Jeffrey Lord is using his CNN political commentator position to defend Donald Trump's most outlandish remarks on the campaign trail. Lord's pro-Trump advocacy has been so over the top that his own colleagues have repeatedly called him out for pushing inaccuracies, defending misogynistic and anti-Muslim remarks, and carrying Trump's "fetid water every day." Lord's ongoing defense of Trump should not be a surprise, as the billionaire businessman reportedly "helped Lord get his job at CNN."
From the September 19 edition of CNN's CNN Newsroom:
Loading the player reg...
From the September 10 edition of CNN's New Day:
Loading the player reg...
CNN political commentator Jeffrey Lord attacked Univision anchor Jorge Ramos for playing the "race card" even though he is a "blue-eyed, light-skinned ... European Mexican." Lord also connected Ramos to Virginia shooter Vester Lee Flanagan II and alleged Charleston shooter Dylann Roof, claiming they all engaged in "dividing the country by race."
On August 25, Ramos, one of the country's top Hispanic journalists, was booted from Donald Trump's press conference while attempting to ask the Republican presidential candidate questions about his immigration policy. Ramos was later allowed to return. Conservative media subsequently cheered Trump for his treatment of Ramos.
In his August 27 column for The American Spectator, Lord criticized Ramos for being "in Iowa to score a blow for race card playing" by "rant[ing]" against Trump on immigration. Lord dismissed him as "a left-wing illegal immigration activist disguised as a journalist" who fulfills "every stereotype of the smarty-pants rude media type that millions of Americans have come to loathe."
Lord then transitioned to an attack on Ramos' ethnic background. He cited a 2011 column by Ruben Navarrette Jr. stating that in Mexico, many of the most important jobs go to those who "have the lightest skin." Lord then wrote, "Now let's get back to Jorge Ramos. The blue-eyed, light-skinned Ramos -- let's be candid he is a European Mexican -- is the epitome of what Navarrete is saying."
Lord proceeded to criticize the idea that America should be a "multiethnic, multi-racial and multicultural" nation, claiming:
Ramos also penned a 2002 column in which he revealed that he wants to turn America from the "melting pot" of historical fame into a North American version of Mexico -- divided by class and race. In the words of Ramos, "the challenge of the United States is that it recognize itself as it is--a multiethnic, multi-racial and multicultural nation."
This is exactly antithetical to the American Dream. America is not supposed to be an "ethnic" or "racial" nation let alone a "multiethnic, multi-racial and multicultural" nation. "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence is about "all men." Period. Full stop. It says nothing about race or ethnicity. The nation is founded on principles of freedom and liberty -- ideas, not skin color or class structure.
Yet that is not what Ramos is seeking. He is playing the Mexican version of the race card and wanting to transfer the rigid class structure of his native country northward.
He continued by drawing a line from Ramos' advocacy to "slavery to segregation to lynching to the Ku Klux Klan":
It is no accident that his ideas get such a warm welcome on the American Left. As we note here so often, the political party that fuels the American Left is the Democrats -- the party that arose around the organizing principle of dividing Americans by skin color. From slavery to segregation to lynching to the Ku Klux Klan to illegal immigration, the beating heart of the American left is race -- race card-playing, outright racism.
It is no wonder that Ramos, coming from a Mexican society that is itself hopelessly divided by out and out racism thinks it would be terrific to import this way of life to America. And it is no wonder that millions of Americans -- yes, those supporters of Donald Trump -- are furiously resisting. Trump supporters come from a wide diversity of ethnicities -- and in a country that is 100% populated by the descendants of immigrants from all over the globe -- Trump supporters are demanding a colorblind society of American social mobility -- where race and class remain the foreign notions that so many millions came here to escape.
During an appearance today on CNN's New Day, Lord also connected Jorge Ramos to mass shooters in Virginia and Charleston.
When asked about potential solutions to shootings, Lord said that "when you read this guy's manifesto ... he was into a race war. A reaction, which he mentioned, of the Charleston shooting. And that guy was motivated by race." He then connected the mass-shooters to Ramos, stating: "I'm suggesting here that instead of dividing the country by race, which is what we seem to do, which is what, for instance, Jorge Ramos was all about in that press conference. It's all about the race of people. We shouldn't be going down that path." From CNN:
LORD: You know, two things that are not being discussed here at all when you read this guy's manifesto, one is race and the other is value of life. And what do we have here? We have this whole Planned Parenthood issue going on in which basically they're selling baby parts, devaluing life.
ALISYN CAMEROTA: But how is that connected to a man who's just, who feels slighted and decides that killing other people is the answer?
LORD: Right. In other words he's not valuing life. He didn't value the lives of the people that he killed. And aside from that, he was into a race war. A reaction, which he mentioned, of the Charleston shooting. And that guy was motivated by race. So I'm suggesting here that instead of dividing the country by race, which is what we seem to do, which is what, for instance, Jorge Ramos was all about in that press conference. It's all about the race of people. We shouldn't be going down that path. This is a color blind country, that was Dr. King's goal, that's where we should be headed, and I think that is something that we should be discussing as well as mental illness and guns.
Lord has a history of pushing fringe rhetoric and misinformation. He engaged in a "profoundly ahistorical" crusade to deny the lynching of a black man, has repeatedly defended Trump's false anti-Mexican immigrant rhetoric, and pushed bogus conspiracies about progressives and Democrats.
Despite his history, CNN hired Lord as a CNN political commentator earlier this month.
CNN has hired Jeffrey Lord as a political commentator. Lord has a history of pushing fringe rhetoric and misinformation. He engaged in a "profoundly ahistorical" crusade to deny the lynching of a black man, pushed bogus conspiracies about Democrats, compared his political opponents to Nazis and the KKK, and defended Donald Trump's anti-immigrant remarks.
Conservative media figures are attacking Fox News and Megyn Kelly to defend Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, claiming the network and Kelly were "out to get" Trump in Fox News' first Republican primary debate.
New CNN political commentator Jeffrey Lord accused Donald Trump's critics of engaging in a "Goebbelsesque Big Lie technique" by attacking Trump's recent "blood" remarks about Fox News debate moderator Megyn Kelly. CNN has heavily covered the story and criticized Trump for his misogynistic remarks.
In an August 10 column headlined "The Disgusting Big Lie About Donald Trump," Lord discussed Trump's August 7 remarks on CNN that Kelly was a bad moderator and "you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever" -- which many interpreted as a reference to Kelly's menstrual cycle. Lord compared those who had that interpretation to Nazis, writing that what followed Trump's comments was "the most disgusting pieces of political analyses I have ever heard in my life. A plu-perfect example of the insight of Hitler's Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels":
What has followed has been 48-hours of the most disgusting pieces of political analyses I have ever heard in my life. A plu-perfect example of the insight of Hitler's Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." There was not a word said, not a hint, not a suggestion, that Donald Trump ever said Megyn Kelly asked her lead question of him because she was menstruating. Say again... not... a... word. Not one. This is -- there is no other word for it -- a Goebbels-esque lie.
Lord continued by attacking Republicans, RedState blogger Erick Erickson, and the media, again comparing them to Nazis: "In a stunning convergence of the Goebbelsesque Big Lie technique with today's left-wing political correctness, Erickson, the Republican Establishment -- of which Erickson is decidedly not a member -- and many in the media have made it a point to endlessly repeat Erickson's slander."
Lord, a writer for NewsBusters and the American Spectator, announced he was hired by CNN on August 6. CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota stated that day: "Joining us is the newest member of our CNN family, CNN political commentator Jeffrey Lord ... Welcome to the family."
According to his definition, Lord's new employer and his CNN colleagues are apparently acting like Nazis. A Nexis search of transcripts reveals that CNN devoted numerous segments to Trump's blood remarks.
Lord appeared on CNN over the weekend to defend Trump's attack. During one exchange, New Day Saturday host Christi Paul stated that Trump "took on a woman claiming that it was hormonal" and "did it in a sexist way, did he not?" Lord complained: "We have serious problems in this country. And this is what we are talking about?" Fellow conservative CNN commentator Ben Ferguson criticized Trump, saying: "It is absolutely sexist to say that it had to do with hormones of a woman." Lord responded: "This is what political correctness is all about and it's terribly wrong!"
During Reliable Sources, host Brian Stelter responded to Trump's claim that "only a sick person would even think" he was referring to menstruation by replying: "I guess I am a sick person."
CNN senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny cast doubt on Trump's explanation, stating on Inside Politics: "If this was out of character for him perhaps we could take him at his word but I think, you know, there's a long string of things -- a long string of his comments over the years."
Lord also claimed that critics of the remark are "sexist." He said: "I would submit to you, it's because this is sexist. They're coming to the defense of a little lady as it were, which is unbelievably sexist. Megyn Kelly, I like her as I said. I think she's a supremely confident, a great reporter. And, you know, clearly, she's being treated by a different standard by a lot of these Republicans."
From the July 13 edition of CNN's At This Hour:
Loading the player reg...
The conservative media is divided on anonymous sources: Some right-wing media figures have been hyping a claim by an anonymous source that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is "likely involved with the sexual harassment" allegations against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. At the same time, however, other conservative media figures have tried to cast doubt on the sexual harassment allegations against Cain by pointing out that they are based on anonymous sources.
In an American Spectator blog post, Jeffrey Lord opined on the Fox 2012 Primary, writing that Karl Rove is "wrong," in his criticisms of Christine O'Donnell's unsuccessful, Palin-backed candidacy for the Delaware Senate race. Lord wrote that Rove's criticism "is setting the boundaries for a very serious discussion to come."
From Lord's November 2 American Spectator post headlined, "Rove Gets It Wrong: O'Donnell's Loss is Conservative Win":
What startles in the Karl Rove declaration that there is a "lesson" in the defeat of Christine O'Donnell is that he simply doesn't get it.
Ms. O'Donnell deserves conservative thanks.
Karl Rove is setting the boundaries for a very serious discussion to come.
It's more than a month until Election Day, but it seems conservatives are already scraping the bottom of the barrel for baseless attacks on Democratic Delaware Senate candidate Chris Coons.
First up is Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator. Lord -- who we last saw trying to parse whether Shirley Sherrod was "lying" about a relative being lynched because only two people were involved in the act, a position so ridiculous that even his fellow Spectator writers wouldn't back him up -- attacked Coons' work as a college student with the South African Council of Churches. Why? Because Coons was "emerging as a leftist," and thus "decided he had some sort of obvious attraction to the work of SACC," which "support[ed] Black Liberation Theology." Things get tangential from here, as Lord plays Six Degrees of Black Liberation Theology (with a brief stop at Rev. Jeremiah Wright) to depict the SACC has having "pro-Marxist, pro-socialist, anti-capitalist views." Lord proclaimed, "Now, the liberation theology chickens that Chris Coons was supporting in Africa have come home to roost in America."
Lord overlooks a few things. Like: What is the one thing people think of when they think of South Africa in the 1980s? Apartheid. And what was one of the leading groups fighting apartheid in that country? The South African Council of Churches. Bishop Desmond Tutu, a prominent anti-apartheid leader and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, is a former secretary-general of SACC, and Nelson Mandela praised the group as being among those who "resisted racial bigotry and held out a vision of a different, transformed South Africa."
Isn't it more logical that Coons was attracted to working for the SACC over its anti-apartheid stance? Yep. Does Lord make that connection? Nope -- he's too invested in his convoluted conspiracy theory.
And since we're on the subject of defending Andrew, let me disassociate myself with this reprehensible effort. I have no idea what Jeffrey Lord was drinking or smoking, but Breitbart doesn't need friends like this. I'm not sure anyone does.
In other Lord news, he was back defending his claims in an interview with TPM Media this morning.
Jeffrey Lord is now defending himself in the comments section of fellow American Spectator writer James Antle's post criticizing Lord's comments about Shirley Sherrod and the lynching of Bobby Hall.
The results are not pretty.
Lord is now claiming -- and this is not a joke -- that he never personally claimed that Bobby Hall was not lynched, that he just pointed out that the Supreme Court supposedly said he hadn't been lynched.
Lord, responding to Antle's criticism of his argument:
I confess I am continually astonished at the notion that the lynching standards are MY standards. I simply said what the Court said ... the color of law business comes straight from the decision, written by William O. Douglas and signed onto by Hugo Black, Stanley Reed, Chief Justice Stone. Wiley Rutledge later made the fifth vote.
Lord, in his original piece:
Plain as day, Ms. Sherrod says that Bobby Hall, a Sherrod relative, was lynched. As she puts it, describing the actions of the 1940s-era Sheriff Claude Screws: "Claude Screws lynched a black man."
This is not true. It did not happen.
More comparisons of Lord's latest defense with his prior comments below the fold.
Experts on the history of lynching are criticizing an American Spectator report which claimed that Shirley Sherrod's statement that her relative Bobby Hall was lynched was "factually, provably untrue."
In his article, Jeffrey Lord, a former Reagan administration official, said that because Hall was beaten to death, rather than hanged, Sherrod's statement that Hall had been lynched was a "straight out fabrication." Lord's article has come under fire, both from other American Spectator writers and from progressive bloggers and columnists, since its publication on July 26.
"I don't know how in the world you can say" Hall's death is "not a lynching," said Christopher Waldrep, a professor of history at San Francisco State University. "People at the time had no question that it was a lynching. I mean, there was no particular debate." Waldrep has authored several books on lynching, including The Many Faces of Judge Lynch: Extralegal Violence and Punishment in America, in which he discusses the Hall case.
Michael Pfeifer, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the author of Rough Justice: Lynching and American Society, 1874-1947, likewise concluded that "Jeffrey Lord's reasoning is fallacious" and "profoundly ahistorical." Pfeifer added that while the word "lynching" "has always eluded simple, consensus definitions," its use "was most often, but never exclusively, hanging (shootings, beatings, burnings, etc. were also called 'lynchings')."
"The term had no official definition," agreed Illinois State University professor Amy Wood, author of Lynching and Spectacle: Witnessing Racial Violence in America, 1890-1940. Wood said that anti-lynching activists used varied definitions in the first half of the last century, but "No definitions of lynching limited it to hanging."
While Lord continues to dispute Sherrod's statement that Hall was lynched because lynching supposedly requires "mob action" and "Three people are not a 'mob,'" Wood says that "the NAACP (which had the most influence in crafting anti-lynching legislation) defined lynching as an extralegal killing, committed by at least 3 person in the name of justice or tradition." Pfeifer adds that "by the early to mid twentieth century racially motivated murders perpetrated by small groups -- as opposed to large mobs -- became most characteristic of such violence."
Asked for comment, University of North Carolina professor Fitzhugh Brundage, author of Lynching in the New South: Georgia and Virginia, 1990-1930, said that "Sherrod's use of the term is well within the conventions that both blacks and whites have recognized for at least a century." He also calls Lord "clearly insensitive to the ways in which African Americans used the term lynching," given what he terms an "historical imprecision of the term lynching in general."
Brundage also identified a flaw in Lord's argument that the Supreme Court agreed that Hall was not lynched because they did not identify his death as a lynching in the ruling in which the case ultimately resulted. Brundage commented, "The Supreme Court would have had no reason to label Sheriff Screws' actions a lynching; there was no federal statute against lynching so the Court would have no reason to invoke the language of lynching in its decision."
Waldrep similarly identified Lord's Supreme Court argument as "kind of crazy" and "nuts," saying that the Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether Hall was lynched in their decision because it was "not the question they were being asked."
Waldrep went on to say that while they did not address whether Hall was lynched in their decision, the Court was well aware that his death was a lynching. He cited 16 pages of notes taken by Justice Frank Murphy during the Court's private discussions on the case, in which Murphy quoted Justice Robert Jackson stating that if they upheld the convictions of Hall's murderers, they would have effectively created the federal anti-lynching statute that had failed to make it through Congress. "They knew full well it was a lynching," said Waldrep. "That was the problem."
According to Waldrep, Murphy's notes are published in Del Dickson's The Supreme Court in Conference (1940-1985): The Private Discussions Behind Nearly 300 Supreme Court Decisions. The notes are "readily available," said Waldrep. Finding them "doesn't take any great feat of detective work."
Jeffrey Lord begins his July 26 American Spectator article with this provocative assertion:
Shirley Sherrod's story in her now famous speech about the lynching of a relative is not true. The veracity and credibility of the onetime Agriculture Department bureaucrat at the center of the explosive controversy between the NAACP and conservative media activist Andrew Breitbart is now directly under challenge. By nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court. All of them dead.
Actually, not so much (except for the part about the Supreme Court justices in question being dead -- Lord did get that right).
Lord is writing about a reference in Sherrod's now-famous speech to a county sheriff in segregation-era Georgia by the name of Claude Screws. To summarize the case: Screws and two other law enforcement officials arrested a black man named Bobby Hall at his home on a warrant over a theft charge; he was handcuffed and taken to the courthouse. According to the Supreme Court ruling that this case ultimately resulted in, when Hall got out of the car at the courthouse, Screws and his companions began beating him with fists and blackjacks, and continued beating for as much as a half-hour after Hall had been knocked to the ground. Hall was then dragged feet first through the courthouse yard into the jail. He was later taken to a hospital, where he died. Screws and his companions claimed that Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language against them, but there was also evidence that Screws had a grudge against Hall and threatened to "get" him. Screws and his companions were convicted of depriving Hall of his civil rights; that conviction was appealed to the Supreme Court, which in 1945 essentially overturned Screws' conviction on a technicality over jury instructions.
"Claude Screws lynched a black man," Sherrod said in her speech. This is false, Lord asserts. Why? Because Screws and his companions didn't use a rope, and the court ruling didn't use the word "lynching."