I knew Sarah Palin would find a way to make herself the main victim in the Arizona shootings. I’m just shocked it took her four days.

Apparently this wasn’t a problem when the very same word was used in the WSJ.

Say”Sorry” to Sarah Palin

http://newsallaroundus.blogspot.com/2011/01/saysorry-to-sarah-palin-former-governor.html

I guess she was reading the Constitutions for shits and giggles, i guess.

Tommy Christopher: The New Andrew Sullivan.

/
Sarah Palin Reloads: ‘Blood Libel’ and a Big Lie

lamo!
all i need to do around here is read the title,,
and just about 99% of the time,, i can tell you who wrote it

SERIOUSLY TC,, WHY AINT YOU WORKIN’ AT MSNBC?

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.

Conservatives loved the speech, Liberals HATED the speech…and moderates and independents turned the tv to Wheel of Fortune while downing a McRib and fries on a Laz E Boy while collecting unemployment checks.

God Bless America.

Hmmm, I wonder if Tucker Carlson’s boy toy will approve of this?

There goes Tommy, making up stuff again, telling “big lies” again. It’s not a “lie” to equate crosshairs with targets. To pretend that there’s some huge difference is splitting hairs. “Gabrielle Giffords pointed out the difference”. So what? She’s a politician whose district was targeted with defeat. She’s on opposing sides of the political aisle. What do you expect her to say?

“Making the term even less ideal is the fact that several of the victims of Saturday’s shooting, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, were Jewish.” So what? There you go again, streeeeeeeetching to find something to whine about.

“Compounding the insult of ignoring the substance of Rep. Giffords’ criticism was the fact that, in her response, Palin took it upon herself to play mind-reader to the stricken Congresswoman:”
Honestly, what goes on in that brain of yours? Your infatuation with Palin is beyond creepy. Palin says she’s confident that Giffords believes in the constitution and wasn’t just reading it for symbolic, political reasons. I assume you feel that Giffords was insincere and only reading it for symbolism?

Pathetic.

You whined last night about Jim Treacher throwing your argument back in your face. You said that child rape isn’t funny. Yeah, well, I would imagine that Palin doesn’t find murder funny, either. That’s just another example of you not being able to take what you dish out. I swear, you are a 6 year-old kid trapped in a grown man’s body.

Tommy –

Do you feel ok that you and other “journalists” are implying that Palin is an accessory to murder? I mean seriously. That may seem harsh, but by implying that crosshairs/surveyor’s symbols equate to anything special is just plain silly.

This guy had plenty of warning signs. Stop implicating people in the death of these six people. Treat them as they should : a tragedy that should bring our country together to examine schizophrenia.

lonestar77 said:
There goes Tommy, making up stuff again, telling “big lies” again. It’s not a “lie” to equate crosshairs with targets. To pretend that there’s some huge difference is splitting hairs. “Gabrielle Giffords pointed out the difference”. So what? She’s a politician whose district was targeted with defeat. She’s on opposing sides of the political aisle. What do you expect her to say?

“Making the term even less ideal is the fact that several of the victims of Saturday’s shooting, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, were Jewish.” So what? There you go again, streeeeeeeetching to find something to whine about.

“Compounding the insult of ignoring the substance of Rep. Giffords’ criticism was the fact that, in her response, Palin took it upon herself to play mind-reader to the stricken Congresswoman:”
Honestly, what goes on in that brain of yours? Your infatuation with Palin is beyond creepy. Palin says she’s confident that Giffords believes in the constitution and wasn’t just reading it for symbolic, political reasons. I assume you feel that Giffords was insincere and only reading it for symbolism?

Pathetic.

You whined last night about Jim Treacher throwing your argument back in your face. You said that child rape isn’t funny. Yeah, well, I would imagine that Palin doesn’t find murder funny, either. That’s just another example of you not being able to take what you dish out. I swear, you are a 6 year-old kid trapped in a grown man’s body.

YEAH,, LONESTAR!!
GOOD POST!

The left makes themselves more ridiculous with every pathetic outburst.

The term “blood libel” has been used regularly for as long as I can remember. I’m a fairly literate guy. a fiercely pro-Israel guy, and I had no idea it was the sole property of the Jewish Community. And, I’d wager, neither did most of those pretending outrage at her use of the term, either.

Know why? Because it isn’t. No more than the date in August that Glenn Beck chose for his rally was the sole property of the black community because it was the anniversary of Dr. King’s speech.

The left cried that she was silent for the first few days after the shootings. They damned her for her silence. Now she’s spoken and they’re damning her for speaking.

Dear sweet Lord you people are mentally ill.

To expound on a point – I’d bet good money that most of those acting offended at her use of the term “blood libel” had no idea of it’s origin. They, like everyone else, had seen it used before.

Like the left does, they saw someone write about the term being associated with the darker side of Jewish history and cried “AHA! She’s an ant-semite, too!” They pretend an intellectual depth they don’t have.

They’re not pundits – they’re parrots.

You liberals never cease to amaze me. No matter how low you go to destroy Palin, you always manage to dig deeper.

Tommy, take the damn dress off and throw the heels back in the closet. As Tommy is the resident Palin hater on Mediate, we have enough scary images to wipe from our minds than one of him with that on.
I keep telling you… his inspiration is jealousy of Palin who looks a lot better than Tommy no matter how hard he tries or how much he spends. Even when she is whacking halibut, she looks better.
So, Tommy, get over it, put the overalls back on and hold up the mirror and convince yourself you are really a good human being and not just a low life douche bag.

Tommy, stop pretending that the issue is “crosshairs”. It’s not & you know it. The issue is Palin and the outrageous hate that you & your fellow libs have for her. If there were never a Palin map with crosshairs on it, you & the other lefty journos would still be trying to pin this tragedy on her. You people don’t care about the tragedy, you care about trying to score political points with it. To quote you, only blind loyalists to the far-left don’t see this. Stop pretending like you care about what happened in Phoenix. You don’t. Olbermann doesn’t. Krugman doesn’t. All you care about is setting your sights on Sarah Palin. You have all been exposed. And, it really is disgusting.

Palin’s assertion that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel,” a term that has very specific historical connotations.

The use of the term ‘blood libel’ only served to underscore the media’s false accusation of her as an accomplice to murder. Many whom cried – “their blood is on your hands” sentiments that were echoed on twitter comments and blogs across the nation. In this regard, she is correct to call out the pundits, metaphorically, on the assumption she is somehow responsible for this massacre. If creating an atmosphere of mob-mentality blame, and irresponsible judgment isn’t personal persecution, I don’t know what is.

As for WHEN she made her statement – before or after the President – is irrelevant. The President however, should have been down to Arizona on Monday. As with all crisis situations he has faced, he proves time and again he does not understand Americans and waits until he can manufacture a ‘real’ response instead of a genuine heartfelt reaction to the situation at hand.
While Palin was left with no alternative to defend personal accusations, the president should have been trying to soothe a nation with a response worthy of a leader.

“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.”

Alan Dershowitz

Puter Boi said:
Alan Dershowitz

lol,, NO $HIT?!?!?
Alan said that?!?!?
WOW!

Frank Rich, New York Times columnist, October 15, 2006: “The moment Mr. Foley’s e-mails became known, we saw that brand of fearmongering and bigotry at full tilt: Bush administration allies exploited the former Congressman’s predatory history to spread the grotesque canard that homosexuality is a direct path to pedophilia. It’s the kind of blood libel that in another era was spread about Jews.”

———————

Alex Beam in the Boston Globe, January 14, 2005, discussing the accusation that an official had used the “n-word” in meetings overseas: “My two anonymous sources were making charges that amounted to ‘blood libel’ against former colleagues; that raised the bar for ethical publication.”

——————-

Andrew Cohen of CBS News, May 7, 2008: “So-called “judicial activism” occurs, in other words, when it’s your side that lost the case and it is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat.”

——————-

Florida Democrat Peter Deutsch:

Let me just talk a little bit about the whole, I guess, spin from the Republicans about — which has been to me the absolute most — the worst statements I have ever heard probably in my life about anything. I mean, almost a blood libel by the Republicans towards Al Gore, saying that he was trying to stop men and women in uniform that are serving this country from voting. That is the most absurd thing and absolutely has no basis in fact at all.

——————–

Andrew Sullivan, October 10, 2008:

A couple of obvious thoughts. Paladino speaks of “perverts who target our children and seek to destroy their lives.” This is the gay equivalent of the medieval (and Islamist) blood-libel against Jews.

Tommy wrote: “While there is widespread outrage over Palin’s ”

No there is not Tommy, the only widespread outrage is in the Mediaite Offices.

Until I read this story, I had no idea that “blood libel” had an anti-Semitic history. That, coupled with the fact that Giffords is Jewish, is appalling enough. Probably more appalling for someone who thinks that she’s presidential material than my observations below.

1) Palin has her panties in a bunch because someone libeled her? Seriously? Palin was the 2010 winner of the Glenn Beck Honorary Excellence in Misinformation Award. What’s the word for someone who frets and complains about others engaged in the same activity that she routinely does? Oh yeah, HYPOCRITE!

2) BLOOD libel. I can understand her throwing stones from her glass house, but to use the word BLOOD to describe the commentaries falsely linking the shooting to her weapon-rich language and imagery struck me as vitriolic, exactly what we need to be moving away from. Blood libel. Even if she didn’t know about the anti-Semitic use of that phrase (and she probably didn’t), to describe the “libel” with such a graphic word just seemed inappropriate in a talk that seemed overall to be healing and soothing.

Damn, she’s so not presidential material. I hope so much that she’s the Republican nominee in 2012!

What is obviously going on here is that the liberals in the Democrat-media complex have decided on their email lists, to look for something in Sarah Palin’s response in order to discredit her remarks and render them nil.

These liberal hacks have decided to focus on the term “blood libel”, and shriek about it so no one focuses on the context of Palin’s response to the liberal hack’s attacks on her. As you can see from my post above, many liberals have used the same phrase.

To show how disconnected to reality liberals and the far-left “journalists” are, they are trying to attach a new slander of anti-Semitism to Sarah Palin, who is one of the most pro-Israeli politicians in the country, when these same members of the democrat-media complex attack machine are supportive of Barack Obama, the most unfriendly President in American history in relation to Israel.

If you ask me, the American media is so far deluded with irrational hatred that they are on the verge of loosing touch with reality and are on step away from becoming a bunch of Jared Loughners.

They’re obviously intended to mimic crosshairs/gun sights. And they’re obviously a gun metaphor, but the symbols on Palin’s map were not actually crosshairs: the cross in crosshairs (of a gun sight) stops at the circle, and stays inside it.

ref: http://nominister.blogspot.com/2011/01/not-as-dum-as-they-thought.html

I’m not sure that this really changes anything, but it is kinda funny. I’m surprised that someone doesn’t start slamming Palin for thinking they are targets, and use this information to show she knows nothing about guns…

lonestar77 said:
Pathetic.

Yes you are.Keep your dream alive of palin in 2012 tho, you betcha.

lonestar77 said:
stop pretending that the issue is “crosshairs

You do understand the congresswoman who is lying in a hospital bed with a gunshot wound to her head would disagree with you since she did bring up Palins map and just how dangerous it was to use the crosshairs,right.This is just one of the reasons Palin is involved.

Palin is just stupid – not really much she can do at this point. At least we all now know she’s not running for President. Ha!!

You dumb asses aren’t going to like anything Palin says anyway. Damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. Hypocrites all.

GlennBeckReview said:
Until I read this story, I had no idea that “blood libel” had an anti-Semitic history. That, coupled with the fact that Giffords is Jewish, is appalling enough. Probably more appalling for someone who thinks that she’s presidential material than my observations below. 1) Palin has her panties in a bunch because someone libeled her? Seriously? Palin was the 2010 winner of the Glenn Beck Honorary Excellence in Misinformation Award. What’s the word for someone who frets and complains about others engaged in the same activity that she routinely does? Oh yeah, HYPOCRITE! 2) BLOOD libel. I can understand her throwing stones from her glass house, but to use the word BLOOD to describe the commentaries falsely linking the shooting to her weapon-rich language and imagery struck me as vitriolic, exactly what we need to be moving away from. Blood libel. Even if she didn’t know about the anti-Semitic use of that phrase (and she probably didn’t), to describe the “libel” with such a graphic word just seemed inappropriate in a talk that seemed overall to be healing and soothing. Damn, she’s so not presidential material. I hope so much that she’s the Republican nominee in 2012!

Now you resort to hiding the links to your sorry page by renaming them. Outstanding work

GlennBeckReview said:
Until I read this story, I had no idea that “blood libel” had an anti-Semitic history. That, coupled with the fact that Giffords is Jewish, is appalling enough. Probably more appalling for someone who thinks that she’s presidential material than my observations below. 1) Palin has her panties in a bunch because someone libeled her? Seriously? Palin was the 2010 winner of the Glenn Beck Honorary Excellence in Misinformation Award. What’s the word for someone who frets and complains about others engaged in the same activity that she routinely does? Oh yeah, HYPOCRITE! 2) BLOOD libel. I can understand her throwing stones from her glass house, but to use the word BLOOD to describe the commentaries falsely linking the shooting to her weapon-rich language and imagery struck me as vitriolic, exactly what we need to be moving away from. Blood libel. Even if she didn’t know about the anti-Semitic use of that phrase (and she probably didn’t), to describe the “libel” with such a graphic word just seemed inappropriate in a talk that seemed overall to be healing and soothing. Damn, she’s so not presidential material. I hope so much that she’s the Republican nominee in 2012!

What is the difference between “Bombshell” and Jared?
Bombshell still has time to get help!

ROCKSTEADY said:
You do understand the congresswoman who is lying in a hospital bed with a gunshot wound to her head would disagree with you since she did bring up Palins map and just how dangerous it was to use the crosshairs,right.This is just one of the reasons Palin is involved.

This nut has had her marked since 2007, so don’t let the facts get in the way of your left wing circle jerk.

From Jewish Funds for Justice comes this, Public Statement from Simon Greer, President & CEO”

“NEW YORK – Simon Greer, president of Jewish Funds for Justice, released the following statement in response to Sarah Palin “blood libel” comment:

We are deeply disturbed by Fox News commentator Sarah Palin’s decision to characterize as a “blood libel” the criticism directed at her following the terrorist attack in Tucson. The term “blood libel” is not a synonym for “false accusation.” It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line.

In the past two months, Ms. Palin and Glenn Beck, the most well-known media personalities on Fox News, have abused two of the most tragic episode in the history of the Jewish people: the Holocaust and the blood libel. In addition, Roger Ailes, the head of the Fox News channel, referred to the executives at NPR as “Nazis.” Perhaps the popular news channel has such an ingrained victim mentality that it identifies with one of the most persecuted minorities in human history. But the Jewish community does not appreciate their identification, which only serves to denigrate the very real pain so many Jews have suffered because of anti-Semitic violence. It is clear that Fox News has a Jewish problem.

Sarah Palin did not shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Only the perpetrator can be found guilty for this act of terrorism. But it is worth pointing out that it was Rep. Giffords herself who first objected to Ms. Palin’s map showing her district in the crosshairs. “We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, it has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that they have to realize that there are consequences to that action.” According to Ms. Palin’s logic, Rep. Giffords statement was a blood libel against the Fox News host. The fact that Rep. Giffords is Jewish and Ms. Palin is Christian makes the accusation even more grotesque.

Ms. Palin clearly took some time to reflect before putting out her statement today. Despite that time, her primary conclusion was that she is the victim and Rep. Giffords is the perpetrator. As a powerful rhetorical advocate for personal responsibility, Ms. Palin has failed to live up to her own standards with this statement.

In October, JFSJ produced a video entitled Al Tirah! (or Fear Not!) The Al Tirah video, featuring California Rabbi Sharon Brous, decried the use of fear in politics and called for more civil discourse. You can view the video here: http://bit.ly/fearnot2011.“

musiccityvic said:
This nut has had her marked since 2007

Then why did he wait untill Jan 2011 to do this deed? Facts are she is targeted because of her stupid GUNSIGHT map get a grip.Thecongresswoman even said it. Love her all you want.Ha funny youd bring up Palin and circle jerk have alot of those do ya.You betcha!

GlennBeckReview said:
From Jewish Funds for Justice comes this, Public Statement from Simon Greer, President & CEO”
“NEW YORK – Simon Greer, president of Jewish Funds for Justice, released the following statement in response to Sarah Palin “blood libel” comment:
We are deeply disturbed by Fox News commentator Sarah Palin’s decision to characterize as a “blood libel” the criticism directed at her following the terrorist attack in Tucson

I’m shocked that a far left progressive organization would find the use of Blood Libel as offensive. I’m stunned by it.

If someone(anyone not just someone in the spotlight like Palin is)Put a map up with Gunsights on it over Alaska and god forbid something happened to Palin or her family just what kind of spin would you put on that?

From Truthout comes “Poor, Poor Sarah” by William Rivers Pitt:

“So let me get this straight.

Twenty people were gunned down at a supermarket in Arizona on Saturday. Six were killed, including a nine-year-old girl. Fourteen others were wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was the main target of the attack, and who was shot through the head. She is currently lying in a hospital bed with half of her skull removed because brain swelling from her bullet wound could kill her.

Twenty people shot.

Six killed.

Fourteen wounded.

And guess what?

It appears Sarah Palin is the principal victim of the shooting.

No, really.

Don’t believe me? Watch the video she posted to her Facebook page. There she sits, in front of a fireplace and beside an American flag like some cruel joke on Franklin Delano Roosevelt, wreathing herself in pity because people are coming to the conclusion that politicians like her – the ones who have spent the last two years talking about guns and civil war and reloading and such – should bear some of the blame for what happened in Arizona.

How on Earth could anyone come to such an irresponsible and reprehensible conclusion?

Hm.

In a message posted on her Facebook page Sunday afternoon, Sarah Palin reiterated her call for supporters to “reload” in the battle against health care reform, a term that provoked controversy last week after critics accused her of inciting violence against members of Congress. Presenting her message as an exhortation to college basketball teams competing in March Madness, Palin stood her ground in using firearm imagery against the administration.

“The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons – your Big Guns – to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win,” Palin wrote. In the headline of her update, she mockingly predicted that the message would be “subject to new politically correct language police censorship.”

(Emphasis added)

That was supposed to be about basketball, and as usual, all sorts of mean people jumped up and down on her for once again vomiting gun-violence rhetoric into the political debate. Yup, she was the victim then, and is now the victim once again.

Poor, poor Sarah.

Before you start spluttering and staggering in an attempt to comprehend the sheer galactic magnitude of this new round of idiocy – “Who the what the where the when the why the how the what?!” was my initial response – stop a second and remember that this is how people like Sarah Palin operate. This is how they get others to follow them. They make themselves out to be victims, and convince their followers that they, too, are victims.

Don’t miss a beat – get Truthout Daily Email Updates. Click here to sign up for free.

Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage, O’Reilly and the rest of the right-wing media machine have turned professional victimhood into a license to print money, and people like Sarah Palin are all too happy to jump on that bandwagon. You’re losing your country, your rights, your guns, your family, your religion, the sanctity of your marriage, the supremacy of your heterosexuality, my God, you’re losing Christmas, for the love of God! You’re losing everything (…psssst…they’re talking to White Christians when they say this stuff, by the way, which just cracks me all the way up…), and if you don’t “take up arms” to stop it, well, it will just make the Baby Jesus weep bitter, bitter tears.

Speaking of “taking up arms,” here is Palin’s explanation for such rhetoric: “When we say ‘take up our arms,’ we are talking about our vote.”

Of course. How could we have missed such an obvious reference? Silly us.

Poor, poor Sarah.

Since we’re on the topic, here’s another hoot from another professional victim: Sharron Angle, the only living human who can make Sarah Palin seem sensible and coherent by comparison. In her own comments on how awful it is that people who think her “Second Amendment remedies” talk might have something to do with politicians getting shot in the head, Angle said, “The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger.”

Let that one sink in for a second.

The twenty people who were shot on Saturday were gathered peacefully with their elected representative to petition for a redress of grievances when they were mowed down like grass. But they are not the victims. Angle, Palin, the Tea Party are the ones in danger here. They are the ones whose rights are in peril. They are the victims.

Or something.

Something else happened here, however, speaking of victims. In her puling, self-pitying video rant, Palin accused her critics of committing a “blood libel” against her. From the New York Times:

The term blood libel is generally used to mean the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. That false claim was circulated for centuries to incite anti-Semitism and justify violent pogroms against Jews. Ms. Palin’s use of the phrase in her video, which helped make the video rapidly go viral, is attracting criticism, not least because Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.

So was Gabriel Zimmerman, who died on Saturday.

The geometry of all this is a little bewildering, so let me try to sum it up. The victims of Saturday’s shooting have caused Sarah Palin and her ilk to become the real victims, so Palin decided to further victimize Saturday’s victims by framing her own victimhood with the use of perhaps the sickest anti-Semitic slur ever to exist on the skin of this Earth.

But guess what? It wasn’t even her line. She used it, sure, but lifted it from a Wall Street Journal headline and article by right-wing columnist Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a.k.a. “InstaPundit.” So she’s a victim as well as unoriginal. Contain your shock.

Poor, poor Sarah. We weep bitter tears for your travails.

Not. I will save my tears for the real victims here, for the living and the lost, and the America that people like Sarah Palin have been tearing apart for ambition and profit.”

ROCKSTEADY said:
Then why did he wait untill Jan 2011 to do this deed? Facts are she is targeted because of her stupid GUNSIGHT map get a grip.Thecongresswoman even said it. Love her all you want.Ha funny youd bring up Palin and circle jerk have alot of those do ya.You betcha!

He waited because this is the time he snapped. I’m sure it was because of some map he never saw. Of course it could have been the Daily Kos blogging but no, they don’t show any anger over there. You choose to ignore all the hate spewed by the left on MSNBC or Liberal Radio but I get it.

You leftists have been hoping that someone got shot. All the stories were already written. Even Mr. Tingles had a guy talking about how Obama needed an Oklahoma City type incident. No outrage there. I’m not going to say the shooter saw that show since barely 50 people watch that network but lets go ahead and blame him anyway. Yes, its Tingles fault and all you left wing loons

GlennBeckReview said:
From Truthout comes…

I wonder if we’ll see the Karl Rove arrest before or after the Glenn Beck Bombshell.

ROCKSTEADY said:
Then why did he wait untill Jan 2011 to do this deed? Facts are she is targeted because of her stupid GUNSIGHT map get a grip.Thecongresswoman even said it.

You are a profoundly stupid person. You should get that looked at.

So lets recap….Today after slandering her for a week and criticizing her lack of response, she responds with a strong statement. Of course, in the Lib playbook now she is blamed because it’s all about her for responding and not admitting guilt for something she isn’t responsible for. Quotes come from the Far Left loon sites condemning her for using the term Blood Libel though it has been used time and time again in the same context as in her statement.

I suppose she could have remained silent and reflective like the media has been all week….Oh wait, the gun was still hot when they started blaming every tea party member, palin, talk radio, bush, and any non left winger. Of course when a person responds to the slander they are sullying the memory of the dead or wounded, but if its the Left Wing Blame Machine in action it is for the greater good.

The funny thing is I’m not even a Palin supporter, but I recognize, like most americans nowadays when the Leftist Media is running their Allinsky Playbook. It must be frustrating for all of you Progressives to have been totally exposed as the frauds that you are. I’m sure the next poll that comes out will reflect even worse numbers for the Media and the Left as the bull shoveling machine that they have always been.

Hell, I might even vote for Palin as President just to watch all your Libs heads exploding like in the Movie Mars Attack…wait exploding could be “hate” speech. I’ll say head expanding beyond capacity.

ROCKSTEADY said:
You do understand the congresswoman who is lying in a hospital bed with a gunshot wound to her head would disagree with you since she did bring up Palins map and just how dangerous it was to use the crosshairs,right.This is just one of the reasons Palin is involved.

Nice try at adding 1+1 and getting 53. You & Tommy must have gone to school together. One has absolutely zero to do with the other. No matter how much you lefties wish Palin was responsible for what happened, it just isn’t anywhere near the truth. You people don’t care about the shootings or the congresswoman. You have a deep seated hate for Palin and that’s all you really care about. Stop pretending like you care about anything else because you don’t. Thanks for playing, though.

musiccityvic says:
“I’m shocked that a far left progressive organization would find the use of Blood Libel as offensive. I’m stunned by it.”

What part of anti-Semitic do you not understand? (Apparently all of it.)

The reactionary, bitch in the boxers, musiccityvic says:

“Now you resort to hiding the links to your sorry page by renaming them.”

Call 1-800-MOMMIE-Y. Mothers are standing by.

GlennBeckReview said:
musiccityvic says:“I’m shocked that a far left progressive organization would find the use of Blood Libel as offensive. I’m stunned by it.” What part of anti-Semitic do you not understand? (Apparently all of it.) The reactionary, bitch in the boxers, musiccityvic says: “Now you resort to hiding the links to your sorry page by renaming them.” Call 1-800-MOMMIE-Y. Mothers are standing by.

Your reply is as usual, incoherent. In case you missed it this was quoted above today from Alan Dershowitz, but maybe his Jewish card isn’t good anymore. At the very least he’ll be drummed out of the Liberal Party.

GlennBeckReview said:
“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.”
Alan Dershowitz

musiccityvic said:
Your reply is as usual, incoherent. In case you missed it this was quoted above today from Alan Dershowitz, but maybe his Jewish card isn’t good anymore. At the very least he’ll be drummed out of the Liberal Party.

In fairness to GBR he didn’t quote the Dershowitz statement, it copied out that way.

chatmandu002 says:
You dumb asses aren’t going to like anything Palin says anyway. Damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.”

She could have taken the high ground. 90% if her talk was just that, the least annoying talk I’ve ever heard her give. But she’s petty and ignorant (as I was about “blood libel” until this afternoon), and attacked people instead of using this to heal, to unify in mourning and horror. Instead, she used an anti-Semitic phrase, and cut her chances of getting one Jewish vote is she’s deluded enough to make a run for the office she’s clearly not qualified to reach.

Forget her politics if you can: she’s too bitter, idiotic and divisive to be the Mourner-in-Chief.

lonestar77 said:
Palin was responsible for what happened, it just isn’t anywhere near the truth.

I never said Palin was Responsible for this I said she was involved because of it.

Professor Reynolds initiated the use of the term in the current debate, and he was right to do so because it is an exactly correct term. Strong words must be used when someone is accused of being an accomplice or accessory to a mass murder, without any evidence. And when the libel continues even after it is proven that there is no evidence.

There is something seriously wrong when the person unfairly attacked is then attacked again when she defends herself.

There are at least two deranged and mentally unstable persons we need be concerned with in this incident: Jared Loughner and Paul Krugman. I find it amazing how many supporters both of them have on the left.

“Of course, the difference between Palin’s “crosshair map” and accompanying gun metaphors, and the more common martial terminology that is now being rethought in hindsight, is the very issue upon which criticism of Palin hinges.”

Well, if that’s an important distinction, how about we make some other distinctions in the oh-so-necessary conversation of how Sara Palin isn’t responsible for the assault against a congresswoman, but yet she could be…

Can we start with the distinctions that the shooter was angry at the congresswoman BEFORE Palin arrived on the national scene and before there was Tea Party?

Can we ponder the notion that his friends say that he was not a political partisan, he did not follow “the news” or talk radio. Can we wonder if the SPECIFIC shooter even SAW the crosshairs on Palin’s site, let alone was influenced by them?

Can we explore the facts of this particular case, rather than jump to the assumption that such imagery not only sends crazy rightwingers (which is most of us– right?…) out on violent binges, but even insane people who may have never seen it?

Is it alright to make these DISTINCTIONS in this “national conversation”? Or must all conservatives simply stick to the assumption laden narrative that is being relentlessly strummed like a toy guitar?

musiccityvic said:
You leftists have been hoping that someone got shot

Who ever said anyone wanted someone to get shot?What a odd thing to say.

musiccityvic says:
“Your reply is as usual, incoherent.”

I was mocking you, and I won’t deign to address your reactionary, inane comments again….unless you:

Try something half way intelligent. Why can’t you address, for example:

“The term blood libel is generally used to mean the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. That false claim was circulated for centuries to incite anti-Semitism and justify violent pogroms against Jews. Ms. Palin’s use of the phrase in her video, which helped make the video rapidly go viral, is attracting criticism, not least because Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.”

Tell us you rationalize that big of slick word use.

Charlie Manson didn’t murder anyone, his mindless drones did. Unlike Palin, Charlie is in Jail.

Tell us how you rationalize that bit of deplorable word use, slick.

ROCKSTEADY said:
I never said Palin was Responsible for this I said she was involved because of it.

Dearest Roxy,

I’m gonna call ya Roxy. Is that ok? There’s nothing Rocksteady about ya. Please read the following and then proceed to tell me how Palin was involved:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread591520/pg1

Read Erad3′s postings. Ben over at Politico posted this a couple days ago.

I sincerely wait for your kinds words on this matter

Sincerely,
WCinWI

ROCKSTEADY said:
If someone(anyone not just someone in the spotlight like Palin is)Put a map up with Gunsights on it over Alaska and god forbid something happened to Palin or her family just what kind of spin would you put on that?

It’s been done already. Both Kos and the Democratic Party put a target/bullseye on the Congresswoman’s name. What’s your next point that can be reputed?

GlennBeckReview said:
musiccityvic says:“Your reply is as usual, incoherent.” I was mocking you, and I won’t deign to address your reactionary, inane comments again….unless you: Try something half way intelligent. Why can’t you address, for example: “The term blood libel is generally used to mean the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. That false claim was circulated for centuries to incite anti-Semitism and justify violent pogroms against Jews. Ms. Palin’s use of the phrase in her video, which helped make the video rapidly go viral, is attracting criticism, not least because Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.” Tell us you rationalize that big of slick word use.

The only criticism is from the usual suspects, the hysterical left. Taken in context of the entire statement it was obviously not used to denegrate Jews. I find it funny that all you lefties are now all of a sudden concerned about offending the Jewish population, after worshiping at the feet of Helen Thomas. Maybe instead of Blood Libel you should look up the definition of hyprocrite, maybe even link it to your page.

GlennBeckReview said:
Tell us you rationalize that big of slick word use.

In a scenario where the media has demanded that Sara Palin account for the shooting, in a way that the Tuscon sheriff’s department has NOT (despite their history with him)… I’d say the term “blood libel” is dead-on.

WCinWI said:
Palin was involved:

I never said she made him do it nor have i said he was one of her sheeple.The congresswoman who is laying in a hospital bed with half her skull in the fridge made a comment on TV about how Dangerous having crosshairs over districts was.Do you honestly believe the Parents of that poor 9 year old baby give a crudola about Palin and how this effects her presidental run?

ROCKSTEADY said:
Do you honestly believe the Parents of that poor 9 year old baby give a crudola about Palin and how this effects her presidental run?

I know they don’t.

However, I’m not so sure about you.

WCinWI said:
Dearest Roxy,
I’m gonna call ya Roxy

Ahh another Alt for Seeing nothing from my window lol you gave yourself away with this.lolol

Talisman says:
“Charlie Manson didn’t murder anyone, his mindless drones did. Unlike Palin, Charlie is in Jail.”

That’s horrible. One can be critical and fair.

WCinWI said:
target/bullseye

Not the same as a crosshair or gunsight.Palin a so called hunter she knows the differance.

Cecelia says:
“I’d say the term “blood libel” is dead-on.”

Then you’re every bit as much of a bigot as those wearing swastikas. At least Palin has the excuse, perhaps, of ignorance of the phase. Your only excuse is cold hearted, sleazy bigotry.

You should call your folks right now and chastise them for raising an ethical pygmy for a daughter.

SHAME!

ROCKSTEADY said:
I never said she made him do it nor have i said he was one of her sheeple.The congresswoman who is laying in a hospital bed with half her skull in the fridge made a comment on TV about how Dangerous having crosshairs over districts was.Do you honestly believe the Parents of that poor 9 year old baby give a crudola about Palin and how this effects her presidental run?

First of all, let’s spell things right. Also, let’s not use crude language such as “skull in a fridge”…sheesh.

Stop making an issue that is apolitical, political. How dare you place blame to anyone. Period.

ROCKSTEADY said:
Not the same as a crosshair or gunsight.Palin a so called hunter she knows the differance.

Once again, let’s learn to spell things right. If you must use a dictionary, by all means, use one.

There is NO difference between the two. They are both visuals. I see nothing wrong with either.

The final nail in the coffin. Thank God. Can the country now move on and talk about people that could actually win the Republican nod like Mitt Romney, hopefully our next POTUS, the one who should be in the White House right now rather than pushing McCain, the same Republican who couldn’t beat GWB. This feels like Christine O’Donnell all over again. Every sane person out there new she couldn’t get elected, much like Alvin “Wanna Check Out Some Porn” Greene. Sarah was never going to be there but instead I have had to listen to the left spin how she could be for the last year.

GlennBeckReview said:
You should call your folks right now and chastise them for raising an ethical pygmy for a daughter.

SHAME!

I’m sorry but the abstract use of a term associated with any particular ethnic group or culture, does not make one a “bigot” or the equivalent of nazi.

You can rationally argue that the use of the term was hyperbolic or dismissive of its injurious history, but to conclude anything stronger is sheer silliness.

This whole discussion is ridiculous. Sarah Palin is good and honest woman. Who is good role model for women every where. I have a lot of respect for her, and I hope that someday the public will see through the deliberate character assassination by the left.

WCinWI said:
skull in a fridge”…

Her skull is being kept in the fridge untill the brain sweeling goes down.Just the way it is.

WCinWI said:
They are both visuals. I see nothing wrong with either

This is your right. The spelling error, get over it. its not the issue here Michelle from utah or is it seeing nothing from my window.Keep your hope alive for Palin 2012.

*swelling

This Christopher dude may have a very small penis. Why else would a grown man direct so much attention to puerile bashing of this woman who is obviously and embarrassingly stronger and more intelligent than he is. His writing almost suggests some infantile form of gratification. Does he type with one hand?

ROCKSTEADY said:
Her skull is being kept in the fridge untill the brain sweeling goes down.Just the way it is.

This is your right. The spelling error, get over it. its not the issue here Michelle from utah or is it seeing nothing from my window.Keep your hope alive for Palin 2012.

I’m a newbie. I noticed people like you just spouting off, making fun of people (when instead you were spelling many words wrong yourself) and so I decided to take action and support Palin as she is getting attacked as an accessory to murder. Simple as that.

WCinWI said:
just spouting off, making fun of people

I’ve never made fun of the mistakes on here.it happens all the time.Stick around you will see.As far as”spouting off” this is an area to put out your “own”opinions.If it upsets you so much don’t comment.

Tommy,

While I disagree with your views, I still owe you an apology from the other day. Please read my comment post at http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-kelly-officiates-debate-over-robert-gibbs-relatively-modest-salary/#comment-275650

Tommyy = please take a b reak, your PDS has got to be alarming your doctors. You hold this woman Sarah to a standard that no other person in history has been held to. Others can and have used the term blood libel time and time again, including your good buds on the left GTOmmyand you haven’t raised an eyebrow, but Sarah uses it, and you throw a hissy fit.

As to your absurd and really stretched logic between cross hairs and targets, you need to understand that MSNBC is not gonna find a place for you no matter how far out there you throw yourself.

You need to remember that Andrea Mitchell is NOT a roll model and you should stop taking yourqueues from her, makes you look rather silly and manchild like.

Grow up, get a life. Perhaps Dan should send you on a vacay fo a while, you clearlty need one.

Get a grip old man.

Sarah suffers from a severe chronic case of Athletes’s Tongue, but this particular reference may offer some insight into her religious upbringing­.

Tommy, Why are you so biased in your opinions? You State : “Compounding the insult of ignoring the substance of Rep. Giffords’ criticism was the fact that, in her response, Palin took it upon herself to play mind-reader to the stricken Congresswoman:

Now follows a Palin Quote from the speech, “Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.””

And then you conclude with: “These flaws undercut whatever legitimate points Palin makes during the balance of her statement, among them the rush to judgment by people on both sides of the political divide, and the attempts by a few to blame her for the shooting.”

Common Sense should tell you, as it does me, that if Giffords thought the reading out loud was simply “symbolic” then she would not have taken her time to participate. Is that really too far of a stretch here to apply some common sense? Maybe a little Deductive reasoning? But to you this is “Mind-reading”. ?????

To heck with Palin and her me me me rantings. She’s not worth the digital paper it took to write this story. Maybe, if she actually did and said things that made sense sometimes, people wouldn’t call her a dumb@ss everytime she opened her piehole. The best thing she could have said that made sense was to say a prayer for the slain and injured. She could have said this guy was a nut that went on a killing spree and my map with the targets was meant only to focus our attention to the area. I think she deliberately speaks in this manner to fire up her base. Sometimes you just have to keep a low profile. But not Palin. She’ll use any incident to raise herself up.

“Sarah Palin seems trapped in a world that is all about confrontation and bravado,” said Matthew Dowd former political adviser to President George W. Bush.

Mr. Dowd said. “When the country seeks comforting and consensus, she offers conflict and confrontation.”

Ms. Palin even went on to dismiss suggestions that political speech should be toned done.

Cecelia says:
“You can rationally argue that the use of the term was hyperbolic or dismissive of its injurious history,….”

No, you can rationalize such a despicable term that was used to rationalized pogroms in history, but get real. Using that phrase to accurately describe Palin’s use of gun sight cross hairs on Congress members is dishonest and disgusting. This shows that Palin is not qualified for the position of President (as if observers thought otherwise) and it shows that YOU are not qualified to discuss ethics.

From the highly respected National Journal:

“Palin’s use of the term fired up her troops, and the secular media missed the point. It’s easier to keep thinking Palin’s a dimwit than to think she knows just what she’s doing. On the other hand, even if Palin was trying to rouse her evangelical base, she may have done it in such a blunderbuss manner that it more than undercut any gains she might have made. ”

blun·der·buss   

–noun
1. a short musket of wide bore with expanded muzzle to scatter shot, bullets, or slugs at close range.
2. an insensitive, blundering person.

A blunderbuss for President. Yeah, that makes sense — NOT!

Hmmmm intersting….i saw Big Lie in the headline and I thought tommy had actually do some reporting rather than biased hacking.

I thought he might be one of the first to comment on the big fat lie Obama told last night flat dab in the middle of his campaign….errr memorial speech.

I guess Tommy doesn’t want you to know the truth about his messiah but it will come out.

Maybe another Abrams lickspittle toady will have the guts to point out that Barry claimed Gabby opened her eyes for the fisrt time last night right after his visit and in the presence of her good buddies Loudmouth Wasserman-Shultz and Nazi Pelousy when in fac t it was reported in the Tuscon Sentinel on Sunday that while she is in a drug induced coma, doctors work her periodically to check on her and she opened her eyes and responded to simple commands.

But that isn’t nearly as heroic or legend making as his apparent healing abilities….all witnessed by his disciples Deb and Nan.

Disgusting is what I would call it.

It’d be nice if somebody here had the balls to call it at least a lie.

GlennBeckReview said:
From the highly respected National Journal: “Palin’s use of the term fired up her troops, and the secular media missed the point. It’s easier to keep thinking Palin’s a dimwit than to think she knows just what she’s doing. On the other hand, even if Palin was trying to rouse her evangelical base, she may have done it in such a blunderbuss manner that it more than undercut any gains she might have made. ” blun·der·buss    –noun1. a short musket of wide bore with expanded muzzle to scatter shot, bullets, or slugs at close range.2. an insensitive, blundering person. A blunderbuss for President. Yeah, that makes sense — NOT!

Translation: Look at me!!!! I wanna be Wonkette or Markos so bad I can taste it and if I had 1/1000000th the success of those I pillory, I would be in Bermuda with no time to beg for attention here.

Carry on, Count Hackula.

GlennBeckReview said:
No, you can rationalize such a despicable term that was used to rationalized pogroms in history, but get real. Using that phrase to accurately describe Palin’s use of gun sight cross hairs on Congress members is dishonest and disgusting. This shows that Palin is not qualified for the position of President (as if observers thought otherwise) and it shows that YOU are not qualified to discuss ethics.

No, I’m afraid I’ve already stated that it’s arguable to claim that the use of the term was dismissive of it’s injurious history.

Of course one could conclude the same about people who use terms like holocaust, genocide, and rape in ways that relate particular abstractions. That’s all neither here nor there, really. What matters in using such terms is not that the comparisons be accurate in historical scale, but rather comparable in bare-knuckled devastation on a personal level, as well as indicative of a similar (if more paltry and petty) blood lust.

However, if you want a prime example of dumbing down the serious nature of certain words or concepts, look no further than your allusions to Nazis. In your case, you didn’t employ such imagery against critics who had spent an entire week holding you more directly answerable for a killer than the local officials who had historically dealt with the man.

No, you went straight to trivializing the persecutors of millions ofJews merely over a difference of opinion based on sematics.

Yours is not just a prime example of the very thing you have decried, it’s the quintessential one.

Michael_T said:
“Sarah Palin seems trapped in a world that is all about confrontation and bravado,” said Matthew Dowd former political adviser to President George W. Bush. Mr. Dowd said. “When the country seeks comforting and consensus, she offers conflict and confrontation.” Ms. Palin even went on to dismiss suggestions that political speech should be toned done.

Poor Matt Dowd. He couldn’t garner any attention selling out with his garbage book…..now he is the toady loon de jour to be called on when no self respecting individual will comment.

Good for you ferreting out his garbage.

Wear it proud.

GlennBeckReview said:
Using that phrase to accurately describe Palin’s use of gun sight cross hairs on Congress members is dishonest and disgusting.

Actually, the crosshairs were not on the faces of congress people. They were pictured on districts on a map of the country.

The problem with Tommy’s argument is that the media focus has not been on the differences between Palin’s map and similar maps produced by Democrats. In fact, none of the networks have shown the DLC or DCCC maps. The major papers haven’t included them in their stories about Palin’s map. So how can Tommy claim the media focus has been on qualitative differences between various maps if the MSM has only shown one map?

There’s more to say. My full response to Tommy’s argument is here: http://fwd4.me/tni

Would someone please stick some duct tape over Sarah’s mouth so she can’t get her

foot in? Agree with me? http://upc.bz/0170

Cecelia says:
“Actually, the crosshairs were not on the faces of congress people. They were pictured on districts on a map of the country.”

That brings great relief to Giffords. Thanks for the helpful information.

John VS says:

“In fact, none of the networks have shown the DLC or DCCC maps.”

That’s not a fact: I’ve seen the DCCC maps showing targets. Beck likes to assert as “fact” assertions that are actually guesses. John VS, that doesn’t give him credibility, and it doesn’t give you credibility.

GlennBeckReview said:
Cecelia says:
“Actually, the crosshairs were not on the faces of congress people. They were pictured on districts on a map of the country.”

That brings great relief to Giffords. Thanks for the helpful information.

Oh, come now, my information is helpful only if you find accuracy to be useful.

On the other hand, if you wish to make assumptions (with no evidence at all) that the shooter had even seen the crosshairs picture, or to not have corrected your erroneous suggestion that the crosshairs were on the actual faces of politicians, you resort to using the term “helpful” as sarcasm.

I liked Alan Dershowicz’s comments about the use of “blood-libel.”

Probably NOT wrong said:
What is the difference between “Bombshell” and Jared?Bombshell still has time to get help!

Funny. Looking at GlennBeckReview and the mugshot of Jared Loughner I see quite a resemblance.

Cecelia says:
“Oh, come now, my information is helpful only if you find accuracy to be useful.”

This isn’t about accuracy: this is about the ETHICS of using gun sights to target districts and even more so, using the historically meaningful phrase “Blood libel” to describe Palin’s perceived slight.

X-3 says:
“Funny. Looking at GlennBeckReview and the mugshot of Jared Loughner I see quite a resemblance.”

This coming from a spine-free sock puppet with no face. Let’s see, from whom have we seen and heard such disgusting and deceitful propaganda like that? Oh yeah, your hero: Glenn Beck and his violence inducing assertions.

I call for non-violence; Glenn Beck’s vitriol borders on incitement of violence and sedition. His violent sounding rhetoric crosses the line…often! Glenn Beck has inspired bloody rampages; I call for non-violence.

I’ve thought of what it might mean if Beck’s wish to become a martyr were fulfilled. I strongly believe that it could well trigger a violent civil war, and needless to say that’s not good for the country.

No, the adults at Fox need to step up and do the right thing: Fire Glenn Beck NOW!

VoiceofCrassStupidity says:
“Translation: Look at me!!”

You confuse the credibility I have from using my face to make my case with ego. I do this as a duty to my country; it is Glenn Beck who puts his ego on the line. Glenn Beck who is trying to etch his name on the wall of American history. Glenn Beck is the megalomaniac.

What make you the voice of crass stupidity? Ad hominem attacks. They don’t work except to make the attacker out to be stupid, shallow and unreasonable.

GlennBeckReview said:
Cecelia says:
“Oh, come now, my information is helpful only if you find accuracy to be useful.”

This isn’t about accuracy: this is about the ETHICS of using gun sights to target districts and even more so, using the historically meaningful phrase “Blood libel” to describe Palin’s perceived slight.

In order for the discussion to be solely about the “ethics” of using crosshairs on political districts, you’ve got to expand the term “ethics” to include the assumption that this action had a direct bearing on an ACTUAL crime. THAT is now the cause and effect of this issue.

Based upon THAT assumption, you argued that therefore it is inexcusable for Palin to trivialize the term “blood libel” in describing her situation, BECAUSE she had properly been linked with a mass murder (circularly refer back to putting crosshairs on political districts….)

THEN, you simultaneously did what you just condemned, by trivializing Nazis in order to suggest that people who disagree with you summation, do so because they are in fact, Nazi bigots…

No, you are not making points based upon ethics. You are merely making assumption laden accusations about people who don’t share your politics.

Cecelia, you could not be further from the truth. The contrast between libertarian Howard Stern and charlatan Glenn Beck makes it obvious that my issues with Mr. Beck have nothing to do with political values and everything to do with honesty and integrity. Stern has them; Beck is a habitual liar and a nearly complete hypocrite. The sooner people who do not want to be routinely lied to can understand that, the sooner Beck can crawl back into the sewer from where he slid out from. The sooner people of faith can come to understand that Beck is to Christianity as Jared Loughner is to sanity, the sooner Beck can be pushed into the ashcan of history along with the Marxism he so needlessly fears.

Sarah Palin will do or say anything, even if it is a lie, to get attention. Now Rebecca Mansour, who has a degree in theatrics and who writes Sarah’s speeches and Facebook entries. is saying that poor poor Sarah is getting so many death threats. Forget about Gabby Giffords, it is Sarah Palin who is the real victim. If Sarah Is getting so many death threats, why did she just accept a speaking engagement at the end of January in Reno at the gun show; and why is she advertising so much all the money that Bristol will make on 1/22 speaking at a charity event in Bryan, Texas. I guess the promise of $100,000 for Sarah and $35,000 for the Queen of Abstinence shows that money is much more important to the Palins than safety. Don’t believe those grifters from Wasilla–they just want the attention and pity and the money. Why else would they make public announcements every day about where they will be appearing next.