Today, Sarah Palin released a video sharing her thoughts on the Massacre In Tucson this past Saturday.
It is somewhat a defense of the fact for the past five days. Lefty libertards have wet their pants trying desperately to somehow link the political speech of Mrs. Palin, Tea Party folks or anyone that is a conservative to the horrific acts of one Jared Loughner.
And to her credit, Mrs. Palin kept it focused on the events of the day in regards to the Massacre In Tucson.
But, she dared to use a term that, until today according to our lefty libertard overlords, had not been used in such a way.
Here is the relevant part:
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. 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.
There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.
So, what did Mrs. Palin say that got these vermin upset?
Why is that so terrible?
Well, it is because blood libel is in regards to an ancient canard about Jewish people killing Christians and using their blood to make the matzo used for the unleavened bread during the Passover celebration. A more detailed explanation may be found here.
The point is that it is usually, and note usually a term used when discussing anti-semitism. Essentially, in modern times, it is in reaction to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a wretched anti-Semitic book published in Tsarist Russia during the 19th century.
So, you get the picture.
And all over the lefty libertard blogosphere, and in the Obamawhore media, all are questioning, no haranguing Mrs. Palin for using what they claim is an exclusive term.
Oh, my bad.
Note this little collection of the term being bandied about pretty freely. And none of the references provided by Jim Geraghty seem to be in reference to the anti-Semitic references. And this term was used by people on both sides of the political spectrum. And if you go to the link, do read the comment thread. Very interesting.
But, was Mrs. Palin wrong in using the term?
I do not think in the least she was wrong.
How was it that New York Times blogger and columnist Paul Krugman could make wild accusations within two hours of the shootings and somehow tied conservatives to the events in Tucson? You have to read the whole thing, in which Mr. Krugman does update. But, he all but accuses Mrs. Palin of having some responsibility in regards to the acts of Mr. Loughner.
Oh hey, how about Mr. Daily Kos and his tweet on Twitter in reference to the shootings?
Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin.
Nice one, Markos.
And here in this story on Politico is a compilation of liberal outrage directed at Mrs. Palin.
Yes, these people are claiming that Mrs. Palin has blood on her hands because of the actions of a clearly deranged individual.
Hence, Mrs. Palin used the term blood libel as what these lefty libertards have resorted to.
It is not an exclusive term to one group of people. It is right that Mrs. Palin spoke the truth because a lot of people have tried desperately to inject a political agenda in what is emerging to be a real tragedy that has nothing to do with politics. And if one thinks that I am just blowing smoke, here is what we are learning about Mr. Loughner.
Sadly, Mr. Loughner is a beyond very troubled young man. And yet he is a poster child to some lefty libertards seeking to discredit their political opponents.
Hey, you don't have to like Sarah Palin's point of view. Fine. But to indict her in some lone wolf deranged act is wrong. To indict a whole political movement is wrong. And when you go to that level, yes lefty libertards, you are making a scurrilous, blood libel against those people.