Archive for January, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 59, January 25, 2012: Segment 2: Marco Rubio Neoconservative Posterboy Defends Mitt Romney–Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives-Coming Soon–Wars In Iran, Syria, Pakistan–American Greatness By Empire Building–Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace In An Era of Righteousness!–Videos

Posted on January 25, 2012. Filed under: Budgetary Policy, Business, Coal, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Fiscal Policy, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Public Sector Unions, Tax Policy, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 59:January 25, 2011 

Pronk Pops Show 58:January 18, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 57:December 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 56:November 30, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 55:November 23, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 54:November 16, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 53:November 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-59

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

“Socialism and interventionism. Both have in common the goal of subordinating the individual unconditionally to the state.”

“Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism.”

~Ludwig von Mises

“A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic.”

~Russell Kirk

Mitt Romney’s Campaign Run by GOP Defector Charlie Crist’s Political Staff

“Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist. Romney is a conservative. and he was one of the first national Republican leaders to endorse me. He came to Florida, campaigned hard for me, and made a real difference in my race.”

~Marco Rubio

Florida Senator Marco Rubio should have said that Mitt Romney is a progressive neoconservative, just like me.

The REAL Mitt Romney: Flip-Flopper Extraordinaire

Mitt Romney: “My Views Are Progressive”

Rush Limbaugh – Romney Is Not Mr. Conservative

Bill O’Reilly interviews Marco Rubio

SA@TAC – No Excuse: Mitt Romney’s Case for American Empire

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

SA@TAC – Taking the ‘Neo’ Out of ‘Conservative’

SA@TheDC – Does Attacking Neoconservatism Reflect Racism or Reality?

SA@TAC – Israel and the Right

SA@TheDC – Russell Kirk and 9/11

SA@TAC – Real Conservatives Must Rethink War

SA@TAC – A Conservative Foreign Policy Comeback?

SA@TAC – Ronald Reagan: Isolationist

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

Both libertarian conservatives and traditional conservatives will need to find a new political party should the Republican Party establishment dominated by progressive neoconservatives get their dream ticket of Romney and Rubio, the Republican’s R&R.

Such a ticket would leave no doubt that the right-wing progressives, formerly of the Democratic Party and now calling themselves neoconservatives, have won and destroyed the Republican Party.

Real conservatives, both libertarians and traditionalists, will form another political party and search for candidates that want neither a warfare or welfare state.

Both the progressive socialists of the welfare Democratic Party and progressive neoconservatives of the warfare Republican Party are statists and collectivists that want the American people to be dependent upon big government.

The American people will reject both the left-wing progressive socialists that offer welfare and right-wing progressive neoconservatives that offer warfare.

The American people will support libertarian and traditional conservatives that advocate limited government with balanced budgets and a peace and prosperity economy.

As both a libertarian and traditional conservative and tea party patriot, I for one will not vote for a progressive socialist ticket of Obama/Biden or a progressive neoconservative ticket of Romney/Rubio.

Progressives of either stripe are tickets to serfdom with out of control government spending and massive government deficits and debts requiring higher taxes and inflation.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are also big government progressive neoconservatives.

SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative

SA@TAC – Compassionate Conservative Rick Santorum

Romney, Rubio, Gingrich and Santorum are all big government progressive neoconservatives that want a war with Iran.

Iran, Iran So Far Away

Romney, Gingrich and Paul on A Nuclear Iran – CBS News & National Journal GOP Debate

Ron Paul destroys Rick Santorum on Iran During Ames Iowa Debate!

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

I will be voting for Ron Paul, the only libertarian and traditional conservative candidate for president.

Paul wants limited government, lower taxes, balanced budgets and a non-interventionist foreign policy with all wars being declared as required by the Constitution.

SA@TAC – The Return of the Real Right

SA@TAC – Rand Paul, Jim DeMint and the GOP

SA@TheDC – Conservatism’s Future: Young Americans for Liberty

“I like Ron Paul Except on Foreign Policy”

“An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government.”

~Dr. Ron Paul

Background Articles and Videos

Gov. Romney Endorses Rubio In Tampa

[youtube-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aNmQ3sw3ms]

Romney Campaign Run by Charlie Crist’s Political Aides

By Andrew Henry

“…As Mitt Romney puts the South Carolina primary in his rear-view mirror and hits the accelerator in a bid to win Florida, he may discover himself crashing headlong into the bitter legacy of Charlie Crist, the former Florida governor who defected from the GOP and was soundly defeated for the U.S. Senate by Marco Rubio.
Romney’s “Charlie Crist” problem is this: Romney’s chief campaign strategist and several of his most senior campaign staff were Crist’s top political advisers — the same ones who crafted Crist’s moderate, ignore-the-tea-party strategy epitomized in Crist’s famous “hug” of President Barack Obama. That strategy led Crist, once the most popular Republican governor in the nation, to defeat.

Crist’s erstwhile political team was led by controversial GOP strategist Stuart Stevens. Stevens and partner Russ Schriefer are the principals in the high-profile Stevens & Schriefer Group consultant firm and are playing the lead role in crafting Romney’s primary and national campaign strategy.

According to the Stevens & Schriefer website, the firm had a long history with Crist, serving as chief strategists for his bids for education commissioner, attorney general, governor, and later for the U.S. Senate.

Other senior Crist political aides from his failed Senate campaign now hold key posts in Romney’s campaign. Amanda Henneberg, who had served as Crist’s press secretary, now is a spokeswoman with the Romney 2012 campaign. Likewise, Andrea Saul, who was Crist’s communications director, now is Romney’s press secretary. …”

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/romney-crist-rubio-gingrich/2012/01/23/id/425195

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Pronk Pops Show 59, January 25, 2012: Segment 1: Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

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

Pronk Pops Show 59, January 25, 2012: Segment 1: Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

Posted on January 25, 2012. Filed under: Budgetary Policy, Coal, Coal, College, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Immigration, Investments, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Natural Gas, Networking, Nuclear, Oil, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Regulation, Resources, Security, Social Science, Tax Policy, Technology, Unions, Videos, Violence, War | Tags: |

Pronk Pops Show 59:January 25, 2011 

Pronk Pops Show 58:January 18, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 57:December 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 56:November 30, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 55:November 23, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 54:November 16, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 53:November 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 58-59

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 1: Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

Expanded, Revised and Updated January 20 and 24, 2012

James Kirchick

James Kirchick lied about Ron Paul four years ago as the following report clearly shows.

Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look

Ron Paul- Full Truth About Newsletter FOLLOW-UP Day 2

Author Of Ron Paul Racist Newsletters Revealed

http://truthsquad.tv/?p=1053

Ron Paul’s “Racist Writings” DEBUNKED. Real Author: James B. Powell exposed by Ben Swann & TMOT

“…Reality Check has done it again!!! Ben Swann does some REAL investigative reporting!!! It turns out that the “most racist” newsletter issued under Ron Paul’s name has a byline that has someone else’s name on it… JAMES B. POWELL

The New Republic magazine that issued the original attack against Paul has apparently kept this fact hidden and is refusing to talk to other media outlets about who exactly penned the newsletter. When they originally released PDF scans of the news letter in question, they left off half of the last page which contained the byline of another author. They attributed the article to Paul, knowing full well that he didn’t write it.

Out of the 240 articles in question, only about 9 contain objectionable material. Of those 9, they appeared in sequence, which lends credence to the claim that the racist commentary did indeed come from an editor other than Paul and that Paul didn’t keep that author around for any great deal of time. …”

Ron Paul revealed

Jamie Kirchick interview on NPR. (see Tucker vid for update)

New Republic Author Exposes Ron Paul’s Past Writings!

CNN asks Ron Paul about racist writings he didn’t author

(2008)

Ron Paul quits CNN interview after being asked about racist newsletters

CNN and Fox Both Gunning for Ron Paul: Conspiracy or Reality?

Ron Paul: Damn It, Don’t Ask Bout My Racist Writings

The Bogus Scandal of the Ron Paul Newsletters

Kirchick wants the viewer to think that for twenty years the newsletter was filled with “racist” content when in fact more than 230 of the 240 plus issues of the monthly newsletter contain absolutely no such content and the one special edition of the newsletter that had the most offensive content was written by someone else under a byline which Kirchick fails to disclose. The writer of the special edition was James B. Powel. Kirchick also fails to disclose that he supports an interventionist neoconservative foreign policy that Paul has repeatly been critical of.

Paul takes full moral responsibility for the newsletter under whose name it was published, as he should.

Paul repeatedly denied he wrote the offensive passages in the newsletter. He deplored the offensive racist passages that appeared in nine issues of the more than 240 monthly newsletters published from 1976 to 1996. He only became aware of these passages ten years latter when he was running for president.

A Rankled Ron Paul Grapples With Radio Caller’s Newsletter Questions

Kirchick continues his smear attack on Paul on the Foundation for Defense of Democracies website in a Jan. 7 article from The New Republic entitled: What Are Ron Paul’s Liberal Fans Thinking?

“For anyone moderately familiar with Ron Paul’s record, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a litany of racists, anti-Semites, conspiracy-theorists, and militia members back his presidential campaign. Paul, after all, has spent decades cultivating the support of the far-right, not least by publishing for years a newsletter steeped in bigotry. (Read my 2008 article “Angry White Man,” for ample evidence.) Much more disconcerting is the fact that so many prominent liberals have been eagerly lining up behind Paul’s candidacy. Unfortunately, this isn’t an aberration, but a telling indication of the skewed political priorities of many on the left. …”

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/what-are-ron-pauls-liberal-fans-thinking/

Kirchick is now attacking Paul for giving speeches at John Birch Society meetings in an attempt to marginalize him as a member of the radical right.

“…And he continues to speak regularly before the John Birch Society, an organization so reactionary that William F. Buckley Jr. wrote it out of the nascent conservative movement that he was building—in 1962. …”

The John Birch Society is not reactionary organization but an anti-communist study group. It simply favors a constitutional republic with a non-interventionist foreign policy, opposes foreign aid to all countries, wants all wars to be declared according to the Constitution and wants to get the United Nations out of the United States and the United States out of the United Nations. Paul agrees and supports the John Birch Society.

http://www.jbs.org

Only progressive neoconservatives of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies such as Kirchick would consider the John Birch Society reactionary instead of a patriotic organization.

Why does Kirchick now mention Paul’s long association with the John Birch Society?

The John Birch Society is exposing the neoconservatives for what they really are in their betrayal of the Constitution:

Betrayal of the Constitution An Exposé of the Neoconservative Agenda

A speech by John McManus of The John Birch Society Monday May 2, 2011 at the Marriott Hotel Albany, NH.

What is The John Birch Society?

Robert Welch, Founder of The John Birch Society

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

“…Robert Welch, Founder of The John Birch Society, predicted today’s problems with uncanny accuracy back in 1958 and prescribed solutions in 1974 that are very similar to Ron Paul’s positions today. …”

A Hard Look at the United Nations

Ron Paul Endorses The John Birch Society

“Dr. Ron Paul, Texas congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate, was the featured speaker Saturday evening, October 4 on the final day of the John Birch Society’s 50th Anniversary Celebration. The topic of his keynote address was “Restoring the Republic: Lessons From a Presidential Campaign,” in which he lectured the audience on how our republic can be restored with groups such as the John Birch Society (JBS) and his own Campaign for Liberty leading the way.’

Stand up for Freedom Part 5 – Ezra Taft Benson

“Stand up for Freedom – an address by the honorable Ezra Taft Benson shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy.”

Stand up for Freedom – Part 6 – Ezra Taft Benson

“Stand up for Freedom – an address by the honorable Ezra Taft Benson shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy.”

Stand up for Freedom – Part 7 – Ezra Taft Benson

“Stand up for Freedom – an address by the honorable Ezra Taft Benson shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy.”

The History of NAFTA and the Council on Foreign Relations

“John McManus of the John Birch Society gives you a fascinating briefing on the history of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and NAFTA. You may never look at world events the same after you learn some of these facts.”

Council on Foreign Relations Calls for Bombing Iran

“In this weekly news update for January 16-22, 2012, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses why the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) wants the U.S. to bomb Iran and how Mitt Romney surrounds himself with CFR members while Newt Gingrich himself is a CFR member.”

Bill Buckley was duped by the communists when he attacked the John Birch Society.

Buckley’s National Review is no longer a libertarian conservative or traditional conservative magazine but largely a progressive neoconservative magazine. Buckley was building a progressive neoconservative movement that libertarian conservatives and traditional conservative now deplore and want no part of.

The neoconservatives including James Kirchick and Jeffrey Lord and many so-called “conservative” talk radio show hosts, commentators, journalists and reporters recently continued the smear attack on Paul by again bringing up the so-called “racist” newsletter issue and implying that Paul is a racist and anti-Semite just before the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.

The neoconservatives are right-wing progressives that advocate an aggressive foreign policy of intervention abroad.

Neoconservatives want the United States to have an aggressive interventionist foreign policy that includes the U.S being the world’s policeman, engaging in empire or nation building abroad, providing foreign and military aid to Israel, and starting undeclared preemptive wars.

Ron Paul advocates a strong national defense and a non-interventionist foreign policy that includes the elimination of all foreign aid, bringing the troops home and all wars being declared by Congress as set forth in the Constitution.

Ron Paul 2012 – “We now promote preemptive war.”

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Troops say – If Everyone is saying; Support the troops, why is no one listening..

Paul has been one of the leading critics of the neoconservative interventionist foreign policy of both Presidents Bush and Obama.

CIA Chief Endorses Ron Paul

Ron Paul on foreign policy – Tea Party Debate – Analysis by Michael Scheuer

The Neocon Agenda

Bill Moyers on the rise of NeoCons

Pat Buchanan vs Neo-Cons

Neo-cons: Invasion of the Party Snatchers Part 1

Neo-cons: Invasion of the Party Snatchers Part 2

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

The neoconservatives and their friends in the mainstream media and talk radio are attempting to smear Ron Paul by trying to label him a racist, anti-Semite and isolationist instead of addressing the costs and benefits of an interventionist foreign policy in comparison with a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Mark Levin – Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters In The 1990’s They’re Full Of Racist Statements

Mark Levin On “Crackpot” Ron Paul

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

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 1

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 2

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 3

Ron Paul Newsletter Controversy

Doug Wead Responds to Last-Minute Smear Attacks on Ron Paul

SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Conservative Foreign Policy

Pro-Israel Lobby the Media

Illuminating discussion of how Israel is portrayed in the media as sparks fly between Time Magazine political columnist Joe Klein and Assistant Editor of The New Republic James Kirchick. With Jennifer Lazlo Mizrahi and Ori Nir.

Israel and GOP join forces to oust Obama and Marginalize Paul

A favorite tactic of both right-wing Republican progressives and left-wing Democrat progressives is to play the race card and if that fails call the person an anti-Semite.

This is right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals playbook.

Alinsky advocated using a personal attack by identifying a problem, targeting a person, identifying the problem with the person and attacking the targeted person.

The Republican progressive neoconservatives’ problem is a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The Republican progressive neoconservatives’ target is Ron Paul.

The Republican progressive neoconservatives have identified Ron Paul as an isolationist with a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The Republican progressive neoconservatives are attacking Ron Paul.

From Al Capone to Saul Alinsky to Barack Obama -Methods of Organizing

Rules for Radicals – Rule #10

Rules for Radicals – Rule #13

Mark Levin Compares Ron Paul To A Little Weasel

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

The fact that Ron Paul is not a racist, anti-Semite or isolationist is besides the point to these Republican progressive neoconservatives.

Big government progressive neoconservative Republican candidates include Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorium and Rick Perry.

All of the Republican progressive neoconservative candidates support an big government aggressive interventionist foreign policy abroad.

While some of the progressive neoconservatives like to “talk” conservative in their rhetoric, they very much “walk” progressive in their actions for they favor big government budgets at the Federal and state level to support government intervention at home and abroad.

Limited Government Libertarian Conservative Ron Paul vs. Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives Romney, Gingrich, Santorum–Videos

None of the progressive neoconservative Republican candidates for President are for limited government in terms its size and scope that libertarian conservatives such as Paul advocate.

Neocons Shamelessly Attack Ron Paul for Being ‘Anti-Semitic’

SA@TheDC – Does Attacking Neoconservatism Reflect Racism or Reality?

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

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

Mark Levin Interviews Jeffery Lord On Ron Paul Supporters Using Neo Con As An Anti-Semitic Slur

Experts detail the danger of Israeli lobby in US politics

Mark Levin, Ron Paul Hater, Put in His Place

Mark Levin Avoids the “Empire” Question

SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Conservative Foreign Policy

TrueLeaks – David Horowitz calls Ron Paul “A little Satan”

Ron Paul Is A Sick Racist? = AIPAC Spin Machine Tactics

Ron Paul On Iran And Israel

Ron Paul: Foreign Policy & Israel

Jews for Ron Paul, by Walter Block of Loyola University, New Orleans MIRROR

“Professor Walter Block is proud to be Jewish and proud to be a close friend of Ron Paul.”

Jews for Ron Paul

American Jew for Ron Paul

Ron Paul Supports Israel vs. Ronald Reagan? “Jews for Ron Paul”

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul

James Williams of Matagorda County, Texas recounts a touching true story. Living in a still prejudiced Texas In 1972, his wife had a complication with her pregnancy. No doctors would care for her or deliver their bi-racial child. In fact one of the hospital nurses called the police on James.
Dr. Ron Paul was notified and took her in, delivering their stillborn baby. Because of the compassion of Dr. Ron Paul, the Williams’ never received a hospital bill for the delivery.
Ron Paul views every human being as a unique individual, afforded the rights endowed by our creator and codified in the Bill of Rights.

Ron Paul Ad “Disarms” MSM’s Racist Campaign of Lies: Gary Franchi Reports

12-29-11 Ron Paul reacts to new ad

Do Black Americans Believe Ron Paul Is Racist?

Ron Paul is NOT a Racist Walter Williams defends Dr Paul on Rush Limbaugh Show

Chris Rock supports Ron Paul 2012??

BLACKS FOR RON PAUL 2012!!!

Seems that James Kirchick, progressive neoconservative, was smearing Ron Paul four years ago and is now warning liberals that Paul supports the John Birch Society by speaking at some of its meetings. While not a member of the John Birch Society, I will defend Paul’s good judgement in supporting such an organization.

Looks like the media should check out James Kirchick and his association with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

When are the so called objective journalists and reporters going to do their jobs and connect some of the dots and tell the truth?

When hell freezes over.

NY Times, MSM Attacks Ron Paul & Alex Jones For Living in the Real World 3/3

“…Gingrich-linked smear specialist James Kirchick is presumably nonplussed that his attempt to regurgitate the 15-year-old debunked non-story of Ron Paul’s ‘racist’ newsletters has had absolutely no effect on the polls, but he is forging ahead anyway with further attacks, this time in the form of a New York Times editorial that labels Paul a “paranoid conspiracy theorist” for discussing manifestly provable issues.

As we previously documented in our response to Kirchick’s regurgitation of a story he originally pushed four years ago, the New Republic writer is an apologist for Newt Gingrich and other neo-cons of his ilk.

Kirchick is a proud neo-con who serves as a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, an influential neo-conservative collective funded by numerous noted billionaires. The group’s list of “distinguished advisors” includes former CIA and FBI heads. The group is virtually a lobbying front for the state of Israel, which explains perfectly why Kirchick is so upset with Paul, who has promised to put a stop to the billions in foreign aid the United States sends to Israel every year.

Sitting on the group’s Leadership Council is none other than Newt Gingrich, one of Ron Paul’s main rivals in the Republican primary. Given that association, it’s unsurprising that Kirchick has chosen to dredge up a series of debunked smears at this key time in the election cycle, with Gingrich’s campaign now imploding and Ron Paul’s popularity surging. …”

The neoconservatives at the Weekly Standard published Kirchick’s article.

I wonder why?

Kirchick is a neoconservative!

He is also a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where the neoconservatives gather (see background information below).

The Kirchick and Lord smear attack on Ron Paul was amplified and repeated by several so-called “conservative” radio talk show hosts and/or their fill-in hosts prior to and over the Christmas holidays.

This included Bennett, Hewitt, Levin, Gibson, Medved and Limbaugh just to name a few.

All favored one of the remaining Republican big government progressive neoconservative candidates–Romney, Gingrich, Santorium and Perry.

They repeated Kirchick’s charges in the two to three weeks prior to the Iowa caucus.

At the time Ron Paul was leading in the Iowa polls and it looked like he would be first in Iowa.

The concerted and organized smear attack of Paul on “conservative” talk radio was successful in that Paul came in third behind Santorium and Romney by less than 3,900 votes.

Mission accomplished by the progressive neoconservatives, the Israeli lobby and the Likud party.

Not a single one of these so-called “conservative” talk radio show hosts support the conservative libertarian advocate of limited government, Ron Paul.

SA@TAC – The Biggest Earmark is Empire

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

SA@TheDC – Russell Kirk and 9/11

SA@TAC – Identity vs. Philosophy

I have been a conservative or traditional libertarian since Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964.

The only truly conservative president that the U.S. has had since then is Ronald Reagan.

Many traditional libertarians that were expecting fiscal responsibility under Reagan with balanced budgets and a smaller Federal government, became very disappointed when Reagan failed to delivery on these promises.

Reagan definitely talked conservative but the economic results were decidedly progressive with growing deficits and increases in the national debt.

Under Reagan the size and scope of the Federal government significantly increased.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.pdf

This is why Ron Paul, an early supporter of Ronald Reagan, left the Republican Party and ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party’s candidate.

In 1988 the Republican Party successful elected a Republican big government progressive George H.W. Bush that now endorses another Republican big government progressive neoconservative, Mitt Romney.

I view Romney, Gingrich, Santorium and Perry as Republican big government progressive neoconservatives.

I will not vote for any progressive of either political party and especially those who identify themselves as neoconservative.

The progressive neoconservatives in the Republican Party smeared Ron Paul by playing both the race card and anti-Semite card.

Unfortunately, the progressive neoconservatives were partially successful for many of their listeners simply do not know the history of the conservative movement in America since 1945 and the role the progressive neoconservatives played in smearing Paul.

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

If I truly thought Ron Paul was either a racist or anti-Semite, I would not support him.

I will support and vote for Ron Paul.

I will not vote for any Republican big government progressive neoconservative.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975

Background Articles and Videos

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

James Kirchick

last updated: December 27, 2011

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

“…James (“Jamie”) Kirchick is a Prague-based fellow at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a contributing editor at the New Republic. A former writer-at-large for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Kirchick has also contributed to various rightist outlets like the Weekly Standard and Commentary magazine’s Contentions blog, as well as numerous mainstream publications, including the Los Angeles Times and Politico.[i]

Among Kirchick’s more widely noted articles is his January 2008 New Republic piece about libertarian leader Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). Titled “Angry White Man,” the article sought to throw light on Paul’s track record as he gained national attention as a Republican Party presidential candidate who opposed the war in Iraq. Reviewing the various newsletters that Paul published over the years, Kirchick wrote that they reveal “decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing—but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.”[2]

In late 2011, as Paul’s campaign to be the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nominee began to gain momentum as a result of surging poll numbers in some primary states, Kirchick published a follow up piece to his 2008 New Republic article. Kirchcik lamented that despite Paul’s “voluminous record of bigotry and conspiracy theories,” his star remains “undimmed.” He added: “Not only do the latest polls place him as the frontrunner in the Iowa Caucuses, but he still enjoys the support of a certain coterie of professional political commentators who, like Paul himself, identify as libertarians.” Kirchick highlighted support from the likes of blogger Andrew Sullivan as well as numerous other writers. He concluded: “If Paul is responsible for conjuring the apocalyptic atmosphere of a prophet, it’s his supporters who have to answer for submitting to it. Surely, those who agree with Paul would be able to find a better vessel for their ideas than a man who once entertained the notion that AIDS was invented in a government laboratory or who, just last January, alleged that there had been a ‘CIA coup’ against the American government and that the Agency is ‘in drug businesses.’”[3]

Paul responded to the criticism surrounding his association with the newsletter by claiming that at the time he did not read the offending material and that he does not endorse the views espoused therein. His Republican primary opponents attempted to capitalize on the issue. Newt Gingrich said: “These things are really nasty, and he didn’t know about it, wasn’t aware of it. But he’s sufficiently ready to be president? It strikes me it raises some fundamental questions about him.”[4]

Track Record

Kirchick joined the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) in November 2011, which was announced—together with the hiring of the abrasive “pro-Israel” writer Lee Smith—in a November 2011 press release. Said FDD executive director Cliff May, “Lee and Jamie are two of the most probing, incisive and insightful journalists covering the international scene today. They will add important dimensions to FDD’s national security and foreign policy analysis.”[5] …”

“…Kirchick is an erstwhile liberal who apparently had veered to the right by the time he arrived at Yale, where he graduated in 2006. In a 2007 article for the Boston Globe about dating difficulties as a conservative gay man, Kirchick described himself as a “gay recovering leftist,” adding that “there’s nothing about my homosexuality that dictates a belief about raising the minimum wage, withdrawing immediately from Iraq, and backing teachers’ unions: all liberal causes that I strongly oppose.”[6]

In 2006, as a contributor to the Yale Daily News, Kirchick was named Student Journalist of the Year by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association; in 2007, the association named him Journalist of the Year.[v7]

On foreign policy, Kirchick has proved a steadfast critic of the Barack Obama administration as well as of those who oppose one-sided U.S. support for Israel or other militarist Middle East polices. In November 2011, for example, Kirchick linked hawkishness toward Iran with criticism of the Obama administration’s “reset” of relations with Russia. When Moscow criticized a 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency report about apparent progress in the Iranian nuclear program, Kirchick took to theWall Street Journal to call it “the latest and most devastating blow to Mr. Obama’s ‘reset’ policy,” which he claimed was promoted as a mechanism to bring Russia into the U.S. fold with respect to Iran. Kirchick also criticized the reset initiative more generally, disapproving of the New START agreement on nuclear disarmament, the Obama administration’s decision to cancel planned missile defense bases in Czech Republic and Poland (although he neglected to mention that the sites were moved to Turkey), Washington’s lapse in arms sales to Georgia, and Russia’s admittance to the World Trade Organization.[8] …”

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/kirchick_james

Ron Paul addresses charges of racism on CNN

Ron Paul – I Am The ANTI Racist – Wolf Blitzer Interview 2008

Ron Paul: ‘Human Flaw’ on Newsletter Oversight

Ron Paul Is NOT A Racist! Disgruntled Former Ron Paul Staffer Eric Dondero

Ron Paul On Racism

Ron Paul’s view on Racism

Ron Paul – Back When He Was Proud of the Newsletter, He Now Disavows (1995)

NAACP Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul and racism

Ron Paul is a Racist?

Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters?

James Kirchick

“…Nearly four years ago, on the eve of the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, The New Republic published my expose of newsletters published by Texas Congressman Ron Paul. The contents of these newsletters can best be described as appalling. Blacks were referred to as “animals.” Gays were told to go “back” into the “closet.” The “X-Rated Martin Luther King” was a bisexual pedophile who “seduced underage girls and boys.” Three months before the Oklahoma City bombing, Paul praised right-wing, anti-government militia movements as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” The voluminous record of bigotry and conspiracy theories speaks for itself.

And yet, four years on, Ron Paul’s star is undimmed. Not only do the latest polls place him as the frontrunner in the Iowa Caucuses, but he still enjoys the support of a certain coterie of professional political commentators who, like Paul himself, identify as libertarians. Most prominent among them is Daily Beast blogger Andrew Sullivan, who gave Paul his endorsement in the GOP primary last week, as he did in 2008. But he is not alone: Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner recently bemoaned the fact that “the principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media,” while Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic argues that Paul’s ideas cannot be ignored, and that, for Tea Party Republicans, “A vote against Paul requires either cognitive dissonance—never in short supply in politics—or a fundamental rethinking of the whole theory of politics that so recently drove the Tea Party movement.”

“…Kirchick is an erstwhile liberal who apparently had veered to the right by the time he arrived at Yale, where he graduated in 2006. In a 2007 article for the Boston Globe about dating difficulties as a conservative gay man, Kirchick described himself as a “gay recovering leftist,” adding that “there’s nothing about my homosexuality that dictates a belief about raising the minimum wage, withdrawing immediately from Iraq, and backing teachers’ unions: all liberal causes that I strongly oppose.”[6]

In 2006, as a contributor to the Yale Daily News, Kirchick was named Student Journalist of the Year by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association; in 2007, the association named him Journalist of the Year.[v7] …”

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

The Company Ron Paul Keeps

Dec 26, 2011, Vol. 17, No. 15 • By JAMES KIRCHICK

“…The Republican Jewish Coalition announced this month that congressman Ron Paul would not be among the six guests invited to participate in its Republican Presidential Candidates Forum. “He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the RJC, adding that the group “rejects his misguided and extreme views.”

Paul’s exclusion caused an uproar, with critics alleging that his stand on Israel had earned the RJC’s ire; an absolutist libertarian, Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries, including the Jewish state. “This seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic,” wrote Reason editor Matt Welch. Chris McGreal of the Guardian reported that Paul “was barred because of his views on Israel.” Even Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun and a valiant defender of Israel (and friend and mentor of this writer), opined, “The whole idea of an organization of Jewish Republicans worrying about the mainstream strikes me as a bit contradictory.”

While Paul’s views on Israel certainly place him outside the American, never mind Republican, mainstream, there is an even more elementary reason the RJC was right to exclude him from its event. It is Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations. …”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/james-kirchick

James Kirchick

“…James Kirchick (pronounced /ˈkɜrtʃɨk/; born 1983) is a reporter, foreign correspondent and columnist. Having attended Yale University, Kirchick also wrote for the student newspaper on the campus, the Yale Daily News.[1] He is a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington;[2] prior to this he was writer-at-large for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.[3]

For over three years, Kirchick worked at The New Republic, covering domestic politics, intelligence, and American foreign policy. In 2008, he exposed racist and conspiratorial newsletters published by Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, a story that gained new prominence in the 2012 presidential election.[4][5] While he remains a contributing editor for TNR, Kirchick’s reportage has appeared in The Weekly Standard,[4] The American Interest, The Virginia Quarterly Review, The Columbia Journalism Review, Prospect, Commentary and World Affairs Journal. He writes frequently for newspapers including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal,[6] The Los Angeles Times,[7] and Ha’aretz.

Kirchick has worked as a reporter for The New York Sun, the New York Daily News, and The Hill, and has been a columnist for the New York Daily News and the Washington Examiner.

Kirchick is a regular book critic and reviews frequently for Azure,[8] Commentary, the Claremont Review of Books, Policy Review, and World Affairs, among others. A leading voice on gay politics, he is a contributing writer to the Advocate, the nation’s largest gay publication,[9] and a recipient of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association Excellence in Student Journalism Award and the Journalist of the Year Award.[10][11] …”

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

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

“…The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) describes itself as a non-profit, non-partisan policy institute “working to defend free nations against their enemies”. It was founded shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks to address what it regards as the “threat facing America, Israel and the West”. Its stated objectives are promoting human rights, defending “free and democratic nations”, and opposing terrorism which it defines as “the deliberate use of violence against civilians to achieve political objectives”.[1]

Overview

It conducts “research and education on international terrorism—the most serious security threat to the United States and other free, democratic nations. It advocates United States military intervention in various muslim majority nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and Palestine.

Board of Directors, advisors and fellows

FDD’s chairman is James Woolsey. FDD’s president is Clifford D. May and its executive director is Mark Dubowitz. Its Leadership Council is composed of prominent thinkers and leaders from the defense, intelligence, and policy communities including Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Bill Kristol, Louis J. Freeh, Joseph Lieberman, Newt Gingrich, Max Kampelman, and Robert McFarlane.

Its Board of Advisors include Gary Bauer, Rep. Eric Cantor, Gene Gately, General P.X. Kelley, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Troia “KT” McFarland, Richard Perle, Steven Pomerantz, Oliver “Buck” Revell, Bret Stephens, and Francis J. “Bing” West.[2]

Foundation fellows and senior staff are Jonathan Schanzer, Vice President of Research, Khairi Abaza, Senior Fellow, Tony Badran, Research Fellow, Levant, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Director, Center for Study of Terrorist Radicalization, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow. Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Military Affairs Fellow, Thomas Joscelyn, Senior Fellow and Co-Chair, Center for Law and Counterterrorism, Jonathan Kay, Visiting Fellow, Dr. Michael Ledeen, Freedom Scholar, Andrew C. McCarthy, Co-Chair, Center for Law and Counterterrorism, Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, Senior Fellow, Dr. J. Peter Pham, Non-Resident Senior Fellow, David B. Rivkin, Jr., Senior Fellow and Co-Chair, Center for Law and Counterterrorism[3]

Initiatives

The foundation has initiated the following centers, coalitions, committees and ongoing projects:

  • The Iran Energy Project
  • The Center for The Study of Terrorist Radicalization
  • The Center for Law & Counterterrorism
  • The Coalition Against Terrorist Media
  • The Committee on the Present Danger

It engages in investigative reporting.

The Iran Energy Project

The foundation has promoted the utility of energy sanctions as part of a comprehensive economic warfare strategy against the Iranian regime. To this end, it provides leading research and analysis in support of strong, broad-based energy sanctions, including gasoline, natural gas, and oil sanctions, as part of a comprehensive strategy to end the Iranian regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for terrorism, and abuse of human rights. The foundation also analyzes the prominent role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Iran’s energy industry.

It will continue to monitor the Iranian energy sector for new entrants into the Iranian energy trade and any signs that companies which have reportedly left the market have resumed their trade.

The focus on energy sanctions has changed the debate in Washington. No longer a discussion over how to achieve a “grand bargain” with the Iranian regime, the debate now focuses on how to use sanctions to deter an aggressive regime dedicated to pursuing nuclear weapons, supporting terrorism, and repressing its own people.[4]

As the foundation’s Mark Dubowitz noted, “the push for broad-based sanctions targeting Iran’s energy sector, including steps taken to make it more difficult for Iran to import gasoline, acquire key energy technology, and attract investment for its energy sector, has already had a major impact. Not only are Iran’s gasoline suppliers exiting the market, but energy investors, banks, technology providers, and insurers now face growing pressure to decide between doing business with the Iranian regime and continuing their business relationships in the lucrative U.S. market … President Obama needs to enforce U.S. law and put these companies to a choice.”[5]

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

Preemptive War Debate (Part 1)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 2)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 3)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 4)

‘Racist newsletter’ timeline: What Ron Paul has said

Ron Paul has had to explain racially charged statements and other controversial comments in newsletters published in his name in the 1980s and 1990s. Here’s what he’s said over the years.

By Mark Trumbull, Staff writer / December 29, 2011

“…It’s the biggest setback to hit Ron Paul’s candidacy for president: publicity about racially charged statements and other controversial comments in newsletters published in Mr. Paul’s name in the 1980s and 1990s.

On Thursday he responded at some length to the concerns during an Iowa radio interview, calling the newsletter statements “terrible” but insisting that he wasn’t the one who wrote them. He added that the offensive comments totaled about “about eight or 10 sentences.”

Some journalists who have researched the newsletters say it was a lot more than 10 sentences, and that the Texas congressman’s response on the issue has changed over the years.

Here, in timeline format, are some prominent Paul statements tied to the issue drawn from transcripts, video clips, and news reports. …”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1229/Racist-newsletter-timeline-What-Ron-Paul-has-said

Newsletters Fallout – Hardball (see Tucker vid for update)

James Kirchick interview, part 1

“…interview with James Kirchick, assistant editor at the New Republic, who wrote a piece in the Advocate, criticizing activists and reporters who exposed Congressman Mark Foley, and criticized me for writing about and focusing on the fact that John McCain’s chief of staff, Mark Buse, is gay.”

James Kirchick interview, part 2

Another boyfriend of Mark Buse, McCain’s top gay

The New Republic

“…The New Republic (TNR) is an American magazine of politics and the arts published continuously since 1914. A weekly for most of its history, it is published twenty times per year as of 2011, at a circulation of approximately 50,000. The editor as of 2011 is Richard Just.

Political views

Domestically, the TNR as of 2011 supports a largely neo-liberal stance on fiscal and social issues, according to former editor Franklin Foer, who stated that it “invented the modern usage of the term ‘liberal’, and it’s one of our historical legacies and obligations to be involved in the ongoing debate over what exactly liberalism means and stands for.”[2] As of 2004, however, some, like Anne Kossedd and Steven Randall, contend that it is not as liberal as it was before 1974.[3] The magazine’s outlook is associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and “New Democrats” such as former President Bill Clinton and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, who received the magazine’s endorsement in the 2004 Democratic primary; so did Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008.[4] Whilst defending federal programs, like Medicare and the EPA, it has advocated some policies that, while seeking to achieve the ends of traditional social welfare programs, often use market solutions as their means, and so are often called “business-friendly.” Typical of some of the policies supported by both TNR and the DLC during the 1990s were increased funding for the Earned Income Tax Credit program and reform of the Federal welfare system. Supply side economics, especially the idea of reducing higher marginal income tax rates, received heavy criticism from senior editor Jonathan Chait.[5] Moreover, TNR is strongly in favor of universal health care. On certain high-profile social issues, such as its support of same-sex marriage, TNR could be considered more progressive than the mainstream of the Democratic Party establishment. In its March 2007 issue, TNR ran an article by Paul Starr (co-founder of the magazine’s main rival, The American Prospect) where he defined the type of modern American liberalism in his article War and Liberalism:

Liberalism wagers that a state… can be strong but constrained – strong because constrained… Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society. – Paul Starr, volume 236, p. 21-24

Support for Israel has been another strong theme in The New Republic. According to Martin Peretz, owner of TNR, “Support for Israel is deep down an expression of America’s best view of itself.”[6] According to CUNY journalism professor, Eric Alterman, “Nothing has been as consistent about the past 34 years of TNR as the magazine’s devotion to Peretz’s own understanding of what is good for Israel…It is really not too much to say that almost all of Peretz’s political beliefs are subordinate to his commitment to Israel’s best interests, and these interests as Peretz defines them almost always involve more war.”[6]

Unsigned editorials prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq expressed strong support for military action, citing the threat of WMD as well as humanitarian concerns. Since the end of major military operations, unsigned editorials, while critical of the handling of the war, have continued to justify the invasion on humanitarian grounds, but no longer maintain that Iraq’s WMD facilities posed any threat to the United States. In the November 27, 2006 issue, the editors wrote:

At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom.[7]

On June 23, 2006 Martin Peretz, in response to criticism of the magazine from the blog Daily Kos, wrote the following as a summary of TNR’s stances on recent issues

The New Republic is very much against the Bush tax programs, against Bush Social Security ‘reform,’ against cutting the inheritance tax, for radical health care changes, passionate about Gore-type environmentalism, for a woman’s entitlement to an abortion, for gay marriage, for an increase in the minimum wage, for pursuing aggressively alternatives to our present reliance on oil and our present tax preferences for gas-guzzling automobiles. We were against the confirmation of Justice Alito.[8]

The magazine has also published two articles concerning income inequality, largely criticizing conservative economists for their attempts to deny the existence or negative effect increasing income inequality is having on the United States. In its May 2007 issue the magazine ran an editorial pointing to the humanitarian beliefs of liberals as being responsible for the recent plight of the American left. In another article TNR favorably cited the example of Denmark as evidence that an expansive welfare state and high tax burden can be consistent with, and in some ways contribute to, a strong economy.[9] Such editorials and articles exemplify the liberal political orientation of TNR.

History

Early years

The New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann through the financial backing of heiress Dorothy Payne Whitney and her husband, Willard Straight, who maintained majority ownership. The magazine’s first issue was published on November 7, 1914. The magazine’s politics were liberal and progressive, and as such concerned with coping with the great changes brought about by America’s late-19th century industrialization. The magazine is widely considered important in changing the character of liberalism in the direction of governmental interventionism, both foreign and domestic. Among the most important of these was the emergence of the U.S. as a Great Power on the international scene, and in 1917 TNR urged America’s entry into World War I on the side of the Allies.

One consequence of World War I was the Russian Revolution of 1917, and during the inter-war years the magazine was generally positive in its assessment of the Soviet Union and its communist government. This changed with the start of the Cold War and the 1948 departure of leftist editor Henry A. Wallace to run for president on the Progressive ticket. After Wallace, TNR moved towards positions more typical of mainstream American liberalism. During the 1950s it was critical of both Soviet foreign policy and domestic anti-communism, particularly McCarthyism. That said, the magazine was guilty of publishing a 1947 article entitled “The Strange Case of Wilhelm Reich” apparently filled with distortions and innuendos. During the 1960s the magazine opposed the Vietnam War, but was also often critical of the New Left.

Up until the late 1960s, the magazine had a certain “cachet as the voice of re-invigorated liberalism”, in the opinion of Eric Alterman, a commentator who has criticized the magazine’s politics from the left. That cachet, Alterman wrote, “was perhaps best illustrated when the dashing, young President Kennedy had been photographed boarding Air Force One holding a copy”.[6]

Peretz ownership and eventual editorship, 1974–1979

In March 1974, the magazine was purchased for $380,000[6] by Harvard University lecturer Martin Peretz,[10] from Gilbert Harrison.[6] Peretz was a veteran of the New Left who had broken with that movement over its support of various Third World liberationist movements, particularly the Palestine Liberation Organization. Peretz transformed TNR into its current form. Under his ownership, TNR has advocated both strong U.S. support for the Israeli government and a hawkish U.S. foreign policy.[6] On domestic policy, it has advocated a self-critical brand of liberalism, taking positions that range from traditionally liberal to neoliberalism. It has generally supported Democratic candidates for president, although in 1980 it endorsed the moderate Republican John B. Anderson, running as an independent, rather than the Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter.

Harrison continued editing the magazine, expecting Peretz to let him continue running the magazine for three years. But by 1975, when Peretz became annoyed at having his own articles rejected for publication while he was pouring money into the magazine to cover its losses, he fired Harrison. Much of the staff, including Walter Pincus, Stanley Karnow, and Doris Grumbach, was either fired or quit, being replaced largely by recent Harvard graduates lacking in journalistic experience. Peretz himself became the editor and stayed in that post until 1979. As other editors have been appointed, Peretz has remained editor-in-chief.[6]

Kinsley and Hertzberg editorships, 1979–1991

Michael Kinsley, a neoliberal (in the American sense of the term), was editor (1979–1981; 1985–1989), alternating twice with Hendrik Hertzberg (1981–1985; 1989–1991), who has been called “an old-fashioned social democrat”. Kinsley was only 28 years old when he first became editor and was still studying law[6] at George Washington University.

Writers for the magazine during this era included neoliberals Mickey Kaus and Jacob Weisberg along with Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Morton Kondracke, Sidney Blumenthal, Robert Kuttner, Ronald Steel, Michael Walzer, and Irving Howe.[6]

During the 1980s the magazine generally supported President Ronald Reagan’s anti-Communist foreign policy, including provision of aid to the Nicaraguan Contras. It has also supported both Gulf Wars and, reflecting its belief in the moral efficacy of American power, intervention in “humanitarian” crises, such as those in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo during the Yugoslav wars.

The magazine also became known for its originality and unpredictability in the 1980s. It was widely considered a “must read” across the political spectrum. An article in Vanity Fair judged TNR “the smartest, most impudent weekly in the country,” and the “most entertaining and intellectually agile magazine in the country.” According to Alterman, the magazine’s prose could sparkle and the contrasting views within its pages were “genuinely exciting”. He added, “The magazine unarguably set the terms of debate for insider political elites during the Reagan era.”[6]

With the less predictable opinions, more of them leaning conservative than before, the magazine won the respect of many conservative opinion leaders and 20 copies were messengered to the Reagan White House each Thursday afternoon. Norman Podhoretz called the magazine “indispensable”, and George Will said it was “currently the nation’s most interesting and most important political journal.” National Review described it as “one of the most interesting magazines in the United States.”[6]

Credit for its quality and popularity was often assigned to Kinsley, whose wit and critical sensibility were seen as enlivening a magazine that had for many years been more conventional in its politics, and Hertzberg, a writer for The New Yorker and speechwriter for Jimmy Carter.

Hertzberg and Kinsley not only alternated as editor but also alternated as the author of the magazine’s lead column, “TRB from Washington”. Its perspective was described as left-of-center in 1988.[11]

A final ingredient that led to the magazine’s increased stature in the 1980s was its “back of the book” or literary, cultural and arts pages, which were edited by Leon Wieseltier. Peretz discovered Wieseltier, then working at Harvard’s Society of Fellows, and put him in charge of the section. Wieseltier reinvented the section along the lines of The New York Review of Books, allowing his critics, many of them academics, to write longer, critical essays instead of mere book reviews. Alterman calls the hire “probably […] Peretz’s single most significant positive achievement” in running the magazine. During other changes of editors, Wieseltier has remained as cultural editor. Under him the section has been “simultaneously erudite and zestful”, according to Alterman, who adds, “Amazingly, a full generation later, it still sings.”[6]

Sullivan editorship, 1991–1996

In 1991, Andrew Sullivan, a 28-year-old gay Catholic from Britain, became editor and took the magazine in a somewhat more conservative direction, though the majority of writers remained liberal or neoliberal. Hertzberg soon left the magazine to return to The New Yorker. Kinsley left the magazine in 1996 to found the online magazine Slate.[6]

Sullivan invited Charles Murray to contribute a controversial 10,000-word article that contended blacks may be, as a whole, less intelligent than whites due to genetics. The magazine also published a very critical article about Hillary Clinton’s health care plan by Elizabeth McCaughey, an article that Alterman called “the single most influential article published in the magazine during the entire Clinton presidency”. However, this article was later shown to be inaccurate and the magazine would later apologize for the story. Sullivan also published a number of pieces by Camille Paglia.[6]

Ruth Shalit, a young writer for the magazine in the Sullivan years, was repeatedly criticized for plagiarism. After the Shalit scandals, the magazine began using fact-checkers during Sullivan’s time as editor. One was Stephen Glass, who would be found to have made up quotes, anecdotes and facts in his own articles, while he served as a reporter years later.[6]

Kelly, Lane, Beinart, Foer, Just editorships, 1996–present

After Sullivan stepped down in 1996, David Greenberg and Peter Beinart served jointly as Acting Editors. After the 1996 election, Michael Kelly served as editor for a year. During his tenure as editor and afterward, Kelly, who also wrote the TRB column, was intensely critical of President Clinton.[6] Writer Stephen Glass had been a major contributor under Kelly’s editorship; Glass was later shown to have falsified and fabricated numerous stories, which was admitted by The New Republic after an investigation by Kelly’s successor, Charles Lane. Kelly had consistently supported Glass during his tenure, including sending scathing letters to those challenging the veracity of Glass’s stories.[12]

Chuck Lane held the position between 1997 and 1999. During Lane’s tenure, the Stephen Glass scandal occurred. Peretz has written that Lane ultimately “put the ship back on its course,” for which Peretz said he was “immensely grateful.” But Peretz later fired Lane, who only got the news when a Washington Post reporter called him for a comment.[6]

Peter Beinart, a third editor who took over when he was 28 years old,[6] followed Lane and served as editor from 1999 to 2006.

Franklin Foer took over from Beinart in March 2006. In the magazine’s first editorial under Foer, it said “We’ve become more liberal … We’ve been encouraging Democrats to dream big again on the environment and economics […]”.[6] Foer is the brother of novelist Jonathan Safran Foer, author of Everything Is Illuminated (2002).

Richard Just took over as editor of the magazine on December 8, 2010.

Other prominent writers who edited or wrote for the magazine in these years include senior editor and TRB columnist Jonathan Chait, Lawrence F. Kaplan, John Judis and Spencer Ackerman.[6]

In 2005, TNR created its blog, called The Plank, which is written by Michael Crowley, Franklin Foer, Jason Zengerle, and other TNR staff. The Plank is meant to be TNR’s primary blog, replacing the magazine’s first three blogs, &c., Iraq’d, and Easterblogg. The Stump, TNR’s blog on the 2008 Presidential Election was created in October 2007.

The magazine remains well known, with references to it occasionally popping up in popular culture. Lisa Simpson was once portrayed as a subscriber to The New Republic for Kids. Matt Groening, The Simpsons’ creator, once drew a cover for TNR.[citation needed] In the pilot episode of the HBO series Entourage, which first aired on July 18, 2004, Ari Gold asks Eric Murphy: “Do you read The New Republic? Well, I do, and it says that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.” …”

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

Likud

“…Likud (Hebrew: הַלִּכּוּד‎ HaLikud, lit. The Consolidation) is the major center-right political party in Israel.[3][4][5][6] It was founded in 1973 by Menachem Begin in an alliance with several right-wing and liberal parties. Likud’s victory in the 1977 elections was a major turning point in the country’s political history, marking the first time the left had lost power. However, after ruling the country for most of the 1980s, the party lost the Knesset election in 1992. Nevertheless, Likud’s candidate Benjamin Netanyahu did win the vote for Prime Minister in 1996 and was given the task to form a government after the 2009 elections. After a convincing win in the 2003 elections, Likud saw a major split in 2005, when Likud leader Ariel Sharon left the party to form the new Kadima party. This resulted in Likud slumping to fourth place in 2006 elections. Following the 2009 elections, the party appears to have mostly recovered from its loss, and now leads the Israeli government under Prime Minister Netanyahu.

A member of the party is often called a Likudnik (Hebrew: לִכּוּדְנִיק‎).[7]

Formation and Begin years

The Likud was formed by an alliance of several right wing parties prior to the 1973 elections; Herut and the Liberal Party had been allied since 1965, and were joined by the Free Centre, the National List and the Movement for Greater Israel. It was given the name Likud, meaning “Consolidation”, as it represented the consolidation of the right-wing in Israel.[8] It worked as a coalition of its factions led by Menachem Begin’s Herut until 1988 when the factions formally dissolved and Likud became a unitary political party. From its establishment in 1973, Likud enjoyed great support from blue-collar Sephardim who felt discriminated against by the ruling Alignment.

The first Likud prime minister was Menachem Begin, who had led the party to victory in the 1977 elections, the first time the left-wing had lost power in Israel’s political history. A former leader of the hard-line paramilitary Irgun, Begin helped initiate the peace process with Egypt, which resulted in the Camp David Accords and the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty.

Shamir, Netanyahu first term, and Sharon

The second premier was Yitzhak Shamir, who first became PM in October 1983 following Begin’s resignation. Shamir, a former commander of the Lehi underground, was widely seen as a hard-liner with an ideological commitment both to the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the growth of which he encouraged, and to the idea of aliyah, facilitating the mass immigration of Jews to Israel from Ethiopia and the former Soviet Union.

The third Likud premier was Benjamin Netanyahu, elected in May 1996, following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Netanyahu proved to be less hard-line in practice than he made himself out to be rhetorically, and felt pressured by the United States and others to enter negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat, despite his harsh criticism of the Oslo accords and hawkish stance in comparison to Labour.

In 1998, Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to cede territory in the Wye River Memorandum. While accepted by many in the Likud, some Likud MKs, led by Benny Begin (Menachem Begin’s son), Michael Kleiner and David Re’em, broke away and formed a new party, named Herut – The National Movement, in protest. Yitzhak Shamir (who had expressed harsh disappointment in Netanyahu’s leadership), gave the new party his support. Less than a year afterward, Netanyahu’s coalition collapsed, resulting in the 1999 election and Labour’s Ehud Barak winning the premiership on a platform of immediate settlement of final status issues. Likud spent 1999-2001 on the opposition benches.

Barak’s “all-or-nothing” strategy failed, however, and new elections were called for March 2001. Surprisingly, Netanyahu declined to be the Likud candidate for Prime Minister, meaning that the fourth Likud premier would be Ariel Sharon. Sharon, unlike past Likud leaders, had been raised in a Labour Zionist environment and had long been seen as something of a maverick. In the face of the Second Intifada, Sharon pursued a varied set of policies, many of which were controversial even within the Likud. The final split came when Sharon announced his policy of unilateral disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank; the idea proved so divisive both on the Likud and the opposition Labour benches that Sharon announced the formation of a new party, Kadima, from the ranks of both Likud and Labour supporters of unilateral disengagement.

Kadima split

Ariel Sharon’s perceived leftward shift to the political center, especially in his execution of the Disengagement Plan, alienated him from some Likud supporters and fragmented the party. He faced several serious challenges to his authority shortly before his departure. The first was in March 2005, when he and Netanyahu proposed a budget plan which met fierce opposition, though it was eventually approved. The second was in September 2005, when Sharon’s critics in Likud forced a vote on a proposal for an early leadership election, which was defeated by 52% to 48%. In October, Sharon’s opponents within the Likud Knesset faction joined with the opposition to prevent the appointment of two of his associates to the Cabinet, demonstrating that Sharon had effectively lost control of the Knesset and that the 2006 budget was unlikely to pass.

The next month, Labor announced its withdrawal from Sharon’s governing coalition following its election of the left wing Amir Peretz as leader. On 21 November 2005, Sharon announced he would be leaving Likud and forming a new centrist party, Kadima, and that elections would take place in early 2006. As of 21 November seven candidates had declared themselves as contenders to replace Sharon as leader: Netanyahu, Uzi Landau, Shaul Mofaz, Yisrael Katz, Silvan Shalom and Moshe Feiglin. Landau and Mofaz later withdrew, the former in favour of Netanyahu and the latter to join Kadima.

Netanyahu second term

Netanyahu went on to win the Likud Party Chairman elections in December, obtaining 44.4% of the vote. Shalom came in a second with 33%, leading Netanyahu to guarantee him second place on the party’s list of Knesset candidates. Shalom’s perceived moderation on social and foreign-policy issues were considered to be an electoral asset. Observers noted that voter turnout in the elections was particularly low in comparison with past primaries, with less than 40 percent of the 128,000 party members casting ballots. There was much media focus on “far-right” candidate Moshe Feiglin achieving 12.4% of votes, who is the only candidate who aims to see Likud actually pursue the policies presented in its own official charter.

The founding of Kadima was a major challenge to the Likud’s generation-long status as one of Israel’s two major parties. Sharon’s perceived centrist policies have drawn considerable popular support as reflected by public opinion polls. The Likud is now led by figures who oppose further unilateral evacuations, and its standing in the polls has suffered. After the founding of Kadima, Likud came to be seen as having more of a right-wing tendency than a moderate centre-right one. However there exist several parties in the knesset which are more right wing than the post-Ariel Sharon Likud.

Prior to the 2006 election the party’s Central Committee relinquished control of selecting the Knesset list to the ‘rank and file’ members at Netanyahu’s behest.[9] The aim was to improve the party’s reputation, as the central committee had gained a reputation for corruption.[10]

In the election, the Likud vote collapsed in the face of the Kadima split. Other right-wing nationalist parties such as Yisrael Beiteinu gained votes, with Likud coming only fourth place in the popular vote, edging out Yisrael Beiteinu by only 116 votes. With only twelve seats, Likud was tied with the Shas for the status of third-largest party.

In the 2009 Israeli legislative election, Likud won 27 seats, a close second place finish to Kadima’s 28 seats, and leading the other parties. After more than a month of coalition negotiations, Benjamin Netanyahu was able to form a government and become Prime Minister.

A leadership election will be held on 31 January 2012 between Benjamin Netanyahu, Moshe Feiglin, and Vladimir Herczberg. …”

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

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Warmongering Progressive Neoconservative Republican Establishment Launches Racist, Anti-Semite and Extremist Smear Attack On Ron Paul With Republican Talk Show Hosts–Videos

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!

Ron Paul Must Once Again Make A Definitive Statement and Condemnation About 20 Year Old Newsletters–The Neoconservatives and Progressives Are Using Them As A Race Card Smear Attack On Paul–Videos

Ron Paul Hater Mark Levin–a.k.a. Marco Unleaven–Closet Neoconservative Comes Out Of The Closet or Bunker To Hug Marco Rubio–Neoconservative Poster Boy For Neoconservative Progressive Romney’s Vice-President–Video

Judge Andrew Napolitano: What If “They” Are LYING To You About Ron Paul?–Videos

Limited Government Libertarian Conservative Ron Paul vs. Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives Romney, Gingrich, Santorum–Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Pronk Pops Show 59, January 25, 2012: Segment 0: Republican Party presidential candidates race to win 1,144 delegates–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 59, January 25, 2012: Segment 2: Marco Rubio Neoconservative Posterboy Defends Mitt Romney–Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives-Coming Soon–Wars In Iran, Syria, Pakistan–American Greatness By Empire Building–Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace In An Era of Righteousness!–Videos

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

Pronk Pops Show 59, January 25, 2012: Segment 0: Republican Party presidential candidates race to win 1,144 delegates–Videos

Posted on January 25, 2012. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Economics, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Security, Success, Tax Policy, Technology, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 59:January 25, 2011 

Pronk Pops Show 58:January 18, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 57:December 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 56:November 30, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 55:November 23, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 54:November 16, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 53:November 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-59

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 0: Republican Party presidential candidates race to win 1,144 delegates–Videos

Revised, Updated and Expanded January 22, 2012

Ron Paul: Getting More Delegates Is ‘The Name Of The Game’

How Are Delegates Counted in 2012’s Republican Primaries?

How America Votes – RNC changes rules – Talk of Brokered Convention!

How to Get Ron Paul Elected: Infowars Nightly News

Blue Reps — an End To War, a Revival of Liberty

Republican top-tier Presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul

Credit: http://inlandpolitics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mitt-Romney+Ron-Paul.jpg

GOP Presidential candidates, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum

Credit: http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/12/09/202865-mitt-romney-ron-paul-newt-gingrich.jpg

Republican Party presidential candidates race to win 1,144 delegates

Are the Republican Party presidential candidates running a 440-yard dash or a 26-mile marathon?

The finish line is the Republican National Convention scheduled to meet in Tampa, Fla. starting on Aug. 27 for the purpose of nominating the party’s 2012 presidential candidate and adopting the party platform. The Republican Party has a total of 2,286 delegates with 1,144 votes (50 percent plus 1) needed to win the party’s presidential nomination. The first candidate to receive 1,144 delegate votes becomes the party’s presidential nominee, who then selects a vice-presidential candidate as their running mate. The convention delegates must approve this selection by giving the vice-president candidate 1,144 votes.

The Republican candidates for the nomination are former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

Four of the Republican candidates have already dropped out of the race race. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Texas Gov. Rick Perry suspended their campaign before the South Carolina primary. Huntsman endorsed Romney and Perry endorsed Gingrich. Bachmann suspended her campaign after the Iowa caucus. Cain suspended his campaign prior to the Iowa caucus.

By March 7, the day after Super Tuesday, the field should be narrowed to at most two or three candidates.

Both Romney and Paul have the money, organization and message required to make it a two-man marathon race for the 1,144 delegates needed to win the party presidential nomination. Most, if not all, of the remaining candidates are expected to drop out of the race by then.

Each state receives a number of delegates based on the following rules:

  1. Each state Congressional district gets three delegates.
  2. Each state gets 10 at-large delegates or five delegates per senator.
  3. Each state gets three party leader delegates for the state party chairman, state national committeeman and national committeewoman.
  4. Each state gets bonus delegates for each elected Republican senator, governor, legislative chamber with a majority and for electing 50 percent or more of the House congressional delegation.
  5. President bonus delegates: States casting a majority of their 2008 electoral votes for the Republican candidate receive 4.5 + 0.60 × the Jurisdiction’s Total 2012 electoral vote in bonus delegates.

For example, Texas receives 34 bonus delegates as follow:

  • 2008 presidential election (28): 4.5 + (0.6 × 38 [2012 electoral votes]) = 27.3
  • Governor (1): Rick Perry (re-elected 2010)
  • U.S. Senate delegation (2): Kay Bailey Hutchison (re-elected 2006); John Cornyn (re-elected 2008)
  • U.S. House delegation (1): January 2009: House 20 of 32; January 2011: House 23 of 32
  • Republican control of state legislature
  • One chamber (1): January 2009: House 76 of 150
  • All chambers (1): January 2009: House 76 of 150, Senate 19 of 31

Texas has a total of 155 delegates consisting of 108 district delegates (36 congressional districts times three), 10 at large delegates, three party leader delegates and 34 bonus delegates.

Voters may register to vote in the April 3 Texas primaries by going to the Texas Secretary of State website: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/reqvr.shtml.

Each state’s Republican Party decides whether they will use either a primary or caucus to determine the number of candidates’ delegates, whether this event will be open to all registered voters or closed to only Republican registered voters and whether it is winner-take-all delegates or a proportional allocation of the delegates based upon the number of votes cast for each candidate.

In primary states registered voters select the candidate they want to be the party’s presidential nominee by secret ballot. Voters select from registered candidates on the ballot or can write in a name. In closed primaries, only registered voters of the Republican Party can vote in primary elections. In open primaries, registered voters can vote in the primary of either party but can vote in only one primary. Most primary states have closed primaries.

Also, most primary states have the presidential candidates’ names on the ballot. A few states have the name of the delegates that are committed to a candidate as well as the name of any uncommitted delegates on the ballot. In some states the delegates are pledged or bound to a candidate. In other states the delegates are unpledged and can vote for any candidate.

In caucus states, registered voters of the party attend a meeting to select candidate delegates. At the start of a caucus meeting, voters divide into groups for each candidate, as well as a group for undecided voters. Then spokesmen for each candidate give brief speeches in support of their candidates in order to try to persuade other voters to join their candidate’s groups. At the end of the meeting, votes are counted by party organizers for each candidate group to determine how many delegates to the county convention the candidate has won. The delegates selected can be either pledged delegates bound to a candidate or unpledged or uncommitted delegates.

In both primary and caucus states, the Republican state party chooses either a “winner-take-all” or a proportional method to determine how many delegates are awarded to each candidate. In a winner-take-all state, the candidate that receives the most votes in the primary or caucus receives all of the state’s delegates to the national convention. In states that use the proportional method, candidates above a certain threshold of votes cast receive a proportion of the convention delegates based on the number votes cast for a candidate to the total number of votes cast.

Texas is an open primary state because it does not have voter registration by political party. A registered voter can vote in either a Republican Party primary or a Democratic Party primary, but can vote in only one primary. A voter becomes a Republican by voting in either a Republican primary or Republican primary run-off. Voters who did not vote in a Republican primary may vote in a Republican primary run-off.

Presidential candidates are allocated national convention delegates in direct proportion to the statewide popular vote they receive in the Texas Republican primary originally scheduled for Mar. 6 but now changed to April 3. Each of Texas’ 36 congressional districts gets three delegates for a total of 108 delegates. The 44 at-large and bonus delegates are selected by a nominating committee at the convention, three delegate spots are reserved for Texas’ National Committeeman, National Committeewoman and State Chairman.

Who is winning the Republican Party Presidential candidate race for 1,144 delegates as of January 21, 2012?

The estimated total delegate count in the race for 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination is summarized in the table below:

Republican Party U.S. Presidential 2012

Estimated Delegate Count By Candidate and State

State

Gingrich

Romney

Paul

Santorum

Perry

Totals

Iowa

4

6

6

6

3

25

New Hampshire

0

9

3

0

0

12

South Carolina

23

2

0

0

0

25

Totals

27

17

9

6

3

62

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. www.thegreenpapers.com

These preliminary estimates will change as candidates drop out of the race and actual delegates are selected at state party conventions.

The estimated popular vote count is set forth in the table below:

Republican Party U.S. Presidential 2012

Estimated Popular Vote By Candidate and State

State

Gingrich

Romney

Paul

Santorum

Perry

Totals*

Iowa

16,163

29,805

26,036

29,839

12,557

121,479

New Hampshire

23,421

97,591

56,872

23,405

1,764

248,448

South Carolina

243,153

167,280

77,993

102,057

2,491

601,166

Total Popular Vote*

282,737

294,676

160,901

155,301

16,812

971,729

Popular Vote Percentage

29.09%

30.32%

16.55%

15.98%

1.73%

100.00%

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. www.thegreenpapers.com

*Total popular votes cast for all candidates including others not listed in the table.

On Jan. 21 the voters of South Carolina voted in the second open primary state where the candidate with the most votes statewide receives 11 delegates and the winner in each congressional district receives two delegates. Gingrich won statewide and received 11 delegates and won six congressional districts for additional 12 delegates for a total of 23 delegates. Romney won one congressional district and received two delegates.

Results for South Carolina Republican Primary

U.S. Presidential Jan. 21, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich

243,153

40.45%

23

Willard “Mitt” Romney

167,280

27.83%

2

.Richard J. “Rick” Santorum

102,057

16.89%

0

Ronald E. “Ron” Paul

77,993

12.97%

0

Hermain Cain

23,405

9.42%

0

James Richard “Rick” Perry

2,491

0.41%

0

Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.

1,161

0.14%

0

Michele M. Bachmann

494

0.08

0

Totals

601,166

100.00%

25

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/SC-R#0121

*South Carolina would have had a total of 50 delegates consisting of 21 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 16 bonus delegates. However, the state rescheduled the state primary to Jan. 22 and under the Rules of the Republican Party forfeited 50 percent of its delegates. Also, the three state party leader delegates attend the national convention as guests.

On Jan. 10 the voters of New Hampshire voted in the first state primary where the states 12 delegates were bound proportionally to presidential contenders based on the primary vote statewide.

Results for New Hampshire Republican Primary

U.S. Presidential Jan. 10, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney

97,591

39.28%

9

Ronald E. “Ron” Paul

56,872

22.89%

3

Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.

41,964

16.89%

0

Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich

23,421

9.43%

0

Richard J. “Rick” Santorum

23,405

9.42%

0

James Richard “Rick” Perry

1,764

.71%

0

Michele M. Bachmann

350

.14%

0

Available

3

Totals

248,448

100.00%

15

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NH-R

*New Hampshire would have had a total of 23 delegates consisting of 6 district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 4 bonus delegates. However, the state rescheduled the state primary to Jan. 10 and under the Rules of the Republican Party forfeited 50 percent of its delegates. Also, the three state party leader delegates attend the national convention as non-voting delegates.

On Jan. 3 the voters of Iowa met in 1,774 precinct caucuses to vote for their choice for the Republican presidential candidate by electing delegates to their county conventions. The 99 county conventions then select delegates to the Iowa Congressional District Convention and the State Convention on June 12. This convention determines the delegates to the Republican National Convention. In 2012 Iowa will send 28 delegates to the nominating convention including 10 base at-large, 12 for the four congressional districts (three per district), three party and three bonus. However, unlike other states where delegates are usually bound for the first vote, Iowa delegates are soft-pledged or not bound to vote for a particular candidate.

Results for Iowa Republican Caucus

U.S. Presidential Jan. 03, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Richard J. “Rick” Santorum

29,839

24.56%

6

Willard “Mitt” Romney

29,805

24.54%

6

Ronald E. “Ron” Paul

26,036

21.43%

6

Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich

16,163

13.31%

4

Richard J. “Rick” Perry

12,557

10.34%

3

Michele M. Bachmann

6,046

4.98%

0

Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.

739

0.61%

0

Available

3

Totals

121,479

100.000%

28

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions.http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IA-R#0103

*Iowa has a total of 28 delegates consisting of 12 district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 3 bonus delegates. The 25 non party leader delegates were allocated to the candidates with more than 5 percent of the popular vote. This is an estimate that will change by the time of the state convention meets.

This first closed primary is in Florida on Tuesday, Jan. 31 for 50 delegates with the statewide winner being awarded all the delegates. Florida forfeited 50 percent of their delegates to the national convention for violating Republican Party rules by changing the timing of their primaries.

Register to vote and then go vote in the Texas primary on April 3.

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Pronk Pops Show 59, January 25, 2012: Segment 1: Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 59, January 25, 2012: Segment 2: Marco Rubio Neoconservative Posterboy Defends Mitt Romney–Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives-Coming Soon–Wars In Iran, Syria, Pakistan–American Greatness By Empire Building–Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace In An Era of Righteousness!–Videos

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

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 3: Jobs Report: Labor Participation Rate Flat Lines At 64% While Unemployment Rate Declines To 8.5%–200,000 Jobs Increase–Work Force 50,000 Decrease!–Videos

Posted on January 18, 2012. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , |

Pronk Pops Show 58:January 18, 2011 

Pronk Pops Show 57:December 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 56:November 30, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 55:November 23, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 54:November 16, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 53:November 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 3: Jobs Report: Labor Participation Rate Flat Lines At 64% While Unemployment Rate Declines To 8.5%–200,000 Jobs Increase–Work Force 50,000 Decrease!–Videos

Unemployment Rate Lowest in Three Years

Economy adds jobs, unemployment rate drops

January 6th 2012 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (December Jobs Report)

Unemployment rate down to 8.5 percent

Jobless Claims Drop, GDP Rises Less Than Estimated

The unemployment rate of your major

Employment Level

Series Id: LNS12000000 Seasonally Adjusted

Series title: (Seas) Employment Level

Labor force status: Employed

Type of data: Number in thousands

Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150(1) 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028(1) 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146397(1) 146157 146108 146130 145929 145738 145530 145196 145059 144792 144078 143328
2009 142187(1) 141660 140754 140654 140294 140003 139891 139458 138775 138401 138607 137968
2010 138500(1) 138665 138836 139306 139340 139137 139139 139338 139344 139072 138937 139220
2011 139330(1) 139551 139764 139628 139808 139385 139450 139754 140107 140297 140614 140790

Civilian Labor Force

Civilian labor force. This is the total of all civilians classified as employed and unemployed.

Series Id: LNS11000000 Seasonally Adjusted

Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level

Labor force status: Civilian labor force

Type of data: Number in thousands

Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154075(1) 153648 153925 153761 154325 154316 154480 154646 154559 154875 154622 154626
2009 154236(1) 154521 154143 154450 154800 154730 154538 154319 153786 153822 153833 153091
2010 153454(1) 153704 153964 154528 154216 153653 153748 154073 153918 153709 154041 153613
2011 153250(1) 153302 153392 153420 153700 153409 153358 153674 154004 154057 153937 153887

Labor Force Participation Rate %

Participation rate. This represents the proportion of the population that is in the labor force.

Series Id: LNS11300000 Seasonally Adjusted

Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate

Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate

Type of data: Percent or rate

Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9 66.0 65.8 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.1 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.5 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.1 64.0 64.1 64.1 64.1 64.0 64.0

Unemployment Level

Series Id: LNS13000000 Seasonally Adjusted

Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level

Labor force status: Unemployed

Type of data: Number in thousands

Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7678 7491 7816 7631 8395 8578 8950 9450 9501 10083 10544 11299
2009 12049 12860 13389 13796 14505 14727 14646 14861 15012 15421 15227 15124
2010 14953 15039 15128 15221 14876 14517 14609 14735 14574 14636 15104 14393
2011 13919 13751 13628 13792 13892 14024 13908 13920 13897 13759 13323 13097

Unemployment Rate % (U-3)

Series Id: LNS14000000 Seasonally Adjusted

Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate

Labor force status: Unemployment rate

Type of data: Percent or rate

Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5

Total Unemployment Rate % (U-6)

Series Id: LNS13327709 Seasonally Adjusted

Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers

Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed

Type of data: Percent or rate

Age: 16 years and over

Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.1 11.8 12.7 13.5
2009 14.2 15.1 15.7 15.8 16.4 16.5 16.5 16.7 16.8 17.2 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 16.9 16.9 17.0 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.6 16.9 16.8 16.9 16.6
2011 16.1 15.9 15.7 15.9 15.8 16.2 16.1 16.2 16.4 16.0 15.6 15.2

Background Articles and Videos

$tate of the Economy – Deneen Borelli – Monica Crowley 12- 2- 11

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-12-0012
until 8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, January 6, 2012

Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * http://www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * http://www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — DECEMBER 2011

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 200,000 in December, and the unemployment rate,
at 8.5 percent, continued to trend down, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Job gains occurred in transportation and warehousing, retail trade,
manufacturing, health care, and mining.

——————————————————————–
| |
| Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data |
| |
| Seasonally adjusted household survey data have been revised |
| using updated seasonal adjustment factors, a procedure done |
| at the end of each calendar year. Seasonally adjusted |
| estimates back to January 2007 were subject to revision. The |
| unemployment rates for January 2011 through November 2011 |
| (as originally published and as revised) appear in table A, |
| along with additional information about the revisions. |
| |
——————————————————————–

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons (13.1 million) and the unemployment rate
(8.5 percent) continued to trend down in December. The unemployment rate has
declined by 0.6 percentage point since August. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult men decreased
to 8.0 percent in December. The jobless rates for adult women (7.9 percent),
teenagers (23.1 percent), whites (7.5 percent), blacks (15.8 percent), and
Hispanics (11.0 percent) showed little change. The jobless rate for Asians
was 6.8 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was
little changed at 5.6 million and accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed.
(See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate (64.0 percent) and the employment-
population ratio (58.5 percent) were both unchanged over the month. (See
table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) declined by 371,000 to 8.1
million in December. These individuals were working part time because their
hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.
(See table A-8.)

About 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in
December, little different from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were
available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months.
They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in
the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 945,000 discouraged workers in
December, a decrease of 373,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work
because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.6 million
persons marginally attached to the labor force in December had not searched for
work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or
family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 200,000 in December. Over the
past 12 months, nonfarm payroll employment has risen by 1.6 million. Employment
in the private sector rose by 212,000 in December and by 1.9 million over the
year. Government employment changed little over the month but fell by 280,000
over the year. (See table B-1.)

Employment in transportation and warehousing rose sharply in December (+50,000).
Almost all of the gain occurred in the couriers and messengers industry (+42,000);
seasonal hiring was particularly strong in December.

Retail trade continued to add jobs in December, with a gain of 28,000. Employment
in the industry has increased by 240,000 over the past 12 months. Over the month,
job gains continued in general merchandise stores (+13,000) and in clothing and
clothing accessories stores (+11,000). Employment in sporting goods, hobby, book,
and music stores fell by 10,000.

In December, manufacturing employment expanded by 23,000, following 4 months of
little change. Employment increased in December in transportation equipment
(+9,000), fabricated metals (+6,000), and machinery (+5,000).

Mining employment rose by 7,000 over the month. Over the year, mining added
89,000 jobs.

Health care continued to add jobs in December (+23,000); employment in hospitals
increased by 10,000. Over the year, health care employment has risen by 315,000.

Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and drinking places
continued to trend up in December (+24,000). Over the year, food services and
drinking places has added 230,000 jobs.

Construction employment changed little in December. Within the industry,
nonresidential specialty trade contractors added 20,000 jobs over the month,
mostly offsetting losses over the prior 2 months.

Employment in professional and business services changed little in December for
the second month in a row. The industry added 42,000 jobs per month, on average,
during the first 10 months of 2011.

Government employment changed little in December but was down by 280,000 over
the year. Job losses in 2011 occurred in local government; state government,
excluding education; and the U.S. Postal Service.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased
by 0.1 hour to 34.4 hours in December. The manufacturing workweek increased
by 0.1 hour to 40.5 hours. Factory overtime decreased by 0.1 hour to 3.2
hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on
private nonfarm payrolls edged up by 0.1 hour to 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2
and B-7.)

In December, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls rose by 4 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $23.24. Over the past 12 months,
average hourly earnings have increased by 2.1 percent. In December, average
hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees were
unchanged at $19.54. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for October was revised from
+100,000 to +112,000, and the change for November was revised from +120,000
to +100,000.

__________
The Employment Situation for January is scheduled to be released on
Friday, February 3, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).

——————————————————————–
| |
| Upcoming Changes to Establishment Survey Data |
| |
| With the release of January 2012 data on February 3, 2012, the |
| Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey will introduce revisions|
| to nonfarm payroll employment, hours, and earnings data to reflect |
| the annual benchmark adjustment for March 2011 and updated |
| seasonal adjustment factors. Not seasonally adjusted data |
| beginning with April 2010 and seasonally adjusted data beginning |
| with January 2007 are subject to revision. |
| |
| The CES survey also will revise the basis for industry |
| classification from the 2007 North American Industry |
| Classification System (NAICS) to the 2012 NAICS. The 2012 NAICS |
| includes minor changes within the Construction, Manufacturing, |
| Retail trade, Utilities, and Leisure and hospitality sectors. |
| Several industry titles and descriptions also changed. |
| Approximately one percent of employment will be reclassified |
| into different industries as a result of the NAICS revision. For |
| more information on the 2012 NAICS, visit http://www.census.gov/epcd/ |
| www/naics.html. |
| |
| In addition to changes resulting from the conversion to the 2012 |
| NAICS update, there will be some changes to the list of CES |
| series published as a result of the annual benchmarking process. |
| For more information on the industry changes effective with the |
| release of the January 2012 data, visit http://www.bls.gov/ces/ |
| cesnaics12.htm. |
| |
| Finally, some historical data prior to April 2010 are subject to |
| minor revisions due to the application of a consistent rounding |
| method over the entire time series. For additional details see |
| http://www.bls.gov/ces/ceshistchanges.htm. |
| |
——————————————————————–

——————————————————————–
| |
| Upcoming Changes to the Household Survey |
| |
| Effective with the release of The Employment Situation for |
| January 2012 scheduled for February 3, 2012, population controls |
| that reflect the results of Census 2010 will be used in the |
| monthly household survey estimation process. Historical data |
| will not be revised to incorporate the new controls; consequently, |
| household survey data for January 2012 will not be directly |
| comparable with that for December 2011 or earlier periods. A |
| table showing the effects of the new controls on the major labor |
| force series will be included in the January 2012 release. |
| |
| Also effective with the release of The Employment Situation for |
| January 2012, the questions on race and Hispanic or Latino |
| ethnicity in the household survey will be modified. The minor |
| wording changes in the questions are not expected to affect the |
| estimates. |
| |
| In January 2012, the Census Bureau, which conducts the household |
| survey, began a year-long process of reorganizing its regional |
| office structure. For more information on these Census Bureau |
| changes, see http://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/General_QAs_FINAL2.pdf. |
| Both the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) |
| will monitor survey operations during the transition period. No |
| impact on the employment and unemployment estimates from the |
| survey is anticipated from this organizational change. |
| |
——————————————————————–

Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data

At the end of each calendar year, BLS routinely updates the seasonal
adjustment factors for the labor force series derived from the Current
Population Survey (CPS), or household survey. As a result of this
process, seasonally adjusted data for January 2007 through November
2011 were subject to revision.

Table A shows the unemployment rates for January 2011 through November
2011, as first published and as revised. The rates changed by one-
tenth of a percentage point in 8 of the 11 months and were unchanged
in the remaining 3 months. Revised seasonally adjusted data for other
major labor force series beginning in December 2010 appear in table B.

An article describing the seasonal adjustment methodology for the
household survey data and revised data for January 2011 through
November 2011 is available at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrs2012.pdf.

Historical data for the household series contained in the A-tables
(A-1–A-16) of this release can be accessed at http://www.bls.gov/cps/
cpsatabs.htm. Revised historical seasonally adjusted monthly and
quarterly data for additional series are available on the Internet at
ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/.

Table A. Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in 2011 and changes
due to revision, January – November 2011

Month As first As Change
computed revised

January …………… 9.0 9.1 0.1
February ………….. 8.9 9.0 .1
March …………….. 8.8 8.9 .1
April …………….. 9.0 9.0 .0
May ………………. 9.1 9.0 -.1
June ……………… 9.2 9.1 -.1
July ……………… 9.1 9.1 .0
August …………… 9.1 9.1 .0
September ………9.1 9.0 -.1
October ………….9.0 8.9 -.1
November ………8.6 8.7 .1

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 0: American People Are Waking Up–Time For A New Political Party–Ron Paul First President–Are You A 3 Percenter?–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 1: ‘Three of a Kind’–Big Government Neoconservative Progressives: Newt Gingrich–Serial Hypocrite; Rick Santorum–Counterfeit Conservative; Mitt Romney–Flip Flopper–vs. Ron Paul–Libertarian Conservative–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 2: Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 3: Jobs Report: Labor Participation Rate Flat Lines At 64% While Unemployment Rate Declines To 8.5%–200,000 Jobs Increase–Work Force 50,000 Decrease!–Videos

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

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 2: Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

Posted on January 18, 2012. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Health Care, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Radio, Tax Policy, Unions, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 58:January 18, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 57:December 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 56:November 30, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 55:November 23, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 54:November 16, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 53:November 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 2: Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

James Kirchick

James Kirchick lied about Ron Paul four years ago as the following report clearly shows.

Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look

Ron Paul revealed

Jamie Kirchick interview on NPR. (see Tucker vid for update)

New Republic Author Exposes Ron Paul’s Past Writings!

The neoconservatives including James Kirchick and Jeffrey Lord and many so-called “conservative” talk radio show hosts, journalists and reporters recently continued the smear attack on Paul by again bringing up the so-called “racist” newsletter issue and implying that Paul is a racist and anti-Semite just before the Iowa caucus and New Hamshire primary.

The neoconservatives are right-wing progressives that advocate an aggressive foreign policy of intervention abroad.

Neoconsevatives want the United States to have an aggressive interventionist foreign policy that includes the U.S being the world’s policeman, providing foreign aid to Israel and engaging in empire or nation building abroad.

Ron Paul advocates a strong national defense and a non-interventionist foreign policy that includes the elimination of all foreign aid and bringing the troops home.

Paul has been one of the leading critics of the neoconservative interventionist foreign policy of both Presidents Bush and Obama.

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

The neoconservatives and their friends in the media and talk radio are attempting to smear Ron Paul by trying to label him a racist and anti-semite instead of addressing the costs and benefits of an interventionist foreign policy in comparison with a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Mark Levin – Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters In The 1990’s They’re Full Of Racist Statements

Mark Levin On “Crackpot” Ron Paul

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

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 1

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 2

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 3

Ron Paul Newsletter Controversy

Doug Wead Responds to Last-Minute Smear Attacks on Ron Paul

SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Conservative Foreign Policy

Pro-Israel Lobby the Media

Illuminating discussion of how Israel is portrayed in the media as sparks fly between Time Magazine political columnist Joe Klein and Assistant Editor of The New Republic James Kirchick. With Jennifer Lazlo Mizrahi and Ori Nir.

A favorite tactic of both right-wing Republican progressives and left-wing Democrat progressives is to play the race card and if that fails call call the person an anti-Semite.

This is right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals playbook.

Alinsky advocated using a personal attack by identifying a problem, targeting a person, identifying the problem with the person and attacking the targeted person.

The Republican neoconservative progressive problem is a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The Republican neoconservative progressive target is Ron Paul.

The Republican neoconservative progressives have identified Ron Paul as an isolationist with a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The Republican neoconservative progressives are attacking Ron Paul.

From Al Capone to Saul Alinsky to Barack Obama -Methods of Organizing

Rules for Radicals – Rule #10

Rules for Radicals – Rule #13

Mark Levin Compares Ron Paul To A Little Weasel

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

The fact that Ron Paul is neither a racist nor an anti-semite is besides the point to these Republican neoconservative progressives.

Neoconservative progressive Republican candidates include Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorium and Rick Perry.

While some of the neoconservative progressive like to “talk” conservative, they very much “walk” progressive for they favor big government budgets at the Federal and state levels to support government intervention at home and abroad.

None of the neoconservative progressive Republican candidates for President are for limited government in terms its size and scope that conservative libertarians such as Paul advocates.

Ron Paul quits CNN interview after being asked about racist newsletters

CNN and Fox Both Gunning for Ron Paul: Conspiracy or Reality?

Ron Paul: Damn It, Don’t Ask Bout My Racist Writings

The Bogus Scandal of the Ron Paul Newsletters

Neocons Shamelessly Attack Ron Paul for Being ‘Anti-Semitic’

SA@TheDC – Does Attacking Neoconservatism Reflect Racism or Reality?

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

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

Mark Levin Interviews Jeffery Lord On Ron Paul Supporters Using Neo Con As An Anti-Semitic Slur

Experts detail the danger of Israeli lobby in US politics

Mark Levin, Ron Paul Hater, Put in His Place

Mark Levin Avoids the “Empire” Question

SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Conservative Foreign Policy

TrueLeaks – David Horowitz calls Ron Paul “A little Satan”

Ron Paul Is A Sick Racist? = AIPAC Spin Machine Tactics

Ron Paul On Iran And Israel

Ron Paul: Foreign Policy & Israel

Jews for Ron Paul, by Walter Block of Loyola University, New Orleans MIRROR

“Professor Walter Block is proud to be Jewish and proud to be a close friend of Ron Paul.”

Jews for Ron Paul

American Jew for Ron Paul

Ron Paul Supports Israel vs. Ronald Reagan? “Jews for Ron Paul”

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul

James Williams of Matagorda County, Texas recounts a touching true story. Living in a still prejudiced Texas In 1972, his wife had a complication with her pregnancy. No doctors would care for her or deliver their bi-racial child. In fact one of the hospital nurses called the police on James.
Dr. Ron Paul was notified and took her in, delivering their stillborn baby. Because of the compassion of Dr. Ron Paul, the Williams’ never received a hospital bill for the delivery.
Ron Paul views every human being as a unique individual, afforded the rights endowed by our creator and codified in the Bill of Rights.

Ron Paul Ad “Disarms” MSM’s Racist Campaign of Lies: Gary Franchi Reports

12-29-11 Ron Paul reacts to new ad

Do Black Americans Believe Ron Paul Is Racist?

Ron Paul is NOT a Racist Walter Williams defends Dr Paul on Rush Limbaugh Show

Chris Rock supports Ron Paul 2012??

BLACKS FOR RON PAUL 2012!!!

Seems that James Kirchick was smearing Ron Paul four years ago.

Looks like the media should check out James Kirchick and his associations with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

When are the so called objective journalists going to do their jobs and connect some of the dots? When hell freezes over.

NY Times, MSM Attacks Ron Paul & Alex Jones For Living in the Real World 3/3

“…Gingrich-linked smear specialist James Kirchick is presumably nonplussed that his attempt to regurgitate the 15-year-old debunked non-story of Ron Paul’s ‘racist’ newsletters has had absolutely no effect on the polls, but he is forging ahead anyway with further attacks, this time in the form of a New York Times editorial that labels Paul a “paranoid conspiracy theorist” for discussing manifestly provable issues.

As we previously documented in our response to Kirchick’s regurgitation of a story he originally pushed four years ago, the New Republic writer is an apologist for Newt Gingrich and other neo-cons of his ilk.

Kirchick is a proud neo-con who serves as a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, an influential neo-conservative collective funded by numerous noted billionaires. The group’s list of “distinguished advisors” includes former CIA and FBI heads. The group is virtually a lobbying front for the state of Israel, which explains perfectly why Kirchick is so upset with Paul, who has promised to put a stop to the billions in foreign aid the United States sends to Israel every year.

Sitting on the group’s Leadership Council is none other than Newt Gingrich, one of Ron Paul’s main rivals in the Republican primary. Given that association, it’s unsurprising that Kirchick has chosen to dredge up a series of debunked smears at this key time in the election cycle, with Gingrich’s campaign now imploding and Ron Paul’s popularity surging. …”

The neoconservatives at the Weekly Standard published his article.

I wonder why?

Kirchick is a neoconservative!

He is also a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where the neoconservatives gather.

The Kirchick and Lord smear attack on Ron Paul was amplified and repeated by several s0-called “conservative” radio talk show hosts and/or their fill-in hosts prior to and over the Christmas holidays.

They repeated Kirchick’s charges in the two to three weeks prior to the Iowa caucus.

This included Bennett, Hewitt, Levin, Gibson, Medved and Limbaugh just to name a few.

All favor one of the remaining Republican big government neoconservative progressive candidates–Romney, Gingrich, Santorium and Perry.

Not a single one of these so-called “conservative” talk radio show hosts support the conservative libertarian advocate of limited government, Ron Paul.

SA@TAC – The Biggest Earmark is Empire

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

SA@TheDC – Russell Kirk and 9/11

SA@TAC – Identity vs. Philosophy

I have been a conservative or traditional libertarian since Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964.

The only truly conservative president that the U.S. has had since then is Ronald Reagan.

Many traditional libertarians that were expecting under Reagan fiscal responsibility with balanced budgets and a smaller Federal government, became very disappointed when Reagan failed to delivery on these promises.

Reagan definitely talked conservative but the economic results were decidedly progressive with growing deficits and increased in the national debt.

Under Reagan the size and scope of the Federal government significantly increased.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.pdf

This is why Ron Paul, an early supporter of Ronald Reagan, left the Republican Party and ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party’s candidate.

In 1988 the Republican Party successful elected a Republican big government progressive George H.W. Bush that now endorses another Republican big government progressive Mitt Romney.

I view Romney, Gingrich, Santorium and Perry as Republican big government neoconservative progressives.

I will not vote for any progressive of either political party and especially those who identify themselves as neoconservative.

The neoconservatives progressives in the Republican Party smeared Ron Paul by playing both the race card and anti-Semite card.

Unfortunately, they were partially successful for many of their listeners simply do not know the history of the conservative movement in America since 1945 and the role the neoconservative progressives played in smearing Paul.

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

If I truly thought Ron Paul was either a racist or anti-Semite, I would not support him.

I will support and vote for Ron Paul.

I will not vote any Republican big government neoconservative progressive.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

James Kirchick

last updated: December 27, 2011

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

“…James (“Jamie”) Kirchick is a Prague-based fellow at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a contributing editor at the New Republic. A former writer-at-large for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Kirchick has also contributed to various rightist outlets like the Weekly Standard and Commentary magazine’s Contentions blog, as well as numerous mainstream publications, including the Los Angeles Times and Politico.[i]

Among Kirchick’s more widely noted articles is his January 2008 New Republic piece about libertarian leader Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). Titled “Angry White Man,” the article sought to throw light on Paul’s track record as he gained national attention as a Republican Party presidential candidate who opposed the war in Iraq. Reviewing the various newsletters that Paul published over the years, Kirchick wrote that they reveal “decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing—but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.”[2]

In late 2011, as Paul’s campaign to be the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nominee began to gain momentum as a result of surging poll numbers in some primary states, Kirchick published a follow up piece to his 2008 New Republic article. Kirchcik lamented that despite Paul’s “voluminous record of bigotry and conspiracy theories,” his star remains “undimmed.” He added: “Not only do the latest polls place him as the frontrunner in the Iowa Caucuses, but he still enjoys the support of a certain coterie of professional political commentators who, like Paul himself, identify as libertarians.” Kirchick highlighted support from the likes of blogger Andrew Sullivan as well as numerous other writers. He concluded: “If Paul is responsible for conjuring the apocalyptic atmosphere of a prophet, it’s his supporters who have to answer for submitting to it. Surely, those who agree with Paul would be able to find a better vessel for their ideas than a man who once entertained the notion that AIDS was invented in a government laboratory or who, just last January, alleged that there had been a ‘CIA coup’ against the American government and that the Agency is ‘in drug businesses.’”[3]

Paul responded to the criticism surrounding his association with the newsletter by claiming that at the time he did not read the offending material and that he does not endorse the views espoused therein. His Republican primary opponents attempted to capitalize on the issue. Newt Gingrich said: “These things are really nasty, and he didn’t know about it, wasn’t aware of it. But he’s sufficiently ready to be president? It strikes me it raises some fundamental questions about him.”[4]

Track Record

Kirchick joined the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) in November 2011, which was announced—together with the hiring of the abrasive “pro-Israel” writer Lee Smith—in a November 2011 press release. Said FDD executive director Cliff May, “Lee and Jamie are two of the most probing, incisive and insightful journalists covering the international scene today. They will add important dimensions to FDD’s national security and foreign policy analysis.”[5] …”

“…Kirchick is an erstwhile liberal who apparently had veered to the right by the time he arrived at Yale, where he graduated in 2006. In a 2007 article for the Boston Globe about dating difficulties as a conservative gay man, Kirchick described himself as a “gay recovering leftist,” adding that “there’s nothing about my homosexuality that dictates a belief about raising the minimum wage, withdrawing immediately from Iraq, and backing teachers’ unions: all liberal causes that I strongly oppose.”[6]

In 2006, as a contributor to the Yale Daily News, Kirchick was named Student Journalist of the Year by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association; in 2007, the association named him Journalist of the Year.[v7]

On foreign policy, Kirchick has proved a steadfast critic of the Barack Obama administration as well as of those who oppose one-sided U.S. support for Israel or other militarist Middle East polices. In November 2011, for example, Kirchick linked hawkishness toward Iran with criticism of the Obama administration’s “reset” of relations with Russia. When Moscow criticized a 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency report about apparent progress in the Iranian nuclear program, Kirchick took to theWall Street Journal to call it “the latest and most devastating blow to Mr. Obama’s ‘reset’ policy,” which he claimed was promoted as a mechanism to bring Russia into the U.S. fold with respect to Iran. Kirchick also criticized the reset initiative more generally, disapproving of the New START agreement on nuclear disarmament, the Obama administration’s decision to cancel planned missile defense bases in Czech Republic and Poland (although he neglected to mention that the sites were moved to Turkey), Washington’s lapse in arms sales to Georgia, and Russia’s admittance to the World Trade Organization.[8] …”

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/kirchick_james

Ron Paul addresses charges of racism on CNN

Ron Paul – I Am The ANTI Racist – Wolf Blitzer Interview 2008

Ron Paul: ‘Human Flaw’ on Newsletter Oversight

Ron Paul Is NOT A Racist! Disgruntled Former Ron Paul Staffer Eric Dondero

Ron Paul On Racism

Ron Paul’s view on Racism

Ron Paul – Back When He Was Proud of the Newsletter, He Now Disavows (1995)

NAACP Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul and racism

Ron Paul is a Racist?

Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters?

James Kirchick

“…Nearly four years ago, on the eve of the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, The New Republic published my expose of newsletters published by Texas Congressman Ron Paul. The contents of these newsletters can best be described as appalling. Blacks were referred to as “animals.” Gays were told to go “back” into the “closet.” The “X-Rated Martin Luther King” was a bisexual pedophile who “seduced underage girls and boys.” Three months before the Oklahoma City bombing, Paul praised right-wing, anti-government militia movements as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” The voluminous record of bigotry and conspiracy theories speaks for itself.

And yet, four years on, Ron Paul’s star is undimmed. Not only do the latest polls place him as the frontrunner in the Iowa Caucuses, but he still enjoys the support of a certain coterie of professional political commentators who, like Paul himself, identify as libertarians. Most prominent among them is Daily Beast blogger Andrew Sullivan, who gave Paul his endorsement in the GOP primary last week, as he did in 2008. But he is not alone: Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner recently bemoaned the fact that “the principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media,” while Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic argues that Paul’s ideas cannot be ignored, and that, for Tea Party Republicans, “A vote against Paul requires either cognitive dissonance—never in short supply in politics—or a fundamental rethinking of the whole theory of politics that so recently drove the Tea Party movement.”

“…Kirchick is an erstwhile liberal who apparently had veered to the right by the time he arrived at Yale, where he graduated in 2006. In a 2007 article for the Boston Globe about dating difficulties as a conservative gay man, Kirchick described himself as a “gay recovering leftist,” adding that “there’s nothing about my homosexuality that dictates a belief about raising the minimum wage, withdrawing immediately from Iraq, and backing teachers’ unions: all liberal causes that I strongly oppose.”[6]

In 2006, as a contributor to the Yale Daily News, Kirchick was named Student Journalist of the Year by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association; in 2007, the association named him Journalist of the Year.[v7] …”

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

The Company Ron Paul Keeps

Dec 26, 2011, Vol. 17, No. 15 • By JAMES KIRCHICK

“…The Republican Jewish Coalition announced this month that congressman Ron Paul would not be among the six guests invited to participate in its Republican Presidential Candidates Forum. “He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the RJC, adding that the group “rejects his misguided and extreme views.”

Paul’s exclusion caused an uproar, with critics alleging that his stand on Israel had earned the RJC’s ire; an absolutist libertarian, Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries, including the Jewish state. “This seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic,” wrote Reason editor Matt Welch. Chris McGreal of the Guardian reported that Paul “was barred because of his views on Israel.” Even Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun and a valiant defender of Israel (and friend and mentor of this writer), opined, “The whole idea of an organization of Jewish Republicans worrying about the mainstream strikes me as a bit contradictory.”

While Paul’s views on Israel certainly place him outside the American, never mind Republican, mainstream, there is an even more elementary reason the RJC was right to exclude him from its event. It is Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations. …”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/james-kirchick

James Kirchick

“…James Kirchick (pronounced /ˈkɜrtʃɨk/; born 1983) is a reporter, foreign correspondent and columnist. Having attended Yale University, Kirchick also wrote for the student newspaper on the campus, the Yale Daily News.[1] He is a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington;[2] prior to this he was writer-at-large for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.[3]

For over three years, Kirchick worked at The New Republic, covering domestic politics, intelligence, and American foreign policy. In 2008, he exposed racist and conspiratorial newsletters published by Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, a story that gained new prominence in the 2012 presidential election.[4][5] While he remains a contributing editor for TNR, Kirchick’s reportage has appeared in The Weekly Standard,[4] The American Interest, The Virginia Quarterly Review, The Columbia Journalism Review, Prospect, Commentary and World Affairs Journal. He writes frequently for newspapers including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal,[6] The Los Angeles Times,[7] and Ha’aretz.

Kirchick has worked as a reporter for The New York Sun, the New York Daily News, and The Hill, and has been a columnist for the New York Daily News and the Washington Examiner.

Kirchick is a regular book critic and reviews frequently for Azure,[8] Commentary, the Claremont Review of Books, Policy Review, and World Affairs, among others. A leading voice on gay politics, he is a contributing writer to the Advocate, the nation’s largest gay publication,[9] and a recipient of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association Excellence in Student Journalism Award and the Journalist of the Year Award.[10][11] …”

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

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

“…The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) describes itself as a non-profit, non-partisan policy institute “working to defend free nations against their enemies”. It was founded shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks to address what it regards as the “threat facing America, Israel and the West”. Its stated objectives are promoting human rights, defending “free and democratic nations”, and opposing terrorism which it defines as “the deliberate use of violence against civilians to achieve political objectives”.[1]

Overview

It conducts “research and education on international terrorism—the most serious security threat to the United States and other free, democratic nations. It advocates United States military intervention in various muslim majority nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and Palestine.

Board of Directors, advisors and fellows

FDD’s chairman is James Woolsey. FDD’s president is Clifford D. May and its executive director is Mark Dubowitz. Its Leadership Council is composed of prominent thinkers and leaders from the defense, intelligence, and policy communities including Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Bill Kristol, Louis J. Freeh, Joseph Lieberman, Newt Gingrich, Max Kampelman, and Robert McFarlane.

Its Board of Advisors include Gary Bauer, Rep. Eric Cantor, Gene Gately, General P.X. Kelley, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Troia “KT” McFarland, Richard Perle, Steven Pomerantz, Oliver “Buck” Revell, Bret Stephens, and Francis J. “Bing” West.[2]

Foundation fellows and senior staff are Jonathan Schanzer, Vice President of Research, Khairi Abaza, Senior Fellow, Tony Badran, Research Fellow, Levant, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Director, Center for Study of Terrorist Radicalization, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow. Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Military Affairs Fellow, Thomas Joscelyn, Senior Fellow and Co-Chair, Center for Law and Counterterrorism, Jonathan Kay, Visiting Fellow, Dr. Michael Ledeen, Freedom Scholar, Andrew C. McCarthy, Co-Chair, Center for Law and Counterterrorism, Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, Senior Fellow, Dr. J. Peter Pham, Non-Resident Senior Fellow, David B. Rivkin, Jr., Senior Fellow and Co-Chair, Center for Law and Counterterrorism[3]

Initiatives

The foundation has initiated the following centers, coalitions, committees and ongoing projects:

  • The Iran Energy Project
  • The Center for The Study of Terrorist Radicalization
  • The Center for Law & Counterterrorism
  • The Coalition Against Terrorist Media
  • The Committee on the Present Danger

It engages in investigative reporting.

The Iran Energy Project

The foundation has promoted the utility of energy sanctions as part of a comprehensive economic warfare strategy against the Iranian regime. To this end, it provides leading research and analysis in support of strong, broad-based energy sanctions, including gasoline, natural gas, and oil sanctions, as part of a comprehensive strategy to end the Iranian regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for terrorism, and abuse of human rights. The foundation also analyzes the prominent role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Iran’s energy industry.

It will continue to monitor the Iranian energy sector for new entrants into the Iranian energy trade and any signs that companies which have reportedly left the market have resumed their trade.

The focus on energy sanctions has changed the debate in Washington. No longer a discussion over how to achieve a “grand bargain” with the Iranian regime, the debate now focuses on how to use sanctions to deter an aggressive regime dedicated to pursuing nuclear weapons, supporting terrorism, and repressing its own people.[4]

As the foundation’s Mark Dubowitz noted, “the push for broad-based sanctions targeting Iran’s energy sector, including steps taken to make it more difficult for Iran to import gasoline, acquire key energy technology, and attract investment for its energy sector, has already had a major impact. Not only are Iran’s gasoline suppliers exiting the market, but energy investors, banks, technology providers, and insurers now face growing pressure to decide between doing business with the Iranian regime and continuing their business relationships in the lucrative U.S. market … President Obama needs to enforce U.S. law and put these companies to a choice.”[5]

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

Background Articles and Videos

‘Racist newsletter’ timeline: What Ron Paul has said

Ron Paul has had to explain racially charged statements and other controversial comments in newsletters published in his name in the 1980s and 1990s. Here’s what he’s said over the years.

By Mark Trumbull, Staff writer / December 29, 2011

“…It’s the biggest setback to hit Ron Paul’s candidacy for president: publicity about racially charged statements and other controversial comments in newsletters published in Mr. Paul’s name in the 1980s and 1990s.

On Thursday he responded at some length to the concerns during an Iowa radio interview, calling the newsletter statements “terrible” but insisting that he wasn’t the one who wrote them. He added that the offensive comments totaled about “about eight or 10 sentences.”

Some journalists who have researched the newsletters say it was a lot more than 10 sentences, and that the Texas congressman’s response on the issue has changed over the years.

Here, in timeline format, are some prominent Paul statements tied to the issue drawn from transcripts, video clips, and news reports. …”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1229/Racist-newsletter-timeline-What-Ron-Paul-has-said

Newsletters Fallout – Hardball (see Tucker vid for update)

James Kirchick interview, part 1

“…interview with James Kirchick, assistant editor at the New Republic, who wrote a piece in the Advocate, criticizing activists and reporters who exposed Congressman Mark Foley, and criticized me for writing about and focusing on the fact that John McCain’s chief of staff, Mark Buse, is gay.”

James Kirchick interview, part 2

Another boyfriend of Mark Buse, McCain’s top gay

The New Republic

“…The New Republic (TNR) is an American magazine of politics and the arts published continuously since 1914. A weekly for most of its history, it is published twenty times per year as of 2011, at a circulation of approximately 50,000. The editor as of 2011 is Richard Just.

Political views

Domestically, the TNR as of 2011 supports a largely neo-liberal stance on fiscal and social issues, according to former editor Franklin Foer, who stated that it “invented the modern usage of the term ‘liberal’, and it’s one of our historical legacies and obligations to be involved in the ongoing debate over what exactly liberalism means and stands for.”[2] As of 2004, however, some, like Anne Kossedd and Steven Randall, contend that it is not as liberal as it was before 1974.[3] The magazine’s outlook is associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and “New Democrats” such as former President Bill Clinton and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, who received the magazine’s endorsement in the 2004 Democratic primary; so did Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008.[4] Whilst defending federal programs, like Medicare and the EPA, it has advocated some policies that, while seeking to achieve the ends of traditional social welfare programs, often use market solutions as their means, and so are often called “business-friendly.” Typical of some of the policies supported by both TNR and the DLC during the 1990s were increased funding for the Earned Income Tax Credit program and reform of the Federal welfare system. Supply side economics, especially the idea of reducing higher marginal income tax rates, received heavy criticism from senior editor Jonathan Chait.[5] Moreover, TNR is strongly in favor of universal health care. On certain high-profile social issues, such as its support of same-sex marriage, TNR could be considered more progressive than the mainstream of the Democratic Party establishment. In its March 2007 issue, TNR ran an article by Paul Starr (co-founder of the magazine’s main rival, The American Prospect) where he defined the type of modern American liberalism in his article War and Liberalism:

Liberalism wagers that a state… can be strong but constrained – strong because constrained… Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society. – Paul Starr, volume 236, p. 21-24

Support for Israel has been another strong theme in The New Republic. According to Martin Peretz, owner of TNR, “Support for Israel is deep down an expression of America’s best view of itself.”[6] According to CUNY journalism professor, Eric Alterman, “Nothing has been as consistent about the past 34 years of TNR as the magazine’s devotion to Peretz’s own understanding of what is good for Israel…It is really not too much to say that almost all of Peretz’s political beliefs are subordinate to his commitment to Israel’s best interests, and these interests as Peretz defines them almost always involve more war.”[6]

Unsigned editorials prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq expressed strong support for military action, citing the threat of WMD as well as humanitarian concerns. Since the end of major military operations, unsigned editorials, while critical of the handling of the war, have continued to justify the invasion on humanitarian grounds, but no longer maintain that Iraq’s WMD facilities posed any threat to the United States. In the November 27, 2006 issue, the editors wrote:

At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom.[7]

On June 23, 2006 Martin Peretz, in response to criticism of the magazine from the blog Daily Kos, wrote the following as a summary of TNR’s stances on recent issues

The New Republic is very much against the Bush tax programs, against Bush Social Security ‘reform,’ against cutting the inheritance tax, for radical health care changes, passionate about Gore-type environmentalism, for a woman’s entitlement to an abortion, for gay marriage, for an increase in the minimum wage, for pursuing aggressively alternatives to our present reliance on oil and our present tax preferences for gas-guzzling automobiles. We were against the confirmation of Justice Alito.[8]

The magazine has also published two articles concerning income inequality, largely criticizing conservative economists for their attempts to deny the existence or negative effect increasing income inequality is having on the United States. In its May 2007 issue the magazine ran an editorial pointing to the humanitarian beliefs of liberals as being responsible for the recent plight of the American left. In another article TNR favorably cited the example of Denmark as evidence that an expansive welfare state and high tax burden can be consistent with, and in some ways contribute to, a strong economy.[9] Such editorials and articles exemplify the liberal political orientation of TNR.

History

Early years

The New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann through the financial backing of heiress Dorothy Payne Whitney and her husband, Willard Straight, who maintained majority ownership. The magazine’s first issue was published on November 7, 1914. The magazine’s politics were liberal and progressive, and as such concerned with coping with the great changes brought about by America’s late-19th century industrialization. The magazine is widely considered important in changing the character of liberalism in the direction of governmental interventionism, both foreign and domestic. Among the most important of these was the emergence of the U.S. as a Great Power on the international scene, and in 1917 TNR urged America’s entry into World War I on the side of the Allies.

One consequence of World War I was the Russian Revolution of 1917, and during the inter-war years the magazine was generally positive in its assessment of the Soviet Union and its communist government. This changed with the start of the Cold War and the 1948 departure of leftist editor Henry A. Wallace to run for president on the Progressive ticket. After Wallace, TNR moved towards positions more typical of mainstream American liberalism. During the 1950s it was critical of both Soviet foreign policy and domestic anti-communism, particularly McCarthyism. That said, the magazine was guilty of publishing a 1947 article entitled “The Strange Case of Wilhelm Reich” apparently filled with distortions and innuendos. During the 1960s the magazine opposed the Vietnam War, but was also often critical of the New Left.

Up until the late 1960s, the magazine had a certain “cachet as the voice of re-invigorated liberalism”, in the opinion of Eric Alterman, a commentator who has criticized the magazine’s politics from the left. That cachet, Alterman wrote, “was perhaps best illustrated when the dashing, young President Kennedy had been photographed boarding Air Force One holding a copy”.[6]

Peretz ownership and eventual editorship, 1974–1979

In March 1974, the magazine was purchased for $380,000[6] by Harvard University lecturer Martin Peretz,[10] from Gilbert Harrison.[6] Peretz was a veteran of the New Left who had broken with that movement over its support of various Third World liberationist movements, particularly the Palestine Liberation Organization. Peretz transformed TNR into its current form. Under his ownership, TNR has advocated both strong U.S. support for the Israeli government and a hawkish U.S. foreign policy.[6] On domestic policy, it has advocated a self-critical brand of liberalism, taking positions that range from traditionally liberal to neoliberalism. It has generally supported Democratic candidates for president, although in 1980 it endorsed the moderate Republican John B. Anderson, running as an independent, rather than the Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter.

Harrison continued editing the magazine, expecting Peretz to let him continue running the magazine for three years. But by 1975, when Peretz became annoyed at having his own articles rejected for publication while he was pouring money into the magazine to cover its losses, he fired Harrison. Much of the staff, including Walter Pincus, Stanley Karnow, and Doris Grumbach, was either fired or quit, being replaced largely by recent Harvard graduates lacking in journalistic experience. Peretz himself became the editor and stayed in that post until 1979. As other editors have been appointed, Peretz has remained editor-in-chief.[6]

Kinsley and Hertzberg editorships, 1979–1991

Michael Kinsley, a neoliberal (in the American sense of the term), was editor (1979–1981; 1985–1989), alternating twice with Hendrik Hertzberg (1981–1985; 1989–1991), who has been called “an old-fashioned social democrat”. Kinsley was only 28 years old when he first became editor and was still studying law[6] at George Washington University.

Writers for the magazine during this era included neoliberals Mickey Kaus and Jacob Weisberg along with Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Morton Kondracke, Sidney Blumenthal, Robert Kuttner, Ronald Steel, Michael Walzer, and Irving Howe.[6]

During the 1980s the magazine generally supported President Ronald Reagan’s anti-Communist foreign policy, including provision of aid to the Nicaraguan Contras. It has also supported both Gulf Wars and, reflecting its belief in the moral efficacy of American power, intervention in “humanitarian” crises, such as those in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo during the Yugoslav wars.

The magazine also became known for its originality and unpredictability in the 1980s. It was widely considered a “must read” across the political spectrum. An article in Vanity Fair judged TNR “the smartest, most impudent weekly in the country,” and the “most entertaining and intellectually agile magazine in the country.” According to Alterman, the magazine’s prose could sparkle and the contrasting views within its pages were “genuinely exciting”. He added, “The magazine unarguably set the terms of debate for insider political elites during the Reagan era.”[6]

With the less predictable opinions, more of them leaning conservative than before, the magazine won the respect of many conservative opinion leaders and 20 copies were messengered to the Reagan White House each Thursday afternoon. Norman Podhoretz called the magazine “indispensable”, and George Will said it was “currently the nation’s most interesting and most important political journal.” National Review described it as “one of the most interesting magazines in the United States.”[6]

Credit for its quality and popularity was often assigned to Kinsley, whose wit and critical sensibility were seen as enlivening a magazine that had for many years been more conventional in its politics, and Hertzberg, a writer for The New Yorker and speechwriter for Jimmy Carter.

Hertzberg and Kinsley not only alternated as editor but also alternated as the author of the magazine’s lead column, “TRB from Washington”. Its perspective was described as left-of-center in 1988.[11]

A final ingredient that led to the magazine’s increased stature in the 1980s was its “back of the book” or literary, cultural and arts pages, which were edited by Leon Wieseltier. Peretz discovered Wieseltier, then working at Harvard’s Society of Fellows, and put him in charge of the section. Wieseltier reinvented the section along the lines of The New York Review of Books, allowing his critics, many of them academics, to write longer, critical essays instead of mere book reviews. Alterman calls the hire “probably […] Peretz’s single most significant positive achievement” in running the magazine. During other changes of editors, Wieseltier has remained as cultural editor. Under him the section has been “simultaneously erudite and zestful”, according to Alterman, who adds, “Amazingly, a full generation later, it still sings.”[6]

Sullivan editorship, 1991–1996

In 1991, Andrew Sullivan, a 28-year-old gay Catholic from Britain, became editor and took the magazine in a somewhat more conservative direction, though the majority of writers remained liberal or neoliberal. Hertzberg soon left the magazine to return to The New Yorker. Kinsley left the magazine in 1996 to found the online magazine Slate.[6]

Sullivan invited Charles Murray to contribute a controversial 10,000-word article that contended blacks may be, as a whole, less intelligent than whites due to genetics. The magazine also published a very critical article about Hillary Clinton’s health care plan by Elizabeth McCaughey, an article that Alterman called “the single most influential article published in the magazine during the entire Clinton presidency”. However, this article was later shown to be inaccurate and the magazine would later apologize for the story. Sullivan also published a number of pieces by Camille Paglia.[6]

Ruth Shalit, a young writer for the magazine in the Sullivan years, was repeatedly criticized for plagiarism. After the Shalit scandals, the magazine began using fact-checkers during Sullivan’s time as editor. One was Stephen Glass, who would be found to have made up quotes, anecdotes and facts in his own articles, while he served as a reporter years later.[6]

Kelly, Lane, Beinart, Foer, Just editorships, 1996–present

After Sullivan stepped down in 1996, David Greenberg and Peter Beinart served jointly as Acting Editors. After the 1996 election, Michael Kelly served as editor for a year. During his tenure as editor and afterward, Kelly, who also wrote the TRB column, was intensely critical of President Clinton.[6] Writer Stephen Glass had been a major contributor under Kelly’s editorship; Glass was later shown to have falsified and fabricated numerous stories, which was admitted by The New Republic after an investigation by Kelly’s successor, Charles Lane. Kelly had consistently supported Glass during his tenure, including sending scathing letters to those challenging the veracity of Glass’s stories.[12]

Chuck Lane held the position between 1997 and 1999. During Lane’s tenure, the Stephen Glass scandal occurred. Peretz has written that Lane ultimately “put the ship back on its course,” for which Peretz said he was “immensely grateful.” But Peretz later fired Lane, who only got the news when a Washington Post reporter called him for a comment.[6]

Peter Beinart, a third editor who took over when he was 28 years old,[6] followed Lane and served as editor from 1999 to 2006.

Franklin Foer took over from Beinart in March 2006. In the magazine’s first editorial under Foer, it said “We’ve become more liberal … We’ve been encouraging Democrats to dream big again on the environment and economics […]”.[6] Foer is the brother of novelist Jonathan Safran Foer, author of Everything Is Illuminated (2002).

Richard Just took over as editor of the magazine on December 8, 2010.

Other prominent writers who edited or wrote for the magazine in these years include senior editor and TRB columnist Jonathan Chait, Lawrence F. Kaplan, John Judis and Spencer Ackerman.[6]

In 2005, TNR created its blog, called The Plank, which is written by Michael Crowley, Franklin Foer, Jason Zengerle, and other TNR staff. The Plank is meant to be TNR’s primary blog, replacing the magazine’s first three blogs, &c., Iraq’d, and Easterblogg. The Stump, TNR’s blog on the 2008 Presidential Election was created in October 2007.

The magazine remains well known, with references to it occasionally popping up in popular culture. Lisa Simpson was once portrayed as a subscriber to The New Republic for Kids. Matt Groening, The Simpsons’ creator, once drew a cover for TNR.[citation needed] In the pilot episode of the HBO series Entourage, which first aired on July 18, 2004, Ari Gold asks Eric Murphy: “Do you read The New Republic? Well, I do, and it says that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.” …”

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

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 0: American People Are Waking Up–Time For A New Political Party–Ron Paul First President–Are You A 3 Percenter?–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 1: ‘Three of a Kind’–Big Government Neoconservative Progressives: Newt Gingrich–Serial Hypocrite; Rick Santorum–Counterfeit Conservative; Mitt Romney–Flip Flopper–vs. Ron Paul–Libertarian Conservative–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 2: Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 3: Jobs Report: Labor Participation Rate Flat Lines At 64% While Unemployment Rate Declines To 8.5%–200,000 Jobs Increase–Work Force 50,000 Decrease!–Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Warmongering Progressive Neoconservative Republican Establishment Launches Racist, Anti-Semite and Extremist Smear Attack On Ron Paul With Republican Talk Show Hosts–Videos

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!

Ron Paul Must Once Again Make A Definitive Statement and Condemnation About 20 Year Old Newsletters–The Neoconservatives and Progressives Are Using Them As A Race Card Smear Attack On Paul–Videos

Ron Paul Hater Mark Levin–a.k.a. Marco Unleaven–Closet Neoconservative Comes Out Of The Closet or Bunker To Hug Marco Rubio–Neoconservative Poster Boy For Neoconservative Progressive Romney’s Vice-President–Video

Judge Andrew Napolitano: What If “They” Are LYING To You About Ron Paul?–Videos

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

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 1: ‘Three of a Kind’–Big Government Neoconservative Progressives: Newt Gingrich–Serial Hypocrite; Rick Santorum–Counterfeit Conservative; Mitt Romney–Flip Flopper–vs. Ron Paul–Libertarian Conservative–Videos

Posted on January 18, 2012. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Computers, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Radio, Tax Policy, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 58:January 18, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 57:December 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 56:November 30, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 55:November 23, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 54:November 16, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 53:November 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 1: ‘Three of a Kind’–Big Government Neoconservative Progressives: Newt Gingrich–Serial Hypocrite; Rick Santorum–Counterfeit Conservative; Mitt Romney–Flip Flopper–vs. Ron Paul–Libertarian Conservative–Videos

Ron Paul: Three of a Kind

AYN RAND’s message to AMERICA

Ayn Rand on Socialism and Dictatorship in America

George Carlin -“Who Really Controls America”

“If the practice persists of covering government deficits with the issue of notes, then the day will come without fail, sooner or later, when the monetary systems of those nations pursuing this course will break down completely. The purchasing power of the monetary unit will decline more and more, until finally it disappears completely.”

~Ludwig von Mises, On the Manipulation of Money and Credit, page 5.

There are four neoconservative progressives still in the race for the Republican Party Presidential nomination–Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry.

Perry will be the next to drop out of the race, most likely in the next two weeks, if not sooner.

The only libertarian conservative in the race is Ron Paul.

Many progressives do not care who wins–Obama, Romney, Gingrich and Santorium– big government progressives are all acceptable to many progressive Democrats and Republicans.

The neoconservative progressives and the Republican Party establishment prefer Mitt Romney over the others.

The conservative base simply does not support Romney and many are waking up to the fact that Gingrich and Santorium are both big government neoconservative progressives as well.

Talk radio show hosts are divided as well.

However, most talk radio show hosts are united in their opposition to libertarian conservative Ron Paul.

It seems these so-called “conservatives” are Republicans first.

Actually these talk radio show hosts are neoconservative progressives forced out of the closet or bunker.

These hosts may talk “conservative” but support Republican Presidential candidates that are also talk “conservative” but walk big government neoconservative progressives.

The Bulwarks of the Conservative Movement

Making Sense of the Conservative Movement

What’s the Modern Definition of a Conservative?

Ronald Reagan Tapped Into Unspoken Conservatives

This includes Bennett, Beck, Limbaugh, Levin, Hewett and Medved just to name a few.

These talk radio show hosts differ only as to which big government Republican neoconservative progressives they support.

True conservatives must either support and vote for Paul or once again see another big government neoconservative progressive in the White House–Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H. W.Bush and George W. Bush were all big government progressives and not conservatives.

I have been in the conservative movement since Barry Goldwater.

I will no longer vote for any progressive of either party.

I will never vote for a neoconservative progressives, they are war mongers that get Americans and the innocent in other countries killed.

The neoconservatives have blood on their hands.

The time has come for conservatives to form a new political party consisting of four types of conservatives: economic/libertarian conservatives, traditional conservatives, religious/social conservatives and national defense/anti-communist conservatives.

Party Name: American Citizens Alliance Party

Tag-line: Faith, Family, Friends and Freedom First.

For all practical purposes the progressives in both parties have won.

The progressives control the leadership of both political parties.

In the next three months both parties will again propose another unbalanced budget exceeding $3.5 trillion with a deficit greater than $1 trillion.

This is not fiscally responsible.

This is the victory of big government progressivism advocating warfare and welfare state intervention over limited government conservatism advocating a peace and prosperity economy with a non-intervention state.

The battle is between the collectivists vs. the individualists.

It will take at least 100 years to undo what the progressives have done to this country.

I will support and vote for Ron Paul.

Let the neoconservatives and progressives and their friends in the media and talk radio fool the ignorant in their audiences.

The American people will and are waking up and will revolt.

Abandon both the Democratic and Republican Parties that have been well penetrated and captured by progressive statists–collectivists all.

Focus on building a new political party.

Support and vote for Ron Paul

“An essential point in the social philosophy of interventionism is the existence of an inexhaustible fund which can be squeezed forever.”

“The whole system of interventionism collapses when this fountain is drained off: The Santa Claus principle liquidates itself.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, pages 854 and 858

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

Big Government Conservatism

Serial Hypocrisy – The Real Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich: Selling Access

SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative

Who is Newt’s favorite President?

SA@TheDC – Does Newt Gingrich Want the Constitution to ‘Die?’

Ron Paul Ad – Rick Santorum “A Record of Betrayal”

Rick Santorum’s Big Government Problem

Ron Paul Ad – BIG DOG

Rand Paul Exposes Rick Santorum as a Fake Conservative

Rush Limbaugh Admits Mitt Romney is a GOP Disaster if nominated

Still Voting For ‘Mitt Romney’?

Rush Limbaugh: Mitt Romney ‘Is Not A Conservative’

When Mitt Romney Came To Town — Full, complete version

George Carlin – Divide and Conquer

Ron Paul Ad – Believe

Ron Paul Ad – Consistent

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad TRUST

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Why Ron Paul is Obama’s Toughest Competitor

We the People vs. Mitt Romney

Rothbard on Neoconservatives

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

Conservative vs. Neoconservative

SA@TAC – Taking the ‘Neo’ Out of ‘Conservative’

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

Nick Gillespie Discusses Ron Paul, Libertarianism & Iowa on C-SPAN

SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul

TEA Party Movement Hijacked by Big Government NEO-Cons – Who will win?

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul: South Carolina Voter Fraud (Ron Paul can End the Push for WW3)

The Real Newt Gingrich

Rothbard destroys a common statist argument

Neoconservativism

“…Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which rejects the utopianism and egalitarianism of modern liberalism but sees a role for the welfare state.[1] Their main emphasis since 1990 has been using American power to foster democracy abroad, especially in the Middle East. They were notably visible in Republican administrations of George H.W. Bush (1989-93) and George W. Bush (2001-2009).

Neoconservatism was developed by former liberals, who in the late 1960s began to oppose many of the policies and principles associated with President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs.[2]

Terminology

The term “neoconservative” was popularized in the United States in 1973 by Socialist leader Michael Harrington,, who applied it his opposition to the policy ideas of Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol.[3]

The “neoconservative” label was embraced by Irving Kristol in his 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.'”[4] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[5] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[6][7] In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the neoconservatives were driven by “the notion that liberalism” had failed and “no longer knew what it was talking about, ” according to E. J. Dionne,[8]

The term neoconservative, which originally was used by a socialist to criticize the politics of Social Democrats, USA,[9] has since 1980 been used as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had “moved to the right”.[4][10] The term “neoconservative” was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush,[11][12] with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.[13] The term neocon is often used as pejorative in this context.

History

Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had supported the American Civil Rights Movement, integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr..[14] From the 1950s to the 1960s, there was broad support among liberals to support military action to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam.[15]

Neoconservatism was triggered by the repudiation of coalition politics by the American New Left:

  • Black Power, which denounced coalition-politics and racial integration as “selling out” and “Uncle Tomism” and which frequently gave rise to anti-semitic outbursts,
  • anti-anticommunism, which seemed indifferent to the fate of Southern Vietnam, and which in the late 1960s included substantial support for Marxist Leninist movements, and
  • the “new politics” of the New left, which upheld students and alienated minorities as the agents of social change (replacing the majority of the population and the labor movement).[16] Irving Kristol edited the journal The Public Interest (1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, focused on ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences.[17]

Norman Podhoretz’s magazine Commentary of the American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of the liberal left, became a major voice for neoconservatives in the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeanne Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker.

New York Intellectuals

Many neoconservatives had been on the left in the 1930s and 1940s, where they opposed Stalinism. After WWII, they continued to oppose Stalinism and to support democracy during the Cold War. Of these, many were emerged from intellectual milieu of New York City.[26]

Michael Lind’s view

Michael Lind wrote:

“Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party’s tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel’s 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for “democracy.” They call their revolutionary ideology “Wilsonianism” (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.””The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel.”[27]

Lind’s “amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions and theories of ‘the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement’ [in Lind’s words]” was criticized in 2003 by University of Michigan professor Alan M. Wald,[28] who had discussed Trotskyism in his history of “the New York intellectuals”.[29][30] Most were socialists, social-democrats, or liberal Democrats into the 1960s, when they were confronted with the New Left and rethought their positions. Many supported Senator Henry M. Jackson, a liberal Democrat in domestic affairs who criticized the human-rights violations of the Soviet Union in the 1970s.[31]

Rejecting the American New Left and McGovern’s New Politics

Kirkpatrick’s political evolution was similar to those of other socialists, social-democrats, and liberals who became neoconservatives. They rejected the counterculture of the 1960s New Left, and what they saw as anti-Americanism in the non-interventionism of the movement against the Vietnam War. When the anti-war element took control of the party in 1972 and nominated George McGovern, the democrats among them followed the lead of Washington Senator Henry Jackson and revolted. Historian Justin Vaïsse calls this the “Second Age” of Neoconservatism, with its emphasis on the Cold War.[32]

As the policies of the New Left pushed the Democrats to the Left, these intellectuals became disillusioned with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society domestic programs. The influential 1970 bestseller The Real Majority by Ben Wattenberg expressed that the “real majority” of the electorate supported economic liberalism but social conservatism, and warned Democrats it could be disastrous to take liberal stances on certain social and crime issues.[33]

Many supported Democratic senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson in his unsuccessful 1972 and 1976 campaigns for president. Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle. In the late 1970s neoconservative support moved to Ronald Reagan, the Republican hawk who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.

In another (2004) article, Michael Lind also wrote [34]

Neoconservatism… originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry (‘Scoop’) Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves ‘paleoliberals.’ [After the end of the Cold War]… many ‘paleoliberals’ drifted back to the Democratic center… Today’s neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

Leo Strauss and his students

Neoconservatism draws on several intellectual traditions. The students of political science Professor Leo Strauss (1899–1973) comprised one major group. Eugene Sheppard notes that, “Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism.”[35] Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at the New School for Social Research in New York (1939–49) and the University of Chicago (1949–1958).[36]

Strauss asserted that “the crisis of the West consists in the West’s having become uncertain of its purpose.” Resolution lay in a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West. Classical Greek political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage are the pillars of the Great Tradition in Strauss’s work.[37] Strauss laid great emphasis on spirit of the Greek classics and West (1991) argues that for Strauss the American Founding Fathers were correct in their understanding of the classics in their principles of justice. For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. He repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism, and defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes. For Strauss, the American awareness of ineradicable evil in human nature, and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the premodern Western tradition.[38] O’Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics but his students wrote a great deal, and that Strauss’s influence led his students to reject historicism and positivism. Instead they promoted an Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism.[39] Strauss influenced Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, editor John Podhoretz, and military strategist Paul Wolfowitz.[40][41]

1990s

During the 1990s, neoconservatives were once again in the opposition side of the foreign policy establishment, both under the Republican Administration of President George H. W. Bush and that of his Democratic successor, President Bill Clinton. Many critics charged that the neoconservatives lost their influence following the collapse of the Soviet Union.[42]

The movement was galvanized by the decision of George H. W. Bush and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War in 1991. Many neoconservatives viewed this policy, and the decision not to support indigenous dissident groups such as the Kurds and Shiites in their 1991-1992 resistance to Hussein, as a betrayal of democratic principles.[citation needed]

Ironically, some of those same targets of criticism would later become fierce advocates of neoconservative policies. In 1992, referring to the first Gulf War, then United States Secretary of Defense and future Vice President Dick Cheney said:

I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home…. And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[43]

Within a few years of the Gulf War in Iraq, many neoconservatives were pushing to oust Saddam Hussein. On February 19, 1998, an open letter to President Clinton appeared, signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with neoconservatism and, later, related groups such as the PNAC, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power.[44]

Neoconservatives were also members of the blue team, which argued for a confrontational policy toward the People’s Republic of China and strong military and diplomatic support for Taiwan.

In the late 1990s Irving Kristol and other writers in neoconservative magazines began touting anti-Darwinist views, in support of intelligent design. Since these neoconservatives were largely of secular backgrounds, a few commentators have speculated that this – along with support for religion generally – may have been a case of a “noble lie”, intended to protect public morality, or even tactical politics, to attract religious supporters.[45] …”

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

Progressivism

“…Progressivism is an umbrella term for a political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes through the state. Progressivism is often viewed by its advocates to be in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.

The Progressive Movement began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.

The term progressivism emerged in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and, despite being associated with left-wing politics, to the various more radical streams of communism or anarchism.

Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism was embraced in the administrations of American Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.[1] Moreover, in the United States and Canada, the term “progressive” has occasionally been used by groups not particularly left-wing. The Progressive Democrats in the Republic of Ireland took the name “progressivism” despite being considered centre-right or classical liberal. The European Progressive Democrats was a mainly heterogeneous political group in the European Union. For most of the period from 1942–2003, the largest conservative party in Canada was the Progressive Conservative Party. …”

“…United States

In the United States there have been several periods where progressive political parties have developed. The first of these was around the turn of the 20th century.[6] This period notably included the emergence of the Progressive Party, founded in 1912 by President Theodore Roosevelt. This progressive party was the most successful third party in modern American history. The Progressive Party founded in 1924 and the Progressive Party founded in 1948 were less successful than the 1912 version. There are also two notable state progressive parties: the Wisconsin Progressive Party and the Vermont Progressive Party. The latter is still in operation and currently has several high ranking positions in state government.

Today, most progressive politicians in the United States associate with the Democratic Party or the Green Party of the United States. In the US Congress there exists the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is often in opposition to the more conservative Democrats, who form the Blue Dogs caucus. Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold,[7] Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, and Paul Wellstone.[citation needed] ….”

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

Libertarianism

“…Libertarianism is a term describing philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, voluntary association and respect of property rights. Based on these, libertarians advocate a society with small or no government power.

Overview

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor.[1] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[2][3][4] Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system. In some parts of the world, the term “libertarianism” is synonymous with Left anarchism.[5]

Libertarians can broadly be characterized as holding four ethical views: consequentialism, deontological theories, contractarianism, and class-struggle normative beliefs. The main divide is between consequentialist libertarianism—which is support for a large degree of “liberty” because it leads to favorable consequences, such as prosperity or efficiency—and deontological libertarianism (also known as “rights-theorist libertarianism,” “natural rights libertarianism,” or “libertarian moralism”), which is a philosophy based on belief in moral self-ownership and opposition to “initiation of force” and fraud.[6] [7] Others combine a hybrid of consequentialist and deontologist thinking.[8] Another view, contractarian libertarianism, holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement,[9][10][11] though this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified. Some Libertarian Socialists with backgrounds influenced by Marxism reject deontological and consequential approaches and use normative class-struggle methodologies rooted in Hegelian thought to justify direct action in pursuit of liberty.[12]

In the United States, the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues.[13]

Alternative definitions

Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[14]

Etymology

The use of the word “libertarian” to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[15] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left-wing anarchism since the 1890s.[16] Libertarian socialists, such as Noam Chomsky and Colin Ward, assert that many still consider the term libertarianism a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[5]

History

Origins

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, “liberal” ideas flourished in Europe and North America. Libertarians of various schools were influenced by classical liberal ideas.[17][Full citation needed] The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[18] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to “necessitarian” (or determinist) views.[19][20]

The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social and it was published in New York City between 1858 and 1861 by French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque. “The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism” was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16-22 November, 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism.” Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France.” The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. In this tradition, the term “libertarianism” in “libertarian socialism” is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence “libertarian socialism” is equivalent to “socialist anarchism” to these scholars.[21] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States.[22]

Twentieth century

During the early 20th century modern liberalism in the United States began to take a more state-oriented approach to economic regulation. While conservatism in Europe continued to mean conserving hierarchical class structures through state control of society and the economy, some conservatives in the United States began to refer to conserving traditions of liberty. This was especially true of the Old Right, who opposed the New Deal and U.S. military interventions in World War I and World War II. Those who held to the earlier liberal views began to call themselves market liberals, classic liberals or libertarians to distinguish themselves. The Austrian School of economics, influenced by Frédéric Bastiat and later by Ludwig von Mises, also had an impact on what is now right-libertarianism.

In the 1950s many with “Old Right” or classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as “libertarian.” Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater’s right-libertarian leaning challenge to authority also influenced the US libertarian movement.[23]

During the 1960s, the Vietnam War divided right-libertarians, anarchist libertarians, and conservatives.[citation needed] Right-libertarians and left-libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements and began founding their own publications, like Murray Rothbard’s The Libertarian Forum[24] and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance[25] and the Society for Individual Liberty.[26]

In 1971, a small group of Americans led by David Nolan formed the U.S. Libertarian Party. Attracting former Democrats, Republicans and independents, the party has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. Over the years, dozens of capitalism-supporting libertarian political parties have been formed worldwide. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.

Right-libertarianism gained a significant measure of recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. The book won a National Book Award in 1975.[27][28] Nozick disavowed some of his theory late in life.[29] Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free-market capitalist libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the United States since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties.[30]

…”

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

Libertarianism in the United States

“…Libertarianism in the United States is a movement promoting limited government and individual liberties.[1] Although libertarianism exists in two major forms worldwide, right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism,[2] right-leaning libertarianism tends to be the dominant form in the United States. The right-leaning Libertarian Party, the third largest political party in the United States[3] as of 2008 with 235,500 registered voters,[citation needed] asserts the following to be core beliefs of Libertarianism:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.[4][5]

History

In the 1950s many with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as “libertarian.”[6] Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free-market libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the US since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties[7][8] and that libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.[9][10] However, Libertarian socialists Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others argue that the term “libertarianism” is globally considered a synonym for anarchism and that the United States is unique in widely associating it with free market ideology.[11][12][13]

Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater’s libertarian-oriented challenge to authority had a major impact on the libertarian movement,[14] through his book The Conscience of a Conservative and his run for president in 1964.[15] Goldwater’s speech writer, Karl Hess, became a leading libertarian writer and activist.[16]

The Vietnam War split the uneasy alliance between growing numbers of self-identified libertarians, anarchist libertarians, and more traditional conservatives who believed in limiting liberty to uphold moral virtues. Libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements and organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society. They began founding their own publications, like Murray Rothbard’s The Libertarian Forum[17][18] and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance.[19]

The split was aggravated at the 1969 Young Americans for Freedom convention, when more than 300 libertarians organized to take control of the organization from conservatives. The burning of a draft card in protest to a conservative proposal against draft resistance sparked physical confrontations among convention attendees, a walkout by a large number of libertarians, the creation of libertarian organizations like the Society for Individual Liberty, and efforts to recruit potential libertarians from conservative organizations.[20] The split was finalized in 1971 when conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr., in a 1971 New York Times article, attempted to divorce libertarianism from the freedom movement. He wrote: “The ideological licentiousness that rages through America today makes anarchy attractive to the simple-minded. Even to the ingeniously simple-minded.”[21]

In 1971, David Nolan and a few friends formed the Libertarian Party.[22] Attracting former Democrats, Republicans and independents, it has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. By 2006, polls showed that 15 percent of American voters identified themselves as libertarian.[23] Over the years, dozens of libertarian political parties have been formed worldwide. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.[24]

Philosophical libertarianism gained a significant measure of recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. The book won a National Book Award in 1975.[25] According to libertarian essayist Roy Childs, “Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia single-handedly established the legitimacy of libertarianism as a political theory in the world of academia.”[26]

Texas congressman Ron Paul’s campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination was largely oriented towards libertarianism. Paul is affiliated with the libertarian-leaning Republican Liberty Caucus and founded the Campaign for Liberty, a libertarian-leaning membership and lobbying organization.

Organizations

Well-known libertarian organizations include the Center for Libertarian Studies, the Cato Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The Libertarian Party of the United States is the world’s first such party.

The activist Free State Project, formed in 2001, works to bring 20,000 libertarians to the state of New Hampshire to influence state policy. In March 2009, the project website showed that more than 650 were resident there and more than 9,150 had pledged to move there.[27] Less successful similar projects include the Free West Alliance and Free State Wyoming.

Leaders

Politicians

United States Congressman Ron Paul and United States Senator Barry Goldwater popularized libertarian economics and anti-statist rhetoric in the United States and passed some reforms. United States President Ronald Reagan tried to appeal to them in a speech, though many libertarians are ambivalent about Reagan’s legacy.[28]

Intellectuals

Individuals influential to libertarianism in the United States include Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, William F. Buckley, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman.

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

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 0: American People Are Waking Up–Time For A New Political Party–Ron Paul First President–Are You A 3 Percenter?–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 1: ‘Three of a Kind’–Big Government Neoconservative Progressives: Newt Gingrich–Serial Hypocrite; Rick Santorum–Counterfeit Conservative; Mitt Romney–Flip Flopper–vs. Ron Paul–Libertarian Conservative–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 2: Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 3: Jobs Report: Labor Participation Rate Flat Lines At 64% While Unemployment Rate Declines To 8.5%–200,000 Jobs Increase–Work Force 50,000 Decrease!–Videos


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

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 0: American People Are Waking Up–Time For A New Political Party–Ron Paul First President–Are You A 3 Percenter?–Videos

Posted on January 18, 2012. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Radio, Social Science, Tax Policy, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 58:January 18, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 57:December 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 56:November 30, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 55:November 23, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 54:November 16, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 53:November 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 0: American People Are Waking Up–Time For A New Political Party–Ron Paul First President–Are You A 3 Percenter?–Videos

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

“In this exclusive 80 minute video interview, legendary conspiracy author G. Edward Griffin explains how his research, which spans no less than 5 decades, has revealed a banking elite obsessed with enforcing a world government under a collectivist model that will crush individualism and eventually institute martial law as a response to the inevitable backlash that will be generated as a result of a fundamental re-shaping of society.

Griffin discusses the similarities between the extreme left and the extreme right in the false political paradigm and how this highlights a recurring theme – collectivism. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism and believes that the interests of the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number, explains Griffin, uniting the doctrines of communism and fascism. Both the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States are committed to advancing collectivism and this is why the same policies are followed no matter who is voted in to the White House.

“All collectivist systems eventually deteriorate into a police state because that’s the only way you can hold it together,” warns Griffin.

Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University Professor and mentor to former president Bill Clinton, explained in his books Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment, how the elite maintained a silent dictatorship while fooling people into thinking they had political freedom, by creating squabbles between the two parties in terms of slogans and leadership, while all the time controlling both from the top down and pursuing the same agenda. Griffin documents how the Tea Party, after its beginnings as a grass roots movement, was later hijacked by the Republicans through the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

Pointing out how Republicans and Democrats agree on the most important topics, such as US foreign policy, endless wars in the Middle East, and the dominance of the private banking system over the economy, Griffin lays out how the left-right hoax is used to steer the destiny of America.

Griffin also talks at length on a myriad of other important subjects, such as the move towards a Chinese-style censored Internet, the demonization of the John Birch Society as a racist extremist group, the Hegelian dialectic, the power of tax-exempt foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations, the movement towards world government, and the question of whether the elite are really worried about the growing awareness of their agenda amongst Americans.”

An Idea Whose Time Has Come – G. Edward Griffin – Freedom Force International – Full

There is no point in worrying about the erosion of personal freedom that is the reality of our present era if we can do nothing about it. They say that knowledge is power, but that is one of the greatest myths of all history. Knowledge without action is useless and leads only to apathy and despair. So the question is: what type of action can reverse this trend? Writing letters and signing petitions to the same people who have created the problem is not going to do it. Voting for candidates selected by power brokers with hidden agendas will not do it either. There have been many proposals to reverse the tide of totalitarianism but, after decades of effort, none of them have worked. In this address, G. Edward Griffin, Founder of Freedom Force, tells us why; and the reason is so simple, it will astound you. Once we clear away that single barrier, the plan for a pro-active counter-force falls quickly into place. This is the missing piece of the puzzle, the ultimate solution we have been seeking. Visit http://www.freedom-force.org
The solution is simple. It is to take back control of the power centers of society, one-by-one, just the way they were captured in the first place. Replace the collectivists with people who have no personal agendas except to defend freedom. This will unleash the vast human potential for prosperity and happiness that can be realized only in the absence of government oppression. However, to reach that goal, it will be necessary for those who cherish freedom to do more than complain and far more than just casting a vote every few years. They must reach for power. That is the reason for the motto of Freedom Force: Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt, which is Latin for “Those without power cannot defend freedom.”

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #1

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #2

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #3

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #4

The Best Enemies Money Can Buy – Prof. Antony C. Sutton

“…A classic interview by Professor Antony Sutton, who taught economics at California State University, and was a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. In this talk, Prof. Sutton goes into his impeccable research on how a close-knit group of Western financiers and industrialists (centered around Morgan and Rockefeller in the US, and around Milner and the City financiers, in the UK) created and sustained their three supposed enemies right from the very beginning: Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and FDR’s Fabian socialism.
Particularly, he goes into how Wall Street/City of London financiers used their banking institutions and their industrial enterprises to:
1) Help finance and sustain the Bolshevik Revolution. Build up Soviet industry during Lenin’s Five-Year Plans, both through finance, technology/industrial transfers and technical assistance. Continue to build the Soviets throughout the entire Cold War, through the same kinds of deals. This included the Korea and the Vietnam eras, during which American troops were being killed by… Western-made Soviet equipment.
2) Build up Nazi Germany, both financially and industrially;
3) Get FDR into power in America as their man, and even draw up the New Deal policies, especially FDR’s National Recovery Act — designed by Gerard Swopes of General Electric and deeply welcomed by Wall Streeters Morgan, Warburg and Rockefeller.
Sutton was not a wild speculator. He was a distinguished academic researcher who documented his conclusions impeccably in his several works. Not being able to counter his research, the establishment (including academia) simply attempts to ignore it, and pretend it isn’t there. The purpose for these Wall Street policies was very simple: to create, and globalize, what Sutton calls Corporate Socialism. A system under which everything in society is ruled by the state, and the state is, in its stead, controlled by financiers who, hence, get to rule and manage society, to their liking. In other words, to get society to work for the financiers, using a socialist state as an intermediary. This is what we now know as the globalization economic model. As a result of all the clashes of the 20th century, most notably WWII and the Cold War (fought between powers that were manipulated and controlled by these banker cliques), the world has been ‘globalized’. Meaning that it has been entirely taken over by these financiers, and is ever closer to being completely ruled by them, through not only the national states and national central banking systems, but mainly through supranational agencies and institutions.
Go into Professor Sutton’s books, most notably the Hoover Institute’s series on Western technological/industrial transfers to the Soviets and the ‘Wall Street’ trilogy. If you have a difficulty in purchasing the original books, you’ll find most of them are easily available online, on pdf form. …”

Capitalist Elites Funded the Bolshevik Revolution [Professor Antony Sutton]

Socialism – A Tool of the Capitalist Elite [Professor Antony Sutton]

George Carlin -“Who Really Controls America”

Background Articles and Videos

The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin)

Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#1

Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#2

Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#3

Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#4

Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#5

Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#6

Rare Carroll Quigley interview – 1974 (Full Interview)

G. Edward Griffin on ‘Glen Beck’ Exposes Criminal Nature and Total Secrecy of Federal Reserve System

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

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