Blood Libel, Church Burning and Sarah Palin.

On “Blood Libel” Sarah has one point to make.

Her own church got torched, children’s lives were at stake.

The media kept silence

To not promote violence

Christians endure much. How much does it take?

Dec 14 2008. — Andrew Malcolm

Sarah Palin, her husband Todd and up to 1,000 fellow parishioners will worship in a local school this morning after a suspicious fire virtually destroyed the Wasilla Bible Church early Saturday. Some women and children in a crafts group were inside at the time. Larry Kroon said some parishioners were in the church on Nicola Avenue at the time the fire was noticed but no one was injured. Firefighters battled for about eight hours in minus-20 degree temperatures to completely extinguish the blaze that began at the front door.

The former Republican vice presidential candidate went to the church Saturday to apologize to pastors in case the estimated $1 million fire damages, suspected as arson, were “in any way connected to the undeserved negative attention the church has received” since the governor’s involvement with the church.

The 30-year-old congregation in Wasilla, about 40 miles north of Anchorage, had moved into its new church just 30 months ago. Church officials said they expect to hold services at the Wasilla Middle School for the foreseeable future during repairs.

(UPDATE:

Though several federal, state and local agencies were involved in the investigation, no arrests have been made, nor have any solid leads been announced. The media reported the fire and the subsequent determination that arson was involved, but quickly lost interest in the story. The Obama administration closed the federal part of the investigation.

In the ensuing weeks since the fire, there doesn’t seem to have been much media attention or outcry against the anonymous attack on a house of worship. Probably just because Wasilla is so far away. (Yes, that’s probably the reason.)

Blood Libel and Sarah Palin. A most apt term.

The illustration on the left, located at the cult-church of Anderl von Rinn until recently, portrays the “martyrdom” of Anderl, a three year-old boy who became the focus of a blood-libel cult in the seventeenth-century. Anderl is the child being held down and having his throat slit. The killers are clearly marked as Jews by their clothes and turbans (one form of the “special mark” Jews were forced to carry by Church decree).

The third, lower, figure is collecting the child’s blood in a bowl. The myth of the blood libel was that the blood of a Christian child was used to make Passover matzohs.

Blood Libel” is termed the new phrase of the week.

As ugly as sin and not fit for the weak.

Sarah Palin, she dared

 The apt term to be shared.

For hate is much worse than a slow dripping leak.

While most liberal Jews attacked Sarah Palin for using a term she knew nothing about and was offending them in so doing, the famous law professor Alan Dershowitz defended her use of the term, saying “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.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257003/alan-dershowitz-defends-palin-blood-libel-daniel-foster

Climate challenges. The term for today. A Limerick.

From The Austrailian:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/climate-change-long-drought/story-e6frg6nf-1225984667890

THE term “climate change” could be replaced by “climate challenges” if a federal commissioned marketing study is taken onboard. The study of attitudes to climate change among farmers, commissioned by the Agriculture Department, found only 27 per cent of those surveyed believed human activity was causing climate change, compared with 58 per cent of urban dwellers. As well, primary producers are “very resistant to carbon trading”. “It fills them with dread, and there were strong negative reactions towards it,” the report says. Handed to the department late last year, the report warns that terminology that fails to take into account the attitude of primary producers towards human-induced climate change risks failure. The term “climate change” sets up negative reactions among primary producers for a number of reasons, from skepticism through to perceptions that they are being held solely responsible for causing climate change, it says. “Preferred terms such as ‘climate challenges’, ‘prolonged drought’ and ‘risk management’ are accepted, better understood and more likely to motivate change.” The report, prepared by Sydney-based marketer Instinct and Reason, was aimed at developing a communication strategy as the government seeks to sell its climate change message. It says many primary producers feel climate change and mitigation efforts are no more important compared with other significant challenges such as low prices, increasing costs, labour shortages and declining profitability. “Many primary producers expressed the view that human-induced climate change is yet to be proven and dismiss the idea that it is behind the climatic situations they currently face. Instead, they prefer to see it as yet another period of drought or change in conditions that will eventually pass.”

Is the climate a challenge? That is what they say.

Hot from the presses, the term for today.

The reason is muddy.

A marketing study

coined it. The weather will probably wash it away.

Arizona Tragic shootings. Blame Sarah Palin First. A Limerick. (and more)

Arizona Tragic shootings. Blame Sarah First. Proverbs 30:15-16 (King James Version) The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give. There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough: The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough.

Hang Sarah in effigy: freedom of speech,  (1)

When Dem’s paint a bullseye, it is but to teach. (2)

The Lib’s are horseleeches,

Cry “Give” in their speeches.

When tragedy strikes – Times first Sarah besmeech. (3)

(1) Sarah Palin effigy.

(2) DCCC map

(3)  During the fall campaign, Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice-presidential candidate, posted a controversial map on her Facebook page depicting spots where Democrats were running for re-election; those Democrats were noted by crosshairs symbols like those seen through the scope of a gun. Ms. Giffords was among those on Ms. Palin’s map. NYT Jan 8 2011.

In June 2008 The Daily Kos had this bullseye target on Gabrielle Gifford:

And one more blog entry at Daily Kos posted the day before the shooting. It has now been scrubbed. One more entry: This one deals with Candidate Barack Obama. Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight? That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Jun 13, 2008. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

And one more: Attacks on Lt.Colonel Larkin supporters in his eligibility challenge. (The American Patriot Foundation). And we must not forget the famous CNN program: