Palin Snares Andrew “Blood Libel” Cohen
The latest hypocritical journo bagged by Sarah Palin, this time with the sleuthing of Professor Bill Jacobson, is the Atlantic’s Andrew Cohen :
Surely Cohen knows his own history of columns. He was aware enough to point out his use of the term “blood libel” as to Ward Churchill in 2005.
Did Cohen not remember that Cohen accused John McCain, the Republican nominee for President, of a blood libel for having criticized “activist judges”?
If Cohen so casually threw around the term “blood libel” in the heat of a presidential election, who is Cohen now to attack Sarah Palin for using the term as to false accusations that she caused the murder of several people in Tucson?
Read the skewering in its entirety and marvel with me at how this gorgeous backwoods gal is felling a whole forest of hypocritical and under- educated men and women who have been posing as professional writers worthy of our respectful attention to their views.
Read the skewering in its entirety and marvel with me…
Where?
At the link to legal insurrection. Click on Cohen to get there.
Alan beclowns himself; an indirect victim of Palins axe,
Clarices wit, and as a direct result of his own inattention to
detail.
Outrage denied.
Many of these professional writers are nothing more than
professional sneerers. They sneer at those who want something other
than the leftist/secular worldview and are joined by the
tele-smeerers (Letterman, Maher, etc.).
I’ll repeat this again. Sara is the Three Card Monty dealer and the progs are the rubes, who can’t figure out why they keep loosing, but bet against her because they believe they are superior.
They’re fallin’ to the wayside like flies, they are!
According to the left, Palin is stupid. Therefore, anything she says — by definition — is stupid. Or ill-informed and ignorant. Same thing.
So, of course, they’re going to say she was “stupid” to use the phrase “blood libel.” They may give her the benefit of the doubt (she just didn’t know the historical significance) or they maye accuse her of being an anti-Semite. Either way, she’s stil “stupid.”
But, funnily enough, when people falsely accuse you of causing the murders of half a dozen people, publicly claiming you have blood on your hands, isn’t that libeling that person with the blood of the innocent victims? Isn’t that pretty much the definition of a blood libel? Add to that the fact that Palin AND HER FAMILY (who had nothing whatsoever to do with the tragedy, even if Sarah WAS guilty of something here) are currently experiencing more death threats than usual. Hey… wasn’t one of the results to the Jews who were victims of the blood libel that they were placed in greater danger by these false accusations made against them?
But, yeah… since it was Sarah Palin who said it, then, by definition, it was stupid. And probably also incited several people to acts of violence…
*sigh* It would be nice if, at the very least, commentators and pundits of the right and center could avoid jumping on the “Palin is stupid/insensitive” wagon. I’m talking to you, Jonah Goldberg, and everyone else who slagged her for this.
You know, I love reading this, but the sad thing is that most people who beleived the narrative in the first place probably still do and Palin’s genius is simply lost on them. My sister is an incredibly intelligent woman on a professional and academic level, but being in DC and being a liberal, she loathes Palin and when asked why says how she is so fake, a liar, violent, etc. No matter how right Palin is, it doesn’t matter – they are so deep in the Kool Aid it’s irrelevant what the facts are once the original narrative is made. The MSM knows that so they keep on doing it.
Matt, as I said on another PJM thread recently, it is no accident that Ms. Palin is their target of first choice … for any success on her part in shaping the thinking (as opposed to mere acceptance of The Progressive Narrative) of the nation is a direct threat to the credential-based self-esteem (not to mention their mellow regarding their lifestyle choices) of the Re-, er, Progressive base …
… as well as a direct threat to the relevance and meal tickets of the professional/political class of both parties, who (rightly) see such success, by someone not groomed and controlled by their conventional wisdom, as having the potential to render their services as obsolete as the buggy whip.
That is why electing her, or someone like her who refuses to passively accept the conventional wisdom of the DC elites, would be the real game-changer.
Call the employer of these empty hats and the employer to do a cost benefit to liberal commentators they employ. At best, liberal commentators are probably “worth” about 1/10 (yes, one-tenth) their pay.
It’s about time the American People push back on over-paid, egotistical liberal pundits. They clearly aren’t worth their salary.
awesome catch! WHY DO ALL THESE LEFTISTS HAVE AN UNCANNY
ABILITY TO BE HYPOCRITICAL. SIMPLE: WHEN YOU HAVE NO PRINCIPLES,
ITS PRETTY DANG TOUGH TO KEEP TRACK OF WHAT YOU REALLY
BELIEVE!
The lefts tactic of making wild accusations against people
who disagree with them (be it Palin, Beck, Rush, the Tea party,
etc.) needs to be short-circuited. I therefore humbly offer the
following suggestion. The next time a leftist, be it pundit,
commentator, or politician makes a wild accusation, the response
ought to be something along the lines of this: Anyone who believes
that is crazy, or thinks they can score political points by making
such an outrageous charge. So which are you: crazy, or a venal,
opportunistic liar?
After 30+ years (me) 50+ years before (my Dad), I
let me subscription to the Atlantic lapse. After Michael Kelly
left, it seems as if the magazine was taken over by sneering,
vapid, narcissistic adolescents. James Fallows continues to be
portentously wrong (remember his time in Japan?) any
magazine that gives Andrew Sullivan a spot is not aimed at
grownups.
Another example of Palin Derangement Syndrome. The left hates her so rabidly that they will jump on any chance to criticise her for anything, without taking even a tiny effort to check their logic or facts, or to verify that either they, or their allies, have done exactly the same thing. It means that their attacks instantly rebound on them, doing them great damage, while hardly phasing Palin, or even making her look better for being falsly accused.
It reminds me of the final battle scene in Kung Foo Panda, where the evil tiger kept striking the Panda, and his attacks kept rebounding and hurting him far worse.
Just another reason why we love Clarice. She never pulls her punches. Gorgeous back woods gal (Sarah, not Clarice) – indeed!
Unbelievable hypocrisy.
Thanks for headlining this Clarice.
Not sure if professional writers are under-educated, but I
am sure that many are propagandists. They will say anything that
advances their agenda, even if it contradicts what they previously
said. Just like the American communists in the 1930s. When Hitler
and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact, the US communists urges
isolationism. When Hitler attacked mother Russia, the US
communists did a complete about-face and urged America to get into
the war. Their concern was not with the best interests of the US
but with that best interests of the USSR. Similarly, the current
crop of propagandists will say anything to advance their agenda of
turning America into a European-style socialist state.
Thanks for all the kind comments.
The beauty of the whole thing is :
Sarah Palin IS none-to-bright.
But the left is far stupider still.
If only she were also black………ah…now THAT would be the ultimate juggernaut of lefty flypaper.
Actually, she is very articulate and appears to be very
intelligent. Who am I going to believe, you, or my own eyes? On
what observable facts do you premise your conclusion of
none-too-bright besides lack of Harvard or equivalent pedigree?
Just wondering, since Im inclined to think attendance at Harvard
or the Kennedy School of Government should be a presumptive
disqualification for significant employment.
…Sarah Palin IS none-too-bright. TIMMMBER! A(nother)
toad falls in the forest: does he realize who felled him with her
little axe? BHO, Dupnik, Krugman, Kos, Yglesias, Corn, Cohen,
Alan…and now Toads. Shes stacking em like cordwood.
Hi, Clarice! Right on target as usual. Oops. Is that forbidden speech now?
It certainly is, Surfer.