Rand Paul's filibuster was a hit--even with Obama's media outlets such as ABC News and MSNBC. Although they often purposefully obscured his reason for filibustering, ie the fact that Brennan couldn't assure Rand that Americans wouldn't be targeted, most of the media gave a favorable presentation of his stand.
The Huffington Post (...) gave Rand the most publicity of the major liberal outlets, because compared with ABC/NBC/CBS, it is far less pro-establishment, less connected to the White House, and more likely to prioritize civil libertarian values above conformity with Washington.
Rush Limbaugh had Rand on his show today, and allowed him full reign to discuss the problems with the proposed drone policy. Limbaugh seemed to be reluctantly supportive of Rand, but nevertheless he gave Rand plenty of time to speak and had a respectable discourse with him. This is a huge victory for Rand because he was given a platform in the difficult-to-crack neo-con talk radio syndicate.
Laura Ingraham wrote an article praising Rand, a rare thing for her to do with someone who isn't a neo-con like she is.
The same could not be said of the vile neo-con Mark Levin, who astonishingly has no mention of the name Rand Paul anywhere on his site, even regarding an article specifically about Rand's filibuster. Levin, a bloodthirsty warmongering Zionist, cares much more about Rand voting for Chuck Hagel and thus against the wishes of the Lobby than he does about Rand protecting our freedoms.
Anyway, Rand chose a good issue to make a stand on. Virtually every sane
American, liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc, can identify with the need for a trial by jury.
Rand chose a good nominee to filibuster, because Brennan is a non-Jewish white guy, so Rand cannot be calumnied as anti-semitic or racist by the sneaky media for opposing him.
Finally, Rand energized his pro-liberty base after previously doing some things that had discouraged them, such as voting for NDAA2013, supporting sanctions on Iran, and refusing to discuss Bilderberg.
And in any sense, the genuineness of Rand's filibuster, bourne out by the fact that his speech was substantive throughout, is something most people want more of in politics.
Showing posts with label Mark Levin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Levin. Show all posts
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Rand Paul Nullifies any Benefit from Israel Visit with Hagel Yay
Rand Paul has likely lost all credibility with militant neocons like Mark Levin for voting in favor of Chuck Hagel, who has made remarks concerning the Israel Lobby's power.
Paul went on Levin's show in January, pledging his love for Israel while recounting his recent visit there, yet he squeezed in one little bit that Israel's embargo against Palestinians in Gaza should be ended because the economic prosperity Gazans would gain from trading with the rest of the world would induce them to attack Israel less. Rand framed it as being good for Israel, so Levin let it pass. Rand was very submissive to Levin's expectations of belief in Israeli infallibility.
But it seems like Paul's vote for Hagel will finalize his expulsion from the neocon talk radio syndicate's realm of consideration in 2016, because actions speak louder than words. Indeed, Paul has nullified any creds he got from his "cheap date" with Israel during his visit. It seems he is thrashing about in vain, trying to adhere to his non-interventionist foreign policy convictions on the one hand, while trying to appease the Lobby with the other.
Christians United For Israel (CUFI) campaigned hard against Hagel. Although not headed by a Christian, CUFI is the standard bearer of Christian Zionism and seeks to exploit the innocence of evangelicals for the good of the Israel Lobby. Evangelicals are more likely to compromise on Chris Christie's recent acceptance of Obamacare than go against their belief that any opposition to Israel or its Lobby warrants a curse from God. So Rand has lost credibility with them.
But Rand has gained points with people like Pat Buchanan who perceive Hagel to be the least militaristic option Washington had to offer, despite his support of sanctions against Iran and drone strikes everywhere.
However, Rand's own father, Ron, opposed Hagel for not being anti-war enough.
You can't please them all.
In any case, it's a shame that evangelical churches and the media at large brainwash people to believe that being conservative means having an unquestioning support of war with Israel's opponents. The best we conservatives can do is spread the truth about the apostate belief of Christian Zionism, the lack of threat from Iran, the reason why America should not start wars to ensure Israel's illegal settlements continue to expand, and the real place where radical Islam is gaining ground: Europe via mass immigration.
Paul went on Levin's show in January, pledging his love for Israel while recounting his recent visit there, yet he squeezed in one little bit that Israel's embargo against Palestinians in Gaza should be ended because the economic prosperity Gazans would gain from trading with the rest of the world would induce them to attack Israel less. Rand framed it as being good for Israel, so Levin let it pass. Rand was very submissive to Levin's expectations of belief in Israeli infallibility.
But it seems like Paul's vote for Hagel will finalize his expulsion from the neocon talk radio syndicate's realm of consideration in 2016, because actions speak louder than words. Indeed, Paul has nullified any creds he got from his "cheap date" with Israel during his visit. It seems he is thrashing about in vain, trying to adhere to his non-interventionist foreign policy convictions on the one hand, while trying to appease the Lobby with the other.
Christians United For Israel (CUFI) campaigned hard against Hagel. Although not headed by a Christian, CUFI is the standard bearer of Christian Zionism and seeks to exploit the innocence of evangelicals for the good of the Israel Lobby. Evangelicals are more likely to compromise on Chris Christie's recent acceptance of Obamacare than go against their belief that any opposition to Israel or its Lobby warrants a curse from God. So Rand has lost credibility with them.
But Rand has gained points with people like Pat Buchanan who perceive Hagel to be the least militaristic option Washington had to offer, despite his support of sanctions against Iran and drone strikes everywhere.
However, Rand's own father, Ron, opposed Hagel for not being anti-war enough.
You can't please them all.
In any case, it's a shame that evangelical churches and the media at large brainwash people to believe that being conservative means having an unquestioning support of war with Israel's opponents. The best we conservatives can do is spread the truth about the apostate belief of Christian Zionism, the lack of threat from Iran, the reason why America should not start wars to ensure Israel's illegal settlements continue to expand, and the real place where radical Islam is gaining ground: Europe via mass immigration.
Friday, November 23, 2012
How Rand Paul can Win in 2016
Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh will try their best to derail Rand's presidential candidacy just as they did to Ron Paul. They will never mention him unless he becomes a threat in the polls, and if he does, they'll call him a nut, say he's anti-American for opposing the military industrial complex, and use other garbage pejoratives. Hannity will lament that Rand is the "only" Republican candidate he cannot support. Glenn Beck will fawn over neo-conmen like Santorum again. FOX News will commence with the usual combination of blackout and subtle ridicule. The National Review will extol the most fiscally liberal, pro-war candidate. These people are not stupid and know that Rand takes after his father... a lot. In fact, Limbaugh has already mocked Rand for his run-in with the TSA, and Levin has mentioned Rand in a tone of voice lush with hatred. Phony conservatives like Levin and Limbaugh influence many voters.
The 2012 Ron Paul campaign had way more grassroots support than any other. Ron Paul bumperstickers abounded months before the primary in each state, often as early as September 2011. Romney bumperstickers were only became evident in September of 2012. Ron Paul events routinely drew thousands. Romney was lucky to get more than several hundred.
But the grassroots support was not enough. The sheeple Republicans voted in the primary for the candidate the media said "could win": Romney. That is, the one who could win within the acceptable paradigm of being the world police and continuing unsustainable spending.
What's missing from the Liberty Movement is an elite media presence. But elite media presence requires support from rich, powerful people. The American Revolutionaries had wealthy financiers in 1776, and a good many of the wealthy elite, especially on Wall Street, need to be converted to liberty. Once this happens, it will be easier for a pro-liberty talk radio show host to become as popular as a Mark Levin or Sean Hannity.
As far as candidates for talk radio go, perhaps the best hope for the urban areas is Peter Schiff, who has a radio show advancing a libertarian worldview. But we still would need a conservative Christian who will speak to middle America. Most people won't admit it, but Alex Jones has influenced many people to become Ron Paul Supporters, and guessing from the local scene, as much as 15% of all Ron Paul people were directed to like Dr Paul and liberty itself by Jones. Indeed, Jones professes to be a Christian, but he isn't quite conservative in the way he does things. His sensationalism and conspiracies may not appeal to most Republicans. We need someone who can speak to conservative social sentiments while also tactfully promoting liberty, small government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy without any conspiracies or obsession with globalists. Tom Woods may be decent for a "Firing Line" kind of show on PBS if the liberal PBS would allow such a show, but as a radio host, Woods's keen intellectual mind may be too fast for the average person. Jack Hunter may not be gregarious enough for radio. We need someone. If Jones gains popularity, it would certainly help, but non-conspiracy people will be better able to sway undecided voters toward Rand.
As far as television, FOX News needs to reinstate Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedomwatch, and it needs to become as popular as "The O'Reilly Factor". A Buchananite Republican needs to get a show on some network, and maybe Lou Dobbs could lean more towards liberty. Stossel needs to be put on prime time more often. We need to win these little "elections" before we can win Rand the big one. I am confident that if liberty people have half as much time as the neo-cons, they will do just as well, if not better.
Print media is picked over by liberals and shallow moderates. The New York Times will never employ another Henry Hazlitt. In any case, every single copy of the National Review must be replaced with the American Conservative as soon as possible. Get your friends to switch. The New American, The Freeman, and Reason Magazine all need to gain prominence as well.
This is not to say that we can slack on grassroots efforts, as those will have to be stronger than ever to bring about a Rand victory.
Anyway, it seems impossible that we'll have representatives in elite media by 2015, in time to sow seeds for the 2016 presidential primary election. But unless we reach the masses on this level, we're finished. The Internet and word of mouth can only do so much. We must reach the sheeple.
The 2012 Ron Paul campaign had way more grassroots support than any other. Ron Paul bumperstickers abounded months before the primary in each state, often as early as September 2011. Romney bumperstickers were only became evident in September of 2012. Ron Paul events routinely drew thousands. Romney was lucky to get more than several hundred.
But the grassroots support was not enough. The sheeple Republicans voted in the primary for the candidate the media said "could win": Romney. That is, the one who could win within the acceptable paradigm of being the world police and continuing unsustainable spending.
What's missing from the Liberty Movement is an elite media presence. But elite media presence requires support from rich, powerful people. The American Revolutionaries had wealthy financiers in 1776, and a good many of the wealthy elite, especially on Wall Street, need to be converted to liberty. Once this happens, it will be easier for a pro-liberty talk radio show host to become as popular as a Mark Levin or Sean Hannity.
As far as candidates for talk radio go, perhaps the best hope for the urban areas is Peter Schiff, who has a radio show advancing a libertarian worldview. But we still would need a conservative Christian who will speak to middle America. Most people won't admit it, but Alex Jones has influenced many people to become Ron Paul Supporters, and guessing from the local scene, as much as 15% of all Ron Paul people were directed to like Dr Paul and liberty itself by Jones. Indeed, Jones professes to be a Christian, but he isn't quite conservative in the way he does things. His sensationalism and conspiracies may not appeal to most Republicans. We need someone who can speak to conservative social sentiments while also tactfully promoting liberty, small government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy without any conspiracies or obsession with globalists. Tom Woods may be decent for a "Firing Line" kind of show on PBS if the liberal PBS would allow such a show, but as a radio host, Woods's keen intellectual mind may be too fast for the average person. Jack Hunter may not be gregarious enough for radio. We need someone. If Jones gains popularity, it would certainly help, but non-conspiracy people will be better able to sway undecided voters toward Rand.
As far as television, FOX News needs to reinstate Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedomwatch, and it needs to become as popular as "The O'Reilly Factor". A Buchananite Republican needs to get a show on some network, and maybe Lou Dobbs could lean more towards liberty. Stossel needs to be put on prime time more often. We need to win these little "elections" before we can win Rand the big one. I am confident that if liberty people have half as much time as the neo-cons, they will do just as well, if not better.
Print media is picked over by liberals and shallow moderates. The New York Times will never employ another Henry Hazlitt. In any case, every single copy of the National Review must be replaced with the American Conservative as soon as possible. Get your friends to switch. The New American, The Freeman, and Reason Magazine all need to gain prominence as well.
This is not to say that we can slack on grassroots efforts, as those will have to be stronger than ever to bring about a Rand victory.
Anyway, it seems impossible that we'll have representatives in elite media by 2015, in time to sow seeds for the 2016 presidential primary election. But unless we reach the masses on this level, we're finished. The Internet and word of mouth can only do so much. We must reach the sheeple.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Mark Levin Sees no Contradiction
On his radio show broadcast today, Mark Levin shifted right from complaining about troops being removed from Afghanistan to saying that the reason things were so bad at home was that the government was "involved in everything." According to Levin, the government being "involved" overseas is desirable but involvement at home is anathema.
In Levin's mind, something magic must happen when government crosses a US border. It is very interesting that many Republicans such as Levin seem to be pro-small government at home but raging statists abroad.
After all, the US military is a government institution that relies not on profit for its funding but income redistribution. Its structure is susceptible to the same inefficiencies and wastefulness typical of any long-standing government bureaucracy.
It would seem like a logical conclusion that the military is a socialist organization because, after all, taxes are collected and redistributed to soldiers, personnel, and profiteers. Although most would say that necessary military funding is a necessary socialism, the overseas military activity Levin spoke of is not necessary--the non-defensive, recreational wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
Although the odds of dying from a terrorist attack are far less than those of dying from a snake bite, snakes for some reason do not warrant equivalently overarching military action in Levin's mind. Is he soft on snakes or overestimative of terrorist threats?
Moreover, nearly all great nations in the modern era have fallen due to financial reasons. It is ironic that the very institution meant to protect us may be leading to our demise as it digs us further into debt.
To expect Levin to arrive at this thought may be expecting too much.
In Levin's mind, something magic must happen when government crosses a US border. It is very interesting that many Republicans such as Levin seem to be pro-small government at home but raging statists abroad.
After all, the US military is a government institution that relies not on profit for its funding but income redistribution. Its structure is susceptible to the same inefficiencies and wastefulness typical of any long-standing government bureaucracy.
It would seem like a logical conclusion that the military is a socialist organization because, after all, taxes are collected and redistributed to soldiers, personnel, and profiteers. Although most would say that necessary military funding is a necessary socialism, the overseas military activity Levin spoke of is not necessary--the non-defensive, recreational wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
Although the odds of dying from a terrorist attack are far less than those of dying from a snake bite, snakes for some reason do not warrant equivalently overarching military action in Levin's mind. Is he soft on snakes or overestimative of terrorist threats?
Moreover, nearly all great nations in the modern era have fallen due to financial reasons. It is ironic that the very institution meant to protect us may be leading to our demise as it digs us further into debt.
To expect Levin to arrive at this thought may be expecting too much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)