Follow the ‘via’ link to avoid getting screwed…

Follow the ‘via’ link to go to the source…

When Sarah Palin accused journalists and pundits of “blood libel” in the wake of the deadly Arizona shootings, she reached deep into one of medieval history’s most sordid chapters to make her point.

The term “blood libel” is not well known, but it is highly charged — a direct reference to a time when many European Christians accused Jews of kidnapping and murdering Christian children to obtain their blood. Jews were tortured and executed for crimes they did not commit, emblematic of anti-Semitism so virulent that some scholars recoiled Wednesday at Palin’s use of the term.

In a video posted to her Facebook page early Wednesday, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate accused the U.S. media of inciting hatred and violence after the shooting that gravely wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Palin has been criticized for marking Giffords’ district with the cross hairs of a gun sight during last fall’s campaign.

“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,” she said.

But some experts on the history of blood libel took exception to Palin’s use of the term.

“In her own thinking, I just don’t understand the logical use of this word,” said Ronnie Hsia, a professor of history at Pennsylvania State University who has written two books about blood libel. “I think it’s inappropriate and I frankly think if she or her staff know about the meaning of this word, I think it’s insulting to the Jewish people.”

Said Jerome Chanes, a research fellow at the Center for Jewish Studies at the City University of New York: “It’s a classic case of, I don’t know what you want to call it, semantic corruption.”

How do you feel about Palin’s reference to the term ‘blood libel’?

A shocking report released Monday by the Internal Revenue Service revealed that more than 65 percent of the money donated at churches across the world never reaches God. “Unfortunately, almost half of all collections go toward administrative expenses such as management, utilities, and clerical costs,” said Virginia Raeburn, a spokesperson for the Lord Almighty, adding that another 25 percent of heavenly funding is needed just to cover payroll for the angelic hierarchy. “People always assume God is filthy rich, but they’d be surprised to learn His net worth is only around $8 million—and most of that is tied up in real estate.” According to Raeburn, God currently has enough money saved to live comfortably throughout all eternity, but He may be forced to shutter a number of† under-performing religions.

Do you agree with this list?

I’d like to try some of these…