Ben Stein Says Ron Paul Is Antisemitic for Calling US ‘Occupiers’

On Larry King, Ben Stein said that Ron Paul calling the US “occupiers” was “using the same antisemitic argument we’ve heard over and over.”

Former game show host and economist Ben Stein first came into prominence when he worked for notorious antisemite Richard Nixon.

4 thoughts on “Ben Stein Says Ron Paul Is Antisemitic for Calling US ‘Occupiers’”

  1. If libertarianism calls for "freedom" at the point of a bayonet in Islamic countries, than do we invade Uganda for outlawing homosexuality or El Salvador for criminalizing abortion? What's more, do we arrest the Americans who basically wrote the kill the gays bill for Uganda?

    Ron Paul and I PROFOUNDLY disagree on abortion rights in the United States.

    But where we would agree is that neither of us believe you can invade a repressive country and make it a culturally liberal one (even if I occasionally do like the idea of the Spanish or Canadians invading America and legalizing gay marriage). If you try, you only wind up making it worse (eg Iraq).

    1. Short answer: Yes!

      Most assuredly Uganda. What they're doing down there is absolutely horrendous. We need to issue them an ultimatum immediately!

      And btw, saying that "Americans authored the bill," is completely and entirely wrong. It's spin coming from the Far Left blogs trying to keep it from being fingered on the real culprits: Muslim clerics in Uganda who are pushing this execution of Muslims bill.

      1. It's nice to see your version of 'freedom" is forcing other countries to do what you want at gunpoint. How noble.

        Perhaps we should break down your doors and force you to take your meds…or else.

  2. And I don't think Paul would argue against defending the American homeland against terrorism. In fact, I'm sure he'd point out how 9/11 proved that even though America was spending more money than the rest of the world combined on "defense" it was helpless to shoot down a few planes in 2001. The American military isn't designed to protect the American people. It's designed to protect the American empire.

    Cut the military budget by 2/3. And quadruple the money being spent on training and hiring screeners at airline checkins. Triple Norad's budget. And increase the budget by ten times for training FBI and CIA agents in Arabic.

  3. Does Eric Dundero support the violent overthrow of the U.S. government because its laws stand in opposition to his "libertarian" positions. He does say he is "Pro War."

  4. RichardofLongBeach:

    Interesting quote. Could you refer me to the source? Also, are you sure that is what Lenin meant by that statement?

  5. don't you see!!!

    in order to have a libertarian society we need a military government capable of imposing its will 100% in any country around the world only then when a cabal of well armed crusaders lead our government will it magicly shrink away securing our civil rights in the process.

  6. Let me see if I have Eric Dunderhead's position right: We give lots of tax money to the federal government so it can have a military far beyond mere self-defense. He calls this "libertarianism."

    Then the federal government makes gratuitous war while limiting liberty and raising taxes (or inflation) to fund that war, and killing a bunch of foreigners for nothing. He calls this "pro-war libertarianism."

    Then the federal government, having naturally created a host of enemies because of its incessant warmongering, now feels entitled to wage war and so-called preventive war against the globe while impelling more and more people to fight back. Of course, the government swells enormously in power, corruption, and tax absorption to maintain this empire. He calls this also "libertarianism."

    Did I miss something here? If this is libertarianism, then what the hell is liberal Democrat (and now recently GOP) policy?

    1. Drain, you seem to think this is my position and my position alone. I have asserted repeatedly that there's a rich tradition of Pro-Defense Libertarianism. Stretching back to the Goldwater days in the early 1960s. Right through to Dana Rohrabacher and the Libertarian Caucus of Young Americans for Freedom. To Dr. John Hospers, the first Libertarian Presidential candidate. To Mike Dunn's Libertarian Defense Caucus in the 1970s and 80s. To humorist PJ O'Rourke's many books on the subject of Pro-Defense libertarianism, like his classic "Give War a Chance."
      To the modern day, where most Pro-Defense libertarians hang out in the Republican Liberty Caucus.

  7. If there's one thing that I wish to get through to you all with this long discussion (and btw, I do appreciate Eric Garris, the host, allowing me the opportunity to debate you all here), it's that Pro-Defense libertarianism has been a major strain within the libertarian movement for decades. It's been largely ignored. And often thrust to the side, even "purged," at times.

    But we're back. And back with force. You'll be hearing and seeing a lot more of us Pro-Defense Libertarians in the future. Stay tuned…

    1. "You'll be hearing and seeing a lot more of us Pro-Defense Libertarians in the future."

      And none of you chickenhawks will be in uniform.

    2. Ouch. I just got smacked in the head while you were wagging your dick around.

      If I remember correctly, Eric Dondero was feeding dirt on Ron Paul to Obama Cultists like David Neiwert and the crowd at the Daily Kos during the Republican primary.

      So it made me wonder why liberal Democrats were so interested in discrediting a Republican candidate who had no chance of winning the nomination anyway. After all, it was actually in the interests of the Democrats to see the Republicans split down the middle between anti-war libertarians and paleocons and neocons.

      But my question, of course, was answered when Obama immediately declared after getting sworn in that he would largely pursue a neocon foreign policy. The Democats wanted Paul discredited because they wanted to discredit the anti-war faction of their own party.

      1. Amen. The left needs to wake up and realize our little messiah is playing for the other team and so are a lot of his cheerleaders over at Kos, Huffpo and Salon.

    3. I'm also a "pro-defense Libertarian" too Eric. But I think I define "defense" very, very differently then you do.

  8. .
    The question is not whether a strong Defense is or is not necessary.
    The question is whether the perceived threat from EVIL ISLAM is or is not real.
    Unfortunately concerns about Radical Islam, Islamo-Fascists, Sharia Law, Muslims invading Europe, Muslims Invading America, Western Women forced to wear head to toe Burqhas just FITS TOO NICELY into the hegemonic goals of power hungry nuts in the US, Britain, Europe and Israel, many of whom are in a position to promote false, money-motivated, bigoted agendas.
    Are there Idiots in Muslim countries? Absolutely. Does some percentage of the population follow them blindly? Yes. Are they the majority? No. Not in a long shot. The vast majority of Muslims in the developing world want a chance to come to the west only to take a shot at the good life, i.e. a few pennies in the bank and an education for their kids. They are not part of a sinister, diabolical highly organized plot to surreptitiously infect and overthrow America in order to establish a new Caliphate. That's just silly.
    Are there Idiots in the West? Absolutely. Does some percentage of the population follow them blindly? Yes. Are they the majority? Neocons-Obamacons-Blairites, tough question, best answer is maybe.
    Going back to Radical Islam and the so-called evil multi-dimensional Muslim threat, I think one particular quote from Brother Ilyich sums it up nicely.
    "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
    — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    Whether it is DDT, "the Missile Gap", swine flu 1976, swine flu 2009, Radical Islam, Y2K, global warming, climate change, shoe bomber, and now the UNDERWEAR BOMBER somebody has an agenda and somebody wants your and my wallet. If we allow them to scare us and give them our wallets, they will have power and control. Meaning more war. More loss of liberty. More servitude from generation to generation.
    Here's one more quote from Vlad….
    "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."
    — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
    Sound familiar. If you read him often enough, he starts to sound like a Neocon. Why all the quotes? Because the perpetrators of the big lie have a common lineage, straight back to communism and marxism.

    1. There are idiots everywhere. That's what's so convenient for the American empire. Since there's no such thing as a perfect society, there's always an excuse to invade when you want something (insert imperfect society here) has.

      So let's take Mexico. Mexico doesn't have a lot of mosques, but it has plenty of drug gangs, poverty, and violance. But the neocons don't want to actually invade Mexico. They only want to ratchet up the "war on drugs" and shovel more money into the Mexican government to make it easier for them to oppress the Mexican people. So they calibrate the narrative accordingly.

      Or take Kansas or Oklahoma. Plenty of violent religious fundamentalists in both places. Why not invade?

      If there's a difference between violent fundamentalist Islam and violent fundamentalist Christianity, it has a lot more to do with the clas structure of the Arab world and the amount of dire poverty in places like Pakistan than it does with the nature of Islam or Christianity.

        1. I've had enough arguments with neocons to understand their (very effective) way of trapping their opponents.

          They assume that the burden of proof lies on the anti war side.

          OK, so you don't want us to bomb Gaza. Well looked at how fucked up Palestinian culture is.

          OK, so you don't want us to invade Iraq. Look at how horrible Sadam is.

          Then you wind up defending people you have no desire to defend.

          The flip side of this is to attack "western" culture.

          Oh yeah. If Gaza is so bad, how about Fred Phelps and God Hates Fags.

          If Iran is so awful, how about homophobia in the USA.

          I disagree with Ron Paul on pretty much everything except his foreign policy views. But at the present he's really the only person in the mainstream media trying to throw the burden of proof back onto the warmongers.

          You want us to attack Country X? Show us how Country X is a threat. Once you've shown that Country X is a threat, show us WHY it's a threat. Are their measures that are cheaper and more productive to neutralize the threat short of war.

      1. SDSF

        There is no need to ratchet up the drug war, Mexico already receives plenty of U S dough in the neighborhood of between ninety five and a hundred and ten million dollas a year in the form of U S foregin aid which I have no doubt that in great part is used by the Mexican government to subsidize thousands of Mexican citizens that enter the U S A illegally.

        Anybody that thinks that eveb one of those poor ole suppresed by their government Mecican citizens can accumulate ALL BY THEMSELVES as much a five thousand U S dollars to pay a Coyote to smuggle them across the U S border, is living in an Oz dreamworld.

  9. Poetic justice, of course, would be that in 50 years, when China is the new superpower and America is a sinkhole of poverty, riven with dirty faced, ragged Anglo Saxon christian fundamentalists, if the Chinese decide to bomb us in the name of world stability.

    I'll be pretty old then, but I'll laugh my ass off still.

  10. Mr.Eric Dondero,

    Makes totally false claims just to score a point and advance an agenda.The truth shall be damned.The same way Iraq WMDs was presented by cheering and supportive media.

    “But the MP who proposed the bill, (David Bahati), from the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), is equally convinced of his position. Just make an allegations and hope no body notices.

    “Here, we don’t recognise homosexuality as a right. We are after the sin, not the sinners. We love them – and we want them to repent and come back,” he says.

    “Bahati came to international attention in October 2009 after introducing the Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill as a Private Member’s Bill on 13 October proposing that a new offence be created in Uganda named “aggravated homosexuality” which would be punishable as a capital offence.[1] The proposals included plans to introduce the death penalty for homosexuals who practiced gay sex with people under 18, with disabled people, when the accused party is HIV-positive.[2], or for those previously convicted of homosexuality-related offences. In a recent interview with NPR[3], author Jeff Sharlet claims this bill came about as a result of Bahati’s membership in (The Family).”

    The Fellowship, also known as( The Family), is an international organization founded in 1935 and has been led by Douglas Coe since 1969. Its members include scores of high ranking U.S. government officials, corporate executives, heads of religious and humanitarian aid organizations, and non-U.S. leaders and ambassadors. It has been described by prominent evangelical Christians as one of the most politically well-connected fundamentalist organizations in the US.[1][2][3][4][5]
    Africa generally isn’t exactly friendly towards gays and gay rights, but the extreme situation in Uganda has been fostered by evangelical Christians from America. Lacking America’s Constitution and long tradition of respect for civil liberties, the extremist views of Uganda’s evangelical Christians is being taken to their logical extreme — and apparently with encouragement from those same evangelical Christians, in particular the notorious political group known as The Family. Look to Uganda for a preview of what these evangelical Christians want for America.

    Terry Gross interviewed Jeff Sharlet about recent book The Family and the involvement of The Family with extremist politics in Uganda:

    GROSS: This legislation has just been proposed. It hasn’t been signed into law. So it’s not in effect yet and it might never be in effect. But it’s on the table. It’s before parliament. So is there a direct connection between The Family and this proposed anti-homosexual legislation in Uganda?

    Mr. SHARLET: Well, the legislator that introduced the bill, a guy named David Bahati, is a member of The Family. He appears to be a core member of The Family. He works, he organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and oversees a African sort of student leadership program designed to create future leaders for Africa, into which The Family has poured millions of dollars working through a very convoluted chain of linkages passing the money over to Uganda. ”

    Any thing to justify wars !

  11. Eric Dunderoo appears incapable of defending his position, wishing only to point out that libertarianism has had its own strain of pro-war interventionists for decades. That's not the issue here, and it's akin to recalling that that wart on your aunt's nose has been there a long time. What I want to know is on what ground Eric Adondevamos reconciles such warmongering with libertarianism. Nay, not just reconciles, but actually favors a warmongering whose effects destroy everything libertarianism is about. Or so I thought.

    1. It most certainly IS the issue. May not be important to you. But as a Libertarian Party activist for over 25 years, I've had to fight tooth and nail agains the Weak on Foreign Policy wing. I've even suffered through purges at the hands of the Weak on Foreign Policy-ers.

      The bottom line: Strong on Defense libertarianism has been around since the very beginning of our Libertarian Movement. In fact, WE! Strong on Defensers were the ORIGINAL LIBERTARIANS in the 1960s (Goldwater, Rand, Friedman, Hayek, Rohrabacher, Hospers).

      We've suffered blows in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. But we're back now. You all will NEVER EVER AGAIN be able to shut us up, short of killing me. And incidentally, I intend to live a very long life – Grandmother lived well into her 90s.

      1. I feel compelled to reiterate on Drain's behalf…

        Eric, Drain posed a question directly to you while at the same time acknowledging all of your efforts to remind us of the presence of "Strong on Defense libertarianism", reminding you that such emphasis is neither germane to his question nor anything like an answer.

        To repeat: On what grounds do you reconcile your warmongering and, unspoken, all of the economic consequences that derive from such impositions and centralization of economic planning with your professed libertarianism, a philosophy that most of the scholarship tells us pivots on that one axiom: the non-initiation of force?

        You seem to believe that the movement and the philosophy at its core began in the 1960s, not lacking coincident timing with the beginnings of your participation in it (which no doubt works wonders for the old ego), and appear eager to disregard the wealth of scholarship and movement that preceded such time for decades if not centuries.

        Where in the libertarian tradition – small 'l', remember, not your party or its impressive capital 'L' – do you find grounds for argumentation that imperialism, militarism, and all of the desecrations of life and property and liberty that derive therefrom? My own library is quite extensive and I confess, I am unable to find such argumentation. Mises once made some flippant remarks about conscription in the pages of Human Action, but insufficiently fleshed this point of view out at that juncture and, in any case, contradicted this notion throughout the remainder of his scribbles.

        The answer to this question is not "there have been 'libertarian' hawks in the Libertarian Party's inception". No one has argued otherwise, although your citation of Ayn Rand as one such person is laughable, not because she wasn't, as you bill her, "strong on defense", but because she's never had a kind word for libertarians nor had she ever affiliated with such. Goldwater didn't either. This is besides the point. The question is, and I repeat with emphasis: WHERE IN THE LIBERTARIAN SCHOLARSHIP – meaning in the traditions and argumentation of the libertarian movement, not in the words and deeds of certain luminaries in the 1960s – DO YOU FIND GROUNDS TO RECONCILE THE NON-INITIATION OF FORCE – libertarianism's central axiom – AND A PRO-WAR AND A PRO-EMPIRE FOREIGN POLICY?

        Are you capable of answering such a question?

        And who is threatening to kill you? You strike me as possessing an obsessively inflated sense of self.

      2. Eric, a few quick questions, if I may.

        Do you think America should station troops in South Korea, 57 years after the war there ended? Do you judge this as defensive?

        Should America keep troops in Japan and Okinawa? Do you consider this defense?

        Should America continue its membership in Nato and support its expansion? Do you consider underwriting security for countries like Estonia an act of defense?

        Do you consider the 78 day bombing campaign of Serbia in 1999 an act of defense by America?

        Do you consider flying spy-planes over Hainan island an act of defense? Would it be an act of defense for the Chinese to fly their spy-planes over Santa Catalina?

        I await your replies.

  12. The term “anti-semitic” is more telling of the person throwing it than the person receiving it. It means little more than the person saying it is pro-Israel.

  13. Yet these same people would tell us over and over again that ‘blow-backs’ have nothing to do with the US actions in middle east and its unconditonal support for Israel.

  14. B; With the appetite congress has for spending willy nilly like drunk sailors in a New Orleans whorehouse there's nothing Ron Paul or anyone else could do to even slow them down when they can't even burp for under a billion dollars per burp.

    To congress, the U S government is a gut with a mouth at one end consuming money by the trillions of dollars and an arsehole at the other that spews the trillions back out as their investment in the U S corporate military industrial complex. And all we the people are to the congress are is their false belief that we are an infinite supply of golden egg laying geese; a false belief that is about to come to an end.

    Tom aka Texasbacksass Political Independent
    Arlington, Texas

  15. SDSF

    We white Native born Texans here in the DFW Metroplex now have the opportunity to dial in more Spanish speaking radio stations on FM and AM than English speaking stations. And we whites can't take a step out of your homes without tripping over spanish speakers that say screw English learn to speak Spanish and if you don;t like it tuff.

    When I was sent to Southeast Asia to fight for my nation against communism, I never dreamed that forty years later that I would be living among people that are not only willing to fight against thise horrendous illegal alien invasion, but actually support the illegals and ready to give this nation away as a door prize.

    1. What's needed is to stop ALL immigration. Then a very long time is needed to absorb and digest the people who have arrived since 1965. By the way, you can blame your fellow White Texan LBJ for this situation. He passed the immigration act in 1965 that opened the floodgates to the world. He also sent you off on a fools errand in Vietnam. Of course he didn't tell the American people he was going to do either of this in the election year 1964.

  16. Ben stein is the guy who said on Glen Beck's shows that he has lots of racist friends. It took Glen Beck by surprise. Of course one of those racist friends was Richard Nixon. Now he has the nerve to accuse Ron Paul of anti-semitism? What a jerk.

    Ron Paul is opposed to occupation and pre-emptive war. If that make you an anti-semite then I guess I am one also.

    It's funny how often critics of Ron Paul resort to name calling. It's even funnier when the worst insult they can come up with is to characterize him as something they are themselves. Ben Stein has a few too many racist friends if you know what I mean.


Comments are closed.