Sarah, God bless her, has blasted back, saying that to blame her, the Tea Party and Conservatives for the shooting is "blood libel."
Does she really have justice on her side in saying that?--even though the expression has anti-Semitic overtones? ("Blood Libel" historically refers to the evil lie that Jews use the blood of Christians in rituals.)
I for one defer to an expert, although frankly, I shouldn't have to (expressions are not trademarked for use by certain ethnic groups only).
The website Vos Is Nieas posted the following statement by New York State Assemblyman Dov Hilkind about the "Blood Libel" controversy. I'm taking the liberty of quoting the article in full, but urge you to check out their website.
New York - Statement By Assemblyman Dov Hikind in defense of Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel”
“As someone whose grandparents were slaughtered in the Holocaust; whose parents survived the horrors of Auschwitz; and as the Assembly representative of the largest contingency of Holocaust survivors, I resent the recent attacks on Sarah Palin for her use of the term “blood libel” in defense of accusations lobbed against her by those wishing to lay blame for the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona. This is nothing more than an attempt to vilify and malign her, and I am not a Palin supporter. I would argue that those who continue to demonize her are themselves engaging in a blood libel.”
Alan Dershowitz--a man I both deeply admire and despise, and himself no Sarah Palin fan--concurs in a separate statement.
Methinx that pretty well settles it.