Last night’s late-evening caucus for Jewish voters who couldn’t participate in the morning caucus due to Shabbat conflicts cranked up the typical anti-Jewish paranoia of the Ron Paul community to a new level. Not only were the conspiracy theorists out in full force on the Ron Paul fan-sites (but I repeat myself), they also showed up en masse at the special caucus, which was hosted at a school run by Gingrich-backer Sheldon Adelson:
Next came about 25 passionate speakers for Paul. In short order, the scene in the auditorium began to feel like a revival meeting for anti-government paranoiacs.
The first one accused the government of “genocide.” Another complained that Paul was the victim of media bias, as evidenced by the fact that in the GOP debates, “When they go on Ron Paul the lighting’s dimmer.” Another accused the government of “using our own men as guinea pigs.”
As Gingrich, across town, was vowing bitterly to continue his campaign, a Paul supporter was testifying: “Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney run the two-legged race together at Bohemian Grove! There’s not a bit of difference between those two puppets! I got one word to describe my support for Ron Paul, and that is: End the Fed!”
And what about all those predictions that Adelson was going to “steal” the caucus for Gingrich (and the alternative theories that the late-evening caucus was a “distraction” so that the establishment could pocket Nevada for Romney)? Shockingly enough, they never came to pass. The Adelson school caucus went overwhelmingly to Ron Paul, by 58 percent. Meanwhile, Romney won the state by a landslide, and his win was projected before the nighttime caucus even began.
As Jonathan wrote last week, the late-evening caucus to allow Orthodox Jews to vote was the right thing to do. But critics were also right to question the ethics and constitutionality of requiring participants to fill out forms saying they missed the earlier voting for religious reasons.
However, Ron Paul’s robocall to his supporters asking them to crash the caucus – and the vile anti-Jewish paranoia about it on the pro-Paul websites – shows exactly why the Republican Party should keep Paul and his fans at arms-length. Should Paul supporters have the right to attend the late-evening caucus, just like the Orthodox Jewish voters it was designed to accommodate? Sure. But they should have done so because they honestly had a voting conflict, not to disrupt the event, and definitely not based on psychotic Jewish conspiracy theories.
A more correct, if somewhat lengthy, title for this article is: n n“Well-organized Paul supporters turn-out and win late night caucus which was expressly designed to disenfranchise the Paul campaign.” n nPossible sub-title: n n“Voter intimidation in the form of a mandatory religious declaration at Adelson Caucus fails to thwart Paul win.” n nCommentary Magazine is a joke. It is nothing more than a propaganda tool of Trotskyite neocons. Commentary is worthless for anything remotely accurate or objective.
Trotskyite neocons? Hoo-whee!
The RNC needs to excise this cancer before it destroys the party. The sad thing is that I am hearing how Romney is trying to cajole the Paulbots to his side by accommodating Ron Paul. What does that mean for the future and the RNC if it, like the DNC, handfasts with the antisemites in their midsts?. Honestly if it becomes Obama the antisemite versus the RNC accommodating antisemites, voting doesn't matter. They are all the same and it means the end for the US, Israel and freedom.
I'm laughing at the fact you're named "LibertysSpirit" while supporting Romney. You need to educate yourself. Ron Paul is not an anti-Semite. He has said if Israel needed help, he would decide it through Congress, NOT illegally. Ron Paul was the ONLY Congressman not to condemn Israel for their bombing of Iraq in the 1980s. He is the ONLY one that cares about America's welfare and attacking our debt without cutting into the entitlement programs people are already dependent on. How dare you call us anti-Semites? How DARE you? Where do you get off on that? How would people have reacted if it was a "Catholic only" caucus, or a "Evangelist only," or a "Muslim only.." Jesus, really? Because they decided to go vote there, they are anti-Semitic? Honestly, you are the cause of the ruin of the GOP because you refuse to accept Ron Paul supporters as those that care about America and helping us regain our glory. He is the ONLY one fighting for freedom, while your candidate supports the Patriot Act, the NDAA and God knows what else. Israel has said they defend themselves, and many Jewish people have come out and said the foreign aid is offensive because it undermines their ability to be a sovereign nation without US as big brother. Honestly? You really need to take a good, hard, LONG look at yourself before you go rattling off about anti-Semitics. We are not. And neither is Ron Paul. Stop with your false, cruel gossip that only hurts the GOP's chances of winning even more. He can't win without Ron Paul supporters.
I'm a strong supporter of Israel, and I believe they should get off the U.S. aid dependency which has hurt their ability to defend themselves even while it mainly benefits U.S. arms makers. n nThat said, Ron Paul does appear to be anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist, or if not himself personally, then definitely many of his crackpot followers. If he had an ounce of brains, and if he truly were not anti-Semitic, Paul would have long since disowned and disavowed the lunatic fringe which has destroyed his chances of being a player.
Our freedom has been hijacked long time ago. If freedom means that we should believe everything that the government tells us, then we have no freedom. They government lied about the WMD and we sent our best & brightest to fight for "Freedom". n nWe Ron Paul supporters we don't vote for those that believe that we're attacked in 9-11 because we're rich and free. n nWe can't vote for those that don't believe that our foreign policy against Muslim nations, such as the bombings of Sudan & Iraq, and the sanction in Iraq that lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of children in the 90's have ABSOLUTELY nothing with Muslims attacking the United States. n nand we believe you should too.
Everyone now knows that Iraq was a mistake, both times. Everyone also knows that al Qaeda didn't attack us for being "rich and free"; they attacked us because they're trying to start a war between the Muslims and the non-Muslim West, and they hope that from the ruins will arise a new Caliphate to dominate and enslave the world. They attacked us because we're Judeo-Christian and not Muslim. They resent our military presence in Saudi Arabia; they resent our support for Israel. They resent our loose, decadent morality. Their leadership was also more than a little crazy if they thought they could actually accomplish anything. They're fundamentalists (not too different from Ron Paul supporters, in fact) and logic and sanity have very little to do with their murderous actions. n nThe "hundreds of thousands of children in the '90s" is a rather tired old canard that gets trotted out as is convenient and is based on extrapolations of UNICEF estimates of child mortality during the sanctions period. The hundreds of thousands of adults murdered by Saddam and his minions are, curiously, omitted from such discussions. I guess it's OK for a dictator to murder his own people, as long as we don't intervene with economic sanctions that will cause children to get sick or be still born from lack of meds.
Calling Obama an anti-Semite is foolish, and nobody's listening to this charge anymore.
I remember a Florida voter saying, on camera, that he would vote for anybody but Obama OR PAUL. Frankly, although I desperately do not want Obama reelected, I would vote FOR Obama if Paul was the alternative, or even if Paul was any kind of influence in a GOP government. Paul is arsenic for the GOP and they, the GOP, better start realizing that fact. We've one too many isolationist racists nuts running for president.
The more the Paul people talk the more they expose themselves as the racists and anti-Semites they are. Ron Paul has not disavowed any of this and, as the first poster shows, the Paul people monitor these sites. No friend of ours. It's too bad. Ron Paul had made some good points but paranoia and bigotry have ruined him
I've been a Ron Paul campaign organizer and leader for more than four years in Washington State. Out of more than 13 thousand active supporters, I've met a grand total of TWO who (based only on "anti-Zionist" rhetoric) could even be claimed to be anti-Semitic and NONE that have expressed the faintest hint of racism. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. Not one. Bob Guzzardi, you're a propagandist.
Two words: Lyndon LaRouche. n nI have been saying it for a decade now: Ron Paul is the new Lyndon LaRouche. nThey both are cultist leaders and have some of the most interesting followers. n nNow if Ron Paul gets to speak at the convention, well it will make Pat Buchanan's "Culture War" speech look like a discourse on social justice by comparison.
A "Propagandist" for whom? The Zionists?… I am a Zionist and make the case for a military strong, sovereign, independent Jewish State who is America's ally on the front line of the war with Radical Islam. n n
One doesn't have to be a Zionist or even Jewish to make such a case. n nOne doesn't even have to have any religious values/views/beliefs of any kind to realize the concept of "Big Satan & Little Satan" and what the Iranians mean by that. n nOne only need look at history and at three countries which supported us even when it wasn't always in their national interest to do so — Israel, South Africa and Rhodesia. And I don't know if anyone has looked at Mugabe's Zimbabwe recently, where they are killing people and elephants and everything else, but let us never forget that it was the United States which largely destabilized both of those governments — and Egypt comes to mind too. n nAs an aside, all that happened in South Africa was one small ruling group being replaced by another small ruling group — I have sat through grad seminars with folk in the second group and would not call it a democracy. n nIsrael is. I am *not* comparing Israel to SA or even Egypt — Israel is an outpost of Western liberty. My point is that the people in the US who took out those countries, who celebrated the "Arab Spring" (but not "Persian Spring…") would like another scalp in their belts. We need to remember that. n nAnd we need to remember "Big Satan and Little Satan."
I would like to point out that there are also Conservative Jews who keep Shabbat. Saying one needs to be Orthodox to keep Shabbat is ridiculous.
There are also Christian groups whose holy day is on Saturday — the Seventh Day Adventists come to immediate mind (they define the sabbath the same way Judaism does) — and I like to think that we aren't even asking WHAT religious observance(s) one was occupied with, nor that we are making any distinctions as to the legitimacy of the same. n nThis *is* a free country (even if the UMPD is declaring martial law with impunity) and if you want to go worship a gilded calf, this is a free country and you have a right to do so. Likewise, if you had to work on Saturday, which some people do (retail, medical, EMS, and if it is snowing, all those guys too), I don't think we should make a distinction. n nMy right to practice my religion as I choose is dependent on everyone else having that same right. Likewise, my right to say whatever I damn well please is dependent on other people having the same rights. n nWe may not think about this much, but then when you have martial law being declared, which is essentially what happened at UMass Amherst last night (more than a MILE from where the disturbance was), you start realizing just how think a line we really have on our civil liberties. n nI really don't care what religion someone is observing, if Saturday is his/her/its holy day, I will respect that.
Do I hear archaistic nihilists? n nThere is a major schism in the Libertarian movement, the left wing of which is far to the left of the Democrats. n nThese people are neither Republican nor Conservatives. nThey may occasionally express such views, much like a broken clock is right twice a day, but they are in a completely different dimension of political thought.
Well, I'm not a Trotskyite (I think Hitchens was at one point) … but I digress. n nThe Paul supporters had the perfect right to show up and sound like raving loons. And they weren't disenfranchised. n nWhile not a Paul supporter (and finding his past Rothbard-Rockwell-paleocon associations off-putting), his position on the Fed and crony capitalism — crapitalism! — is refreshing, a clearing of the air after Romney's contortions and Gingrich's disastrous career while and after being Speaker. I hope Paul is able to get strong language about the Fed put into the Rep platform. n nThe Greenspan-Bernanke Fed is a scandal, the epitome of a golden age of cronyism and pseudo-intellectual obfuscation. No other significant central bank has multiple mandates like the Fed. Anything besides price and financial stability should be someone else's job. Mandatory audits, say every three years or so, are another necessity. The unofficial mandate of asset inflation has to end too and that means breaking up the New York Fed's heavy influence over monetary policy and juicing up financial markets with open-ended Fed interventions. n nAnd does any take the government's official inflation and unemployment numbers seriously? Under the Fed's influence, they've been twisted and contorted into propaganda to obscure the reality: unemployment and inflation are higher than anyone wants to admit publicly. n nIt's only too bad there are no other messengers — say Steve Forbes, or Sarah Palin (!) — able to deliver the bad news about the Fed and force some change, without the black helicopter crowd showing up. It's not a matter of Fed independence — the Fed threw that away a long time ago. It caters to Washington's need to borrow at ultra-low rates (Grandma subsidizes Geithner) and Wall Street's addiction to cheap speculative credit (Grandma subsidizes Goldman).
I'm no Ron Paul support but I can't see where the problem is here…except for the hypocrisy of criticizing one group for bursting into another's turf when they do exactly the same thing or worse.