“It’s all about me!” The Unbearable Egotism of Sarah Palin

For years and years the ultra right wing in this country has babbled on and on about “personal responsibility”.  They have ranted and raved about how anyone who opposes any sort of military action or erasure of Constitutionally defined rights is a traitor and yet none of this rhetoric applies to them.

As far as the Republicans are concerned threats of violence and calls for the murder of public officials are all in a days work.  However calling them on it is trampling all over their rights.

Perhaps if they had ever once in the last 80 years or so shown any sign of respecting the rights of Democrats or other progressives they would look less hypocritical, but they have not.

Instead they have left a trail of broken lives from the red scares and witch hunts of the 1950s to the the present never once calling out for the freedom of speech of those on the left.

They are bullies, pure and simple and they well deserve a smacking around for the vile rhetoric of the Michael Savages, Glenn Becks, Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs who form the right wing propaganda machine.

They preach nothing but racism, bigotry and hate.  They have been the party of racism since the 1960s when the Dixiecrats joined them.  They have preached racism, homophobia and misogyny ever since.

Now we have their professional propagandists like Charles Krauthammer’s self serving blither in today”s Washington Post:

Massacre, followed by libel

Charles Krauthammer

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

Really Charlie?

I can turn on AM radio or Fox News any time of the day or night and hear a right wing stream of constant hate and bigotry a thousand times worse than anything that has ever been said by those of us on the left.

Even when we call people like you for the politics you espouse we are aware of the consequences were we to advocate the same sort of violence that is the stock and trade of the right wing propaganda industry.

Are you afraid that if people wake up and see you for the lying filthy hate mongers that you are they will tune you out and cut into the billions of dollars per year cash flow generated by right wing hate media?

Do you believe  the right wing propaganda machine has no responsibility for the effect of the stream of hate that they spew?  Or is social responsibility only for the left in this nation?

Today we are subjected to Caribou Barbie’s pathetic exercise in victomology.

Oh the media is so mean to call me on my actions?

From today’s New York Times: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/?hp

Palin Calls Criticism ‘Blood Libel’

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
January 12, 2011

Sarah Palin, who had been silent for days, issued a forceful denunciation of her critics on Wednesday in a video statement that accused pundits and journalists of “blood libel” in what she called their rush to blame heated political rhetoric for the shootings in Arizona.

“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” Ms. Palin said in a video posted to her Facebook page. “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 that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

Ms. Palin’s use last year of a map with cross hairs hovering over a number of swing districts, including that of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, has become a symbol of that overheated rhetoric.

Continue reading at:  http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/?hp

What is “Blood Libel”?

According to Wikipedia

Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, in European contexts almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have – alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration – been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]

The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children. In some cases, the alleged victim of human sacrifice has become venerated as a martyr, a holy figure around whom a martyr cult might arise. A few of these have been even canonized as saints, like Gavriil Belostoksky.

In Jewish lore, blood libels were the impetus for the creation in the 16th century of the Golem of Prague by Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel. Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it.[7] These libels have persisted among some segments of Christians to the present time.

This is according to another entry:

Blood libel has never been a United States political term. It was used by former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin in January 2011, in the aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shootings.[1] Another conservative commentator, Jonah Goldberg, expressed his opinion in his blog that he was “not sure” Sarah Palin or Glenn Reynolds “intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have”.[2] The phrase is highly offensive to Jewish people because, used correctly, blood libel refers to the utterly false accusation that Jews use the blood of murdered Christian children for Passover matzohs.

From the Anti-Defamation  League:

Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase “blood-libel” in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term “blood-libel” has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.

From Rabbi Denise L Eger’s Blog:

January 12, 2011

So Sarah Palin calls those who link her to Saturday’s murders and violence in Tuscon a “Blood Libel”.  Is she understanding what she said?  A Jewish Congresswoman was almost murdered. It was an assassination attempt.  Rep. Giffords was shot point-blank in the head. It is a miracle that she survived.  And she was one of the congress members that Palin’s PAC literally aimed a bullseye at-in the cross hairs.  A JEWISH Congresswoman.  And now Palin uses further incendiary language of a “Blood Libel”.

A “Blood Libel” was exactly what the Church in the middle ages used against JEWS.  This was their target of lies  at the Jewish community especially around Passover that Jews would murder the innocent Christian babies and use their blood to make matzah.   This lie was used to incite violence and pogroms against Jewish communities throughout Europe around Passover and Easter. Furthering Church aims to wipe out Jews as non-believers in Jesus as the Messiah.  Jews were blamed for Jesus’ death and then heaped on top of this was the “Blood Libel” that would bring great violence against the Jewish communities throughout Europe.

And now Sarah Palin uses that very heated phrase. Does she think before she speaks?  Or does she say this on purpose?

Continue reading at:  http://rabbieger.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/palins-offensive-remarks/

Why does the Republican party get to rub our faces in the vilest forms of bigotry and hatred, then chant about our wimpy, “Political Correctness”  if we call them on their hate speech and then turn around and whine about how we are unfairly victimizing them when it turns out their hate speech has consequences beyond getting their right wing racist base to vote for them?

Where is their personal responsibility?

Apparently responsibility is only something the poor, the progressive and people of color have to be concerned with.

Enough is enough.  Hold them accountable for their calls for violence.

One arrested in threats against Seattle congressman

From the Komo News: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/113366774.html

By Levi Pulkkinen

January 12, 2011

A California man accused of making threats against Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott was arrested Wednesday, the Justice Department reported.

According to the statement, Charles Turner Habermann, a 32-year-old Palm Springs, Calif., resident, was arrested Wednesday morning after making threatening phone calls to the office of the Seattle Democrat.

Federal prosecutors in Seattle described statements left by Habermann in two Dec. 9 phone calls as an “expletive-laden” effort to influence McDermott’s vote on tax policy. According to charging documents, Habermann to have threatened to kill McDermott’s friends and family, then, in the second call, threatened to put McDermott “in the trash.”

Contacted by the investigators the day after the messages were left, Habermann allegedly admitted to threatening McDermott and an congresswoman not identified in court documents.

Continue reading at:  http://www.komonews.com/news/local/113366774.html

Government-created climate of fear

From Salon: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/10/fear

By Glenn Greenwald

January 10, 2011

One of the more eye-opening events for me of 2010 occurred in March, when I first wrote about WikiLeaks and the war the Pentagon was waging on it (as evidenced by its classified 2008 report branding the website an enemy and planning how to destroy it). At the time, few had heard of the group — it was before it had released the video of the Apache helicopter attack — but I nonetheless believed it could perform vitally important functions and thus encouraged readers to donate to it and otherwise support it. In response, there were numerous people — via email, comments, and other means — who expressed a serious fear of doing so: they were worried that donating money to a group so disliked by the government would cause them to be placed on various lists or, worse, incur criminal liability for materially supporting a Terrorist organization.

At the time, I dismissed those concerns as both ill-founded and even slightly paranoid. From a strictly legal standpoint, those concerns were and are ill-founded: WikiLeaks has never even been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime, nor does it do anything different than what major newspapers around the world routinely do, nor has it been formally designated a Terrorist organization, nor — I believed at the time — could it ever be so designated. There is not — and cannot remotely be — anything illegal about donating to it. Any efforts to retroactively criminalize such donations would be a classic case of an “ex post facto” law unquestionably barred by the Constitution. But from a political perspective, the crux of the fear was probably more prescient than paranoid: within a matter of months, leading right-wing figures were equating WikiLeaks to Al Qaeda, while the Vice President of the U.S. went on Meet the Press and disgustingly called Julian Assange a “terrorist.”

Continue reading at:  http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/10/fear

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Government-created climate of fear

Yes, Jared Loughner’s Act Was Political

From Alternet:  http://www.alternet.org/news/149488/yes%2C_jared_loughner%27s_act_was_political/

The Right channels the fear, anger and paranoia of mentally disturbed people — and then points them toward the Democrats.

By Cenk Uygur

January 11, 2011

Was Jared Loughner’s act in shooting Rep. Giffords political? Apparently this is what’s being debated with a straight face now. Is this a joke? He shot a politician in the head. He called it an “assassination.” What part of that was unclear?

He didn’t shoot Gabrielle Giffords randomly and it turned out she just happened to be a politician. He sought her out, targeted her and then tried to kill her based on the fact that she was a politician. He thought the government was the problem and it was unresponsive to his psychotic demands on grammar and currency.

So, is Loughner a psycho? Obviously. And that’s not just because he shot all of those innocent people, but also because it is abundantly clear from his writings and videos that he has significant mental issues.

But why does the act have to be either psychotic or political? It’s obviously both. It was a psychotic act driven by his political beliefs. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Continue reading at:  http://www.alternet.org/news/149488/yes%2C_jared_loughner%27s_act_was_political/

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Yes, Jared Loughner’s Act Was Political