I’m sending this today, in response to recent conversations on his radio show regarding Ron Paul. I’ll also be waking up early Monday morning to attempt to call in and make some of these points on the air, if I can get through.
Mr. Beck,
I’d like to begin by saying that I am a huge fan. I’ve been listening to your radio show on a regular basis for about four years. I’ve been an insider extreme and GBTV plus subscriber for three, and have been completely satisfied with my purchase. You have been a huge influence on my beliefs and have helped motivate me to change the world, starting my being a better person and changing myself.
I am an active duty Sailor in the United States Navy. I am also a supporter of Dr. Ron Paul. In the recent months, I’ve been fairly disappointed by what I believe to be biased and unfair treatment of Dr. Paul on your show by yourself, as well as Pat and Stu. It’s true that Ron Paul does have some supporters who are “crazy,” but to characterize the whole (or even a majority) of Paul supporters that way is unfair. All candidates have “crazy” supporters. For some reason, you do not seem to hesitate to put “crazy” Ron Paul supporters on the air. Somehow, I have yet to hear you put a “crazy” Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum caller on the air. Perhaps this is a coincidence.
Over the last few months, you have regularly encouraged your audience to find and support people of character, people whose principles align with your own. You have expressed frustration with the political process in America where everything ends up becoming all about specific opinions on individual issues, where everyone searches for the “perfect” candidate who obviously does not exist. Ron Paul is quite obviously a man of deep convictions and impeccable character. He is the ONLY candidate in either party who regularly expresses an understanding of the Constitution, and who declares his intention to follow it. Perhaps you believe that Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum will not be “that bad” on the Constitution. Personally, I see no meaningful ways in which their policies differ from George W. Bush, who also presented himself as a conservative during election season, and then went on to rack up record deficits and engage in an aggressive foreign policy. You have stated multiple times that you agree fully with Ron Paul on many issues. The only issue on which you seem to really disagree with him is the issue of Israel. This gives the impression that you have become the very thing you used to speak out against, a “single-issue voter.”
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Ron Paul’s stated position is that we should treat Israel exactly the same as we treat all of our other allies. On your show, I have heard you express your support of the Thomas Jefferson quote, “honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” This is Dr. Paul’s position exactly. By demanding that Ron Paul express favored treatment to Israel, you are rejecting Jefferson’s sentiment. Furthermore, I have heard you on your show repeatedly reject the notion that government must “force” individuals to give charity. You have always recognized that charity must come from the voluntary choice of individuals. That it is not morally acceptable for the government to take from Peter to give to Paul. It would seem that this belief is not consistent with demanding the federal government give foreign aid to Israel. Foreign aid is just another method of forced charity. I would suggest that you approach the issue of financial aid for Israel in the same way you approach the issue of helping the poor and needy here in the United States. Encourage individuals to donate. If you believe the government of Israel needs our financial support, perhaps you should write them a check yourself, rather than demanding I sacrifice some of my income to support them..
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Conservatives (of which I still continue to identify myself as one) often express and admiration and appreciation for the American military. Speaking as an active duty servicemember myself, this is very much appreciated. We need all the support we can get. At this point, however, I would like to ask you a very simple question. If Ron Paul’s foreign policy is so dangerous, why does he receive more donations from the military than all the other candidates combined. The top three donators to Ron Paul’s campaign are the US Army, US Air Force, and US Navy. I have never heard you mention or address this on your show. I am honestly interested in your explanation for this. It seems odd to me that many who claim to “support the troops” refuse to support the candidate the troops prefer. I can tell you first-hand talking to many of my peers, we support Ron Paul BECAUSE of his foreign policy, not in spite of it. You have claimed that Ron Paul does not understand the middle east. What about the troops who agree with him? Do the troops “not understand” the middle east, or do you just not particularly care about their opinions? It is quite obvious to many of us at this point that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will end the policy of continuous warfare. To put it simply Glenn, we’re tired. We’re tired of the constant deployments. We’re tired of seeing our brothers and sisters come back with missing limbs, impaired vision, crippling PTSD, and even worse, not coming back at all. Now that Iraq is finally drawing to a close, it seems that both Democrats and mainstream Republicans such as Romney and Santorum are beating the drum for Iran. There is no doubt in my mind that Iran is a dangerous and evil regime. But we simply cannot afford to constantly be fighting wars with every dangerous and evil regime in the world. When does it stop? How many years will our fighting men and women be embroiled in another quagmire in Iran? Once that is “done” (to the extent that these things are ever really “done), where will it be next? North Korea? Somalia? Venezuela? There are always more evil regimes in the world. Do you honestly envision some future date where the President of the United States will walk out and say, “That’s it everyone! We’ve killed ALL the terrorists. America is finally totally safe now. There is no more evil in the world and our troops can now stay home and actually concentrate on defense instead of aggression.” Personally, I do not think that day will ever come. Ron Paul recognizes this, and the troops agree with him. Enough is enough. How many dead soldiers will it take to finally convince the political class that these wars are just not worth it?
The last topic I would like to address are the newsletters. Dr. Paul was obviously negligent in his responsibility to ensure that the content of these letters properly reflected his belief in treating all humans equally as individuals. Any time he defended particularly egregious content was obviously a lapse in judgment as well. You have claimed on your show that this lapse in judgment somehow makes Ron Paul a terrible manager and unworthy of the Presidency. Do you think that the other candidates have never made mistakes? I would suggest that they have, and I would also suggest that their mistakes are worse. Which is really more critical to the nation, Ron Paul’s “mistake” of allowing some questionable content to be published in his name 15 years ago, or say, Romneycare? I would argue that Romney’s “mistake” is much more significant and much more indicative of someone who is not fit for the Presidency. I have yet to hear you make this unqualified assessment of Mitt Romney in the same way you have for Ron Paul.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I know that you get lots of mail and that the odds of you actually reading this are small. If you do end up reading it, I thank you for your time. If you could address any of these points on your show, I would greatly appreciate it. I would only ask that you not mention my last name or location. Military personnel are often pressured into not speaking out on political issues and I fear that if this letter became public, I could face potential retaliation in my career. Thanks again for everything you do.
You should do what I do when I post more than 1 connected post at a time - delete your sig in your Settings and then add it back in for the final post. Makes the connection from post #1 to post #2 a lot smoother.
Beck is just a hypocrite dude, not a tough one to figure out. he's just another Republican shill who clothes himself in the language of freedom while not actually supporting it at all. you really can't reconcile his stated beliefs with the people he actually supports. he likes Israel and war and thinks Obama's a socialist just like the rest of them.
if Beck were actually at all honest, I think your letter would be pretty convincing!
His foreign policy is one of his most sensible parts. Unless you live under the assumption that "we own the world" his is the only acceptable foreign policy position of any of the current presidential candidates.
Whatever you think about Ron Paul, SmartMuffin, Republicans, whatever:
To put it simply Glenn, we’re tired. We’re tired of the constant deployments. We’re tired of seeing our brothers and sisters come back with missing limbs, impaired vision, crippling PTSD, and even worse, not coming back at all. Now that Iraq is finally drawing to a close, it seems that both Democrats and mainstream Republicans such as Romney and Santorum are beating the drum for Iran. There is no doubt in my mind that Iran is a dangerous and evil regime. But we simply cannot afford to constantly be fighting wars with every dangerous and evil regime in the world. When does it stop? How many years will our fighting men and women be embroiled in another quagmire in Iran? Once that is “done” (to the extent that these things are ever really “done), where will it be next? North Korea? Somalia? Venezuela? There are always more evil regimes in the world. Do you honestly envision some future date where the President of the United States will walk out and say, “That’s it everyone! We’ve killed ALL the terrorists. America is finally totally safe now. There is no more evil in the world and our troops can now stay home and actually concentrate on defense instead of aggression.” Personally, I do not think that day will ever come. Ron Paul recognizes this, and the troops agree with him. Enough is enough. How many dead soldiers will it take to finally convince the political class that these wars are just not worth it?
There shouldn't be a damn person in the U.S. that disagrees with this.
It's too easy for people to say "he's crazy" without backing it up and you see it all the time on the internet. Unfortunately it's easy to make Paul look crazy when you give a two sentence summary on his policies. When you look deeper you realize they're actually very sensible.
From: OmarsComin | #011 Beck is just a hypocrite dude, not a tough one to figure out. he's just another Republican shill who clothes himself in the language of freedom while not actually supporting it at all. you really can't reconcile his stated beliefs with the people he actually supports. he likes Israel and war and thinks Obama's a socialist just like the rest of them.
if Beck were actually at all honest, I think your letter would be pretty convincing!
A few months ago, I would have disagreed pretty strongly with this, but the election is really exposing him. I honestly do feel like he's close to Ron Paul, he just won't let himself admit it. Also, his two co-hosts are HARDCORE neocons so I think there's a bit of peer pressure involved, as silly as that may sound.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
SlymDayspring posted... ....what? it is like...the exact opposite. the deeper you get, the crazier he seems.
People can say "he doesn't want to federally prosecute rapists!" or "he wants to cut the education department!" but when you actually look at the reasons you realize that any proponent of the constitution or small government would agree with these. I mean I know you still don't agree with him but he definitely has his reasons for his positions.
People can say "he doesn't want to federally prosecute rapists!" or "he wants to cut the education department!" but when you actually look at the reasons you realize that any proponent of the constitution or small government would agree with these. I mean I know you still don't agree with him but he definitely has his reasons for his positions.
To be a little more specific.
There is a difference between "I don't want the federal government to do X" and "I don't want X to happen." Cutting the Education Department for example, would not mean the end of all public schooling as we know it. It would just give the responsibility and freedom to determine educational policies back to the states.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
SmartMuffin posted... People can say "he doesn't want to federally prosecute rapists!" or "he wants to cut the education department!" but when you actually look at the reasons you realize that any proponent of the constitution or small government would agree with these. I mean I know you still don't agree with him but he definitely has his reasons for his positions.
To be a little more specific.
There is a difference between "I don't want the federal government to do X" and "I don't want X to happen." Cutting the Education Department for example, would not mean the end of all public schooling as we know it. It would just give the responsibility and freedom to determine educational policies back to the states.
Exactly, so that way instead of a minor difference between the educational prowess between states, there would be a giant difference, and kids who live in states without good educational systems would be boned. Woo Free Market!!!
yoshifan823 posted... SmartMuffin posted... People can say "he doesn't want to federally prosecute rapists!" or "he wants to cut the education department!" but when you actually look at the reasons you realize that any proponent of the constitution or small government would agree with these. I mean I know you still don't agree with him but he definitely has his reasons for his positions.
To be a little more specific.
There is a difference between "I don't want the federal government to do X" and "I don't want X to happen." Cutting the Education Department for example, would not mean the end of all public schooling as we know it. It would just give the responsibility and freedom to determine educational policies back to the states.
Exactly, so that way instead of a minor difference between the educational prowess between states, there would be a giant difference, and kids who live in states without good educational systems would be boned. Woo Free Market!!!
My point was that he's not crazy, and you can at least see where he's coming from. If you can't there's no helping you.
I guess our definitions of crazy are just different. Mine would be "having crazy ideas" rather than "not being able to provide reasons for his crazy ideas"
because literally every politician has their "reasoning"
--
I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png
EndOfDiscOne posted... yoshifan823 posted... SmartMuffin posted... People can say "he doesn't want to federally prosecute rapists!" or "he wants to cut the education department!" but when you actually look at the reasons you realize that any proponent of the constitution or small government would agree with these. I mean I know you still don't agree with him but he definitely has his reasons for his positions.
To be a little more specific.
There is a difference between "I don't want the federal government to do X" and "I don't want X to happen." Cutting the Education Department for example, would not mean the end of all public schooling as we know it. It would just give the responsibility and freedom to determine educational policies back to the states.
Exactly, so that way instead of a minor difference between the educational prowess between states, there would be a giant difference, and kids who live in states without good educational systems would be boned. Woo Free Market!!!
My point was that he's not crazy, and you can at least see where he's coming from. If you can't there's no helping you.
From: yoshifan823 | #025 Exactly, so that way instead of a minor difference between the educational prowess between states, there would be a giant difference, and kids who live in states without good educational systems would be boned. Woo Free Market!!!
Yeah that would be so much worse than how it is currently where NO states have good educational systems
This is the problem with a lot of people criticizing his beliefs. "Oh, his ideas are dumb because they are a C even though right now we are an F" "No point in fixing anything unless we can fix everything"
-- _foolmo_ 'Illegal activities is a slight misnomer, most of it is not related to material that is actually illegal.' - nintendogrl1
Exactly, so that way instead of a minor difference between the educational prowess between states, there would be a giant difference, and kids who live in states without good educational systems would be boned. Woo Free Market!!!
And presumably, in many states, the system would get better.
But you don't care about that. Leftists only care about equality. You'd rather everyone have an equally terrible system than some have a good system and some have a bad one.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
SmartMuffin posted... Exactly, so that way instead of a minor difference between the educational prowess between states, there would be a giant difference, and kids who live in states without good educational systems would be boned. Woo Free Market!!!
And presumably, in many states, the system would get better.
But you don't care about that. Leftists only care about equality. You'd rather everyone have an equally terrible system than some have a good system and some have a bad one.
Or, I could not want either of those. I want everyone to have a great education system! I want the US to be the best when it comes to education. Though I also don't want people to get the short end of the stick when it comes to education. I don't want a kid to be born in Mississippi and when he's 17 realize that if he had been born in California, he would have been in a much better position to go to college and get a job.
That's my primary reason for being against school choice, because the "choice" to go to the best school isn't always a choice that can be made. People can't just up and move to a different place to go to a better school, or more importantly, the money. So by making all of the public schools come up to the same level of excellence, you make it easier for people to succeed.
I want everyone to have a great education system! I want the US to be the best when it comes to education.
Well, why just the US? Shouldn't kids in Mexico get good education too? Should we invade Mexico if they refuse to adopt the educational policies that we deem best?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I'm skeptical about states being any better at education than the federal government
Well, in the immediate term, they won't be any better. Some will be better, and some will be worse. That's just common sense.
The point is that over the long term, successful methods will be identified through competition. The states who suck at education will then emulate those who are good. Or, if they don't, citizens will move to the states which are better. Through this continuous process, everyone improves over time. That's sort of the entire point of a federalist system, you know?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
If that were the case, countries would compete with each other and we'd all copy the best country. But it doesn't work that way. We know which countries are good at education (they mostly exist in Asia) and we don't even try to copy them. I suspect a system where each state set it's own education policy would work the same way. It's just in that case, this problem we have where people don't know US history would get worse when states just start rewriting history and teaching it. I can think of a few southern states that we can almost guarantee would do this.
If that were the case, countries would compete with each other and we'd all copy the best country. But it doesn't work that way.
Sure it does.
We know which countries are good at education (they mostly exist in Asia) and we don't even try to copy them
Because there are tradeoffs. They also do things like go to school year round, which we don't want to do. There are multiple considerations in play.
So how about the converse of what I asked earlier... if our education system is so terrible and we have the "right" to the equal education as a Japanese student, should Japan invade us in order to protect our right to good education?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/