Foreign Policy: What Exactly Does Glenn Beck Disagree with on Ron Paul's Foreign Policy

[The Free Hornet]

Its only confusing if one perceives Beck as "legit".

If you see him for the shill he is, then its clear as crystal. Beck is a fraud. His claim to fame is research and exposure. He can somehow obtain 10 years worth of Soros fecal samples, telling us all a comprehensive report on Soros's diet, but yet when it comes to good candidates Beck somehow comes up dry...

Beck = Fraud

+1. One way to judge a person is by what causes them outrage. These are the things that Glenn Beck and next top 6 contenders are OK with:

1) Deficit-funded war (putting Beck and Soros on the same page wrt currency destruction)

2) The War on Drugs

3) Destruction of our civil liberties

4) Joke interpretations of the interstate commerce clause and de facto repeal of the 10th Amendment

I am not saying Beck does not speak against these things from time to time, rather he has no passion for liberty.

 

[cucucachu0000]

from what i remember from watching his shows all the time, he agrees with the foriegn policy and even his drug war policy but he thinks the country and the world isnt ready for it he thinks we need to ease back into our freedoms, and ease out of entangaling alliances and wars. i think we need to cut the cord now while we still have a shot at saving the country. he doesnt seem to understand that we are in too deep to ease back out of it we gotta go full force and the longer we wait the deeper we get.

 

[MikeM39]

Beck wants America to attack Iran to prevent them from getting a nuke and destroying Israel. He's obsessed with the Holocaust and talks about it whenever the topic of the Middle East is brought up so his view is that Iran is going to get a nuke and create a second Holocaust of the Jews. He dislikes Paul's foreign policy because he thinks Paul won't deal with this threat to Israel's existence.

 

[loweredd]

He dislikes Paul's foreign policy because he thinks Paul won't deal with this threat to Israel's existence.

I think this is spot on.

I listen to Glenn, and "I agree with him on everything except his foreign policy". I don't understand how he can talk of the Founding Fathers with such pasion, and then turn around and say Ron Paul is out of touch with these ideas!

 

[Mitt Romney]

+1. One way to judge a person is by what causes them outrage. These are the things that Glenn Beck and next top 6 contenders are OK with:

1) Deficit-funded war (putting Beck and Soros on the same page wrt currency destruction)

2) The War on Drugs

3) Destruction of our civil liberties

4) Joke interpretations of the interstate commerce clause and de facto repeal of the 10th Amendment

I am not saying Beck does not speak against these things from time to time, rather he has no passion for liberty.

In regards to #2, I don't think even most liberty minded people are "passionate" about ending the war on drugs even though they agree it doesn't work. Ron Paul is unique in that sense. As to #3, he emphatically disagreed with Senator Adam West tonight on his program (someone he admires) about the new National Defense Authorization Act which Rand Paul opposes as well.

I agree he doesn't focus a lot on state's rights under the Constitution. I'm not sure he ever has. Maybe that's something he's not very well versed in.

 

[Mitt Romney]

Beck wants America to attack Iran to prevent them from getting a nuke and destroying Israel. He's obsessed with the Holocaust and talks about it whenever the topic of the Middle East is brought up so his view is that Iran is going to get a nuke and create a second Holocaust of the Jews. He dislikes Paul's foreign policy because he thinks Paul won't deal with this threat to Israel's existence.

Is he quoted as saying he wants to "attack" Iran. If so, that is certainly an eye opener and explains a lot. I can't think of when he has ever said that outright. I think your last sentence may be the heart of the disagreement. I still think he doesn't understand Paul's foreign policy.

 

[PierzStyx]

I agree completely that we were not attacked because of our freedoms. I agree that is a very simplistic view. I have not heard Glenn Beck state that he believes that is THE reason we were attacked (a bunch of rogue terrorists who hate freedom) but that there are elements in the Islamic community that want to destroy Israel and any nations friendly to them. Also, he has touched on the unification of communists with Islamic extremists such as the Muslim Brotherhood who want to restore the caliphate, even if by force. This is a real threat IMO. There is a great deal of evidence that Russian and Chinese communists are funding terrorist operations (just look at their weaponry). Now, how to deal with that threat is another matter.

I have not heard Ron Paul's opinion on the latter but I'm certain he has one. He has obviously called for ending foreign aid to Russia, China, as well as Middle East countries (and everyone else). That alone would almost dry up funding for many terrorist operations. At the same time, should we be openly trading with Russia and China? China is a communist-state-run country which I believe we cannot trust. Sending money to those two countries (whether it be foreign aid or commerce) is only financing those who openly oppose us. Communism does have as one of its goals domination of free countries - not because they hate freedom but because they love power and control. The one-worlders probably see communism and terrorism as a means to an end.

As to trade with China and Russia, and I'll throw in Cuba and North Korea as well, the answer is yes! Look at the effect trade relations had on the USSR and China. They both went through economic revolutions within an incredibly short period of time as soon as we started trading with them. It was a major factor in teh fall of teh USSR and the Chinese government had to give their people more rights in order to stave off a similar revolution there (we normally don't think about the fact that as bad as China is now it was way worse before we began trading with them). Trade, open trade, in order to be prosperous demands a more open society than most insular communist countries like. It exposes their people to the prosperity of the west and the freedoms we enjoy that they do not, and gets them to wanting the same. It makes it harder for teh government to completely decieve their people as well. Free trade actually is a liability to communist countries, not a boon.

 

[Imaginos]

Beck is a controlled dissent.
He's a puppet working for the Military Industrial Complex and AIPAC.
The man is simply playing his role in MSM to distract people.

 

[Mitt Romney]

Trade, open trade, in order to be prosperous demands a more open society than most insular communist countries like. It exposes their people to the prosperity of the west and the freedoms we enjoy that they do not, and gets them to wanting the same. It makes it harder for teh government to completely decieve their people as well. Free trade actually is a liability to communist countries, not a boon.

I agree that free open trade is a deterrent to creating enemies. I do not believe China has free trade (nor Russia but Russia is certainly more free in their trade than China). China has commerce for sure, but it is not free trade. We use Chinese labor to produce many goods that are imported to the U.S. The Chinese are not benefiting from this as much as they could because China is still hard-core communist. I don't think there was ever a real threat of revolution in China that their government caved into. They are simply benefiting from us providing them income for their state-labor. China is only a superpower because of our aid to them (see Clinton and Chinagate).

Russia is not pro-free trade. Their government is not a friend of liberty. The Russian mofia controls so many things in Russia it is ridiculous. IMO, communism lost its hold in the U.S.S.R. because it was failing. But the people in charge then are still around now.

China has an advantage over the U.S. in that we give them special privileges to export to us and let us build manufacturing enterprises in their country. We, on the other hand, squash our free markets with overburdening regulations, taxes, and mandates. NAFTA, for example, is killing our country.

Ron Paul opposed most favored nation status for China and opposed NAFTA (CAFTA, etc.) because they are not really free trade agreements, they unfairly help other countries while making it more difficult for American companies to compete.

 

[Mitt Romney]

Beck is a controlled dissent.
He's a puppet working for the Military Industrial Complex and AIPAC.
The man is simply playing his role in MSM to distract people.

Your premise assumes Ron Paul is THE only threat to socialism, the Fed, the MIC, improper wars, out-of-control government, etc. Just because Ron Paul is so right on about so many things doesn't mean that anyone who isn't just like him is working for the enemy. There are "useful idiots," real enemies to freedom, apathetic people, and those who are just not quite there on everything (see Rick Santorum who says he has learned the most from Ron Paul). I don't think fighting everyone who doesn't agree 100% with Ron Paul is helping his cause one bit.

 

[Travlyr]

Your premise assumes Ron Paul is THE only threat to socialism, the Fed, the MIC, improper wars, out-of-control government, etc. Just because Ron Paul is so right on about so many things doesn't mean that anyone who isn't just like him is working for the enemy. There are "useful idiots," real enemies to freedom, apathetic people, and those who are just not quite there on everything (see Rick Santorum who says he has learned the most from Ron Paul). I don't think fighting everyone who doesn't agree 100% with Ron Paul is helping his cause one bit.

Who else is position to have the same impact as a President Ron Paul - Defender of Liberty - Champion of the Constitution - Commander in Chief?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Does speaking the truth about an individual help or hurt Ron? I would think being consistently honest would be beneficial, more then not. Glenn Beck is a fraud, and everyone here that has been listening to him for any length of time knows it. I love how in Dec '07 he had Ron Paul on for a full hour on his show, was a great interview, and I was excited to listen to Glenn's show the next. I thought, hey MAYBE he is coming around?! Nope, all he did was blast him all day pretty much the next day. He said, and I quote based on 4 year old memory of the convo...

"Best way to expose him for the kook he is, is to just let him talk!"

I was infuriated. And then back on Oct '07 he was comparing Ron Paul grassroot support to "terrorists" because we were holding a "moneybomb" on Guy Fawkes day of Nov 5th. And now look, the word moneybomb is synonymous with money day, as much as Google is with search engine. Imagine that!

Bastard.

Go punch your pillow or whatever you have to do to get it out of your system. That was back in '07.

There is no logical reason to alienate Beck, or the people who listen to him, further. It serves no purpose. We have to keep our eye on the prize of winning votes for Ron Paul. This isn't about Beck. This is about us helping Dr. Paul win.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I wonder if we should be sending Beck the 9-11 Commission report, or a book by Pape or Scheuer. Because the things that Beck seems to hate about Ron Paul's foreign policy were clearly stated by our own CIA.

I think those resources might have much more sway with Beck than just quoting Ron Paul or trying to convince him ourselves.

I mean, does Beck think he knows more than our CIA? That is the position I would take.

 

[AJ187]

Go punch your pillow or whatever you have to do to get it out of your system. That was back in '07.

There is no logical reason to alienate Beck, or the people who listen to him, further. It serves no purpose. We have to keep our eye on the prize of winning votes for Ron Paul. This isn't about Beck. This is about us helping Dr. Paul, win.

I agree, but Dr. Paul supporters have a long memory not like the general populace unfortunately...

 

[LibertyEagle]

I agree, but Dr. Paul supporters have a long memory not like the general populace unfortunately...

Remembering is one thing. Keeping our eye on the prize is another.

 

[AJ187]

In regards to #2, I don't think even most liberty minded people are "passionate" about ending the war on drugs even though they agree it doesn't work. Ron Paul is unique in that sense. As to #3, he emphatically disagreed with Senator Adam West tonight on his program (someone he admires) about the new National Defense Authorization Act which Rand Paul opposes as well.

I agree he doesn't focus a lot on state's rights under the Constitution. I'm not sure he ever has. Maybe that's something he's not very well versed in.

I can't speak for the majority of liberty minded supporters, but ending the drug war is really important to me. If guys like beck and all would do their own research they'd learn the drug war also has the a lot to do with our foreign policy and is practically proof of the farce of the two party system as the policy never changes....

 

[Travlyr]

I wonder if we should be sending Beck the 9-11 Commission report, or a book by Pape or Scheuer. Because the things that Beck seems to hate about Ron Paul's foreign policy were clearly stated by our own CIA.

I think those resources might have much more sway with Beck than just quoting Ron Paul or trying to convince him ourselves.

I mean, does Beck think he knows more than our CIA? That is the position I would take.

Glen Beck is extremely inconsistent which is quite telling.

Ron Paul's "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity" includes peace which is a product of embracing honest sound monetary policy. Peace and Sound Money are not mutually exclusive. If he endorses Ron Paul's economic policy, then he must accept his foreign policy by default.

“People fight the gold standard,” said Ludwig von Mises, “because they want to substitute national autarky for free trade, war for peace, totalitarian government omnipotence for liberty.” It is no coincidence that the nineteenth century, a time of gold coin standards for the most part, was an era of peace. Nor is it a coincidence that the twentieth century combines wars with paper money.

Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." - Ron Paul

 

[The Free Hornet]

In regards to #2, I don't think even most liberty minded people are "passionate" about ending the war on drugs even though they agree it doesn't work.

I have never used an illegal drug. Never. And I am very passionate about ending this monstrosity. In the US, tens of millions have been imprisoned since this started. In Mexico, the death rate from the US drug war (yes, I'm blaming us 100%) is 10,000/year (now - it hasn't always been this bad). To me, this is the holocaust I don't know that even a million have lost their lives, but the number is not small. The lives lost or diminished to inner city drug-war/black-market crime is beyond my ability to count. It has fucked (literally, sadly for many in prison) countless millions. If you are not passionate about ending the war on drugs, then I can't see you as friend to liberty. That's not an insult - I just simply can't comprehend any level of dispassion on the topic. This war has been the major force behind the erosion of our liberities (asset forfeiture, no 4th amendment, no right to protect yourself or prevent unwarrented search or arrest).

 

[crh88]

I have never used an illegal drug. Never. And I am very passionate about ending this monstrosity. In the US, tens of millions have been imprisoned since this started. In Mexico, the death rate from the US drug war (yes, I'm blaming us 100%) is 10,000/year (now - it hasn't always been this bad). To me, this is the holocaust I don't know that even a million have lost their lives, but the number is not small. The lives lost or diminished to inner city drug-war/black-market crime is beyond my ability to count. It has fucked (literally, sadly for many in prison) countless millions. If you are not passionate about ending the war on drugs, then I can't see you as friend to liberty. That's not an insult - I just simply can't comprehend any level of dispassion on the topic. This war has been the major force behind the erosion of our liberities (asset forfeiture, no 4th amendment, no right to protect yourself or prevent unwarrented search or arrest).

I agree with you 100%.

 

[Mitt Romney]

I have never used an illegal drug. Never. And I am very passionate about ending this monstrosity.

I agree that the war on drugs is an utter failure and a misuse of the federal government's power. It does not help people with addictions to drugs, it does not truly rid illegal drugs from our communities, and in fact, it (fed) shouldn't be in the business of defining what drugs are legal or not. I can understand local governments adopting drug ordinances but not the federal government. This is much more a of an educational, moral teaching issue as well as a court of law issue (was someone harmed by someone using a drug?). Still, I think a community has every right to pass an ordinance restricting the sale or distribution of a drug within their boundaries (let communities experiment with different solutions in dealing with the problem).

You and many others ARE passionate about this issue. I myself am certainly more concerned about it than the common person. I'm not saying there aren't passionate people fighting the war on drugs, but that most people who like small government don't have that as one of their primary concerns (not that they shouldn't). IMO, just because they don't doesn't mean they aren't legitimately concerned about liberty. They just might not understand how horrible this "war" has been.