When I turned on Hardball with Chris Matthews today for comic relief, he was going apoplectic about Sarah Palin using the term “blood libel” in a post on FaceBook. Matthews was crying that Palin needs to work back her comments. But Alan Dershowitz who would never be a guest on Matthews’s show, defends Palin’s use of the word.From Big Government.com
Exclusive: Alan Dershowitz Defends Sarah Palin’s Use of Term ‘Blood Libel’
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.
Alan, you may need to call Chris Matthews because he doesn't quite get nuance of using the term 'blood libel" to describe false accusations. I mean he does work for MSNBC, well...you get what I'm saying.
Memeorandum
