Questions for Michael Hoffman on Politics

Question: Define what politics means to you - waking people up, or what?

Hoffman: No, politics is not mainly about education or awakening, which is a different process. Politics consists in motivating people to act on what they already know is wrong. If you are an effective politician you are able to rouse people into action; that's politics. It comes down to courage vs. cowadice. Do we have the courage to act, or do we just continue to spectate and talk? There is nothing more contemptible than using the aibi that it is "too late," as an excuse for one's cowardice.

Question: So, are you an educator or a politican?

Hoffman: An educator awakens people and a politician organizes them once they are awake. It is two different roles, often confused. Hundreds of thousands of people in America are awake but they are not organized. As for me, I will do either, educate or organize. There is so much fear and timidity that it is difficult to organize, however. I research, write and teach for the present.

Question: Why the fear and lack of organization?

Hoffman: Because agents of paralysis have told the people that it is too late.

Question: Who are these agents?

Hoffman: Isn't the answer to that obvious?

Question: What is your opinion of Ron Paul?

Hoffman: He's wonderful on foreign policy and issues of war and peace. He's abysmal on capitalism and the economy because even though he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve he would enable usury. His campaign is over now. It seems he's endorsing war-Zionist Romney; a tawdry spectacle.

Question: Was the Ron Paul campaign what you would call politics?

Hoffman: Yes. Certainly Rep. Paul organized people, the question is, to what end? To lead them off a cliff with Romney and the two party system? Paul had millions of followers. I'm not talking about most of them when I refer to the hundreds of thousands of people who are awake. The ones I'm referring to are alert to pure evil. Mr. Paul's followers are awake to symptoms of the evil. There is a huge difference.

Question: What is this pure evil?

Hoffman: This is not a difficult question. It is staring us in the face and if you know your Bible it jumps off the page at you: the love of money is the root of evil. Ron Paul's people mostly don't know that. They want to enable the love of money.

The problem with the hundreds of thousands on my side who do know that greed is the issue, is that they have been targeted and persuaded by the agents of paralysis into thinking "it's too late - go and hide with your guns and ammo, stored food and water and gold and silver hoard."Hence, the battle is lost without a shot being fired. It is through the process of hiding in despair that the gulag is made to function and the police state will hunt us down. Those who know what's wrong should be, as a matter of survival, engaging in politics; organizing, not hiding.

Michael Hoffman's latest book is a study of the rise of the Money Power in Christendom, "Usury: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now Is Not." It will be published when sufficient funding is obtained.

***

Read More

Special Nevada Caucus for Talmud believers

Yes, you read it right. A special Republican caucus has been added in Nevada to accommodate frum (Talmud-“observant") Orthodox Judaic persons who can’t vote until sundown Saturday, after their rabbinic, works-righteousness “sabbath” concludes.

And get this, just in case you thought there was a smidgen of favoritism at play here (perish the thought), the special Shabbat vote will be held at the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Educational Campus in Las Vegas, a K-12 school named for the Zionist-fanatic casino billionaire and his Israeli wife.

Mr. Adelson, as many of you perforce know, in addition to having donated $11 million to a Super Pac dedicated to Newt Gingrich, is a Palestinian denier: he says the Palestinians never happened and this denial of the existence of an entire people, unlike the heinous thought crime of “Holocaust denial," has not detracted from his media cred one iota.

I asked my colleagues here at the On the Contrary office in the foothills of the Bitterroots, if they would lay aside their checkerboard and cease feeding Bertha (our wood stove) long enough to give me their cynical assessment of this development. Messrs. Cal and Ez stopped for a few moments to opine that the Nevada GOP’s decision to hold the extra caucus at the Adelsons' own school for Orthodox Judaics was probably finagled by ol’ Sheldon himself, as a way of rigging the caucus for Newt, since most Talmudists are wild about Gingrich's itchy Middle East trigger finger, and the fact that he shares Mr. Adelson’s expert opinion about the non-existence of the Palestinians.

Many Orthodox Judaics regard Ron Paul as the nemesis of their war-Zionist interventionism, consequently the special Nevada caucus for Orthodox Judaics-mainly (if not only), bodes ill for Dr. Paul and the integrity of the primary process itself.

***

The Contraception-Crazy Obama Administration

In other news, Cal and Ez say they have the inside skinny on Obama’s contraception rule, the one wherein he has banned religious institutions from exempting birth control from their employees' health insurance plans.  Cal and Ez say this Health and Human Services (H&HS) mandate was put into place at the urging of First Lady Michelle Obama, who has decided to stop having children herself.

It’s also predicated on the media’s claim (initiated by a recent report in the New York Times), that many female and youthful Catholics (Catholics are supposedly more irate about this mandate, although any Biblically-faithful Christian should be), are allegedly either indifferent to funding contraception or support it outright; e.g. H&HS director Kathleen Sibelius, who is an alleged Catholic and also happens to be the bureaucrat who is enthusiastically enforcing the government's conscience-suppressive contraception insurance command.

According to reporter Carol E. Lee, writing in the Feb. 2 Wall Street Journal (p. A6): “Democrats, including the Obama campaign, want to keep the focus on contraception and reproductive health, a debate for which they believe the battle lines are so clear there is little risk of alienating potential Catholic supporters...Catholics...are split on issues such as access to contraception.”

Whoa there, Carol E. Lee, is the issue really “access” — a ban on the sale and distribution of contraception, as you write?

Is it not actually an issue of coercing Christian hospitals and schools into subsidizing their employees’ use of contraception? Why are you trying to confuse us, Carol?

Carol E. Lee continues: “The calculus among Mr. Obama’s political advisers, people familiar with their deliberations said, is that support for the decision among women and young voters — including Catholics and Hispanics—outweighs any potential loss.”

If Lee’s sources are correct, then the Obama administration is betting on a revolt on the part of voters who are Hispanic and Catholic young people and women, against Biblical truth and Catholic law, in favor of the culture of death.

“Contraception and reproductive health” is their indoctrinating mantra — and they call themselves “feminists."

Pregnancy is a disease? True, that was the male-chauvinist obstetricians’ view in the 1960s and 70s, but it has been replaced by an entire birth-affirmative movement led by midwives.

Obama makes birth control easily available to American women and then uses the "declining American birth rate" and "aging American population” clichés as a pretext for calling for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, who we supposedly need to replenish our population. What a fraud!

The Democrats shoot themselves in the foot on the issues of the deprecation of Second Amendment rights, contraception and abortion. They lose big with that evil agenda. Obama quotes Christ on poverty as a riposte to Mr. Rich Romney. President Obama should be reminded that the “least" of Our Lord’s "brethren” are the unborn babies tossed in dumpsters all over America, more than half of whom are girls. A true Christian and a true feminist would never be complicit in this most brutal of all forms of oppression of the weak and defenseless.

***

The latest issue of our Revisionist History Newsletter is hot off the press, “Freemasons in the American Civil War.”

If there’s still hope that your pastor is not a hireling, or a Baal priest in disguise, why not send him a copy of Judaism’s Strange Gods, so that he might know the truth and be blessed with the audacity to share this important verity with his parishioners or congregation?

***

Read More

Our Corrupt American Media: Two Examples of Chutzpagh

By Michael Hoffman

1. Media Blackout of Ron Paul  in South Carolina

Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, in his jeremiads focuses on the America media as a leading culprit in our national demise.

By way of proving Dr. Roberts’ point, let’s examine  two examples of media bias so flagrant we have to resort to the word chutzpagh to lend it the notoriety it so richly deserves.

Observing the run-up to the South Carolina Republican primary, one has to wonder whether the controversies over Romney’s tax returns and Gingrich’s sex life, with Santorum portrayed as the alternative to these two agents of the Establishment, is not really a contrivance for detracting from the only authentic anti-Establishment, peace candidate in the Republican race, Rep. Ron Paul, who since the New Hampshire primary, has been all but banished to the lower reaches of the System’s darkest memory hole.

The media do not even offer a pretext of objectivity in hammering home their Romney-Gingrich-Santorum triumvirate, wherein Paul doesn’t even exist and isn’t even a factor, despite the fact that Rep. Paul had a better showing in Iowa (where we now find that the caucus voting was subject to fraud) and New Hampshire -- than Gingrich -- who is being touted as the most popular anybody-but-Romney option.

The media are terrified by the prospect of a Paul nomination at the Republican national convention this summer and are pulling out all the stops to deny it to him. The major television networks and the three major national newspapers (USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Times) are all owned by corporations who, by boycotting Paul, are influencing and swaying the election just as surely as any of the super-pacs they have so haughtily denounced. 

If Paul does poorly in South Carolina it will be largely due to the blackout aimed at him by the media. The media are tampering with the will of the American people while posing as journalists who love America. Is this not treason?

2. New York Times resolves a Talmudic embarrassment with lies 

Our next case involves a Talmudic embarrassment which the New York Times has ignored for years: the gender segregation of Israeli “Mehadrin” buses, which require Judaic women to move to the back of the bus. Miriam Shear was one of the first activists to protest this outrage and she was ignored by the Times for years. Lately, however, the Hasidic Orthodox Judaics leading the segregated bus campaign clashed with the Modern Orthodox who have close ties to corporate honchos at the New York Times. The Hasidic Orthodox have been spitting on Christians, including priests in Jerusalem for years and the Times has barely reported it.  But when the Hasidim spat at Naama Margolese, a Modern Orthodox Judaic girl, claiming the modest dress she was wearing wasn’t modest enough to suit their particular level of Talmudic fanaticism, the Times sprang into action and publicized the Israeli bus system’s gender segregation policies which degrade women.

There is an inescapable dilemma in such reporting, however: the Hasidim act according to rabbinic halacha as enshrined in the Mishnah and Gemara (“Talmud"), and subsequent texts and responsa issued by rabbinic poskim and gedolim over the centuries.

In other words, exposing the Jim Crow-like dimensions of the “women to the back of the bus” Talmudic culture, simultaneously exposes the Talmud to derision as a misogynist document; a conclusion intolerable to the Times, which has its own in-house reporter (Joseph Berger) charged with writing regular puff pieces upholding the supposed nobility, decency, joy, love and warmth of Orthodox (Talmudic) Judaism.

How to reconcile this contradiction between the ballyhooed Talmudic culture most always portrayed in the pages of the Times as the pinnacle of justice and decency, and the degradation of women displayed by the Hasidim?

With a kind of intellectual dishonesty typical of the most disingenuous pilpulist, on Jan. 19 the Times parsed the moral lesson to be drawn as one that exonerates the Talmud: “Lechery, Immodesty and the Talmud”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/opinion/ultra-orthodox-jews-and-the-modesty-fight.html

"The Talmud, the foundation of Jewish law, acknowledges that men can be sexually aroused by women and is indeed concerned with sexual thoughts and activity outside of marriage. But it does not tell women that men’s sexual urges are their responsibility. Rather, both the Talmud and the later codes of Jewish law make that demand of men...The Talmud tells the religious man, in effect: If you have a problem, you deal with it. It is the male gaze — the way men look at women — that needs to be desexualized, not women in public. The power to make sure men don’t see women as objects of sexual gratification lies within men’s — and only men’s — control.”  - New York Times, Jan. 19, 2012

The New York newspaper puts forth the notion that the Talmud places the emphasis on controlling lust on the male Judaic. Therefore, with this in mind, the general public is lead to believe that the Hasidim are proceeding against the women victimized based on anti-Talmudic principles!

This is an easily proved, blatantly outrageous lie which depends for its credibility upon the gullibility and ignorance of the goyim as well as those Judaics who are lacking in knowledge of the Talmudic texts.

Compare the New York Times’ abysmal propaganda for the Talmud with Israeli journalist Yossi Sarid’s impassioned and candid cri de coeur against it: “Orthodox Judaism treats women like filthy little things” (Haaretz newspaper, December 30)

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/orthodox-judaism-treats-women-like-filthy-little-things-1.404505

Orthodox Judaism, whether in its “modern” or Hasidic incarnation, is ruled by the Talmud and cognate rabbinic texts. Those texts out-Taliban the Taliban in their sub-cellar denigration of women. The New York Times can’t come clean on this subject because they’ve staked their entire world view on propagating “The Holocaust” and Talmudic (Orthodox) Judaism as planet earth’s two most noble objects of unquestioning veneration and respect. So they lie to protect Talmudic Judaism from any lessening of the aura of supreme worship which the media in America cultivate concerning it. No other religion enjoys this level of protection and camouflage.

These two big deceptions: the blackout of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul over the past week, and the promotion of the Babylonian Talmud as a pro-woman sacred text, are just two examples of the way in which one of the worst, most biased and crooked news media in the world operate, right here in the good ol’ US of A.

***

Michael Hoffman is the defiant and unrepentant author of the books The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians; Judaism Discovered; and Judaism’s Strange Gods. He is a former reporter for the American Contemporary Radio Division of ABC News and the New York bureau of the Associated Press.

*** 

Read More

Zionists fear Ron Paul’s influence on Romney

Editor’s Note: Zionists are often exceedingly vigilant and alert for the slightest sign of potential opposition, however remote. Here below is an alarm in the New York newspaper Forward, over the prospect of an “anti-semitic" Ron Paul presidency, which might force the Israelis to make peace instead of war: "Israel can’t be defeated if America is actively behind it. Take that away and Israel is just a middle-sized regional power.” Correct. Under a Paul presidency the Israelis would have to learn to live with their neighbors rather than bombing them; what a frightening prospect. There’s more: elephant-memory recall of former George Herbert Walker Bush’s chief of staff, John Sununu, along with bigoted racial paranoia over his Arab roots and possible influence on Romney.

Reporter J.J. Goldberg fears that Romney will "need Paul not to mount a third-party run, as he did in 1988. An independent Ron Paul campaign would guarantee Obama’s reelection...Romney will need to appease Paul with...promises of administration positions for his allies. A stronger Romney could simply ignore Paul’s surge. But Romney isn’t strong...”

Ron Paul is a populist in touch with the foreign policy thinking of many Americans, while hawkish Zionists (and that includes all of the other Republican candidates) are out to lunch on foreign policy. One of Goldberg’s charges against Sununu is that he described the 1967 Israeli attack on the naval ship U.S.S. Liberty as “vicious and unprovoked.” This was also the view of America's highest ranking naval officer, Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with the sailors who were on board the U.S.S. Liberty and witnessed the brazen Zionist massacre. Was Admiral Moorer “anti-semitic”?

Personally I don’t think Mr. Goldberg has much to worry about. If Ron Paul fades in the primaries in the South under withering fire from the Establishment media, Romney can ignore him; and a third party run by Paul could seriously undermine his Republican son Rand’s future in the U.S. Senate. As for Romney himself, no Zionist need be anxious over his supposed tepid allegiance to the Israeli lobby. Romney called on Sununu in order to build his New Hampshire political base, not to begin to craft an even-handed, peace-loving foreign policy in the Middle East. Romney is the quintessential opportunist and no president of that stripe has ever significantly bucked the media influence and Congressional power of The Lobby, and that includes George H.W. Bush.

Mr. Goldberg’s column is intended to stoke the fires of an even more intense Ron Paul incineration on the part of Zionist media executives. Hopefully they will overplay their hand and the American people will see the degree to which Paul scares the pants off the covert terrorism-industrial complex which continues to bog us down in useless, wastrel foreign wars while making America more enemies around the world.

Calling the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty a “mistake” is all we need to know about the truthfulness and objectivity of J.J. Goldberg.

Watch What You Wish For, GOP

Ron Paul Could Wind Up As Man Behind Mitt's Curtain

By J.J. Goldberg

Forward | January 12, 2012

Now that the New Hampshire GOP primary results are in, pro-Israel Republicans might want to sit back, take a deep breath and do some long, hard thinking. As much as they’d like to see President Obama booted from the White House next fall, they’d be wise to be careful what they wish for. Especially if they were watching television on victory night.

The operating assumption on the pro-Israel right — and, to be fair, in a healthy chunk of the center — is that Obama is no friend of the Jewish state. If Israel’s vulnerability keeps you awake at night, it’s natural to want a president who knows how to back our friends and oppose our enemies. That’s certainly how the Republican field presents itself, with the obvious exception of Ron Paul. The narrowing of the field, therefore, has to be a welcome thing for opponents of Obama.

If you’re accustomed to voting for Democrats, it’s probably a relief to see Mitt Romney emerge as the clear front-runner, given his background as a pro-choice Massachusetts moderate. Conservative Republicans still suspect he has adopted their language for marketing purposes and remains at heart the liberal he was in the Massachusetts governor’s mansion. If so, that should help disaffected Democrats feel comfortable with him.

After New Hampshire, though, the picture is getting a bit murkier. True, Romney appears all but unbeatable. He’s won twin victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, a one-two punch that no non-incumbent Republican has ever achieved before. None of his rivals seems even remotely positioned to overtake him.

On the other hand, he remains a weak favorite, disliked by his party’s powerful evangelical and conservative wings. The fact that he couldn’t break the 40% mark in New Hampshire, right on his home turf, after four years of nonstop campaigning, suggests he’s going to remain the candidate of last resort right up to the convention. A lot of Republicans just don’t like him.

Which brings us back to Ron Paul. Romney’s weakness gives Paul an unexpected measure of clout. For all his eccentricity, he’s been the surprise of the campaign, electrifying crowds of adoring young enthusiasts and crusty independents who’ve never followed politics before. His impressive showings, a strong third-place in Iowa and second-place in New Hampshire, prove he has the strength to stay in the race racking up delegates until the end. He’ll come to the convention in Tampa next summer well positioned to make demands.

Romney will ultimately win the nomination. Republicans will decide they have no alternative. To win the general election, though, he’ll need some enthusiasm from the party base. He’ll need his defeated rivals to bring their followers around and unite behind him. Most acutely, he’ll need Paul not to mount a third-party run, as he did in 1988. An independent Ron Paul campaign would guarantee Obama’s reelection.

In other words, Romney will need to appease Paul with platform planks and perhaps promises of administration positions for his allies. A stronger Romney could simply ignore Paul’s surge. But Romney isn’t strong.

Paul claims he’s neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Israel. He’s just wary of foreign entanglements. There’s evidence to the contrary, and it’s been well reported: The former aide who says he’s heard Paul say he wished Israel didn’t exist. The extremist and racist newsletters. Paul’s private mutterings aren’t the real problem, though. The problem is his unabashed isolationism. Should he gain real influence, his policy positions would directly endanger Israel. They would broadcast to Israel’s enemies that it no longer enjoys the umbrella of American protection. Remember, that’s the real importance of financial aid to Israel, and of a muscular American foreign policy. Israel can’t be defeated if America is actively behind it. Take that away and Israel is just a middle-sized regional power.

In the end, of course, it’s presidents that make foreign policy. A Romney White House would reflect the personal convictions of Mitt Romney. Whatever those turn out to be.

This is what made primary night television coverage so unsettling: the reminders that we don’t really know what Romney believes, and he may have no intention of telling us until he’s inaugurated.

Of all those reminders, the most chilling was the appearance of former New Hampshire governor John Sununu as a Romney spokesman. For those with long memories, it harkened back to the 1988 election, when Sununu was Republican candidate George H.W. Bush’s national campaign manager. Pro-Israel hawks were beating the drum for Bush that year, warning that Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis was a threat to Israel because Jesse Jackson was prominent in his party. Bush was Israel’s true friend, they said.

Nobody paid much attention to Sununu until after Election Day, even though the press was reporting some alarming facts about him (I remember, because I wrote the stories). One of the highest-ranking Lebanese Americans in national politics — and the only one then active in Arab-American community affairs — Sununu was also the only one of the 50 governors who refused to sign a 1987 proclamation saluting the 90th anniversary of Zionism and calling on the United Nations to rescind its Zionism-racism resolution. His reasoning was that governors shouldn’t dabble in foreign affairs — though he’d issued proclamations honoring Bastille Day and saluting Polish freedom on Pulaski Day. In 1988 he issued a proclamation honoring the veterans of the U.S.S. Liberty, an American naval vessel mistakenly attacked by Israeli jets in June 1967, causing 34 deaths. Sununu called the attack “vicious and unprovoked.”

Bush’s Jewish supporters insisted Sununu’s views didn’t reflect Bush’s. When word came out that Sununu was to be White House chief of staff, they said he wouldn’t be involved in Middle East policy. They said Bush was a devoted friend of Israel. Then we found out he wasn’t.

We hadn’t seen much of Sununu lately, until Romney went and found him. Or they found each other.

E-mail for J.J. Goldberg: goldberg@forward.com

***

Read More

Only Ron Paul stands out against this deranged chorus

By Alexander Cockburn
Counterpunch | January 4, 2011
 Email: alexandercockburn(at)asis.com 

A Catholic former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania once rated the dumbest man in the US Congress crested Tuesday night in Iowa’s see-saw battle among candidates for the Republican nomination and ran a virtual tie with Mormon millionaire Mitt Romney. Well after chilly midnight on caucus night in the Midwestern state, Iowa’s Republican Party declared Romney the winner by 8 votes. Each hovered just below 30,000 votes, with libertarian Republican Ron Paul of Texas running third with a respectable 26,000-plus votes.

Only a couple of weeks ago Newt Gingrich seem poised for exactly the same unexpected surge that blessed Santorum across the last week. But battered by volleys of viciously negative campaign ads financed by big Republican money backing Romney, Gingrich ran fourth with just under 16,000 votes. Hobbling along in the rear came Texas governor Rick Perry, Tea Party star Michele Bachmann and – with 668 votes – Utah millionaire Jon Huntsman.

Exactly four years ago, Santorum’s surprise showing last night was prefigured by the upset victory of a Protestant evangelical, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee who won with 41,000 votes, Romney came second on that occasion with 30,000 votes, a little more more than he managed yesterday, with a similar 25 per cent of the vote. Third, with 15,000 votes came the man who actually won the Republican nomination, John McCain.

So, as far as Republicans are concerned, Iowa can be a poor predictor. On January 10 the surviving candidates will be going head to head in New Hampshire. Romney has spent months in the state and has one of his several dreary homes there. Santorum, who committed months of seemingly fruitless effort clasping the hands of countless Iowans, has little presence in New Hampshire and a tiny war chest of campaign cash. Romney’s big-money attack dogs who were too busy battering Gingrich in Iowa to notice Santorum’s late surge, will unleash a torrent of abuse via TV and radio. New Hampshire is a must-win for Romney if he is to escape the charge that he simply can’t clinch any race. Two debates are scheduled and an embittered Newt Gingrich, no slouch in the campaign-debate setting, will be quivering to get his revenge.

Watching the Iowa results with some satisfaction are Obama’s campaign chieftains. To them, the Iowa contest showed that Iowa’s Republicans simply couldn’t figure out who to vote for. No one pleased them for long. Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich each had their moment in the sun, then faded. A week ago Ron Paul seemed set to win. Had the Iowa vote been held a week from now, Santorum might too have been eclipsed and Huntsman limped to the front.

The Republican high command decided some time ago that Romney is their best chance of beating Obama. Though infinitely elastic in political doctrine he’s not a nut. It’s imaginable that the all-important independent voters in the general election in the fall could vote for him. Romney made his millions buying and selling companies, very often firing workers in the process. He governed Massachusetts without egregious failure, passing the precursor to Obama’s health insurance reform, which achievement has been a red rag to the conservatives, who regard him as (a) a crypto-liberal and (b) an agent of Satan, since he is a Mormon. No Mormon has ever been president and reservation about the Church of Latter Day Saints extends beyond conservatives. For example, Mormon theology is not friendly to the children of Ham.

Troubling to this same Republican high command is Ron Paul, who has won passionate adherents across the political spectrum. The right likes him for his libertarian economics, which prompt Paul to denounce the basic elements of the social safety net – Social Security and Medicare. He would abolish the Federal Reserve ( a laudable objective). He’s a gold bug, and in his speech to his supporters Tuesday night he shouted a line which I’ll hazard has never before been uttered on an election night podium – “We’re all Austrians now” – thereby proclaiming his allegiance to the economist Ludwig van Mises and parodying the line actually coined by Milton Friedman, though often attributed to Richard Nixon, “We’re all Keynesians now.”

A lot of leftists like Paul because he really is an ardent anti-imperialist – the only one in the race – vigorously denouncing America’s wars, its overseas bases and its alliance with Israel. Paul is also an eloquent foe of the imperial presidency and of constitutional abuses such as the law signed by Obama on December 31, giving the military a role in domestic enforcement against terrorists and opening US citizens to military detention without benefit of counsel, without charges, and without trial.

Part of Paul’s vote in Iowa was undoubtedly leftists who, under Iowa’s rules, could cross over and vote in the Republican caucus. Republicans fear that if Paul gets sufficiently incensed at his treatment by their party, he might bolt and run on the Libertarian third party ticket, thereby draining votes from the Republican candidate next November. For their part the Obama forces similarly fear that Paul would steal vital left votes from those thoroughly disillusioned with the President. In the run-up to the Iowa vote The New York Times ran more than one aggressive onslaught on Paul for newsletters, racist in content, which ran under Paul’s name twenty years ago, and which he has since disavowed.

It’s hard to imagine Santorum getting long term traction. He’s a very conservative Catholic who crept into the US senate in 1998 after the incumbent Pennsylvania senator, John Heinz. It’s hard to imagine him cutting a wide swathe through the Baptist south, though against Romney, who knows?

Santorum says that as president he would bomb Iran tomorrow. Romney and Gingrich don’t lag far behind in their ravings against the Islamic Republic. Obama ratchets up sanctions against Iran while supposedly telling Netanyahu that the US will not endorse any attack by Israel on Iran. Only Ron Paul stands out against this deranged chorus. Given a chance, I’ll vote for Paul, even though he hasn’t a prayer of taking over the Oval Office. One has to draw the line somewhere, though I don’t feel in the least Austrian.

***

Other News

TV network MSNBC may fire Patrick J. Buchanan over his book, Suicide of a Superpower
(The A.D.L. sent MSNBC a letter urging them to dump Mr. Buchanan). Read a defense of his book here.

A Place for Homosexuals in Orthodox Judaism

***
Michael's Hoffman's ON THE CONTRARY is solely supported by the sale of his books, newsletters, CDs and DVDs,  and your financial support. 
______________ 

Read More

Iowa Votes for War

By Michael Hoffman

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum together received 60,000 votes in the January 3 Iowa caucus compared with Ron Paul’s 26,000. Relentless media vilification of Rep. Paul did its job. Jennifer Rubin writing in the Washington Post:

"Several thousand votes behind the leaders was Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who seemed to lose momentum in the final week of the campaign....Maybe the coverage of his conspiratorial newsletters and loony foreign policy views dampened enthusiasm....Most relieved by Paul's somewhat disappointing finish is the Iowa Republican Party, which dreaded the vilification that would have accompanied a Paul victory, perhaps even threatening the state's hold on the first contest in the presidential primary process. The isolationist segment on the party took it on the chin. With the two front-runners both forceful advocates for a strong national defense, talk of the Republican Party dabbling with isolationism should be muted."

Romney and Santorum seek war with Iran according to Israeli policy dictates. Santorum, like Michelle Bachmann, is a self-proclaimed conservative Christian, who, in reality, is a creature of the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism. As Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senator he regularly pilgrimaged to New York to sit at the feet of the most odious Talmudists and receive their instruction in political chicanery and the need for America to go to war with the perceived Middle Eastern enemies of the Synagogue.

Rep. Ron Paul is the only peace candidate in the presidential contest. I wish there was someone else. Paul’s advocacy of “Austrian School” usury is a grave flaw. But there is no one else. He is the only candidate who sincerely advocates peace, something which the American people overwhelmingly supported from 1918 to 1941; throughout the presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower in the 1950s, and in the aftermath of the Vietnam War in the 70s and 80s, but no more. Having learned little from the killing and maiming of thousands of US troops and a trillion dollars in taxpayer money squandered on the messianic neocon mission of intervening in a thousand-year-old civil war between rival Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, Americans are still convinced (by the media) that the “Islamic threat” is best countered by a “strong national defense” consisting in maintaining our military meddling in Islamic affairs in faraway Afghanistan, Iran and Arabia; anything contrary to this policy is stigmatized as “isolationism.”

The horrible consequences of a U.S. war with Iran are almost never summoned by the media as a pressing issue for the presidential candidates. War with Iran will make the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan look like Teddy Bear’s picnic. An invasion of Iran will seriously damage America’s economy for decades, increase our thralldom to Red China and launch us into the permanent war footing which former Vice President Dick Cheney called for when he declared that the “war on terrorism” should proceed for generations. Imagine cursing our children and grandchildren with such a butcher’s bill!

This is the curse that is beginning to take shape as Ron Paul is rejected in favor of a consummate politician like Mitt Romney and a fanatical crypto-rabbi such as Rick Santorum. 

The quality of life in America will continue to decline as our “Homeland Security” police state and war economy sucks resources from education, medical care, Social Security and mass transit.

The people of Iowa and New Hampshire, along with Americans in general, have no clear idea what Talmudic Judaism is, what counterfeit “Israel” represents and how the Talmudic mentality deftly plays Right and Left for the self-destructive ends of an ideology predicated first and foremost on hatred of Jesus Christ and all gentiles. Romney and Santorum are the means for weaponizing that ideology on the international stage, as did George W. Bush to such devastating effect. We can’t afford these men, but perhaps we deserve them.

Michael Hoffman is the author of Judaism’s Strange Gods, published in November by Independent History and Research.

***

Read More

Hanukkah Assassination of Ron Paul’s Reputation

By Michael Hoffman

Hanukah concluded Dec. 28. This year Hanukkah entailed the ritual assassination of the reputation of Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas) by the New York Times. Beginning on Dec. 25, the fifth day of Hanukkah, the Zionist newspaper published an investigative report concerning support which Rep. Paul is receiving in his primary campaign from minuscule white racist groups and from populists on staff atThe American Free Press newspaper. 

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.

*******

Read More

Bachmann, Beck and Palin increase their support for Israeli aggression

It took Republican congresswoman and Tea Party icon Michele Bachmann less than 24 hours after President Obama's Middle East address to launch an attack on him. On May 19, 150,000 residents in Iowa and South Carolina received robo-calls from Bachmann, accusing Obama of not standing up for Israel...

Within the Tea Party, Bachmann is at the forefront of those making Israel a key part of her agenda. In her speech at the high-profile Faith & Freedom Conference held in Washington in early June, Bachmann termed Obama's call for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict based on Israel's 1967 boundaries and mutually agreed land swaps "shocking." She followed up by buying ads on Jewish websites reiterating this message.

Bachmann is not alone. Attacks on Obama's Israel policy have come from former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, known as the Tea Party's biggest draw.

Pundit Glenn Beck, a vocal critic of the Obama presidency, has been devoting much of his airtime lately to the issue of Israel. He recently announced plans to hold a "Restoring Courage" rally August 20 in Jerusalem. At this gathering, modeled on his rally last summer that called for patriotic unity in Washington, Beck intends to call for Americans to "courageously stand with Israel."

These voices currently appear to be dominating discourse on Israel within the Tea Party, overshadowing the more isolationist views of such Israel critics as Rand Paul and his father, Ron Paul, a declared 2012 presidential candidate....

Source: Nathan Guttman, Forward newspaper (New York) June 14, 2011

***

Read More