Criticizing Sarah Palin Is 'Fascistic Censorship'S

Sarah Palin is a strong leader—but not strong enough to unilaterally spout off about "blood libel" and get away with it. No! She needs media supporters for that. Thank god for Andrea Peyser, decrying "fascistic censorship." (By the media!)

If Sarah Palin needs anyone by her side in this hour of tribulation, it's a sexually conflicted New York tabloid sex addict and outspoken bigot. Or as Palin would call her, "my kind of gal." Andrea: can you please explain how the real tragedy in this Tucson shooting is something something liberal media?

From the mouths of flailing, leftist pundits to the bipolar pages of The New York Times, a gang mugging has broken out over the massacre in Tucson. A concerted effort is now underway to lay blame on the ascendant Tea Party, Sarah Palin or anyone without sufficient liberal cred for the senseless shootings carried out by Jared Lee Loughner — a guy described by one former classmate as a "lefty pothead." This is worse than a concerted attack on our democratic principles.

It's fascistic censorship.

Yes, an editorial in the New York Times is not only worse than a concerted attack on our democratic principles; it is censorship. Of the fascistic sort! How does an action so grounded in the First Amendment amount to a "concerted attack on our democratic principles?" And how does the exercise of the right to a free press amount to censorship, fascistic or otherwise?

Stop trying to manufacture a blood libel.

[NYP]