Former Aide: Ron Paul is 'Most Certainly Anti-Israel'

Arutz Sheva ^ | 27/12/11 | Chana Yaar

[Smokin' Joe]

At this point, the question becomes one of how long we are going to be saddled with Romney/obamacare, how far down the road of economic devastation we want this country to go. Without a sound economy, defense becomes impracticable. .

We really need to pay attention to the Congressional races, because regardless of the resident at 1600 PA Ave, the Congress can make things happen--or stop them.

That will take a Congress with the sense of purpose and collective visceral fortitude to get the job done. Even a pacifist in the WH cannot ignore a Declaration of War passed by the Congress--and as many have seemed to forget, that is Congress' Constitutional Authority, not the Executive's.

I think, in light of that, we'd be better positioned to correct our domestic situation (especially downsizing the Federal Government and reducing our expenditures and getting useless regulation out of the way of economic recovery), and the Congress `could demand what we need for the military--something it should have been doing.

What other candidate has embraced that position, other than to state intent to make big government more 'efficient' by streamlining an entity which still usurps the Constitutional powers and authority of the States and the People?

Romney is not likely to effect any change in the current mess, save for a little less criminal activity in the Executive Branch, provided he even managed to beat Obama.

Looking at the calculus of the situation:

We have disaffected, young, possible (and former) Obama voters who are disaffected, who believe they may get what they want from a non-establishment candidate.

The anti-Israel folks would be a wash, Obama isn't exactly kind to Israel, either, and may be far more mothvated in his emnity by Islamic influences.

Despite the stereotypes, there are those more strict constitutionalists who favor downsizing the Federal Government, eliminating executive branch agencies which have been the source of myriad 'regulations' which carry the force of law, effectively legislating by bureaucracy.

While returning the abortion issue to the states would not stop the slaughter entirely, in many jurisdictions it would provide an opportunity to legislate against the practice, and effectively reduce the number of 'procedures.

As for the drug war, we've been fighting that almost as long as the 'War on Poverty', and aside from consuming tremendous resources and getting people killed, the chief effect has been gutting the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights of Americans--we still have a drug problem, and the profit motive (and profits) have corrupted all levels of enforcement as well as likely having been the chief reason the border remains open.

Considering the small fraction of drug profits it would take to make those in charge wealthy, or to run operations which would politically compromise them, it would be simply a cost of doing business. Eliminate that motive, and eliminate the appeal of doing something rebellious for the young, and while there will still be those with problems I don't think there would be an appreciable increase in actual drug use (although there might be a few more who would admit it if it wasn't a crime). Pulling that huge underground economy into the spotlight would increase tax revenues as well, and provide for the means to prosecute those who did not pay taxes.

I find it ironic that we tax the bejeebers out of a pack of cigarettes, but the entire cocaine/meth/?/pot trade goes unencumbered, leaving billions of dollars in trade untouched. (Demanding a declaration of illegally acquired income violates the Fifth Amendment, as it requires self-incrimination.)

So the deciding factor in a Paul vs. Obama race would be the number of Conservatives and Republicans who really could pull the lever for Anyone But Obama, despite the full-court Alinsky tactics used against Paul.

It is far from over, there are a lot of primaries and caucuses left, and the convention may well end up being brokered, drafting a 'dark horse candidate.

We do live in interesting times, and I am still hoping for the draft option to be used at the Convention.

For those who are desperately emotionally involved in the campaigns, step back from the keyboard, take a deep breath, and recognize the first thing we have to do is beat Obama. From there it is a question of whether we can field a candidate who will not further the harm Obama has done, who can fix the domestic situation (especially economic), and who will actually downsize the Federal Government.

Economically, the road we are on is a road to impotence. Without an economically strong America, there can be no force to project, just a paper tiger.

[gogogodzilla]

Except that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people... and the only Jewish nation in all the world.

Whereas Canada is just one of many nations whose population is majority white.

Did you not know this or find it relevant to this article?

[gogogodzilla]

Believing America *IS* Israel's vassal is anti-semitic, for it casts Israel... and hence the Jewish people, as puppeteers controlling the world, a la The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

It is, also, a patent lie.

[Smokin' Joe]

Apparently you missed my point. There are Jewish people worldwide, too.

Someone disagreeing with a political subdivision on the planet's surface does not translate to individually hating each and every person in the dominant demographic of that subdivision, worldwide.

It is possible to disagree with a national boundary without hating the people, just as "54.40 or fight!" wasn't anti-'white'.

A true anti-semite might not dislike Israel as a political entity, but would harbor universal emnity toward Jewish people wherever they are.

[RKBA Democrat]

“They don’t get it ...not a clue as they are led down the garden path. They would rather mittens than Paul, a sad state we find ourselves in.”

Keep in mind that FR represents a slice of the population. A lot of these folks are trying to reconcile themselves to the idea that the gop will nominate mitt, who does not represent their views very well. I think the bulk will do what they’ve always done; vote for the gop nominee regardless. But they’re trying to rationalize that. And it’s tough; mittens record is not conservative in any real sense of the word. As my site handle and tagline would indicate, supporting the gop has never been high on my priority list. I support conservatives.

Ron Paul does a lot better with the general population than he does with FReepers. And thus he will do better in the primaries and potentially the general election than these anti-Paul threads would seem to indicate.

Interesting thing I’ve noted, though, is that while most of these threads started with few people disagreeing with the “Ron Paul is _____ !(add the derogatory comment of your choice)” theme, I’m finding more FReepers stepping up to the plate and challenging that. That’s good news. It also makes these threads a lot more interesting. Debate isn’t any fun if no one is actually disagreeing.

[SJackson]

Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

I haven't commented much on Paul this time around since his "conservatism" has been pretty much debunked on FR. In the unlikely event he makes a couple strong showings he'll present the bigotry issue to Obama on a silver platter, the fact that a few conservatives, on FR, outed him last election cycle won't matter. And the press will love it. However I'll add a comment I made a couple weeks ago, there's no question that Paul is anti-Israel.

Of course opposing aid isn't antisemitism, and I doubt is antisemitic though he's clearly anti Israel, sympathetic to arab revisionism.

Leaving aside his fetis with neocons and the Likud party, and the "Jewish Lobby", the only powerful lobby in DC, there's his view of the region as expressed in his book.

He does acknowledge a few hundred thousand were expelled a few millenia ago, and that a few families stayed. And unlike the Arab world that the Jews who moved to Palestine (don't think he knows that was the name for the Jewish Homeland, stupidity when you're commenting on an important topic. However he describes Zionism as a movement of Orthodox Jews (Herzl would be surprised as would have most of the "Orthodox" of the day) who wanted to separate secular European Jews from the culture they had assimilated into so well. Secular European Jews fully integrated and accepted into late 19th century Europe, like Alfred Dreyfus. Is Paul stupid, or a revisionist.

Then his history conveniently skips forward to post WWI, where the UN decided to partition Palestine. Apparently out of thin air, no Mandate, no partitioning at San Remo, no pogrums. The UN just up and decided to do it.

Probably most telling is his experience meeting a young palestinian attending school in the US. Her story about how her family was thrown off land in her family for centuries. To build Israeli settlements. This happened in the early 1950s, clear proof that Ron considers Tel Aviv a settlement. Like San Antonio I guess. But what the heck, it was just a group of people taking land from others on the specious arguement that G-d told them to do it. Classic pro-Arab fairy tale from the Congressman.

BTW, his #1 book to read on the topic, Jimmy Carter's Apartheid work. It's on the Code Pink suggested reading list too.

[Scoutmaster]

The Mossad possibly bombing the new york trade center building?

Well, it must be true, because Ron Paul hinted it.

Just like for $99/year for the newsletter than Ron Paul never read despite his name and photograph and the first person stories about his wife and children and congressional colleagues and the financial tips about gold that he gets credit for . . . you should know that (pssst!) AIDs could have been made by the gubmint, because it's the job of a U.S. Congressman to share important information like that (but not for free; information like that shouldn't be freely available to all of the public; only to those with $99 and a desire to read about the new world order, those nasty blacks, those damn Jews, and how to pick people for your militia group):

[ZULU]

Ron Paul is an anti-Semitic Nut. What makes him so dangerous is that he sounds rational on domestic policy but his foreign policy statements expose him for what he is - a Nut.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Paul sure has some weird views, doesn’t he?

[rashley]

You make my point.

[VideoDoctor]

Ron Paul couldn't win a stuffed toy at a carnival shooting gallery. How in the hell could he even come close to winning the nomination, let alone the presidency.

He's nothing more than a part of the usual pre-show festivities.

[Scoutmaster]

Paul sure has some weird views, doesn’t he?

Weird views? Oh, c'mon. He gives sound advice to militias on dealing with phone taps just before offering investment advice in gold and silver. How could that be weird? Or unelectable?

[gogogodzilla]

Apparently you missed my point. There are Jewish people worldwide, too.

There are no other countries in the world whose population is majority Jewish, whereas Canada is one of many whose population is majority white.

Someone disagreeing with a political subdivision on the planet's surface does not translate to individually hating each and every person in the dominant demographic of that subdivision, worldwide.

However, disagreeing with a political subdivision on the planet's surface for the same actions conducted by other political subdivisions to which you don't disagree on for those self-same actions... only because of that demographic... IS hatred of the demographic.

A true anti-semite might not dislike Israel as a political entity, but would harbor universal emnity toward Jewish people wherever they are.

I suggest you watch the old 1940s era movie "A Gentleman's Agreement" to see an example of how one can profess love, or at least 'non-hatred' of Jews, yet still *EASILY* be quite anti-semitic in behavior.

While I don't know the particulars on Ron Paul outside of the news, I was commenting on your post about the article, not on Ron Paul directly.

[thecodont]

I suggest you watch the old 1940s era movie "A Gentleman's Agreement" to see an example of how one can profess love, or at least 'non-hatred' of Jews, yet still *EASILY* be quite anti-semitic in behavior.

See "School Ties" with Brendan Fraser (1992) for an updated version.

[2ndDivisionVet]

>>”If Paul gets the nomination ... Save yourselves..”>>

http://www.LivingInThePhilippines.com

[2ndDivisionVet]

>>”If Paul gets the nomination ... Save yourselves..”>>

http://www.LivingInThePhilippines.com

[Blood of Tyrants]

You skipping the country on us?

[llandres]

bfl

[llandres]

“I’m so relieved that Ron Paul is not anti-Semitic./sarc”

Oh, me too! /s

Except for that little thing about disliking Israel and wishing it didn’t exist - oh, and empathizing with her enemies the Palestinians and Iran, and being buddies with Stormfront - except for that, it’s so good to know that he’s just fine with the Jews.

[llandres]

Oops I goofed - RP’s only fine with American Jews (you know, the leftist, Marxist, progressive, Dem-voting ones) - not the Israeli ones.

Gee, Wally - this is so confusing! /s