Who Hijacked Our Country

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Sarah Palin: “Blood Libel”

Sarah “I’ve Got You In My Crosshairs” Palin has apparently never heard the phrase “when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

Ms. Lock ‘n’ Load is just shocked — shocked! — that anyone could possibly think her steady drumbeat of gun metaphors could possibly have led to last Saturday’s massacre. Some of her worshippers have IQs lower than their shoe sizes, a quick temper and are armed to the teeth. And this has absolutely nothing to do with Saturday’s bloodbath, where a Democratic congresswoman who had been in Sarah Palin’s crosshairs — and a dozen other people — got shot.

Nope, no connection. Move along, nothing to see here.

So now the Annie Oakley wannabe is digging herself even deeper with her newest soundbite: Blood Libel.

That’s the term she’s using on people who have criticized her constant throw-a-lighted-match-on-a-pile-of-oily-rags rhetoric. “Blood Libel” refers to the Big Lie from the Middle Ages that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood to make matzo for Passover. The mass hatred resulting from the spread of blood libel has been used to justify hundreds of years of anti-Semitism.

Yup, same thing. That’s exactly the danger Sarah Palin is in right now. A New York Democratic consultant said:

“The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews. The comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable. This will forever link her to the events in Tucson. It deepens the hole she’s already dug for herself. … It’s absolutely inappropriate.”

Keep on digging, Asshole.



Blogger Suzan said...

Seems that the only thing they really know well is how to dig themselves in much deeper.

And they think they are winning!

The real shame is they are.

Thanks for letting us in on the "good" news.


January 12, 2011 at 12:26 PM  
Anonymous Jolly Roger said...

I am just stunned that Mama Grifter would actually try to paint her critics as saying that she tried to set off a pogrom-but, I promise you, that IS what she's trying to get across here. She's just too damned stupid to frame it in understandable terms.

Poor, poor Mama Grifter. So persecuted.

January 12, 2011 at 1:37 PM  
Anonymous Thomas said...

Certainly the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and others is a tragedy and certainly Governor Palin's rhetoric is reprehensible. I shy away from blaming the actions of a psychologically unbalanced individual on her or others like her.

We cannot expect the purveyors of ideas to consider the potential actions of the mentally agitated when making public statements. Partly, this is because there's little telling what statements, what ideas could set some nutbag off but more importantly, the effect of such considerations would chill free speech.

Was it Palin who set this guy off, it might have been but in a world without right wing talking points, he would have eventually gone bugger-up over Oprah, Oscar the Grouch or the voice under his couch.

January 12, 2011 at 2:20 PM  
Blogger Goodtime Charlie said...

Those words were carefully chosen by Palin and her team of writers and producers before they were packaged in her slick marketing video. But I'm not so sure they really understood their historical meaning and, especially, how the reaction to her offensive use of them would pretty much drown out everything else she had to say. Call me naive, but I think Palin and her crew just chose some words that one of them had heard somewhere that sounded really dramatic.

They chose them because they are basically ignorant of history, ignorant of the world beyond their country's borders, ignorant of anything outside of their own direct experience as seen through the lens of their chauvinistic ideology, and proud of their ignorance to boot. Palin leads the army of the militantly ignorant. I can only hope that she goes on to say enough other profoundly stupid things as to end up as just a footnote to history. Buy that woman a bigger shovel.

January 12, 2011 at 4:33 PM  
Blogger jadedj said...

Here is another take on this...and I agree with it, from Professor Chaos (Goodtime Charlie is right on it):


January 12, 2011 at 6:27 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Suzan: I hope they aren't still winning. But I'm probably being too optimistic.

JR: Either Palin will get the wording wrong, and/or some of her braindead fans will get it wrong. She's in over her head this time.

Thomas: I think the fiery rhetoric from Palin and her ilk is comparable to violent movies and TV shows, violent rock lyrics, etc. I'm not in favor of censorship, whether it's a TV show or political speech. But in both cases there's the possibility that dumb unstable people will get the wrong message or take something literally.

People who went apeshit over Ice-T's "Cop Killer" lyrics in the early '90s are probably the same people who are now saying "oh come on, Sarah Palin didn't have anything to do with this."

Goodtime Charlie: I think you're right on both things. Those words were carefully chosen, and her speechwriters were out of their depth. I hope you're right that she'll keep on saying dumber things and alienate more people, and become a has-been.

jadedj: Interesting article. I love that description "five pounds of douche in a ten pound bag." LOL.

And I wouldn't doubt it that Andrew Breitbart dreamed up the "blood libel" response.

January 12, 2011 at 7:23 PM  
Blogger Snave said...

This is a shame. Now we are going to hear the phrase "blood libel" over and over and over in the media by people who don't know what it means, nobody will bother to try to understand what it means, and when the MSM reports this over and over it will lend credence to Palin's insinuation that she and right wingers in general are persecuted by evil liberals, who mght even try to kill them.

This is her way of saying "This means war" and "Bring it on". It is just the opposite of what our national discourse needs.

January 12, 2011 at 7:41 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Snave: Good point. I hadn't even heard the term "blood libel" until I read the news this morning. And now millions of dimwitted Fox viewers will be sitting there in front of the TV parroting "blood libel!" along with "government takeover!" and "he's a Muslim!"

January 12, 2011 at 8:05 PM  
Blogger jadedj said...

She has totally refudiated the libral side.

January 13, 2011 at 4:18 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

jadedj: You betcha!

January 13, 2011 at 1:04 PM  
Anonymous Jess said...

This was a talking point started in that most liberal bastion, the Wall St Journal on Monday. Brietfart used it Tuesday and my guess, it did well with the focus group, so it was trotted out again by Bible Spice the Whore of Babble On, to see how far she could take it. This is the SAME woman, that when Helen Thomas made her remarks about Jews, tweeted something to the effect Oh Helen, Helen Helen how could you not know the history behind what you are saying(paraphrasing because I don't want to go search for the actual link)

Bitch knew exactly what she was doing and now we are all talking about her and her perpetual victimhood, as if the people shot and killed had her amongst them. She makes me feckin sick she does. Thinking to herself, how can I one up the prez, oh I know, I'll put out a video where I look like everyone's mom and look as if I am all concernified with my speechifying about how I am just as much a victim as little 9 yr old girl named Christina Green. Oh yeah, bitch knew what she was doing alright.

January 13, 2011 at 1:41 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Jess: Yup, I saw that story, that it originated in the Wall Street Journal and Breitbart.

Yes, that poor little harried housewife, being persecuted by the liberal media.

January 13, 2011 at 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Jess said...

Tom, it seems that she is always the victim no matter what and always is involved with everything. It's like that one person we all know, when we tell them I have a headache, they tell us their headache is a tumor and it has to be removed surgically to one up us. La Palin is getting to be so tedious, with the screeching harpie act, I change the channel when I see her anymore.

January 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM  
Anonymous S.W. anderson said...

Thomas wrote: "We cannot expect the purveyors of ideas to consider the potential actions of the mentally agitated when making public statements."

No, of course not. That's because, 1, we have such good control over the nut cases in our midst; and 2, because being responsible, even moderate, in one's public speaking is such a losing strategy for the political right.

January 13, 2011 at 7:23 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home