Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani and Double Standards

Sullivan isn't my favorite but he poses an excellent contrast here.

A ping to the double-standards at work in these attacks on Dr. Paul and on the strange bedfellows, Robertson and Guiliani.

Prepare for incoming.

Sullivan certainly seems to have his panties in a bunch.

You might enjoy a similar article which gives the full story on other attacks on Ron Paul by the usual media hacks.

Ron Paul distortions and smears - Glenn Greenwald - Political Blogs and Opinions - Salon

It's part of an online debate with those hurling the accusations at Dr. Paul.

The Paultards are starting up services for their endearingly gnomish little Christ-figure again... and look at who they've wrangled to be lead the congregation in prayer this morning: old "Bareback" Andy Sullivan! ROTFLMAO!!!!!

That Paul supporters would trash Pat Robertson doesn't surprise me in view of Paul's absurd contension that Jesse Helms was bought and paid for by Israel. Nasty Evangelicals.

The contension that Giuliani hasn't been criticized, particularly when made here, on FR, where his supporters are banned isn't credible.

And how this suggests that Paul shouldn't be criticized for accepting support from neonazis and conspiracy nuts is beyond me.

That Paul and his supporters go again to the left for support doesn't surprise me either.

Andrew Sullivan, Salon, since we're a leftist site, why not let the Dem's weigh in. This is, after all, how neonazi support for Republicans will be played.

=============

http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/israel_terrorism/index.html

We've recently noted serious porblems on Israel about the following; one might ask which of these key Republicans has been criticized by the Republican Jewish Coalition:

Key GOP Senators on Foreign Policy -- the top two Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman John Warner (R-VA)
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
Karen Hughes -- a key member of Bush's inner-most circle -- and Senator Warner.
More on Hagel.
Ron Paul.

Not to mention that J.D. Hayworth has some serious explaining to do about questions he has opened up for himself about whether he is anywhere near sufficiently sensitive to anti-Semitism.

NJDC criticizes our own -- do Republican Jews do the same?

-----------------

http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2006/08/mckinneys_out.html

McKinney's Out

Overall, the Democratic Party is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But, if ever we find an odd man (or woman) out, we will certainly criticize any anti-Israel voices in the Party. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), the most staunchly anti-Israel Democrat in Congress, has been ousted from the House race in Georgia's fourth district. She lost the Democratic bid in last week's primary.

NJDC has criticized McKinney in the past and we're not afraid to do it again. While neither NJDC nor NJDC PAC endorse primary candidates, we can safely say we're glad McKinney will no longer be representing the Democratic Party and Georgia's fourth district. We'd rather see a more pro-Israel Democrat in the seat, and Hank Johnson seems to be that person.

In 2001, a McKinney aide accused Jewish lawmakers of "seem[ing] to care more about Israel than human rights and American values." NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman responded in a letter to The Hill, noting in part:

Only a scoundrel and a bigot would choose to impugn a member's loyalty and commitment to this country based upon his or her ethnicity or religion. Accusing Jews of being disloyal to their country - due to their support for Israel and other central aspects of our faith - recalls the most vile anti-Semitic canards that have been invoked against Jews throughout the ages. These Jewish lawmakers are among the finest public servants our country has to offer, fulfilling the ancient Jewish tradition of remaining civically engaged and serving the larger community. They demonstrate their continuous defense of America's interests every day with every vote they cast. And speaking out to ensure a safe and secure Israel - supporting America's democratic and strategic ally in the Middle East - only confirms their commitment to serving America's best interests.

A year later when McKinney was driven out of Congress the first time, Forman told the Washington Post, "One of the most antagonistic persons - if not the most antagonistic person - to the U.S.-Israel relationship is gone."

Now that the Democratic Party has gotten rid of its worst anti-Israel member, it's time the GOP looks at its counterpart, Ron Paul. Not only did Paul vote against the House Israel Resolution on July 20th,in his speech on the House Floor, he said:

I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good... It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.

Yes, Mr. Paul, the resolution does take sides. It takes the side of peace and freedom over terrorist regimes. That's a problem for you?

This wasn't the first time Paul stood solo on a nay vote for pro-Israel legislation.

In 1997, the Jewish Herald-Voice and the Congressional Quarterly wrote:

Showing a complete disregard for families victimized by the recent terrorist attack in Israel, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the only congressman to oppose an otherwise unanimous resolution to condemn two terrorist bombings. Paul was the lone dissenter when the House of Representatives adopted a resolution to condemn the tragic bombing that killed 13 people and wounded 170 others in Israel.

Additionally, Paul once suggested in a political newsletter that the Israeli government was one of the most "evil lobbying groups in Washington" (Houston Chronicle, 2/23/97).

In a fundraising letter in 1996, Paul wrote: "It's time that Israel stopped running American foreign policy and draining American taxpayers' wallets." When groups protested to the Republican leadership that Paul was being assigned to the international affairs committee, Paul blamed the Israeli government for the loss of his promised seat.

Come on GOP, we've cleaned up our party. Take a stab at yours.

And, RJC -- criticism of Paul or Hagel or Warner or Sununu or... would be nice.

Andrew Sullivan, Salon, since we're a leftist site, why not let the Dem's weigh in.

Really. Might as well let the Paultards start plastering Ted Rall cartoons all over the place, while we're at it. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

From Encyclopedia.com on Robertson's 1991 book, The Christian Century:

IN HIS PUBLISHED WRITINGS, especially his 1991 book The New World Order, Pat Robertson has propagated theories about a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Michael Lind raised the issue in February in the New York Times Book Review, and in April Jacob Heilbrun, writing in the New York Review of Books, cited chapter and verse of Robertson's borrowings from well-known anti-Semitic works. After the New York Times and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith called attention to the matter, Robertson issued a statement denying any anti-Semitic intent, affirming his alliance with the Jews and his support for Israel, and saying he "regretted" any offense his writings may have caused...
The New World Order was written principally to condemn the United Nations' command authority during the gulf war. Robertson presents a sweeping warning about an age-old conspiracy designed to control world politics and economics. In Robertson's view, the conspirators belong to a secret "society" led by satanic atheists and financial "money barons." [He means JEWS--J. Miller] According to the evidence he marshals, these conspirators have taken over international banking and American academic and cultural institutions, and have carefully planned to use the UN and Federal Reserve Bank to impose upon the globe a "one-world" government. The real purpose of the conspiracy, however, is the destruction of American Christian culture and of Christianity itself.
ROBERTSON TRACES the historical progress of this conspiracy, back to Lucifer and his machinations in antiquity. In the modem era the conspiracy has been promoted through a small secret society founded in late 18th-century, Bavaria called the Illuminati, whose members purportedly infiltrated Freemasonry, organized the French Revolution, recruited Friedrick Engels and other communists to their cause and orchestrated the Bolshevik takeover of Russia. Through their control of international banking, the Illuminati-dominated servants of Satan, [He means JEWS--J. Miller] according to Robertson, have imposed a system of national and private credit and interest that has saddled the nation with debilitating and enslaving debt, robbing the American people at once of their independence and their control over their religious life.

IsraelNationalNews.com from 2004. Excerpt:

A misleading article prominent on Robertson's CBN.com makes the stunning claim that the Jews manipulate their Sabbath services so that synagogue worshipers reject Jesus. The article, "The Passion According to Isaiah", claims that the weekly recitation of verses from the Prophets (haftara) in synagogues worldwide were specifically designed to avoid a passage in Isaiah that Christians interpret as a reference to Jesus.
"This is a serious charge against Judaism for which there is not a single shred of evidence.... The absurdity of this claim lies in the fact that the selections for the weekly reading of verses from the Prophets, including those from Isaiah, predate Christianity by two centuries. What motive did Jews have for preventing worshipers from converting to Christianity, when at the time the custom to read from the Prophets was created, Christianity and Jesus didn't even exist?" asks [Rabbi Toviah] Singer.

The Virginian-Pilot:

Sometimes, however, words speak louder than actions. If Mr. Robertson is surprised to find himself regarded as anti-Semitic, perhaps he should look to his own house: In the April 1992 issue of ``The Paper,'' a newsletter published by the School of Journalism of Regent University (one of the organizations Mr. Robertson controls), an editorial appeared titled ``Anti-Judaism is not anti-Semitism.''
While the editorial claims that "anti-Semitism goes against the very heart of Christianity,'' it states in the same sentence that "it is understandable that the world would hate Jews, the people called by God to be His chosen nation.'' It goes on to say, ``Even if the Jews were enemies of the church, Christians are commanded to love their enemies.'' Well, once you have called me your enemy, it hardly matters whether you label that epithet anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. It is clearly anti-me.
The editorial says that ``Jews, as nice as they may be, if they do not believe in Jesus Christ as their savior, are eternally condemned by God.'' It states that God will punish Jews in hell forever. It calls Judaism a cult.
The editorial condemns the selection of Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein (whom it calls a pagan) to give the opening prayer in the U.S. Senate because ``anyone who does not accept Christ as savior, does not acknowledge Jesus as the King of Kings, is therefore an enemy of God.''
The editorial ends by stating that Jews (and all non-Christians) are under God's wrath and should be pitied by Christians. The editorial concludes, ``We cannot allow them to lead us in worship until we have led them in the sinner's prayer.'' These words do not, to me, sound like "respect for the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish community.''[As Robertson has claimed]

Some Robertson quotes:here:

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 14, 1991
"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 8, 1992
"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Pat Robertson, 1992 Fund Raising Letter
(Talking about apartheid South Africa) "I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights." at Robertson, "The 700 Club," March 18, 1992
"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." Pat Robertson, November 1993 during an address to the American Center for Law and Justice
"Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 21, 1993
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." Pat Robertson, 1993 interview with Molly Ivins
"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 18, 1995
"[The National Organization for Women] is saying that in order to be a woman, you've got to be a lesbian." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," December 3, 1997
"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom (home of the State Department) to shake things up." Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," June 2003

If you're looking for who is allied with the real antisemite in the GOP campaign and who is embracing someone who said 9/11 was a punishment on America from God for its sins, you need look no further than Giuliani and Robertson.

The best they can do now is put out a strawman agruement...

you need look no further than Giuliani and Robertson

Hmmmm. Interesting attempt at a defense here: "Giuliani" -- about whom, incidentally, you've never seen me post even so much as a single, solitary charitable word -- "is an antisemite; therefore, Ron Paul cannot be (or, at the very least, is an appreciably lesser one)."

And, RJC -- criticism of Paul or Hagel or Warner or Sununu or... would be nice.

I would think that a Robertson endorsement of Giuliani and Giuliani's welcome of it would greatly outweigh anything about the others you have listed.

RJC is free to host who they choose at their debate. But they aren't free from criticism over the extremely strange standards they impose on who to exclude and include.

So if RJC ends up endorsing Giuliani (almost certain), will Giuliani's embrace of Robertson make RJC completely irrelevant? I would think so.

I'm trying to figure out whether RJC, Giuliani, or Robertson is the most dishonest in this episode. It's pretty amazing to me.

Right, Pat Robertson, the evil Evangelical, and Rudy Giuliani are Jewhaters and Ron Paul is the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson.

Hey, if Ron Paul want's the support of Jewhaters, that's fine, but he and his supporters should muster the courage to accept criticism, support the right of neonazis to hold their own diverse opinions, and still be part of the Paul camp. This constant sniveling and whining, Pat Robertson and Rudy are Jewhaters too, accomplishes little other than to put the cult status of Paul on display. And make Republicans, Freepers too, look like idiots, but that's part of the plan isn't it. Those who dare criticize King Paul are ignorant Freepers.

"Giuliani" -- about whom, incidentally, you've never seen me post even so much as a single, solitary charitable word -- "is an antisemite; therefore, Ron Paul cannot be (or, at the very least, is an appreciably lesser one)."

When it comes to money and votes, Robertson endorsing Giuliani is about a thousand times more effective than some puny bunch of neo-Confederates and St*rmfr*nters who have given $500 to Ron Paul. RP's campaign has not yet decided whether to return the funds and may be considering the advice many have offered to donate it instead to a charity so they don't put money back into their pockets.

Robertson is the really powerful and noted antisemite in the GOP wings. And he and Giuliani embrace one another for their mutual gain. Robertson for access to power, Giuliani because he can't secure the support of any Christian leader except a conman like Robertson.

I would think that a Robertson endorsement of Giuliani and Giuliani's welcome of it would greatly outweigh anything about the others you have listed....RJC is free to host who they choose at their debate. But they aren't free from criticism over the extremely strange standards they impose on who to exclude and include....So if RJC ends up endorsing Giuliani (almost certain), will Giuliani's embrace of Robertson make RJC completely irrelevant? I would think so....I'm trying to figure out whether RJC, Giuliani, or Robertson is the most dishonest in this episode. It's pretty amazing to me.

I will again note your clearly anti-Republican sentiment in dismissing the Republican Jewish Coalition as a miniscule organization, not worth consdering in the context of accepting Jewhater support. Which the Republican Party does not do, one candidate does.

Of course the RJC is open to criticism for not inviting the minor candidates, Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter. I'm sure they would like to have been there, and I understand their criticism.

As to the further criticism from the Paul campaign that this was part of an RJC plot, a couple publications suggenting in concert with David Horowitz/Frontpagemagazine, Paul's cultists get to make that criticism too.

And guess what, I'm allowed to dismiss it as typical of the nutball conspiracy theories which issue from Paul and the folk. And I suppose the Paul truthers can point out that Hunter and Tancredo are too stupid to see the RJC conspiracy in front of their noses or some other such nonsense.

I notice how you refuse to condemn Robertson and his Giuliani connection.

You falsely blame Paul for saying that he blames America for 9/11 but give a pass to Robertson and Giuliani when Robertson explicitly blames America for 9/11 and suggests that the State Department needs a small nuke dropped on it.

Robertson has broadcast these messages to tens of millions of people over the years. This tiny group of wacko neo-Nazi types don't have money, they don't have an audience of millions, they are generally despised by 99% of the population. And yet you pretend that Ron Paul, who you also claim no one has ever heard of and who will get no votes in the primaries, is some great danger.

It's a laughable farce. About as important as the RJC who will almost certainly endorse and fund Giuliani, for what that's worth.

Your outrage over a GOP ccandidate forming an alliance with antisemites is quite selective. Giuliani does embrace an antisemite and cultivate his millions of followers. Ron Paul does nothing of the sort, is debating what to do with the $500 from some pack of obscure neo-Nazis.

You frequently infer you've some relationship with the Paul campaign. Do you have a position with them?

Are you suggesting that it's Ron Paul's postion that Pat Robertson is an antisemite, and that his support of Rudy Giuliani is an issue to be addressed within the Republican Party?

Why don't you post a thread on Pat Robertson and his pervasive antisemitism, there are many Evangelicals here, there's plenty of criticism of Robertson here on occasion, maybe I'll learn something.

If necessary, I'll post a thread on David Duke, Willis Carto, Don Black, Stormfront, American Free Press, Council of Conservative Citizens, et al for comparison to Pat Robertson.

RP's campaign has not yet decided whether to return the funds

Another lie. Color me staggered.

Jim: you should know about this, too (in case it managed to slip by you).