An Open Letter To Glenn Beck From The Libertarian Org Founder He Called A ‘Jerk’ And ‘Nazi

plus one rep


first as a conservative i would like to add i do not know any libertarians who wants gov in marriage but in the utopia world we live in. Gov is in marriage, even though we still work to get them out of it. Gay folks nor christians invented marriage. Since gov is in marriage. folks want gays to have the same legal rights and marriage under the law. Supporting Gay marriage or gay unions does not mean libertarians or conservatives support gov in marriage.
 
Have you been keeping tabs on Mike Church lately??? He's been tearing down some libertarian sand castles of late. I'm a huge Church fan and Beck pales in comparison to his intellectual depth.

I listen to Church and really, really enjoy him. He is just about the only radio host I can take anymore. But Tom Woods would tear Mike up one side and down the other, regarding those "libertarian sand castles". And yes, I know he regularly references Woods on his show, and that they are friendly.

I don't have a problem with Church's takes on most issues. But I have to chuckle on those occasions when he thinks he's scored a point against libertarianism. I very much respect and even admire the conservative tradition that Church references - Kirk, Taft, Livingston, etc; but when it comes to logical consistency, they simply do not measure up to the libertarian tradition. Again, I do very much enjoy his show, and respect his views, however.
 
I listen to Church and really, really enjoy him. He is just about the only radio host I can take anymore. But Tom Woods would tear Mike up one side and down the other, regarding those "libertarian sand castles". And yes, I know he regularly references Woods on his show, and that they are friendly.

I don't have a problem with Church's takes on most issues. But I have to chuckle on those occasions when he thinks he's scored a point against libertarianism. I very much respect and even admire the conservative tradition that Church references - Kirk, Taft, Livingston, etc; but when it comes to logical consistency, they simply do not measure up to the libertarian tradition. Again, I do very much enjoy his show, and respect his views, however.

Doctrinaire libertarians and paleocons are never going to see eye-to-eye on every issue. With that said, it's enjoyable to engage in a lively debate with our fraternal brothers. I have the utmost respect for the libertarian philosophy when it is presented in a logical, cogent fashion.
 
Last edited:
first as a conservative i would like to add i do not know any libertarians who wants gov in marriage but in the utopia world we live in. Gov is in marriage, even though we still work to get them out of it. Gay folks nor Christians invented marriage. Since gov is in marriage. folks want gays to have the same legal rights and marriage under the law. Supporting Gay marriage or gay unions does not mean libertarians or conservatives support gov in marriage.
This. +rep
 
Please give us an example. To my knowledge, paleocons, of the Pat Buchanan type, are almost completely extinct. And in case you didn't notice, Pat Buchanan has been very Ron Paul friendly.

For one, that letter referred to "conservatives". If he meant neocons, he should have said that, because paleocons and neocons are polar opposites. For another, I have seen a number of articles posted on here claiming that conservatives are worthless POS, while "libertarians" are great.

No, paleocons are not extinct. Maybe you don't realize it, but it was paleocons who created the Libertarian Party. There are also a number of them in the Constitution Party, others are Independents and finally some are in the Republican Party. Some have lost their way and were propagandized by FOX news... it is these that I hope Rand will be able to reach and I think he can.
 
Did you watch the recent video of Judge Napalitano and Beck talking about libertarianism?
Did you notice the strawman beck created when he acted like we are rejecting him because he isn't libertarian enough?
That's a strawman- everyone is rejecting him because he has backstabbed us over and over again and can't be trust.

You and I are not the same kind of liberty person. There are degrees of difference.
But I still consider you a friend of liberty.

But if you did what Beck did over the past 6 years, I wouldn't like you either.

Torch, I am not a Beck fan. I haven't listened to him since the show he had with Debra Medina.

I am glad you consider me a friend of liberty. I consider you one too, even though we don't agree on every single thing.
 
Doctrinaire libertarians and paleocons are never going to see eye-to-eye on every issue. With that said, it's enjoyable to engage in lively debate with our fraternal brothers. I have the utmost respect for the libertarian philosophy when it is presented in a logical, cogent fashion.

Agreed. And while so often in the heat of an online discussion tempers flare, there's really no reason we can't get along, ultimately. And we DID, rather well, during Ron's campaigns.

Speaking personally, my prime and perhaps sole concern regarding Rand has been some of his foreign policy rhetoric. This is not only a deeply personal issue for me, but also an aspect of the liberty movement/libertarianism which is fundamental. I express my views here not to dissuade others from supporting him, but first to "hold the line" on what is and isn't the liberty movement/libertarianism as I see it, and second to urge a measure of caution in those who do support him.

As has been discussed here so many times, mostly in the philosophy subforum, the differences between what you see as the ideal society and what I see are so far down the track from where we presently are as to be inconsequential at this particular moment in history. I consider Church, Taft, Kirk, etc., to be intellectual allies.
 
This just looks like another divisive attempt between conservatives and libertarians. Why oh why can't we focus on what we agree on, rather than keep trying to drive wedges between us? Ron Paul called himself the most conservative member of Congress. Why do some in this movement hate real conservatives ie. paleocons? If these wedges keep being driven, this movement is never going to go anywhere. Sheesh.

I know you don't mean to imply that Glenn Beck is a paleocon.

That said, I see Beck as the one driving the wedge here. We've seen this song and dance before. He claimed he was becoming a "libertarian" then threw Debra Medina under the bus by tripping her up with a no-win question on 9/11 (denounce the truthers in your midst or face my wrath!). Then he went on to endorse Santorum and Bachmann of all people! (I don't think either of those are worthy of the paleocon label, especially Santorum.)

Hey, I'm a forgiving person. But Beck wants acceptance on his terms. When Saul became Paul he was humble about his past and he was understanding of those who couldn't just overlook that. He didn't just say "I accept Jesus now." but he admitted he was wrong for persecuting Christians. While I don't expect Beck to go that far, his lashing out at those who are still skeptical of him makes me the more skeptical of him. And what's with he and his cronies attacking Paul supporters who went out to OWS? Peter Schiff went out to OWS! Beck wants us to find points of agreement with him, but not find points of agreement with others? Beck, if you're really on our side this time welcome. But you can't dictate the terms of the relationship.
 
Maybe you don't realize it, but it was paleocons who created the Libertarian Party.

Do you know who else was instrumental in the early days of the LP?

images




:D
 
I know you don't mean to imply that Glenn Beck is a paleocon.

That said, I see Beck as the one driving the wedge here. We've seen this song and dance before. He claimed he was becoming a "libertarian" then threw Debra Medina under the bus by tripping her up with a no-win question on 9/11 (denounce the truthers in your midst or face my wrath!). Then he went on to endorse Santorum and Bachmann of all people! (I don't think either of those are worthy of the paleocon label, especially Santorum.)

Hey, I'm a forgiving person. But Beck wants acceptance on his terms. When Saul became Paul he was humble about his past and he was understanding of those who couldn't just overlook that. He didn't just say "I accept Jesus now." but he admitted he was wrong for persecuting Christians. While I don't expect Beck to go that far, his lashing out at those who are still skeptical of him makes me the more skeptical of him. And what's with he and his cronies attacking Paul supporters who went out to OWS? Peter Schiff went out to OWS! Beck wants us to find points of agreement with him, but not find points of agreement with others? Beck, if you're really on our side this time welcome. But you can't dictate the terms of the relationship.

+rep

Very well said.
 
Beck is a proven charlatan who has trolls running around the internet to gain information because Beck surely does not hang out with groups who are passionate about liberty. Him and his circle is more concerned about distortion, lie, and $$$$$$$$$$.
 
Beck is a proven charlatan who has trolls running around the internet to gain information because Beck surely does not hang out with groups who are passionate about liberty. Him and his circle is more concerned about distortion, lie, and $$$$$$$$$$.

I remember when he used to have Tom Woods on his show occasionally, and I think he even had Bob Murphy on once.

I guess he found out they were Ron Paul supporters and that was that...
 
first as a conservative i would like to add i do not know any libertarians who wants gov in marriage but in the utopia world we live in. Gov is in marriage, even though we still work to get them out of it. Gay folks nor christians invented marriage. Since gov is in marriage. folks want gays to have the same legal rights and marriage under the law. Supporting Gay marriage or gay unions does not mean libertarians or conservatives support gov in marriage.

Huh? People voluntarily invite .gov to "marry" them and they haven't always been involved. You are free to marry without their permission.
 
as expected. beck is now going to try to rebrand the libertarian movement just like he did the tea party. beck can so kiss my ass.
 
I have seen a number of articles posted on here claiming that conservatives are worthless POS, while "libertarians" are great.

I've not witnessed this, but then again, I may not be sensitive enough to it enough to recognize. The vast, vast majority of media "conservatives" are neocon, thus, worthy of scorn.

.....Some have lost their way and were propagandized by FOX news.

I completely agree.
 
I sent him a message too:

Glenn,

My name is Glen Bradley, a former NC State House member, and widely known as a leader in the Ron Paul movement. I don't tell you this out of ego, but for the sake of credibility. I hope I may be able to help bring understanding, and maybe even healing. God knows America is nearing her last dying breath and if we stay at each other's throats there will be no way to stop it.

This email is going to be longer than I want, because of the breadth of information I will be covering, but I will try to be efficient about it.

First, the complaint about libertarians eating their own is very legitimate. While I consider myself a strict Constitutionalist rather than a Libertarian, both philosophies are based in radical individualism, and as such everyone is married to their own view, and everyone has their own drop-dead issue and they like to completely freak out about their pet issue, and if you are 99% rather than 100% you become the reincarnation of Hitler. You will get no argument from me that this is insane. Bear in mind however that this is an issue that plagues the ENTIRE right, just more so the more philosophically dedicated one becomes. Otherwise, why would Ronald Reagan have famously said, "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally -- not a 20 percent traitor." As for me, I have far more wounds from friendly fire than I do from any enemy. I know this one personally.

Second, the liberty movement's suspicion of you is far more justified than you let on in your recent video. Let me tell you that I am a coalition builder. I have happily built and worked coalitions with people far less liberty minded than you have presented yourself. This is not about ideological purity for me, but about touching a hot stove so many times before finally deciding it's a bad idea because you are likely to get burned. Understand this well: I was the guy defending you in 2007, 2009, and 2011 during your last three libertarian conversions. I was the guy catching flack for telling the liberty movement (of which I am a major leader) that I think he's catching on, I think he's starting to get it. Only to get burned in 2008, 2010, and 2012 as you inevitably discredited any candidate (not just Ron Paul, but every candidate) pushing for a restoration of the Constitutional order, and insisting every single time that we must support the anticonstitutional establishmentarian. In 2013, for the first time, I hope you will understand that after getting burned again and again and again this time I have taken a very jaundiced view of your latest libertarian conversion.

I'm willing to stand in a coalition with loony liberals around the few narrow issues we may find agreement on. It's not about an intellectually pure backwater for me, it's about building coalitions to achieve victory. You have to understand that you have stood in the way of much of that potential success by capturing our target market and directing them away from principled candidates and towards unprincipled candidates. It's like the old phrase "once bitten twice shy" except now it's "three times burned, the fourth time I'm shying away from defending you."

Third, I am successfully building a major coalition of Tea Parties, libertarians, constitutionalists, fiscal conservatives, Ron Paulers, paleoconservatives, and even a few establishmentarians sick of the status quo in my run for Vice Chairman of the North Carolina Republican party. The coalition is both possible and very necessary, and that coalition is not around the Bill of Rights, it is around the entire Constitution. What I tell people is that if we are going to have any hope of saving America, then we must rally around the Constitution, the whole Constitution -- even the parts that scare us. Because the part that scares me, you probably like, and the part that scares you I probably like. The one thing we can all agree on is that we have to obey the whole Constitution, every jot and tittle. The Bill of Rights alone is not enough to save America, because that leaves the full scope of welfare, and the full brunt of undeclared wars intact.

I recently received a standing ovation from 19 year old libertarians and 90 year old social conservatives at the same time when I explained this saying that we all have to compromise to (not from) the Constitution. For the social conservative it is frightening because the federal government will no longer have the power to make drugs illegal. For the libertarian it is frustrating because the States will have that power. Both of us, however, believe in the Constitution and both of us can agree to set aside our angst and agree to go back to strict construction, because that's the only way we are going to save America.


Fourth, we are beyond the point in America where a 20% guy like Christie would be any better than a 1% guy like Mao. As an individual, you will get no argument from me that Christie is way, way closer to correct than Mao. 200 TIMES better using the above random numbers. The problem is that America is now gone so far to the edge that the 20% will carry us over it just as surely as the 1%, and what ideology do you want getting the blame for the collapse of America...conservatism or liberalism? Until we reach something like Reagan's magic 80% the end result will still be the same. Not because Christie is the same as Mao, he isn't, but because America is on the precipice and 20% just won't cut it. To me, Ron Paul would be a 98%, Thomas Massie a 96%, Justin Amash a 94%, Rand Paul a 90%, Mark Sanford an 85% and Jim Demint an 80%, and Marco Rubio maybe 60%. Don't expect me to vote for anybody less than an 80% ally in 2016, because I will only be voting for someone who can actually turn this nightmare around, and I will NOT be responsible for conservatism getting blamed for the collapse of America.


I really hope you are telling the truth this time, because America is dying and we have only one hope left: to become adamant in only supporting candidates for office who are willing to obey the whole Constitution, every time, no matter what. The truth is we need you, and we need your voice. We desperately need you to be telling the truth this time, because America doesn't have long left for this world if you are just going to turn around in 2014 and 2016 and push everyone back to the anticonstitutional establishmentarians like you did in 2008, 2010, and 2012.


I was your chief defender amongst the liberty movement in 2007, 2009, and 2011, and every time the elections rolled around you made a liar out of me. Now in 2013, after getting burned so many times I just don't trust you anymore. I pray to God you make a liar out of me in 2013 also. I pray to God that THIS TIME your libertarian conversion is real. I pray to God that you will learn and understand that with America on the precipice the way she is, a 20% guy is effectively no different than a 1% guy when it comes to slowing or stopping the collapse, and setting up conservatism to take the blame for destroying America would be more harmful than a liberal actually doing it...because we are a strong people and we will always rebuild, but who gets the blame for the collapse will have a profound effect on the model we use to rebuild from.


It's time we put egos aside and decide what's really important. Your criticism of the liberty movement is legitimate. These people go apoplectic over meaningless nonsense. Please realize also that the liberty movement's criticism of you is also legitimate, every odd-numbered year you go through yet another libertarian conversion, only to turn around on the even numbered year and implore that people vote for the guy who hates the Constitution.


Because of that pattern that you have established, most of these people are just not going to trust you until you demonstrate that you have broken that pattern by standing up for a Constitutionalist, and having the backbone to stand by that conviction all the way through the elections.


Please read this in the heart that it was intended. I know it is hard to take criticism, even well intended criticism. However, America is dying. We no longer have the time nor the space to be gentle about this. We are in an emergent crisis, and frankly we just can't afford for you to do in 2014 and 2016 the same things you did in 2008, 2010, and 2012. So please understand where I am coming from and why I have told you these things. If you really are sincere this time, then you need to know the real source of the anger. It's not the 10% we disagree on, it's the history of trust/burn/trust/burn/trust/burn. If you understand that, and I mean really own it, then maybe we can reconcile in time to save this country.


It's worth a shot, no?

Glen Bradley
 
Do I expect anything different? Of course not. On the 1/100 th of 1% off chance that HE REALLY MEANS IT THIS TIME (lol) someone has to leave a door open. If he does have some kind of come-to-Jesus moment then he'd be pretty useful. So whatever. I drew him a path. Let's see if he owns it.
 
Huh? People voluntarily invite .gov to "marry" them and they haven't always been involved. You are free to marry without their permission.

not in the context i was talking about but you make a point. marriages and unions have legal reasons behind them as well. In my context your scenario doesn't apply.
 
Do I expect anything different? Of course not. On the 1/100 th of 1% off chance that HE REALLY MEANS IT THIS TIME (lol) someone has to leave a door open. If he does have some kind of come-to-Jesus moment then he'd be pretty useful. So whatever. I drew him a path. Let's see if he owns it.

nice letter;) wishes glen bradley was running for office in colorado;)
 
Back
Top