Sarah Palin didn’t need to apologize regarding the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

And she didn’t apologize.


But, true to her ditzy ways, she still opened her mouth and weighed in on the matter, trotting out a phrase — “blood libel” — that had nothing to do with anything.

As it happens, the phrase is interpreted by people around the world as anti-Jewish, according to this Guardian UK article and many others.


Seems “blood libel” was a longstanding get-out-of-jail-free card when murdering Jews in Europe.

Palin, of course, is Christian.

Giffords is Jewish.

Jewish groups are all verklempt now.

I’m betting Palin is too dumb to know what she was saying, or to even know what she thought she meant she wanted to say.

Still, she’s mucked things up even worse, as I predicted she would in my first blog post.


  1. Yes, and I think it reinforces my comment in your previous post. The woman is dangerous, unthoughtful and plain dumb. She needs to apologize for existing.

  2. But hey, this is a big step. Now she’s gone from a person who incited a slaughter to one who used a phrase some consider inappropriate.

    That’s a win.

  3. I had never heard of “blood libel” until Palin mentioned it and when I Googled it the first thing that pops up is Wikipedia that defines it as the false accusation that Jews murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of religious ceremonies.

    The second Google entry is a Zionist encyclopedia that defines it the same way.

    And nearly every link I clicked on defines blood libel in this way and states that it is considered a racist slur toward Jews. So I’m not sure you can call people backwoods if they view it this way.

    BTW, several polls currently show that most people think Palin and other political grenade throwers are at least partly responsible for generating a political climate that spurs the kind of hatred we saw in Arizona.

  4. As long as we’re on the subject of inappropriate terms, how about this, from Nancy Pelosi today – see if you can spot the inappropriate terminology:

    “This resolution is a fitting tribute. It is a great resolution. Please read it again and again. Carry those names in your heart. Remember each of these people because, again, a tragic accident took lives, wounded people in the free expression of ideas.”

    @Go Ritta:

    People who follow politics closely are aware of the term, and of it’s growing cross-purpose, legitimate or not.

    As for people buying the obviously misdirected accusations and false premise, they are in the minority. Oddly, the numbers track closely with those who self-identify as “Liberal”.

    Those who blame this incident on rhetoric have no factual basis to do so, there is not a shred of evidence in that regard – it’s likely these same people would have bemoaned political rhetoric in general had this incident not occurred.

    The idea that political rhetoric has gone over the top is lone comminly held by folks who know very little American history – up to and including the years of Bushitler and Darth Cheney.

    All this concern, based entirely on a false premise. The discussion SHOULD be concerning how obviously mentally-ill people can send signals, yet not be dealt with.

    As more comes to light, as it is, logical folks will start to look at how the authorities in AZ may have dropped the ball. The AZ sheriff currently blaming Rush Limbaugh may just well regret his incendiary language, after he’s fired.

  5. What difference does it make if obviously mentally ill people “send signals?” Our already pathetic public health and mental health resources are on the chopping block so nobody has to pay a penny more in taxes. When the Republicans get through with our already third-world health, education, and safety systems, there won’t be any resources left to deal with the nuts, no matter how many signals they send.
    And leave it to that narcissist Palin to make herself the victim here, and the dead, wounded, and dying in Arizona the perpetrators. Dumb? Like a fox.

  6. @Roy

    Based on the order of events, and the slanderous attacks based on an entirely false premise, I’d say she would qualify as a victim, she certainly would meet that criteria in the eyes of the law.

    It’s a neat arrangement, though. Had she not responded, the meme would likely have been it was due to shame, and a recognition of her culpability.

    If she does respond, she’s a narcissist trying to make it all about her. After the media and pundits made it all about her.

    When she does respond with a lengthy well-thought out response to the charges, the complaint is the use of a term some consider inappropriate.

    If she comes out with another statement regarding *that* charge, let’s hope she doesn’t misplace a comma, or she’ll have to defend again… ad nauseum, round and round we go on the Alinsky wheel.

    BTW, while these self-important folks were feverishly pounding their accusations home, she was issuing a statement on her FB page, expressing her concerns and sympathies for the victims, as did others. (There was even grumbling about that at the time).

    And those who are being proved wrong and shamefully opportunistic in their charges – they’ll get off scot-free, it’s highly unlikely there will be any calls for acknowledgment of their errors of haste and zeal, much less for an apology.

    We’re all familiar with the phrase “have you no decency, sir?” If it doesn’t apply in this instance, it applies in no instance.

    As for higher taxes preventing this sort of thing, that’s an issue a little too… deep to take up on this blog, but you have a point – Kennedy lowered taxes and was shot by a commie, Reagan lowered taxes and was shot by a nut. You may be on to an overlooked causational issue here.


    In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:

    “The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.”

  8. Couple of points – American Jews lean liberal Democrat, so the outrage expressed by certain Jewish organizations may just have something to do with that political reality.

    Recall when the photo of Palin’s office revealed the Israeli flag, and the reaction from some quarters questioning the possibility of “dual allegiance” and the like, given her vocal support of Israel and the ominous prominence of that controversial flag.

    Now, two years later, she’s accused of anti-semitism because of her use of the controversial term.

    It’s all about the narrative, baby. Got her comin’ an goin’.

    RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

    RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”

  9. “She just doesn’t know when to keep her mouth shut.”

    One might wonder if you would follow your own advice, were you the target of a co-ordinated slanderous smear campaign based on false premise.

    Our astute and principled left appears to have morphed into a comic Caricature of Clayton Williams and Joseph McCarthy’s love child, and it’s really actually, become quite disgusting.

    One one hand the polls show the campaign has not worked with the American people, on another hand, Palin is receiving quite an uptick in death threats.

    So, is that a win or a loss for the left?

    Let me give y’all some advice:

    Listen to your President and wise up.

  10. Dershowitz is always looking for attention and headlines and thats why he defends celebrities like OJ Simpson, Mike Tyson, Jim Baker and Claus von Bulow and takes an opposing stance on the blood libel issue.

  11. Just another poor, persecuted Republican. The fact remains that she put a bullet on this woman’s head in an internet campaign poster. Whether or not it affected the actual shooter’s motive is irrelevant. She should not have done it. Instead of apologizing and moving on, she tries to defend the indefensible. Palin should stfu.

  12. @Frodaddy

    What of the bull-eye and target sight graphics from the left that “targeted” the same district?

    What about Obama’s record of violent rhetorical devices?

    How far do we want to go to defend the actions of an insane killer?

    “The fact remains that she put a bullet on this woman’s head in an internet campaign poster”.

    Oh – THAT far.

    Sheesh, thank God you’re in the minority.

  13. Who’s defending the shooter? Just another Republican straw man.

    The left had no such graphic.

    Obama has no such history.

    Shouldn’t you be listening to Limbag now?

  14. Oh, give Obama’s Seat a break. It’s his mission to defend Fox personalities like Sarah from the slings and arrows, etc., of the rabid gun-toting left.
    It’s all so very unfair, you know. What will the socialist meanies and their Kenyan usurper President think of next? Ants in her bed? Kick-me post-its on her back?

  15. FroDaddy –

    Dem Paul Kanjorski,-

    “That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.

    Obama himself – they bring a knife we bring a gun

    Rahm Emanuel –

    “Revenge was heavy in the air as the group discussed the enemies. Suddenly Emanuel grabbed his steak knife and, as those who were there remember it, shouted out the name of another enemy, lifted the knife, then brought it down with full force into the table

    ”Dead!” he screamed.”

    Here is a founding statement by the founder of Barack Obama’s church, a church where he listened to this kind of venom for 20 years –

    “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

    and –

    “While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism”

    FroDaddy – see if you can repond civily as Obama himself asked you to do just last night.

  16. >>Who’s defending the shooter?

    Ok, poor choice of words, I’ll amend it to “making excuses for the killer”

    >>The left had no such graphic.


    >>Obama has no such history.


    “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”

    “Get in Their Faces!”

    “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”

    “Hit Back Twice As Hard”

    “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“

    Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”

    “It’s time to Fight for it.”

    “Punish your enemies.”

    “I’m itching for a fight.”

    >>Shouldn’t you be listening to Limbag now?

    Shouldn’t you be doing a little research so you don’t look quite so ill-informed?

    BTW, if you listened closely to Obama’s speech last night, that was the sound of you and your fringe minority being thrown under the bus:

    “… let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, it did not, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation…”

  17. To Don Young –

    You say – “She needs to apologize for existing.”

    Do you really feel that way in your heart?

    Should this Dem congressmen apologize for existing? He seems to not know that islands are actually attached to the earth’s crust. –

    By the way Don, do you also feel that Global Warming / Climate Change deniers are on par with deniers of the holocaust?

  18. @ Roy

    “Oh, give Obama’s Seat a break.”

    The best break the Palinphobes could give me is to continue the skillfull debunking and deconstruction of my logic and knowledge.

    How’s that working out, anyway? LOL.

  19. You really just aren’t too smart are you?

    None of Obama’s remarks equal putting a rifle scope style target on the head of a particular person, and then advertising a political event during which you can shoot an actual M-16. Stay classy Sarah.

  20. @FroDaddy

    >You really just aren’t too smart are you?

    It doesn’t take a lot of smarts to stay informed. Try it some time, you’ll not have to be corrected as much.

    >>None of Obama’s remarks equal putting a rifle scope style target on the head of a particular person

    I agree, Obama’s remarks more specifically invoke violent imagery than what appear to be printer’s registration marks on an electoral map. Had these phrases been uttered by Palin, you would have a much stronger argument against her.

    Also note that in none of the examples reproduced on the provided link is there a “head”, they are “states, or more specifically “districts”.

    Are you aware there are campaign ads and events for democrats which feature firing a rifle? It takes an odd mindset to equate video of someone firing a weapon to a call for political assassination, but leaps of logic are what put the Palinphobes into this corner in the first place.

    Leaps of logic will not get you out of that corner, you’ll just end up in another corner.

    Stay classy 🙂

  21. Ok, one last note on the topic of the term in question, here’s some folks who have used the term outside of its historic context, courtesy of WSJ’s James Taranto:

    New York Times Book Review
    Columnist Abe Rosenthal
    Columnist Andrew Sullivan (Who is literally obsessed with Palin)
    Rep Pete Deutsch (D-FL) referring to republicans criticizing Al Gore

    There are others.. If it matters, I can find them, but I have to take issue with Ms. Brinks comment: “good reporting”.

    Good reporting might have included some examples of what Palin is supposedly exclusively guilty of – as Taranto has done. (But then it wouldn’t have been so juicy!)

    But, in all fairness, the FWW is not the WSJ, as they likely have Lexis-Nexis, and Taranto is conservative, and not duty-bound to carry water for Palinphobes.