Posted on 06/20/2008 8:12:50 AM PDT by kellynla
European Jewish surnames did not come into popular use until Napoleon required all families to choose surnames. Before that, Jewish names were in the form [Name] son/daughter of [Father’s name] of [City]
Are those assertions false?
Since two posters have reached them independently, I think they are accurate - I was citing wideawake’s post to show that Carrie_Okie is hardly carrying out a worthwhile intellectual exercise here.
He was ruined because he hung out in Nazi Germany, supported eugenics and pled the case of a government that later declared war on the USA.
He was set to become President and then someone nabbed his kid.
Lindbergh was not involved in politics at all at the time his son was kidnapped. He was also 30 years old when his son was kidnapped and therefore ineligible for the Presidency, anyway.
He never ran for president or any other office, was never considered for nomination by any party, and his public involvement with politics began with his famous Reader's Digest article in 1939 - seven years after the kidnapping.
Politics is some ugly stuff at critical junctures in history.
What's ugly is all the fake history being manufactured by certain individuals on this thread.
I dunno what to think of Buchanan's work here, guess I'll have to read the book first.
I guess it's too much to ask for Pat to renounce being an anti-Semite.
Yawn
Yawn to what? That Pat has removed all doubt about his anti-Semitism? Or that you don’t think that anti-Semitism is a bit deal?
Calling PJB an anti-semite is a tired canard.
That is, without question, the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Hitler spelled out his whole like that he thought the Germans needed lebensraum in the east.
It is true, Hitler didn't want war with France and GB, but only because he didn't want to fight a two front war. Maybe at the time he thought he'd be happy never fighting France and GB, but, could France and GB possibly have taken that chance?
Are you saying it's not true?
I used to think Pat's critics in that regard were exaggerating. But Pat has removed all doubt in my mind.
Right. Lets collect all his books & burn them.
It was especially thrown as him as he defended John Demaniuk from the canard that he was ‘ivan the terrible’ Well, John Demaniuk was not Ivan the Terrible. But those who played the ‘anti-semitism’ card, of course, did not say they were wrong.
Pat is a paleo-con, and that’s about the extent of things.
Lets also not forget that controversy sells books.
Which is where all Buchanan threads end up.
You're being quite disingenious. I guess in your mind, Pat should be able to serve up a steaming load of anti-semetic nonsense and we can't criticize him for both his anti-semitism and his piss-poor scholarship.
Clearly, he is not an anti-semite. He is not a raving supporter of Israel, I’ll give you that. But Israel is a foreign country.
Pat recently has been proving them right.
Nevertheless, Pat's decent into out and out loopiness since he ran for President has not gone unnoticed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.