Posted on 01/28/2012 9:30:09 AM PST by PghBaldy
The website for "Campaign for Liberty", an organization started by "Republican" anti-Israel Presidential candidate Ron Paul, has, since late 2008, been featuring a page offering the opportunity to purchase the notorious forged anti-Semitic book The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
As word spreads of this, inevitably Paul's campaign will take down the page and claim the situation was a mere innocent mistake with which Paul (who of course hopes to lend his managerial skills to the entire nation) had nothing to do, a la the controversy over his newsletters in the 1990s. This of course despite the fact that the page with the link has now been up for over three years. [UPDATE as of January 26, 2:23 PM: After a run of over three years on the website for Campaign for Liberty (an organization, again, created by Ron Paul) the page offering the opportunity to purchase The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion coincidentally just so happened to be taken down in the couple hours after this article was initially published. Need we point out that Paul-istinians have been insiting that there is no connection whatsoever between Ron Paul, the Ron Paul Presidential campaign, the Campaign for Liberty and the Campaign for Liberty website.]
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
I have it on my Kindle. I know it’s BS. Does that make me an anti Semite?
This guy sounds pretty gheh to me.
One of the strangest things about "little jerimiah" and "Absolutely Nobama" is that those two would have better things to do on a Saturday night.
He only is a Republican since he would lose as a Libertarian, which is what of course he really is. That’s why, for instance, the people around here who had “Ron Paul” signs up in the summer of 2008 put up “Obama” signs after the convention.
Should have added - shows how Libertarianism has nothing to do with being conservative and is merely the anarchy ultra kook fringe of the Left.
If you don’t mind my asking, who exactly is your candidate?
So are you the thought-police now? Who cares if he hates Jews with a passion so long as he doesn’t treat them any differently under the law than anyone else (or advocate laws that discriminate against them). Now, that being said, I’m not saying that he does hate Jews, but what if he does. Do you have to like everone and everything so long as you believe in highly limited government and sound-money policy?
I’m not a big fan of homosexual-activists, but I don’t want them burned, publicly humiliated, or imprisoned.
Ron Paul is a dove and perhaps to a fault, but he is not a nazi. Sheesh, the stuff that gets promulgated around here is truly bizarro at times. I mean, I can see Paul being accused of being a libertine, degenerate, and moral reprobate before I can see him being called a nazi.
The liberals I know only grudgingly like Ron Paul. Here’s a few things they hate about him: He wants to abolish “The Peoples’ Bank” (a.k.a. The Fed). He wants to abolish the federal EPA (this fact alone makes him public enemy #1 to some environmentalists, he wants Roe v. Wade overturned and the abortion-question returned to state legislatures.
They love the fact that he’s a foreign-policy dove and a non-interventionist. They also like his notion of de-criminalizing marijuana at the federal-level. There’s a lot to not like about him, but I’ve also seen a lot to not like about Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum.
The bottom line is this: He’s a hell of a lot better than that piece of fecal-matter in the White House. I’ll take Paul’s small-government extremism over Obama any day.
I assume this question is provoked by my screen name. I'm not Jewish; I'm an ordinary Bible-thumping "redneck" who supports Israel for religious reasons. Furthermore I have absolutely no authority on this forum whatsoever. So please abandon any suspicions that I am FR's overlord from the Mossad. Okay?
Who cares if he hates Jews with a passion so long as he doesn’t treat them any differently under the law than anyone else (or advocate laws that discriminate against them). Now, that being said, I’m not saying that he does hate Jews, but what if he does. Do you have to like everone and everything so long as you believe in highly limited government and sound-money policy?
There is some merit to what you are saying. There are Jews who support him precisely because he will disentangle America from Israel, thus giving Israel a freer hand than it has yet had. And I agree, a libertarian isn't really going to do anything to anyone. HOWEVER--there is the problem that Paul has been identified as a white nationalist, not by the enemies of white nationalism, but by white nationalists themselves, including Don Black of Stormfront and the American National Socialist Workers Party. Now, whether or not a libertarian would implement any anti-Jewish policies may be debatable, but the very idea of an anti-Semitic "white nationalist" as President of the United States is offensive to some of us to whom anti-Semitism isn't "bigotry" or "intolerance" or any other such liberal buzzword, but rather sacrilege--an offense against the Jewish G-d. Just as America invites Divine judgment if it legalizes "gay marriage," so it may very well invite Divine judgment if it elects a person with such beliefs, whether or not he allows those beliefs to dictate his policies.
"Sound money" is inoffensive in itself, but you should also realize that much of the invective against "fiat money" and "international money creators" comes from anti-Semites. And I'm not just making that up. Listen, I used to belong to the John Birch Society (which is supporting Paul). I learned my lesson there.
While it is true that the German National Socialists were centralizers and totalitarians, you should know that the rhetoric of domestic national socialists does not stress centralization or totalitarianism, but rather just fulminates against Jews. Willis Carto (who is a national socialist) supported states' righter George Wallace in 1968 because his priority was supporting white racial solidarity, not centralization. Unfortunately, many well-meaning conservatives don't understand this. They define national socialism solely by the government in Germany from 1933 to 1945 and assume that unless someone advocates absolutely identical policies, one cannot be a national socialist. There are plenty of domestic national socialist organizations and they stress racial issues, not the size of government.
I’m not a big fan of homosexual-activists, but I don’t want them burned, publicly humiliated, or imprisoned.
See above.
Ron Paul is a dove and perhaps to a fault, but he is not a nazi. Sheesh, the stuff that gets promulgated around here is truly bizarro at times. I mean, I can see Paul being accused of being a libertine, degenerate, and moral reprobate before I can see him being called a nazi.
As I stated, someone who is identified as a white nationalist by white nationalists probably is one. And someone who promotes the Protocols is a Nazi, whether he is a libertarian or totalitarian, centralist or federalist.
RuPaul isn’t any sort of “small government extremist”.
Tell me, in his 50 zillion years in CONgress, how many agencies did RuPaul kill with legislation ? Let’s see.....zero, perhaps ?
His 15 minutes of fame are just about over......
At least we don’t support a Jew hating traitor like you do.
I care, since I’m Jewish.
Go pound sand, Paultard.
Ultra leftist kooks LUV RPaul - he feeds their craziness! He’s the OWSer’s favorite candidate, for crying out loud!
I would never vote for an anti-Semite who spews the exact same messages that come out of Tehran or the Palestinian Liberation people. Never! Nor someone who thinks the mentally ill sex pervert Bradley Manning is a hero! Or who lies! Or who wrote/signed off on his newsletters, which he made money from and now “disavows”! Or who wants mentally ill sex perverts in the military, and thinks “gay rights” are a good thing! Plus wants to legalize all drugs including heroin and meth!
Someone said: RPaul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.
“RPaul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.”
Yep.
Did you say that? I wish I could remember. It’s perfect.
You do realize that he’s a lone representative from Texas right? You also realize that no one has the kind of record for voting against the expansion of government be it budgetary ,bureaucratic, or otherwise? He’s called “Dr. No” for a reason.
Now I get to ask a question: in the “50 zillion years of Congress” (as you say), who has killed *any* agencies with legislation? An I do mean killed, not simply absorbed into another bureau.
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.