Sarah Palin takes aim on her Facebook page;
President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially 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 they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
And in the interest of fairness and balance, the Left’s response (language advisory);
More at Instapundit.
Charles Krauthammer: “The origins of Loughner’s delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman’s?”
“The New York Times has crossed a moral line.”
BO must really, really hate SP.
Is hate too strong of a word?
James Taranto pulled no punches (nor should he have) with this editorial against the New York Times.
Now she’s being attacked for using the words “blood libel”
James Taranto pulled no punches (nor should he have) with this editorial against the New York Times.
“…manufacture a blood libel…”
Exactly.
Is there any meaningful ethical difference between Paul Krugman and the Ohkrana’s fabrication of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Barack Obama will have a “presidential” opportunity tonight to condemn the vitriol amongst his own supporters and bring some harmony back to America. Will he? I doubt it.
By the way, today Nancy Pelosi called Saturday’s murders “an accident“. A very peculiar use of that term. And a highly incorrect one.
Well…she obviously didn’t pay any attention to Frum. That is not the response that he prescribed.
Excellent backbone from Palin, again.
I still want retractions from MSM, and I want to win a lottery. Neither likely to happen.
PS:
Glenn Reynolds used the “blood libel” phrase in the WSJ two days before Palin, but I guess liberal pundits don’t read the Wall Street Journal…
Why?
Sarah Palin is utterly right and now she has her back to the wall.
How can one even comment on the ludicrous claims that Sarah Palin was directly or indirectly responsible for Loughner’s acts, even in the light of the utterly sick attacks on her and her family?
At what point do we call out liberals for their stupidity and start holding single adults accountable for their behaviour?
I seriously hope and pray that Sarah Palin comes out of this swinging (oh no! Violent imagery! Run!) I hope the electorate realises that people who are ostensibly adults don’t need a special-interest groups or governments to screen out images and words lest they prompt someone into violence. A fanatic or lunatic is so because of the insane things he clings onto, not some random imagery or political discourse.
The Krauthammer line is devastating.
Wonder what Krugman will do . . . stay silent and admit he’s a nutter or try and fight back. Charles will rip him to pieces if he trys
Oreilly called Krugman a lair on the air on Monday. Krugman is so far acting like a panty waist and laying low.
While I wouldnt have used the phrase, it is a loaded one, the criticism will soon be overwrought.
Here is a good definition of Blood Libel. While one party has been on the receiving end of this more times than others it is by no means an exclusive phrase.
It’s broader meaning of false accusations of “bloodthirstiness” does work in the context.
Once again, it would have been better if the phrase was avoided but it isnt as inappropriate as some commentators would have you believe
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Blood_libel
I wonder what Obama will say. He has had a habit in the past of things like…
“We must all come together in non-partisan harmony, leaving aside all rancour or spite. Especially those *&!#$@ Republicans.”
Well, it seems that the assassin did not pay attention to the newsmedia at all, so, not that there’s any connection, but this casts extra ridicule onto the Left’s bizarre, absurd claim that the “targeting ridings” election “rhetoric” somehow has something to do with the massacre…
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2011/01/assassin-did-not-pay-attention-to.html
re: Krauthammer’s essay:
Diagnosis: It’s an intellectual, not a psychiatric, malady.
The “modern” left, to the extent that it is a marriage of left-wing politics and postmodern “philosophy”, is an overt, explicit rejection of the modern canon. That rejected canon includes objectivity—the belief that there exists a world independent of our thoughts, a world in which our lives play out, and to which our thoughts must therefore correspond if they are to be true and if we are to flourish. With that recognition of thought’s relation to the world comes the obligation, to ourselves and to those with whom we would live, to be rational—to justify our beliefs, our thoughts and our theories. Why? Because the more and the better our reasons, the less likely our beliefs will be false, and the more likely our projects will succeed. What, you ask, could be more obvious?
Much of the mainstream left now rejects the modern cannon. They find it inconvenient, if not positively pernicious. Why? Because objectivity has shown itself to be a stubborn obstacle to the left’s achieving its goals. Their solution? Not the rational one, that would have them abandon their wishes as unrealistic. The postmodern solution is the infantile one, hatched in the salons of Europe, that rejects objective reality itself, because it stubbornly refuses to conform to their wishes.
In public discourse, this gives the left a big advantage over their old-fashioned, stick-in-the-mud, hide-bound, opponents. Their opponents accept that they are obliged to have and provide good reasons for their beliefs. They are bound to defer to sometimes obstinate facts. The postmodern left, having declared itself free of all such inconveniences, is thus free, they say, to live in a world of their own psychology—a world comprised of their beliefs and desires. With nothing beyond belief, there’s nothing for belief to defer to, no need of justification, nor any obligation to be rational. And there is nothing left of that old-fashioned, objective world to prevent them having things just as they would like. Nothing, that is, beyond one last stubborn obstacle that stands between them and their utopia: those who disagree with them. The unenlightened, bitter clingers who refuse to get with the program, and instead insist on truth, objectivity, facts of the matter, and objective, non-relativisitic, right and wrong, are proving just as obstinate as reality. Little wonder they are so despised. Less wonder that the left feels no compunction about using any means available to either win them over, or, failing that, to destroy them. The prohibitions against deceit, theft, character assassination, all borne of the values of objectivity, have been lifted. Anything goes. Thus, Krugman, and the rest of the fantasy-ridden left. To that extent, at least, Loughner is their kin.
The mental and emotional afflictiona shown by Jared Loughner seems pretty common among Liberals. It is by their own words in that clip that I make that suggestion.
That clip of Obama’s supporters tweeting out their death wish for Sarah Palin demonstrates how black their hearts really are.
How unenlightened is the left. No wonder they are losing.
cross post
It just gets better and better:
“BOTTOM LINE: Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story.”
I guess Sarah Palin is just too dumb to understand, or should I say “ignorant”.
I felt the love from the comments. They really do want someone a twinge more non-reality based to pull the trigger.
The funny thing is they expect to be listened to and agreed with. Warped thought process.
// Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio //
or follow a particular religion.
The remark is true for legal purposes. But deranged individuals don’t have a lot of imagination. They tend to focus their fears & anger on easily available symbolic figures from the current climate of opinion. So Mark Lepine targeted women engineering students, & the latest crazy guy, following long american tradition which has recently grown in intensity, picks out “government” targets.
Palin’s reference to mentions of her as “blood libel” is really bizarre.
Just read that President Obama and his ‘handlers’ created a new logo/slogan for the memorial service of the victims of the Arizona shooting –
“Together We Thrive: Tucson and America,”
As IOWNTHEWORLD notes, I’m willing to keep an open mind until he steps before the teleprompter and starts talking-but really- can’t the President just show up and speak from the heart without the handy tools of a campaign stop? Did this event need branding? No. So, my eyebrow is raised and my eyes have already rolled into the back of my head before he says one syllable.
Compare and contract Obama with the heartfelt message from Sarah – speaking directly into the camera.
CBC called Sarah Palin’s reasoned response: “lashing out.”
I realise all it takes is one but does one really expect these brain-trusts to actually face Mrs. Palin and tell her what he or she thinks of her? No. The digital world has made cowards out of many.
I also suspect that Sarah Palin is powered by the yellow sun and will crush her foes with her adamantium kung-fu grip.
Kimosabe @ 4:07:
“…Sarah Palin is powered by the yellow sun and will crush her foes with her adamantium kung-fu grip.”
Excellent!
“While I’m here for this …this….dog and pony show in our lovely 57th state of Arizona? I’d like to give a shout out to all the SEIU and La Raza who were bussed in today. Please remember to pick up your garbage as you leave and hug a Tea Bagger (wink wink).”
She did not use “blood libel” as a blood libel. What’s the problem? While “blood libel” may have a specific meaning to some people, so did the words “gay” and “marriage”. No one owns words. Some folks would attack Palin even if all she had said was, “It’s Wednesday today.”
S.Homez@3:58,links to an ABC news site. Really mind boggling logic.The audacity of implying that Palin injected herself into this story is insanity,or pure hatred.
I suppose they assumed that she would just roll over and let the media beat on her,like a good little woman…However,there is the 8 minute video of her response up,so it is worth a look.
I wonder what Mrs Pelosi meant by calling Saturday’s murders “an accident.”
The event didn’t look anything like “an accident” to me: it looked like it was committed in a very cold and calculated manner.
In fairness to Pelosi.
She mis-spoke. The botox and stretching wouldn’t let her say “incident”.
Here is a good definition of Blood Libel.
Pretty good reference.too.
But the source you linked doesn’t back up any assertions they have of the origin of the blood libel.
One Origin of the term Blood Libel
MATTHEW Chapter 27
11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
13 Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
14 And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.
15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the BLOOD of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His BLOOD be on us, and on our children.
The meaning of the term ‘blood libel’ is to falsley accuse an innocent and the blood is on the false accuser.
“not dead enough”
ooooohhhh. and how hateful is THAT repeated time and again here at SDA?
Orlin in Marquette at January 12, 2011 4:31 PM
I wonder what Mrs Pelosi meant by calling Saturday’s murders “an accident.”
——————–
Unfortunately Mrs Pelosi is an accident America will wish that never happened.
“not dead enough”
You edited out the Tommy Douglas not dead enough.
So who killed Tommy Douglas?
Cancer did, at the age of 81 years.
What isn’t dead enough about Tommy Douglas?
His legacy, specifically his universal health care monstrosity.
His legacy is still killing Canadians.
What is happening in the aftermath of this shooting is like nothing I’ve ever seen before. Even Columbine and V. Tech didn’t generate this kind of madness.
This latest development where the media made Palin the story, criticized her for not commenting, and then accused her of lashing out and making herself the story when she responded is just, well, surreal.
I was always very civil in my disagreements with people on the left. Not anymore. Not after this. This is the very bottom. It doesn’t get any uglier than this.
Notice how clearly and calmly Sarah Palinn argues, while being subjected to the impotent, foaming rage emanating from leftist mouths across the US; from Hollywood in the West, to Reid/Pelosiland in the East.
She reminds me of another conservative who always kept a genuine smile on their face – Ronald Reagan.
You speak for tens of millions, Sarah. You go, girl!
Hey Beagle, FYI, just ordered another 1,000 rounds from Cabala’s.
,
On top of that, headed to the Flea Market this weekend to buy more 5 gallon buckets for storage of beans and rice. Anyone know of a good online site for smoked meats ?
,
Slaw,it could get uglier. The media have given those on the edge a push and a target.Then they will use the next murder(s) to justify their horrendous analysis of the Tucson shootings.
I have no doubt that the Palin family have increased their security.
This is all getting extremely bizarre. I’m seeing some left wingers imply Palin is anti-semetic for her choice of words now?!?
Wake me up when it’s all over.. I’ve got to take a break from this story for my own sanity.
I think the mut’s fleas are bothering him again. Just ignore it.
I wonder if any of those Twitter users will be investigated, or at least have their accounts pulled:
http://support.twitter.com/articles/18311
Violence and Threats: You may not publish or post direct, specific threats of violence against others.
…
Unlawful Use: You may not use our service for any unlawful purposes or for promotion of illegal activities. International users agree to comply with all local laws regarding online conduct and acceptable content.
Robert W – If BO sincerely wanted to calm the waters, he would have made an announcement on Saturday morning, when his base immediately began spreading their filthy lies. A single sentence from him could have stopped it.
No, now that they have done their worst, he will try to milk points with the public by posing as the great healer. He gets the best of both worlds, to his way of thinking – his people have planted the idea in some weak minded souls that there may have been some connection between political speech and the murders, and now, that that poison has been sown and done as much damage as possible, he will be the ” healer “. Obama is cold-blooded, even when you consider he’s a politician. Can the US survive 2 more years of this, when what it is needed in this moment of economic crisis is a leader of all the people?
No matter what Palin does or says – the left will react with hostility. This means that their reaction is due to themselves and not Palin.
The left, as Nick has so well outlined, live in a virtual or fictional world which they themselves write/author. This world has no connection to reality; it’s all fictional opinions. This means that whatever happens in reality is irrelevant to the left for their virtual world dictates that they have only one response: their opinion.
That’s why, if it is a heat spell or a cold spell, the cause is the same: AGW.
If Palin speaks or does not speak – she’s wrong.
If FOX news is objective, non-violent and fact-based – their opinion never wavers from ‘Fox being radical and violent.
Again, Michelle Malkin’s blog has a full outline of the left’s violence in both rhetoric and action, with their calls for killing Palin, Bush, anti-abortionists and so on. The T-shirts with ‘Kill Bush’ on the front; the signs, the attacks on people…that’s all from the left.
Remember Pelosi’s rhetoric on the Tea Party, how its members were radicals, un-American etc. Dissent is not allowed by the left. The people are viewed as ignorant and uneducated and must be RULED by government; that’s what the left thinks.
By the way, I understand the term ‘blood libel’ to refer to libel against groups that share a ‘blood’ or kinship tie or an ideological tie. So, blood libel, to me, is libel against an identified group (ethnic group, religious group, political group).
Palin is saying that the murders were done by an individual, while the left is claiming that a group (blood group) is responsible.
I love Sarah! She is one class act. Everyone wondered why John McCain picked her, once again she shows why she was his choice. Pure class! I just hope that this doesn’t cause harm to her or her family. I still would love to see Sarah invite the Obama’s to Alaska……………
You know the left have lost this one when one of their big guns, Alan Dershowitz, comes out to defend Sarah Palin:
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/
It is truly remarkable. In the bad old days, the mainstream media would have convinced everyone that Mr. Loughner was a right-wing sicko and that we needed to shut down talk radio and the blogs. Now, they get only a couple steps down that road before the blogosphere rips their arguments to shreds and they end up looking as foolish as they truly are.
I just went back to look at that twitter list that Kate posted of death wishes on Sarah. Disgusting stuff from human filth.
While the odd poster here forgets him or herself on occasion, I have never seen anything like this on any conservative blog I have ever visited. But then, filth from the left is just normal. It was in 1917 and is the same today.
My, my, Alex has some real nice friends. I suspect that a lot of this hate is due to her family’s moral and religious stance, with maybe a little politics thrown in the mix.
Krauthammers intelligence is quickly catching up to Thomas Sowells, a thought process that is correct and so far above the yapping beagles and pit yorkies and despicable rats like sloped head Maher and classless Krugman.
Apparently one of the haters on Twitters who now has her public pronouncement even more public is demanding that the video be pulled down. I’ve made a permanent copy of it and can upload it to an alternate site if need be. Leftists must be held accountable for their actions – just like everyone else is held accountable for theirs.
http://bigjournalism.com/libertychick/2011/01/12/youtube-asked-to-remove-video-of-lefts-threats-against-palin/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigJournalism+%28Big+Journalism%29
Kate, the twitter video should be separated from Sarah Palin’s statement. It (the twitter video) should be a stand-alone post that gets re-bumped to the top of the page.
The left lost control of their thinly disguised psychosis of hatred and the unwashed masses got a clear view of how the Liberal media purposely fuels the progressives’ zest for hate. I’ve never witnessed anything like that in my life, the glee and joy the left espoused whilst blaming Palin is indicative of our future alas these people are not capable of assuming and assigning personal responsibility to killers. Gawd help the US now that the Media has been outed as part of the “Progressive Movement” things are really going to get ugly via leftwing violence.
Josh Marshall – “Today has been set aside to honor the victims of the Tucson massacre. And Sarah Palin has apparently decided she’s one of them.”
Re those comments wishing death on Palin… I wouldn’t want to see them be president either.
Nobody is saying there isn’t crazy talk on the left. They’re just saying there is more of it on the right, and there is a corresponding increase in violence on the right as well.
The sad/funny thing about this is the fact that despite this being pointed out, the right continues to refuse to acknowledge the need for greater civility in the dialogue.
“there is a corresponding increase in violence on the right as well. ”
where?