Who is Jeffrey Lord? Why Is He Attacking Ron Paul on Talk Radio Shows Including: Levin, Medved and Bennett? Big Government Interventionist Neoconservative Republican Establishment Hit Man!

Posted on December 30, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Talk Radio, Taxes, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The 1% Are Afraid of Ron Paul 2012 Revolt –

NWO Corporate Minions (MSM Whores) Getting Desperate!

How Ron Paul Would Defend America

Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord Precious Delicate Utopian Neocons

Mark Levin Interviews Jeffrey Lord On Ron Paul And His Supporters Being Neoliberal

Michael Medved, Jeffery Lord On Ron Paul’s Neoliberal Reeducation

Mark Levin, Ron Paul Hater, Put in His Place

American Spectator Dead Wrong on Ron Paul

SA@TheDC – “I Like Ron Paul Except on Foreign Policy”

SA@The DC – Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Foreign Policy

SA@TAC – A Conservative Foreign Policy Comeback?

 

SA@TheDC – Conservatism for What?

SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Pledge to America

 

Jack Hunter on FOX News 12-29-11

 

Establishment Media Crucifies Ron Paul On Every Front

“As long as nations cling to protective tariffs, migration barriers, compulsory education, interventionism and etatism, new conflicts capable of breaking out at any time into open warfare will continually arise to plague mankind.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, pages 150-151

Jeffrey Lord has been attacking Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy on various so-called “conservative” talk radio shows and accuses Ron Paul of not being a conservative.

Really, he must be kidding or simply does not know the history of the conservative movement.

Suggest he read George H. Nash’s book, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945.

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

If Lord means that Ron Paul is  not a neoconservative, then Lord is correct.

Ron Paul is definitely not a neoconservative.

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

Neoconservatives are right-wing progressives Democrats that became “boat people” and switched to the Republican Party in the 1970s when the Democratic Party nominated George McGovern as their Presidential candidate.

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

 

SA@TAC – Who’s a Republican?

SA@TAC – Is Ron Paul Weird?

Most conservatives and libertarians do not consider neoconservatives as either new or conservative. They are really progressives that want the United States to have an aggressive interventionist foreign policy that supports nation or empire building, the U.S. as policeman of the world and Israel with foreign aid.

Both the progressives and/or neoconservatives that are in the Republican Party establishment are in panic mode that Paul may win the presidential nomination.

I suggest neoconservative Republicans get back in their boats and go back to the Democratic Party, where most of them came from in the first place.

Please take your hitman, Jeffrey Lord, with you.

Big government interventionists pervade the Democratic and Republican party establishments and leaderships.

The Democratic Party is the party of  left-wing progressives that favor the expansion of welfare dependency.

The Republican Party is the party of right-wing progressives that favor the expansion of warfare dependency.

Both favor big government interventionism at home and abroad.

Making government omnipotent with a massive bureaucracy advocating and supporting the warfare and welfare state is the goal of the progressive interventionists of the Democratic and Republican Party establishments.

SA@TheDC – ‘Fixing’ Big Government is Not Conservative

Ron Paul favors limited government and opposes government intervention at home and abroad.

Ron Paul is a conservative traditionalist libertarian that puts faith, family, friends and freedom first.

Paul wants to replace the big government warfare and welfare economy with a limited government peace and prosperity economy.

This is the reason more and more American people are coming to the conclusion that Ron Paul should be President of the United States.

SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul

This is the reason Ron Paul is leading in Iowa.

This is the reason Ron Paul will be elected President of the United States.

The Republican Party establishment might talk conservative, but they walk and spend like big government progressives and neocons, which most of them are.

Just look at the Republican Party  budget passed in the House of Representatives. The Fiscal Year 2012 deficit will exceed $1 trillion each year.

This is not limited government.

This is not fiscally responsible.

This is not conservative or libertarian.

The neoconservatives want a war with Iran.

Starting World War III with Iran is the progressive answer to the United States economic problems.

The war on poverty, the war of drugs and the war on terror are all progressive wars of big government interventionists.

The U.S. government led by progressives of both the Democratic and Republican party establishments have lost all three wars that never end.

Those who support big government interventionism at home and abroad are progressive statistist and neoconservatives.

Progressives  are collectivists that oppose individualists with a conservative and libertarian political philosophy.

These progressives are not conservatives.

Do not fall for the neoconservative con men of talk radio that say Ron Paul is not conservative and invite Jeffrey Lord on their shows to smear and discredit Paul.

Most of them are closet neoconservative big government interventionists. This includes talk radio show hosts Levin, Medved, Hewitt and Bennett, just to name a few.

Ron Paul: Iran Sanctions = Act of War

“Interventionism begets economic nationalism. It thus kindles the antagonism resulting in war. An abandonment of economic nationalism is not feasible if nations cling to interference with business. Free trade in international relations requires domestic free trade.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, page 66. 

SA@TAC – The End of Right-Wing Progressivism?

This is a massively huge and interventionist government that favors the warfare and welfare dependency of the American people.

 

Gingrich Gone Wild – Might Vote For Obama

SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative

Ron Paul Interview w/ Jack Hunter on Foreign Policy & Israel

Jeffrey Lord Doesn’t Know The Founders or Ron Paul

 

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul – The Power of Nightmares

Mark Levin Avoids the “Empire” Question

SA@TAC – Joe Sobran’s Conservative Foreign Policy

SA@TAC – Obama Kept Us Safe

Poo Blobs & Jeffrey Lord Try to Say that DropDobbs.com is About Killing Debate, NOT Racist Diatribe

RON PAUL on RUSH LIMBAUGH

Jack Hunter Versus Mark Levin

 

Richard Perle PNAC and AIPAC hawk on why Ron Paul will not win the 2012 election

 

Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign

By Jeffrey Lord

“…Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons:

When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives.

This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul’s views are, self-described, “non-interventionist.”

The fact that he has been allowed to get away with pretending to conservatism on this score is merely reflective of journalists who, for whatever reason, are simply unfamiliar with American history. Ironically, it is precisely because the Paul campaign has not been thoroughly covered that no one pays attention to the historical paternity of what the candidate is saying.

There is no great sin in Paul’s non-interventionist stance (or “isolationist” stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul’s idea of evil spawn — the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.)

The deception — and it is a considerable deception — is that almost to a person those prominent pre-Ron Paul non-interventionist “Paulist” politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left. The far left.

From three-time Democratic presidential nominee and Woodrow Wilson Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to powerful Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler to FDR’s ex-vice presidential nominee Henry Wallace to the 1968 anti-war presidential candidacy of Minnesota Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democratic presidential nominee (and Henry Wallace delegate in 1948) George McGovern, non-interventionists have held prominent positions in the American Left that was and is the Democratic Party.

But of particular interest, and here is where the deception by Paulists is so considerable, the Ron Paul view of foreign policy has been the cornerstone of Republican liberals and progressives. Those who, using current political terminology, would be called the RINOs (Republican In Name Only) of their day. …”

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-neoliberal-re/1

 

“…Jeffrey Lord is a former member of the Ronald Reagan administration, journalist, author, and political strategist in Pennsylvania.

Lord earned a degree from Franklin and Marshall College.[1] He first worked as a press aide in the Pennsylvania State Senate.[1] He worked for Pennsylvania Congressman Bud Shuster as Legislative Director and Press Secretary and for U.S. Senator H. John Heinz III as Executive Assistant.[1] Later Lord worked as Chief of Staff to Drew Lewis, who was a Co-chair of the Ronald Reagan presidential campaign.[1] He also served in the Reagan White House as an associate political director.[1] In that position he assisted in the judicial nomination process for several nominees, including Robert Bork.[2] He also worked for Jack Kemp during the Presidency of George H. W. Bush.[1]

Lord now works as a journalist, contributing material to The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, National Review Online, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Harrisburg Patriot-News. He has appeared as a guest on numerous televisions and radio programs.[1] He also works as a political consultant for Quantum Communications, a Harrisburg-based political strategy firm.[1]

He is the author of The Borking Rebellion, about the confirmation of Federal Judge D. Brooks Smith.[1] It received a generally positive review in the Wall Street Journal.[3]

In July 2010, Jeffrey Lord claimed that the “lynching” of a relative of Shirley Sherrod is fallacious.[4]

In August 2011, Jeffrey Lord wrote an article in The American Spectator which was critical of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), and the views of some of Ron Paul’s supporters.[5] It sparked considerable debate within the conservative movement.[6] …”

Jeffrey Lord: When Attacks on Ron Paul Fail, then Attack his Voters

“…

Get this. The reason Ron Paul is polling well in Iowa is because it’s Iowa. Jeffrey Lord is a special kind of dense. He is so dense he doesn’t know he is dense. He keeps repeating the same untruths (that non-interventionism is inherently left-wing) over and over again despite being corrected repeatedly. My reply is below:

I get it. When your attacks on Ron Paul aren’t working, then attack the people who vote for him.

First, you continue with the lie that non-interventionism is inherently left-wing. You have been corrected on this so many times, and I know you read these responses since you reply, that you have no excuse. You are engaging in demagoguery.

Second, you are making the case against yourself and don’t even know it. It is not a coincidence that non-interventionism was the preferred policy of heartland Americans in flyover country. And it is not a coincidence that support for war came from elite internationalists on the East Coast. So if you want to throw your hat in with elitist internationalists then be my guest. I’ll throw mine in with parochial Americans in the Heartland. Lord, you are a shill and you don’t even realize you are a shill. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T57yvB4RDHs

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Talk Radio Audiences Revolt Against Fairness Doctrine

Posted on October 25, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Links, People, Politics, Rants, Regulations, Talk Radio, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

“Do you feel lucky, well do you punk!”

 

Dirty Harry – Clint Eastwood

 

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

 

Those Democrat and Republican members of Congress that are seriously considering bringing back the Fairness Doctrine are playing with dynamite.

Over 100 million Americans are listening to talk radio everyday.

Mess with talk radio and you will have a ten million men and women march on Congress.

Unfortunatley, many members of Congress are that arrogant and stupid to try.

Just another example of socialism–“spread the wealth around”.

Go ahead, Make my day!

Sudden Impact – “Go Ahead. Make My Day”


 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Boehner on so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ – 6/28/07

 

Fairness Doctrine” — Feinstein Outlawing Talk Radio

 

Debate over the Fairness Doctrine on Fox News Sunday

 

Kucinich Discusses Fairness Doctrine on Lou Dobbs

 

Accuracy in Media – Group Condemns Congressional Hypocrisy

Dem Sen On Fairness Doctrine

 

2008 UP & COMING ” POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE ( FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ) ” / PART 13

 

Rep. Pence: Fairness Doctrine and “Freedom Works”

 

Fairness Doctrine

“The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC’s view) honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission’s general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

 

Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair

by Adam Thierer

“…If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm

 

Here it comes: Sen. Bingaman heralds Fairness Doctrine return

By Michelle Malkin

“…N.M. Sen. Jeff Bingaman cheers the return of the Fairness Doctrine as a “higher calling,” via the Jim Villanucci show on KKOB.

Radio Equalizer has the scoop.

Tilling the soil for the Chicago gangland thugs… ”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/22/here-it-comes-sen-bingaman-heralds-fairness-doctrine-return/

 

The history and possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine

by Nat Hentoff

“…The term “Fairness Doctrine” exemplifies what George Orwell called “Newspeak”: it uses language to mask the deleterious effects of its purported meaning. The Fairness Doctrine itself was in effect from 1949 until 1987. It required that radio broadcasts devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial issues of public importance, and that the broadcaster do that fairly by offering reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be heard. If the Federal Communications Commission found a radio station in repeated violation of this Doctrine, it could take away the station’s license — a business form of capital punishment. …”

“…Before the Fairness Doctrine was ended, at least for the time being, in 1987 — Congressman Hinchey could yet prevail if the Democrats retake Congress — Richard Salant, head of CBS News while the Doctrine was flourishing, said to me:

Suppose the English government had told Tom Paine that he could go ahead and publish all he liked — but only if at the back of his pamphlets he also printed the Royal Governor’s views. That command, far from the implementation of free speech, would have been just the opposite. It’s a restriction of speech if, in order to be allowed to express your own views, [the government demands] you also have to present those of someone arguing on the other side.

James Madison did not have the bifurcation of free speech in mind when he submitted his draft of the First Amendment.”

http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_12/issue_04/opinion_07.html

 

Group Led By Clinton’s John Podesta Outlines Assault of Conservative Radio

“…With that in mind, the left-leaning Center for American Progress published a report Thursday detailing how conservatives dominate the talk radio dial, and exactly what needs to be done legislatively for liberals to wrest control over this medium (emphasis added throughout):

  • Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
  • Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
  • Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

Imagine that.

 

For those unfamiliar with the Center, its President and CEO is none other than John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton. And:

  • The Executive Vice President for Management is Sarah Rosen, who was also a member of the Clinton administration.
  • Senior Vice President for Development Debbie Goldberg worked for the Clinton campaign.
  • Senior Vice President and Director David Halperin was a speech writer for President Clinton.
  • Vice President of Communications Jennifer Palmieri was Clinton’s White House Deputy Press Secretary.
  • Senior Vice President for External Affairs Winnie Stachelberg worked at the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton.
  • Vice President of Finance and Operations Brad Kiley worked for the Clinton administration.
  • Ditto Peter Rundlet, Anna Soellner, Debbie Fine, and Michelle Jolin.

In reality, the staff and Senior Fellows listing of this Center reads like a Clinton administration Who’s Who. …”

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13642

Center for American Progress

“The Center for American Progress is an American liberal political policy research and advocacy organization. Its website describes it as “…a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all.”[1]

Its President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Located in Washington, D.C., the Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. …”

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress

 

Center for American Progress

http://www.americanprogress.org/

 

Fairness Doctrine Watch: Sen. Stabenow makes new pro-gagging noise

By Michelle Malkin

“…You know grass-roots conservatives on talk radio and in New Media are getting under the Democrats’ skin when they publicly renew their Fairness Doctrine agenda again.See.

Loud Folks, keep cranking it up. …” 

 

Shame, Cubed
Three separate reasons to be appalled, each more disgusting than the last.

By Bill Whittle

“The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, A Chicago Public Radio station. And this time, candidate Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking at a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American – or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all Hope, Ye Who Enter Here:

 

Barack Obama, in 2001:

“You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the Civil Rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of re-distribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

“And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution – at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

“And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

A caller then helpfully asks:

“The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”

Obama replies:

“You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

…”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI=

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...