Are repulican neo-cons infiltrating the Freedom Movement

[Dunedain]

when I was at a tea party I saw a person waving a Fox News sign. I really felt like saying something - but I didn't.

Now I hear that the republican party is staging the town halls. I wonder, are they trying to infiltrate our movement? They are certainly going to give us a bad name if they are.

[Epic]

Yes, the tea party movement has mostly been co-opted.

[Dunedain]

Yes, the tea party movement has mostly been co-opted.

then we need to call them out when we have the chance.

[Epic]

Suggest Ron Paul speak at the September 12 tea party in DC:

http://912dc.org/agenda/speaker-suggestions/

[Sandra]

Suggest Ron Paul speak at the September 12 tea party in DC:

http://912dc.org/agenda/speaker-suggestions/

I would avoid this event like the plague.

[Epic]

I would avoid this event like the plague.

Yeah, I understand that most of the people attending will be mainstream republicans, however they need to be exposed to the message.

[specsaregood]

The CFL is a sponsor for the event. I'm going to see if I can find a way to get there and expose the attendees to the REAL unadulterated, unco-opted message.

[FSP-Rebel]

Yeah, I understand that most of the people attending will be mainstream republicans, however they need to be exposed to the message.
I agree. Mainstream GOPers are vulnerable right now and will latch on to anything that seems substantial right now on the right, which is us.

[Epic]

John Tate, CFL president guy, has a speaking slot. Unfortunately, he's no Ron or Rand or Schiff or Kokesh at the whole speaking thing. But, it's something.

[Bucjason]

I agree. Mainstream GOPers are vulnerable right now and will latch on to anything that seems substantial right now on the right, which is us.

...and isn't that a good thing?? Adding people to the movement??

or would you prefer to remain fringe outsiders powerless to change the course of events in this country ??

[pcosmar]

Are repulican neo-cons infiltrating the Freedom Movement

I expect some are trying, just as some of Obama's socialists are.
That is why no one is on my ignore list. ;)
:D

Perhaps they will learn something.
But generally they are just exposed.

[angelatc]

Yeah, I understand that most of the people attending will be mainstream republicans, however they need to be exposed to the message.

Sandra wants us to avoid all events like the plague. Her political strategy is very savvy - don't let anybody into the movement, don't mingle in other movements....just wait quietly for the world to realize you're right.

But don't let them into the movement even when they do.

[specsaregood]

But generally they are just exposed.

Now that I know your avatar is from fantasy fest, I'll never look at your usage of the word exposed or expose the same way again.

[dr. hfn]

We need to bring the anti-war message to the event.

[specsaregood]

The more I think about it, the more I think we need to try to get as many ron paulers to the event as possible. To do otherwise is to sit by idly and let our message be co-opted without a fight.

[Cowlesy]

Showing up with a huge "SIGN THIS PETITION FOR S.604" would probably be a quick way to rack up a few thousand signatures.

[Bucjason]

Sandra wants us to avoid all events like the plague. Her political strategy is very savvy - don't let anybody into the movement, don't mingle in other movements....just wait quietly for the world to realize you're right.

But don't let them into the movement even when they do.

and when they finally realize you are right , you shout them down as an imposter who just wants to join the "cool kids" . No one else is allowed in our secret club !!! :D

It's really a selfish and childish way to look at politics , especially if your goal is to change society for the better . I feel like some of you are more interested in just feeling like an elitist who is smarter than everyone else...

It's like tattoos , once everyone has one , they aren't that cool anymore.

[Dianne]

Forget about the GOP... They gave us John McCain, and tried to make Ron Paul look like "the insane uncle hidden in the closet?" The GOP is not viable... they are owned by the same groups the Demos are owned by.

I truly believe the country is angry enough to support a third party move..

[Stary Hickory]

people want freedom for different reasons. If they are truly Neocons, then fight with them when they share your goal and fight against them or try and persuade them when they are in the wrong.

Some of you guys have this us vs them attitude that does not bring new people into the movement. People can change their views, otherwise the libertarian movement would be pointless.

[kahless]

Ron Paul is Republican and remained with the party to change it from within. Why on earth would you try to shut out Republicans that are coming over to the movement. Remaining a fringe element will get us no where.

[angelatc]

Forget about the GOP... They gave us John McCain, and tried to make Ron Paul look like "the insane uncle hidden in the closet?" The GOP is not viable... they are owned by the same groups the Demos are owned by.

I truly believe the country is angry enough to support a third party move..

Right. All the disillusioned progressives are going to join forces with all the disillusioned conservatives to chooise a messiah?

About 20 3rd parties will each gain a few members,while the GOP and the DNC actually win seats.

Sucks but it's true.

[angelatc]

The more I think about it, the more I think we need to try to get as many ron paulers to the event as possible. To do otherwise is to sit by idly and let our message be co-opted without a fight.

The Michigan C4L rocks. They were amazing through the campaign too.

At the big Tea Party in Lansing, they had the biggest banner and the biggest crowd at their booth. They gained several members from networking there.

[FSP-Rebel]

...and isn't that a good thing?? Adding people to the movement??

or would you prefer to remain fringe outsiders powerless to change the course of events in this country ??
Cuz, I agreed with the person who said that 'those neocons should be exposed to our message', that was my point.

[FSP-Rebel]

The Michigan C4L rocks. They were amazing through the campaign too.

At the big Tea Party in Lansing, they had the biggest banner and the biggest crowd at their booth. They gained several members from networking there.
I heard from my buddy today back in Mi that said they had a 912 event in Plymouth today. There were over 1000 people there and they were getting signups for 1207 and the Campaign left and right. They even ran out of petitions. The activists were all excited about the day. I kind of wish I was still working with them but I've found plenty of other great activists here in NH. Lots more activists and there's something to be said about a smaller state.

[jm1776]

We need to bring the anti-war message to the event.

Absolutely - End the wars, no nation building, bring the troops home, end the empire.

[Bucjason]

Absolutely - End the wars, no nation building, bring the troops home, end the empire.

Funny , most of the anti-war protesters turned out to not really care about the wars at all . They were only lefties who wanted bush out of office.

Now that Bush is gone , no one seems to care we're still in Iraq...

[dr. hfn]

bump! leave suggestions here: http://912dc.org/agenda/speaker-suggestions/

Who I suggested:

Ron Paul
Adam Kokesh
Peter Schiff
Justin Raimondo
Judge Napolitano
Bob Barr
Mary Ruwart
Wayne Allen Root
BJ Lawson
Sheriff Richard Mack
RJ Harris
Dr. Mike Vasovski
Joe McArtor
Rand Paul
Naomi Wolf
Thomas Woods
Jesse Ventura
Gary Johnson
Bruce Fein
Lew Rockwell
Doug Wead
Peg Luskik
John Tate
Bill Kauffman
Barry Goldwater Jr.
Aimee Allen

[FSP-Rebel]

I was only allowed to endorse a primary speaker, which obviously is Ron Paul.

[tonesforjonesbones]

When are some of you going to realize the grassroots republicans are not the enemy? They are for Limited government, the Constitution, free markets...etc...they have been brainwashed by the neo cons at the top of the party...but they damn sure are not socialists like the left. I honestly can't believe people on here are still clinging to socialists like Mahr, John Stewart, Olberman or any of those other shills for obama. They are not our friends..and the republicans are not the enemy. tones

[talkingpointes]

When are some of you going to realize the grassroots republicans are not the enemy? They are for Limited government, the Constitution, free markets...etc...they have been brainwashed by the neo cons at the top of the party...but they damn sure are not socialists like the left. I honestly can't believe people on here are still clinging to socialists like Mahr, John Stewart, Olberman or any of those other shills for obama. They are not our friends..and the republicans are not the enemy. tones

And your wavering your support to knell at the alter of Beck?

All those folks are to be subject to the same criticism we apply to politicians. Beck himself is of the neo-con johnny come lately libertarian variety. Personally I detest of it, one day were domestic terrorist the next day we're friends... But I can say that when we can work together to achieve a common goal with others that we should go for it. No need to act like a group of vigilante pariahs. Arrogance will only act to suffocate the flow of new members.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Neocons are worse than socialists and commies imo.

[angelatc]

Funny , most of the anti-war protesters turned out to not really care about the wars at all . They were only lefties who wanted bush out of office.

Now that Bush is gone , no one seems to care we're still in Iraq...

That's not an accident. The DNC did a very good job at converting the anti-war sentiment into anti-Bush and anti-GOP sentiment.

Why is it that the politically savvy are always apparently evil?

[angelatc]

. Personally I detest of it, one day were domestic terrorist the next day we're friends...

Dude. That's politics. Always has been, always will be. That's one of the big reasons that people hate politics.

[amy31416]

Neocons are worse than socialists and commies imo.

Agreed.

[dgr]

Let me see if I understand, you can go to GOP events, but republicians can't go to events, you
go to as your events. So why were you passing out flags and had a booth at my state convention. Why are your members coming to GOP and non party events, if you feel this way.
If you don't want like minded people to gather together, where are you going to get a majority?

[jm1776]

Dude. That's politics. Always has been, always will be. That's one of the big reasons that people hate politics.

So true.... politics in this county is a nasty business. And then someone comes along standing on principle and screws everything up.

We are in a unique position to press our advantage here. We oppose the wars on humanitarian, constitutional and economic principle. This issue exposes both the neo-cons and now the hypocrisy on the left. Truly wondrous that the far right fringe, gun carrying, scary militia, domestic terrorist, racist types are the only ones now calling for an end to the wars. How can they play this on CNN?

But more on topic - The real neo-cons are the existing GOP leadership. They will dry up and blow away as we chip away at their support. Many work a day republicans are still trying to figure out what the hell is going on. We need to gently steer them to the light. We should do this at every opportunity.

[NewEnd]

When are some of you going to realize the grassroots republicans are not the enemy? They are for Limited government, the Constitution, free markets...etc...they have been brainwashed by the neo cons at the top of the party...but they damn sure are not socialists like the left. I honestly can't believe people on here are still clinging to socialists like Mahr, John Stewart, Olberman or any of those other shills for obama. They are not our friends..and the republicans are not the enemy. tones

I know huh? How can people not see that people who wear red shirts are WAY better than people who wear blue shirts. And Jon Stewart, geeze, what a douche, he is only spot on 50% of the time, and has more balls than any other MSM media outlet.

Glenn Beck? Wow, he is only right 50% of the time too. But screw him. He is a reich-winger. :rolleyes:

[TastyWheat]

I was under the impression most were neo-cons to begin with, they just seem extra "libertarian" now because the Democrats are in power.

[Bucjason]

I'm a little "r'" republican and I take offense to people lumping us all in with the neocons or the evangelicals.

Most republicans are not the enemy , many believe in the same things constitutional libertarians do . The problem is we are stuck thinking we have to vote for the lesser of two evils . The lesser of two evils being the neocons and moderates the party keeps proping up and nominating. Bush had a 20% approval rating for a reason , it's because a majority of republicans didn't like him either !

If you people would work on converting us instead of demeaning us , you'd probably end up with a viable Libertarian party on your hands- or a better republican party.

[specsaregood]

I'm a little "r'" republican and I take offense to people lumping us all in with the neocons or the evangelicals.

If you people would work on converting us instead of demeaning us , you'd probably end up with a viable Libertarian party on your hands- or a better republican party.

You complain about being lumped together, then close with "you people"....:rolleyes:

[Bucjason]

You complain about being lumped together, then close with "you people"....:rolleyes:

From the comments on this board , it appears you are lumping yourselves together ... you want to build a wall around yourselves and not let anyone new into the movement . People DO change thier opinions in politics. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face .

[__27__]

Where have all the people defending Buc gone? GOP-lite, the future of the movement if you allow it.

[Stary Hickory]

From the comments on this board , it appears you are lumping yourselves together ... you want to build a wall around yourselves and not let anyone new into the movement . People DO change thier opinions in politics. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face .

Exactly, this place is hostile sometimes. It's like the fans of a new obscure band who like to get together and talk about how cool they all are for listening to this "niche" band.

Then when the band hits mainstream all the little fans get angry because they cannot feel all exclusive and cool anymore. I know this isn't how everyone here is, but it feels the same sometimes. It's a roadblock to getting people in the movement, if you want to keep it small then by all means stay hostile.

If the Libertarian movement is ever going to gain traction it's going to need converts...former neocons and conservatives...who knows maybe some Democrats. You can't always accuse them of being "spies" and "infiltraitors" all the time.

[specsaregood]

From the comments on this board , it appears you are lumping yourselves together ... you want to build a wall around yourselves and not let anyone new into the movement . People DO change thier opinions in politics. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face .

That's funny, I recall welcoming you to the site and joining up with us, and I remember a number of other people doing the same. You take a few people and lump us all together which is exactly what you were complaining about. Hello kettle.

[Sandra]

The 9-12 events have already been planned, especially the only ones that will be covered by the press, (FOX). That's why it's imperative that there is a rally call (Beck) , and "official coverage. This operation is completely run by Murdoch and will guarantee ratings. Of course something either horrible or controversial will occur to slide the event toward Murdoch's preference and he has months to prepare for it.

This is not a grassroots event.

[Bucjason]

Exactly, this place is hostile sometimes. It's like the fans of a new obscure band who like to get together and talk about how cool they all are for listening to this "niche" band.

Then when the band hits mainstream all the little fans get angry because they cannot feel all exclusive and cool anymore. I know this isn't how everyone here is, but it feels the same sometimes. It's a roadblock to getting people in the movement, if you want to keep it small then by all means stay hostile.

If the Libertarian movement is ever going to gain traction it's going to need converts...former neocons and conservatives...who knows maybe some Democrats. You can't always accuse them of being "spies" and "infiltraitors" all the time.

Exactly ! That is a perfect analogy of what I see going on here , not by everyone , but by some.

[Bucjason]

GOP-lite, the future of the movement if you allow it.

Yes, I am member of the G.O.P. , just like Ron Paul.

[RM918]

That's funny, I recall welcoming you to the site and joining up with us, and I remember a number of other people doing the same. You take a few people and lump us all together which is exactly what you were complaining about. Hello kettle.

I'm in total agreement here. The thing that makes me lose the most faith in potential converts is when they witness a handful of people acting a certain way and declare the whole thing to be similar.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Mahr and Stewart are bolshevik communist jews. Tones

[Aratus]

tones...

they are glib snarky
neo-platonic cynics
circa the decline of
the roman empire.

our grand pax americana
may be close to expiring
O! tempores, O! mores!

[acptulsa]

Mahr and Stewart are bolshevik communist jews. Tones

There's not enough to either of their intellects to spread out over three of your little boxes.

They are individuals, though. The only silly little box I need to put them in in order to keep track of them is 'liars'...

[jmdrake]

We need to bring the anti-war message to the event.

+1776

Carry signs that say:
End the wars
End the fed

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul is Republican and remained with the party to change it from within. Why on earth would you try to shut out Republicans that are coming over to the movement. Remaining a fringe element will get us no where.

Ron Paul has been very open and critical of his fellow republicans who have sold this country out. We shouldn't "shut people out". But we shouldn't let the same neocons that brought us 8 years of Bush control the agenda and the message.

[NewEnd]

Ah libertarians... always so sure hating the same people is enough to form a good bond.

Jon Stewart not only is funny, but he really drills his guests sometimes, and he makes some very good insights, especially about the bailouts, and he drills Obama a lot too.

But because right now the big debate/distraction is healthcare... and whether it will be 51% fascist 49% socialist, like the republicans want, or 49% fascist, 51% socialist like the dems want... Stewart is the big bad guy.

Anyways, I think Beck is a douche, but at least I an say regarding the bailouts he is spot on.

[jmdrake]

When are some of you going to realize the grassroots republicans are not the enemy? They are for Limited government, the Constitution, free markets...etc...they have been brainwashed by the neo cons at the top of the party...but they damn sure are not socialists like the left. I honestly can't believe people on here are still clinging to socialists like Mahr, John Stewart, Olberman or any of those other shills for obama. They are not our friends..and the republicans are not the enemy. tones

I can't believe you are still clinging to a fascist like Glen Beck or any of those shills for Bush. They are not our friends and the democrats are not the enemy. :rolleyes:

The problem isn't the "grassroots republicans". They need to be educated about Bush just like Obama supporters need to be educated about him. The problem is people like Newt Gingrich. He cut a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on global warming for crying out loud! And yet at the last tea party I went to the organizers played a taped message from him. :eek:

There are (at least) two risks we run by allowing ourselves to be co-opted by those we were fighting against just a year ago.

1) The hypocrisy charge. I've already heard it. "Bailouts were ok when Bush was doing it, but now that Obama is doing it they are bad."

I know that's not the prevailing view on this forum. But at the last tea party there were multiple speakers who seemed to think all of this country's ills started after Jan 2009.

2) Putting the right wing of the RepubliCrat party back in power.

While I'm happy to see Obama losing influence, if it only means more Bushites in control what have we gained? That's why I was happy to see John Cornyn booed at the tea party in Austin. That jerk voted for the bailout and now the GOP "leadership" has him over the GOP 2010 senate effort?

This movement isn't just about stopping Obama. It's about stopping the attacks on the constitution that have come from the right AND the left.

[RM918]

I can't believe you are still clinging to a fascist like Glen Beck or any of those shills for Bush. They are not our friends and the democrats are not the enemy. :rolleyes:

The problem isn't the "grassroots republicans". They need to be educated about Bush just like Obama supporters need to be educated about him. The problem is people like Newt Gingrich. He cut a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on global warming for crying out loud! And yet at the last tea party I went to the organizers played a taped message from him. :eek:

There are (at least) two risks we run by allowing ourselves to be co-opted by those we were fighting against just a year ago.

1) The hypocrisy charge. I've already heard it. "Bailouts were ok when Bush was doing it, but now that Obama is doing it they are bad."

I know that's not the prevailing view on this forum. But at the last tea party there were multiple speakers who seemed to think all of this country's ills started after Jan 2009.

2) Putting the right wing of the RepubliCrat party back in power.

While I'm happy to see Obama losing influence, if it only means more Bushites in control what have we gained? That's why I was happy to see John Cornyn booed at the tea party in Austin. That jerk voted for the bailout and now the GOP "leadership" has him over the GOP 2010 senate effort?

This movement isn't just about stopping Obama. It's about stopping the attacks on the constitution that have come from the right AND the left.

Ex-@#$%ing-actly. I can never figure it out. Maybe people were so psychologically tormented during Paul's run that they'd gladly latch on to the first group of people that'd share their views? Beck's rhetoric started /quite/ conveniently after Obama took office, even after maligning us and not really taking us seriously like everyone else beforehand.

Before I heard Paul, I was right-leaning but I had the view that politics was little more than a popularity contest. Since seriously studying it all and looking toward libertarianism, my view has gotten more cynical: It's a turf war. Bloods vs. Crips, pure and simple. The winner gets the right to loot the rest of us. They may be on different sides, but they're still gangsters and their methods are exactly the same. The Crips have the turf, and the Bloods want it back and they'll do anything they have to to get it. And when the Bloods get the turf, the Crips will try to get it back. And so on and so forth, until there's nothing left to loot.

[NewEnd]

Tones was trying to get people to vote for McCain, IIRC.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I'm a little "r'" republican and I take offense to people lumping us all in with the neocons or the evangelicals.

Most republicans are not the enemy , many believe in the same things constitutional libertarians do . The problem is we are stuck thinking we have to vote for the lesser of two evils . The lesser of two evils being the neocons and moderates the party keeps proping up and nominating. Bush had a 20% approval rating for a reason , it's because a majority of republicans didn't like him either !

If you people would work on converting us instead of demeaning us , you'd probably end up with a viable Libertarian party on your hands- or a better republican party.

I am a republican too, but the Neocons are taking over all of our hard work and calling it their own. Teapartys are a fine example. NO ONE wants to be lumped with neocons. However they feel that they are the RIGHT choice and quite frankly they scare me because their agenda is religious based. People do crazy shit for religion. They do not believe in individual freedoms, they do not want to be "converted" because they feel they are justified. They are arrogant enough to believe that their god will protect them and provide them with what they need in order to come out on top, provided that they use our tax dollars to pay for and support Israel and any wars that is justifiable by their religion.

[amy31416]

I can't believe you are still clinging to a fascist like Glen Beck or any of those shills for Bush. They are not our friends and the democrats are not the enemy. :rolleyes:

The problem isn't the "grassroots republicans". They need to be educated about Bush just like Obama supporters need to be educated about him. The problem is people like Newt Gingrich. He cut a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on global warming for crying out loud! And yet at the last tea party I went to the organizers played a taped message from him. :eek:

There are (at least) two risks we run by allowing ourselves to be co-opted by those we were fighting against just a year ago.

1) The hypocrisy charge. I've already heard it. "Bailouts were ok when Bush was doing it, but now that Obama is doing it they are bad."

I know that's not the prevailing view on this forum. But at the last tea party there were multiple speakers who seemed to think all of this country's ills started after Jan 2009.

2) Putting the right wing of the RepubliCrat party back in power.

While I'm happy to see Obama losing influence, if it only means more Bushites in control what have we gained? That's why I was happy to see John Cornyn booed at the tea party in Austin. That jerk voted for the bailout and now the GOP "leadership" has him over the GOP 2010 senate effort?

This movement isn't just about stopping Obama. It's about stopping the attacks on the constitution that have come from the right AND the left.

Well-said. People like Kucinich and Grayson are not our enemies either, just because we have some differences.

Personally, I usually find it easier to discuss topics where there is a disagreement with those who identify as liberal--it's an easy segueway into reminding or informing them of classical liberalism, which is, of course, libertarianism.

Most "conservatives" are ruled by fear and easily got sucked into the whole war deal and are convinced that every Muslim wants to kill them. Little else seems to matter aside from war in the Middle East.

[Flash]

I would still say Kucinich is our enemy. I use to like the guy but so many of his positions are unconstitutional, and the guy is 'out there' on many issues, like illegal immigration.

Glenn Beck is not a Fascist, he is a Libertarian. If you watch his show recently and don't agree with him then you may not be a Libertarian yourself. As the past few weeks all he has been talking about is healthcare, Federal Reserve, spending, etc..
He did support Bush, but people can change. At least now he calls himself an Independent Conservative rather than a Republican.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I would still say Kucinich is our enemy. I use to like the guy but so many of his positions are unconstitutional, and the guy is 'out there' on many issues, like illegal immigration.

Glenn Beck is not a Fascist, he is a Libertarian. If you watch his show recently and don't agree with him then you may not be a Libertarian yourself. As the past few weeks all he has been talking about is healthcare, Federal Reserve, spending, etc..
He did support Bush, but people can change. At least now he calls himself an Independent Conservative rather than a Republican.

Beck is still for entangling alliances and supporting Israel isnt he?

[Flash]

Beck is still for entangling alliances and supporting Israel isnt he?

Not sure. I thought the last time he had Ron Paul on he said he was becoming more Libertarian on foreign policy. So it'll be interesting to see where that goes.

[Bucjason]

I can't believe you are still clinging to a fascist like Glen Beck


Beck is not a fascist, he's a drama queen that likes to over-dramatize everything for the sake of ratings , but not a fascist in any way.

Stupid comment . Don't use words likes "fascist" or "nazi" unless you can back them up with fact. Nothing that Glen Beck has ever said promotes fascism.
Most people don't even know what the word really means....

[jmdrake]

I would still say Kucinich is our enemy. I use to like the guy but so many of his positions are unconstitutional, and the guy is 'out there' on many issues, like illegal immigration.


You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with you as does Ron Paul. Kucinich is not the enemy. Paul openly endorsed Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader and they both support most of the same positions as does Kucinich.



Glenn Beck is not a Fascist, he is a Libertarian. If you watch his show recently and don't agree with him then you may not be a Libertarian yourself.


If you can't figure out that Beck is simply riding the current tied then you might have a few screws loose yourself. But for the record I'm not a Libertarian and neither is Ron Paul. We're both constitutionalists. Note that when Bob Barr insisted on a "single" endorsement Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin over him. Speaking of Bob Barr, what do you think of the fact that he endorsed Barack Obama's gun grabbing attorney general?

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200901/011309b.html

I trust Glen Beck as much as I trust Bob Barr (which is about as far as I can throw either of those little piggies).



As the past few weeks all he has been talking about is healthcare, Federal Reserve, spending, etc..
He did support Bush, but people can change. At least now he calls himself an Independent Conservative rather than a Republican.

Rush Limbaugh is saying the same things about healthcare and spending. In fact so are ALL republicans! Glen Beck is against the fed? Great! Dennis Kucinich was speaking out against the Federal Reserve WAY before Glen Beck! Has Glen Beck apologized for calling Ron Paul supporters terrorists?

Watch this video clip and explain to me why I should support this scum Beck.

YouTube - Glenn Beck - Ron Paul - Terrorism? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8M2JBIoqo)

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Bucjason]

Most "conservatives" are ruled by fear and easily got sucked into the whole war deal and are convinced that every Muslim wants to kill them. Little else seems to matter aside from war in the Middle East.


...and most liberals are ruled by blind emotion . It's why they're willing to give up all thier individual liberties if they think it may help someone in need. It's why they're willing to put all thier faith in an empty slogan like "hope" and "change" .

If you find that easier to deal with , than good for you. I don't . Debating an Obot zombie is akin to trying to talk a cult member out of his faith. No amount of logic and facts is going to matter. How do you argue against "hope" ?

[jmdrake]

Beck is not a fascist, he's a drama queen that likes to over-dramatize everything for the sake of ratings , but not a fascist in any way.

Stupid comment . Don't use words likes "fascist" or "nazi" unless you can back them up with fact. Nothing that Glen Beck has ever said promotes fascism.
Most people don't even know what the word really means....

No. Stupid response on your part. If you were following the thread you would notice that I was responding to "tones" calling everyone on the left that she doesn't like "socialist"? Did she back that up? I don't think so! I'm sick and tired of the rampant hypocrisy of those who will attack one group of people that we agree with part of the time and then turn around and worship Glen Beck, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and others just because we agree with them part of the time.

And Beck has in the past supported elements of fascism. He's seeking to demonize us as "domestic enemies" is a fascist tactic. I have not heard him endorse fascist economics if that's what you mean.

[jmdrake]

...and most liberals are ruled by blind emotion . It's why they're willing to give up all thier individual liberties if they think it may help someone in need. It's why they're willing to put all thier faith in an empty slogan like "hope" and "change" .

If you find that easier to deal with , than good for you. I don't . Debating an Obot zombie is akin to trying to talk a cult member out of his faith. No amount of logic and facts is going to matter. How do you argue against "hope" ?

I have more luck with "Obot zombies" than I did with neocons. Look at how fast Obama's support has dropped. A lot of people who voted for Obama are now against him. And is "hope and change" any more empty than "Patriot Act" and "Homeland security"? Some on the right STILL haven't figured out that the Iraq war has nothing to do with our national security. I was listening to the Michael Delgiorno show yesterday and after he finished with a great wrap up about why universal healthcare is bad, he went into his "Why we must 'win' this war" rant. For all of the Beck fans, call me when he makes a plea for pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Until then......

[amy31416]

...and most liberals are ruled by blind emotion . It's why they're willing to give up all thier individual liberties if they think it may help someone in need. It's why they're willing to put all thier faith in an empty slogan like "hope" and "change" .

If you find that easier to deal with , than good for you. I don't . Debating an Obot zombie is akin to trying to talk a cult member out of his faith. No amount of logic and facts is going to matter. How do you argue against "hope" ?

No need to be upset with me, I'm just giving my own personal observations. And I agree completely on the "Obots" as they're just as bad as the neocon zombies. The thing is--there are fewer "Obots" than there are neocon zombies. I suspect that the reason for that is because the Democrats didn't have a complete take-over of their party for years like the GOP.

Whenever Obama does stuff that I know should irk them--things like not prosecuting Bush/Cheney, gay marriage, pot legalization, etc. I check out boards like the Huffington Post, just to see if there is dissent. And there always is--usually around 50% in my guesstimation.

Whereas when Bush/Cheney did things to undermine the Constitution, spent like drunken sailors, I saw little to no dissent from people at boards like Red State.

I view dissent as an opportunity to introduce people to new concepts or push them toward classic liberalism. I also support the 2nd Amendment heavily and attempt to do it from a point of view that a liberal can stomach with logic, examples, comparisons, etc. My viewpoint on this usually gets about 25-50% support. Which isn't bad for a pro 2nd view on a liberal board.

[Flash]

If you can't figure out that Beck is simply riding the current tied then you might have a few screws loose yourself. But for the record I'm not a Libertarian and neither is Ron Paul. We're both constitutionalists. Note that when Bob Barr insisted on a "single" endorsement Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin over him. Speaking of Bob Barr, what do you think of the fact that he endorsed Barack Obama's gun grabbing attorney general?

I was speaking out against Bob Barr before most people, lol. He was an absolute scumbag from the beginning, and I knew it. When he said he didn't want people with racialist views supporting him I knew he was not one of us. And his past record of being a pervert and working with the CIA is too much. So I was never in the Cult of Bob Barr, so I don't know why you brought that up.

About Glenn Beck, he gives people like Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, etc.. a platform to talk. Whether you like him or not, hes exposing our Liberty candidates to 3 million viewers. And you complained he was following the tied, wellll... that means theres a market out there on TV for people who want to hear Libertarians. Thats a good thing, and will make FOX Republicans take the Liberty movement seriously. Whether he really believes in it or not, who cares.

And Kucinich, if he was ever President, would be just as far left as Obama. Remember durring the debates where he said, "I don't believe in illegal human beings" in reference to illegal immigrants? That means he will support the welfare state while at the same time support illegal immigrations coming into America. Never to mind the fact he gave an endorsement to Obama, and supports gun control.

[Bucjason]

You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with you as does Ron Paul. Kucinich is not the enemy. Paul openly endorsed Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader and they both support most of the same positions as does Kucinich.



If you can't figure out that Beck is simply riding the current tied then you might have a few screws loose yourself. But for the record I'm not a Libertarian and neither is Ron Paul. We're both constitutionalists. Note that when Bob Barr insisted on a "single" endorsement Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin over him. Speaking of Bob Barr, what do you think of the fact that he endorsed Barack Obama's gun grabbing attorney general?




If you trust Kucinich more than you trust Glen Beck and Bob Barr , I don't see how you can even begin to consider yourself a constitutionalist.

Kucinich is an unapologetic socialist. You've got to be kidding me....

[LibertyEagle]

If you trust Kucinich more than you trust Glen Beck and Bob Barr , I don't see how you can even begin to consider yourself a constitutionalist.

Kucinich is an unapologetic socialist. You've got to be kidding me....

I think it's because Kucinich is honest about who and what he is. Can we honestly say the same about Barr and Beck? Don't get me wrong, I know that Beck is waking people up and I think it's great, but I certainly do not trust him.

[amy31416]

If you trust Kucinich more than you trust Glen Beck and Bob Barr , I don't see how you can even begin to consider yourself a constitutionalist.

Kucinich is an unapologetic socialist. You've got to be kidding me....

Kucinich is also a friend of Ron Paul's, and he fully supports things like HR 1207. Bernie Sanders, also an admitted socialist, sponsored S 604.

I completely disagree with them on almost all their policies, but they are not bought and paid for corporate shills. I respect that, even if I disagree with them.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Not sure. I thought the last time he had Ron Paul on he said he was becoming more Libertarian on foreign policy. So it'll be interesting to see where that goes.

I don't think he is a Libertarian just yet. Even Hannity is calling himself a Libertarian now days. This is all about deception, to pull us in.

[RM918]

If you trust Kucinich more than you trust Glen Beck and Bob Barr , I don't see how you can even begin to consider yourself a constitutionalist.

Kucinich is an unapologetic socialist. You've got to be kidding me....

Trust and political ideology are entirely unrelated. The act of painting people you disagree with as 'untrustworthy' is simply underhanded tactics carried over from people who, instead of challenging an ideology, would much rather challenge that person's character.

So, do I trust Kucinich? Way more than I trust Beck, who conveniently saw the light once a Dem was put in office and called us a bunch of terrorists beforehand. Does it mean I /agree/ with Kucinich? Of course not, but I would trust him, meaning I'd know he means what he says and would act consistently. Doesn't mean I'd vote for him.

[jmdrake]

I was speaking out against Bob Barr before most people, lol. He was an absolute scumbag from the beginning, and I knew it. When he said he didn't want people with racialist views supporting him I knew he was not one of us. And his past record of being a pervert and working with the CIA is too much. So I was never in the Cult of Bob Barr, so I don't know why you brought that up.


Well good for you. I don't know what's meant by "racialist views". I don't relish support from racists like Don Black and I think they hurt the movement far more than the "truthers" ever could. I brought up Bob Barr because you brought up Glen Beck being a "libertarian". Well Bob Barr got the Libertarian nomination for president. Maybe he didn't deserve it. He still got it. Just because someone is a libertarian doesn't mean I have to support him, especially since I don't consider myself one.



About Glenn Beck, he gives people like Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, etc.. a platform to talk. Whether you like him or not, hes exposing our Liberty candidates to 3 million viewers. And you complained he was following the tied, wellll... that means theres a market out there on TV for people who want to hear Libertarians. Thats a good thing, and will make FOX Republicans take the Liberty movement seriously. Whether he really believes in it or not, who cares.


I'm sure if Kucinich were to retire from politics and become a talk show host he'd give Rand Paul, Peter Schiff and others airtime too. After all they agree on the federal reserve, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and opposition to things like the Patriot Act. So your point is?



And Kucinich, if he was ever President, would be just as far left as Obama. Remember durring the debates where he said, "I don't believe in illegal human beings" in reference to illegal immigrants? That means he will support the welfare state while at the same time support illegal immigrations coming into America. Never to mind the fact he gave an endorsement to Obama, and supports gun control.

A) I didn't vote for Kucinich for president.

B) Kucinich's odds of becoming president are about as high Beck's.

C) If you really think it's about who's "as left as Obama" then you have really missed the point of the entire movement. Kucinich would have actually brought the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that "left"? Is it "right" for Obama to keep them there? (Beck would keep them their too). Kucinich would repeal the Patriot Act. Obama voted to renew the Patriot Act. Is the "left"? Is it "right"? (Beck still supports the Patriot Act unless I've missed something). Obama voted to continue warrantless wiretapping. Kucinich voted against that. What's Beck's position? Kucinich and Beck both opposed the bailout, which Obama, Bush, McCain and Palin supported.

Really, there are reasons to be against Kucinich, but there are just as many reasons (if not MORE) to be against Beck. And with all of Bob Barr's faults at least he wasn't actively working against the Ron Paul candidacy like Beck was. I recall an NPR interview when Beck was asked if he saw any rising republican he respected. He said he couldn't think of any. Ron Paul was still in the race at this time!

Frankly I could care less about Beck one way or another. But it turns my stomach to see people fawning over him because he's right some of the time while attacking those on the left that have been more consistent allies than he has been. Again I remind you of Ron Paul's endorsements of Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.

[Bucjason]

I have more luck with "Obot zombies" than I did with neocons. Look at how fast Obama's support has dropped. A lot of people who voted for Obama are now against him. And is "hope and change" any more empty than "Patriot Act" and "Homeland security"? Some on the right STILL haven't figured out that the Iraq war has nothing to do with our national security. I was listening to the Michael Delgiorno show yesterday and after he finished with a great wrap up about why universal healthcare is bad, he went into his "Why we must 'win' this war" rant. For all of the Beck fans, call me when he makes a plea for pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Until then......

Absolutely "hope" and "change" are more empty than the "patriot act". The Patriot Act is an actual piece of legislation we can critique and debate. "Hope" is NOTHING.

This country is pretty much 45% percent Dem , 45% Rep, 10% other....If Bush's appoval rating was 20% at the end , that means the majority of conservatives changed thier mind about him ALSO.

[JeNNiF00F00]

If you trust Kucinich more than you trust Glen Beck and Bob Barr , I don't see how you can even begin to consider yourself a constitutionalist.

Kucinich is an unapologetic socialist. You've got to be kidding me....


Whats the difference between an unapologetic socialist and an an unapologetic fascist?

[jmdrake]

If you trust Kucinich more than you trust Glen Beck and Bob Barr , I don't see how you can even begin to consider yourself a constitutionalist.

Kucinich is an unapologetic socialist. You've got to be kidding me....

Kucinich is no more a socialist than Cynthia McKinney. Cynthia McKinney was endorsed by Ron Paul. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. :rolleyes:

Bob Barr is a backstabbing buffoon. He endorsed Obama's gun grabbing attorney general for crying out loud! I would expect someone on the left to do that, but Barr ran for president as a libertarian. He had no excuse for such a punk move.

Kucinich has never called Ron Paul supporters "terrorists" or people who didn't support the Bush wars "domestic enemies" like Glenn Beck did. If you can't get past "left" vs "right" then you don't understand this movement.

Really, I think some in the Ron Paul movement have a version of Stockholm syndrome. It doesn't matter how bad people like Beck have treated us in the past. Some are just oh so willing to go back to him like a battered woman to an abusive spouse.

[Flash]

Well good for you. I don't know what's meant by "racialist views". I don't relish support from racists like Don Black and I think they hurt the movement far more than the "truthers" ever could. I brought up Bob Barr because you brought up Glen Beck being a "libertarian". Well Bob Barr got the Libertarian nomination for president. Maybe he didn't deserve it. He still got it. Just because someone is a libertarian doesn't mean I have to support him, especially since I don't consider myself one.

Well, Don Black has worked with the CIA In the past. Most of this White supremacy trash leaders always end up being reveleaded as FBI agents or whatever.BUT still-- I like the Ron Paul policy of not judging your supporters for their own political beliefs.




C) If you really think it's about who's "as left as Obama" then you have really missed the point of the entire movement. Kucinich would have actually brought the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that "left"? Is it "right" for Obama to keep them there? (Beck would keep them their too). Kucinich would repeal the Patriot Act. Obama voted to renew the Patriot Act. Is the "left"? Is it "right"? (Beck still supports the Patriot Act unless I've missed something). Obama voted to continue warrantless wiretapping. Kucinich voted against that. What's Beck's position? Kucinich and Beck both opposed the bailout, which Obama, Bush, McCain and Palin supported.


Kucinich wouldn't have that much power, the Congress would still belong to moderate Dems and Republicans. And if he supports gun grabbing & illegal immigration then it may hurt us more than Afghanistan & wiretapping in the long run.



Really, there are reasons to be against Kucinich, but there are just as many reasons (if not MORE) to be against Beck. And with all of Bob Barr's faults at least he wasn't actively working against the Ron Paul candidacy like Beck was. I recall an NPR interview when Beck was asked if he saw any rising republican he respected. He said he couldn't think of any. Ron Paul was still in the race at this time!

Frankly I could care less about Beck one way or another. But it turns my stomach to see people fawning over him because he's right some of the time while attacking those on the left that have been more consistent allies than he has been. Again I remind you of Ron Paul's endorsements of Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.


The real test will be in 2011 when we'll see if Glenn Beck supports the Neo-Cons or Ron Paul/Gary Johnson. Until then I don't see the harm in watching him and trying to get people like Peter Schiff or Rand Paul on his show.

[Bucjason]

Trust and political ideology are entirely unrelated.

I totally diagree with that . If I'm a constitutionalist , how in the world can I trust a socialist like Kucinich to put my individual liberties above the collective???

I can trust 100% that he won't .

[jmdrake]

Absolutely "hope" and "change" are more empty than the "patriot act". The Patriot Act is an actual piece of legislation we can critique and debate. "Hope" is NOTHING.

Ok. I agree with you. The Patriot Act is actually WORSE than "hope and change". Hope and change can't hurt me. The unPatriot Act can.



This country is pretty much 45% percent Dem , 45% Rep, 10% other....If Bush's appoval rating was 20% at the end , that means the majority of conservatives changed thier mind about him ALSO.

Look how long it took this to happen. And it was only after Bush went against his own base by pushing amnesty for illegal immigration, prosecuting border agents for doing their job, and pushing for a socialist banker bailout. Obama is losing support in his base on things that should play to his base like universal health care. I know a lot more Obama supporters (current and former) that will say this is a bad idea than I know Bush supporters who will admit the Iraq war was (and still is) a mistake.

[LibertyEagle]

I know a lot more Obama supporters (current and former) that will say this is a bad idea than I know Bush supporters who will admit the Iraq war was (and still is) a mistake.

Sad, but true.

[Bucjason]

Whats the difference between an unapologetic socialist and an an unapologetic fascist?

Because I can post specific examples of Kucinich supporting socialism ...facts .


You can do no such thing of Beck supporting any of this :

"Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak. Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement. Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept. In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state"). No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition."

[Bucjason]

Ok. I agree with you. The Patriot Act is actually WORSE than "hope and change". Hope and change can't hurt me. The unPatriot Act can.






Exactly , which proves my point that empty rhetoric is harder to make an argument against than things like the patriotic act.

[johnrocks]

I remember someone saying a couple years back that there weren't that many neo cons,they just happen to have millions of followers. I kind of agree with that, I bet if the talking heads suddenly started talking against warmongering as did the GOP, you'd see a groundswell of support among the masses. Most don't even know what a neo con is,imho.

[jmdrake]

Well, Don Black has worked with the CIA In the past. Most of this White supremacy trash leaders always end up being reveleaded as FBI agents or whatever.BUT still-- I like the Ron Paul policy of not judging your supporters for their own political beliefs.


As an African American I can attest to the fact that the racism charge hurt my campaign efforts. Thankfully Ron Paul did give me a lot of ammo to fight back with his stellar performance at the Tavis Smiley debate. I do agree with the general notion that it's best to say "I can't control who supports me" and be done with it. There are some things I wish went better, but what's in the past is in the past.



Kucinich wouldn't have that much power, the Congress would still belong to moderate Dems and Republicans. And if he supports gun grabbing & illegal immigration then it may hurt us more than Afghanistan & wiretapping in the long run.


While a president must have congressional approval to start a war, he can end a war without any congressional authorization. He has the commander in chief power to withdraw troops any time he sees fit.

It would be hard for "moderate" democrats to claim the executive branch still needed the Patriot Act or warrantless wiretapping if the executive branch said it didn't want it. Also by executive order he could declare the executive branch would no longer use the powers granted it by those laws. That would (for a change) be a constitutional use of the executive order.

Many libertarians support illegal immigration too, although they do so in conjunction with eliminating the welfare state. Bush and Obama both support amnesty, but Bush didn't (and Obama doesn't) have the votes to pass it. What makes you think Kucinich would be any different?

Bush tried to sneak in a total gun control by pushing for an interpretation of the felony gun law that any felony conviction anywhere in the world could bar an American from his gun rights.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-750.ZS.html

Note that "conservative" justices Scalia and Thomas sided with the gun grabbing Bush administration. It took the "liberals" Bryer, O'connor, Souter and Ginsburg to defeat gun control and loss of American sovereignty to foreign courts in this case.

Obama wants to use the Bush "no fly list" to bar Americans from gun ownership. Without the neocons push for the unconstitutional "no fly" list Obama wouldn't have this power.

So in truth the things you "fear" from Kucinich would be less likely to pass than the things you would like. (Again I'm not endorsing Kucinich for president. Just pointing out the facts.)



The real test will be in 2011 when we'll see if Glenn Beck supports the Neo-Cons or Ron Paul/Gary Johnson. Until then I don't see the harm in watching him and trying to get people like Peter Schiff or Rand Paul on his show.

There is no harm in watching him. There's no harm in watching people like John Stewart either and trying to get Rand and Schiff on his show. Rand Paul practically announced his senate bid on the left leaning "Rachel Maddow" show. Honestly I only criticized Beck in response to "tones" criticizing his left leaning counterparts while being a self proclaimed "Glenn Beck worshiper". I simply don't like hypocrisy.

[Bucjason]

Most don't even know what a neo con is,imho.

Sometimes I don't know either. The term originated in the 60's to label Democrats that switched to Republicans. Then it came to signify a conservative Jew. Now it's taken on a life of it's own, basically meaning "Bush". It's always been used as a deragotory term by the left, however, to demonize the right.

[NewEnd]

Kucinich is also a friend of Ron Paul's, and he fully supports things like HR 1207. Bernie Sanders, also an admitted socialist, sponsored S 604.

I completely disagree with them on almost all their policies, but they are not bought and paid for corporate shills. I respect that, even if I disagree with them.

You have to respect Kucinich. I can't even think of another representative/senator beside Paul that I know is a true, honest person. Both of them have that genuine quality.

And although Beck has some good stuff... that crying shit really gets on my nerves. It's obviously fake, and just gross.

[jmdrake]

Exactly , which proves my point that empty rhetoric is harder to make an argument against than things like the patriotic act.

Fine. Well the Bush buzzwords were "trust" and "patriotism". How do you fight against that? How is that rhetoric any less "empty"? With Obama you can fight against things like his health care plan (admittedly that's a moving target) and "cap and trade". Heck, to be honest even terms like "liberty" can be empty rhetoric. Look at how many people have latched onto the term after fighting against liberty for the past 8 years.

[jmdrake]

Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.

Like Glenn Beck equating Ron Paul supporters with terrorism after talking about how the military took an oath to protect the constitution against enemies "foreign and domestic". The Ron Paul movement is not the enemy to the constitution. I posted this clip already. Please go back and watch it.

[amy31416]

Just to further blow people's minds when they consider dismissing all "liberals" or Democrats as "enemies" or socialists or whatever. The following article is one of the best I've read on why liberals should support the Second Amendment. It's also an excellent article to use to convert them on this particular issue:


Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment
by Angry Mouse
Digg this! Share this on Twitter - Why Liberals Should Love The Second AmendmentTweet this submit to reddit Share This
Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:01:33 PM PDT

Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization.

I know liberal couples who give each other pocket size copies of the Constitution for Christmas.

Ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they will invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."

There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, the former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

So.

Liberals love the Constitution. They especially love the Bill of Rights. They love all the Amendments.

Except for one: the Second Amendment.

* Angry Mouse's diary :: ::
*

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally. In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment? Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of "gun nuts"? Why do they complain about the "radical extremist agenda of the NRA"? Why do they argue for greater restrictions?

Why do they start performing mental gymnastics worthy of a position in Bush's Department of Justice to rationalize what they consider "reasonable" infringement of one of our most basic, fundamental, and revolutionary -- that's right, revolutionary -- civil liberties?

Why do they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote Democrat? Why are they so dismissive of approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns?

And why is their approach to the Second Amendment so different from their approach to all the others?

Well, if conversations on this blog about the issue of guns are in any way indicative of the way other liberals feel, maybe this stems from a basic misunderstanding.

So, allow me to attempt to explain the Second Amendment in a way that liberals should be able to endorse.

No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.

If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."

First Amendment:

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

Ninth Amendment:

...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Tenth Amendment:

...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.

We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.

But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists would not ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for it to be interpreted expansively.

We know the Founding Fathers intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.

So why, then, do liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right? Why do they talk about it as a collective right, as if the Founding Fathers intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, when we are so positively clear about what they meant by the exact same phrase in the First Amendment?

If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?

But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!
Right?

Wrong.

The United States Militia Code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.

Everyone else. Individuals. The People.

No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.

All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.

But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that some restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.

We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.

But when it comes to the Second Amendment...You could hear a pin drop for all the protest you'll get from liberals when politicians talk about further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms.

Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Washington D.C. ban on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable. (Later this year, the Supreme Court will quite likely issue an opinion to the contrary in the Heller case.)

Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

What if a politician -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?

Ridiculous, right? We'd take to the streets, we'd send angry letters to our representatives in Washington, we'd call our progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, we'd be up in arms. (Yeah, pun intended.)

And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.

This hardly seems consistent.

No. 3: It's not 1776 anymore.

When the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.

Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. But do we question the right of our gracious host, Markos, to say whatever the hell he wants on his blog? (The wisdom, perhaps, but not the right.)

Similarly, the Founding Fathers could not have imagined 24-hour cable news networks. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?

Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and Bill Moyer's analysis of the corruption of the Bush Administration, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.

We liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment.

But as for the Second Amendment? When discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.

Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.

They will defend the right of citizens to attend a Bush rally wearing an anti-Bush button, even though the First Amendment says nothing about buttons.

They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though, when writing the Sixth Amendment, the Founding Fathers certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes. The notion of airplanes would have shocked most of them (with the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson. He was always inventing things.)

No. 4: It's not like you can use it anyway.

Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.

Tell that to the USSR, held at bay for about six years by pissed off Afghanis with WWI rifles.

Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.

The Second Amendment is obsolete?

What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?

I'm guessing it's been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."

And you'd be right.

And hasn't our current administration made the Sixth Amendment obsolete?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Shall we ask all of those "unlawful combatants" whether the Sixth Amendment still applies?

The President merely has to categorize you as an "unlawful combatant," and whoosh! No more rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, or even knowledge of the charges and identification of the witnesses who will testify against you. With one fell swoop of the pen, the President can suspend your Sixth Amendment rights.

Since it has no effect, whenever the President feels like it, why do we even need the Sixth Amendment anymore?

What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?

Of course not! I voted when I was eighteen, and I was proud to do so. In fact, most liberals will argue for greater enfranchisement. They support the rights of convicted felons to vote. Liberals are all about getting out the vote and rocking the vote. They sit at tables at their local farmer's market, trying to register new voters. They make calls to likely voters, even offering to give them a lift to the polling station.

For liberals, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment (for teens), the Fifteenth Amendment (for blacks), and the Nineteenth Amendment (for women) barely scratch the surface.

But the Second Amendment?

Crickets. Or, worse, loud calls for greater restrictions. More laws. Less access. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.

And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.

Because, to paraphrase a recent comment by mlandman:

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or even guns anymore than the First Amendment is about quill pens and hand-set type.

We do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because that is not the point. And red herring arguments about types of ammunition or handguns versus rifles (even scary looking ones) are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from what is at the true meaning of the Second Amendment. And that brings me to my final point.

No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

It is the right of revolution.

Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.

Consider the words of that most forward thinking of Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Tyranny in government. That was Mr. Jefferson's concern. And he spoke from experience, of course. He knew the Revolutionary War was not won with hand-painted banners or people chanting slogans. It was a long and bloody war of attrition where the colonials took on the biggest military machine in the world.

And we all know how that turned out.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.

To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.

Mr. Jefferson might never have imagined automatic weapons. But he probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street, or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.

And the Second Amendment is no different. We liberals tend to get bogged down in the details at the expense of being able to understand, and appreciate, the larger idea.

The Second Amendment is not about how much ammunition is "excessive." Or what kinds of guns are and are not permissible. We should have learned by now that prohibition is ineffective. That's why we repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, prohibiting the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors." It didn't work.

That's why our War on Drugs has been such an utter failure. Prohibition does not prevent people from smoking pot; it just turns pot smokers into criminals. (And what would our hemp-growing Founding Fathers think of that?)

And so it is with gun laws. They certainly don't prevent gun crimes. A total ban on handguns in DC has hardly eliminated violent crimes in DC. Although it may be correlation, rather than causation, crime tends to be lower in areas with more guns. After Florida and Texas passed concealed carry laws, crime rates went down.

So.

What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.

No, this is a rallying cry for the Constitution. For the Bill of Rights. For all of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founding Fathers meant."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "Columbine and Virginia Tech prove we need more laws."

This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.

This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)

This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who thinks, despite some poor judgment on the issues of, say, slavery or women's suffrage, the Founding Fathers actually had pretty good ideas about limiting government power and expanding individual rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will take their guns away.

This is an appeal to you, my fellow liberals. Not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.

Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.

Because we are revolutionaries.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/19133/5152

[Todd]

Just to further blow people's minds when they consider dismissing all "liberals" or Democrats as "enemies" or socialists or whatever. The following article is one of the best I've read on why liberals should support the Second Amendment. It's also an excellent article to use to convert them on this particular issue:



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/19133/5152



Some of the comments below it are also encouraging. :)

[amy31416]

Some of the comments below it are also encouraging. :)

I know. I was fully ready to be horrified about what would come up in the quotes, but I think the article was so well-done that it was tough to legitimately criticize.

Usually, venturing onto DailyKos will give me heart palpitations (the bad kind.) :p

[NewEnd]

I know lots of "liberals" with guns. ANd by guns, I mean gun collections. And by liberals, I mean liberals, not Libertarians, (although I know lots of those with guns too).

[anaconda]

then we need to call them out when we have the chance.


This is an important point. NOW is the time that the Ron Paul movement needs to step up and contrast itself with the blind GOP faithful. Because the populist right is getting a lot of publicity these days. Ron Paul should work talking points in when he's interviewed regarding the hypocrisy of these tea parties if the only outcome is to vote back in a military/industrial complex foot soldier.

[apropos]

There appears to be a healthy amount of speculation and fear driving this concern. Someone held up a Fox News sign at a rally...there are reports of Republicans orchestrating town halls. Okay...so what?

If Republicans are orchestrating town halls opposing health care reform, is this automatically a bad thing? Ron Paul is, after all, a republican. Or because one guy holds some sign, this signifies that invisible forces are colluding to "bring down" the Ron Paul movement? If he was trying to infiltrate, why would he be holding a billboard sign announcing his allegiance? Let's use some common sense. It seems to me the way to most guarantee defeat of this movement is to just give up and run away because some people we might not 100% agree with happen to show up.

Things have gotten to the point that anyone who will stand with us should be welcomed. This is not the same as selling out.The alternative is to nurse this puritanical streak against "neocons" (a label applied far too freely), push away potential allies, and continue to argue how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin with people who agree with +75% of what Ron Paul supporters believe. Meanwhile, the statist wing of both political parties march over the scattered opposition with ease.

[NewEnd]

I'm all about the chaos. the more, the better. Fuck it. I wont be satisfied really until I see bankers in prison doing hard time. Madoff was a distraction from the real crooks. Hell I almost admire him because he fucked over all these jackasses.

[__27__]

There appears to be a healthy amount of speculation and fear driving this concern. Someone held up a Fox News sign at a rally...there are reports of Republicans orchestrating town halls. Okay...so what?

If Republicans are orchestrating town halls opposing health care reform, is this automatically a bad thing? Ron Paul is, after all, a republican. Or because one guy holds some sign, this signifies that invisible forces are colluding to "bring down" the Ron Paul movement? If he was trying to infiltrate, why would he be holding a billboard sign announcing his allegiance? Let's use some common sense. It seems to me the way to most guarantee defeat of this movement is to just give up and run away because some people we might not 100% agree with happen to show up.

Things have gotten to the point that anyone who will stand with us should be welcomed. This is not the same as selling out.The alternative is to nurse this puritanical streak against "neocons" (a label applied far too freely), push away potential allies, and continue to argue how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin with people who agree with +75% of what Ron Paul supporters believe. Meanwhile, the statist wing of both political parties march over the scattered opposition with ease.

Perception IS everything, bottom line. And when the grassroots of Ron Paul Republicans/minarchists/anarchists/constitutionalists/voluntaryists/etc. work so hard to get their message out, and organize meaningful events, it all goes for naught when Toby Kieth shows up and says "Bush Rocks, Obama Sucks". The MSM then informs the (m)asses that this is the message of the liberty movement, just bitterness that Bush is no longer in the white house, mixed with some hatred for a black man in office.

It is destroying so much of the ground we gained in the eyes of so many independent minds in this country. So many who were waking up and saying, "holy crap, maybe those Ron Paul guys were right", now see "those Ron Paul guys" as just an extension of the same old same old tired GOP.

Quality > quantity. I would rather have a movement of 2 million devoted liberty minded people from ALL political/ethnic backgrounds standing together on the principles of liberty and freedom, than 20 million just pissed off that their party lost. We lose all impact of our message before anyone even gets a chance to hear it.

[NewEnd]

but are people associating it with the liberty movement?

[Bucjason]

Fine. Well the Bush buzzwords were "trust" and "patriotism". How do you fight against that? How is that rhetoric any less "empty"? With Obama you can fight against things like his health care plan (admittedly that's a moving target) and "cap and trade". Heck, to be honest even terms like "liberty" can be empty rhetoric. Look at how many people have latched onto the term after fighting against liberty for the past 8 years.

Almost all politicians use empty rhetoric at times, I can't deny that, but my only point is that the Obama campaign took it to a whole new level. That's why his support is probably eroding so quciky , because it was never based on anything of substance to begin with.

Once you realize that "change" isn't what you thought it was going to be , there is nothing left to latch on to. The Emporer has no clothes.

[Bucjason]

Quality > quantity. I would rather have a movement of 2 million devoted liberty minded people from ALL political/ethnic backgrounds standing together on the principles of liberty and freedom, than 20 million just pissed off that their party lost. We lose all impact of our message before anyone even gets a chance to hear it.

Quality better than quanity?? LOL . Unfortunetly nothing could be further from the truth in a democracy....

Pissed off they lost ?? I'm sure some are, but have you ever considered the fact that many of them are pissed off because the people they elected didn't do what they thought they were electing them to do ??

[Bucjason]

oh, and Glen Beck is allowing Judge Napolitano to guest host for him again today.

What an evil fascist neocon he is !!

[__27__]

Quality better than quanity?? LOL . Unfortunetly nothing could be further from the truth in a democracy....

Pissed off they lost ?? I'm sure some are, but have you ever considered the fact that many of them are pissed off because the people they elected didn't do what they thought they were electing them to do ??

For the hundredth time in a few short days here: GOP-lite, the future of this movement ONLY if you allow it.

Having warmongers and big government republicans on your side is subtraction by addition.

[Bucjason]

For the hundredth time in a few short days here: GOP-lite, the future of this movement ONLY if you allow it.

Having warmongers and big government republicans on your side is subtraction by addition.


...and for the hundreth time in a few short days , Spooner-wannabe-anarchy-mole ( the future of NO movement) , the grassroots of the republican party does not agree with the way thier elected republicans politicians have governed over the last 8 years. That is why Bush's approval rating was 20%, and many deserted to vote 3rd party and/or Democrat and/or NOT AT ALL. It's why the Dems have a fillibuster proof majority right now.


These people I AM referring too are much closer in line with Ron paul's version of Liberty than YOU will ever be. Ron paul would NEVER advocate blowing up the constitution and living in a society with no rule of law like you endorse. It is YOU who doesn't belong here. Go back to the Freesteader , spooner-boy.

[__27__]

...and for the hundreth time in a few short days , Spooner-wannabe-anarchy-mole ( the future of NO movement) , the grassroots of the republican party does not agree with the way thier elected republicans politicians have governed over the last 8 years. That is why Bush's approval rating was 20%, and many deserted to vote 3rd party and/or Democrat and/or NOT AT ALL. It's why the Dems have a fillibuster proof majority right now.


These people I AM referring too are much closer in line with Ron paul's version of Liberty than YOU will ever be. Ron paul would NEVER advocate blowing up the constitution and living in a society with no rule of law like you endorse. It is YOU who doesn't belong here. Go back to the Freesteader , spooner-boy.

/yawn

[georgiaboy]

to the thread title, I hope so.

Let them come & try to co-opt us.

It's not gonna happen. We will change them.

We will not play their games, or vote for their worthless candidates.

Let them try and speak of and vote for bailouts, big government, endless spending, endless wars, endless regulations. We're done with it, and we're letting them know it, and will continue letting them know it, and voting accordingly.

They will change; we will not. The line has been drawn.

We'll go to the rallies, cheer where appropriate, boo where appropriate. No more lies.

Media, spin away. We're not fooled anymore. We know what's right and true, and we're moving in that direction.

[Objectivist]

when I was at a tea party I saw a person waving a Fox News sign. I really felt like saying something - but I didn't.

Now I hear that the republican party is staging the town halls. I wonder, are they trying to infiltrate our movement? They are certainly going to give us a bad name if they are.

Yeah, because they have no place left to hide. When people make arguments and state first that they are not a republican it leaves the neo-cons out in the cold when it comes to the realm of ideas. The neos are soon to be homeless if the People continue to stand tall and resist government intrusion into their lives. The neos love getting into your life and your take away freedom and liberty.

I'd fathom a guess that neos are keeping their mouths shut during this debate waiting for the crumbs that are left at the end of all this, waiting for another opportunity to seize the day so to speak. Will we let them?