******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Ed Koch Backs Palin On "Blood Libel" Charge

Ed Koch, former Mayor of New York City, has come to the defense of Sarah Palin regarding her use of the term "blood libel" to describe the malicious and false accusations that Palin's electoral target map contributed to the Tucson shootings (emphasis mine):
Today the phrase "blood libel" can be used to describe any monstrous defamation against any person, Jew or non-Jew. It was used by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when he was falsely accused of permitting the Lebanese Christian militia to kill hundreds of defenseless and innocent Muslim men, women and children in Lebanese refugee camps. The killings were monstrous and indefensible revenge for earlier killings by Muslims of innocent Christian civilians.

Time Magazine published a story implying that Sharon was directly responsible for the massacres. He sued the magazine. At trial it was determined that the magazine story included false allegations, but since Sharon was a public figure, he received no monetary damages.

How dare Sarah Palin, cried the commentators, use that phrase to describe the criticism of her by those who blamed her for creating the atmosphere that set Loughner off in his murderous madness. Some took the position that it proved their ongoing charges that she is not an intelligent person and probably did not know what the phrase meant historically. In my opinion, she was right to denounce her critics and use blood libel to describe the unfair criticism that she had been subject to.
It is so interesting that the punditry seems more interested in nit-picking Palin's verbiage, even though that verbiage demonstrably was consistent with modern usage of the term "blood libel, rather than denouncing the people who spread the lie that Palin was responsible for the Tucson shooting -- a lie believed by 56% of Democrats and 35% of the nation overall.

It's 2012 folks, and the media will do whatever it can to destroy Republican candidates.  This is just the beginning.

Related Posts:
The Dilemma of Someone Libeled - Palin Edition
Alan Dershowitz, Praised
60 Minutes On Loughner

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Bookmark and Share


  1. "It's 2012 folks...."

    My how time flies! I was sure this was 2011. ;-)

  2. I am not sure I can take this, if this is just an example of what they will do. I hope some leftist gives Levin the ammo he needs to sue these incompetent MSM propagandists. It may not be enough, but hopefully it will give some hacks pause before costing themselves and their media outlets the big bucks.

    I would so enjoy that. But I won't hold my breath.

    Also interesting - I never would have seen Ed Koch as a person who would defend Sarah Palin. He has some integrity. Something to be thankful for, in this toxic day and age.

  3. In Defense of Sarah Palin: A Fearless Vow To Never Sit Down And Shut Up

    "she actually accomplished a whole lot more with this passionate and, dare I say, courageous appearance. Not only did she rally her conservative troops, but she also laid the foundation for her continued relevance as a national figure while also skillfully establishing why she believed the mainstream media, and liberals in general, despise her. Simply put, she’s the most effective messenger for conservative principles and she will not be silenced."

    "No matter one’s political beliefs though, it’s hard to dispute that Palin displays a fierce determination in the face of substantial adversity with her promise that “I’m not going to sit down, I’m not going to shut up” about issues in which she believes and with an admirable willingness to “take the darts and the arrows” she receives from all critics while continuing to speak. And when her most significant issue is ensuring that “peaceful dissent and discussion about ideas [is not] stifled by a tragic event,” Palin’s efforts toward this goal should surely be welcomed by all."


  4. Koch's column was not to weigh in on the points both sides are arguing about.

    I think the telling language comes when Koch says, "She [Palin] is an arch conservative. I [Koch] am a liberal with sanity."

    Koch chose his words carefully. He intentionlly wanted to distinguish himself as a "liberal with sanity".

    To me, that is Koch's way of telling many of Palin's liberal critics that they are behaving like insane lunatics. He's warning them that they risk doing more damage to themselves than they are doing to Palin (by losing the independents with these baseless smears).

    I doubt they'll pay attention to him, but I think that was the intent of his message.

  5. Slowly but surely, there are some signs of sanity breaking out . . . and not as silly pledges of neo-civility, but as something we should all welcome, i.e., concern for the truth, and the facts.

    From The Reclusive Leftist, here, . . . "Lee Harvey Oswald has left the building".

    The link was posted on Twitter, and on Instapundit, by Glenn Reynolds, earlier.

  6. Ed Kock is a true JFK liberal. He is not, I repeat NOT a Nancy Pelosi type progressive. But he is also an honest man. And he, unlike many in his party, knows right from wrong.

    Unfortunately, his kind are far too rare.