The Rhetoric Is So Lame, Even A Cartoon Makes Sense

Kudos for the creator of this cartoon, who displays the hatred towards Sarah Palin.  This was created after the Tucson, Arizona shooting.

The Memorial Service That Never Was

Twitter was all abuzz about the memorial service held in Tucson, Arizona. All this time, the media did not stop with this buzz; that the President was preparing his speech, and for hours on end when I thought he was “done” with it, he wasn’t.  FOX News and other media outlets kept the pressure on; the expectations were high, while the status of the patients were still coming in.

These were tough matters to address on that speech, and to do so appropriately. He had to follow President Clinton‘s speech after the Oklahoma City bombing, and George W. Bush after 9/11. So President Obama had big shoes to fill. It was going to be a memorial service for those who lost their lives on the Safeway in Tucson, Arizona. At least that’s what we were told.

I knew it would be tricky, precisely because of this odd balance. But I knew that of all people, Obama could pull this off very easy. What I didn’t expect were the T-shirts, the concession stands, and the strange blessing of the Native American (which by experience, it is not up to par with tribes I know.) Perhaps Native American tribes in the North conduct their blessings differently.

Folks on Twitter were puzzled at the musical scores for the evening: The crowd cheering for everybody that was called onstage, even members of the Obama administration were cheered at when they read quotes from the Holy Bible.  In my opinion, the only one that did deserve the stand-up ovation was the real hero that helped Congresswoman Giffords, Daniel Hernández.

Hence the tricky part: Was it supposed to be sober? Was it supposed to be a celebration of life? It felt like neither. President Obama’s speech was good, especially towards the end. But unfortunately the cheering, applause, whistlings and “woo-hoo’s” were a big distraction. People that were in their vehicles when the memorial service started got on Twitter and wrote that they were confused, because it sounded just like a college game or an event specific to the university.

I honestly believe President Obama was surprised at his surroundings. Unfortunately, it turned out to be more of a political rally rather than a memorial service. I was very happy when Obama announced that Congresswoman Giffords opened her eyes, but Obama didn’t have to say multiple times, like a preacher would. That’s when the “tone and rhetoric” took a dive. There were people right on the front rows, directly affected by this tragedy and they were weeping. They were serious, and thoughtful. 

The crowd at thee McKale Arena at the University of Arizona should have taken notice of this, the University’s administration could have handled this differently, and President Obama should have addressed the crowd about the noise and call for respect for the deceased and wounded, restrain himself from the cult following. What do I mean by that?

The nickname “Healer In Chief” that MSNBC and the New York Times used as a past campaign “uniter” and in this case, the lie that he and only he somewhat had ”Gaby” open her eyes for the first time.

Related Articles

• No, Boehner didn’t “snub” memorial rally (hotair.com)
• Obama at Arizona Memorial: ‘We Can’t Use This Tragedy to Turn on Each Other’ [VIDEO] (observer.com)
• President Barack Obama Speech at Tucson Memorial Service – Watch Full Video (binsidetv.net)
• Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Speaks Movingly at Tucson Memorial (mediaite.com)
• Brit Hume Questions Tone, Timing Of Arizona Shooting Memorial Service (huffingtonpost.com)
• Congressional intern praised as hero at memorial (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• ‘Gabby Opened Her Eyes For The First Time:’ Obama At Tucson Memorial (politicsdaily.com)
• Obama Leads World’s Most Confusing Memorial Service [Video] (gawker.com)

Related Articles

• Obama Leads World’s Most Confusing Memorial Service [Video] (gawker.com)

Obama’s Speech To AZ With Campaign T-Shirts

To think this was going to be the Best Speech Ever™.  What a low blow to those who are still hospitalized, perished and could care less for a campaign speech…with no red in sight.

 

Keep it up, Obama. Keep it up.

Attacks Against Governor Palin Border On Anti-Semitism

Per my earlier post, I read carefully all the past events that Jews went through by Catholic persecution and later as a useful tool for Hitler to make his case against them. The Jewish community, Israel as a country have gone through enough times and suffering; from hangings, to starvation and torture.

As a Catholic I feel ashamed by ignorance and prosecution that still goes on today from several directions. As Governor Palin states, I stand by Israel, Bibi Netanyahu and acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The past is gone; now we are living the early stages of the 21st Century and the hatred and bigotry haven’t stopped since Jesus Christ’s own sacrifice for all of us.

It is incredibly childish, distasteful and full of hatred-I dare say towards Jews, who will see this an either an attack, or an opportunity. If they decide to choose to “cast the first stone” and make statements against Governor Palin, liberals will gladly accept as part of their goal of Governor Palin’s political destruction. Liberals seek to bring back  a myth, which is now used as a metaphor. After all, liberals love to brag that Palin “was the one behind the trigger,” and not Jared Loughner. Therefore, Palin has blood on her hands by proxy.

Liberals have scrubbed off online material that may be compromising to them of extreme hatred towards Congresswoman Griffin and have been on the offensive and their extreme hatred continues to this day.

Personally, I believe it’s time to call on those on the GOP to task to stand side to side of Governor Palin, and later on the winners of their districts and states that Palin helped, campaigned for, and donated to them this past November.

It’s on time like these that you know who your friends really are. Unfortunately, that has been the family’s problem since 2008.

Related Articles

• Jewish groups condemn Palin’s use of term ‘blood libel’ (dailykos.com)
• Zionism and Anti-Semitism (indigenist.blogspot.com)
• Jewish advocacy group speaks out about Palin’s use of the term ‘blood libel’ (inquisitr.com)
• Poll: Conservatives not to blame for Ariz. shooting – USA Today (news.google.com)
• Palin goes public on Arizona shooting (bbc.co.uk)
• Palin slammed for using ‘blood libel’ term (jta.org)

History Of Blood Libel From 1144 Until 2007

“I am going through old Spanish college books and Catholic websites to see if they mention the “blood libel” term under any other circumstance than what’s out there in the media, which can be misinterpreted.” This should be a “tweet” but hey, when it comes to Sarah Palin, anything and everything must be researched to a tee.

I decided to post here from the website Religious Tolerance-which should be what the world needs so much. Sad to read, but glad that is in the past. Now a somewhat irregular term to get a point across and aim at a problem that has unfolded from Saturday on.

Read on (emphasis mine):

Blood libel accusations against Jews:

In 1144 CE, an unfounded rumor began in eastern England, that Jews had kidnapped a Christian child, tied him to a cross, stabbed his head to simulate Jesus’ crown of thorns, killed him, drained his body completely of blood, and mixed the blood into matzos (unleavened bread) at time of Passover. The rumor was started by a former Jew, Theobald, who had become a Christian monk. He said that Jewish representatives gathered each year in Narbonne, France. They decided in which city a Christian child would be sacrificed.

The boy involved in the year 1144 hoax became known as St. William of Norwich. Many people made pilgrimages to his tomb and claimed that miracles had resulted from appeals to St. William. The myth shows a complete lack of understanding of mainline Judaism. Aside from the prohibition of killing innocent persons, the Torah specifically forbids the drinking or eating of any form of blood in any quantity. However, reality never has had much of an impact on blood libel myths. This rumor lasted for many centuries; even today it has not completely disappeared. ₁

Pope Innocent IV ordered a study in 1247 CE. His investigators found that the myth was a Christian invention used to justify persecution of the Jews. At least 4 other popes subsequently vindicated the Jews. However, the accusations, trials and executions continued. In 1817, Czar Alexander I of Russia declared that the blood libel was a myth. Even that did not stop the accusations against Jews in that country.

“Holy shrines were erected to honor innocent Christian victims, and well into the twentieth century, churches throughout Europe displayed knives and other instruments that Jews purportedly used for these rituals. Caricatures of hunchbacked Jews with horns and fangs were depicted in works of art and carved into stone decorating bridges. Proclaimed by parish priests to be the gospel truth, each recurrence of the blood libel charge added to its credence, thus prompting yet more accusations. This vicious cycle continued to spiral.” ₇

Nicholl reports that “there are 150 recorded cases of the charge of ritual murder, and many led to massacres of the Jews of the place.” ₂

Some of the incidents were:

	1144 CE: Jews in Norwich, England were accused of the ritual murder. This is believed to be the first recorded case of the “blood libel” myth. Jewish leaders in the area were executed.
	1171: Jews in Blois, France were accused of ritual murder. All of the Jews in that town (34 men, 16 or 17 women) were “dragged to a wooden tower where they were given the option of baptism or death. None chose the former.” 7 They were burned alive. A second source says that 31 were killed.
	1181: More accusations at Bury, St. Edmund, England
	1181: Three Christian boys disappeared after playing on a frozen river in Vienna, Austrai.  Several “witnesses” swore that Jews had slaughtered the boys. Three hundred Jews were burned at the stake. After the spring thaw, the bodies of the boys were recovered. They had drowned, and were otherwise unharmed. 7
	1183: More accusations in Bristol, England
	1192: More accusations in Winchester, England
	1199: More accusations and Jewish executions in Erfurt, Bischofsheim.
	1235: More accusations and Jewish executions in Lauda, Fulda.
	1244: London Jews were accused of ritual murder and fined heavily.
	1250: Jews in Saragossa, Spain, were accused of ritually killing a child, San Domenichino de Val.
	1255: The body of a little boy, Hugh, was found in a cesspool near the house of a Jew in Lincoln, England. The latter was tortured, confessed that he had engaged in ritual murder, dragged through the streets, and finally hung. 100 Jews were transported to London and charged with ritual murder. One was acquitted; 2 were pardoned; the rest were hanged, either with or without a trial. One source states that 19 Jews were hung without benefit of trial.
	1263: A Dominican monk published a theory that God had inflicted Jews with a terrible disease because they had murdeed Yeshua. He reasoned that the only cure was to kill an innocent Christian child and consume its blood.
	1283-5: Following a series of ritual murder charges, 10 Jews were murdered by a mob in Mainz; 26 were executed in Bacharach, 40 in Oberwellil, and 180 in Munich.
	1431: After ritual murder charges, several Jewish communities were destroyed in southern Germany: Ravensburg, Uberlingen and Lindau. 7
	1451: Pope Nicholas V appointed John of Capistrano to organize the Inquisition of the Jews. John repeated the old charges of ritual murder and host desecration.
	1475: A few days before Easter, Samuel, a Jew in Trent, Italy, found the body of a Christian infant named Simon. He had apparently drowned in a nearby river. A number of Jews were arrested and tortured. All confessed to murdering the infant. They were burned at the stake. Stories spread of miraculous cures which were believed to have been caused by contacting Simon’s bones. Simon was canonized as a holy martyr by Pope Gregory XIII. Simon’s beatification was reversed in 1965. 7
	1492: Tomas de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition engineered a blood libel case in La Guardia, Spain. Jews who had converted to Christianity were accused and tortured. They confessed to helping the chief rabbi to abuse and crucify a Christian child. 7
	1541: John Eck, a Roman Catholic writer, wrote a pamphlet  “Refutation of a Jewish Book.” He repeated the ritual murder and host desecration myths.
	1840: An elderly Italian monk-priest, Padre Tommaso, and his servant disappeared in Damascus, Syria, after having visited the Jewish quarter in the city.  A French consol to the Ottoman Empire, Ratti-Menton, promoted a groundless theory of ritual murder that the local Muslim government largely accepted. Jewish leaders were arrested and tortured. Sixty of their children were held hostage and starved to pressure their parents into confessing. One source said that four adults died from the mistreatment; another states that two died and some were permanently disabled. 7 Most of the rest confessed involvement in a ritual murder. 3 Yhe consul then requested permission from the Syrian government to murder the rest of his suspects. As a result of widespread protests from Sir Moses, Montefiore, Adolphe Cremieux, Solomon Munk, and others, the lives of the survivors were spared. This event introduced the blood libel myth to the Arab world, where it is still circulating. It also led to an organized effort by Jews in Europe and the Middle East to protect themselves. This affair spurred early Zionist writers like Hess to promote the Zionist cause. 13,14
	1853: Two Jews of Saratov, Russia, were convicted of ritually murdering two Christian children. 7
	1870′s: “With the rise of the modern antisemitic movement in the late 1870s, the traditional blood accusation merged easily with the new scientific racial arguments, serving as a lowest common denominator to unite its secular (and often anti-Christian), Catholic, and Protestant members.” 3 Roman Catholic Bishop Martin of Pederborn, Germany, wrote that Jews ritually murdered Christian children.
	1881: A Roman Catholic journal, Civilta Cattolica, started a series of articles which attempted to prove that ritual murder was an integral element of the Jewish religion. They argued that the ritual murders occurred at Purim rather than Passover. “It is in vain that Jews seek to slough off the weight of argument against them: the mystery has become known to all.” (Not quite all. Historians have rejected the stories of blood libel as myth.) 3
	1911-3: The Beilis case, an accusation of ritual murder of a boy by the name of Andriusha  Yustchinsky, surfaced in Kiev, Russia. At first, his mother looked like a possible suspect. Although the boy had disappeared eight days before his body was found, she had not notified the police. She showed no emotion when her son’s body was discovered. Upon his death, she inherited 500 rubles, which had been held in trust. Suspicion later fell on Vera Tchebiraik who was involved with a gang of thieves. Andriusha was a schoolmate of her son, and would often stay overnight in her home. The boy might have heard about or seen some criminal act by the gang and been murdered to assure his silence. However, this was a time of great unrest in the country, and widespread anti-Jewish sentiment. Soon, the blood libel myth surfaced.  “Mendel Beilis was a Jew arrested in 1911 by the Czarist secret police in Kiev and accused of ritually murdering a Christian boy to use his blood in baking matzoh. He was jailed for almost two and one-half years, under horrible conditions, while awaiting trial. In 1913, after a dramatic trial, he was [unanimously] acquitted by an all Christian jury.” 6,7,8,12
	1920s: Mendel Beilis emigrated to the U.S. and wrote his autobiography, called “The Story of My Sufferings.” 6
	1960s: Bernard Malamud wrote a novel called “The Fixer.” He received both a Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award. Although he claimed that this was an original story, some analysts believe that Malamud took most of the events and details from Beilis’ book. 6
	1930′s +: Hitler re-used the blood-libel myth as justification for the Holocaust. The Nazi periodical, Der Stürmer, often published special issues devoted to allegations of ritual murder by Jews. Hitler had asked that a propaganda film be made of the 1840 Damascus case. World War II ended before it could be made.
	2000′s: The Jewish blood-libel myth continues to circulate among many Muslim countries. Egyptian film producer is making a movie about the Syrian case in 1840, called “The Matzoh of Zion.” Director Albert Maysles is making a film about the Beilis case.
	2007: Ariel Toaff, an Israeli historian of Italian origin, published a book that has revived the blood libel story. It is titled: “Bloody Passovers: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders.” Toaff suggests that several crucifixions of Christian children occurred from 1100 to about 1500 CE. He wrote:

“My research shows that in the Middle Ages, a group of fundamentalist Jews did not respect the biblical prohibition and used blood for healing. It is just one group of Jews, who belonged to the communities that suffered the severest persecution during the Crusades. From this trauma came a passion for revenge that in some cases led to responses, among them ritual murder of Christian children.”

He bases his book on the testimony given under torture. Twelve of Italy’s chief rabbis issued a press release stating:

“It is totally inappropriate to utilize declarations extorted under torture centuries ago to reconstruct bizarre and devious historical theses. … The only blood spilled in these stories was that of so many innocent Jews, massacred on account of unjust and infamous accusations.”

Sergio Luzzatto, in an article in the Corriere della Serra wrote:

“Even if the author should manage to prove that a deviant sect existed for centuries…clearly it could never be identified as a Jewish group, or as part of a Jewish community. This would be comparable to saying that the rabbis who were present at [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust Denial Conference in Teheran represent mainstream Judaism.” ₁₅

Related Articles

• What is “Blood Libel?” (politicalwire.com)
• Sarah Palin incorrectly uses term “blood libel” to defend herself (shortformblog.com)
• Palin charges critics with ‘blood libel’ (politico.com)
• Jewish Republicans muted on Palin’s ‘blood libel’ comment (thehill.com)
• Sarah Palin: Death Panels And Blood Libel (riehlworldview.com)
• Palin slammed for using ‘blood libel’ term (jta.org)
• Sarah Palin Video: ‘Blood Libel’ Remarks About Tucson Shooting: (nowpublic.com)

Palin’s Video Transcript-In Her Own Words

Several conservative websites and blogs have the transcript; to spread the message, I follow suit:

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, 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 they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

Related Articles

• Sarah Palin Blasts Media For “Blood Libel” Against Her Over Arizona Shootings (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Palin Charges Critics with ‘Blood Libel’ Over Tucson (thepage.time.com)
• Sarah Palin Responds To Giffords Shooting Tragedy [Video] (realestateradiousa.com)
• Sarah Palin’s Arizona Shooting Statement Blasts Journalists & Pundits’ ‘Blood Libel’ (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• She’s Back: Sarah Palin Speaks Out On The Arizona Tragedy (mediaite.com)
• Video: “Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel” (hotair.com)
• Sarah Palin Issues Statement on Political Discourse (dakotavoice.com)
• Palin blasts critics for ‘blood libel’ over Arizona shooting (theprovince.com)