Mark Levin expressed his disgust with Glenn Beck’s fascination with Ron Paul and comments about McCain on with Katie Couric:
No registration is required to comment.
Update 10:55 PM: The cross-post of this on Free Republic received 161 replies and 2,064 views in one hour online.
[Mark Levin Fan is proudly powered by WordPress.]
| DJIA | 9908.39 | ||
| NASDAQ | 2126.05 | ||
| S&P 500 | 1056.74 | ||
| Gold Nov 09 | 1186.90 | ||
| Crude Oil Dec 09 | 76.90 |
Poor Rush,Can't even enjoy the dam superbowl this year.And it took two government motor's to beat one Ford Fusion... 
.jpg)
Bad Behavior has blocked 1009 access attempts in the last 7 days.
How’s that, Glenn? That was stupid!
IT’S OFFICEL, B E C K IS A “JERK JOLLY JOKER”
L7 Weenie (Sandlot)…and I’m referring to Beck.
The 5 pm er?
LMAO.
I have a couple theories, but I’ll put them in a sealed envelope for later reading.
Please tell!
Levin you are traitor to the constitution. The people of this country are waking up to you and Hannity and the like(BUSH, CHENEY,WOLFOWITZ,McCain) neo-conservative leftist views. Its fake CONSERVATISM. PEOPLE WAKE UP! They are Wilsonian Democrats, Fabian Socialists.You are being NEO_CONNED. Irvin Crystal was there leader and he is DEAD.He brought empire into the republican party. He was a Trotskyite. I hope that was what Glen Beck was saying. Glenn is open minded enough to realize his sins. He is becoming a patriot. The Heritage Foundation is a front for Fascism. Read the 5,000 year leap.
Anything relevant to refute it?
I don’t think I need to add anything to that. But, thanks for posting.
Chris my friend, I think your Political Compass/GPS is off a bit. Mark Levin is as Constitutional As It Gets. Have you ever read Levin’s Books? Liberty and Tyranny? Men in Black? Listen to his show? Visit his web site?
Do some of your own research. Learn what true conservatives believed. Like Barry Goldwater, Robert Taft (Mr. Republican). They always stood on the side of America staying out of foreign wars.Minding there own business. “trade with all,entangling alliances with none”. Ring a bell? Please dont let Levin tell you what to think
Taft was a little before my time (and I suspect your time). Barry Goldwater was for fighting both WWII and Korea (he fought in both of them and retired an USAF Major General) and was against LBJ on Vietnam, charging that Johnson’s policy was devoid of “goal, course, or purpose.” Still, Goldwater was a staunch anti-Communist and for blocking Communism’s advance by force.
Yet we live in the world as it is today, not back then, so what does Goldwater or Taft have to do with this war? Where would you rather fight this enemy, Virginia, Nashville, or Topeka? This is our fight and we damn well better take it to the enemy where they are.
Does “minding our own business” mean letting Israel and the Muslims have at it? What’s a nuclear exchange and maybe another Holocaust and six million dead Jews to us? Allies are to be tossed aside at a whim, no “entangling alliances” for us still living in 1789, no sir. No worries, we’ll just believe that Iran will not have the ICBMs to hit us until 2020; why worry until they have the capability?
As to trade, TJ had a few problems he couldn’t solve by bribing the Barbary pirates; some folks can’t be reasoned with. We do a little more trade than that these days and I recall our deep water Navy does a fair job of ensuring the sea lanes remain open. Of course, we could just leave it to all the other great navies of the world or China when they get fully up to speed.
Check your calendar, Chris: it is September 22, 2009.
Ok SGT Tim thanks for playin’…Yes this is a different time and perhaps the cold war proved to be an appropriate military build up. But remember it was seen as a continuation of WWII. It is now sept. 22, 2009 and we still have bases in more than 160 countries! I think TJs actions in the Barbary coast were in line with Reagans, and yes, Ron Paul’s philosophy. Which is hit them hard and get out of there. AS Reagan said of Ron Paul. “Being a former Airforce officer, he well knows the need of our military. He is an outstanding leader fighting for a strong national defense.†(Ron Paul had more donations from active military in 2008 primary election than any other candidate combined!)
I am not trying to promote Ron Paul here But he is a true conservative. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11. We just don’t have the right to stay. What would your sentiments be if we had 50,000 Russian troops on American soil? (Blowback?)
Is not conservatism preserving the roots of our founding? Not conservatism of the Likud party or some European conservative.(as Levins brand of neo-CONism resembles) That is what you are promoting. Republicans were elected to get us out of Korea and Vietnam. Our cosistent meddling in the affairs in the middle East will not help Israel. If Israels’ existence was ever threatened we could easily help them but then LEAVE!
Ultimately this empire will be our downfall. It is unsustainable economically and it is largely to blame for our economic woes. We will have a dollar crises and we will not be able to afford this empire. History has shown you cant have an empire and a republic. Choose
Here’s why I believe Glenn is correct – McCain, with his liberal-progressive views and ridiculous LUST for media acceptance, would have made huge changes in federal government largess that would have probably been longer lasting, if not permanently ingrained into US law. McCain is not a conservative and he would have done nothing positive for the conservative movement, much less the vision of our founding fathers. McCain policies would have NEVER BEEN ENOUGH for the radical left and his constant compromises with anti-freedom, big gov’t liberals (McCain-Feingold, Immigration Reform) would have almost certainly pissed off all well known conservatives. Neither the left nor the right would have been happy. A McCain victory would NOT have inspired Tea Parties or the 912 rally in Washington, DC, or created a public environment whereby 1,000,000+ copies of “Liberty & Tyranny†was sold.
Obama, not by design, is rapidly accelerating the education and understanding of conservative values, principles and constitutional passions throughout our nation and beyond. Had McCain been elected, America would not currently be experiencing the “Great Awakening†and the re-founding of our nation’s constitutional principles would not be advancing at the light-speed it is today. McCain’s moderate-progressive, Roosevelt-like policies (where did Obama & McCain substantively differ in their campaigns?) would have caused long lasting harm to the United States, idiotic global warming policies would have probably already been passed into law, and our country would still be speeding down an unsustainable path. Obama, not McCain, represents a Marxism-Fascism “flu shot†for the American people. Obama’s radicalism has inspired a passionate global debate about the freedom of man, the role of government & the wisdom of limited government – before the entire world. Team Obama, if dumped by the good, decent, U.S. citizens after one term, will have awakened the “Sleeping Giant†and saved our country, and possibly the world, for at least another generation.
I am a sinner, Christian, Father, Husband, former USAF instructor pilot, ‘91 Gulf War veteran, former Merrill Lynch/Smith Barney broker, and I currently run a small sales and leadership training company with my wife.
So, you agree, McCain would have been worse?
Okay, this makes me utterly sick to my stomach.
First off….hello, everyone. Had a catastrophic event in the household over the summer & was out of circulation as a result.
Anyway…..this zoo-rant by Beck with Couric is fit for a puzzle doctor & four guys in white coats holding a straight jacket & a tranquilizer gun. What a ****ing LOON!
Literally every conservative I know (including myself) voted for McCain with a clothes pin on their nose. But to have this screwball (yeah, that’s right—SCREWBALL) sit in front of an elite leftist like Couric, look into the camera, and orally flattulate that McCain would “be worse for the country than Barack Obama” is nothing short of CERTIFIABLE.
My antenna have been up with Beck for some time now. His constant “moral equivalency” crap with regard to Republicans & Democrats is is the equivalent of comparing a common cold to Multiple Sclerosis. As his redundant “need” to assure all the liberals that George Bush was every bit as bad as Obama is now.
Hey Glenn—-NEWSFLASH: Every damn conservative pundit on the planet correclty blasted Bush for spending too much money. HOW IN THE HELL IS A $526 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT “EQUAL” TO A $1.8 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT???!!!
Do you REALLY think conservatives are THAT STUPID???
When Bush was wrong…..conservatives STOOD UP against him. When he supported a big “comprehensive” immigration bill (i.e. AMNESTY)….we DEFEATED it!
But DON’T give me this bullsh*t pseudo-con crap that they were “equal” just to safisfy the drifters & loons in your “fan base” who’ve floated from Lou Dobbs to Weiner/”Savage” to Peggy Noonan to NPR.
Hey Glenn—-if you REALLY “care” about conservative values as you so claim…..do us all a favor:
STOP TRYING TO CRITICIZE A CAR ACCIDENT BY DRIVING DRUNK!
Because THAT, my friend, is EXACTLY what you’re doing!
Hi ScottT: You said it like I feel it.
ScottT, welcome back! Glad to have your sane wisdom back, again!
Hey chris,
Just curious—-do you have a “9/11 Was An Inside Job” bumper sticker next to your “Ron Paul 2008″ bumper sticker?
I hear you, Sgt Tim. Thanks!
Good to see you back, ScottT! Hope all is well with you now.
Of course Mark doesn’t like Ron Paul. That’s because Mark is a neocon, not a real conservative.
Calling a Jewish man a ‘neocon’ tells me you are an anti-Semite. Burn any books lately, Nick?
Many years ago I listened to Beck and realized that he was going to hit the national stage in a big way. As a radio talk show host in Florida he was a welcome experience as an antidote to Randi Rhodes who is a unique screwball that could only survive in ultra-left leaning localities such as Palm Beach. I recently re-tuned in because of the abundance of posts and comments on this site, the rest of the net, the Times Magazine article and emails I get blasting Beck as though we stand together. Who was Beck, who is he now and where is he going?
Beck will not be a short-lived comet in the sky because he is smart enough to have gotten where he is over a long stretch of time. If he started last year he would be prone to the mistakes of early success but he has been around too long to self-destruct. He is a populist, as is Obama, and both know how to mold emotions. Beck pretty much backs up what he thinks (global warming/cap and trade/card check). He may have been a libertarian but cannot be any longer based upon what I hear. His support of Ron Paul relates to economics (where RP is sensible) and not foreign affairs (where he is insane). He despises Obama with a passion, both pre and post election, purports to believe in founding principles of conservatism yet makes no distinction between parties. He passionately smashes global warming and cap and trade for the horrific and groundless economic policies that they are and he stood behind Sarah Palin as though she was his sister. He appears to be a work in progress, is yet evolving into something and has not yet completely worked out identity issues.
And yes he voted for John McCain, as we all did, knowing he was not a conservative but would be better than a communist. So why say something that made Palin’s comments to Katie Couric seem brilliant? What is it about Katie Couric that encourages people to make suicidal comments? A singular remark like this begs for an explanation or else defines you as a dangerous loose canon where your Pied Piper charisma may someday cause people to make choices that make lemmings appear intelligent. In addition, such a remark, supports mindless analogies (even made by Bush), such as the belief that capitalism could only be saved by bailouts.
McCain may have been horrible but Palin stood with him so the philosophical differences along the campaign trail would have grown enormously over four years of leadership. The best part of Bush was his VP. Hillary Clinton is an Alinskyite trained thru and thru. She is an accelerant to Obama and there is no Dick Morris and a republican majority to put the breaks on her had she become President. I suspect Beck believes Obama has galvanized the country to resist his policies and is responsible for a conservative surge but McCain would have had an easier time sticking it to us; the exact same analogy can be made of Clinton who I believe would enact universal HC with less resistance than Obama. But when you dissect out the differences you cannot ignore the tremendous implications this Administration represents. You cannot ignore the political appointments, the czars, the arms reductions supported by enemies that sacrifice our friends for nothing in return, the spending to nationalize and reduce the private sector to the same level of impotence they are trying to inflict on the military, the reduction in CIA intelligence gathering, the massive and pervasive debt and titanic unaffordable new entitlements and tax and regulation policies that burden generations and hamstring future economic growth and prosperity. Galvanizing the country in opposition is not preventing Obama from galvanizing these policies permanently into law or creating immortal bureaucracies while adding to a Supreme Court to insure that they are challenge proof. Yes, it is this very permanence that is causing us to resist so vehemently. But would McCain have done any of the aforementioned? Mostly not and what he may have attempted to compromise upon would be tempered by sanity from his base and his conservative VP. The alternative we now have is the most liberal President this country has ever faced, backed by an unintelligent liberal VP and supported by and insane speaker and the full weight of a very liberal democrat majority. Yes, McCain may have tried to influence legislation to grant illegals some variety of amnesty but we are certainly going to get this from Obama with far less control over the outcome. We are going to get that and a lot more in the next few years that would otherwise be silenced by the veto pen of the progressive McCain because, no matter what McCain is, he is not an outright communist. He went to Annapolis and was never tutored by Frank Marshall Davis.
I doubt Beck would stand behind a third party, but if the RNC offers us another moderate, who knows? Most of his listeners also listen to ML while the opposite may not be true. While Beck has done a notable and decent job of taking out Van Jones and illuminating other Czars and also has been a solid anti-ACORN opponent he obviously fails to properly understand the implications of some of his comments. If he wants to be the real deal he needs to understand that true conservatives listen very carefully. We have had enough of moderates, such as John McCain, and will not sit by and afford a pass on such a stupid remark or the idea that both parties are equally corrupt and represent the same ideology.
The Allies joined forces with the communist Soviets to defeat Germany. People will not abandon Beck as long as he opposes Obama and, for the time being, that is glue that joins us all. But in the meantime he can expect to get the same level of criticism he has no difficulty in inflicting on the rest of us by grouping democrats and republicans together and reflecting on the significance of an election outcome defined, by him, not from the perspective of the differences between the candidates, but incorrectly, only on their similarities.
Task, listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FuEWxTvRGY
Oh, I know. What he dosen’t realize is that he is not what he thinks he is. This is convoluted for him and that is why I stated that he has identity issues, if not an outright identity crisis.
Ok SGT Tim thanks for playin’…Yes this is a different time and perhaps the cold war proved to be an appropriate military build up. But remember it was seen as a continuation of WWII. It is now sept. 22, 2009 and we still have bases in more than 160 countries! I think TJs actions in the Barbary coast were in line with Reagans, and yes, Ron Paul’s philosophy. Which is hit them hard and get out of there. AS Reagan said of Ron Paul. “Being a former Airforce officer, he well knows the need of our military. He is an outstanding leader fighting for a strong national defense.” (Ron Paul had more donations from active military in 2008 primary election than any other candidate combined!)
I am not trying to promote Ron Paul here But he is a true conservative. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11. We just don’t have the right to stay. What would your sentiments be if we had 50,000 Russian troops on American soil? (Blowback?)
Is not conservatism preserving the roots of our founding? Not conservatism of the Likud party or some European conservative.(as Levins brand of neo-CONism resembles) That is what you are promoting. Republicans were elected to get us out of Korea and Vietnam. Our cosistent meddling in the affairs in the middle East will not help Israel. If Israels’ existence was ever threatened we could easily help them but then LEAVE!
Ultimately this empire will be our downfall. It is unsustainable economically and it is largely to blame for our economic woes. We will have a dollar crises and we will not be able to afford this empire. History has shown you cant have an empire and a republic. Choose
TJ sent in the Marines, Chris; the organization was not disbanded after “the shores of Tripoli.” You overrate Ron Paul’s military experience; he was a USAF reserve doctor who delivered babies. Any 3-stripper in our military learned more about troop leadership and the real needs of soldiers standing in the chow line than Ron Paul will ever know.
Right to stay? We have an obligation to defend American; if that means staying in Afghanistan until hell freezes over, so be it.
I see you are another calling Mark a neocon. Damn anti-Semites grow on trees these days in America.
BTW, Ike was in office for 8 years and we are still in Korea. The last of our troops left Vietnam a year after Nixon was impeached; he fought the Vietnam War and won the peace agreement by force of arms. It was the Democrats that sold out the South Vietnamese.
How is pointing out Marks political leanings associations anti-semetic? I believe the founders of the movement were Jewish( although I do not know) Why do all you statist(real term not Marks hijacked term in his book) resort to immature name calling that stifles any productive discussion? For_ Liberty!
‘Neocon’ is typically the tell of an anti-Semetic or anti-â€Jew lobby†type, Chris.
Enlighten us, who first used the word ’statist’ that Mark “hijacked?” While you are at it, show me the copyright on the word, plus on Marxism and socialism. Using such a word is hijacking it?
Actually, Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan, himself, used the word but more than that Rush, Sean and lots of conservative now use it. Several other people historically used it but I can’t remember their names at the moment. Personally I think Mark wants that word used by everyone because it is such an aptly fitting description of the ideology we currently face. All conservative talk show hosts should generously employ that language. The word should be abundantly used as it makes the left think, throws them off balance and causes them to search out what you mean. It is easier to use than upsetting a dinner party with words like “communist”, “fascist” or “Marxist”. I used a hell of a lot of those words in the past that was responsible for a lot of my wife’s indigestion. Today I’m required to use the word “statist”, as a substitute.
Neo-Con is there term they made it up not me or the pholosophy of liberty.
As far as the term Statist is concerned I first heard it used by the folowers of Austrian economics. Ludwig Von Mises, Ayn Rand and currently Lew Rockwell. To me it is “hijacked” if it is to mean one party not both. They are all Statists! If you believe in Empire you are for Big government and are a statist.
This use of changing meanings to terms is a common tactic among progressives(neo-cons). Even the word Conservative as we are discussing has changed because of these progressives. The word Conservative was actually created(I think i cant prove) after the 20th century progressives hijacked the term liberal. Which ultimately is the philosophy of conservatives (classic liberalism they sometimes call it today)
“sgt” tim, Explain to me how you are any better than a left winger crying racism for criticizing Obama?
Chris,
I don’t believe you are an anti-Semite but unfortunately you lend support to the morons who are. A long time ago I shared RP’s position on our international presence. In this day and age I have changed my mind and agree with Sgt Tim because we live in a shrinking world that, unfortunately needs to be molded by values, which must take out the mindset of those who will not leave us alone. This is not some personal fantasy. That is the way they feel and in this day and age the weaponry and methodology is a lot different than it was when we founded this country. Islamabad is as close to Washington D.C as a transcontinental flight and is visited each day by multitudes of internationals that do not have a friendly intent. Furthermore our expanding and ruinous debt is not a product of a runaway military budget; it is a product of our runaway entitlement spending that is about five times an order of magnitude as our military budget. What is even worse is the unseen future liabilities that are not part of the budget (55 trillion); future liability expenditures that are already imbedded in the law that we cannot escape. We do not have unfunded military obligations coming our way. The way to cure deficits is to grow the private sector and reduce public spending but the military aspect of a 3.7 trillion dollar budget is less than a sixth and is the smallest part of GDP than it has ever been. Notice that we spent not a dime of stimulus money on defense.
Task thanks for the civility. I agree that the military is not the ONLY cause for our economic woes. It is the easy credit and inflation the Federal Reserve has allowed both, the welfare and warfare state to thrive. Without the devaluing of our currency that has taken place over the last century by means of inflation (printing dollars out of thin air) we would never have been able to afford these entitlements or the foreign policy. Remember, it was LBJ’s progressivism “bread n bombs” Vietnam and social programs that forced the break down of Bretton Woods II and the elimination of any Gold standard through the IMF. This easy money has acted as a drug to both big Government statists Republicans and Democrats. They fight over bread or bombs and they compromise on both. They tax, borrow or print to pay for it and that is why we are where we are. Todays dollar is worth 3% of what it was before the Fed and the welfare/ warfare state. You may argue that it is a necessary expense, but I would argue that without the spending we would be safer. I trully believe they dont hate us because we are free. All nations and peoples want soveriegnty (good ,bad, indifferent)they hate us because we dont allow certain people, nations of the world soveriegnty. Again how would you feel if there were 50,000 Russian soldiers on our soil, even if there intentions were ultimately good? My point prior is that this foreign policy directive is the policy of Wilsonian Democrats, progressives. They infiltrated the republican party in the early 1970’s and by the first Bush presidency have teken over the party. Under the guise of Neo- Conservatism. It is not my term they made it up. Its there term. Remember a kinder,Gentler conservatism. Yes with modern technology this is a smaller world, but it reminds me of what Benjamin Franklin admonished us to remember. “those who would trade freedom for temporary security deserves neither.” The philosophy of liberty can never lend itself to antisemitic or racist view points. Ultimately the philodophy of liberty is based on individual freedom and not a collectivist mindset which a racist is by definition.
Actually I speak to some of these fundamentalists and that is what really helped to change my view. Those that live in our country, from Iran (as an example), defend Islamic traditions and anti-American ideology despite the fact that they are in America by the very fact that we abandoned our presence in Iran by encouraging the Shah to abdicate. Now they want us out of countries that we barely have a presence and can’t wait to leave. Moreover, why is it that only Islamic nations are so violence prone regarding our presence? Germans, Koreans and Japanese are not of this mindset yet we were barely in Saudi Arabia and relatively middle class zealots with no economic axe to grind decided the fate of 911.
I am not a fan of the Feds and their loose monetary policy (behind the bubble and bust) but the fact remains that the military budget, in percentage terms of GDP, is smaller than it ever was.
Perhaps it has to do with who ended up with the nations resources? Which would you and our nation be like if we were occupied? Japan or Saudi?
I am amazed that with everything thats going on in this country you find nothing more worthy of discussion than the Glenn Beck/Mark Levin Saga! I feel like I’m back in the high school girls room with feuding “cliques”. Didn’t like it then, don’t like it now. Give me a shout when you graduate.
Beck is correct. Although we would have achieved gridlocked government under McCain(a good thing), we also would probably be in a war with Iran and oil would be at 140 dollars a barrel. Anyway, we can debate this point all day, but Beck’s statement is good because it exposes how the two party duopoly sucks.
I don’t agree with Beck on everything, but I think he has more understanding of economics than Levin. Levin is very good at beating war drums, if you’re into that sort of thing. No, I haven’t read his books. I can’t justify reading books about the Constitution from someone who supports the unconstitutional patriot act.
Yeah right, “beachgirl”.
Unfortunately, those of us who actually LISTEN TO PEOPLE’S WORDS just aren’t as “sophisticated” enough as the likes of you to be able to, ahem, “graduate”.
Go eat another scone at Starbucks and stop spending so much time in the sun…..and give us a shout when your “diploma” equates to something resembling an actual THOUGHT.
chris,
You profess unbridled support for Ron Paul, yet at the same time you claim that “we had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11″.
Ron Paul DOESN’T.
We were attacked by Al Qaeda. That is a FACT. The Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda & would not turn over their leadership to us. That is a FACT.
Ron Paul?? He claims that those who attacked us were NOT Al Qaeda……they were “just a group of thugs”.
HIS words, NOT mine.
It’s no wonder that he attends “9/11 Truther” meetings & is such a good pal of Dennis Kucinich.
Truly frightening!
Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanistan. I would like to know who told you these lies, for future reference.
Now you are just making stuff up like your pal Levin… Paul supported the initial action against the Taliban. If you were or Levin were actually true constitutonalist they would support Ron Pauls suggestion to use the “letters of marques and repprisals” which is the constitutionally prescribed solution that TJ used to go after the Barbary pirates. even when dealing with a loose band of thugs there is a constituitionally prescribed solution. Nation building in the name of “democracy” is just a progressive statist big govrnment solution. You sound like Woodrow Wilson
Not nation building for the sake of democracy but for self-interest, survival or just less morbidity. Democracy can also mean thugocarcy or mobocracy, depending on which side liberty falls.
But as we already discussed from an economic perspective, security perspective or maybe even a moral one can nation building ever really be in our long term self-interest?
How many more people do we need to kill to attain less morbidity? We are fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, are we not? There are about 1 million dead over there. Something tells me that the “small pockets of resitance and Al Qaeda terror cells” have probably been eliminated by now, and we are fighting the general public.
Nick,
Good Job
For_Liberty!
thanks brother.
Nick & chris,
Those “lies” came straight from Ron Paul’s MOUTH.
Don’t you remember the Republican presidential debate?? Those were HIS WORDS: “That was JUST a group of thugs”!
Yeah, he voted to go into Afghanistan……just as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton & nearly every other Democrat were FOR going into Iraq before they were AGAINST it.
lol, how is Al Qaeda not just a group of thugs? Read the 9/11 commission report. If anything, you should be praising Ron Paul for denigrating Al Qaeda rather than the “Baghdad Bob” of Al Qaeda George Bush and his neo-con propaganda army. They want you to believe that Al Qaeda is over 1 million strong which is why we killed that many of them yet are still not done.
Kerry and Hillary were always for it, they just turned against it to pander to their base. The political oligarchy loves this war.
I wrote this on Sept 8th
I would be the last one to criticize Andrew McCarthy’s very sound understanding of Islam, extreme fundamentalist Islam, its core beliefs and its dedication to establish Sharia law internationally because I read his book and it is apparent that he used every bit of empathy to emerge himself into the minds of the acolytes behind the first Trade Center bombing. He learned well; probably better than anyone else in America he understands the threats we face, both domestically and internationally and that those threats come from Islamic countries as well as our own mistaken domestic tolerance and misunderstanding of what we are dealing with. We stand a notch above Israel in that fundamentalists would, if given the chance, let us live to accept Islam as our way out, while they would provide no alternative for Israel except extermination. In that sense we have clearly taken our eye off the ball when it comes to Iranian nuclear capability while concentrating on Iraq and Afghanistan, which could never now do what Iran brazenly announces it plans for the future. We need not ignore the latter to achieve the former; I believe that all, and not some, is necessary.
The socialist economic policies of the left will certainly leave us less prepared for the 21st century military needed to help build nations. Democracy, in the pursuit of freedom, may fail to prevail, not because many would not accept liberty and freedom, or because their democracy seeks to reject freedom and accept the restraints of Islam, but because the extreme element of that bifurcated religion are cult like zealots that have robust intellectual and financial support and will deal with moderates and others using terror and force akin to the most brutal armies history has ever witnessed. And while they do prefer willing conversion they will never accept “no†for an answer. In order to survive in such an environment you acquiesce, pay considerable largess to support fundamentalism (Saudi tactics), depart or fight back.
While Turkey (and others such as India and Bangladesh) are examples of tolerant Islam coexisting with other religions their secularity is a product of business and prosperity which grew on its own and will not now destroy itself for ideology. And while McCarthy recognizes that poverty is not synonymous with extremism the lack of free enterprise and capitalism is. To physically destroy the Taliban was easy. We had the support of alliances and the effectiveness of concussion bombs and oxygen consuming firebombs that devastated their forces in days wile we employed but a few hundred men in the field. There is no army on the ground, or in caves, that cannot be bombed, buried or poisoned into defeat. Our alliances still exist and their hatred for extreme Islam will also persist, but we may now be burdened by a slow sacrificial attrition of a brave fighting force under the leadership of a commander whose resoluteness is as unclear as his bias.
Democracy is never the total answer to tyranny. The concepts behind freedom are continually destroyed at the voting booth because democracy, that does not simultaneously protect the individual ‘s freedom, will cause groups to believe that the might of voting majorities has the same significance as the sword and that rewards of the victorious can be the natural God given freedoms of others. You cannot democratically vote on taking away freedom and liberty because that moral authority does not exist.
When someone like Carter destroys our influence in the Middle East and gives us an anti-American, anti Israel Iran, that has created proxies in the entire region, he does so on the short sighted and poorly understood concepts that democracy and freedom are interchangeable and he also ignores fundamental American interests, such as security, in the process. The Shah of Iran was part of out defense strategy as much as our military is. As is always the case, liberals attempting to do good end up doing very bad things. What was the body count under the Shah as compared to what it currently is?
We cannot leave Afghanistan or Iraq but our policies have to be far less tolerant than they currently are. Islamic law cannot coexist with freedom and American values. As such this is about the supremacy of those values as they pertain to America’s economic and security interests. The concept of porous borders, open immigration policies, a green prevailing energy policy that strengthens our enemies and failure to properly understand the type and breadth of the presence and control needed in Iraq and Afghanistan is where our future rests. Afghanistan and Iraq need to be cultivated and fertilized so that their existence does not conflict with America’ economic and security interests at any time. To the extent that at least 50% of those populations are women and far more than half are young, to achieve our goal requires concentrating on them. It is not an accident that we have a President that is a far left ideologue. Statists, decades ago, not only created, in our public education system, the voting population that helped vote in Barack Obama but in the process actually created the candidate himself. If Islamic law is intolerant of Christianity, Judaism, other religions and freedom then it must be modified or extinguished. It would be one thing if they would leave us alone but since they will not there is no way that we can afford to tolerate the intolerable. When you get a foothold in such a trouble spot you do not give that foothold up because you may not get a second chance again. Some look at our presence as a burden; I see it as an opportunity that you do not pass by. If you do you might as well view Afghanistan and Iraq tomorrow the way we view Iran today.
“We cannot leave Afghanistan or Iraq but our policies have to be far less tolerant than they currently are. Islamic law cannot coexist with freedom and American values. As such this is about the supremacy of those values as they pertain to America’s economic and security interests. The concept of porous borders, open immigration policies, a green prevailing energy policy that strengthens our enemies and failure to properly understand the type and breadth of the presence and control needed in Iraq and Afghanistan is where our future rests. Afghanistan and Iraq need to be cultivated and fertilized so that their existence does not conflict with America’ economic and security interests at any time.”
If you don’t see this statement as a textbook example of national socialist thinking, I can’t help you. You are saying that we need to occupy countries, destroy their law and culture so that it is in tune with our whims, no matter what. How many people are you willing to kill for the 2000+ that a small band of cave dwellers killed on 9/11 and that could have been stopped 5 or 6 times if our bureaucracy was competent at protecting us? So far we have given Iraq the equivalent of a 9/11 every day for 10 years.
I understand that you have been taught to fear muslims because of the easily preventable 9/11 attacks(see 9/11 Commission Report). What if I were to tell you that the people who lied us into Iraq don’t give a d*** about stopping terrorists? Want my evidence? The border with Mexico is still wide open. Bush and his neocons don’t care about you, and his war has nothing to do with protecting this country.
Educate me about the 9/11 Commission Report, Nick. Explain “easily preventable.” Tell me your theory on how. To be fair, you are about to explain your theory to a person who has read every page, every end note, and the hundreds of MFRs, plus successfully forced the DOJ to release the Staff Summary about the Wall; don’t short-change or try to B.S. me. (Click on my name, Nick.)
I deleted your overview; I want your explanation, in your own words. I said don’t short-change me.
Interesting remark regarding what I have been taught. How about what I learned, discovered, thought about, read, checked out and concluded. Did Sandy Berger provide any of the material he removed from the National Archives and was Jamie Gorelick part of the Commission or a deposed witness?
I looked at a lot of those findings the way I would look at a financial meltdown report provided by a commission headed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
I predicted the tragedy for years before it happened because I knew their mindset and our lack of any mindset.
Easily “preventable”? Maybe from a homeland side. How about working on “curable” since the World already has the international disease. Then you have to do something akin to what I suggested.
Chris and Nick are parsing fools; all evidence is subject to manipulation and when it does not match their theory, they make up their own facts. Stating 9/11 was “easily preventable” was a ridiculous overstatement, which I why I gave Nick an hour to expand upon it before banning them. Chris and he brought nothing of substance to this debate about Glenn Beck other than to show if he embraces Ron Paul’s opinions on foreign policy, Beck is the last person we should follow towards a cliff.
This will set off our Dr. RuPaul lovers (Chris and Nick); he voted to use force in Afghanistan (ScottT was not lying.) Sheila Jackson Lee was the only dissenting 420 – 1 vote.
At the request of their Guru, Nick and Chris were banned so they would not be late for their union ceremony. It was the same old story; 9/11 truther, anti-Semite, and RuPauler meets 9/11 truther, anti-Semite, and RuPauler and love just happened
Interesting that on a conservative site RuPaulers meet and instantly bond.
They have a service that alerts them every time the name ‘Ron Paul’ is posted on a blog. That’s how they are able to spam the Internet.
It`s weird to see so many people on here agreeing with Obama`s foreign policy.
Agree? The guy is not serious about fighting this enemy. He’ll need pushed into it.
He is playing around to soothe the (so-called)anti-war left crowd and to infuriate the pro-war right.He is not serious about leaving Iraq.He never was.He is even spreading the war to Pakistan and Iran.He is a continuation of Clinton/Bush foreign policy.Just keep watching and see.
Well, you are talking about me. Long about June 2003, with the 4th ID in country, we should have executed a Corps .. right flank .. MARCH, reorganized at the Iran-Afghanstan border and then continued on.
democrats = republicans
bush = mccain = obama = clinton …
o’reilly , hannity , levin , limbaugh = olberman , schutz , o’donnell …..
socialists = fascists = collectivists
war and welfare = statist
————————————-
ron paul 2012
I agree with BECK. True conservatives are better off with OBAMA than McCain. Look how many conservatives fell asleep at the wheel during the socialist Bush era. How much did government grow under Bush? Prescription Drugs, expansion of Dept of Education, the Iraq debacle, the bail outs etc. Now with Obama, many have started to wake up. Consider the Tax protests and the town hall meetings. When its our guy in the white house, we are like frogs being boiled to death. Now that the enemy is clearly identified we might get something done….like HR1207 to AUDIT THE FED!
I agree.This country needed Obama to win to wake the true conservatives up.It worked for me.
Beck said McCain “would have been worse” and nothing about us being better off as Obama is a wake up call. And he said he would have voted for Hillary if she had been up against McCain. Beck is not dumb or dumber; he’s pandering.
Beck said to Couric: “John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama…how’s that?”. Beck did not get to answer his own question (at least on Couric’s show.) I drew my own conclusions. Remember McCain and Obama put their campaigns on hold and both raced back to Washington to vote for the Bush bailout. Neither one has a clue. But it is much easier now to criticize a full blown marxist/national socialist(nazi) /communist/ fascist like Obama, than a less than average intelligence war hero like McCain.
Mark Levin Missed Glenn Beck’s Point… Again.
If I had not heard Glenn Beck explain the intent of his point re: Sen. McCain or Obama, I would probably accept Mark Levin’s assertion that Glenn’s statement about Sen. McCain was off the wall weird… but I did hear Glenn’s full comment about Sen. McCain and I agree with Glenn Beck, and I told Mark Levin as much when I spoke back audibly to my radio…
Mark, you’re missing the point!
Glenn Beck is definitely correct… Sen. McCain would not be challenged as vociferously by the namby pamby Republicans in the House and Senate, although the ‘fringe media’ would probably not be the ‘lap-dog media’ with McCain as they are with Obama.
Mark Levin reminds me of Michael (Weiner) Savage in Savage’s throw-rocks-at-the-point-man verbiage and diatribes against Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Riley et al.
Memo to Michael (Weiner) Savage…
Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Riley, Glenn Beck are on OUR side of the ideological debate, and ‘we the people’ who listen to the radio EVERY day expect our point men to have their backs covered, not fired upon.
Back-stabbing is shallow and puerile.
Memo to Mark Levin…
Glenn Beck is on OUR side of the ideological debate, and ‘we the people’ who listen to the radio EVERY day expect our point men to have their backs covered, not fired upon.
Back-stabbing is shallow and puerile.
Mark, Glenn Beck is the pointman re: the ‘Cloward and Piven Strategy’ BIG PICTURE as it relates to the Obama and Soros tree of corruption. The ‘Cloward and Piven Strategy’ acolytes seem to have found a pointman in Obama.
Mark, your radio comments about Glenn not focuscing on the ’statist’ agenda as you do on the radio and your book is well taken but it misses the mark (pun not intended).
The conservative blowback against Obama and Soros is like a diamond with different facets…
You, Mark, focus on your ’statist’ point of view facet and Glenn focuses on Obama’s ‘transform America’ words while he exposes the corruption that is allowing the ’statist’ assult on our U.S. Constitution to ‘transform America’ into Obama’s ‘Lenin wanna be’ image… what I call Obama’s ‘Communerde’ agenda.
Mark, Obama and his ‘transform America’ agenda is the enemy of America’s future, not Glenn Beck.
Art, you’re a big dope. Obama is trying to destroy our country PERMANENTLY! That is no joke. Obama is playing for keeps. If we don’t stop him (and there’s no guarantee we will) then you can kiss our way of life goodbye! Do you really believe anything McCain could do comes even close to that?
‘You’re a big dope’ is not a response…
And, whoever you are, you are also missing the point.
The point is that McCain would not have inspired America to reject the GWBush ‘abandon the free market principles to save the free market’ rhetoric as much as Obama’s ‘transform America’ rehtoric and Obama’s ‘Lenin wanna be’ activity.
Art, this is my website and Mark Levin uses that line. If you listened you would know. Your point did not escape me. I just flatly reject it as weak. All of the Bush and McCain socialism put together do not come even close to what Obama has in store for us.
So, no problem. In 3 1/2 more years, the next generations will be saddled with a debt so huge they will be doomed to poverty. Thanks for the inspiration, Obama. McCain would have spent a lot but not entrenched socialism yet future generations need the pain. You are smart, Art – not.
‘You’re A Big Dope’ Is Still Not A Response…
In fact, it is shallow and puerile and it reminds me of Michael Savage in his insults to people that get under his skin.
Now I understand why the word ‘dope’ was in your opening sentence, and I am well aware that Mark Levin uses that line… I listen every day… and I still don’t like it.
That’s no way to win friends and influence people to the cause of defending the U.S. Constitution… and hopefully the future presidency of Sarah Palin.
However, is it just me, or is Mark getting mellower and more patient as he is learning to suffer foolish callers with equanimity?
Your response was weak, since the point is very strong because it is historically accurate…
It is a FACT that in 8 years GWBush was a bigger spender than Lyndon Baines Johnson, he did not use the veto pen to limit spending and he was not challenged by the namby pamby Republicans.
Bush’s and McCain’s socialism put together, as you put it, and Bush’s silly remark about saving the free market system by abandoning free market principles definitely are not as bad as what Obama has in store for America.
Your point is not well made since you agree with the essence of what I have written here.
So, what’s your point?
It seems that we agree that Obama and his ‘transform America’ rhetoric reveals an agenda that probably most of the people who voted for him will reject in 2010 and in also in 2012.
‘You are smart, Art – not’ is shallow and… a substantive response is not possible because the final sentence, ‘McCain would…’ is confusing.
We all know that McCain would not have advanced conservatism but he would have left a semblance of our country behind that we could build on. You cannot modify, change and destroy this much (and it isn’t over) and expect to immediately repair it post Obama. The cement will have dried by then. The programs that they enact today will consume our freedom tomorrow and for a long time after we are dead and buried. I don’t know what you thought of Palin but she figured prominently in my support for McCain. Based on all who hate her she figured prominently in their support for Obama. Considering that part of the Obama platform was to change the way the world perceives America you should especially notice how are enemies currently view us. In my profession I’ve watched little dogs badger large dogs into submission. A lot of the advantage we have over our enemies is psychological and that translates to needing less force on the ground and less American lives lost. Obama has clearly given more hope to our enemies than Jimmy Carter or the NY Times ever has. Cheaper health insurance is not the first priority of any government whether it be a constitutional republic or a socialist oligarchy; the protection and defense of its citizens has been the mainstay of government and leadership since we existed as tribes and although we may have changed the technology government has the same order of priority today as well.
Good grief, these Tin-Foilers are fit for Dr. Loomis.
If they had to have Obama instead of McCain as president to (as they say) “wake them up”……that pretty much tells you all you need to know about THEM.
YIKES!!
ScottT, I was going to mention that point, myself. You beat me to it! LOL!
Moderator — Link to image deleted
THE SIMPLE TRUTH
Hanna: Go peddle your wares somewhere else.
Isn’t there more important things to worry about? More pressing issues instead of talking about Glenn Beck? He (Beck) is not my favorite talking head, but we have idiots like Keith Olberman and Chris “Hard On” Matthews spewing their bile about how awesome Barrack is, that is more pathetic than what Beck said. I don’t think Beck likes Obama, I just think he said something stupid in the heat of the moment. We have unbelievable (in a bad way) changes happening… and possibly having a health-care “reform” (that will pretty much ruin this nation) on the verge of happening… so I think we should stick together and focus on crushing that.
There is no “heat of the moment” thinking involved here. Give the devil his due, Beck knows enough to look over his shoulder and ensure the parades he jumps in front of don’t turn off leaving him a lone idiot in heavy traffic. The risk here is some good portion of the parade will follow when Beck goes where his ratings and the money leads him.