- NewsReal Blog - http://www.newsrealblog.com -

4 Reasons Glenn Beck is a Two-Faced Enemy of Patriotism (According to Radical Libertarians)

Radical libertarians insist Glenn Beck is a big government neo-con socialist statist (no decent libertarian would associate themselves with former communist-turned conservative David Horowitz, who exposes libertarian radicalism for the leftism it is), because he considers America the greatest nation on earth.  Beck has the gall to list all the great things America has achieved. Such traitorous rhetoric and affiliations does not sit well with radical libertarians.  After all, America is a colonizing, nation-grabbing, state’s rights espousing thief.  America should exist without any formal central government, military or police, and Glenn Beck should demand this!

Libertarians are none too happy with Beck’s arguments against early twentieth century progressives.  Libertarians consider his pro-America statements too nationalistic for a nation they regard as an imperialistic warmonger that promotes worldwide military murder.

If Beck truly wants to be Jeffersonian, he should act, speak, and demand Jeffersonian policies (something Beck does on a daily basis), and for heaven’s sake, stop the Abe Lincoln admiration, the man was an anti-Southern, state’s rights-stealing warmonger!

1. Glenn Beck is a Secret Socialist!

According to Dr. Phil Maymin, Glenn Beck is a socialist because he criticized Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s book Nudge. Maymin said of Beck:

Watching Beck, I discovered the truth about him: neither those who claim him as a libertarian nor those that denounce him as a phony are right.  Beck is not a libertarian; he is a deep-seated socialist.  But he is also not a phony; it is so deep-seated in him that he doesn’t even realize it.

That is libertarian lingo for “if you disagree with our world views, you’re not a patriot, you hate America you a big, fat socialist!” I thought libertarians were of the belief all Americans must be free-thinkers, speaking freely a la Thomas Jefferson.  But not if one disagrees with libertarians.

Nudge, a book free-thinkers should disagree with,  suggests removing individual personal health decisions through government nudges and claims government knows best when it comes to health care for the people.  Sunstein (seen in this YouTube video explaining exactly what Beck criticized—we can’t think for ourselves, so government should) and Thaler do not believe Americans can do for themselves.

Beck believes we can make our own decisions and exposed the book for stipulating the opposite. Maymin said of Beck’s Nudge criticism:

[H]is exaggerations and misstatements of major issues…[is]… that nudges remove or restrict options.  Thaler would quite clearly argue that this is not so, and he would win that argument hands down.  Most nudge policies are simply about changing defaults, such as the default 401k plan you invest in, or the default health plan you choose. You can always choose whatever you would have otherwise chosen, if you so wish.  But those who don’t care or don’t know would be opted into a better plan, not as viewed by Thaler or even Beck, but as viewed by people just like them, or in some cases, even by themselves.

Writing for NewsReal Blog, Claude Cartaginese notes Thaler and Sunstein’s organ donation nudge views are “the government would have the last say in what should happen to your organs after you die, as you are deemed too stupid to be trusted to make the right decision.”

Despite Maymin’s criticism of Beck, he disagrees with government interference:

Government nudges are wrong. I have had this debate with Thaler and we disagree. He thinks libertarians are irrelevant because we don’t address practical questions. I think governments that implement nudges in areas they are not supposed to intervene are continuing their unconstitutional activities… the bigger question of non-interventionism ought to be addressed.  But Beck does not make a single case against immoral government behavior.  In fact, he agrees with the principle. And this is the third, and biggest, problem that I have with him.  He started…saying that America is facing a choice, a choice between socialism and freedom. And that while there are some that support socialism, there are more of us who support freedom, and books like Nudge are implicitly supporting socialism without actually saying so, and therefore depriving the American people of the debate. Let’s just have it out in the open, he says, and let the people decide.

Beck shouts for freedom daily while denouncing socialism, government expansion, and anything depriving individual choice.  The real problem is that “immoral behavior” Maymin says Beck supports—the U.S. military.

2. Glenn Beck, America is an Imperialistic Nazi-Killer!

Glenn Beck is not very good libertarian.  He supports the military, raises money for the wounded, praises military bravery, and thanks veterans and members of the military for heroic sacrifices (considered murder by anti-war libertarians who want the military extinct).  Unless of course it’s running around local backwoods in camouflage, making military decisions for you and your state.

Libertarians have been furious with Beck’s support of the military and statements he made several years ago to  David Horowitz.  Joseph Watson said of Beck in 2007:

Neo-Con host Glenn Beck and ex-Marxist David Horowitz smeared Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left as terrorist sympathizers and inferred that the U.S. military should be used to silence them, parroting a talking point that traces back to a September 2006 White House directive.

Beck defended Ron Paul supporters to a point.  However, he does not stand with Paul supporters going to extremes and joining fringe elements to start another American Revolution.  Beck never calls for removing Paul supporters’ rights;  he does not believe in taking things to the extremes some libertarians do.

Worse, Beck never disagreed with David Horowitz, who pointed out Ron Paul’s calls for anarchy and isolationism, and described certain libertarian groups as “totally in bed with Islamofascism.”

Beck further believes:

When you enlist in the U.S. military, you have take an oath that says you’re gonna support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies—foreign and domestic—we talk a lot on this program about the foreign threats—maybe we should spend some time tonight on the domestic one….the physical threat may be developing domestically as well.

Three years later, these comments have libertarians gnashing their teeth.  Beck is a big government neo-con supporter of military murder, they say.

In an attempt to set Beck on the straight and narrow path, Thomas J. DiLorenzo recently wrote in “an Open Letter To Glenn Beck:

I’m writing to offer a few suggestions with regard to your upcoming community organizing efforts…Your pledge #5 is also highly problematic. You say, ‘I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.’ The problem with this is that you equate ‘the United States of America’ with the federal government. I think your confusion stems for a misunderstanding of the difference between nationalism and patriotism. A nationalist, as my old friend Clyde Wilson has said, is someone who promotes the aggrandizement of the state in all its ‘glory.’ A patriot, in sharp contrast, is someone who simply loves his country and its people.  Your statement is way too nationalistic.  It seems to be a version of the neocon propaganda line that ‘We saved Europe from the Nazis in World War II, therefore, every successive military intervention, no matter how misguided, and no matter how many innocent foreigners are murdered, is justified. The rest of the world should just shut up.’ This is what the neocons at the Claremont Institute and the American Enterprise Institute would call ‘statesmanship,’ but “arrogant, imperialistic propaganda” would be more accurate.

Perfect libertarians never call America the greatest nation on earth, they describe America as murderous.  If one is truly libertarian, he or she is an anti-war leftist calling for anarchy and militias, not standing armies protecting the rights of all, including libertarians.

3. Margaret Sanger Gave us Choice … Even if She Did Try to Exterminate the Black Race.

On a recent show, Glenn Beck exposed Planned Parenthood creator Margaret Sanger for her pro-Aryan  Hitler-style plans to exterminate the black race.  Whether or not one supports abortion, the fact Sanger despised blacks and wanted the black race extinguished from existence should make all cringe in horror.

Beck’s criticism of Sanger angers those pseudo-patriot leftist libertarians when he trounces the eugenicist’s reason for creating Planned Parenthood—to eliminate the black race from humanity via abortion. Beck compares Sanger’s actions and organization to Hitler’s extermination of Jews.

In a column mainly discussing Beck’s views of twentieth century progressives, writer Paul Gottfried criticized Beck’s analysis of Margaret Sanger.  Not all libertarians agree with attacks on Sanger’s euthanasia programs–it’s women’s liberty.  I suppose Hitler would have considered his extermination of Jews Aryan liberty.

Paul Gottfried of Lewrockwell.com writes:

When Glenn Beck wants to look serious he dons oversized horn-rimmed glasses and begins to lecture about Progressivism. In his telling, Progressives have contributed significantly to our latter-day political problems…Early feminist and birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger also sometimes appears among this unsavory group…Certainly there are features of Progressivism that anyone concerned about centralized power has every right to criticize. But there are problems with how Beck frames his critique. There were different types of Progressives who stressed diverse themes, not all of which can be subsumed under the rubric of ‘big government.’ The connection between Progressivism and modern liberalism is weak. And in truth, Fox News personalities like Beck support many federal programs vastly more intrusive than any the Progressives dared contemplate.

Beck quoted Sanger’s own words: Sanger “did not want Negroes to know” she and The Negro Project were “trying to wipe out the Negro race.”   Her plans were the Holocaust of the black race.

Glenn Beck is right to denounce Margaret Sanger. But Gottfried says of abortion and Sanger:

But none of this links Progressivism to latter-day liberalism, as Beck professes. Surely today’s Democrats are not calling for measures to ensure racial hygiene; nor are they enlisting Klan support to get elected. If anything, they are morbidly anxious to confer government favors on supposedly victimized minorities. Indeed Democrats discriminate against the majority in order to please those considered disadvantaged. It also seems absurd to equate liberal support for abortion with the eugenic policies of Margaret Sanger. Today’s abortion advocates are in favor of killing fetuses of all pigmentations and ethnicities, as long as doing so allows women to express their autonomy.  Abortion rights are not about eugenic notions of racial hygiene but about a late modern, feminist interpretation of individual liberty.

Let me see if I have this right: as long as we advocate destroying unborn children of all pigmentations and ethnicities for female liberty, that’s okay. In that case, Sanger wins.  We can continue eliminating black pigmentation and ethnicity by conning all women into believing we’re eliminating all pigments for liberty.

4. Glenn Beck, Stop Praising that Southern-Hating Republican King Abe Lincoln!

In July of 2010, Di Lorenzo wrote a scathing column about Beck’s praise of President Lincoln, the man libertarians consider a Tenth Amendment-stealing, war-mongering, Southern-hating imperialist Americans should denounce as a traitor.  The column focuses mostly on Beck’s Founder’s Friday show discussing Lincoln and his policies—good and bad–with two U.S. historians.

The segment was not pleasing to DiLorenzo, who refers to the War Between the States as “the War to Prevent Southern Independence.”  DiLorenzo demonizes Beck’s admiration of Lincoln as neo-con control by Fox News, “a propaganda arm of the neoconservative political cabal that has captured the Republican Party.”   DiLorenzo says, “One of the cornerstones of neocon ideology is Lincoln idolatry and hatred of the South and Southerners,” and Glenn Beck is the poster child for Lincoln idolatry.

I have never heard Beck make any anti-Southern statements, but his defense of Lincoln going to war is considered warmongering Southern-hatred.

According to DiLorenzo:

To the neocons, Lincoln idolatry serves the purpose of helping to prop up the centralized, bureaucratic, liberty-destroying, military-industrial complex that defines their existence…In case you haven’t noticed…the Republican Party has stood for war, war, and more war, and little else.

DiLorenzo’s complaint with is Beck’s discussion of the Confederate Constitution as the reason Lincoln needed to declare war and prevent secession.

Beck said:

I actually went down to the Civil War Museum in the South and asked to see a copy of the [Confederate] Constitution and they pulled out the real copy, and I read it.  And it’s not about state’s rights, that’s about slavery, because, you join the Confederacy and you don’t have a right to drop out of slavery…you had to participate in slavery.

DiLorenzo says:

Beck was grossly deceiving when he told his audience that the Confederate Constitution protected slavery while saying not one word about how the U.S. Constitution did the exact same thing. Slavery had been protected by the U.S. Constitution since 1789. That’s seventy-two years of slavery protection under the U.S. Constitution.

Beck never defends slavery in the video.   It is Beck’s devotion of one whole day a week to demonstrating the greatness of our Founders—black and white—that irritates radical libertarians.  They desire an America without any central government protecting states, insisting states must govern completely alone without military and police.  Of course unhinged camouflaged radical libertarians would never rise up to take control over fellow citizens and states.

DiLorenzo describes Beck’s love of Lincoln as:

[N]eocons, Lincoln idolatry serves the purpose of helping to prop up the centralized, bureaucratic, liberty-destroying, military-industrial complex that defines their existence… To neocons, Lincoln is the poster boy of militaristic big government that runs roughshod over civil liberties while bankrupting the country with taxes and debt and murdering thousands of innocent foreigners (not that Southerners during the 1861–1865 war were foreigners; they were fellow American citizens).  Doesn’t this sound like the Republican Party of today, as embodied in the recently dethroned Bush administration?

If a president seeks to defend America, or keep it unified, he is a murderer.

Nevertheless, DiLorenzo insists, as radical libertarians do, Lincoln hated Southerners and imposed big government to prevent the South from seceding.

Conservatives, including Beck, often question how far presidents should go to save the country without breaking constitutional law.  Lincoln did extend presidential power and authority beyond constitutional limits.  And yes, states did have rights to secede, but Lincoln was placed in a position of allowing the nation to split or remain unified.  Preventing fraction was not Southern-hating; it was precluding America’s disappearance into history if Southern states broke away.

DiLorenzo disagrees:

Despite his [Beck] admirable performances discussing the founding fathers, socialism, progressivism, and other topics, Glenn Beck has been absolutely awful and sometimes untruthful when discussing Lincoln and his legacy… The act of secession was the very essence of states’ rights, contrary to Beck’s proclamation, for the basic assumption was that the states were sovereign. They delegated certain defined powers to the central government for their own mutual benefit, but all other powers remained in the hands of the people and the states, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. As sovereigns, they had a right to secede for whatever reason. If a state needed the permission of others to secede, as Lincoln argued, then it was not really sovereign.

So long as Glenn Beck chooses to think for himself and not lock-step totally to radical libertarian leftist ideology, or anyone’s indoctrination demands, he will be considered a phony, lying, socialist, warmongering traitor to America.

Be Sociable, Share!