Thursday, December 29, 2011

Hanukkah Assassination of Ron Paul’s Reputation

By Michael Hoffman

While we have serious reservations about Rep. Paul due to his support for the system of usury and the Austrian School of Economics, we believe that he promotes this system of finance out of tragic (and abysmal) ignorance. He is, however, an honest man who distinguishes himself from the entire field of Republicans in the primary contests by the crucial fact that he is the only peace candidate and the only genuine enemy of of the privately controlled Federal Reserve banking structure which is endowed by Congress with the power to manufacture money.

The Times referenced twenty-year-old issues of Rep. Paul’s newsletters that made politically incorrect statements about Martin Luther King and compulsory integration. Together with his support for ending foreign aid and abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank -- which a Dec. 27 New York Times editorial published on the 7th day of Hanukkah described as “claptrap” — all this allegedly “disqualifies" him as a trustworthy candidate for President of the United States:

"Ron Paul long ago disqualified himself for the presidency by peddling claptrap proposals like abolishing the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard, cutting a third of the federal budget and all foreign aid and opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now, making things worse, he has failed to convincingly repudiate racist remarks that were published under his name for years — or the enthusiastic support he is getting from racist groups. Mr. Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas who is doing particularly well in Iowa's precaucus polls, published several newsletters in the '80s and '90s with names like the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Political Report. The newsletters interspersed libertarian political and investment commentary with racial bigotry, anti-Semitism and far-right paranoia....Mr. Paul, who, beginning in 2008, has disavowed the articles and their ideas, now says that most of them were written by others and that he was unaware of their content. Even if that were the case, it suggests a stupendous level of negligence that should force a reconsideration by anyone considering entrusting him with the White House."

Peace is not a qualifying factor for the New York Times. The newspaper does not detract legitimacy from the presidential aspirations of Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney because if elected president, each of these candidates would burn and bomb Iran with American warplanes as soon as a pretext to do so would present itself. The spectacle of thousands of Iranian civilian corpses does not trouble the liberals at the Times. What infuriates them is the possibility that the Israeli capacity to make war on Iran, Palestine and Lebanon would be seriously curtailed by a Paul presidency.

_________________________________________

"How can rhetoric critiquing a Martin Luther King federal holiday compare on the scale of human atrocity with turning an Iranian nation of 50 million people into a smoking cinder at the behest of the Israeli Lobby?"
_________________________________________ 
Despite Zoharic theatre in which a Times columnist recently denigrated Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Netanyahu's staff in turn denounced the Times, the paper is one of the most Talmudic on the planet, its facade of liberal humanism not withstanding. Judaic victimhood trumps the travail of all other people in its pages. The memory of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese killed in the first decade of the 21st century by Israeli forces long ago faded from the pages of the Times, while on the 8th day of Hanukkah the Times published a prominent Op Ed about “saving Jews,” which is ever their primary focus. The Talmudic religion teaches that Judaics have higher souls than gentiles; that pernicious dogma filtered into the Times decades ago and has been a mainstay ever since, as it is in most of the American media.
Many of the other Republican candidates have ties to extremist rabbis. Bachmann receives advice at the feet of a  Kabbalist rabbi. Santorum, while U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, regularly conferred with and pledged his support to Hasidic rabbis who have an exceedingly low estimation of Arabs and gentiles in general. The New York Times couldn’t care less.
Gingrich and Romney are of the Norman Podhoretz school of Zionist war policy. Since the administration of George W. Bush, Podhoretz has been “praying” (his word) that the U.S. would bomb the nation of Iran. Podhoretz’ circle includes the neocon Weekly Standard, which launched the latest smear against Ron Paul from which the New York Times received its cue.
The “claptrap” drumbeat for war with Iran, led by homicidal rabbis and their clean-shaven Zionist fellow-travelers, does not trouble the august New York Times even one-tenth as much as some marginal characters from the South supporting Ron Paul’s campaign. The equivalence does not even bear comparison. When has Ron Paul ever supported racist legislation in his decades of service in Congress? He has not done so. How can rhetoric critiquing a Martin Luther King federal holiday compare on the scale of human atrocity with turning an Iranian nation of 50 million people into a smoking cinder at the behest of the Israeli Lobby? 
What riles the New York Times is Ron Paul’s peace advocacy at a time when the media are gearing an exhausted American populace and a drained U.S. treasury for another adventure in messianic invasion and therapeutic war according to Rabbi Moses Maimonides’ principles, even as the neocon intervention into the thousand-year-old Shiite/Sunni civil war in Iraq is proving to be the most egregious waste of American blood and treasure since Vietnam.
Media smears directed against the only peace candidate in the field of Republican presidential aspirants is one of the oldest tools in American politics for destroying the chances of a leader who the American people would actually overwhelmingly support if they were given a fair and accurate representation of his views. Instead, the Times casts Ron Paul in a white sheet while their anointed candidates walk about in the bloody robes of perpetual war for Talmudic ends.
Michael Hoffman is the author of Judaism’s Strange Gods, published in November by Independent History and Research.

*******

6 comments:

James said...

A wise man was asked what advice he had for the seeker of truth? He responded: "Know from the start that all truth derives from the Word of God and thus partakes of the sacred. Cultivate purity, knowing that this constitutes a precondition to the reception of truth." (cf: "Blessed are the pure [clean] of heart for they shall see God." Matt. 5:8)

With this in mind we look at the New York Times. Its anti-truth derives from a Talmudic opposition to the Word of God which cultivates impurity. Cultivating impurity, it is quite receptive to falsehoods and the promotion thereof.

St. John Fisher once described the seven steps that lead to a dead conscience. The seventh is where the individual tries to convert others to his way of thinking and acting. As one Christian moderator stated: "The worst thing in the world is not sin. It's the denial of sin by a false conscience. The unforgivable sin is the denial of sin."

I would submit that to a great degree the powers that be, those who call the shots at the NYT, deny their lies as being wrong or if they are wrong they are somehow justified. The collective conscience of the NYT appears deader than a door nail.

Excellent criticism of the NYT as found in Mr. Hoffman's article often falls on deaf ears when it lands at the doorway of that paper. The powers that be expect this kind of criticism, but since they consider themselves superior to other men, if they even consider them men, they just smugly toss it aside or look down upon it with smug derision. In this regard those who perpetuate so much slander and falsehoods at the NYT resemble very much the modernists so aptly described by St. Pius X in Pascendi. (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm)

James Phillips

aferrismoon said...

It seems that as he is the only 'peace' candidate he loses jewish 'backing'.

Though the NYT fails to mention the recent protests against African 'infiltrators' [ a word that may be used by Jews though doubtless would see agentile run out of town] yet they mau make a hullaballoo about the holiday of MLK.

They employ the thick-skin of the pachyderm coupled with the sensitivity of a Venus-Flytrap.

cheers

Robert C. Gregory said...

How in the world is Ron Paul, a heretic Baptist, going to have any chance of staying on his feet against antichrist and his henchmen? No way! Without the Lord, he hasn't got a prayer. The horned one will make mincemeat of him. If he were under the wing of the Good Shepherd, he could do a good job, but God will not help this man.
It reminds me of Irving. He was brave, he was strong, he was smart, but he was a heretic, and he went down before the Jews. It's uneven: the New York Times has Satan helping them. Ron Paul has only human help, since he is forsaken of God for being outside the Church.
Remember: it is not flesh and blood; it is Powers and Dominations that are warring.
RCG

Michael Hoffman said...

Mr. Gregory asserts that Ron Paul is without hope because he is “outside the Church” (Catholicism). If Ron Paul has invincible ignorance concerning usury and/or the Catholic Church he certainly does have hope. This is not the place to discuss Feenyite dogma but Pope Pius XII never insinuated or suggested that American politicians like President Eisenhower were without hope because they weren’t Catholic. It would be difficult to convert to Catholicism today with its record of institutionalized child molestation and enormous changes to the Gospel instituted in the modern era.

hirsi said...

What most if not all Americans dont know, is how these very politicians they are voting for are perceived in Israel itself. While Israel pandering has now become a manual for potential candidate who want to be operational in Washington, the jokes are found in Israel's late night shows. They got to (mock elect) their own candidate among the GOP hopefuls and in the end, Ron Paul, who wasn't featured all along, appears as a leper at the end of the show and just when the host scurries away from the dreadful affliction. Such mockery of the U.S electorate is not unusual in Israel, and it may be so because they, unlike Americans, know that political love is not brought about due to any particular value or friendship, but one based on money - influence.

Linda Low said...

"This is not the place to discuss Feenyite dogma but Pope Pius XII never insinuated or suggested that American politicians like President Eisenhower were without hope because they weren’t Catholic. It would be difficult to convert to Catholicism today with its record of institutionalized child molestation and enormous changes to the Gospel instituted in the modern era"

I'm no Feeneyite, Mr. Hoffman, but being a recent adult convert to Catholicism, despite the public controversy and apostasy of the Catholic hierarchy, I must object that with grace, it is indeed not only possible, but perhaps even inevitable, that one who is persistent in prayer, asking to find the true faith, should be able to do just that. I admit that the psychological barriers can be formidable, with the barrage of brainwashing to which we are exposed. But the truth, to the mind who deeply desires to know it, is so much more satisfactory, [to profoundly understate the moment of revelation}, that once the veil is ripped aside, there is no going back, and one only hungers for more. The key is whether the person in question is truly invincibly ignorant, or whether there's some vanity or other sin which blinds him. Until the period shortly before my conversion, it was very clearly the latter, in my case. Judging whether this is so in any particular case other than my own, I consider to be, shall we say, above my pay grade by infinite orders of magnitude. That having been said, in light of my personal experience, and because our Lord promises that what we ask [that is conducive to our salvation] we shall receive, I still fear for those who are outside the Church.
While I understand your wishing to limit the scope of the discussion at hand, I would respectfully submit that the problem is very specifically that Mr. Paul, though the lesser of evils, still is deeply confused about how a Christian society is structured, and the relationship between church and state. And the much deeper problem is that American society would be unwilling to support a candidate that did understand such things. In the end, there is not political or military solution to our dilemma. The problem is, at its root, spiritual, and you are doing an excellent job of exposing that fact. For that, I am very grateful.