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, 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.
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. …”
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
Pronk Pops 
Leave a comment