Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

The Ten Worst U.S. Purveyors of Antisemitism, #5: Ron Paul

The hateful kook who would be president.

by
P. David Hornik

Bio

January 12, 2014 - 7:00 am
Page 1 of 4  Next ->   View as Single Page

PJ-Ron Paul-1

A few months ago Ron Paul touched off a media flap by agreeing to give the keynote address, on September 11, to a conference of the Fatima Center in Niagara Falls, Canada. The American Jewish Committee said it was “appalled” and “dismayed” and called on Paul to reconsider. Of course, he did not take the advice.

The Fatima Center is a Catholic fringe group whose leader, Father Nicholas Gruner, was suspended by the Vatican in 1996.

As a Huffington Post blogger noted at the time, the center,

has in the past published writing suggesting that Jews should be stripped of certain civil rights…. Gruner [and other leaders] have for over two decades promoted claims that a global conspiracy of wealthy “apostate Jews” and Freemasons—who are alleged to have financed Hitler and the Nazis and hold a “Hitler-like doctrine of exterminating the gentile races and repopulating the Earth with their own kind”—is plotting to institute a “New World Order” global government under the command of the anti-Christ.

 …Also…at the event will be speakers who have promoted Holocaust denial and portrayed global warming as a hoax that will be used to justify a Jewish and Israeli-led genocide of most of the Earth’s population, and who reject the long-established scientific fact that the Earth orbits the Sun.

Gruner himself is a blatant Holocaust denier, and the Southern Poverty Law Center has called the Fatima Center “perhaps the single largest group of hard-core anti-Semites in North America.”

What, then, was the longtime congressman and three-time presidential aspirant doing—on September 11, of all days—addressing such a gathering?

The answer is that he fit right in.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
If a man spends his lifetime searching for the most radical professors, dines with Rashid Khalidi, is mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, embraces guilty as hell and free as a bird Weathermen, chooses a church where the preacher loves Farrakhan and asks God to damn America...it is not guilt by association that I find at the end of that trail.

It is identity.

The acceptance of the "honor" to speak at the execrable "Fatuous Fatima"...Paul does the same.

And those who deny it are fooling nobody.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Joseph Sobran once said "Antisemitism used to refer to anyone who hated Jews; now it means anyone who Jews hate."

I think that sentiment applies to this article.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Another Ron Paul hit-piece. You quote people talking about Ron Paul but provide no anti-Semitic, racist, or unpatriotic quotes from Paul himself. Guilt by association, hearsay, a picture of him standing next to someone... please!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (74)
All Comments   (74)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Food for thought.

Justice Matthew Cooper who is Jewish, is convinced I am anti-Semitic. But, why would he conduct himself from the bench in such a way that would fuel anti-Semitism? Unless his outburst is an inspection of his own brain for his hatred of Gentile fathers of European decent.

Maybe he knows Jay Lefkowitz who said to The New York Times:

“Deep down, I believe that a little anti-Semitism is a good thing for the Jews – reminds them who they are" (New York Times Magazine, February 12, 1995 p. 65). These comments were made by Jay Lefkowitz, a lawyer, who served as President Bush’s Special Envoy for Human Rights. The fact that the comments originated with a lawyer is uncanny, but even more so because of his background and his status as a Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea. What the comments really demonstrate is that a desirable amount of anti-Semitism – Mr. Lefkowitz needs “a little anti-Semitism", not a lot – whenever absent, can and must be induced by provocation to perpetuate the cause for Jewish group stratagem.

Just thinking out loud.


--



Fanaticism is now mainstream in the legal community, that it is affecting my divorce case:
When a Judge (or the lawyers) loses his or her objectivity, then the truism applies:
Everything is religious, everything is political.


Justice Matthew F. Cooper: Sending me this about "The F--king Jews"
Mr. Santomauro: No, actually, it was the opposite of that. It was "F--k the Arabs" in the essay.
Sandra Schpoont (Attorney for my 11 year old son): Oh, that's better.
Steven Mandel (Attorney for my ex-wife): Oh, that's better.
Justice Matthew F. Cooper: Oh, that's better.


Letter from The Mandel Law Firm (Steven J. Mandel) 12-9-13
http://tinyurl.com/ozkcek8


Justice Matthew F. Cooper: "Is that [Jewish] agenda to dilute the Aryan race?" On page 20:


http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/Newsletter%20727.pdf

+++
The essay in question:
+The Myth of the Innocent Civilian

http://www.nolanchart.com/article674-the-myth-of-the-innocent-civilian.html

"Justice Matthew F. Cooper has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word.

"It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Justice Cooper has attempted, perhaps not surprisingly, to justify one smear with another in the same direction.

"Michael Santomauro promotes the ideal of "scientific journalism" – where the underlaying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely in order to avoid these type of distortions. Michael Santomauro treasurse his strong Jewish support just as he treasures the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share the hope for a just world." --I.S.


Peace.
Michael Santomauro
Cell: 917-974-6367
+TWITTER: http://twitter.com/#!/Santomauro

"An anti-Semite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an anti-Semite."--Michael Santomauro.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why is P. David Hornik, a purveyor of rabid ziofascism and bigotry within the racist-nationalist wing IN ISRAEL, even writing for PJ media - 'voices from a free AMERICA'? I mean, look at this guys articles!

We should ask him if Eritrean Jews being abused in his country fall under the same anti-semitism he sees everywhere else. Does he share this disease in regards to the Palestinians, who of course are more Semitic than any political nerve ending he can hope to attach himself to?

Somehow he keeps spamming his rss with this article because it keeps moving up in Google's news feed.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ron Paul, is this you? It appears. you do not like your portraiture here, do you?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Three months before far-right extremists killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, Paul’s newsletter praised the “1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America….”"

This implies (intentionally, I'm sure) a false connection between McVeigh and the militia movement.

In fact, McVeigh attended just a very few meetings of one militia and was told not to come back, as they found his views unacceptable.

That said, it is regrettably true that white supremacists have taken over much of the militia movement.

That's very bad for America, because it poisons something that should be regarded as the essence of American patriotism, rather than being looked at with suspicion.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Patricus Minimus wrote below: "I have read a great deal by Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, the other so-called "anti-Semite". Somehow I can't find any bigotry, anti-Semitism or racism in these writings".

Really?

There are many examples. Concerning Buchanan, are you familiar with his series of writings and public statements concerning American Jews who supported the first Gulf War (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/pat_buchanan_and_his_enablers.php?page=all))?

Regarding specific Jewish public figures who supported that conflict, he attributed their position to a primary political loyalty to Israel. He did not indicate the same for gentile public figures who shared the same position and he offered no evidence, aside from Jewish heritage, of the supposed first loyalty of those American Jews to Israel. Also, he giving a list of specific public figures who supported the war and had obviously Jewish names (ex., Henry Kissinger) , he gave a list of names of the sort of Americans who would have to actually fight the war, all typical gentile names (this last point has its humorous side as Buchanan, a well known Vietnam War hawk, showd his chicken side and notoriously failed to serve while Kissinger, a refugee, served with the US Army in Europe in WWII).

So, how are Buchanan's statements not anti-Semitic, i.e., attributing disloyal and cowardly behavior to fellow citizens just because they are Jews? I've asked this question to commenters several times on the Buchanan post and haven't receive an answer.

Here's the relevant excerpts from the cited Columbia Journalism Review article:
'... Buchanan didn’t merely oppose the American-led effort to repel Saddam Hussein’s absorption of Kuwait; he implied that those who supported the war were doing so at the behest of a foreign power.

“There are only two groups that are beating the drums … for war in the Middle East,” Buchanan said at the time on the McLaughlin Group, “the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.” Buchanan was playing on the trope—deployed by anti-Semites around the world from the Crusaders to Mel Gibson—that Jews are the cause of the world’s problems. Lest there be any doubt about to whom he was referring, days later he wrote a column naming four people from that “amen corner,” then-New York Times columnist A.M. Rosenthal; former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle; columnist Charles Krauthammer; and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. All, needless to say, Jews. And then, in case the point still wasn’t clear, he followed up with a column specifying just who would be doing the fighting and dying in the amen corner’s war: “Kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown.” Buchanan was unfazed by the outcry. “I don’t retract a single word,” he told Time. “The reaction was simply hysterical and is localized to New York.” Not Washington or Los Angeles or Peoria. New York (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/pat_buchanan_and_his_enablers.php?page=all)'.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In the distant past, the Southern Poverty Law Center was once a reasonably legitimate civil rights organization.

It is now a complete farce and a far left-wing political smear machine, labeling everyone to the right of David Brooks a “hate group.” For just one example, the hateful SPLC brands Pam Geller a hater along with pretty much any Tea Party member.

But by its own standards, the SPLC is clearly a hate group, as domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins admitted in a videotaped interview that he was inspired to shoot up the Family Research Council’s headquarters by the SPLC’s hate rhetoric.

As the author of this 'article' aligns with the SPLC, he too must be a hater.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The term “chain rattler” is a colloquial term that applies to anyone that likes to cause and or create turmoil and unrest. In Proverbs Chapter 16, beginning in verse 6, you can read of the six things that YHVH hates with the seventh being an abomination unto Him. The seventh is anyone who sows discord among his brethren. The author of this article serves NO other purpose than to try and accomplish the aforementioned conditions. As my brother Paul once wrote concerning Alexander the coppersmith, “may the LORD reward him according to his works”.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Funny how Proverbs 16:6 mentioned that, because it seems Jesus and God's actions definitely seemed to chainrattle/sow discord among the Christians and the Jewish people, and then we've got Islam, which was created by God via Archangel Gabriel, and is targeting both. God and Jesus, by their actions, started a three-way war amongst their creation. With the Jewish-Christian conflict, Jewish people wanted Christians dead largely because of the belief that he wasn't the messiah, and apparently Jesus also told the Jewish people that their chosen status was revoked, and that they either submit to Jesus or their fate is sealed. As for Islam, well, some statements in the Quran pretty much show what seemed to be intended for the Jewish people, and possibly to Christians. Jesus and his father knew full well what would happen as a result (how could they not, as they are all-knowing or omniscient?). This was what I've read at least, and right now, even though God claimed he was loving and all of that, the evidences from here seem to show he is manipulative. Can't fight against Him as I'll be destroyed in a millisecond if I even try, so I might as well just cow before Him, submit to Him in absolute terror. I've seen his actions in Raiders of the Lost Ark, as well as read up on his actions in the bible itself, such as flooding the planet, tormenting the Egyptians to force them to free the Jewish people, blowing up Sodom and Gomorrah, and the like.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Blubbering nonsense from EJ01
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's not "nonsense." I'll even back it up if you wish. I believe it was John 14:6, with the whole "I am the truth, I am the way" speech, which stated that it was only through Jesus that you can get to Heaven. That pretty much implies that he and his father revoked the Jewish's chosen status (since they have to either give up Judaism and submit to Christ, or otherwise be damned). Since both Jesus and his father (certainly his father) are omniscient, they'd fully realize that this would only result in a war between Judaism and Christianity, at the very least. These are all able to be cited, BTW, so no, its not nonsense at all.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is an anti-Semite behind every tree. All beasts and fowl are in on this. If they claim they are not that is certain proof of their guilt.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
KentfromOhio beat me to it: "Using the Southern Poverty Law Center as a legitimate source casts at least as much doubt on the intelligence of the author as he casts on Ron Paul." I could add the Anti-Defamation League as another dubious source. I don't think Mr. Hornik has any other sources.

I have read a great deal by Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, the other so-called "anti-Semite". Somehow I can't find any bigotry, anti-Semitism or racism in these writings. Sometimes they describe issues on which the interests of the U.S. do not coincide with those of Israel. If that is anti-Semitic behavior then most of the world is also guilty.

The author has assembled a long list of suspected anti-Semites. Why do people start all their writings with accusations of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism or whatever? Get out of the sewer Mr. Hornik.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Lew Rockwell, a long time friend, ally and employee of Ron Paul, owns Mises.com website. He often publishes Rothbard's writings and speaks glowingly of his and Ron Paul's mentor and friend.
They are three peas in a pod.
"Rothbard's work on race and politics, eulogized and promoted by Rockwell, therefore poses major problems for his current supporters and potential new followers. Even Ron Paul recognized this problem, belatedly, when he claimed that "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea." If this statement is true, it would mean that Rothbard was not a true libertarian. If the statement is false, it would mean that at least one brand of libertarianism was racist, and Rothbard's present and future supporters must decide if they wish to wear that brand. "
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ron Paul is simply asserting a " no true Scotsman " fallacy as a rhetorical defence.

Just because his version of libertarianism attracts as inordinate number of antisemities with whom he associates and does business with freely he waves all of that away.

His whole argument is based on a false premise. You can be a libertarian, democrat, republican, catholic etc, even Jewish and still be antisemitic.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, let's consider:
"Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea."
By identifying a distinct group and assigning them a positive trait to establish a superior status, one is engaging in collectivism.
So I guess "libertarians" ARE capable of collectivist ideas.

Or it is just another element of the pernicious and pervasive hypocrisy that defines the entire Rothbard-Rockwell-Paul branch of "paleo-libertarianism"/"anarcho-capitalism"/whatever they have decided to change the name to this week.
Either their writing are taken at absolute face value and they are blatant and overt racists, or their writings are taken as political tools and they are nothing more than ordinary opportunistic demagogues with no serious commitment to anything but personal aggrandizement and power.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Thank you for this link.

It's bizarre that bigoted trash such as Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul wave around Murray Rothbard (apparently he had some Jewish ancestry) as a talisman to ward off accusations of anti-Semitism. I have never heard of Rothbard having any engagement with Jewish practice or Jewish communal affairs. As a matter of fact, aside from the use of his name as a "token Jew" by Buchanan, Paul and their ilk, I have never heard his name attached to anything serious.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Notice the Paulbots demanding quotes. If you quote his newsletter, they'll deny he wrote it. If you quote his speeches, they'll accuse you of "taking it out of context."

One should also make note of the lower-key Rand Paul, who managed two of his father's campaigns for President and time after time asserted there was no disagreement between them. These were the campaigns where Paul accepted donations from radical groups.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
His father and associates is what keeps me on the brink of abandoning all support of Rand Paul. I fear he just puts a nicer, more rational face on his father's craziness.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All