Sarah Palin Video: 'Blood Libel' Remarks About Tucson Shooting:

by NowPublic Staff | January 12, 2011 at 08:49 am
1765 views | 6 Recommendations | 24 comments

Videos

Sarah Palin: America's Enduring Strength

see larger video

sourced by NowPublic Staff

Sarah Palin: America's Enduring Strength

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.

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
4
Karen Hatter

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.

2
chl ste

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.

1
grants to pay bills

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

0
Karen Hatter

My regards, gtpb (not verified).

1
Karen Hatter
After a litany of other Republicans, from Roger Ailes to Ari Fleischer, suggested that calmer rhetoric is warranted in the aftermath of Tucson, Palin -- after remaining essentially silent for three days -- amped up the rhetoric in a pointed counterattack, accusing "journalists and pundits" of manufacturing a "blood libel" against her by suggesting that she somehow is to blame for the toxic political atmosphere in Arizona.


There are few more freighted phrases in the history of hate than "blood libel," which is the ancient and false accusation that Jews secretly murder Christian children as part of their religious rituals. This anti-Semitic attack has resulted in countless pogroms and massacres through the ages.


Indeed, Jewish groups are taking offense to Palin’s choice of the term. Noting that accusations of blood libel have been “directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries,” the National Jewish Democratic Council condemned Palin’s use of the term:

Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a “blood libel” against her and others. This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries — and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today. [...]

All we had asked following this weekend’s tragedy was for prayers for the dead and wounded, and for all of us to take a step back and look inward to see how we can improve the tenor of our coarsening public debate. Sarah Palin’s invocation of a “blood libel” charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction.

Likewise, the president of the pro-Israel, pro-peace Jewish lobby J Street, Jeremy Ben-Ami, said he was “saddened by Governor Palin’s use of the term ‘blood libel,’” adding that he hopes “she will choose to retract her comment [and] apologize“:

The country’s attention is rightfully focused on the memorial service for the victims of Saturday’s shooting. Our prayers continue to be with those who are still fighting to recover and the families of the victims. The last thing the country needs now is for the rhetoric in the wake of this tragedy to return to where it was before.

We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term “blood libel” brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.


2
JJ Beagle

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

0
NowPublic Staff

Thanks for the updates Karen.

0
Karen Hatter

You're welcome!

0
Abu Nudnik

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.

3
Karen Hatter

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:

(Jim) Adkisson made headlines on July 28, 2008 (My note: This is before the election but during the heated, hate filled rhetoric of the 2008 presidential campaign), when he brought his sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, and, after whipping it out of a guitar case, opened fire on parishioners while a group of schoolchildren performed songs up by the altar. Adkisson killed two people and wounded several others.


Adkisson, a 58-year-old unemployed truck driver, brought 70 shotgun shells with him to the church and assumed he'd keep killing until the police arrived on the scene and shot him dead as well. Instead, some members of the congregation were able to wrestle him to the ground and hold him for police.

When investigators went to Adkisson's home in search of a motive, as well as evidence for the pending trial, they found copies of (Michael) Savage's Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity, and The O'Reilly Factor, by Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.


They also came across what was supposed to have been Adkisson's suicide note: a handwritten, four-page manifesto explaining his murderous actions. The one-word answer for his deed? Hate. The three-word answer? He hated liberals.

The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life aint worth living anymore don't just Kill yourself. Do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals!

What Adkisson especially hated about liberals ("this cancer, this pestilence") and what he hated about candidate "Osama Hussein Obama" was that they were marching America toward ruin: "Liberals are evil, they embrace the tenets of Karl Marx, they're Marxist, socialist, communists." Adkisson seethed over the way liberals were "trying to turn this country into a communist state" and couldn't comprehend why they would "embrace Marxism."






0
nanute

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."

2
Karen Hatter

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.

1
nanute

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.

2
Karen Hatter

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.

1
nanute

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? 

1
Karen Hatter

(Tears rolling down my face) .... Perpetual .... Butthurt .... (Gasping for air) ROTFLMBO!

1
nanute

Feel better now? lol

1
Karen Hatter

(Gasp, gasp!) Okay, Nanute, I'm fine, now!

1
Enmanuel Sanchez

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.........

1
utilaeastwind

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 



1
Tabeth

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

3
Karen Hatter

From Jared Loughner, Gabrielle Giffords and the TEA Party:

Extremist shouters didn't program Loughner, in some mechanistic way, to shoot Gabrielle Giffords. But the Tea Party movement did make it appreciably more likely that a disturbed person like Loughner would react, would be able to react, and would not be prevented from reacting, in the crazy way he did.


At the core of the far right's culpability is its ongoing attack on the legitimacy of U.S. government—a venomous campaign not so different from the backdrop to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Then it was focused on "government bureaucrats" and the ATF. This time it has been more about Obama's birth certificate and health care reform. In either case, it expresses the dangerous idea that the federal government lacks valid authority. It is this, rather than violent rhetoric per se, that is the most dangerous aspect of right-wing extremism.

Often the two issues are blurred together, because if government is illegitimate, rebellion is an appropriate response (hence the Colonial costumes). Conservative entertainers like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin like to titillate their audiences with hints of justified violence, including frequent reminders that they are armed and dangerous.

Palin went so far as to put a target on someone who subsequently got shot. Whether or not the man who fired the gun was inspired by Palin isn't the point. The point is that you shouldn't paint targets on people, even in metaphor, or jest.

Guns are also at the heart of how the right's ideology enabled Loughner. Tea Partiers often frame the right to bear arms as a necessary check on federal despotism. "You know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies," said Sharron Angle of Nevada, who nearly defeated the majority leader of the U.S. Senate in neighboring Nevada.

In practical terms, easy access to firearms empowers extremists and crazies to challenge government authority at whim. The National Rifle Association position that any attempt to regulate the ownership of firearms is a violation of the Constitution has prevailed both politically and through the courts.

That means that there are few things simpler than for someone to walk into a sporting goods store, as Loughner apparently did, buy a dangerous weapon, and carry it concealed to political meetings.

How should politicians protect themselves from nuts with guns? By arming themselves, of course. Absent permissive firearm laws, nowhere more lax than in Arizona, Loughner might still have been able to get a gun. But he couldn't have done it quite so easily.


Smoke and Mirrors: The Role of the TEA Party in American Politics

1
nanute

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.

1
Karen Hatter

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.  

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

NowPublic on Facebook

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Karen Hatter
First Flagged at 9:03 AM, Jan 12, 2011 by Karen Hatter
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (6)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from