Just shows how serious a problem anti-Semitism has become that trash like Buchanan's book is taken seriously by elements of the media. To his credit, Mike Savage also made an announcement that although he had Buchanan on his show in the past he would no longer do so because of his book. I believe (not quite positive) that Laura Ingraham also had Buchanan on her show subsequent to the book publication.

I was about to say that we're back to the late 30s, but in some ways things are worse today. The similarity to the late 30s is the resurgence of anti-Semitism into "respectability", and the relative silence of Jewish 'leaders'. What is worse today is that not only are they silent, but they criticize those non-Jews who are friends of Israel & opponents of anti-Semitism when they aren't liberal.

Just curious -- how did Colmes react to all of this?

Hal Turner Sean Hannity: Soul mates of Hate...Birds of a feather flock together.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r235/tonygspot_photo/hannity_nazi.jpg

Debbie--

It is one thing to speculate on mistakes made by Wilson, and the aftermath of the Versailles treaty, but clearly, Buchanan has gone way over the top this time.

Sadly, he--along with such as Michael Hoffman--have fallen into a deathly revisionist history spiral where it is too easy and convenient to cast blame on the Jews.

Contrary to revealed wisdom, Churchill was nowhere near as great as he is often portrayed, and FDR and Truman were pretty much disasters.

Buchanan, though, is falling into the trap of conflating what we did post-war--much of which was terrible, and based on extreme failings of our government at the time--with the war itself.

It is quite easy to sit here and say that if we had stayed out, Hitler and Stalin would have destroyed each other: the perfect outcome.

Most likely, Stalin would have won (he had way more guys). And all this assumes that FDR would not have gotten us into the war with Japan.

Impossible to know...

Putsching Pat was indeed on Laura Ingraham's show, albeit with Laura herself on vacation. Her guest host, Monica Crowley (if memory serves), tried to take PB to task. You could hear the incredulity in her voice that anyone would write such a thing. PB responded by getting louder and more blustery.

Churchill wasn't perfect, but the plain fact is from June 1940-June 1941 he kept the British Empire standing ALONE against the Reich. DS is right; Churchill will be revered when PB and Hannity too, for that matter, are forgotten. It's a shame about Hannity, though -- I listened to him when we were both in Atlanta, and he used to be pretty good.

Debbie, I watch H&C and O'Reilly every now and again, but I'm not proud of it. Speaking of Buchanan, I'm reminded that the people I've met who I've consisdered virally anti-Semitic have invariably been Catholic. The Protestants tend to be anti-Israel in a mistaken left wing kind of knee jerk way, but I think the Catholic Church has been a real incubator for anti-Semitic bullies. Hopefully, some of them were also bent over in the process.

Hardly on the same level as Obama's connections with Wright,Farrakhan,Ayers & Dorhn,George Soros and many equally vile leftists that have far worse power and influence.

"Buchanan's book is taken seriously by elements of the media"?

Again, nowhere near the number of elements as those who slobber over Barack's books.

Again, it is the scapegoat thing. Nevermind the verbiage. A John Bircher once wrote a tract with a hundred pages of source notes, in which he claimed that President Eisenhauer was a Communist. Truth shouldn't be a means to the end of falsity. Buchanan can drop dead. I seem to remember the draft deferment controversy that arose when he was writing speeches for Dick Nixon. The Viet Cong would have loved to wrap him in their flag. What a patriot!

While Pat has made many laudable statements defending Catholic Faith and morals, certainly whenever he makes anti-Semite statements or slurs, well, he speaks for himself.

Certainly, he doesn’t speak as a Catholic.

As Christ Jesus calls Christians “to be perfect, as the Father is perfect”, one can be assured that as Christians we are called to a much higher morality and observance than that of the Old Testamony would allow, not a lessor.

Bigotry could never be found along that “higher road”…and the Church has called us to a new future, free of anti-Judaism. The resolve for that new future coming from a reflection on our past sins, in this regard.

Summing up, the Holy See has condemned anti-Semitism. No further debate is allowed, or considered.

Except for those who are outside of the Kingdom of God.

I turned off Hannity's radio show years ago because he's such a self-absorbed, self-centered, lying, exaggerating, megalomaniacal scumbag. It's all about HIM. EVERYTHING is. A caller calls up to say something...anything, and Hannity cuts them off to talk about himself. No matter what the callers calls about, he cuts them off and draws references to himself, or go on tangents about what a wonderful guy he is.

I haven't watched H&C for years, as well, because Hannity is just so repuslive to listen to.

He lives in a world where celebrities shove their tongues so far up each other's ass. They all fawn over themselves to hawk each others' books, CD's, shows, columns.

It's all very disingenuous and phony, and he's the biggest asswipe among them.

My eyes were open to Buchanan only recently. I haven't bought another book of his since. After reading a column of his about WWII I was surprised but my eyes were opened to his b.s.
Another thing he seems to be all over is getting European Americans to reproduce more (State of Emergency) but I don't see anything anywhere about him having a family.

It's dissappointing to learn how bad it gets with Buchanan. What a scum. What a window to the real person were those encounters you had-- and your dad with this ape.

Vannity--you've told us about him and we see it more and more. I guess he and PB go together. I wonder if Mark Levin, who rips idiots right and left, will still fawn over him? He can smell an anti-Semite a mile away--and so far he still plugs Vannity on a daily basis on his program. I also wonder how Rush will treat PB?

I caught the tail end of that interview the other night. I thought I'd heard wrong about the premise of the book. I guess not. I should have known better considering the source.

Buchanan's fantasy of neo-isolationism is just as stupid as a liberals knee-jerk fear of ever using American power.

I think WWII was stupid. If it could've been avoided, we wouldn't have lost MILLIONS of the best the White race had to offer. We should have listened to George Washington and stayed out of unecessary entaglements. We're continuing the stupidy today, by remaining in NATO, and drowning in debt to pay for Europe's defense.

[JH: WHAT?! YOU'RE AS RACIST AS BUCHANAN. PLENTY OF BLACK MEN FOUGHT IN WORLD WAR II. ONE MORE RACIST COMMENT LIKE THIS AND I WILL BAN YOU. I THINK I'VE ALREADY BANNED YOU A FEW TIMES UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES, BUT YOU KEEP RETURNING. DS]

Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. He seems to think America's troubles lie in meddlesome Jews getting her involved in the Middle East and in her being a world power. The Jews didn't get America involved in World War II and they didn't target America on 9/11. Those are the facts that escape Buchanan's attention. And his anti-Semitism blinds him to the fact that World War II was launched because the Nazis intended to exterminate the Jews when they were ready. Their building an empire in Europe was just a by-product of that aim, not the other way around - it was in other words, intended to facilitate the Final Solution. All of which can be found in the pages of Mein Kamf. And its thanks to Buchanan's isolationist forebears that the West almost ended up losing its existence. Today's war with Islamofascism is another world-historical struggle he would have us sit out. The Greatest Generation during the greatest conflict of the twentieth century gave their lives to make America and the world a more free and safer place and all Buchanan can do is say they waged an "unnecessary war." Well all wars are that way until you need to fight them. We had to do that then and we have to do it today.

Your father was correct. The "... when golf clubs admit anti-Semites like Pat Buchanan." would not have been classy. And while I probably would have said it (had I been as thoughtful and courageous as you to even consider it), based on what you wrote here about your father I think he was someone worth listening to.

It so happens today is June 22 - the date the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. This was a country they had a non-aggression pact with and they just tore it up because they felt they couldn't be stopped. Just a historical reminder that true peace is guaranteed only through strength of arms and not with a piece of paper alone.

Debbie, JH is as racist as Buchanan. I think its best to keep his vile comments on the board so people can see the kind of constituency that Buchanan himself represents. The best defense to the scurrilous rewriting of history by those on the racist fringe is the truth. And they are the fringe since they are an embarrassment to every serious conservative. No thoughtful person in the world for a moment should entertain that line of argument. Period.

[NF: YOUR COMMENTS AND COUNSEL ARE ALWAYS WISE, BUT I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIS RACIST COMMENTS ON OTHER POSTS (IN ADDITION TO THIS ONE), IN WHICH HE DOES NOT IDENTIFY HIMSELF AS A BUCHANANITE. AND EITHER WAY, CAIR, THE OTHER MUSLIM GROUPS, AND LIBS LIKE NAZI-FUNDED MEDIA MATTERS USE SUCH COMMENTS TO IMPUTE THIS UNTENABLE VIEWS TO ME AND MY SITE. THEY TROLL THIS SITE FOR THAT VERY PURPOSE. DS]

Ban me? Different names? You're paranoid. And, WWII was almost exclusively fought by Whites against other Whites, except for the Japanese, Ken Burns' revisionist PBS series notwithstanding. Sorry, that's the truth.

All you've got for proof that Buchanan is Adolph Hitler, is some off-color remark, and the fact he's spent 1% as much time talking about "Whites" as you've spent talking about Jews. Pretty thin, coming from somebody who refers to Oprah as "Hoprah", lol.

And you people at this site can't handle anything you perceive to be "anti-semetic", which I wasn't even talking about, but apparently it's forbidden to agree with Buchanan. Excuse me for caring about our (my?) people, the way Buchanan frames it, and seeing WWII as a disaster for my people. Are you folks Israeli or American? Are you confused about that? Why do you constantly make everything jewish vs. gentile? We're on the same team, right?

I voted for Buchanan in 92. So what? You people are hysterical.

When I was a kid, I read a book called "Rock 1970" and it had a photo of Mick Jagger wearing a dress and singing to an audience. The caption was, "Getting harder and harder to shock 'em, ain't it Mick?" Such is Pat Buchanan. As intelligent as Buchanan is, as well researched as his book might be, who's going to read it, unless he can create controversy? And since it's become obvious to PB that he'll never hold office or influence policy, he's chosen to become the naughty boy saying bad words. The truth is that Pat's constituency is, generally speaking, aging and dying.
Just like aging rock stars, Pat's crowds get thinner and thinner. Gotta put that dress on to get some attention. And don't get me started about Sean "It's Unbelievable" Hannity. Suffice it to say, at least when he plagarizes you, he's quoting accurate information. Otherwise, whether he's telling the truth of not is a toss up.

90% of the US soldiers were White. That doesn't include the English, Canadians, Germans, Russians, French, Dutch, etc. I'd say it was largely about Whites killing each other, and it obviously claimed the bravest and best we had. If "NormanF" can't see that fact as being anything but vile, fringe, scurrilous, racist, unthoughtful, and an embarrasment (wow), then perhaps "NormanF" is the issue.

And to which "serious conservatives" does he refer, to whom I am supposedly an "embarrassment"? The mainstream Republican party? Oh no, lol.

[JH: THAT MEANS THAT 10% OF U.S. SOLDIERS FIGHTING THERE WERE NOT WHITE. AT THE TIME, BLACKS WERE FAR LESS THAN 10% OF THE U.S. POPULATION. TO PUT ANY RACIAL SPIN ABOUT WHICH SOLDIERS FOUGHT IS JUST RIDICULOUS. AND IT'S NOT THE POINT OF THIS POST. ENOUGH ALREADY OF THE ARYAN BS. DS]

To those who "minimize", by their actions - inferences - indifference, what occured in Germany (under Hitler) concerning the (attempted) extinction of the Jewish People...is APPALLING.
Lets get this straight right now...MILLIONS of (innocent) Jewish people were killed/murdered SOLELY because of their Religion. It was WRONG and there were MILLIONS of People around the World (including JFK's own Father) who believed that Hitler would/could never be defeated so we should "learn to appease" him/his views.
In the 30's people got together and SACRIFICED their lives, and those of their children, to fight against this evil...and they/we PREVAILED (thank God).
Right now, sadly as I type these words, there is MASS MURDER taking place in Africa. This MASS MURDER is not a "race" thing...it is a "power thing" and it is wrong!
The "world", including the spineless UN, sits around and allows it to happen to INNOCENT men, women, and children (however in much lower numbers as compared to WW2).
Where are all of the BRAVE LIBERALS/WOMENS RIGHTS ADVOCATES addressing/solving this "life and death matter"? Nowhere just like (sadly) the majority of the Republicans regardless of the "reasons"...it is wrong to allow the innocent to suffer...and die.
Man, we need to focus our attention on what is REALLY happening around the world AND what REALLY happened (like in Germany to the Jewish People) before. If we don't then there is little hope, I am affraid, for the "next generation" to do anything because they will be "too busy" texting OR reading ALTERED HISTORY in Liberal/Extreme/Biased materials.
To those (and there are MANY) in this day and age (CAUTION - sarcasm alert) of "we are so brave that we can blame everything on Christians, Jewish people, Southerners, White people, etc." my advice is to (a) self-educate yourself so that you realize/know that ALL types of people have suffered throughout the ages (b) respect and appreciate the fact that the Jewish People are constantly under "attack" and it is WRONG (c) get off of your "high horse" and take responsibility for your own actions/life and (d) read - accept - appreciate - the life that you have been given because it is a "short ride indeed". Nuff said. NOSTRADAMUSLIVES (by Jeff Schrembs - I'm outta here - 4now)!

Not surprising that left wingers like Audacious and NP would, in effect make common cause with someone like JH in attacking you & this blog. Similar to the isolationist and anti-Semitic America First group prior to World War II. It was not just right-wing isolationists. For two years, 1939-1941 the Commies also opposed intervention until Hitler attacked Russia, Norman Thomas & other Socialists also supported America First. The same dynamic now. They attacked Jews then, the same way -- that only the Jews wanted to fight Hitler.

Debbie, thanks and for the record I don't agree with them either. Anyway, the point I want to make is you can't do anything about how other people think about you so all you can do is just state your position and then the reaction that follows divides into two camps: those who agree with you and those who don't. In our free society, hopefully with time, that will lead to more of the former than the latter having the upper hand. Til then, the fight continues against the likes of CAIR, other Islamists and the Left. I'm proud to see you're a part of it!

Cf, good point. Then as now, moonbats on the Left and paleocons on the Right find common company in refusing to see the need to fight evil. They denied the Nazi threat and today they deny the Islamofascist and Iranian threat. One would think people who can recognize a past evil can acknowledge the necessity of confronting the present danger. But they can't and the reason Buchanan's book is more than a dated history lesson is many of the things he advocates that would have strengthened Hitler in the 30s would strengthen Islamofascists today. The question is not whether America is going to sit on the sidelines. The question is whether America will have the will to defeat evil as the past generation did. Which is what I think is very much the point of the present thread here.

JH is probably Pat Buchanan's lover - Scott McConnell. By the way JH you magnificently ignorant swinish bastard - it is 'Adolf' Hitler not 'Adolph' Hitler. A former Hitelerjugend like your self ought to know that.

Nothing new about Pat Buchanan.

William Buckley, years ago, said that Pat Buchanan was an anti-Semite and wrote a very long article in his National Review magazine supporting his charges.

Pat Buchanan said that Desert Storm was a war started by G.H.W. Bush at the behest of Israel.

Pat Buchanan engaged in Holocaust revisionism as to his defense of John Demjanjuk, the notorious SS guard at the Treblinka death camp during WWII, saying that its gas chambers could not have inflicted so many deaths.

Pat Buchanan & Sean Hannity: Perfect for each other.

Well, 70 million people died in WWII. What a catastrophe. How arrogant of some of you, and FDR, and Churchill, to volunteer Americans for that duty. It wasn't my grandfather's job to go to Europe and get dragged into a global conflagration, but he did it anyway. It's sheer luck that I'm even here today. If 70 million dead and $1 Trillion (in 1944 dollars!) isn't too high a cost for you people, what is? A billion dead and $1 Quadrillion? Probably not.

And you little people calling everybody names, like vile, scurrilous, ignorant swinish bastard, Pat Buchanan's lover, etc, or accusing ME of attacking anyone after I'm called a bunch of names...you are irrational and ridiculous.

Posted by John Harper:
[What a catastrophe. How arrogant of some of you, and FDR, and Churchill, to volunteer Americans for that duty.]

Hitler declared war on the US after it was bombed by the Japanese! After this, there was no need for the US government to force Americans to fight the Nazis. Americans volunteered on their own.

Posted by John Harper:
[What a catastrophe. How arrogant of some of you, and FDR, and Churchill, to volunteer Americans for that duty.]

Hitler declared war on the US after it was bombed by the Japanese! After this, there was no need for the US government to force Americans to fight the Nazis. Americans volunteered on their own.

As Zeppelin would say---hats off to John Harper:)

HE is indicative of the hardcore reality of neo-conservatism, and also the History Channel afficitionados. Whenever you listen to those announcers you hear a hint of hero worship when they talk about Hitler and you get the feeling that the Nazis weren't all that bad...just overachievers...kind of like former moshiach GW!!!

And WHY would you ban him???

i'd rather my klansmen out in the open than plotting behind closed doors @ Halliburton.

[ER: UH, WRONG. HE IS NOT A NEO-CONSERVATIVE. HE HATES THEM. HE IS A PAT BUCHANAN PALEO-CONSERVATIVE. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. DS]

"Not surprising that left wingers like Audacious and NP would, in effect make common cause with someone like JH in attacking you & this blog."

Ah CF, up to your old tricks.

How fast can you say Straw Man?

I didn't know what a Jewish person was until I was 20. Then I still didn't notice any great differences. I'm not religious at all, I don't believe there's an Invisible Man in the Sky, who watches over us, and uses hocus pocus, lol. But, I admired the Jews and realized I should be more like them, and work harder.

Lately though, I've observed Jewish people are extremely clannish with each other, which I don't have a problem with, and they don't mind other groups being extrememly tight-knit, like blacks for example. But they can't seem to tolerate the same level of cohesion among non-Jewish Whites. They seem to reserve for us "Gentiles", or whatever we are, non-Jewish Whites I guess, the same level of suspicion they have for muslims, who rightly deserve it. I don't know how Jews expect non-Jewish Whites to continue supporting them when our "special group" is as threatening to them as the muslims. I don't trust people who don't trust me. I'm supposed to care about Jews, but they attack, viciously, any semblance of non-Jewish White unity? Screw that! I mean, hell, if I'm just the stupid goyem, why bother?

If I say one word about my high school going from 100% white to 100% black since my parents went there, why, I'm an evil, ignorant, hateful, nazi bastard. I don't even recognize my own town anymore, everyone with kids who isn't black has moved away, and I mean everyone, because the schools are completely degraded, they are COMPLETE GHETTOS. They were nice before, where kids behaved and learned in the 5th grade what kids today aren't even learning in the 12th. I didn't make it that way, that's not my fault, that's the truth. Break-ins are PANDEMIC in my town now, and shootings, and smash and grab robberies, right behind my house! But I'm not supposed to say one word about that, or I am banned, an "aryan nazi" etc. But, I'm supposed to WRING MY HANDS over the Jewish "community", and celebrate their unity, no matter what. If I don't, I'm an "aryan nazi" again, ha.

I wonder if Buchanan would also try to whitewash the Turk genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in WW1.

The level of anti-Semitism in Europe and increasingly in the US is frightening.

That Islam would commit a Holocaust (if it could) is a given. This is like the 1930's, only worse. This time the anti-West anti-Semitic anti-War front is an alliance of totalitarianisms: Left, Fascist, and Islamist, with elements of the non-fascist Right aiding it out of ignorance. I fear that the 21st century will be more violent and destructive than the 20th.

I realize that Debbie has issues with Hannity and that they may well be justified.

But I think it neither fair or accurate to call him a "brown shirt."

Very few gentile talk show hosts are more pro-Israel and pro-Jewish than Hannity.

I also agree that Buchanan is an antisemite. Sean Hannity has his own reasons for promoting the book but being an antisemite cannot be one of them.

Len

[L613: BOY, YOU ARE REALLY GULLIBLE. WHAT HE SAYS ON HIS SHOW--THE GOP TALKING POINTS HE REGURGITATES LIKE A TRAINED MONKEY--AND THOSE WITH WHOM HE IS FRIENDS, IE., HAL TURNER, PAT BUCHANAN, ETC., ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THE LATTER IS REFLECTIVE OF WHO HE REALLY IS. THAT THIS DOESN'T GIVE YOU PAUSE IS TROUBLING. THAT YOU EXCUSE THIS SHOWS WHY SEAN VANNITY IS A SUCCESS--A LOT OF PEOPLE DEVOID OF ANY CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS WHATSOEVER (KINDA LIKE HIM).

THAT HE HAS THESE FRIENDS WHILE SAYING ONE THING ON HIS SHOW THAT HE REALLY DOESN'T BELIEVE (ABOUT ISRAEL) SHOWS WHAT A PHONY HE IS. BUT, HEY, YOU ARE EVIDENCE OF WHAT LINCOLN SAID: "YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF TIME . . . ." SEAN HANNITY DOES HAVE A REASON FOR PROMOTING THE BOOK: HE'S CLUELESS, UTTERLY DEVOID OF PRINCIPLE, AND ACCORDING TO HIS FORMER CLOSE FRIEND HAL TURNER, A COMPLETE ANTI-SEMITE (BUT WANTS TO KEEP HIS MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR JOB).

BUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU BUY INTO THE FRAUD AND VAPIDITY, AND THAT'S WHY PAT BUCHANAN AND HIS PRO-HITLER BOOK WILL ALWAYS HAVE A FORUM. MAZEL TOV [CONGRATS] TO YOU ON YOUR INCREDIBLE SIMPLICITY AND NAIVETE.

NEXT YOU'LL BE TELLING US THAT YOU'RE SURE SEAN HAS GOOD REASONS FOR BEING FRIENDS WITH DAVID DUKE AND PROMOTING HIS BOOK. IN THE 1930S AND '40S, YOU'D HAVE TOLD US THAT THERE WAS A GOOD REASON FOR PROMOTING GOEBBELS' BOOK, WHICH VANNITY WOULD CERTAINLY DO. DS]

One small point; the Holocaust was known to the West for sure as soon as early 1942. There were numerous reliable reports coming to the West by that time, especially from the Polish government in exile, although certainly Hitler's intentions were clear long before that.

JH's anti-semitic garbage is as bad as anything I've seen. It doesn't merit a serious response.

No Pasaran!: Don't confuse American Jews with Israeli Jews. Many of the former have had their thinking twisted backwards by their liberal friends to the point of taking positions that are deadly to the survival of Israel.

Yes, Jews are 'different'. They might wear funny hats, etc. But remember that we are a Judeo-Christian civilization and Christ was a Jew. Jews are our allies in this century of war with Islam. We need them and they need us.

I think what some people don't realize is this is Debbie's blog and we who are posting are guests in her house. When people abuse it, they deserve to not have an audience and be tossed out on their ear.

I'm thoroughly disgusted that fox gives even one second to the likes of buchanan, sharpton, geraldo..etc. These are low lifes and it is odd because there is so many good people out there to uplift and hear from. Whenever buchanan talks I wince. I've never liked his isolationist views. I don't know anyone in my circles that like these people so how on earth do they get this press to show themselves off and spew vile things?

Buchanan is a product of the 'fifties. That was a period where Jews were at long last being employed in old school institutions. The exclusionary class - Central Europeans and Roman Catholics (themselves somewhat excluded until JFK) - resorted to subtle anti-semitism, that became brazen at times.

DEBBIE: if you have the time tonight, google "swastika epidemic." I am old enough to remember it. There was soul-searching afterward, but it was really ugly for a while. My Ukranian neighbor spoke of Jews eating bread that contained blood drawn from Christian babies. Fellow students practised drawing swastikas in school. Chicago was said to be the worst place in the world to be a Jew, in 1959.

You probably know someone with JSTOR access:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/799237
"The Swastika Epidemic of 1959-1960: Anti-Semitism and Community Characteristics." By Howard J Ehrlich.

IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE; IT HAPPENED HERE.

c f, I have to say JH made me pretty angry at first but I agree with part of what he is saying. If we Jews expect to be supported by non Jewish people, we shouldn't expect people like Buchanan to overlook the welfare of Westerners at large. We should be demanding to be included in so-called aryan circles, not trying to stamp them out, ridiculing them, and setting ourselves apart from them. We are an integral part of Western history. Hitler attempted his genocide before either of my parents were born. In the meantime, by alienating the likes of Buchanan or "JH", we are picking a fight for no reason. We should demand to be let in to our rightful place instead of excluding ourselves and tearing down someone like Buchanan.

Sue are you serious? If one wants to have any type of peace, embracing groups that act like aryan nation types is NOT going to help it along. It will make people like myself abandon people that embrace such hatred types. If any of my friends ever lent credence to aryan type stuff or spoke highly of people like buchanan, I'd ask them to not call me back, Ever. Have you read the American kkk's website? The WHO WE ARE statement even scares me as a white person. I can't even imagine how non whites must feel when they read such statements.

There is no such thing as total peace and we need to come to grips with the fact that we will always have to fight evil ideologies and judging them harshly saying that that is NOT what is needed in peaceful civilizations will get us more peace in the end than if we "embrace" these people who follow evil ideologies. We are no longer allowed to "judge" things that should be judged without being told to "embrace" this crap and not alienate evil..and we wonder why we are going down the crapper.

Buchanan is not advocating the welfare of westerners at large. He is supporting countries that are the antithesis of western civilization such as Nazi Germany. Although Churchill was not perfect, he towers above any leaders of Western civilization of his era. He is endorsing and promoting anti-semitic stereotypes that many people a half century ago thought that the U.S. had overcome. Buchanan's agenda for jewish people is essentially to disband Israel, and for Jewish people to hide in a corner and relinquish any rights that have been won in the last few decades. Back to quotas, exclusion, (we're already moving back to those things). These people have to be taken head on.

As far as Fox goes, remember the Saudis own part of Fox, Murdoch's son is anti-Israel, and for the most part, the so-called conservative commentators are a bunch of hacks. I do respect Bill Kristol's perceptiveness, although I disagree with him on a number of things.

The pronoun HE (IS PROMOTING) two comments ago refers to Buchanan.

Good news (I think). John McCain has ties to Christian Zionists like Rod Parsley. Said ties are not strong but let's not forget the merit of the CZ position. The Arabs conquered Christian Byzantines, and coerced or forced conversion. Christians - like John of Damascus - found some refuge in Syria, but they were persecuted in their Holy Lands, while Jews were reduced to dhimmis or exiles.

Since 1948, Arab Muslims have coerced the exile of 2,000,000 Christians, mostly Arab Maronites. Most of South Lebanon is properly Christian majority. The only reason there are any Shiites there is the fact that Syria uses them. As for the Druze, Christians respect their interests. Muslims do not.

Unless someone intervenes Christians will be excised from all but Israel. As for the Zionist agenda, CZs believe that Zion (Israel) must be restored and the Third Temple built, under Christian protection. Jewish sovereignty would be respected. CZs believe that those conditions would result in the Second Coming. At that time, Jews would either convert or be dealt with by Jesus Christ. The whole scheme is based on permanent peace between Jews and Christians. Muslims will be treated as unlawful occupiers. In effect, that position mirrors Arab Muslim plans for Jews.

I am not even a believer, but one can hardly ignore political demands of Christian Zionists. As for the Lebanese Shiites: boot them to the Bekaa Valley and napalm them if they attempt missile attrition. In fact, I would put a US missile base in Bint Jubeil, Lebanon (rename it Reagan City, or whatever) and pressure a change in alliance for Syria.

However, if al-Sistani exploits Bush's monumental election year stupidity, viz the Status of Forces Agreement lunacy with Iraq's Iranian puppets, Obama will be hand delivered the presidency.

Sarkozy, visiting Israel, strongly condemned a gang attack on a Jewish boy in France:

http://www.ttc.org/200806221933.m5mjxiy06091.htm

Posted by supercargo:
[John McCain has ties to Christian Zionists like Rod Parsley.]

Pffft... McCain kicked that guy's ass off the bus at least a month ago.

I work in the history field and attend a psychotic leftist University for a Public History degree. I've worked in the field as an intern for the last 2 years and will be finished witht he internship in August.

Debbie is absolutely right this is history revisionism. This sort of behavior happens by the minutes in this field. In fact, the first moves made of any would-be power is to manipulate history.

WWII had to be fought and we had to win it. Churchill was a great man and did what he thought best and it saved countless lives and saved many freedoms for our happy days.

For Pat Buchanan, backed by Sean "I can debate like a big boy!" Hannity to make the claims that the US Should had kept out, has done little to no research. The Nazi's, the Imperial Japanese, and the fascist Italians wanted WORLD domination. (See, the United States, Mr. Buchanan, is located on the WORLD. The big place we all live and work. You're standing on it.) Just reading the Tanaka Memorial is enough to understand that. This is elementary world history. Stick Buchanan on "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader" and I'm sure he'd leave in 10 minutes.

Buchanan's and Hannity's books also tend to repeat the works of Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, Levin, Allen, and of course Debbie's works that they're not worth reading at all. The only changes they make are either unpractical or downright sinister.

As to revisionism: it's so rampant these days that one might believe we no longer have credible sources or even a history at all. Everytime I do a research paper, I find nearly 90% conflicting accounts and histories.

Seems that to get an A in University these days, I should just ask the professor for his approved sources and then regurgitate that data. It's almost worthless to get the degree as real work in history requires skills and hard work - not theories. If you disagree with the almightly professor... well, it ain't pretty. You're labeled as tainted and aren't worth their time as they prefer students who will follow their teachings religiously. That, and I don't attend the , binge drinking, experimenting orgies, and sodomy parties with my class or the teachers - it seriously hurt my social standing with them so far.

Sorry; a little off subject there.

Something else: if I don't repeat word for word the revisioned history's my professor spew out on a daily basis - they'll fail me without hesitation or recognize a right of appeal. This happend with a Utah History class last semester where I challenged the professor to provide his sources suring a lecture about the Mountain Meadows Massacre - and he failed me in the first month of class and tained me with other students with the usual Leftist labels. I filed an appeal and I'll probably never hear back from Administration.

This is the problem. Honest history like how and why the Holocaust began and why we needed to stop it is being constantly messed up for political/social agendas and to make some quick bucks!

You know what? This history degree isn't worth it anymore. I'm not going to regurgitate lies and slop, or be sociable with folks who perform unnatural acts on each other; just for a tainted Masters degree. I feel like a guy getting an MD who can only end up working for Dr. Mengele. I'm going for a Library Science, or Geneology, or maybe an Archivist's degree instead. At least those are honest careers!

(Thanks. I've been needing to vent for a while.)

For anyone still reading this thread I believe that you would be very interested in Victor Davis Hanson's scathing critique of Mr Buchanan's book:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson060908.html

And when Buchanan argued that Hanson was full of it, VDH came back with a point-by point rebuttal:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson061608.html

"No Pasaran!: Don't confuse American Jews with Israeli Jews. Many of the former have had their thinking twisted backwards by their liberal friends to the point of taking positions that are deadly to the survival of Israel."

Sorry Arius, but why is this directed at me?

Now while I could personally care less about someones religious affiliations as I have stated my feelings on ALL religions here before. I am getting just a little tired of all the "get the jew" conspiracy theories. I know this is going to offend people but ya know what put your grown-up underwear on and get over it.
What makes the Jews so special on the mass victim front? If History is right didn't Stalin Kill 20 million people? didn't Chairman Mao kill around 60 Million ( ten times the amount of Jews killed by Hitler?). What about what the Japanese did in China you know "the Rape of Nanking"? oh wait they were not Jewish so History has ignored that. Don't believe me? ask any school kid if he knows what happened in China during WWII then ask the same about the Jews and Germany see which one they know about. Where are the "Holocaust Museums" for all those people?

Given Sean Hannity's penchant for ripping off other people's work, I'd bet Pat Buchanan did the same. I'll bet his book made liberal use of David Irving's "Churchill's War". As you know, David Irving is a Holocaust Deniar and was exposed in a U.K. court as having falsified empirical historical evidence about World War II.

One has to wonder what anyone in the news media sees in Pat Buchanan. He's washed up!

Dear Debbie,

I too have some serious problems with Pat Buchanan. I blame him for bringing down the
first Bush administration and the onset of
the Clinton years. Where would we be today
if he had just kept his mouth shut?

Well, we cannot undo history and PB's rewrite of it will last as long as you might assume Hannity's and Pat's reputations.

Let me put my head in the tiger's mouth now by saying you are not without some of these blemishes yourself. The way you go off half cocked every time someone uses some your writings puzzles me. The issues you write about need to get a hearing and the dangers noted are more important than your vanity. There is
too much resistance from the one voice MSM to be
fighting amongst ourselves.

Sean Hennity, regardless what slights you may
hold against him, is one of us. I wish someone
would stop him from the childish over use of the
STOP (fill in the blank) EXPRESS! And his
screeners should tell every caller to stop calling him a "great American" and tell him to
stop parroting the phrase right back at them like
some kind of moron, but I digress. Your endless
criticism of Sean and others in the business or a
part of the Bush administration make you seem
egotistical and as deconstructive of what we
conservatives are trying to accomplish as Pat
Buchanan and I don't like to see that in you.

[GWB: CAN I PLEASE HAVE THE KEYS TO YOUR HOME AND ACCESS TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, SO THAT I CAN ROB YOU BLIND? AFTER I GET CAUGHT, I'M SURE YOU WILL ALLOW THAT I'M "ONE OF US" AND ALL WILL BE OKAY. RIGHT? SEAN VANNITY IS NOT ONE OF "US". HE IS A FRAUD AND A RIP-OFF ARTIST, WHO WOULD BE A LIBERAL TOMORROW IF IT WOULD MAKE HIM POPULAR. HE IS AN EMPTY VESSEL. HE IS A SCHMUCK, AND IT IS SO SAD THAT YOU THINK THAT HIS STEALING AND THEFT ARE OKAY BECAUSE YOU MISTAKENLY SEE HIM AS "ONE OF US." HE DOESN'T SPEAK FOR ME. NOR MOST CONSERVATIVES.

AS FOR CRITICIZING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, ARE YOU JOKING? BUSH IS A LIBERAL REPUBLICAN WHO HAS DONE MORE TO HARM THIS COUNTRY AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAN ANYONE IMAGINABLE. DO YOU SUPPORT HIS IMMIGRATION NON-ENFORCEMENT AND OPEN BORDERS? HIS ISLAMO-PANDERING? INCREDIBLE. IF THAT IS WHAT "ONE OF US" IS, COUNT ME OUT. DS]

Aside from Joel's penultimate paragraph, which was an unfortunate and unnecessary deviation from his learned response, Joel effectively and succintly puts Buchanan in his place. And that ridiculous comment from the other poster about FDR dragging his poor grandfather to fight in a European war? "America First" was a nationwide, vocal isolationist movement in the 1930s. Hitler had powerful "useful idiots" in Joe Kennedy and Lindburgh. Politically, FDR was knew he could not commit American forces to a shooting war against Germany. All of that changed after Pearl Harbor AND Hitler's declaration of war against hte U.S. Where did the opposition go? They weren't rounded up and jailed. These isolationists were not timid people; they would not have been cowed by public opinion. The fact is that once Hitler declared war on us ALL Americans knew it would be American shipping sunk by U-Boats, American interests abroad seized, American citizens killed. Hitler WAS a ba*tard and the ba*tard now had his sights on us.

But for reasons I can never understand, we live in a world where the truth can never really be the truth; there must be some other, hidden, "real" truth which gives lie to the former. So now the idiot magazine "Newsweek," servicing its dozen or so readers, posits that maybe today's politicians shouldn't dismiss Neville Chamberlain so readily. NO. DISMISS CHAMBERLAIN. As Tip O'Neil said, "All politics is local." What is true for the neighborhood bully is true for the international thugs: if you do not stand up to them - and early and often - they will accept whatever you offer them and STILL break into your house to steal your silver and rape your daughter.

Finally (I GOTTA get to work!), I know that Mr. Hannity's plagerism of your work and research has set you off against him, but however anyone's eyes are opened to this clown is jake by me. His slavish affection for the serial adulterer Newt Gingrich and that horrible Karl Rove* did it for me. It's . . . it's . . . unbelievable!

*Hannity calls Rove "The Architect." Well, the political genius that Karl Rove is succeeded in achieving little of note when the Republicans had the House, Senate and White House, AND cost the Republicans the House and Senate, which they'd worked decades to try to regain. Some architecture.

When the American people, the press and the government are all behind something, there is nothing we can't do. I guess the last time was WWII.

I wonder where the pipsqueaks would have been December 8, 1942?

It is not for nothing they are called the greatest generation.

Joe B.

Anonymous1, "The Protestants tend to be anti-Israel in a mistaken left wing kind of knee jerk way, but I think the Catholic Church has been a real incubator for anti-Semitic bullies."

I'm not Catholic so I won't speak of that.

But, as for Protestants, I disagree, at least as far as most conservative Protestants I know. John Hagee is a very well known very pro Israel Protestant, and I think Jerry Falwell was very pro Israel. I really can't think of one single high profile Protestant leader who is anti Israel. But, I don't pay much attention to the left wing nuts, so I'm sure there are some on that side.

I don't have any hard numbers, but most Protestants seem pretty conservative to me, and most it seems to me are very pro Israel due to the belief that the Israelis are God's chosen people. After all, Jesus was a Jew. And, don't forget, the Muslims hate Christians, too.

Debbie-
You always make good points. Your Tim Russert piece had to be said, and you did it! Great job!
I do not listen to Sean Hannity anymore. He just irritates me, but I do agree that he is on the right side of this political mess that we are in, and in that regard, I think you are harsh on him due to the fact that you are harsh on Catholics in general.
Just my opinion.

Re Mfee's comment:

I know this is going to offend people but ya know what put your grown-up underwear on and get over it.
What makes the Jews so special

Boy, they're really out over this post -- the above comment is a combination of stupidity and anti-semitism.

First, although this blog is against all these types of mass murder, there has been a special emphasis on anti-semitism & Israel. Different blogs emphasize different things. If you want a blog emphasizing something else, go to a different blog.

Second, none of these types of mass murder should be counterposed. You do not have to be against one vs the other. All should be condemned, and complaining that one is emphasized and not the other, invariably leads to the conclusion that mfee doesn't consider the Holocaust important. A Holocaust supporter who belittled Stalinist mass murder would be subject to similar criticism.

Third, there was not an intentional genocide campaign against, for example, Chinese. Mao did not say he had to irradicate Chinese from the world the way Hitler intended to completely irradicate Jews from the world. Stalin is a poor example to bring up; most competent authorities agree that if he hadn't died when he did in 1953 there would have been mass murder of Jews in the Soviet Union similar to that which occurred under Hitler. The Doctor's Plot and similar outrages were a prelude to this.

Most importantly, there are not active campaigns today to eliminate Chinese on a mass basis, or to kill millions of people in Russia (once more, though, leaving aside the constant threats against Jews in Russia), but there are definitely active campaigns to kill huge numbers of Jews. This is clear to any objective person looking at the Mideast. There is antisemitism against Jews in the West on a huge basis, both from the Buchananites on the right, and many blacks & their allies, and other left-wingers on the left, with the 'mainstream' shrugging their shoulders.

To clarify, my phrase "a Holocaust supporter" should have read "someone emphasizing the Holocaust"

cf, I didn't know that about fox. Figures, their true colors are showing through.

gw bramhall, you do not cover for your brother who is doing bad things. You chastise them. You also expect them to change their ways and if they don't, they aren't one of you.

The whole one of you, circle the wagons if one of your own does something wrong is a liberal concept that puts responsibility on others and not the offender. Conservatives own up and take care of things.

OK, here's my theory: Pansy Buchanan is a tormented gay with a twisted psyche. As far as I can tell he has a marriage of convenience--married to some frowsty blond secretary. No children for Catholic Pat. He's either shooting blanks or he's gay. Just calling it as I see it.

Pat, you can come out of the closet now. You're old enough.

Where do these boneheads like Niall come from?

CAMERA (devoted to accurate Mideast reporting) has links to a number of articles refuting the academic demagogues Walt and Mearsheimer.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=189&x_article=1105

Apparently boneheads like Niall can't read. Buchanan and the rest of these scum have done more than just 'be critical of Israel'. They have now stooped to basically overt support of Hitler's foreign 'policies' of aggression and the destruction of other countries. Findley is an anti-semitic hack from the 80s, a disgraced former Congressman who has made the ridiculous claim that US foreign policy towards the Mideast is made in Israel. Sure, like refusing to do anything about Iran, just what israel has always wanted.

The factual lies of Niall's blog can be seen re the reference to the "lae" Ariel Sharon, who, although in a coma, is alive.

This trash belongs in a cesspool somewhere, not on this blog.

Debbie,

This column strikes me as shrill. A person can disagree with Israel and even have complaints about Jews in general and not be "anti Semitic". Even though Jimmy Carter makes me want to puke, I think he has a legitimate opinion about Israel that I happen to disagree with. I don't think he is an anti Semite, just an ass. By the same token, Jews who are very powerful in entertainment and write many TV shows and movies that are very demeaning to Christians are not necessarily anti Christian. They write about what they know.
Regarding Jews, most are socially liberal and since they are high achievers they have influence both in business, politics and entertainment far beyond their 2% or so of the population. Is it any surprise that they always seem to be leading the pack against traditional values be it the ACLU, NARAL, PAW etc.. These are facts. I am very tempted to rant against those damn anti Christian Jews but I have come to realize they simply have a different view. I only ask that they be respectful of the rest of us.
I was once at Hal Tuner's site. He brings up some of the very points I just raised but I agree with you that he crosses the line. I don't think there is a Jewish conspiracy at all however it is my opinion that Jews and most others who have power are quick to forget to respect others who share a different view.
I think Jews are a great asset to our nation and the world. I'm with you on Israel. This is for all the Jews who read this column. I can honestly say that I feel that Jews disrespect and denigrate my beliefs in their comments movies, legislation, politics, organizations and Supreme Court opinions. Take it for what it is. I want to love you guys but you make it really hard.
Label me however you want but this is an honest opinion from a gentile who gave enough of a shit to take the time to write this.

If someone wants to read an insightful book on WWII that goes beyond what is covered in 99% of the books on the topic, I highly recommend RISING '44 - The Battle for Warsaw by Norman Davies.

It does paint a much more critical view of both Roosevelt and Churchill, without going absolutely INSANE like Pat's "book."

Gentiles for a free and prosperous Israel!

Samoyed's comments seem a little murky at best. After writing about liberal Jews this person then says "I want to love you guys but you make it really hard". The posts to this column aren't from the liberal Jews referred to in the rest of Samoyed's comments. What's going on?

Murky? Then let me clear things up.

The first topic I address is this: people can disagree with Israel or complain about Jews and NOT be anti Semetic

The Second is this: The majority of Jews are disrespectful of Christian beliefs and values as evidenced by their movies, plays, books, decisons of the 3 Jewish supreme court justices and damn near every liberal group in the US such as the ACLU, PAW, NARAL, NOW etc... Yes I realize that about 10% of you are conservative or perhaps Republican but that is a small minority.

In summary what I am saying is that Jews have many good points but in general they tend to be pushy, condescending of gentiles, agressively liberal and quick to play the "anti Semite card".

I'll end with an anecdote. When the "Passion" movie was out many Jews freaked out and made hundreds of anti Christian statements. Our local Rabbi actually said in the local paper that the movie was anti Semetic and just "based on a made up story anyway". Nice, so under pressure he denegrates the beliefs of about 250 million people in the US. The rabbi's statement was condescending and biggoted and very revealing. You Jews tend to be a hard people to love.

Samoyed, you have certainly cleared things up. Anti-semitic to the core. First, who are the three Jewish Supreme Court justices? I am aware of two, Ginsberg & Breyer. Whoever you think of as the third is not Jewish, and you are misclassifying someone to fit a preconceived stereotype as you undoubtedly are in your comments about other influential "Jews". Many are about as Jewish as your third Jewish Supreme Court justice.

Being pushy and aggressively liberal. That was the excuse used through the 60s and beyond to exclude jews from universities, jobs, and housing. Aggressively liberal. Last I heard this was a free country. Do you feel the same way about other aggressively liberal groupings? What about the Catholic Church's support of open borders? Or those of Spanish ancestry? Should I make generalizations about all Cahtholics because of that? What about the bigotry and anti-Americanism of the National Council of Churches? Should I say that all Protestants are anti-American because of the NCC's pro-Communist and pro-Terrorist positions?

Are blacks aggressively liberal? Isn't it bigotry to condemn a group because its members are overrepresented in some philosophy or cause you disagree with?

Plenty of Christians write shows or publish books that are anti-Christian. Those written by Jews are deplorable, but they are not writing them as representatives of the Jewish religion.

Your comments are just as conspiratorial as those of Buchanan and the other riff-raff. You make comments about a few elite Jews, or people you think are Jews, who are inevitably a minority in their fields, and then you generalize about the whole population of Jewish people. This is out-and-out anti-semitism. It is incredible to think that a majority or even a substantial minority of the Jewish population would condone or identify with attacks on Christianity. This type of conspiratorial generalization certainly is on a par with Buchanan.

Two other comments re Samoyed. My comment about 'those of Spanish ancestry' was meant to refer to the support of many of Spanish ancestry for open borders & I ask the question, should I condemn those of Spanish ancestry because of their disproportionate support of open borders? I condemn the position, not the people & not their Church.

More disturbing is the implication in both Samoyed letters that the Jews bring the condemnation of the 'rest of society' upon themselves because of their pushiness, inappropriately liberal positions, etc. etc, whatever the catch-phrase of the day happens to be, & Samoyed as an erstwhile friend of the Jews is providing a warning that Jews should act differently to gain the good will of everyone else.

The people I think of when I hear something like this are Father Coughlin or the Ku Klux Klan. In the 30s, Father Coughlin, a leading fascist of his day constantly misrepresented himself as someone wanting to help the Jews, but he couldn't do it unless they discarded their undesirable traits, like, coincidentally, pushiness, support of the New Deal, and so on. The Ku Klux Klan, of course, masqueraded as the friend of blacks, if only they knew their place and stopped agitating for civil rights, being able to sit in front of the bus or at lunch counters.

Correction: You are right. Only 2 Supremes are Jewish.

Give me a break! I bring up valid points and you resort to playing the anti Semite card. That's weak. Yes there are other pushy liberals in this country but they are not as well educated or powerful as Jews. I expect more from a group that is highly intelligent and with a history of persecution. As I said before, every time there is a group assaulting my values it is usually led by someone who is Jewish. (not just someone with a Jewish name) At the risk of sounding like Hal Turner: The 2 Supremes, David Geffin, Alan Dershwitz, Jerry Springer, Gloria Steinem, most heads of the ACLU chapters, Norman Lear and historically Freud and Karl Marx. The list is endless. Both had really great ideas that screwed up a few generations of people. (no, Jews have not started all the wars Mel Gibson)

Yes we have freedom of expression here so people can express their views. By the same right I can observe what I see and resent the aspect of Jewish culture that denegrates Christians. Try taking some lessons from Michael Medved and Dennis Prager. Both are Jews who show a little respect for other religions while remaining devoutly Jewish.

cf said:"Samoyed as an erstwhile friend of the Jews is providing a warning that Jews should act differently to gain the good will of everyone else".

How about "less disrespectfully" rather than "differently" because you are pissing a lot of people off like me who generally like/admire Jews but have legitimate issues with them. People like me were 100% behind Israel when Hamas/Hezbolla killed/kidnapped Israeli soldiers and then were lambasted for bombing Lebanon. Me anti Semetic? Kiss my a$$.

Speak up all you want but start showing the same respect and tolerance you demand from others to me and others with traditional values.

Medved and Praeger are at best phony conservatives. They supported, to one degree or another, Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports deal, but in a way its apropos that you mention Medved. One of the things that degrades his program is the inordinate amount of time he spends with kooks and conspiracy theorists. True he challenges them, but there is an overlap, as you, too are a conspiracist.

You focus on the Jews who allegedly are undermining your values. Someone who wasn't an antisemite would focus, instead on the political positions of those he disagreed with, treating their Jewishness (most are not even religious) as a non sequitor. But not you. To you it is a key characteristic, and when you're challenged, you lapse into profanity, and disregard most of the arguments I made. The $ signs in your last word are symptomatic of your anti-Semitism; Jews and money.

It is demagogic to suggest that Jewish liberals are better educated or more powerful than other liberals. Do I need to mention the Kennedys, Obama, Dodd, Biden, etc. etc.? Yes, you do sound like Turner, and a qualifying phrase does not change that. You have no legitimate issues. If you have confidence in your political positions, advocate them & try to convince people, but if you use the alleged power -- on a virtually conspiratorial basis from a religious cabal -- of your adversaries as an excuse for the prevelance of positions you disagree with, you are at best an anti-Semite. In other words, Jews are pushy unless they agree with your politics. Coughlin also said that some of his best friends were Jews. Farrakhan said he admired Jews. People today won't be taken in by this kind of gibberish.

S, BTW one other remark. I don't know if it is problem with your reading comprehension skills or your thought processes or both, but you cite Medved and Praeger's respect of other religions and ask why I can't be more like them. I said nothing attacking Christianity, and made just the opposite point. Unless you mean that Medved & Praeger essentially support illegal immigration, and, of course, would not criticize the Catholic Church for its support of amnesty. I do criticize the Church for that, but do not criticize Catholics themselves, and I also recognize the positive things the Catholic Church does today, and has done historically.

Finally, you included Freud in your list of undesirables along with Dershowitz. Freud was in no way left-wing; feminists such as Steinem whom you mention were very critical of Freud. Marx renounced Judaism, and your citation of him shows that you look at Judaism on a racial basis, not a basis of 'ideas'. Otherwise why cite someone who, himself, became a sworn enemy of everything judaism represents, including the idea of Zionism?

Samoyed wants to "have his cake and eat it too". He/she wants to complain about Jews and not be considered an anti-Semite at the same time. Jews don't need friends like you, Samoyed. You're nothing but a Father Coughlin loving, Patsy Buchanan wannabee. Get lost.

You illustrate many of my points. Since I disagree with you, I must be an anti Semite. That sounds like an Al Sharpton tactic.

I don't like Jews like you who blame everyone else except yourself for *some* of the anti Jewish sentiment. You have said nothing to refute the fact that Jews in general are contemptuous of Christian values and liberal Jews have been at the forefront of damn near every liberal cultural movement in this country from communism, to the sexual revolution, abortion, gay marriage, higher taxes, more welfare etc.. Most of these things have had a net negative effect of society. That's why I resent Jews pushing their beliefs on others via any means they can. It's not fair and it's obnoxious. You are 2% of the population yet 30% of the opinion in the US. I understand support for Israel but what right do you hve to impose your secular/liberal social beliefs on the rest of us?

I'll open my mouth every time I see some liberal asshole walking all over my beliefs and if that ass is Jewish I will NOT be guilted into refraining from disagreeing.

Finally you say that if I was trully not an anti Semite then I would focus on liberals in general and not Jews per se. I see Debbie and the people who comment here condeming Muslims as a group all the time. Using your logic I suppose this site should simply focus on terrorism and not mention that almost all of them are Muslims.

I wonder. If the behavior of Jews has zero to do with Anti Semetism, why do people worldwide seem to resent them? (I'm not talking about Madrassa students) I think it's for the reasons I gave.

some notes:

**Jews are both a race and a religion although the vast majority are non religious.

**Typing A$$ is a substitute for typing ASS. You must be paranoid.

**Freud and Marx are simply examples of influential Jews, not Zionists. Both were atheist. Freud was anti female so of course Steinem hates him. His ideas have been largely dimsissed by modern psychology, that after screwing up generations of people.

S, you are following the same anti-Semitic methodology I spoke of earlier. You said there are 3 Jews on the Supreme Court. Who are they? How do you know I'm Jewish? You appear to term everyone as Jewish who you don't like. Christina values are themselves contradictory. There are Evangelical Protestants who some Jews agree with and some don't. Many Jews have a great deal of respect for them, based primarily, but not exclusively on their support for Israel. The National Council of Churches has very different values. Again some Jews symphatize and others don't.

"People worldwide seem to resent them". Here we go with the anti-semitic canards.

Jews are more liberal than conservative, and have participated disproportionately in some of the movements you mention, but only an anti-Semite would condemn the Jewish religion on the basis of that or say as you have repeatedly that Jews are pushy. A fair-minded person would recognize that numerically, in all the movements you mentioned, non-Jews far outnumber Jews.

Your phony statistics and unsupported generalizations are symptomatic of right-wing rabble-rousers all through history. Hitler said the same thing; a small minority with disproporte influence, all the bad ideas, underrate the complexity of Freud.

It doesn't matter of Marx renounced Judaism. He was born Jewish so Judaism is bad. You gave yourself away when you said that Jews are a race. Do you believe in phrenology too? Just like the rest of your fascist scum. Jews are reponsible for anti-Semitism. Go back in your lousy hole with Buchanan, Farrakhan, Turner and the rest of the crud.

Your other nutty comment is the comparison of this site's vigilance against Muslims with your attitudes about Jews. Muslims have resorted to violence and have tried to force the rest of the world to conform to their values. The things you mentioned, taxes, gay marriage, feminism, are not part of the Jewish religion. You are too prejudiced to mention that the Jewish people who are the most religous, i.e. the Orthodox Jews, are, on the whole, the least supportive of these things. But again, why let facts bother you? Blame a religion for things that people born into the religion, & unlike Muslims, constitute a small minority of the movements you mention, but, like Hitler, and like Father Coughlin, you know the real truth, the real conspirators. I see why you like Medved. He is just about the only talk show host who gives air time to lunatics like you.

Yes my opinions are clearly those of a lunatic as opposed to your well thought out, dispassionate views.

Again I ask you, what is the basis of anti Semetism if indeed as you say all of my general assertions about Jews are completely baseless? What is it? Your smell? The small round hat? Is everyone but Jews simply stupid and bigotted? I'm interested to hear your explanation as to why in the hell there is worldwide anti semetism outside of arab and muslim countries. Please educate me since you seem to think Jews are without fault, respectful of other religions are NEVER denegrate Christians.

Ms. Schlussel, you, as an ethnically conscious Jew, (if you were not, why would you care so deeply?) are in no moral position to condemn those of European descent for our concern with what is and is not good for our people. You cannot, without rank hypocrisy, deny us what you would reserve for you and your kinsman.

I am a racially conscious White man; in fact a White Nationalist. I wish only to preserve my own heritage and yes, that includes my genetic heritage (gasp!). You, as a Zionist, support an ethno-state expressly dedicated to the preservation of your own people. I, and Buchanan, want nothing more.

Buchanan is absolutely right in his view that WWII was a disaster for the White race. Is this not self-evident? It was a true fratricidal war; around fifty million Europeans were killed.

You, understandably, view WWII as a victory over and the utter smashing of the forces of anti-Semitism. But, perhaps, you can forgive myself and Buchanan for not viewing this historical event (yes, that is precisely what it is, and no law should proscribe free inquiry and scholarly research into said) exclusively through that lens.

You see, we also lament our dead.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)