Michael Scheuer on Glenn Beck NOW!

[Kotin]

!!



:cool:

EDIT: over

summery: Sheuer says the Government is not interested in protecting the People because of the state of the border and our undeclared wars that we cannot win.. Glenn Beck stated that before, when he was a neocon(paraphrasing) he hated Sheuer but now he believes him.

[axiomata]

I caught the last 5 seconds. Having people like Scheurer on the show is the first step towards a more reasonable foreign policy on Glen's part if Scheurer has success getting through to him. What was the topic of discussion? And the obligatory: youtube?

[slacker921]

That's a sign of real progress.

[speciallyblend]

you tube? i cannot let myself turn the tv to fox anymore!!

[MRoCkEd]

Glenn.... you're really impressing me so far

[Deborah K]

Mike sent this to me yesterday. It appears they are going after him now:

Deb,

I hope this note finds you well. I am just sending along the below as evidence that not all things are going to change in Obama's America!

Best always, Mike Scheuer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------




SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close






February 10, 2009
Lobby? What Lobby?


by Michael Scheuer
Last December, I spoke to the nonpartisan Jamestown Foundation's annual conference on al-Qaeda. My talk was a worldwide survey of how America's war against Islamism had gone in 2008; an analysis of al-Qaeda's current fortunes and growth potential; and an assessment of whether U.S. policies were adequately protecting genuine U.S. national interests as the Obama administration began. I concluded that 2008 was a year of setbacks for America, and that the future appeared rather bleak.
For the speech, I took as my text a truncated version of the introduction I wrote for the paperback edition of my book, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq. In preparing the new text I was pleased to find my predictions in the hardcover had been accurate, but saddened that Americans had not faced the fact that our Islamist foes are motivated by U.S. foreign policies and their impact. One policy I am critical of in Marching Toward Hell is the nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship. I argued that unqualified, bipartisan support for Israel damages U.S. national security, and I damned those who identify critics of the relationship as anti-American, anti-Semitic, or, in my case, according to AIPAC leader Morris J. Amitay, a man who would make Mein Kampf "required reading" at the CIA.
In the course of analyzing 2008 events, I found no reason to alter my view. And after hearing McCain and Obama during the campaign, there was no reason to expect change in Washington's Israel policy. At the Jamestown Conference, I therefore first discussed the abject failure of President Bush and his advisers to recognize that al-Qaeda and its allies are waging war because of U.S. policies – one of which is Israel policy – and not because of our lifestyle and domestic politics.
I next offered an estimate of Mr. Obama's potential to change these terrorism-motivating policies. While admitting an inability to read Obama's mind, I noted that he had given at least two strong hints – to Americans and the Muslim world – that he would be as pro-Israel as Mr. Bush. I noted that (a) Mr. Obama spent the last months of the presidential campaign "dancing the Tel Aviv two-step," promising to protect Israel as if it were located inside the United States; and (b) Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, a U.S. citizen who during the 1991 Gulf War left America to serve in Israel's military.
These statements of fact suggested to me that U.S. policy toward Israel and the Muslim world would be identical to Mr. Bush's, albeit couched in softer, come-let-us-reason-together rhetoric.
My speech seemed well received, but in January I received a call from Jamestown's president telling me I had been terminated as a senior fellow by the Foundation's board of directors. Why, I asked? He responded by citing my comments about Obama doing the "Tel Aviv two-step" and my description of Emanuel's record, both of which he said might be in a speech by Rep. Ron Paul. My remarks about Emanuel apparently sparked particular anger among the Foundation's directors, as Jamestown's president referred to them at least three times in a short telephone conversation. In any event, the president said several major financial donors to Jamestown threatened to withdraw funding if I remained a senior fellow, so I was getting the boot. Then he added that my every-other-week essays for Jamestown's Terrorism Focus had attracted readers and praise for the Foundation, so the directors said I could keep writing for the journal. I declined this honor, which seemingly was a bribe made in the hope that I would not speak publicly about being terminated as a senior fellow for saying the current state of the U.S.-Israel relationship undermined U.S. national security.
I regret leaving Jamestown, as I have great respect for its analysis on several vital U.S. security issues. But at the same time, I am grateful to the Foundation's directors for terminating me. In the hardcover of Marching Toward Hell, I condemned the U.S.-Israel relationship and those who take it "upon themselves to decide who is and who is not a 'good American,'" based on his or her views of U.S.-Israel relations, and "then mete out punishment to those of their countrymen who do not make the grade." At the time, my view was based on what pro-Israel U.S. citizens had done to Pat Buchanan, President Carter, and Professors Walt and Mearsheimer.
Now, however, I have the personal experience of losing both position and income for condemning Washington's status quo Israel policy as a threat to U.S. national security. The introduction to my paperback, therefore, can be said to be credibly written by an author with firsthand knowledge of how the Israel Lobby works. After my experience with the "nonpartisan" board of directors at Jamestown, I can only say of them what FDR said of his domestic foes: "They are unanimous in their hatred for me – and I welcome their hatred."

[mediahasyou]

saw it. Does anyone know what equipment is needed to put segments of these TV shows online?

[Deborah K]

I caught the last 5 seconds. Having people like Scheurer on the show is the first step towards a more reasonable foreign policy on Glen's part if Scheurer has success getting through to him. What was the topic of discussion? And the obligatory: youtube?

Tom Woods has been on his tv and radio show a few times this week. This really is promising. I just wish he'd put Ed Griffin on.

[Kotin]

Tom Woods has been on his tv and radio show a few times this week. This really is promising. I just wish he'd put Ed Griffin on.

me too..

I will go nuts if he gets G Edward Griffin on..

tis a dream of mine.

[Deborah K]

me too..

I will go nuts if he gets G Edward Griffin on..

tis a dream of mine.

I'm workin' on it. I promise. :o

[nelsonwinters]

I was quite surprised when I saw Beck say recently on his show that the Soviet's war in Afghanistan is what bankrupted them and that we're following in the same footsteps.

[Cowlesy]

Mike sent this to me yesterday. It appears they are going after him now:

Deb,

I hope this note finds you well. I am just sending along the below as evidence that not all things are going to change in Obama's America!

Best always, Mike Scheuer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------




SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close






February 10, 2009
Lobby? What Lobby?


by Michael Scheuer
Last December, I spoke to the nonpartisan Jamestown Foundation's annual conference on al-Qaeda. My talk was a worldwide survey of how America's war against Islamism had gone in 2008; an analysis of al-Qaeda's current fortunes and growth potential; and an assessment of whether U.S. policies were adequately protecting genuine U.S. national interests as the Obama administration began. I concluded that 2008 was a year of setbacks for America, and that the future appeared rather bleak.
For the speech, I took as my text a truncated version of the introduction I wrote for the paperback edition of my book, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq. In preparing the new text I was pleased to find my predictions in the hardcover had been accurate, but saddened that Americans had not faced the fact that our Islamist foes are motivated by U.S. foreign policies and their impact. One policy I am critical of in Marching Toward Hell is the nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship. I argued that unqualified, bipartisan support for Israel damages U.S. national security, and I damned those who identify critics of the relationship as anti-American, anti-Semitic, or, in my case, according to AIPAC leader Morris J. Amitay, a man who would make Mein Kampf "required reading" at the CIA.
In the course of analyzing 2008 events, I found no reason to alter my view. And after hearing McCain and Obama during the campaign, there was no reason to expect change in Washington's Israel policy. At the Jamestown Conference, I therefore first discussed the abject failure of President Bush and his advisers to recognize that al-Qaeda and its allies are waging war because of U.S. policies – one of which is Israel policy – and not because of our lifestyle and domestic politics.
I next offered an estimate of Mr. Obama's potential to change these terrorism-motivating policies. While admitting an inability to read Obama's mind, I noted that he had given at least two strong hints – to Americans and the Muslim world – that he would be as pro-Israel as Mr. Bush. I noted that (a) Mr. Obama spent the last months of the presidential campaign "dancing the Tel Aviv two-step," promising to protect Israel as if it were located inside the United States; and (b) Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, a U.S. citizen who during the 1991 Gulf War left America to serve in Israel's military.
These statements of fact suggested to me that U.S. policy toward Israel and the Muslim world would be identical to Mr. Bush's, albeit couched in softer, come-let-us-reason-together rhetoric.
My speech seemed well received, but in January I received a call from Jamestown's president telling me I had been terminated as a senior fellow by the Foundation's board of directors. Why, I asked? He responded by citing my comments about Obama doing the "Tel Aviv two-step" and my description of Emanuel's record, both of which he said might be in a speech by Rep. Ron Paul. My remarks about Emanuel apparently sparked particular anger among the Foundation's directors, as Jamestown's president referred to them at least three times in a short telephone conversation. In any event, the president said several major financial donors to Jamestown threatened to withdraw funding if I remained a senior fellow, so I was getting the boot. Then he added that my every-other-week essays for Jamestown's Terrorism Focus had attracted readers and praise for the Foundation, so the directors said I could keep writing for the journal. I declined this honor, which seemingly was a bribe made in the hope that I would not speak publicly about being terminated as a senior fellow for saying the current state of the U.S.-Israel relationship undermined U.S. national security.
I regret leaving Jamestown, as I have great respect for its analysis on several vital U.S. security issues. But at the same time, I am grateful to the Foundation's directors for terminating me. In the hardcover of Marching Toward Hell, I condemned the U.S.-Israel relationship and those who take it "upon themselves to decide who is and who is not a 'good American,'" based on his or her views of U.S.-Israel relations, and "then mete out punishment to those of their countrymen who do not make the grade." At the time, my view was based on what pro-Israel U.S. citizens had done to Pat Buchanan, President Carter, and Professors Walt and Mearsheimer.
Now, however, I have the personal experience of losing both position and income for condemning Washington's status quo Israel policy as a threat to U.S. national security. The introduction to my paperback, therefore, can be said to be credibly written by an author with firsthand knowledge of how the Israel Lobby works. After my experience with the "nonpartisan" board of directors at Jamestown, I can only say of them what FDR said of his domestic foes: "They are unanimous in their hatred for me – and I welcome their hatred."


Scheuer is great. He calls it exactly how he sees it, and is excruciatingly detailed in his critiques which lends tremendous weight to his arguments.

Definitely one of my favorite reads.

[mediahasyou]

Tom Woods has been on his tv and radio show a few times this week. This really is promising. I just wish he'd put Ed Griffin on.


me too..

I will go nuts if he gets G Edward Griffin on..

tis a dream of mine.


I'm workin' on it. I promise. :o

me@glennbeck.com

stu@glennbeck.com

:)

[ClayTrainor]

Can't wait to watch this. "Imperial Hubris" was the first book i read after just finding out about Ron Paul.

[trey4sports]

twas a sweet ass day for me, turned on Cavuto RIGHT when Dr. Paul was introduced, took a break, and then turned on Beck right when schuer came on....made mah day

[mconder]

you tube? i cannot let myself turn the tv to fox anymore!!

I have actually let myself watch some other programs on Fox as of late and it seems like they have almost completely redone their programming...with the exception of dickwads Hannity and O'reiley.

[mrchubbs]

Youtube coming up...

uploading now.

[MRoCkEd]

Youtube coming up...

uploading now.
You always come through for us mrchubbs/marcaeld/Marc Gallagher

[mrchubbs]

Here is the toooob:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooL8P9ocfpU


Enjoy!

[phill4paul]

Gotta love that Faux ticker...

"16 Immigrants sue AZ Rancher after crossing his land."

Faux, they are not Immigrants they are f*cking Illegal aliens.

[RSLudlum]

WTF is up with Beck? Was it CNN that was holding him down with these kind of guests or has he truely been reading some real history lately (or just marketing for 'our' crowd)?

For what ever reason it may be, I did thank him for allowing these views to be expressed on his shows lately.

[werdd]

"There is more of us then there is of them"

[dr. hfn]

I sent Glenn the opinion articles I wrote...maybe those affected him :)

He really is impressing me lately, it's like his script is straight from the DailyPaul!!!
A true Patriot maybe?!!?

[ClayTrainor]

He really is impressing me lately, it's like his script is straight from the DailyPaul!!!
A true Patriot maybe?!!?

FOX harnessing our movement, maybe?

Stay Vigilant, but i agree, this is great to see beck having our people on consistently.

[devil21]

WTF is up with Beck? Was it CNN that was holding him down with these kind of guests or has he truely been reading some real history lately (or just marketing for 'our' crowd)?

For what ever reason it may be, I did thank him for allowing these views to be expressed on his shows lately.

Im still skeptical. While I definitely enjoy Beck's segments that throw us bones, I still have no trust in the media. Now that Obama is in, Fox is forced to turn back into the opposition "conservative" mouthpiece. Back to conservative basics. Again, not complaining but it just seems staged.

[puppetmaster]

we (America) are too far gone...they know it ,now they are fanning the flames of revolution

[RSLudlum]

Im still skeptical. While I definitely enjoy Beck's segments that throw us bones, I still have no trust in the media. Now that Obama is in, Fox is forced to turn back into the opposition "conservative" mouthpiece. Back to conservative basics. Again, not complaining but it just seems staged.

Staged or not. Do you think the market is ultimately stronger in persuasion than gov't? If the 'freedom' movement is actually gaining strength then wouldn't it be logical to see products to sell those individuals in such a movement? This is the power of markets. All each of us has to do is 'seduce' (teach/enlighten) other individuals into believing in the principles of liberty and products/services (which in themselves promote/fascilitate such a lifestyle) may follow causing greater demand for liberty! And as we know, there's an ample supply of liberty waiting to be tapped!! ;)

Use the market and they will come. :D

[devil21]

You have a higher opinion of the general public than I do, I guess. I think it's just the next step in pulling the strings of the people. Remember, GWB won on a platform of small gov't, no nation building, humble foreign policy, etc. They'll try to prop up the next RINO just like they have the last 3 elections. But Ill be happy to be wrong. I just don't think I am.

[RSLudlum]

It's worked for the gov't with propaganda techniques. Why not use the same tactics but with honesty; using provocative advertising/statements maybe even connected to products that would help sever 'the strings'?

With the position the country is in right now, I don't think it's productive in furthering the cause by denouncing the very outlets (like Beck) that are giving some of our viewpoints a chance at a wider audience. Yes, I am skeptical also, but I do believe in rewarding what I deem 'good behavior' while at the same time have the ability to denounce what I don't agree with. So I will let Beck know when I like the content he's presenting and will also inform him of my displeasure on other occasions. If he has an ulterior motive, so be it. At least the viewpoints were given the light of day and may even provoke others to do the same, perhaps honestly. And as I've noticed in the little bit of Rothbard I've read, it seems one of the words he liked to use in a derogatory means was "inculcate". So I say with a twist of irony: "Inculcate the media with the idea of liberty!!" :)


And yes, I always like trying to find some little bit of optimism. ;)