PDA

View Full Version : Glenn Beck implies Ron Paul supporters are terrorists




ZENemy
02-25-2013, 11:30 AM
Enough said!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rc4OJWH1nE


Sometimes I wonder if people have memory problems or just really, really wanna believe stuff that pretty people on the mainstream media say.

LibertyEagle
02-25-2013, 11:31 AM
And so you start yet another Glenn Beck thread????? :rolleyes:

ZENemy
02-25-2013, 11:35 AM
And so you start yet another Glenn Beck thread????? :rolleyes:

Why? Did I say there were to many Glen Beck threads? *rolls eyes back at ya*

You would be surprised at how many of these new glen back fans have NOT seen the video I posted.

VBRonPaulFan
02-25-2013, 11:38 AM
Why? Did I say there were to many Glen Beck threads? *rolls eyes back at ya*

You would be surprised at how many of these new glen back fans have NOT seen the video I posted.

I'm included as someone who hadn't seen that video before - so thanks for posting it.

People tend to have relatively short memories. It is good to show people why they should be cautious when looking at someone like Beck who now seems to be coming our way.

evilfunnystuff
02-25-2013, 11:38 AM
Bump

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 11:39 AM
Glenn Beck said from the beginning that he didn't support some of the stances of Ron Paul.

Glenn Beck really didn't like how Ron Paul supporters were glorifying the Terrorist Guy Fawkes (V for Vendetta Money Bomb). He also didn't like how Ron Paul supporters were sending him terrorist threats through email when he pointed out that the real Guy Fawkes was a terrorist.

ZENemy
02-25-2013, 11:39 AM
I'm included as someone who hadn't seen that video before - so thanks for posting it.

People tend to have relatively short memories. It is good to show people why they should be cautious when looking at someone like Beck who now seems to be coming our way.


Exactly why I posted it!

Beck is a cardboard libertarian, and unless he denounces ALL sponsors and starts going grass roots I wont even look at him. Look at his FUNDING, his actions, not at what his lips spew.

ZENemy
02-25-2013, 11:41 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=064rdvK16TQ&feature=youtube_gdata

KerriAnn
02-25-2013, 11:45 AM
Exactly why I posted it!

Beck is a cardboard libertarian, and unless he denounces ALL sponsors and starts going grass roots I wont even look at him. Look at his FUNDING, his actions, not at what his lips spew.

I wish I could +rep you more than once. I don't understand the sudden praise of this lunatic.

evilfunnystuff
02-25-2013, 11:45 AM
Glenn Beck said from the beginning that he didn't support some of the stances of Ron Paul.

Glenn Beck really didn't like how Ron Paul supporters were glorifying the Terrorist Guy Fawkes (V for Vendetta Money Bomb). He also didn't like how Ron Paul supporters were sending him terrorist threats through email when he pointed out that the real Guy Fawkes was a terrorist.

Church it up all you want he is still a collectivist who publicy supported rounding us up into camps.

ronpaulfollower999
02-25-2013, 11:47 AM
I wonder what G Edward Griffin thinks of Beck?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2roews2_1c

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 11:50 AM
I wonder what G Edward Griffin thinks of Beck?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2roews2_1c

People here will surely attack Glenn Beck for inviting G. Edward Griffin on the show.

cajuncocoa
02-25-2013, 11:56 AM
People here will surely attack Glenn Beck for inviting G. Edward Griffin on the show.
March 2011: still in stroking-season mode

VBRonPaulFan
02-25-2013, 12:14 PM
People here will surely attack Glenn Beck for inviting G. Edward Griffin on the show.

Nope, I think it is great when he has liberty friendly people on his show, and when he espouses liberty oriented ideas. We've seen enough of his evil side in the past though to truly question his motives now.

Don't you find it rather drastic to go from, in about a year and a half's time, saying Ron Paul supporters/libertarians are domestic terrorists to saying that they've got it all right? That seems pretty wild, to me.

acptulsa
02-25-2013, 12:23 PM
Don't you find it rather drastic to go from, in about a year and a half's time, saying Ron Paul supporters/libertarians are domestic terrorists to saying that they've got it all right? That seems pretty wild, to me.

And then right back where he started six months later. 'Round and round and round he goes.

http://www.bestanimations.com/Music/Metronomes/Metronome-04-june.gif

Smart3
02-25-2013, 12:33 PM
Anyone care to look at when the video was posted? 2007? How many of us haven't changed our minds on something in six damn years?

I don't like Glenn Beck - but give the guy a break.

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 12:36 PM
Anyone care to look at when the video was posted? 2007? How many of us haven't changed our minds on something in six damn years?

I don't like Glenn Beck - but give the guy a break.
Plus Ron Paul supporters were jumping on the Terrorist Guy Fawkes bandwagon. The media was perplexed about why Ron Paul supporters were glorifying a terrorist.

torchbearer
02-25-2013, 12:38 PM
Anyone care to look at when the video was posted? 2007? How many of us haven't changed our minds on something in six damn years?

I don't like Glenn Beck - but give the guy a break.


are you libertarian on odd years and neocon on even years?
its capricious at best, and manipulative at worst.
of course, i've been watching the Beckstabbings since 2007.
How many of his "conversions" have you witnessed?

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 12:39 PM
Plus Ron Paul supporters were jumping on the Terrorist Guy Fawkes bandwagon. The media was perplexed about why Ron Paul supporters were glorifying a terrorist.

Why don't you try - just try - to post a message that doesn't mention Guy Fawkes once today?

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 12:40 PM
Why don't you try - just try - to post a message that doesn't mention Guy Fawkes once today?
The Ron Paul movement screwed up. Own it.

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 12:42 PM
The Ron Paul movement screwed up. Own it.

That doesn't count.

torchbearer
02-25-2013, 12:42 PM
The Ron Paul movement screwed up. Own it.

yeah, raising 4mil in a day. big mistake.
i guess we should have been more mindful of demagogues who like to spin things into attacks like BECK.
That was the only mistake... but then again, if we changed everything we do just to make sure people like BECK won't pervert it- we wouldn't do anything.

fisharmor
02-25-2013, 12:43 PM
I don't like Glenn Beck - but give the guy a break.

No. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405575-Glenn-Beck!!!!1!!!!&p=4893547&viewfull=1#post4893547)

Smart3
02-25-2013, 12:45 PM
are you libertarian on odd years and neocon on even years?
its capricious at best, and manipulative at worst.
of course, i've been watching the Beckstabbings since 2007.
How many of his "conversions" have you witnessed?
I've seen perhaps 1 hour of Glenn Beck speak, excluding the chats with Penn and Judge Nap.

So I'm in no position to judge this guy. Not to appear bigoted, but any man who converts to another religion to marry his wife is on my shit list. Beck is as confused religiously as he is politically. He actually has the balls to call himself a Christian. If I were one, I'd be disgusted.

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 12:45 PM
Plus Ron Paul supporters were jumping on the Terrorist Guy Fawkes bandwagon. The media was perplexed about why Ron Paul supporters were glorifying a terrorist.

The Ron Paul movement screwed up. Own it.

yeah, raising 4mil in a day. big mistake.

The Ron Paul movement associated itself with a Terrorist, yeah big mistake.

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 12:46 PM
Not to appear bigoted, but any man who converts to another religion to marry his wife is on my shit list. Beck is as confused religiously as he is politically. He actually has the balls to call himself a Christian. If I were one, I'd be disgusted.
I believe Glenn Beck and his wife both converted to Mormonism at the same time.

torchbearer
02-25-2013, 12:48 PM
The Ron Paul movement associated itself with a Terrorist, yeah big mistake.

Beck associated a group name with a person who some people call a terrorist.
That is true.

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 12:50 PM
Beck associated a group name with a person who some people call a terrorist.
That is true.

Guy Fawkes was terrorist and you'd be foolish to defend him.


- Gunpowder Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot)

- Guy Fawkes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes)



The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, in earlier centuries often called the Gunpowder Treason Plot or the Jesuit Treason, was a failed assassination attempt against King James I of England and VI of Scotland by a group of provincial English Catholics led by Robert Catesby.

The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of England's Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the Catholic head of state. Catesby may have embarked on the scheme after hopes of securing greater religious tolerance under King James had faded, leaving many English Catholics disappointed. His fellow plotters were John Wright, Thomas Wintour, Thomas Percy, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, Thomas Bates, Robert Wintour, Christopher Wright, John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby and Francis Tresham. Fawkes, who had 10 years of military experience fighting in the Spanish Netherlands in suppression of the Dutch Revolt, was given charge of the explosives.

The plot was revealed to the authorities in an anonymous letter sent to William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle, on 26 October 1605. During a search of the House of Lords at about midnight on 4 November 1605, Fawkes was discovered guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder—enough to reduce the House of Lords to rubble—and arrested. Most of the conspirators fled from London as they learnt of the plot's discovery, trying to enlist support along the way. Several made a stand against the pursuing Sheriff of Worcester and his men at Holbeche House; in the ensuing battle Catesby was one of those shot and killed. At their trial on 27 January 1606, eight of the survivors, including Fawkes, were convicted and sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Details of the assassination attempt were allegedly known by the principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet. Although Garnet was convicted and sentenced to death, doubt has been cast on how much he really knew of the plot. As its existence was revealed to him through confession, Garnet was prevented from informing the authorities by the absolute confidentiality of the confessional. Although anti-Catholic legislation was introduced soon after the plot's discovery, many important and loyal Catholics retained high office during King James I's reign. The thwarting of the Gunpowder Plot was commemorated for many years afterwards by special sermons and other public events such as the ringing of church bells, which have evolved into the Bonfire Night of today.

SWATH
02-25-2013, 12:50 PM
Ha, that's my video I posted back on '07. I forgot about it until now.

torchbearer
02-25-2013, 12:52 PM
Guy Fawkes was terrorist and you'd be foolish to defend him.


- Gunpowder Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot)

- Guy Fawkes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes)


The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, in earlier centuries often called the Gunpowder Treason Plot or the Jesuit Treason, was a failed assassination attempt against King James I of England and VI of Scotland by a group of provincial English Catholics led by Robert Catesby.

The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of England's Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the Catholic head of state. Catesby may have embarked on the scheme after hopes of securing greater religious tolerance under King James had faded, leaving many English Catholics disappointed. His fellow plotters were John Wright, Thomas Wintour, Thomas Percy, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, Thomas Bates, Robert Wintour, Christopher Wright, John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby and Francis Tresham. Fawkes, who had 10 years of military experience fighting in the Spanish Netherlands in suppression of the Dutch Revolt, was given charge of the explosives.

The plot was revealed to the authorities in an anonymous letter sent to William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle, on 26 October 1605. During a search of the House of Lords at about midnight on 4 November 1605, Fawkes was discovered guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder—enough to reduce the House of Lords to rubble—and arrested. Most of the conspirators fled from London as they learnt of the plot's discovery, trying to enlist support along the way. Several made a stand against the pursuing Sheriff of Worcester and his men at Holbeche House; in the ensuing battle Catesby was one of those shot and killed. At their trial on 27 January 1606, eight of the survivors, including Fawkes, were convicted and sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Details of the assassination attempt were allegedly known by the principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet. Although Garnet was convicted and sentenced to death, doubt has been cast on how much he really knew of the plot. As its existence was revealed to him through confession, Garnet was prevented from informing the authorities by the absolute confidentiality of the confessional. Although anti-Catholic legislation was introduced soon after the plot's discovery, many important and loyal Catholics retained high office during King James I's reign. The thwarting of the Gunpowder Plot was commemorated for many years afterwards by special sermons and other public events such as the ringing of church bells, which have evolved into the Bonfire Night of today.



If you used the government to persecute my religion, i'd try to blow you up too.
juzsaying.

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 12:56 PM
If you used the government to persecute my religion, i'd try to blow you up too.
juzsaying.
Is that your principle of Non-Aggression that Libertarians keep talking about?

Plus, innocent people would have gotten killed in the blast. You okay with that?

fisharmor
02-25-2013, 12:58 PM
Guy Fawkes was terrorist and you'd be foolish to defend him.

I'm your huckleberry.....

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013/...-ages.html (http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013/02/decentralization-hidden-in-dark-ages.html)



Decentralization Hidden in the Dark Ages


For longtime readers, this is a condensed version of the several posts I have made on this subject. I have also added a minor amount of new material.

Examples of decentralized society in history are often hidden. They are hidden because those in decentralized societies never bothered to keep records. They are also hidden for the purposes of the current state. I have previously written about anarchy in the Southeast Asian Highlands as one example. Here, I will present the time of the Middle Ages as another.

This time offered a system of private law. A law not based on the edicts of the king, but based on local tradition and culture. The king was not above the law, but equally subject to it. For law to be law, it must be both old and good. Each lord had a veto power over the king and over each other law (I will use the term “lord” for those landed free men. Even the serfs could not be denied their right without adjudication. Land was not held as a favor from the king; title was allodial. A man’s home truly was his castle.

Although the term has fallen out of use in the academic community, for many this period is known as the Dark Ages – with all of the associated stereotypes: barbarians, boorish behavior, and the uncivilized society that came to Europe with the fall of the much more civilized Rome.

From Wikipedia:

The Dark Ages is a historical period used for the first part of the Middle Ages. The term emphasizes the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire. The label employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the "darkness" of the period with earlier and later periods of "light".


The (Not So) Dark Ages

How did people live absent a strong central power (Rome)? In what manners was governance achieved? How did such a society evolve over the centuries into the nation-states of Europe? From whose perspective were these ages “dark”?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in his essay entitled “On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution,” makes reference to certain aspects of this time period in history:

Feudal lords and kings did not typically fulfill the requirements of a state; they could only "tax" with the consent of the taxed, and on his own land every free man was as much a sovereign (ultimate decision maker) as the feudal king was on his.

Tax payments were voluntary. On his land, each free man was as sovereign as the king. This doesn’t seem so “dark.”

Hoppe quotes Robert Nisbet:

The subordination of king to law was one of the most important of principles under feudalism.

The king was below the law. This might be one factor as to why the time period is kept “dark.”

Hoppe references a book by Fritz Kern, “Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages.” The book was originally written in German in 1914, and is a thorough and eye-opening examination of the relationship of king and lord during this time period, as well as the relationship of both king and lord to the law. I will rely upon, and will quote extensively, from this book throughout this essay. Except as noted, all quoted items will be from this book.

During the early Middle Ages, there was no concept of a Divine Right of Kings, nor did the earlier period hold to the idea of kingship by birthright. These ideas developed over the centuries and only took shape in the late Middle Ages. Contrary to these, in the early Middle Ages…

…an act of popular will was an essential element in the foundation of government….

To become king required consent of those doing the choosing. Additionally, the king did not hold absolute power:

…even the rudiments of an absolutist doctrine had scarcely appeared.

Both the king and the people were subservient to the law – and not an arbitrary law, but a law based on custom, “the laws of one’s fathers.”

All well-founded private rights were protected from arbitrary change….

Germanic and ecclesiastical opinion were firmly agreed on the principle, which met with no opposition until the age of Machiavelli, that the State exists for the realization of the Law; the power of the State is the means, the Law is the end-in-itself; the monarch is dependent on the Law, which is superior to him, and upon which his own existence is based.

The king and the people were not bound to each other, but each was bound to the Law, giving all parties responsibility to see that the integrity of the Law is maintained. A breech by one imposed an obligation on the other to correct the breech. The relationship of each party (king and lord) was to the Law, not to the other party, and each had duty to protect it.

Contrast this to the situation today: whereas today it is an illegal act for the people to resist the government authority, during this period after the fall of Rome the lords had a duty to resist the king who overstepped his authority. This is not to say that such challenges went unopposed by the king –physical enforcement by the lords was occasionally required – however, the act of resistance in and of itself was not considered illegal. It was a duty respected by king and people alike.



A Decentralized Society: Church Towers Bear Witness

The variety and conformity, through different times and in different places, of church towers throughout Europe and European history bear witness to first the centralizing control of Rome, and then the decentralization of the Germanic period. Here I make reference to “A History of Medieval Europe: From Constantine to Saint Louis (3rd Edition)”, by R.H.C. Davis

Davis uses the architectural styling of various church towers built throughout Europe to illustrate the decentralization of society that began with the decrease in Roman influence. He begins with a review of monumental architecture during the time of general Roman rule, preceding the early Middle Ages:

Under Roman rule the general style of monumental architecture had been recognizably uniform in all the provinces of the Empire, from Britain to Africa and from Spain to Syria. In the Dark Ages, something of that uniformity had been maintained…the buildings of the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Lombards, and Franks were built as imitations (though sometimes poor imitations) of the Roman or Byzantine style. But in the period from 900 to 1250 this uniformity ceased completely…in the Latin West there was a whole medley of different styles.

Davis then goes on to describe the differences: from Saxony, to the Rhineland, to Lombardy, to Rome, and France:

They stand as monuments to the intense localism of the High Middle Ages, when every man’s ‘country’ (patria) was not the kingdom, duchy, or county in which he lived, but his own town or village. An echo of this sentiment may still be caught by the French peasant who refers to his village as mon pays [my country], but in the Middle Ages it was all pervading.

The distinctions, region by region, extending to the area of law:

Even the law might change from village to village; a thirteenth-century judge pointed out that in the various counties, cities, boroughs, and townships of England he had always to ask what was the local customary law and how it was employed before he could successfully try a case. The legal uniformity of the Roman Empire had disappeared completely, and law, like the architectural style of the church-towers, varied from parish to parish.

Davis describes medieval civilization as “firmly rooted. It grew out of the earth, as it were.”


The Road from Serfdom

Before going further into Kern’s work, it might be worthwhile to spend a few minutes on the topic of serfdom. Kern spends much time on the relationship between the lords and the king, what about those on the lower rungs of society’s ladder?

The term serfdom comes with a tremendously negative connotation. However, when considering this institution of social structure it might be good to keep in mind:

Taxes levied by the state took the place of labour dues levied by the lord….Serfdom is an institution that has always been commonplace for human society; however, it has not always been of the same nature.

I mention this not to justify, compare, or romanticize. However it might be beneficial to start with a cleaner sheet of mental paper when considering historical serfdom. The serfs paid a tax in labor. Today we pay a tax in currency units usually earned by our labor, and at rates often far higher than the rates experienced by the serfs. At least the serfs had no misplaced views about their lot in life.

Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the Lord of the Manor who owned that land, and in return were entitled to protection, justice and the right to exploit certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence. Serfs were often required not only to work on the lord's fields, but also his mines, forests and roads. The manor formed the basic unit of feudal society and the Lord of the Manor and his serfs were bound legally, economically, and socially. Serfs formed the lowest social class of feudal society.

Other than the constraints on the serf regarding relocation, what about the above paragraph is not applicable to today?

A hint at the relationship between serf and lord is offered in the following 7th century Anglo Saxon "Oath of Fealty":

"By the Lord before whom this sanctuary is holy, I will to N. be true and faithful, and love all which he loves and shun all which he shuns, according to the laws of God and the order of the world. Nor will I ever with will or action, through word or deed, do anything which is unpleasing to him, on condition that he will hold to me as I shall deserve it, and that he will perform everything as it was in our agreement when I submitted myself to him and chose his will."

The serf pledged his loyalty to a lord who acted “according to the laws of God and the order of the world.” His loyalty was conditional: as long as the lord acted in accordance with “our agreement when I submitted myself to him,” the serf was obliged to remain loyal to his oath.

There were remedies if the lord did not keep up his end of the bargain. A serf was afforded several social and legal protections:

The landlord could not dispossess his serfs without legal cause and was supposed to protect them from the depredations of robbers or other lords, and he was expected to support them by charity in times of famine. Many such rights were enforceable by the serf in the manorial court.

Presumably being a serf was better than many other alternatives available at the time – why would a serf insist on “legal cause” before being dispossessed by the lord? Why not simply rejoice at being set free?


The Law (No, Not THAT One)

Here I do not refer to Frederic Bastiat’s classic work, but the law as understood in mediaeval times after and absent Rome, and before development of anything even modestly resembling today’s nation-state.

Kern contrasts this mediaeval law with what is referred to as law today:

For us law needs only one attribute in order to give it validity; it must, directly or indirectly, be sanctioned by the State. But in the Middle Ages, different attributes altogether were essential; mediaeval law must be “old” law and must be “good” law….If law were not old and good law, it was not law at all, even though it were formally enacted by the State.

Consider how pathetic our society would seem to someone coming from this past time that Kern describes. He comes from a place that held that law was grounded in something more than the whims of the king. He comes to a place where law is defined as anything goes as long as the state says it does. And he sees a society beholden to this.

This mediaeval time traveler looks back to his time, and considers that for law to be law, it must be “old”:

Law was in fact custom. Immemorial usage, testified to by the eldest and most credible people; the leges patrum, sometime but not necessarily proven by external aids to memory, such as charters, boundaries, law-books, or anything else that outlived human beings: this was objective law. And if any particular subjective right was in dispute, the fact that it was in harmony with an ancient custom had much the same importance as would be given today to the fact that it was derived from a valid law of the State.

Further, he considers that the law to be law must be “good”:

Where we moderns have erected three separate alters, to Law, to Politics, and to Conscience, and have sacrificed to each of them as sovereign godheads, for the mediaeval mind the goddess of Justice is enthroned, with only God and Faith above her, and no one beside her.

The mediaeval mind did not separate justice from law – the law was to serve no other purpose, no other objective, no other god.

The monarch remained free to bestow privileges…

…so long as no one thereby suffers wrong. He can, for example, make grants from his own possessions, so long as the community does not thereby suffer.

Consider the simplicity and justice of this, and how foreign and corrupt today’s law would appear to our time traveler.

The law was always there, either discovered or waiting to be discovered. That bad practice at times overtook the law did not change or replace the underlying “good” law. This did not require passing another, new law. It only required the discovery of the old law – discovery in its most simple and direct sense; something that previously existed, waiting to be found. “The old law is the true law, and the true law is the old law.” One cannot be separated from the other.

But not today. Kern offers further views on today’s law:

For us, the actually valid or positive law is not immoral but amoral; its origin is not in conscience, God, nature, ideals, ideas, equity or the like, but simply in the will of the State, and its sanction is the coercive power of the State. On the other hand, the State for us is something holier than for mediaeval people….

What a miserable concept we live under. Imagine our poor time traveler, the pity he feels for this miserable lot.

For us, the heirs of scholastic jurisprudence, law is only secondary; the State is primary. To the Middle Ages, law was an end in itself, because the term “law” stood at one and the same time for moral sentiment, the spiritual basis of human society, for the Good, and therefore for the axiomatic basis of the State. For the Middle Ages, therefore, the law is primary, and the State only secondary….the State exists for the law and through the law, not the law through the State.

By this time, our time traveler must be rolling his eyes, wondering what mysterious potion has overtaken this pathetic society. He is not naïve – he knows that the law was not held perfectly in his time, that there were abuses and attempted abuses that required a man to stand.

In that regard, Kern offers an example of a lord standing for the law and in opposition to the king. King Clovis wished to retain a costly vase over and above his due, in order to donate it to the church. All agreed to this except one, who ended up enforcing his objection by smashing the vase. Certainly, the king was not pleased. As neither the king nor the majority had authority to punish this act directly, the king found an indirect manner to exact revenge; this had to wait one year, and was based on an equally exaggerated instance where the king’s opponent stumbled in his duty and obligation.

Where was this old and good law to be found?

It will be found, in the first place, where all morality resides – in Conscience. And, indeed, since all law comprises all the rights of the community, it will be found in the common conscience of the people….

…in the second place, the law will be found in old tradition.

The people themselves hold the law. They know the good law because it is in their conscience – the keeper of their moral sense. They know the old law, because it is passed down to them. These two are combined, always tested and testing. Each individual had a duty to this.

The moral tone of the Middle Ages scorned considerations of expediency, and always took right and wrong seriously, no matter how big or small the question at issue.

The idea of destroying a village to save it, or abrogating property rights to preserve them, or stealing from one to help another in more need would be quite foreign to the mediaeval mind – or to our poor time traveler, who would likely have a reaction to this sad tale similar to this.

Kern summarizes what has been gained and what has been lost via this transition from customary law to statutory law.

For a simple person, in whom something of the mediaeval spirit survives, it is a strange thing that all law should exist in books, and not where God has planted it…. The positive written law brings with it learned lawyers and scholars, cut off from the people. Although in fact statute law is more accurate and certain, unlearned persons become less and less sure what the law is.

How often are we reminded: ignorance of the law is no excuse? This saying probably has roots in the concept of law as understood in the Middle Ages – law based on conscious, law based on a common understanding of justice. Today, that saying is useless, given the thousands of miniscule yet intrusive laws and regulations passed every year by various government agencies.

But it is in technical progress alone, not in progress in ideals, that the modern concept of law is superior to the mediaeval.

Our time traveler would certainly agree, as do I.


Every Individual Vested with Veto Power

Imagine the liberty in such a world if every individual, or even legislator, had such power. Imagine no more: there was a time and place where this was quite true! And no, the outcome was not chaos, but a true check on kingly abuse. Kern explores this further:

The relationship between monarch and subject in all Germanic communities was expressed by the idea of mutual fealty, not by that of unilateral obedience.

Especially in the time of the early Middle Ages, there was no concept of the king as sovereign. There was also no concept of each individual as sovereign.

The king is below the law….if the monarch failed in these duties [to the law] – and the decision of this question rested with the conscience of every individual member of the community – then every subject, every section of the people, and even the whole community was free to resist him, to abandon him, and to seek out a new monarch.

As time passed, the right of each individual to veto evolved into the right of the community. But in no way did this change the fact that the king was held to be below the law. Imagine if a single congressional representative (for example Ron Paul) had the authority to stop any proposed legislation! While not the authority of the individual, still the idea that it takes complete unanimity for the state to act is a powerful idea.

There was no final arbiter other than the law. Both king and community owed a duty to respect and defend the law:

To the early mediaeval mind, king and people together, welded into a unity which theoretical analysis can scarcely divide, formed the State. Sovereignty, if it existed at all, resided in the law which ruled over both king and community. But any description of the law as sovereign is useful only because it emphasizes the contrast with later political ideas; otherwise it is better avoided. The blunt “either-or” of later times – either the king is unlimited or the people is sovereign – is an impossible dilemma from the standpoint of the early Middle Ages.


The Power of the Oath

A significant ceremony was performed in 842, cementing the bonds between the brothers Louis the German and Charles the Bald (sons of Louis the Pious) and against their oldest brother, Lothar. Of importance, this oath demonstrates the power of the lords and the power of the oath. Each brother took a solemn oath in front of the army of the other, and in the language of the other’s army – Louis, giving his oath in Old French, and Charles giving his oath in Old High German. The text of the oath is quite revealing (from “A History of Medieval Europe: From Constantine to Saint Louis (3rd Edition)”, by R.H.C. Davis.):

For the love of God and for the Christian people and for our common salvation, from this day forward, so long as God give me knowledge and power, I will help this my brother [both with my aid and everything] as by right one ought to help one’s brother, on condition that he does the same for me, and I will not hold any court with Lothar, which, of my own will, might cause [my brother] harm.

Then, the people of both armies took an oath:

If Louis [or Charles] observes the oath which he has sworn to his brother Charles [or Louis] and if Charles [or Louis], my lord on his part does not keep it, if I cannot turn him away (from his wickedness), neither I nor any of those whom I will have been able to turn away, will give him any help against Louis [or Charles].

The lords of Louis pledged to Charles that they will not support Louis if he breaks his oath (an act of “wickedness”) to Charles (and the other way around, of course)! The kings had no power absent their lords. And it was the oath given by the lords that bound, not a decree by the king.


A Written Constitution: Protecting the State from the People

Kern examines the impact of a written constitution on the relationship of state, people and law:

In modern usage we mean by the term “Constitution” that part of the general legal order of a State which controls the powers of government and the mutual relations between the government and the subjects.

Was there such a thing as a “constitution” in the early Middle Ages?

The monarch was subject not to a specific constitutional check, but to the law in general, which is all-powerful and almost boundless in its lack of definition; he is limited by this law and bound to this law.

In mediaeval law, the law was above both king and people. Both were subordinate to it, and all (king and people) were bound to protect it. Such an environment (without a written constitution), while somewhat unstable for the people, was even more unstable for the king. He was one man, equal to the others under the law. He was controlled by the law, not controller of it:

From the point of view of constitutional machinery, the control exercised in this way by the law will presumably be very incomplete and insecure – the very breadth of the mediaeval idea of law allows us to guess this. But in theory there resulted a complete control of the monarch, a subjection to law so thorough that political considerations and reason of State were excluded and out of the question.

That the monarch faced an equal insecurity and instability in the law as did the people was the most remarkable check on any potential abuse. As opposed to modern, constitutionally defined states where it evolves that it is only the people that have to fear the law, in the mediaeval time all were equally subject to and therefore controlled by the law.

The Magna Carta stands as the shining example in western history. From Wikipedia:

The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary, for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right which is still in existence today.

Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.

Given my understanding based on Kern’s scholarship, I don’t believe this document represented a step forward for liberty, but a step back – at least when compared to the early Middle Ages, when the king’s powers did not have to be limited, as his powers under the law were no greater than those held by the lords.

The constitutional form has protected the monarch from the people much more than it has protected the people from the monarch – certainly when compared to earlier mediaeval times. At the same time, the constitutional form has provided virtually no protection of limiting the actions of the monarch – even for those constitutions with some form of rights embedded – for example, the U.S. Constitution with its Bill of Rights.

It seems, instead of the pinnacle of governance and protection of liberty, the constitutional form represents a significant step back from the liberties afforded to even the lowliest members of early mediaeval society.

For this reason the modern state feels free to create laws that run roughshod over private rights. No list need be created to demonstrate this reality of every modern state. This was not possible in the Germanic tradition of the Middle Ages: “Nieman ist so here, so daz reht zware,” or “No one is so much lord that he may coerce the law.”

The limitations thus placed on the mediaeval prince were, in theory, much greater than limitations placed on any constitutionally-enabled monarch or president:

For the latter can establish new law in conjunction with the other supreme constitutional organs, but the mediaeval monarch existed for the purpose of applying and protecting the good old law in the strictest imaginable sense.

No one was “legislating” in the sense we understand that term today.

The mediaeval State, as a mere institution for the preservation of the law, is not allowed to interfere for the benefit of the community with private rights.

There was no concept of the public good.

The State itself had no rights….It can, for example, raise no taxes, for according to the mediaeval view, taxation is a sequestration of property.

It was only by preserving this good, old law that the king guaranteed security in his position and dominion.

The written constitution has placed the state above the law – the state self-defines and self-interprets the constitution; the state has a monopoly on the adjudication of its dictates. This places the state in a position to decide what law is, and how law is applied. The only hope one has to influence this is to turn a minority into a majority. Such a concept was unknown to the mediaeval mind – each individual held a form of veto. No majority was necessary, and minority rights were fully protected – even for the minority of one.


The Beginning of the End

What changed, that brought man from an unwritten law, one that kept the king in check, to a written law, captured in a constitution? I do not know with certainty, however I present the following for thought: the change was grounded in the change from allodial land title to fee simple title. This happened in England first, and preceded the much-heralded written constitution, the Magna Carta, by 150 years.

This change occurred as a result of William the Conqueror’s defeat of Harold Godwinsson at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. As a result of this, William claimed that he had won the whole country by right of conquest. Every inch of land was to be his, and he would dispose of it as he thought fit.

All land was thereafter owned by the crown. Perhaps in this can be found the seeds of the desire by the lords for the Magna Carta.


Conclusion

The Dark Ages were not so dark. In this time, law was custom. King and lord were under the law and were bound to serve and defend the law. Each individual had veto power if he could demonstrate the validity of his veto in the law, the old and good law. That the law was not written was not a detriment to the people, but a check on the king. The king was as uncertain in the law as were the lords.

The early Middle Ages offer an example in history of political organization different than what we today understand as government, or the state. One need not romanticize the period to take away from it valuable examples of how life might function in a more decentralized condition.


*******

My additions:
The Prince (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince)was published only 70 years before the Gunpowder Plot.
Famous absolute monarchs like Louis XIV and Charles I came after the Plot.
Given Charles' fate, it seems clear that the absolute power of the state hadn't quite been cemented in England quite yet by 1605.

Fawkes was still operating in the context of the legal tradition outlined above. Moreso than we do, despite the fact that we pay lip service to the Rule of Law.

The idea that he was a terrorist is one born of the state's ultimate triumph. The victor wrote the rules and applied them retroactively. The time you're describing him being a "terrorist" was one where a great transition in political power was happening, and quite frankly, you're engaging in anachronism of the worst kind.

torchbearer
02-25-2013, 12:58 PM
Is that your principle of Non-Aggression that Libertarians keep talking about?


yes, you initiate violence, i return it.
that is how it works.

Smart3
02-25-2013, 12:59 PM
I believe Glenn Beck and his wife both converted to Mormonism at the same time.

His wife was shopping for churches and discovered faux-Mormonism. She became convinced and Beck agreed to convert. (not because he was likewise convinced, but to keep being married to her)

If they had become authentic Mormons, based on years of study and soul-searching, I'd be fine with it. However, like most Americans - picking a church is like picking a favorite sports team. It's repugnant.

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 12:59 PM
yes, you initiate violence, i return it.
that is how it works.
Innocent people would have gotten killed in the blast. You okay with that?

torchbearer
02-25-2013, 01:00 PM
Innocent people would have gotten killed in the blast. You okay with that?


which innocent people?
you talking about legislators or kings?

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 01:01 PM
His wife was shopping for churches and discovered faux-Mormonism. She became convinced and Beck agreed to convert. (not because he was likewise convinced, but to keep being married to her)

If they had become authentic Mormons, based on years of study and soul-searching, I'd be fine with it. However, like most Americans - picking a church is like picking a favorite sports team. It's repugnant.
We don't know Glenn Beck's heart about the manner. You're not in the position to judge him.

torchbearer
02-25-2013, 01:02 PM
I'm stating to think FrankRep=Glenn Beck account

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 01:02 PM
Wasn't the 5th of November moneybomb more about V for Vendetta than Guy Fawkes? Wasn't it really just about seizing upon a pop culture theme from that time? Was anyone REALLY, DEEPLY associating with Guy Fawkes?

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 01:03 PM
I'm stating to think FrankRep=Glenn Beck account

Actually (hilariously) FrankRep is our local neighborhood JBS representative.

torchbearer
02-25-2013, 01:04 PM
Wasn't the 5th of November moneybomb more about V for Vendetta than Guy Fawkes? Wasn't it really just about seizing upon a pop culture theme from that time? Was anyone REALLY, DEEPLY associating with Guy Fawkes?

That is what Beck use his national air time to try and do- twist an event into something it was not.
Though, if he was to bring up Guy, then why not bring up the history of the events? too inconvenient?

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 01:04 PM
Wasn't the 5th of November moneybomb more about V for Vendetta than Guy Fawkes? Wasn't it really just about seizing upon a pop culture theme from that time? Was anyone REALLY, DEEPLY associating with Guy Fawkes?
V for Vendetta was about a modern day Guy Fawkes.

Ron Paul’s Gunpowder Plot (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/11/ron-pauls-gunpo/)
ABC News - Nov 2, 2007

torchbearer
02-25-2013, 01:05 PM
Actually (hilariously) FrankRep is our local neighborhood JBS representative.


lost a lot of respect for JBS.

Smart3
02-25-2013, 01:05 PM
We don't know Glenn Beck's heart about the manner. You're not in the position to judge him.

What part of 'years of study' did you not get? If you convert to a religion you've never read about before, all in a span of a few months. Guess what - you've just become a crazy person in my book.

I sure as hell didn't reject Christianity overnight, it took me almost my entire life so far just to feel confident on just that one religion. I'd have to work twice as hard if I planned to convert to another religion - say Sikhism.

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 01:07 PM
V for Vendetta was about a modern day Guy Fawkes.

V for Vendetta was set in a near-future oppressive total-state which tortured and killed people on false pretenses.

Do you object to resistance?

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 01:08 PM
Actually (hilariously) FrankRep is our local neighborhood JBS representative.

I represent myself, no one else.

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 01:10 PM
I represent myself, no one else.

Okay.

It's getting on in the day, Frank. Shouldn't you be posting your daily link to the New American?

fisharmor
02-25-2013, 01:12 PM
V for Vendetta was set in a near-future oppressive total-state which tortured and killed people on false pretenses.

Do you object to resistance?

Future?

cajuncocoa
02-25-2013, 01:14 PM
http://s14.postimage.org/ox4e6szm9/65898_163391983812297_439440746_n.jpg

sparebulb
02-25-2013, 01:17 PM
Actually (hilariously) FrankRep is our local neighborhood JBS infiltrator.

possible fix

Smart3
02-25-2013, 01:17 PM
Okay.

It's getting on in the day, Frank. Shouldn't you be posting your daily link to the New American?

He writes for World Net Daily. He signs "Fuuuuuu Rachel Madcow" to every poorly-written article.

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 01:26 PM
http://s14.postimage.org/ox4e6szm9/65898_163391983812297_439440746_n.jpg

Correct! Every time. :)

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 01:27 PM
Future?

I stand corrected. ;)

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 01:46 PM
He writes for World Net Daily. He signs "Fuuuuuu Rachel Madcow" to every poorly-written article.

More lies.

VBRonPaulFan
02-25-2013, 01:55 PM
Anyone care to look at when the video was posted? 2007? How many of us haven't changed our minds on something in six damn years?

I don't like Glenn Beck - but give the guy a break.

If this was the only instance of him doing shit like this - i'd be there with you. But it isn't by a long shot.

VBRonPaulFan
02-25-2013, 01:56 PM
More lies.

If you don't do this, you should start. It'd be pretty hilarious.

SilentBull
02-25-2013, 01:56 PM
Glenn Beck is the biggest threat to the liberty movement, period. How can people be so naive to think he actually stands for what we stand for? He's just infiltrating the movement. In 2016 he will endorse another establishment candidate and will find some stupid reason not to support Rand. He will convince most of the people who listen to him because they will think HE is anti-establishment. He's just getting himself set up now; getting more and more people to trust him so he can then brainwash them into doing what he wants.

LibertyEagle
02-25-2013, 01:59 PM
Glenn Beck is the biggest threat to the liberty movement, period. How can people be so naive to think he actually stands for what we stand for? He's just infiltrating the movement. In 2016 he will endorse another establishment candidate and will find some stupid reason not to support Rand. He will convince most of the people who listen to him because they will think HE is anti-establishment. He's just getting himself set up now; getting more and more people to trust him so he can then brainwash them into doing what he wants.

BULLSHIT. The problem is NOT Beck. The problem is that WE don't have anything after all these years that will attract Beck's audience and take them further down the path towards reinstating the Constitution and liberty. All we do is bitch about what someone else is doing. That is no one's fault but our own.

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 02:06 PM
BULLSHIT. The problem is NOT Beck. The problem is that WE don't have anything after all these years that will attract Beck's audience and take them further down the path towards reinstating the Constitution and liberty. All we do is bitch about what someone else is doing. That is no one's fault but our own.

Nonsense. There are plenty of outlets that operate on a legitimate limited-government principle. They just not "mainstream". Beck made his bacon swimming right down the middle of the mainstream, then veered off the path somewhat, perhaps honestly, perhaps by design. Regardless, it's not like none of us aren't out there building franchises. Look at Tom Woods. Look at LvMI. Look at Adam Kokesh. Hell, look at what Ron himself is about to do.

The problem is our ideas do not get play in the mainstream of American opinion, and most people couldn't be bothered to challenge the accepted paradigm anyway.

I swear sometimes all you do is bitch about us bitching. We're allowed to be pissed off about scam-artists like Beck, LE.

LibertyEagle
02-25-2013, 02:09 PM
Nonsense. There are plenty of outlets that operate on a legitimate limited-government principle. They just not "mainstream". Beck made his bacon swimming right down the middle of the mainstream, then veered off the path somewhat, perhaps honestly, perhaps by design. Regardless, it's not like none of us aren't out there building franchises. Look at Tom Woods. Look at LvMI. Look at Adam Kokesh. Hell, look at what Ron himself is about to do.

The problem is our ideas do not get play in the mainstream of American opinion, and most people couldn't be bothered to challenge the accepted paradigm anyway.

I swear sometimes all you do is bitch about us bitching. We're allowed to be pissed off about scam-artists like Beck, LE.

Adam Kokesh? Seriously? He would run off most any mainstream Republican. Hell, I can't stand him myself and I am anything but mainstream.

If you want us to be taken seriously, we need to have respectable people in journalist positions. People like Ben Swann, for example. He is the type that could reach millions. People even like Judge Nap. Kokesh, not so much.

AuH20
02-25-2013, 02:10 PM
Nonsense. There are plenty of outlets that operate on a legitimate limited-government principle. They just not "mainstream". Beck made his bacon swimming right down the middle of the mainstream, then veered off the path somewhat, perhaps honestly, perhaps by design. Regardless, it's not like none of us aren't out there building franchises. Look at Tom Woods. Look at LvMI. Look at Adam Kokesh. Hell, look at what Ron himself is about to do.

The problem is our ideas do not get play in the mainstream of American opinion, and most people couldn't be bothered to challenge the accepted paradigm anyway.

I swear sometimes all you do is bitch about us bitching. We're allowed to be pissed off about scam-artists like Beck, LE.

Beck has the biggest platform. His name is invaluable, even among those that despise him. I hope he continues to carry our water.

cajuncocoa
02-25-2013, 02:13 PM
Glenn Beck is the biggest threat to the liberty movement, period. How can people be so naive to think he actually stands for what we stand for? He's just infiltrating the movement. In 2016 he will endorse another establishment candidate and will find some stupid reason not to support Rand. He will convince most of the people who listen to him because they will think HE is anti-establishment. He's just getting himself set up now; getting more and more people to trust him so he can then brainwash them into doing what he wants.
I agree, and the biggest threat to it I see is that he will confuse people about what libertarianism means. No real libertarian would endorse Rick Santorum when Ron Paul was still in the race.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-25-2013, 02:16 PM
Pertaining to the emotional, irrational, feely-feely commercial media, there is always going to be very little difference between what is a patriot, a worshiper, one who is reverent, an extremist, or a terrorist. This is why when you rehash their crap making sense of it you do their work for them. When have the media corporations never been soviet in their style and communist in their intentions! For cripes sake!

cajuncocoa
02-25-2013, 02:17 PM
Beck has the biggest platform. His name is invaluable, even among those that despise him. I hope he continues to carry our water.
But he's not carrying "our" water.

The only reason Beck likes Rand is the same reason I've been bitching about Rand! That being, either Rand is more like Beck's kind of candidate (see Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, circa 2012) or Rand is only using rhetoric that appeals to Beck. In either case, Rand is not using the rhetoric that his father would use, and if Beck was really a libertarian (or carrying "our" water) Ron Paul's rhetoric would not have frightened him as much as it did.

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 02:17 PM
Adam Kokesh? Seriously? He would run off most any mainstream Republican. Hell, I can't stand him myself and I am anything but mainstream.

If you want us to be taken seriously, we need to have respectable people in journalist positions. People like Ben Swann, for example. He is the type that could reach millions. People even like Judge Nap. Kokesh, not so much.

Jeezus... there is more to this movement than the damned Republican mainstream. If the standard is, "no one can be more extreme than what the Republican mainstream can tolerate", GLENN BECK is too extreme! Napolitano and Woods are completely off the charts, and Ron Paul is OBVIOUSLY a KOOK.

The point still stands - our side is NOT just sitting around and complaining about the Beck's of the world. YOU may not like what some of us are doing... Hannity comes on at 3 EST, if you're interested in appealing to the "Republican mainstream". :rolleyes:

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 02:18 PM
I agree, and the biggest threat to it I see is that he will confuse people about what libertarianism means. No real libertarian would endorse Rick Santorum when Ron Paul was still in the race.

Seems basic enough, doesn't it?

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 02:19 PM
Beck has the biggest platform. His name is invaluable, even among those that despise him. I hope he continues to carry our water.

The more Glenn Beck promotes Rand Paul, the more Glenn Beck gets attacked. I'm absolutely shocked by the amount of rudeness and hatred coming from the Ron Paul movement.

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 02:20 PM
The more Glenn Beck promotes Rand Paul, the more Glenn Beck gets attacked. I'm absolutely shocked by the amount of rudeness and hatred coming from the Ron Paul movement.

What is this, 2006? You cannot possibly be this obtuse.

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 02:21 PM
I agree, and the biggest threat to it I see is that he will confuse people about what libertarianism means. No real libertarian would endorse Rick Santorum when Ron Paul was still in the race.

The Libertarian Party nominated Bon Barr, right?

Lol

AuH20
02-25-2013, 02:23 PM
But he's not carrying "our" water.

The only reason Beck likes Rand is the same reason I've been bitching about Rand! That being, either Rand is more like Beck's kind of candidate (see Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, circa 2012) or Rand is only using rhetoric that appeals to Beck. In either case, Rand is not using the rhetoric that his father would use, and if Beck was really a libertarian (or carrying "our" water) Ron Paul's rhetoric would not have frightened him as much as it did.

Glenn Beck is a net positive for the liberty movement. I know people don't want to hear it, but it's true. There is no one with a media empire of his size that even ventures near libertarian and constiutional principles. His show is an oasis in a desert and aside from some personal idiosyncrasies, I don't have a problem with it. He could endorse the bio-clone of Hitler for all I care as long as he keeps certain taboo topics relevant.

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 02:23 PM
The Libertarian Party nominated Bon Barr, right?

Lol

The Republican Party nominated Mitt Romney, right?

Lol

AuH20
02-25-2013, 02:24 PM
The more Glenn Beck promotes Rand Paul, the more Glenn Beck gets attacked. I'm absolutely shocked by the amount of rudeness and hatred coming from the Ron Paul movement.

It got personal. There is alot of bad blood. You are not that obtuse?

A Son of Liberty
02-25-2013, 02:29 PM
Glenn Beck is a net positive for the liberty movement. I know people don't want to hear it, but it's true. There is no one with a media empire of his size that even ventures near libertarian and constiutional principles. His show is an oasis in a desert and aside from some personal idiosyncrasies, I don't have a problem with it. He could endorse the bio-clone of Hitler for all I care as long as he keeps certain taboo topics relevant.

The thing is, rhetorically at least, Beck's not rooted in sound principles. On occasion he may wander to the correct logical conclusion, but perhaps just as often he doesn't. He's a loose cannon. I can't send anyone to Beck, because he's not rooted in sound principles, and therefore I can't be sure what conclusions he's going to reach from day-to-day.

If someone forced me to choose between Beck and Jones, I'd send people to Jones 100% of the time. I don't agree with a lot that Jones says, but his rhetoric is rooted in sound principles. I can explain away a lot of what he says. I wouldn't be able to explain away half of what Beck says.

ZENemy
02-25-2013, 02:30 PM
Libertarians will be the new necons, in 10 years, they will be called libercons while a new "freedom movement" arises, then that one will get co-opted and be called "freedomcons" get it?

Liberals used to be about LIBERATING, now what do they represent?

twomp
02-25-2013, 02:31 PM
V for Vendetta was about a modern day Guy Fawkes.

Ron Paul’s Gunpowder Plot (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/11/ron-pauls-gunpo/)
ABC News - Nov 2, 2007

It was a MOVIE. The mask is from a MOVIE. The MOVIE was about a guy being opressed by the government and towards the end, the people STOOP UP with him.

Then again, you are offended by wrestlers in the WWE doing A SKIT so can't really expect much more from you. Good job linking an article from ABC. As if they would have something positive to say about Ron Paul anyways.

By the way, I just saw on this TV show where this dude was MURDERED on it. Are you offended by that? I mean it is MURDER right?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-25-2013, 02:31 PM
Glenn Beck is the biggest threat to the liberty movement, period. How can people be so naive to think he actually stands for what we stand for? He's just infiltrating the movement. In 2016 he will endorse another establishment candidate and will find some stupid reason not to support Rand. He will convince most of the people who listen to him because they will think HE is anti-establishment. He's just getting himself set up now; getting more and more people to trust him so he can then brainwash them into doing what he wants.

The media corporations are the problem. In our protesting, we need to concentrate expressly on influencing them. As I see it, in order to insure that they are going to be on our side when order turns to chaos, we need to open up lines of communication with unofficial police, military, and media personnel. In a black and white, red and blue world, you don't have any rights.

cajuncocoa
02-25-2013, 02:32 PM
The Libertarian Party nominated Bon Barr, right?

Lol
I'm not a Bob Barr supporter; far from it.

But

Bob Barr > Rick Santorum

any day.

cajuncocoa
02-25-2013, 02:33 PM
Glenn Beck is a net positive for the liberty movement. I know people don't want to hear it, but it's true. There is no one with a media empire of his size that even ventures near libertarian and constiutional principles. His show is an oasis in a desert and aside from some personal idiosyncrasies, I don't have a problem with it. He could endorse the bio-clone of Hitler for all I care as long as he keeps certain taboo topics relevant.
I have no answer for this. It speaks for itself.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-25-2013, 02:35 PM
The more Glenn Beck promotes Rand Paul, the more Glenn Beck gets attacked. I'm absolutely shocked by the amount of rudeness and hatred coming from the Ron Paul movement.

"Ron Paul Movement"?
Try "Ron Paul's American Movement."
There is only one movement and that is the American Movement back to revering our Founders and the new order they declared as a natural law within The Declaration of Independence.

ZENemy
02-25-2013, 02:38 PM
Glenn Beck attacks Ron Paul and then restates Ron Pauls exact position on the Middle East as his own.



http://www.dailypaul.com/178594/glenn-beck-attacks-ron-paul-and-then-restates-ron-pauls-exact-position-on-the-middle-east

ZENemy
02-25-2013, 02:45 PM
Beck does NOT understand freedom or libertarianism, again, he is a cardboard libertarian. Turn him sideways and you will see he has NO context.



” You can’t export democracy. They don’t want it. They don’t understand it. That’s fine. They attack us. We pound them into glass, and then we go home. We don’t fix their stuff. They don’t have stuff to fix. They don’t mind it. They’re fine with it. Who’re we to impose our values on them? Great. You live any way you want. You screw with us, we pound you back into the stone age where you already are. We drive back into your cave. We kill all the people who tried to kill us, and then we go home,” Glenn said.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/09/13/why-was-ron-paul-the-big-loser-in-the-debate-last-night/

SilentBull
02-25-2013, 02:48 PM
BULLSHIT. The problem is NOT Beck. The problem is that WE don't have anything after all these years that will attract Beck's audience and take them further down the path towards reinstating the Constitution and liberty. All we do is bitch about what someone else is doing. That is no one's fault but our own.

I don't completely disagree with your statement. I love Rand and support his strategy. My point is that even Beck will turn his back on Rand as soon as we get closer to the primaries. Time will tell I guess. I believe it is Beck's job to co-opt the liberty movement to make sure anti-establishment Republicans will LIKE Rand, but will not vote for him because of <insert stupid reason here>, and instead will vote for another guy who Beck will sell as being anti-establishment.

COpatriot
02-25-2013, 02:48 PM
http://www.dailypaul.com/178594/glenn-beck-attacks-ron-paul-and-then-restates-ron-pauls-exact-position-on-the-middle-east

This is the most damning video of Beck there is. If there is one Beck video I would want everyone on this site to watch, it's that one. This proves Beck to be a fraud. He says he disagrees with Ron, then states his own position which is essentially the exact same position as Ron's, and then endorses the guy who is the exact opposite in Santorum. The guy is an absolute joke.

SilentBull
02-25-2013, 02:54 PM
The more Glenn Beck promotes Rand Paul, the more Glenn Beck gets attacked. I'm absolutely shocked by the amount of rudeness and hatred coming from the Ron Paul movement.

I support Rand 100% but I don't believe Beck is being genuine. That's my problem. He can say anything he wants now. I guarantee you he will not be saying those things during the primaries.

AuH20
02-25-2013, 02:58 PM
Beck does NOT understand freedom or libertarianism, again, he is a cardboard libertarian. Turn him sideways and you will see he has NO context.




http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/09/13/why-was-ron-paul-the-big-loser-in-the-debate-last-night/

Libertarianism doesn't imply that you are to be a pincushion. With no context, I have no problem with what he voiced.

mac_hine
02-25-2013, 03:09 PM
This is the most damning video of Beck there is. If there is one Beck video I would want everyone on this site to watch, it's that one. This proves Beck to be a fraud. He says he disagrees with Ron, then states his own position which is essentially the exact same position as Ron's, and then endorses the guy who is the exact opposite in Santorum. The guy is an absolute joke.

Right on. I'd like to see FrankRep or Article V sugarcoat this.

kcchiefs6465
02-25-2013, 03:16 PM
http://www.dailypaul.com/178594/glenn-beck-attacks-ron-paul-and-then-restates-ron-pauls-exact-position-on-the-middle-east
Bump.

jmdrake
02-25-2013, 03:42 PM
V for Vendetta was about a modern day Guy Fawkes.

Ron Paul’s Gunpowder Plot (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/11/ron-pauls-gunpo/)
ABC News - Nov 2, 2007

FTR, back in 2007 I was one of the few that thought the Guy Fawkes tie in was a bad idea and couldn't fathom why the some of same folks who wanted us to disassociate with "conspiracy theorists" would want to associate with a terrorist who tried to kill the man who commissioned the King James version of the Bible. (And yeah, the protestants were persecuting the Catholics, but the Catholics were doing the same when they had the chance).

That said, I don't recall anyone other than Glenn Beck harping on this. And if any others did, they certainly didn't do it to the extent Beck did. Hey, I hope Beck's "conversion" is real this time. I doubt it though.

erowe1
02-25-2013, 04:30 PM
I remember hearing this exchange when it aired.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/01/03/ron-paul-a-poor-choice-for-gop-nomination/

I distinctly remember hearing Beck's line, "I am so done with being the policeman of the world," and listening to everything he said from that point on directly contradicting that and thinking, "what an unabashed liar." He's not going to be able to change the perception he gave me of himself from that exchange and a number of similar ones.

liberalnurse
02-25-2013, 07:21 PM
If my memory serves me correctly we were "terrorists" led by the "Mayor of Crazy Town."

purplechoe
02-25-2013, 10:20 PM
These are the same people who will attack Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh while with the same breath praise Glenn Beck. That's all you need to know about them...

Brian4Liberty
02-25-2013, 11:14 PM
I trust Beck like I trust his friend and role model, Pastor Hagee.

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 11:24 PM
I trust Beck like I trust his friend and role model, Pastor Hagee.
Glenn Beck is also friends with Judge Napolitano. The Judge also hosted the Glenn Beck show several times.

Brian4Liberty
02-25-2013, 11:28 PM
Libertarians will be the new necons, in 10 years, they will be called libercons while a new "freedom movement" arises, then that one will get co-opted and be called "freedomcons" get it?


Lets go ahead and call exactly it like it is. Beck, Levin, Savage, etc. agree with Ron Paul on the majority of issues. The only difference is that Ron Paul is neutral on Israel, and they are pro-Israel to the point where they don't consider Israel a separate nation. In some respects or situations, they may even consider it more important than the USA.

This split has always existed in the general libertarian movement and even in the Ron Paul movement and on this forum. It always will. There are those who don't like Israel's policies, there are those who fully support everything that is perceived to be in Israel's interest, and there is everything in between.

Brian4Liberty
02-25-2013, 11:30 PM
Glenn Beck is also friends with Judge Napolitano. The Judge also hosted the Glenn Beck show several times.

The Judge is one of the biggest proponents of coalition building in the libertarian movement. At least that is what he practices with his shows.

acptulsa
02-25-2013, 11:32 PM
If my memory serves me correctly we were "terrorists" led by the "Mayor of Crazy Town."

If your memory does not serve you correctly, then neither does mine. But there's no need to search the archives. We'll be hearing the same crap all over again in a year, year and a half at the outside.


The Judge is one of the biggest proponents of coalition building in the libertarian movement. At least that is what he practices with his shows.

Here's something worth researching: Does Beck ever let the Judge guest host during Beckstabbing season? Or does he only get allowed on the air during Stroking Season?

FrankRep
02-25-2013, 11:42 PM
Here's something worth researching: Does Beck ever let the Judge guest host during Beckstabbing season? Or does he only get allowed on the air during Stroking Season?
Is Judge Napolitano a bad judge of character? Judge Napolitano has never called Beck a "backstabber," "fake," or a "snake in the grass." Judge Napolitano knows Beck better than any of us.

WarAnonymous
02-25-2013, 11:49 PM
JUST IN!!!!!!!
Glenn Back Receives 100% approval rating on Ron Paul forums. Congrats everyone!

disclaimer: the question used to determine this poll was "Have you ever watched GB." The poll was based on 10 people and received 10 yes votes.

The Northbreather
02-26-2013, 12:22 AM
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4714320214098990&pid=1.7&w=137&h=143&c=7&rs=1

anaconda
02-26-2013, 12:29 AM
Enough said!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rc4OJWH1nE


Sometimes I wonder if people have memory problems or just really, really wanna believe stuff that pretty people on the mainstream media say.

I am fully aware of this post Guy Fawkes day Nov.5th money bomb broadcast. But recently I decided to give Glen the benefit of the doubt and see to what extent, if any, he is "evolving." There's little opportunity cost. It's not like Glen Beck wants me to donate money to him. I'm not going to move to his liberty colony. And Rand is a big boy and can decide how and when to engage Glen in interviews. So, in my case, it is not a case of short memory. Glen's evolution, real or fake, is kind of like a reality show for me.

bolil
02-26-2013, 12:33 AM
Meh, even if Glen is being honest in his claims he could only hurt attempts to 'build coalitions' in larger demographics.

I don't think he is outright lying and at the lest he is equivocating. Like I said, it doesn't matter, Beck is toxic.

FrankRep
02-26-2013, 12:40 AM
Meh, even if Glen is being honest in his claims he could only hurt attempts to 'build coalitions' in larger demographics.

I don't think he is outright lying and at the lest he is equivocating. Like I said, it doesn't matter, Beck is toxic.

Which "larger demographics" are you referring to? Big government liberals?

AGRP
02-26-2013, 12:41 AM
Well, the Zionists sure have come out of the woodwork.

FrankRep
02-26-2013, 12:47 AM
Well, the Zionists sure have come out of the woodwork.
Even Ron Paul supports Israel. Calling people here "Zionists" is pretty childish.

Ron Paul: Israel is Our Close Friend
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?294145-Ron-Paul-Israel-is-Our-Close-Friend

Nirvikalpa
02-26-2013, 01:03 AM
These are the same people who will attack Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh while with the same breath praise Glenn Beck. That's all you need to know about them...

I wish they'd all shut up for just 5 minutes. :)

------

This happened already. Flashback to Glenn praising Ron Paul's voting record and his rhetoric. Come 2008 and 2012 though, and suddenly he thinks the man is bat-shit crazy. Yet just as the "sheep" those libertarians will likely bash and talk about, they're swept with the hysteria.

Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on me... fool me three times? People here need a third time?

anaconda
02-26-2013, 01:05 AM
Even Ron Paul supports Israel. Calling people here "Zionists" is pretty childish.


The term is fairly well defined and acceptable to use. Not all Zionists are Israelis and not all Israelis are Zionists. BTW I don't think Ron Paul supports Israel any more so than he supports any other country.

TheTexan
02-26-2013, 01:25 AM
Even Ron Paul supports Israel. Calling people here "Zionists" is pretty childish.

Ron Paul: Israel is Our Close Friend
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?294145-Ron-Paul-Israel-is-Our-Close-Friend

WRT Gaza, "atrocious massacre", "concentration camp"... he has strong personal opinions on this, but at the end of this video he says that as a politician, he should not be taking sides, and should only be pushing for a return to neutrality and allowing Israel to take care of herself.

Dr. Paul, as an individual - and not a politician - sure seems to have an unfavorable position of Israel. As a politician, his position is neutral - as it should be. Neither as an individual, nor as a poltician, does he "support Israel"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d1t4O9CcZQ0

Here he says Israel is the aggressor and America will be blamed for Israel's aggressions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=08gTWqWrI4M#!

CPUd
02-26-2013, 02:06 AM
Beck does NOT understand freedom or libertarianism, again, he is a cardboard libertarian. Turn him sideways and you will see he has NO context.


http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/09/13/why-was-ron-paul-the-big-loser-in-the-debate-last-night/

Haha..
What is up with his hype guy behind him?

"they hate us for our freedoms" cause Tricky Ricky said so? What statements by Iran or OBL is he using to base this on?

Also:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPn0KFlbqX8

anaconda
02-26-2013, 02:18 AM
The Ron Paul movement associated itself with a Terrorist, yeah big mistake.

If people couldn't accept Guy Fawkes as a metaphor then they I think they were just being silly. That's like saying the Oakland Raiders advocate piracy on the high seas.

BAllen
02-26-2013, 08:59 AM
Oh, yeah? Well we think gb is a terrorist and a stooge.
http://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/beck-main-e1302190402969.jpg

chudrockz
02-26-2013, 09:14 AM
If people couldn't accept Guy Fawkes as a metaphor then they I think they were just being silly. That's like saying the Oakland Raiders advocate piracy on the high seas.

The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism at the time. Now it's a celebrated part of the American Revolution. Should we not have raised six million bucks on the anniversary of the Tea Party either? :rolleyes:

cajuncocoa
02-26-2013, 09:37 AM
The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism at the time. Now it's a celebrated part of the American Revolution. Should we not have raised six million bucks on the anniversary of the Tea Party either? :rolleyes:
Good point +rep

A Son of Liberty
02-26-2013, 09:46 AM
Good point +rep

Seconded.

AuH20
02-26-2013, 09:48 AM
These are the same people who will attack Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh while with the same breath praise Glenn Beck. That's all you need to know about them...

I have no real major problem with Jones or Kokesh. In fact, I donated to Kokesh's campaign. They both provide a valuable service. See, I don't get my feathers ruffled over alleged style points or what he/she said.

anaconda
02-26-2013, 01:20 PM
The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism at the time. Now it's a celebrated part of the American Revolution. Should we not have raised six million bucks on the anniversary of the Tea Party either? :rolleyes:

Exactly.

talkingpointes
02-26-2013, 01:23 PM
If guy Fawkes were the "terrorist", what was the state ? He was after all, just blowback from their experiments.

Anti-Neocon
02-26-2013, 01:28 PM
Am I on the Glenn Beck forums? I must have lost my way in the internets.

bolil
02-26-2013, 01:38 PM
Which "larger demographics" are you referring to? Big government liberals?

Yup, who are just as close to a libertarian perspective as big war republicans.