Typical dimwit Palin. Like anyone coming here actually wants to see her gaffes and stupidity?

Typical dimwit Palin. Thinking that censorship is the best path to take.

If she, like, came down off the mountaintop and answered questions instead of just Twittering and posting Youtube videos, somebody would have to actually ask her which journalists and pundits have incited violence, and when, and exactly what they said that was so much more reprehensible than all the shit she’s said over the years.

“Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, almost always Jews[citation needed], murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]

It also refers to the press targeting an idiot.”

Awesome.

Heck, she makes perfectly clear that she has no intention of consistency. From the transcript

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.

(skip 1 1/2 paragraphs)

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.

So, actual acts of violence cannot be blamed on statements by conservatives, but hypothetical acts of violence are most certainly the fault of statements by liberals…

Ah – are you hinting that Sarah’s speechwriter senses a hopeless, sinking ship and set her up like an “Emperor With No Clothes”? There may be a head rolling after this one (figuratively speaking of course).

here’s Sarah on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb0VW8vnMhQ

Watching this video, I am struck, as others have been, by how poorly she reads the script. I wonder how many takes they shot: she’s working pretty hard at getting the words right (with limited success), but she’s employing the wrong emphasis in many phrases.

I don’t usually watch her home-produced docu-dramas. Does she always read like this?

For someone who claims she left office to get away from politics, it’s 2011 and she seems fully entrenched in taking anything/everything political and personal.

Don’t take your guns to town, Son
Leave your guns at home, Sarah
Don’t take your guns to town

The flag placement in the video is incorrect. The flag should be displayed behind her right shoulder – something you would think to be important for her particular brand of “patriot.” Evidence, circumstantial as it may be, that her handlers are not all that swift. Don’t give them too much credit for the blood libel usage.

Also, after more or less defending her “targeted districts” map as reasonable discourse, why then, did she remove it from her Facebook page?

Flag etiquette link: http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/flag.shtml

Hmmmm.

“Andrew Cohen of CBS News, May 7, 2008: ‘So-called “judicial activism” occurs, in other words, when it’s your side that lost the case and it is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat.’”

Double Hmmmm.

Or ya’ll could go read the whole National Review article to see countless examples of punditry from both sides using the term for years.