The last week has been filled with reporting on the Arizona shootings. Hundreds of articles and news stories have focused on the wounding and tragic loss of life of 18 innocent people in Tucson.

Almost as soon as we heard about the shootings, we heard that Palin was, or could be, responsible. Perhaps it was purely coincidental that Giffords was one of the people in Palin’s crosshairs, and that Giffords had spoken out publicly condemning Palin’s use of the map and crosshairs. http://www.good.is/post/gabrielle-giffords-warned-of-the-dangers-of-palin-s-crosshairs-map.

In Going Rogue, Palin herself, explains that she doesn’t believe in coincidences. However conservatives have attacked liberals if blame was ascribed to Palin for the attack in Tucson. To date, no facts have surfaced directly linking Palin and Jared Lochner. We may never know or understand the motivation of Loughner. Perhaps it is an effort in futility to attempt to make sense of the acts of a mentally ill person (Loughner).

President Obama memorialized the deceased in a powerful speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEiitkI2WH0. Americans have been consumed with concern for Rep. Giffords, and the family of the 9 year old child who’s life was senselessly stolen. The reaction of the country and the press to this tragedy was predictable. It was even predictable that Sarah Palin would play the victim. She does that so well. http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/politics/3972/sarah_palin_and_the_politics_of_victimization/. What was surprising, inappropriate, and totally unnecessary was Palin’s use of the term “blood libel.” It was a “curious” term to use in the context of the debate focused on the implications of a heated political climate. Sarah Palin Video: ‘Blood Libel’ Remarks About Tucson Shooting: | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sarah-palin-video-blood-libel-remarks-about-tucson-shooting-2746778.html#ixzz1BJFnV5pb. Palin was being attacked for inappropriate use of the map with gun sites, or “crosshairs” over Arizona targeting Gabrielle Giffords. If there were ever a time that we might expect Palin to be careful about the use of a metaphor or analogy, we would expect it to be during that speech. Yet she used “blood libel,” a phrase predicted to inflame at least some reporters and members of the Jewish community. At this time of crisis and focus on Palin, when Sarah Palin should have been in a “defense” mode, what was the basis for this needless attack on Jews, and why would she bring to mind something that carried such anti-Semitic sentiment, at least to some people? Why would she run the risk of further inflaming people by the use of such predictably incendiary words? After four days, she had ample time to consult any advisers she desired for help crafting the politically perfect comments to the tragedy in Arizona. If the goal was damage control, use of the term “blood libel” would be the last thing she would say. If however the goal was retaliation against Jews, it would be the perfect comment.

We know that Sarah Palin is a “barracuda.” http://malialitman.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/beware-sarah-barracuda-might-call-you-a-puppy-kicker/. We know that Giffords was the first Jewish Representative from Arizona. http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/giffords-proud-to-be-arizonas-first-jewish-congresswoman/.

But it doesn’t make sense to suggest that Giffords was the evil Jew attacking a Christian child. Giffords, a Jew, was the VICTIM, not the perpetrator. Jared Loughner, the alleged shooter, is described as an atheist. http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2011/01/15/jared_loughner_was_a_tea_partier_and_i%E2%80%99m_an_atheist_river_dancer_who_hates_hunting. Thus the use of the term “blood libel” must have been intended to refer to Palin, the innocent Christian victim, of the evil Jews.

We know that Palin is Christian. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg. But who are the “journalists and pundits” that committed this “blood libel” on Palin? What journalist or pundit sacrificed Palin? Perhaps the readers of this blog could best answer that question.

We know that Jessica Gavora is the ghost writer of Palin’s book, America by Heart. We know that Gavora is married to Jonah Goldberg, a Jew. We know that Jessica Gavora and Jonah Goldberg are both journalists. http://www.revradio.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=235:jessica-gavora-washington-dc-author-and-policy-expert&catid=38:interviews&Itemid=83; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Goldberg. We know that in the weeks preceding the statement by Palin, there was a real question about whether Palin read her own book; or if she did, whether she understood it.

http://malialitman.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/america-by-heart-the-joke-is-on-sarah-palin/

http://malialitman.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/the-empress-isnt-wearing-any-clothes/

http://malialtitman.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/america-by-heart-a-lesson-in-political-satire/.

Palin wasn’t harmed by the Arizona shootings. She was harmed by the publication of her book America by Heart, because it reveals that she is an Empress. America by Heart reveals that Palin has been naked in the past, and the book itself is the most perfect illustration of the fact that she is naked now. To my knowledge only one publication has highlighted this story. http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/politics/3972/sarah_palin_and_the_politics_of_victimization/. When others do Palin will have already positioned herself to be the victim of a Jewish assault. The amazing thing is that the “blood libel” comment simply brings more attention to the fact that Palin is the Empress, and if not naked before, she is now.