And the reason is because Obama looked upon the blood libeling of the Right and was glad. Also, his own words added to the media’s feeding frenzy against the Right, sticking to the false story line of Right-wing talk radio rhetoric leading the mass murders, instead of focusing on the victims and the heroes of the story. KGS
NOTE: Radio talk radio host, Mark Levin, says what’s exactly going with the Left’s over the top reaction to the shooting, is its reaction to the last election. That’s what this whole rhetoric thing is all about, to be as divisive as possible while claiming the high ground.
Saul Alinsky’s Rules #13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’
“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (pps.127-134)
This portion from the handbook of the radical Leftist, Saul Alinsky, was found at a piece by, Jeff Dunetz, over at Big Peace who writes:
Man some people are just looking for something to pick at. As reported earlier today, Sarah Palin released a heartfelt video this morning expressing her grief over the tragedy, relaying her prayers for the wounded and families of all the victims of the Tucson shooting, and throwing the progressive nonsense suggesting that Palin, the Tea Party, and/or right leaning media had anything to do with inciting the violence. Her speech spoke just the right tone and was delivered with dignity as opposed to bravado. But as they always seem to do, the left found something to attack, the use of one phrase. Blood libel.
Throughout the liberal world accusations began to spring up suggesting that Palin’s use of the phrase blood libel was some how an affront to the Jewish people.
As a Jew who has studied and often writes about Jewish issues, the Holocaust and Antisemitism in general allow me for a second to comment on the claims of those progressive commentators. Horse Crap!
Publius at Big Government: 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.