment from someone who has come here to play the moral equivalency game. They realize now that they crossed the line by engaging in this blood libel of the right, and now they’re trying to walk it back by accusing the right of being just as guilty in defending themselves from the libel as the left was by engaging in it in the first place.

    Now that they realize that the “conservative climate of hate caused these shootings” schtick isn’t flying, they’ve apparently received their new set of talking points.

  • Now that they realize that the “conservative climate of hate caused these shootings” schtick isn’t flying, they’ve apparently received their new set of talking points.


    They were going to find something wrong with whatever she said, now it’s her use of the term “blood libel.” Suddenly it’s a sacrosanct phrase that can only be used under very narrow conditions, otherwise it’s a sure sign that the person using the term is just nuts. Unless of course it’s used by a lefty.

  • I’m beginning to think that liberals have trouble with the whole concept of a metaphor.

  • I’m beginning to think that Sarah Palin has a leftist in her staff that keeps setting her up for failure.

  • I’m beginning to think that people who think she “failed” have taken the art of wishful thinking to strange new levels.

  • “I’m beginning to think that Sarah Palin has a leftist in her staff that keeps setting her up for failure.”

    Funny, I have had similiar thoughts about the Left in this country having a conservative mole. Certainly the attempt to blame Palin in particular and conservatives in general for the actions of a lunatic murderer is so completely insane and so obviously bound to backfire that I have to imagine Paul Krugman, et al had it suggested by a conservative who has infiltrated their ranks. Keep giving the Left bad ideas my cunning friend!

  • This has to be a tough one for liberals. On the one hand, they want us to think Sarah Palin is a ditz who thinks she can see Russia from her house; but on the other hand they want to blame her for a specific phrase used in a long, well-written statement that didn’t even have little circles drawn over the i’s. So which is it: is she stupid or evil? (Republicans are always one or the other, you know.) Gotta be a tough choice for them.

    And yeah, she appears to be “failing” right into the next GOP nomination for president. Wish my business were failing like that these days.

  • Jared Loughner was a self proclaimed atheist. A loss of faith is the growing problem in America, especially in our youth. They are disoriented and are not hearing the truth. They are being led to believe we are here just by chance. There is no purpose and there is no right and wrong. With lent coming soon it seems like a good time pick up a cross, so here it goes, Sara Palin’s response was very good.

  • Loughner’s psychosis would have made him act this way no matter what he was exposed to. The voices in his head, caused by his mental illness, was the determining factor in his behaviour, not anything he may have heard or seen in the media. I’ve known several mentally ill persons in my life, and I can see the “voices in the head” factor trumping any outside influences anytime.

  • Sarah,

    “You know the depth of your appointed task
    Whether you still can bear its bloodiness.”
    “Not mine to say you shall not think of peace.
    Not mine, not mine: I almost know your pain.
    But I will not believe that you will cease,
    Nor will I bid you cease, from being slain
    Till everything the at might have been distrorted
    Is made secure for us and hell is thwarted.”
    – Robert Frost, “On Talk of Peace at This Time”

  • The Tina Fey schtick, may have helped paint her as a “dunderhead”, but this is going to make her a more sympathetic character too many Americans who otherwise had written her off.

    I still would rather have Mitch Daniels as President.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .