Friday, January 14, 2011


Bloody Nonsense

It never fails.

Whatever Sarah Palin says always gets the idiots' knickers in a twist and exposes their dishonesty and ignorance. The latest example is her use of the term "blood libel" to describe the intelligence-insulting charges leveled by the left wing media complex against the right, especially Palin herself (tellingly, there wasn't a peep from these same idiots earlier in the week when Glenn Reynolds, writing on the same subject, used the term in the WSJ).

The links are out there to the various examples of the resulting faux outrage, chief among them Howard Kurtz, Ruth Marcus and Andrea MitchellMSNBCNEWS, who haughtily declared Palin's use of the term "ignorant." But it is in fact Mitchell and her ilk who are ignorant, as demonstrated by Alan Dershowitz and, more recently, by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who writes in the WSJ:

Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder. The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel...

...Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.

Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).

How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.

Now: for the honest and sane among us, it doesn't take the authority of a prominent Jewish law professor or a rabbi to prove that Palin's charge is only common sense, but it is always necessary when dealing with a pack of partisan liars, especially ones masquerading as impartial journalists.

Those who slammed Palin for her use of the term "blood libel" are all either ignorant, duplicitous or both, the latter being by far the most likely, as usual, especially given their own generous use of the term and their unquestioning acceptance of its use by everyone but Palin. Hell, they buy into blood libel themselves as they see fit, as in the case of the al Durah lie, the falsified Reuters photos and the Jenin fiasco.

So once again, Palin has suckered the idiots into completely beclowning themselves. Which also never fails. Here's Professor Reynolds:

As I’ve said before, her great gift — or is it a curse? — is her ability to bring out the ignorance, the dishonesty, and the sheer meanness of the credentialed-but-not-educated gentry class in full Technicolor glory.
Le'gal In'sur'rec'tion has the envelope: And The Award For Most Hypocritical "Blood Libel" Critic Goes To ...

Bonus video via Nice Deb: A Tale of Two Matthews: How MSNBC's Host Handled Tucson Shooting vs. Ft. Hood Shooting

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?