NP Rank:
Sarah Palin Video: 'Blood Libel' Remarks About Tucson Shooting:
Sarah Palin Video: America's Enduring Strength | Sarah Palin 'Blood Libel" Remarks Slams Journalists And Pundits | What is Blood Libel?
Sarah Palin released a video posted to the website Vimeo where the former vice-presidential candidate expressed sympathy for the victims of the Tuscon Shooting and where she responded to her critics.
Some pundits and journalists slammed Sarah Palin for her "Crosshairs Map" which targeted Democratic politicians for defeat, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords who was shot and is in critical condition in hospital.
Sarah Palin said, "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 that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."
Sarah Palin clearly was including MS NBC's Keith Olbermann whose video slammed Sarah Palin.
But her use of the term Blood Libel is curious within the context of the debate about the heated political climate contributing to the shooting in Tucson.
So What Does Blood Libel Mean?
Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]
The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children. In some cases, the alleged victim of human sacrifice has become venerated as a martyr, a holy figure around whom a martyr cult might arise
Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.
NowPublic on Facebook
Crowd Power
-
NowPublic Staff
Vancouver, Canada
Recommendations (6)
-
nanute
New York, United States -
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States -
Karen Hatter
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States




Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (24)
at 09:06 on January 12th, 2011
Her choice of words is very curious but, as she has done in the past, most likely she wants to morph the meaning to somehow make herself a victim above the true victims that have suffered during this calamity.
at 09:32 on January 12th, 2011
do not sweep this sarah palin target map under the rug.is it ok for kids to target a teacher,is it ok for terrorist to target us.no ,no, and no.
at 09:53 on January 12th, 2011
Yeah Karen ...Great keynotes "she wants to morph the meaning to somehow make herself a victim above the true victims that have suffered during this calamity." :) .. best regards
at 10:10 on January 12th, 2011
My regards, gtpb (not verified).
at 10:09 on January 12th, 2011
Source: huffingtonpost.com
Source: thinkprogress.org
at 11:06 on January 12th, 2011
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230
at 11:12 on January 12th, 2011
Thanks for the updates Karen.
at 11:48 on January 12th, 2011
You're welcome!
at 11:15 on January 12th, 2011
A great speech showing true character. Deflecting guilt to someone other than those directly responsible is obviously what she meant. The frenzy of hatred for this woman is amazing. She'll probably become president. Only people who tell the truth are hated this much.
at 12:08 on January 12th, 2011
What is at issue is the atmosphere Sarah Palin and her cohorts have been whipping up for nearly 5 years now, using more and more violently charged imagery and innuendo when addressing people who admittedly believe they have been disenfranchised and had their country taken from them by those that they believe have no right to have control of the country.
This hasn't been the usual 'I don't like the policies of the other party' talk. This has been a highly charged, angry articulation fueled by wildly inaccurate information, in many instances, emanating from the Right Wing.
From Glenn Beck and the Rise of Fox New's Militia Media:
Source: mediamatters.org
at 12:21 on January 12th, 2011
I rather enjoyed Representative Clyburn's remarks: Clyburn: Palin Intellectually Unable 'To Understand What's Going On'
Blood Libel, victimology, never having to bear any responsibility for one's actions. It is all of a piece with this woman. Is Sarah Palin directly responsible for this tragedy? Of course not. Does that mean that she and the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush, Sharon Angle, Michelle Bachmann and other prominent voices in our society should not be held accountable for violent and eliminationist rhetoric? Absolutely. Speech is sacred, and protected by law. At the same time when someone abuses the privilege calling them to account is the proper response. I don't want to shut her, or anyone else up. I just want to continue shining the spotlight on their "character."
at 12:39 on January 12th, 2011
Hey, Nanute! Long time no 'see'!
Thanks for the link. It is well worth the read but, I think there is the danger of underestimating exactly what motivates Sarah Palin.
She understands that to keep the adulation she has gained from doing what she does, that is alienate mostly everyone EXCEPT her base and in turn, which has been identified BY those of the Republican leadership, like Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner, as the base of the Republican Party, she cannot be seen, in ANY way, as backing down from ANYthing she says.
So, what does she do? She ups the ante with a reference to 'blood libel', a dog whistle term among many said to be Christians, possibly with or without a specific bias, with a considerable percentage from the crowd that idolizes her having AS a bias that specific bias, that is the nationalist/supremacist elements that are camping out among the TEA Party, with the term she used related historically with and as a form of propaganda against Jewish people.
Assuming Sarah Palin personally didn't mean to cause this LATEST offense that has occurred, maybe just maybe, as she plods along, she will start considering her comments more carefully and choose more wisely as she seeks to express herself.
at 13:58 on January 12th, 2011
Hi Karen,
I think you're right about the danger of underestimating what motivates Palin. The larger question with regard to the blood libel narrative is how many of her base really understand the meaning. Or, is it an attempt to redefine the meaning? (The we create our own reality narrative.) Sarah Palin is a full time victim of her own devices, and cannot and will not ever admit that she has any responsibility for her actions.There is an irony here in the sense that she is amongst the group that is always claiming that people need to have a sense of personal responsibility for one's acts and behavior.
at 14:48 on January 12th, 2011
Well said, Nanute. As I began at this thread, she may be and probably IS trying to create her own narrative for the purposes I noted, to make herself a victim.
I recently heard an interesting comment made by someone on cable. He stated he found in her choice of words, in context of the meaning noted above in the thread, an effort to paint herself as a victim due to her stated Christian faith.
The concept of blood libel traditionally blamed Jewish people for using Christian blood for Jewish traditional rituals.
The worse aspect of this is Sarah Palin even uttering a phrase using the WORD blood in some pretense of attempting to chastise others' words and discourse, given all of the bloodshed that occurred in Arizona.
at 02:48 on January 13th, 2011
Karen:
On a lighter note: there is a blogger at 3 weird sisters named jenofark who calls Sarah, "Our Lady of Perpetual Butthurt." For Christmas, jenofark sent Sarah a set of portable steps for those frequent occasions where Palin feels the need to get up on the cross. I'm sure Sarah's supporters will not see the humor in this, but then again maybe this is where they got the idea for the blood libel?
at 05:30 on January 13th, 2011
(Tears rolling down my face) .... Perpetual .... Butthurt .... (Gasping for air) ROTFLMBO!
at 08:59 on January 13th, 2011
Feel better now? lol
at 09:12 on January 13th, 2011
(Gasp, gasp!) Okay, Nanute, I'm fine, now!
at 12:20 on January 12th, 2011
Sarah you are a hypocrite.. When you refer to Rep. Gifford, you should realize that it was you as****** who recommended she should be shot... Now you come back with all this BS.. Keep it to yourself and leave this country alone.. You are intolerant.. You are a shame to this country.. I hope your personal interest are now satisfied and hope you realize that you will never be more than what you are in this country.... An AS.........
at 07:17 on January 13th, 2011
The Tea Party Movement is much more, and is capable of much more than the media is ready to believe. This is a Revolutionary party who sees the current political and economic structure of the USA as illegal.
Sarah Palin and the Republican Party are engaging this element of society just as the Democrats engaged with Jim Jones and his People's Temple gang back in the '70s. The difference is that the Republicans did not give this freak a job.
Jim Jones however, was given many jobs by Democrats including Chairman of the San Francisco Housing Authority and helped him build his army of Zombies who acted on his orders, killing hundreds of children in one single day.
A good question for all would be;
Is it Blood Libel to condemn the Democrats for the Jonestown Massacre?
Here is a quick refresher from Youtube
at 09:04 on January 13th, 2011
Dear Friends,
I plead post this short comment.
What would Sarah Palin say, if a muslim had posted guns on diffrenet constituent
of America as to differ with their policies?
Thanks
at 09:10 on January 13th, 2011
From Jared Loughner, Gabrielle Giffords and the TEA Party:
Source: slate.com
Smoke and Mirrors: The Role of the TEA Party in American Politics
at 03:28 on January 14th, 2011
Thanks for that Karen. There is another dynamic going on here. Some prominent members of the Tea Party movement and the Republican Party are tying the 1st Amendment right of free speech to the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms in a manner that is very dangerous to the democratic process. Traditionally our system has enjoyed a non violent transfer of power through the ballot box. What we are seeing now is an attempt by those that cannot accept the results of losing an election, advocating and organizing around taking back "their" government by force if necessary. We've always had fringe type elements amongst society. These individuals and groups were always kept at the margins because most Americans and the media accepted the fact that these people were too extreme and possibly unstable to gain acceptance in the mainstream political process.
In today's instant access information society, coupled with an abdication of responsibility by the media and political leaders to condemn the behavior and by extension giving legitimacy to those that advocate violence and possibly insurrection, our democratic process of government is being tested to the limit. I'll defend the right of these extremists to exercise their rights, but I won't stand by and remain silent when their actions threaten our peaceful domestic tranquility.
at 15:08 on January 19th, 2011
Indeed, Nanute, that is what is most dangerous about all of this, those among the Right Wing tying gun use, merging carrying guns AS freedom of speech AND it's an idea that seems to effectively rile up those said to be the Republican base.