By Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily, January 27, 2011
JERUSALEM - The Obama administration told the Palestinian Authority it will
not veto an upcoming United Nations resolution condemning all Jewish
construction in the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem, a senior PA
official told WND.
If the U.S. does not veto the resolution, such abstention largely would be
unprecedented. Traditionally, the U.S. has vetoed such resolutions, which
have been deemed anti-Israel.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Hypocrites and uncharitable left
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
>
> By George Will
> If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, =
Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a =
social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these =
findings:
> -- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than =
those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on =
average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed =
household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
> -- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
> -- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave =
smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of =
states that voted for George Bush.
> -- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above =
average.
> -- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent =
majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity =
was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 =
percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
> -- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to =
reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people =
who accept that proposition.
> Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the =
values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences =
on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role =
of government.
> The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is =
religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political =
affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of =
self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than =
quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between =
religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are =
disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a =
strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable =
cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
> Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice =
Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was =
getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of =
Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita =
charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and =
conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a =
majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of =
America's richest households live in states where both senators are =
Democrats.
> While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than =
governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a =
retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare =
state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing =
taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that =
has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, =
warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for =
private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of =
the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions =
are apparently taking the place of help for others."
> In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al =
Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were =
below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, =
one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at =
the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to =
government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, =
and conveniently, understand that word.
> georgewill@washpost.com
>
> By George Will
> If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, =
Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a =
social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these =
findings:
> -- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than =
those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on =
average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed =
household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
> -- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
> -- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave =
smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of =
states that voted for George Bush.
> -- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above =
average.
> -- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent =
majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity =
was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 =
percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
> -- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to =
reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people =
who accept that proposition.
> Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the =
values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences =
on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role =
of government.
> The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is =
religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political =
affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of =
self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than =
quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between =
religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are =
disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a =
strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable =
cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
> Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice =
Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was =
getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of =
Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita =
charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and =
conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a =
majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of =
America's richest households live in states where both senators are =
Democrats.
> While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than =
governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a =
retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare =
state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing =
taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that =
has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, =
warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for =
private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of =
the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions =
are apparently taking the place of help for others."
> In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al =
Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were =
below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, =
one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at =
the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to =
government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, =
and conveniently, understand that word.
> georgewill@washpost.com
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Chris Cristie's Islamic ties
Chris Christie’s Troubling Appointment
Jonathan S. Tobin - 01.18.2011 - 2:06 PM
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has earned legions of fans with his take-no-prisoners style over the last year as he defied the unions and other entrenched interests in his drive to return his state to fiscal sanity. But while Christie has sought to silence the buzz about a possible presidential run, it appears that there might be a better reason to abandon this fantasy than his understandable reluctance: the governor has some explaining to do about his cozying up to an Islamist group in the state both before and after his election.
Christie’s decision to appoint attorney Sohail Mohammed to a state Superior Court judgeship has raised questions not only about his nominee’s record but also about the governor’s own stand. Mohammed is mainly known for the fact that he was the defense attorney for Muslims who were arrested in the wake of 9/11 because of their ties to terror organizations. In one case, Mohammed fought the government’s effort to deport Mohammed Qatanani, the imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County and an influential member of the extremist — though well-connected — American Muslim Union. Though the New York Times praised him in 2008 during his deportation trial as a “revered imam” and portrayed the case as an overreaction to 9/11, Qatanani, a Palestinian, is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and admitted to being a member of Hamas when he was arrested by Israeli authorities in 1993 before coming to the United States. Though he claimed to be an advocate of interfaith dialogue (and was accepted as such by some liberal Jews), Qatanani was no moderate on the Middle East. His ties to Hamas were well known, and just the year before his deportation trial, Qatanani endorsed Israel’s absorption into an Islamic “Greater Syria.” Qatanani clearly lied about his record as an Islamist on documents that he used to enter the country. But he was nevertheless able to evade justice in the immigration courts because the judge accepted his undocumented claim that the Israelis tortured him
Jonathan S. Tobin - 01.18.2011 - 2:06 PM
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has earned legions of fans with his take-no-prisoners style over the last year as he defied the unions and other entrenched interests in his drive to return his state to fiscal sanity. But while Christie has sought to silence the buzz about a possible presidential run, it appears that there might be a better reason to abandon this fantasy than his understandable reluctance: the governor has some explaining to do about his cozying up to an Islamist group in the state both before and after his election.
Christie’s decision to appoint attorney Sohail Mohammed to a state Superior Court judgeship has raised questions not only about his nominee’s record but also about the governor’s own stand. Mohammed is mainly known for the fact that he was the defense attorney for Muslims who were arrested in the wake of 9/11 because of their ties to terror organizations. In one case, Mohammed fought the government’s effort to deport Mohammed Qatanani, the imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County and an influential member of the extremist — though well-connected — American Muslim Union. Though the New York Times praised him in 2008 during his deportation trial as a “revered imam” and portrayed the case as an overreaction to 9/11, Qatanani, a Palestinian, is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and admitted to being a member of Hamas when he was arrested by Israeli authorities in 1993 before coming to the United States. Though he claimed to be an advocate of interfaith dialogue (and was accepted as such by some liberal Jews), Qatanani was no moderate on the Middle East. His ties to Hamas were well known, and just the year before his deportation trial, Qatanani endorsed Israel’s absorption into an Islamic “Greater Syria.” Qatanani clearly lied about his record as an Islamist on documents that he used to enter the country. But he was nevertheless able to evade justice in the immigration courts because the judge accepted his undocumented claim that the Israelis tortured him
Blood Libel-Palin absolutely right:Dershowitz, Krauthammer, Boteach
In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:
The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
Massacre, followed by libel
Gallery
The aftermath of the Tucson tragedy
The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others Saturday in Tucson brought out an outpouring of emotion for the victims. Six people were killed, including a 9-year-old girl who went to the casual meet-and-greet because of her interest in politics. Giffords was among 13 wounded. The suspect, Jared Lee Loughner, 22, was taken into custody at the scene.
1. By 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.
As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings - and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him - there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.
Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.
A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. "His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world," said the teacher of Loughner's philosophy class at Pima Community College. "He was very disconnected from reality," said classmate Lydian Ali. "You know how it is when you talk to someone who's mentally ill and they're just not there?" said neighbor Jason Johnson. "It was like he was in his own world."
His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with "unnerving, long stupors of silence" during which he would "stare fixedly at his buddies," reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through "grammar." He was obsessed with "conscious dreaming," a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.
This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder - ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.
These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after his perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class "I sit by the door with my purse handy" so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.
Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner's fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: "I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it."
Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," he was hardly inciting violence.
Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power - military conquest. That's why the language persists. That's why we say without any self-consciousness such things as "battleground states" or "targeting" opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest - "campaign" - is an appropriation from warfare.
When profiles of Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive - and creative - political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill - while intoning, "I'll take dead aim at [it]" - he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.
Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel's little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd - unless you're the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.
The origins of Loughner's delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman's?
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Rabbi Boteach Defends Palin's Use of 'Blood Libel'
Buzz up!3 votes Share
retweet
EmailPrint..Elspeth Reeve Elspeth Reeve – Fri Jan 14, 12:34 pm ET
WASHINGTON, DC – Sarah Palin was right to use the term "blood libel" in defending herself from accusations that her heated political rhetoric had something to do with the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach argues in The Wall Street Journal, because the term refers to Jews being falsely accused of murder--the important part is the innocence, not the Jewishness. Boteach is continuing a debate that has raged since Palin's video discussing the violence in Tuscon was posted early Wednesday morning. In defending Palin Boteach joins Jewish academic and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who spoke out earlier this week. It seems that nearly every public Palin statement generates controversy of some sort, but this is the first time the culture warrior has gotten caught up in a hot-button issue from the Dark Ages.
Boteach writes:
Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group.
But not everyone agrees with Boteach, who happens to find himself in the limelight quite often.
'Boteach Got It Right' Israel Matzav writes. "We Jews don't have a monopoly on being smeared with blood libels. But many of us can empathize with what Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives have gone through this past week."
He's Spot On, Sheya agrees. Blood libel "is an expression used for when someone is innocently accused of participating in a murder or being an accessory of. Jews don’t own the exclusive rights of this term. Jews would gladly get rid of it, anyone who wants it can have it. In fact we’ll even throw in the Holocaust for good measure."
About Time, Politico's Ben Smith writes. "It's not a celebrity controversy until Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has injected himself."
Palin Is Just Edgy, Paul Mirengoff insists at Power Line. "Palin may be the first prominent politician to have charged others with a 'blood libel' in the broad, modern sense of the term. This shows her, once again, to be 'edgy.' But being edgy doesn't necessarily mean acting improperly. Once a certain usage gains acceptance in mainstream political discourse... I see no obligation on the part of politicians to steer clear of that usage."
A Red Herring, The National Review's Jonah Goldberg says. Her intent was honorable and her point was right. ... She wasn’t even talking about 'the blood libel' but warning against the creation of 'a blood libel,' which is exactly what Krugman, Olberman & Co. were doing."
The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
Massacre, followed by libel
Gallery
The aftermath of the Tucson tragedy
The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others Saturday in Tucson brought out an outpouring of emotion for the victims. Six people were killed, including a 9-year-old girl who went to the casual meet-and-greet because of her interest in politics. Giffords was among 13 wounded. The suspect, Jared Lee Loughner, 22, was taken into custody at the scene.
1. By 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.
As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings - and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him - there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.
Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.
A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. "His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world," said the teacher of Loughner's philosophy class at Pima Community College. "He was very disconnected from reality," said classmate Lydian Ali. "You know how it is when you talk to someone who's mentally ill and they're just not there?" said neighbor Jason Johnson. "It was like he was in his own world."
His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with "unnerving, long stupors of silence" during which he would "stare fixedly at his buddies," reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through "grammar." He was obsessed with "conscious dreaming," a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.
This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder - ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.
These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after his perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class "I sit by the door with my purse handy" so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.
Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner's fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: "I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it."
Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," he was hardly inciting violence.
Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power - military conquest. That's why the language persists. That's why we say without any self-consciousness such things as "battleground states" or "targeting" opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest - "campaign" - is an appropriation from warfare.
When profiles of Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive - and creative - political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill - while intoning, "I'll take dead aim at [it]" - he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.
Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel's little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd - unless you're the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.
The origins of Loughner's delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman's?
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Rabbi Boteach Defends Palin's Use of 'Blood Libel'
Buzz up!3 votes Share
retweet
EmailPrint..Elspeth Reeve Elspeth Reeve – Fri Jan 14, 12:34 pm ET
WASHINGTON, DC – Sarah Palin was right to use the term "blood libel" in defending herself from accusations that her heated political rhetoric had something to do with the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach argues in The Wall Street Journal, because the term refers to Jews being falsely accused of murder--the important part is the innocence, not the Jewishness. Boteach is continuing a debate that has raged since Palin's video discussing the violence in Tuscon was posted early Wednesday morning. In defending Palin Boteach joins Jewish academic and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who spoke out earlier this week. It seems that nearly every public Palin statement generates controversy of some sort, but this is the first time the culture warrior has gotten caught up in a hot-button issue from the Dark Ages.
Boteach writes:
Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group.
But not everyone agrees with Boteach, who happens to find himself in the limelight quite often.
'Boteach Got It Right' Israel Matzav writes. "We Jews don't have a monopoly on being smeared with blood libels. But many of us can empathize with what Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives have gone through this past week."
He's Spot On, Sheya agrees. Blood libel "is an expression used for when someone is innocently accused of participating in a murder or being an accessory of. Jews don’t own the exclusive rights of this term. Jews would gladly get rid of it, anyone who wants it can have it. In fact we’ll even throw in the Holocaust for good measure."
About Time, Politico's Ben Smith writes. "It's not a celebrity controversy until Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has injected himself."
Palin Is Just Edgy, Paul Mirengoff insists at Power Line. "Palin may be the first prominent politician to have charged others with a 'blood libel' in the broad, modern sense of the term. This shows her, once again, to be 'edgy.' But being edgy doesn't necessarily mean acting improperly. Once a certain usage gains acceptance in mainstream political discourse... I see no obligation on the part of politicians to steer clear of that usage."
A Red Herring, The National Review's Jonah Goldberg says. Her intent was honorable and her point was right. ... She wasn’t even talking about 'the blood libel' but warning against the creation of 'a blood libel,' which is exactly what Krugman, Olberman & Co. were doing."
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Palin and blood Libel
Dershowitz, Others Defend Palin’s ‘Blood Libel’ Line
Thursday, 13 Jan 2011 01:13 PM Article Font Size
By Rick Pedraza
Liberals are up in arms over Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel” to describe left-wing media attacks on conservatives in the wake of Saturday’s shootings that severely injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, killed six, and wounded more than a dozen others outside a Tucson, Ariz., store. But famed attorney and Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said the term’s use has evolved over the years from one fraught with pain in Jewish history, and that Palin used the term correctly.
“The term ‘blood libel’ has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse,” Dershowitz told BigGovernment.com. He said that, although the historical origins of the term were "in theologically based false accusations against Jews and the Jewish people," its current use has become part of the English parlance to refer to anyone being falsely accused.
“I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the state of Israel by the Goldstone Report,” Dershowitz said. “There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.”
Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin also defended Palin's use of the term in warning that journalists and pundits “should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”
“Sarah Palin got it right,” a spokesman for the organization told the Daily Caller. “Falsely accusing someone of shedding blood is the definition of a blood libel.”
Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman issued a statement Wednesday agreeing that it is inappropriate to blame Palin and others for the tragic shootings in Tucson.
“Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks,” Foxman wrote. “We agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.
“It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game. Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol,” the statement read.
“In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Dershowitz, Others Defend Palin’s ‘Blood Libel’ Line
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Thursday, 13 Jan 2011 01:13 PM Article Font Size
By Rick Pedraza
Liberals are up in arms over Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel” to describe left-wing media attacks on conservatives in the wake of Saturday’s shootings that severely injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, killed six, and wounded more than a dozen others outside a Tucson, Ariz., store. But famed attorney and Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said the term’s use has evolved over the years from one fraught with pain in Jewish history, and that Palin used the term correctly.
“The term ‘blood libel’ has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse,” Dershowitz told BigGovernment.com. He said that, although the historical origins of the term were "in theologically based false accusations against Jews and the Jewish people," its current use has become part of the English parlance to refer to anyone being falsely accused.
“I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the state of Israel by the Goldstone Report,” Dershowitz said. “There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.”
Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin also defended Palin's use of the term in warning that journalists and pundits “should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”
“Sarah Palin got it right,” a spokesman for the organization told the Daily Caller. “Falsely accusing someone of shedding blood is the definition of a blood libel.”
Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman issued a statement Wednesday agreeing that it is inappropriate to blame Palin and others for the tragic shootings in Tucson.
“Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks,” Foxman wrote. “We agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.
“It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game. Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol,” the statement read.
“In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Dershowitz, Others Defend Palin’s ‘Blood Libel’ Line
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
