Beck Delivers Excoriating Rebuke of Ron Paul Over ‘Ugly and Offensive’ Tweet About Chris Kyle’s Death

This morning, Glenn Beck delivered an excoriating rebuke of former Texas congressman Ron Paul. The radio host’s tough words for the former representative were an official response to Paul’s much-publicized tweet about ex-NAVY SEAL Chris Kyle’s death. Beck began his comments by praising Kyle’s bravery and his devotion to America, going on to outline his shock at the politician’s decision to comment so callously.

The host honored Kyle as “one of the brightest, bravest heroes” and praised him for his combat tours. In addition to highlighting this devotion to the military and penchant for saving American lives, Beck also focused upon other important attributes pertaining to Kyle’s faith and family roles.

“A husband, a father, a son, an unquestioned patriot — a man who didn’t talk about Jesus, but lived his Christian belief — was senselessly murdered by a fellow veteran he was just trying to help,” he continued.

After praising the brave ex-SEAL, Beck outlined his surprise by Paul’s Twitter message, which read (in case you missed it), “Chris Kyle’s death seems to confirm that ‘he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.’ Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn’t make sense.” The radio host held little back in his reaction.

“Well, Dr. Paul, he wasn’t treating it. I’m sorry that you listened to the media,” he said “I thought you knew better than that. Aren’t you a guy that just loves to blame the media on coverups — on things like Tower number Seven? Suddenly, you rush to believe the media.”

Read more here.

Advertisements

Cops Arrest Ron Paul Backers in Missouri Caucus Chaos

Santorum Slams Obama‘s ’Hubris‘ and ’Snobbery’ On Education

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum slammed President Barack Obama’s education goals while speaking at a forum at St. Anselm’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics Saturday.

The former Pennsylvania senator lambasted the Obama Administration, describing that he was “outraged” when hearing President Obama say that he believes “every child in America should go to college.”

“The hubris of this president to think that he knows what’s best for you. I have seven kids, maybe they’ll all go to college. But if one of my kids wants to go and be an auto mechanic, good for him, that’s a good paying job, using your hands, using your mind,” said Santorum Saturday.

“This is the kind of snobbery that we see from those that think they know how to run our lives. Rise up America, defend your own freedoms.”

Read more here.

Rand Paul to Run for President in the Future?

While campaigning for his father in New Hampshire, Sen. Rand Paul declined to directly address his own presidential aspirations, but suggested that a future run for national office could be in the cards.

“I am interested in the national debate … I am interested in long range goals of changing the country…” the younger Paul said when asked about his presidential aspirations at a sit-down hosted by the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy.

One of the ways to see those changes through, he said, was “running for national office.”

“You do that by appearing in the media, speaking to groups around the country, running for national office, or even serving in the Senate. I think it’s a great honor to serve in the Senate, he said.”

At a pub crawl for Ron Paul supporters Friday night, some suggested that son Rand’s political aspirations could make a third party run by his father unlikely, because it could damage Rand’s chances. Rand said Saturday that he felt a third party run by his father was unlikely.

“I can’t speak for my father on that, other than to say what he’s been saying, which is no plans to do it,” he said. His own opinion, he added, is that the tea party and libertarians “can do more inside the party than outside the party.”

Asked if he would vote for his father if the Texas congressman were to run as third party candidate, Rand gulped and said, “Don’t go there,” but added that he had always supported his father and would continue to do so.

At the moment, he said, the focus should be on his father’s campaign in the Republican primary.

“Well I think that we’ve got to do first things first, and first things first is, I’m here trying to help my dad.”

Read more here.

New Paul S.C. ad hits Santorum on ‘betrayal’

Ron Paul’s campaign is out with this new ad in South Carolina, which hits Rick Santorum on his “record of betrayal.”

“One serial hypocrite exposed,” the ad says, showing clips of Newt Gingrich. “Now another has emerged: Rick Santorum, a corporate lobbyist and Washington politician. A record of betrayal.”

This is the first time Paul has hit Santorum on TV so far, and looks a great deal like the anti-Gingrich ads the Paul camp ran in Iowa. Those ads helped bring Gingrich’s numbers down before the caucuses, and brutal ads from a campaign that has money to spend could have a similar effect on Santorum.

The Paul campaign is spending $250,000 on the ad buy, a source tells us, and the ad will run in South Carolina starting Monday.

Read more here.

Why Hating Jews Is Becoming So Popular

For the first time since the end of World War II, classic anti-Semitic tropes – “the Jews” control the world and are to blame for everything that goes wrong, including the financial crisis; “The Jews killed Christian children in order to use the blood to bake matza; the Holocaust never happened – are becoming acceptable and legitimate subjects for academic and political discussion.

To understand why these absurd and reprehensible views, once reserved for the racist fringes of academia and politics, are moving closer to the mainstream, consider the attitudes of two men, one an academic, the other a politician, toward those who express or endorse such bigotry. The academic is Prof. Brian Leiter. The politician is Ron Paul.

You’ve probably never heard of Leiter. He’s a relatively obscure professor of jurisprudence, who is trying to elevate his profile by publishing a gossipy blog about law school professors. He is a colleague of John Mearsheimer, a prominent and world famous professor at the University of Chicago.

Several months ago Mearsheimer enthusiastically endorsed a book, really a pamphlet, that included all the classic anti-Semitic tropes.

It was titled The Wandering Who and written by Gilad Atzmon, a British version of Louisiana’s David Duke, who plays the saxophone and has no academic connections. Atzmon writes that we must take “very seriously” the claim that “the Jewish people are trying to control the world.”

He calls the recent credit crunch “the Zio punch.” He says “the Holocaust narrative” doesn’t make “historical sense” and expresses doubt that Auschwitz was a death camp. He invites students to accept the “accusations of Jews making matza out of young goyim’s blood.”

Books and pamphlets of this sort are written every day by obscure anti-Semites and published by disreputable presses that specialize in this kind of garbage.

No one ever takes notice, except for neo-Nazis around the world who welcome any additions to the literature of hate. What is remarkable about the publication of this hateful piece of anti-Semitic trash, is that it was enthusiastically endorsed by two prominent American professors, John Mearsheimer and Richard Falk, who urged readers, including students, to read, “reflect upon” and “discuss widely” the themes of Atzmon’s book.

Never before has any such book received the imprimatur of such established academics. I was not shocked by these endorsements, because I knew that both of these academics had previously crossed red lines, separating legitimate criticism of Israel from subtle anti-Semitism.

Mearsheimer has accused American Jews of dual loyalty, and Falk has repeatedly compared Israel to Nazi Germany. Both were so enthusiastic about Atzmon’s anti-Zionism – he has written that Israel is “worse” than the Nazis – that they were prepared to give him a pass on his classic blood libel anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. No great surprise there.

What was surprising – indeed shocking – was the fact that Mearsheimer’s relatively apolitical colleague, Brian Leiter, rushed to Mearsheimer’s defense. Without bothering to read Atzmon’s book, Leiter pronounced that Atzmon’s “positions [do not mark him] as an anti-Semite [but rather as] cosmopolitan.”

Leiter also certified that Atzmon “does not deny the Holocaust or the gas chambers.”

Had Leiter read the book, he could not have made either statement.

Atzmon himself credits “a man who… was an anti-Semite” for “many of [his] insights” and calls himself a “self-hating Jew” who has contempt for “the Jew in me.”

If that’s not an admission of anti-Semitism, rather than “cosmopolitanism,” I don’t know what is. As far as the Holocaust is concerned, Atzmon asserts that it is not “an historical narrative.”

And as for the gas chambers, he doubts that the “Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz- Birkanau.”

Leiter went so far as to condemn those who dared to criticize Mearsheimer for endorsing Atzmon’s book, calling their criticism “hysterical” and not “advance[ing] honest intellectual discourse.” And he defended Mearsheimer’s endorsement as “straight forward.”

Read more here.