Skip to content

David Frum Refuses To Acknowledge The Whole Story About Glenn Beck and Ron Paul

September 20, 2009
Glenn Beck critic David Frum

Glenn Beck critic David Frum

So over at New Majority David Frum has a rebuttal to my post calling out his distortions on Glenn Beck. He accuses me of “not doing my homework” on Beck’s positions on Paul:

You’d think that review would be a matter of some urgency for David Horowitz. After all, Horowitz himself described Paul as “a crackpot, a conspiracy nut and a public menace…  an anti-Semite and an America-hater.”  To date, however, Horowitz has not found time to consider the record. Soon afterward, David Swindle appeared on David Horowitz’s Newsreal blog to deny that much of a record even existed.

Swindle linked to a Glenn Beck segment from Nov. 2007 in which Beck worried that some of Paul’s supporters might engage in domestic terrorism. On the basis of this link, Swindle concludes: “Beck, ‘Paul’s chief TV enthusiast and publicist,’ disagrees with Paul ‘vehemently’ on many issues. Who’s Frum kidding here?”

Swindle should have made time to view the new Beck show, the one on Fox, not CNN – the one on which David Horowitz is such a frequent guest. If Swindle had done this homework, here is some of what he would have found…

Frum then links to seven YouTube videos of Beck’s interviews with Paul. What’s really telling, though, is that Frum barely quotes from any of them. He has yet to produce any real damning Beck quotes from any of these exchanges. The closest he gets is when he points out that Beck said that some of Paul’s words were “interchangeable” with those of the founding fathers.

Ron_Paul_Photo_4.preview

This isn’t a controversial statement, though. I’ll be the first to agree with Beck. Paul’s worldview is ripped from the founding fathers.  Isolationism Non-interventionism as a foreign policy made a lot more sense in 1776 than it does in 2009. (Who knows how a hyper-connected world of atom bombs and airplanes would have influenced the founders’ foreign policy views?) Further, the economic ideas of the founding fathers were appropriate for the non-globalized economy of the 18th century. That doesn’t mean such ideas are practical in today’s world.

And on foreign policy at least Beck seems to get that. And I demonstrated this in my first post when I quoted from a January 2008 interview between Paul and Beck which I’ll now quote from again:

I’m probably the guy on talk radio, mainstream talk radio that will at least say I agree with you on a lot of things. I just disagree with you vehemently on others.

[Emphasis added with hopes that maybe it will sink in this time.]

Frum has read this quote — he even quotes me using the word “vehemently,” the key word from the exchange. But he refuses to seriously acknowledge it or reprint it at New Majority. This is intellectual dishonesty plain and simple. He has to know that Beck does not agree with Paul’s most dangerous ideas. Frum is hiding from his center-right readers this key fact in the discussion.

C33301-23

It’s a very simple question Frum has been unwilling to engage so far: Is Beck really the same as Paul? Further, what is it about Paul that forces us to cast him out from the community of respectable conservatives? How does he fall on the side of “the kooks” which William F. Buckley Jr. worked all his life to marginalize?

Frum has yet to articulate these last two questions and I hope he will in this discussion — because it’s an issue vital to maintaining the health of conservatism.

We need to focus on Paul before we can get to Beck. What makes Paul a crackpot who we should cast out from Conservatism? Sure, he’s got some economic crackpot ideas about the Gold Standard and the Federal Reserve. But are those banishment worthy? No. They’re intellectual junk food, not intellectual poison. I don’t like them but I’m not going to say someone shouldn’t be allowed to be part of the movement because they advocate them.

Paul gets cast out because of his insane foreign policy views. He’s an absolute isolationist who wants us to cut off our support and alliance with Israel. His foreign policy is all but in line with the anti-war Left.

John Podhoretz fisked this issue of Paul as an anti-Semite for Commentary back in 2007 and isolated several reasons why people could regard Paul as an enemy of the Jews. (Though Podhoretz himself disagreed with the overall assessment.) So that’s the central problem with Paul.

Does Beck share it? Frum has yet to present compelling evidence. If he can find some then I’d be thrilled to see it.

marijuana-leaves

I’m sure all of us can find points with which we agree with Paul. (I tend to like what he has to say about the War on Drugs, for example.) Just because someone is ridiculously wrong on some subjects does not mean they’re wrong about everything. Just because you like what someone says about one subject it does not mean you endorse all of their views. This is Logic 101. And I know Frum is smart enough that he grasps it.

So what must Frum demonstrate if he wants Beck expelled from Conservatism? How do we define these things?

Here’s a simple formula for writing up the Conservatism Banishment Applications: you need to be able to summarize in one sentence why someone needs to be banished. These things really are not that complicated. Someone openly expresses and consistently defends a particular view which is intellectually poisonous. Examples:

1. They’re a racist.

2. They’re a conspiracy theorist who promotes New World Order, Birther, and Truther garbage.

3. They’re a theocrat who wants to replace the constitution with the Bible.

4. They’re an isolationist who want to disengage America with the world and leave Israel to be slaughtered by Islamofascist barbarians.

5. They’re a secessionist or a neo-Confederate.

I’m sure we can come up with other 1-sentence banishment requirements. However Frum has yet to write one for Beck. He can throw Youtube videos at us but he has yet to produce a Beck policy position — or specific key quote — which would warrant his expulsion from Conservatism. Merely overstepping on attacking Cass Sunstein and perhaps being sympathetic with a few of Ron Paul’s economic crackpot ideas is inadequate cause to label him “one of the most unscrupulous people in American life.”

Beck

So on the issue of Beck’s conservatism excommunication it’s time for Frum to really put up or shut up. His options:

1. He can actually present Beck’s allegedly poisonous positions. He can lay out the hard evidence for why Beck is a Right-wing Whack-Job. And then we can all examine it. Who knows? Maybe he’ll find something and soon we’ll have to throw Beck under the bus. We should go wherever the facts will take us.

2. He can retreat, acknowledge Beck as a legitimate conservative, and better focus New Majority’s critique not as an attempt to wipe Beck off the map, but to rein him in when he occasionally goes too far.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Advertisements
137 Comments
  1. David Forsmark permalink
    September 20, 2009 10:04 am

    David Frum sets himself up as the arbiter of intellectual honesty, but in order to keep that title with the elites he’s trying so desperately to be part of, he abandons honest debate and engages in much of the same slander the Left does of conservatives from Sarah Palin to Glenn Beck. There are legitimate criticisms of Beck, but hardly anyone bothers with them, because they are more about style and off the cuff errors than about major substance. But to be in the “in crowd,” Frum has to be part of the destroy Glenn Beck cool kids clique.

    • September 20, 2009 1:03 pm

      Thanks David. Your support is always appreciated.

  2. carterthewriter permalink
    September 20, 2009 12:23 pm

    It is the snobby attitude of these people who attempt to denegrate the messenger, not the message.

    Too often, they think they enlighten a sub-culture from a perch or pulpit, yet are not humble about it.

  3. Paul Cooper permalink
    September 20, 2009 1:02 pm

    You have hit the big time. Going toe to toe with Frum. Keep up the good work and healthy debates!

    • September 20, 2009 1:04 pm

      Thank you my friend. And let me restate publicly: your post today about Wolf Blitzer on Celebrity Jeopardy was a fantastic contribution to NewsReal.

  4. Charlie permalink
    September 20, 2009 4:01 pm

    David — Great post. You point out my main beef with alleged “constitutionalists” who refuse to realize that our principles will not ALWAYS apply (many times they do) in the 21st Century. As visionary as the founders were, they could not have imagined our societal advances. If things go as I hope in 2012 and we get a true conservative in the White House, I hope they would at least consider a constitutional amendment to make Israeli foreign aid undeniable — I know, crazy, but I believe patriotic Americans would be for solidifying our support.

    With respect to Beck, while I believe he is in our camp, I worry about this snippet of him from his Friday radio show.

    The “libertarian foreign policy” is codeword for Isolationism which of course is anti-us. Thankfully, Beck clearly listens to his staff who reign him back into reality instead of descending into Paulian-craziness. I think concentrating on Beck’s staff should be of paramount importance.

    Thoughts on the youtube?

    • September 20, 2009 7:16 pm

      I think the thing about Beck is that he’s rather malleable in his ideas. These comments are certainly cause for concern but hardly anything devastating at this point. Who knows in which direction his ideas will go in the coming years. (Hopefully not too far in the direction of Paul’s crackpot non-interventionism.)

  5. JConnor permalink
    September 20, 2009 4:53 pm

    “Isolationism as a foreign policy made a lot more sense in 1776 than it does in 2009. ”

    I disagree. Isolationism never made sense at any point in history- That’s why the Founding Fathers advocated a foreign policy of friendship and peace. Bombing other countries instead of trading with them is an isolationist foreign policy, as it drives away any favorable world opinion from the US, as that is happening right now at a rapid pace.

    History can tell you that quite clearly.

    • September 20, 2009 5:19 pm

      “Bombing other countries instead of trading with them is an isolationist foreign policy”

      That’s not exactly an isolationist foreign policy.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

      • William R permalink
        September 21, 2009 9:11 pm

        Ron Paul is hardly an isolationist. He is a non interventionist. He wants to trade with all those that want to trade with us. Youre problem is you think the United States should fight endless war in the Middle East.

        Well I think it is safe to say that Ronald Reagan is the most beloved recent President as far conservatives are concerned. Lets look at his views on the Middle East for example. Here’s what he wrote in his autobiography:

        ” Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.

        In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.”

        http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/?s=Reagan%27s+wisdom

        • Julie Trevor permalink
          September 21, 2009 9:48 pm

          William R said: “Youre problem is you think the United States should fight endless war in the Middle East.”

          Better there than here!

          • William R permalink
            September 22, 2009 6:38 am

            Julie, which country in the Middle East is going to land an army here?

            • September 22, 2009 7:25 am

              Were you asleep on 9/11? Thousands of people can be killed by just a few dozen men. Armies are soooo 20th century.

            • Julie Trevor permalink
              September 22, 2009 7:38 am

              None if we keep the battle over there!!!

            • William R permalink
              September 22, 2009 8:19 am

              And our continued military involvement will only lead to more and more terrorism here. Our CIA calls it blowback. Chalmers Johnson ring a bell?? What about Michael Scheuer?? And there is one step we could take that would help, end immigration from the Muslim world.

            • Julie Trevor permalink
              September 22, 2009 8:59 am

              William r said:
              “And there is one step we could take that would help, end immigration from the Muslim world.”

              And become isolationists? Just how long do you think that would last up against the “enemy” Islam.

              No, the message should be – REFORM. If you want to be called “the religion of peace”, become the religion of peace.

              I’ve read quite a bit of Robert Spencer, Noni Darwish, Wafa Sultan, and some others whose names I forget, but below is a good exchange you might find interesting.
              Julie

              http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30183

            • William R permalink
              September 22, 2009 6:58 pm

              Who said anything about being isolationist? I just said we should think about ending Muslim immigration. It would be a very cheap defensive move. In fact Ron Paul proposed it a few weeks after 9/11.

              “Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.”

              http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst101501.htm

            • jbtrevor permalink
              September 22, 2009 7:17 pm

              Willam R said:

              “My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.”

              Legislation to restrict illegal immigration has worked oh so well, NOT!

              But okay, so we restrict immigrations from nations listed as terrorist threats…unless every non-terrorist nation adopts the same strategy what’s to prevent Muslims from immigrating say to Canada then the US?

              Julie

          • Jeremy permalink
            September 22, 2009 8:52 am

            Julie,

            I would suggest reading up on the CIA and it’s history of meddling with nations and supporting groups that shouldn’t be supported. Many of the groups and ideas that we are fighting now were funded and support by us. I know it sounds crazy, but you have to look past the first layer of mainstream media coverage and actually do some research and cross referencing. There is a lot of BS out there and a lot of conflicting information, which can easily make someone confused and more prone to accept the easy explanation that is given via their television (the news station doesn’t matter… they all end of saying the same thing just with their own spin)

            With that said, it must be known that the CIA supported and funded Bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Russians. And, if you do your research you will find that Zbigniew Brzezinski admits to secretly providing support months before Russia invaded, and we knew that the supporting we were giving would push Russia to invade (Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 ). This contradicts the common mainstream explanation, which says that we helped the Mujahadeen after Russia invaded. Russia invaded because we were there, not because we weren’t there… this is key. Now, with the logic that you used I would think you would say the following… “Better to fight Russia over there than here.” I would ask why the hell are we arming terrorists in order to start something with Russia in the first place? What was the threat that gave us the need to arm extremists? There wasn’t one until after we started arming terrorists… so there’s a good case of why an intervention is bad, especially preemptively. Keep in mind too that these are the people that attacked us on 9/11 too, only we called the Al-Queda instead of Mujahadeen.

            So, how did this Al-Queda group remain secure under another extremist group called the Taliban. That simply comes down to Unocal and oil pipelines. The CIA through the ISI funded and supported the Taliban. The goal was to make Afghanistan secure enough for a pipeline, and the CIA/ISI thought the Taliban were the best for the job. You can Google “carpet of gold carpet of bombs” for more info on the deal that was in the works. You will also find that Hamid Karzai was working for Unocal, and now look… he’s running Afghanistan and they are building a pipeline. Opium is skyrocketing so it looks like the CIA is happy too.

            Go ahead and call me crazy, but I have been researching the CIA/ISI/Taliban/Bin Laden connections for well over a decade and it is clear as day. Things are confusing when you watch the news because it is all lies. A collection of lies told by many different sources to persuade opinion aren’t going to make sense if you line them up over time. Cut through the BS and read a book… think on your own… don’t just listen to the dude on the screen.

            And to sum it up… Ron Paul is the best thing this nation has experienced in a long time. His ideas and values are rock solid, and this isolationist crap is just that… crap. We don’t isolate ourselves by not intervening, we instead open up opportunities for new trade and friendship. Intervening into other nations is the WORST thing you can do as a world power… we should go all out and help when we are ASKED TO HELP, not when we think someone needs our help. Trust me, there’s a huge difference.

            Read “The Grand Chessboard” for starters. Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote it, so don’t think it’s some conspiracy book just by the title. Reading the writings of the criminals in past and present administrations is your best source… steer clear of all the questionable websites and go right to the source.

            Thanks… not trying to me be mean… just getting really sick and tired of ignorant comments.

            • September 22, 2009 9:34 am

              Jeremy,
              You are aware of the fact that your foreign policies views are all but identical to that of the anti-American Left don’t you?

              (I know because when I was a leftist only a few years ago I held the views you express as my own.)

              Further you damn the CIA but refuse to talk about why it acted as it did. You critique rips CIA actions completely out of their context, ignoring the enemies we’ve had to fight against. In doing so you attack an organization who has been vital in defending American freedom. (Something the Left also does constantly.)

              Does it make you pause at all, knowing that you find common cause with those who seek to destroy America? Who will you quote next? Noam Chomsky? The Nation? Their views are quite similar to yours regarding foreign policy.

            • Julie Trevor permalink
              September 22, 2009 9:38 am

              Jeremy, didn’t you mean “unwissende Kommentare”?

              That’s German for ignorant comments or have you forgotten your history and the outcomes of US involvement in “World” affairs.
              Julie

  6. Mark permalink
    September 20, 2009 4:53 pm

    In addition to Charlie’s link, check out this segment of Glenn Beck’s 9/12 special:

    In it, he mentions he is starting to favor a more humble, non-interventionist and America-first foreign policy like Ron Paul.

    • September 20, 2009 5:05 pm

      I’ve seen this before. It’ll be a tendency to watch. He’s hardly in Ron Paul territory yet.

  7. September 20, 2009 4:54 pm

    Who are you to decide what defines conservatism? Paleocons are out, only the neocons qualify? Good luck with the elections.

    • September 20, 2009 5:02 pm

      We seemed to do fine without Pat Buchanan.

    • Charlie permalink
      September 20, 2009 6:25 pm

      Pat Buchanan is an anti-semitic crank. His flawed America First policy would put us in a hamstring’d position on the world stage. Cranking up tariffs on foreign goods will put our manufacturing base into further complacency with respect to efficiency of production, and piss off all our major foreign creditors.

      Not a good idea when we’re in so much debt. Okay, I guess I have to concede a single point to Ron Paul — the debt is out-of-control. That being said, abandoning Israel which receives less than a rounding-error in U.S. taxpayer aid every year with respect to the budget is just absurd. With my fingers crossed, the bombing of Iran will bring fly-over-state Americans in-line with the more seaboard/urban Americans in bolstering the only option with respect to foreign policy—the foreign policy of freedom.

      Beck won’t abandon us as it’d harm him image, making him appear two-face. That point aside, I’d strongly prefer he’d step away from the abyss with some of his recent statements. “America First” and what is *actually* best for America, are not always one in the same.

      • September 20, 2009 7:10 pm

        This is a VERY COOL comment.

  8. Kenneth Gareau permalink
    September 21, 2009 1:37 am

    Hello David,

    You said this: “Further, the economic ideas of the founding fathers were appropriate for the non-globalized economy of the 18th century. That doesn’t mean such ideas are practical in today’s world.”

    What sources do you use to support this conclusion? What readings of economists, either of the period, oh lets say 1776 through to WWII, or of our period today?

  9. Jack Samwell permalink
    September 21, 2009 5:59 am

    I agree with you defense of Glen Beck. It’s not correct to label someone a supporter of Paul’s simply because you agree with some of his views. Personally, I would have voted for him were it not for his positons on foreign policy.

    I also agree with your list of bannishable offenses from conservatism — save one. The left has always maintained, contrary to fact, that communism was not a threat. Well, the right has dismissed the New World Order in this same fashion. Are they blind to the mountains of empiricle evidence of its existence, history, and intentions or are they in tacit approval mode? I suspect, like the left with regards to communism, the right has the same continuum of dupes and conscious enablers.

    President Obama has plans of placing the U.S. in the legal jusristion of the Interational Court regarding the treatment of terriorist detainees. What’s that all about if not transnationalism.

    I have to laught to think that W. F. Buckley is considered the standard of mainstream conservatism for you. Who trusts this elitist bonesman besides maybe other plutocrat elitists? He certainly never appealed to the sams club conservatives that supported Sarah Palin or that watch Glen Beck’s show. John F. McManus’ book entitled,” William F. Buckley, jr. : Pied Piper of the Establishment”, should shed some light on his darker side.

  10. Julie Trevor permalink
    September 21, 2009 6:12 am

    It must be terribly difficult for someone (Frum) who grew up in a culture as close to ours as his country is (to us) to not quite “fit in”.
    His attempt to be “right/correct” is as distant to the truth as his cultural upbringing is to American. Close, but not close enough.

  11. J.D. Miles permalink
    September 21, 2009 6:50 am

    A major element being left out of this debate is the establishment Right’s distrust of populism. While the Left craves mass approval — topping their embarrassing crush on Bill Clinton with an outright personality cult for Barack Obama — the Right never seems comfortable when people on its own side stir up a lot of passion. It is this blind spot for how the real world of modern politics works that makes David Frum’s axe grinding against Glenn Beck (and Charles Krauthammer’s against Sarah Palin) so frustrating. Men who know full well what the term “useful idiot” means yet cannot help themselves from occasionally donning a leftist dunce cap.

  12. T. Davis permalink
    September 21, 2009 7:28 am

    While Beck tends to be a little overdramatic in his presentation, that is a style, not substance, issue. He appears to be the only one in television who is interested in the Chicago connections of the associates of the President. We might all remember that it was the President who instructed us to judge him by the people with whom he surrounds himself. It could be argued that the effectiveness of any political figure can be judged by the amount of vitriol and character assassination coming from the other side. Clearly, Beck is reaching the same level as Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, each of whom one can quibble with style issues, as well. Just like the Ron Paul situation, where is the substance argument against Beck from the left? His audience is growing amazingly fast for a 5PM time slot and he is covering issues not otherwise reported. There is a lot of value to the exposure of those issues and there seems to be some resonance in the public perception of the administration.

  13. Harold permalink
    September 21, 2009 10:44 am

    You had to throw in the birthers. I read your Obama Derangement Syndrome piece and respectfully disagree with your assertion – “What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?”

    Makes a huge difference to the future of this country. Obama wouldn’t be removed but it would so seriously damage the democrat brand that it would take years for them to recover, if ever.

    • September 21, 2009 11:01 am

      I wrote this post, not David Horowitz.

      And yes, I consider the Birther Conspiracy to be Crackpot Conspiracism. It has all the characteristics of it. I’ve studied crackpot conspiracy theory enough to be able to identify it quite easily.

      • Harold permalink
        September 21, 2009 11:31 am

        From the Las Vegas Examiner – “Maya Soetoro was born to Indonesian businessman Lolo Soetoro and American cultural anthropologist Ann Dunham and half-sister to the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama. While living in Indonesia, she was home schooled by her mother and then attended Jakarta International School and returned to Hawaii and attended the private Punahou School in Honolulu, Hawaii, graduating in 1988.

        Besides being the First Sister Maya has a Hawaiia Certification of Live Birth despite be born in Jakarta Indonesia.”

        Is this also part of the “crack pot conspiracy”, or just irrelevant?

        • September 21, 2009 11:42 am

          Irrelevant.

          Here’s a fun book I recommend to all conspiracy theorists:
          http://www.amazon.com/Illuminatus-Trilogy-Pyramid-Golden-Leviathan/dp/0440539811/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253558498&sr=8-1

          Educate yourself a bit about the nature of conspiracy theories and you won’t get snookered into buying into them.

  14. September 21, 2009 11:59 am

    “5. They’re a secessionist or a neo-Confederate.”

    Conflating the two is dishonest, especially when the first War of Secession in American history is more commonly known as the Revolutionary War. To disavow the final and ultimate check on the Federal government, a check understood to exist, both explicitly and implicitly by the ratifiers, is far closer to being worthy of being expelled from the conservative movement as a hopeless believer in centralized authoritarianism than recognizing the inherent right to secession.

    • September 21, 2009 12:11 pm

      Do you advocate that your state or region secede from the United States?

  15. draconianmeasures permalink
    September 21, 2009 1:15 pm

    I gotta say, I don’t think Ron Paul’s ideas about the gold standard are going to look so ‘crack pot’ after the dollar collapses. The isolationism he touts is clearly unrealistic, as well. Even if it was a desirable path to pursue (which it’s not) the logistics obviously make it impossible. Glenn Beck gets both those points and it is primarily on domestic economic issues where he buys Ron Paul’s position…a position clearly and convincingly elucidated by Peter Schiff.

    The egghead conservatives like Frum are just as detached from the real world as their liberal counterparts…with whom they, no doubt, pal around. In the real world, people have had it with Ivy League snobs telling them they are racist, shrill, stupid and under-taxed. Beck gets that, too.

  16. Judy permalink
    September 21, 2009 1:50 pm

    Attitudes change within a short period of time. Americans were Isolationists on Dec.6,1942.

  17. Judy permalink
    September 21, 2009 1:55 pm

    Sorry folks, that should read 1941. I should have been wearing my glasses and proof-read before sending. The teaching of American history is screwed up enough without me adding to it.

  18. the aura of truthiness permalink
    September 21, 2009 5:02 pm

    Judy,

    No, Americans weren’t “isolationist” on 12/6/41. That’s ahistorical.

    We were then in a shooting war with the Nazis in the North Atlantic, with USN ships sunk, and numerous KIA. We knew of the rising dangers in Europe.

    We’d been involved in shooting incidents with the Japanese in China, with ships sunk and KIA. We knew of the rising dangers in the Pacific.

    Affairs in Europe and the Far East had caused the Congress to evolve the 2-Ocean Navy project in 1938, and it was fully funded in 1940, after Hitler took over Western Europe, and long before the US declared war. That 2 Ocean Navy Act won the war, and it came about when you’re assuming we were “isolationist”.

    Not to rank on you, but there are always many voices in our politics and society, and it’s best if we not absorb the “common wisdom”… as it’s often wrong. Those many voices include Beck, Paul… and Horowitz and Frum and Buchanan and…

    The evil comes when we lock out those voices, either today’s or of yesteryear. They exist and existed. Let’s listen to them.

  19. September 21, 2009 9:25 pm

    Excellent writing David, this whole thing is getting out of control. Last thing we need is conservative intellectuals fighting between themselves, on the matter of whether Beck is good or bad. Not that it truly matters, he does what he does and whether we dencounce him is not relevant.

    I personally believe Ron Paul is very dangerous, not so much by his ideas, but because of his peculiar followers. How is it that a third of his base if not more are truthers or anti-semites? Something is deeply wrong. When Hamas supported Obama it was a troubling sign, same with Paul. I wish Beck would acknowledge that, but it’s not a deal breaker…yet.

    Ron Paul the father of conspiracy theories (http://www.rightcondition.com/2009/01/ron-paul-father-of-modern-day.html)

    • September 22, 2009 6:36 am

      Thank you Arkady.

    • Jeremy permalink
      September 22, 2009 9:42 am

      Wow, another straw man carefully constructed to make it look like Ron Paul supporters are cooks. FYI, the media can pull 9/11 Truthers and members of all the other groups from the Obama, McCain, Huckabee, and the you name it camp. They didn’t do that because the losers stated above are no threat to the corrupt workings of the Government… it was only Ron Paul that was attacked in this way.

      You people are simply buying into the BS and running with it. If you had two brain cells left over after your cocktail of prescription drugs and coffee each morning, then you may be able to see this.

      The media controls opinion, and the slaves absorb the opinion and make it their own.

      Yes, you people are all slaves. None of the terms and opinions posted here are genuine thoughts. They are all various taking points that have been run through the media over the past few years. It is sickening to see the masses behave this way.

      Shame on you.

      • Julie Trevor permalink
        September 22, 2009 9:53 am

        Jeremy,
        Are you for real? If so, you need to realize a “genuine” fact, Ron Paul lost because he’s a nut…and the fact that you are so adherent to “touching his garments” says a lot about you.
        Now that was a genuine thought!
        Julie

  20. September 22, 2009 12:45 am

    Your use of the word “isolationism” to describe Ron Paul’s foreign policy position in your opening statement discredits the rest of your article and marks the spot where I stopped reading and skipped to the comments.

    He has never advocated “isolationism” but rather “Non-Interventionism” which is completely different and pretty much represents the foreign policy position GWB ran on in 2000.

    It’s amazing that so many months after the 2008 election, so many people still don’t understand this distinction.

    • September 22, 2009 6:30 am

      Yawn.

      The differences between “Isolationism” and “Non-interventionism” are kind of like the differences between “Marxism” and “Progressivism.” Sure, they’re there but in the grand scheme of things really are not all that significant. Both philosophies result in the same thing: millions of Israelis getting slaughtered by Islamofascist barbarians and the totalitarian enemies of America being empowered by our retreat from foreign affairs.

      If you reply to this comment are you going to refer to Paul as “Dr. Paul” like everyone else in his cult?

      • Jeremy permalink
        September 22, 2009 9:32 am

        Nice attempt at playing mind games. I have read your posts and they are the most ignorant I have seen in a long time. Your latest post to which I am replying takes the cake.

        Millions of Israeli’s will be slaughtered? WTF? Last time I checked Israel sports the same if not better military equipment as the United States. Hell, we share it with them. They have nukes too, don’t forget that. Israel is fully capable of defending itself and they have stated this time and time again.

        I suppose you believe the the slaughter of a million Iraqi’s is fair game since all of Islam is at war with the West and it’s allies right?

        God help us all.

        • September 22, 2009 9:51 am

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations

          If you’re interested in constructive dialogue then so am I. If you’re just here to heckle, insult, and go on ad hominem rants then you won’t last here long. Please do read our commenting guidelines if you want to participate in intellectual discussion here:
          http://newsrealblog.com/commenting-guidelines/

          When I engaged another Dr. Paul supporter on this subject he started out as you did. First suggesting that Israel could defend itself and didn’t need the United States’ support. Then he shifted into attacking Israel as guilty of “war crimes.” Will you do the same?

          Israel is surrounded by enemies that want to wipe it off the map. We give Israel billions of dollars in military support each year. You think if we became Switzerland to them and cut off our aid they would be FINE? Sorry, but I have a hard time buying that Israel could successfully defend itself from all of the Islamofascist enemies that want to destroy it. If you have facts and arguments to suggest that it could then I’d be willing to consider them provided you adopt a less hostile tone.

          • Jeremy permalink
            September 22, 2009 10:05 am

            David,

            Constructive arguments sound great. Let’s start with some facts on your position, and I will reply with my research in a polite way.

            I got mad very quickly because I simply can’t stand all the left / right / anti-American / pro-American accusations. If we can steer clear of that stuff and just talk ideas, history, and fact then I am game.

            Sure, I apologize for coming off as hostile. I’m not here to just rant. You have to understand that I and many others have become very angry with both parties (I have personally unsubscribed myself from any affiliation about 6 years ago).

            I am at work too, so I couldn’t really post links and reference everything that I was talking about. If you want, please let me know your main concerns regarding our Government and/or Ron Paul and I will reply later.

            Sorry again to come off as a “rough” guy… I’m really not. I’m looking forward to debating.

            • September 22, 2009 10:23 am

              Jeremy,
              That’s all right. Some of our posts have been a bit hostile to Paul with our use of terms like “crackpot” and “Anti-Semite.” So it’s not like we shouldn’t be prepared for an emotional reaction back.

              The United States gives billions per year in military aid to Israel. In Obama’s 2010 budget $2.8 billion was allocated. If this aid was not vital for Israel’s survival then why would we be giving it? Do you really think nothing would change regarding Israel’s security if it disappeared and we became neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? (And this is not a conflict in which both sides are equally at fault.)

              Support for Israel and the rejection of non-interventionism are ideas with broad support across the body politic. It’s only at the fringes of both the Left and the Right where you get these ideas promoted.

              My principle gripe with Paul and his supporters is on Paul’s “non-interventionist” foreign policy. That’s the main thing that bugs me about him. He’s not responsible for some of his kooky Truther supporters. His economic ideas about the Gold Standard and the Fed are eccentric and meet the definition of “crackpot” but I would be willing to entertain them. On certain matters I will agree with some of his views — such as his position on the War on Drugs.

              However these issues of economics and social policy are secondary to foreign policy. We can’t have an economy or a society if we’re not protecting ourselves and maintaining America on the world stage.

              I’m not going to ignore the Left, the Right, and those who genuinely want America to be destroyed. And I will point out accurately when your views align with the Chomskys of the world. I’m not going to label you as an individual as somehow anti-patriotic of un-American. (Not yet at least.) I don’t know you.

              Your disillusionment with partisanship is admirable. I no longer consider myself a Republican or a Democrat either. I think transcending one-party allegiance and looking to a post-partisan sensibility is a good thing.

  21. Samuel permalink
    September 22, 2009 9:26 am

    Frum so cherry picked the Cass Sunstein quotes in support of the Second Amendment that it should raise everyone’s suspicion. And, any quote that is made after Obama was elected, and especially after Sunstein was rumored for any appointment should come under special scrutiny when compared to contradictory past statements.

    Accepting Sustein by rationalization is more denial by compasionate conservatives, resulting in more incremental power going to the left. Additionally, focusing on either animal rights issues or second amendment statements ignores the completely unacceptable statements on the Constitution. Seeing this is like the concern about Van Jones for calling republicans a-holes, and totally disregarding Jone’s statements about being a communist.

    How can any conservative ignore the following Sustein writing?

    “My major aim in this book is to uncover an important but neglected part of America’s
    heritage: the idea of a second bill of rights. In brief, the second bill attempts to protect
    both opportunity and security, by creating rights to employment, adequate food and
    clothing, decent shelter, education, recreation, and medical care.”
    — Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and
    Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 1

    We have right to freedom and opportunity, government can’t give a right to “things” without taking those from someone else, thus taking that person’s rights away. Sunstein’s failure to understand this should be of large concern to Frum.

    Samuel

  22. Greg Ransom permalink
    September 22, 2009 10:19 am

    Ronald Reagan:

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html

    “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals – if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

  23. Greg Ransom permalink
    September 22, 2009 10:49 am

    The difference between Ron Paul and David Frum is that Paul knows some economics. It’s that simple.

    • September 22, 2009 10:55 am

      And that Paul wants us to abandon Israel so it can be destroyed by Islamofascist barbarians. It’s that simple

  24. J.D. Miles permalink
    September 22, 2009 11:04 am

    Jeremy wrote: “Go ahead and call me crazy, but I have been researching the CIA/ISI/Taliban/Bin Laden connections for well over a decade and it is clear as day. Things are confusing when you watch the news because it is all lies. A collection of lies told by many different sources to persuade opinion aren’t going to make sense if you line them up over time.”

    There is a fly in the ointment of your well researched clarity, Jeremy. And his name is Khalid Sheik Mohammed. So if finding the truth is really your goal you need to cast the net a bit wider and include the KSM Group in your connect-the-dots game. Not trying to pick a fight so I’ll just pose questions whose answers might expand your understanding. If KSM is the riddle where does he fit exactly in the Al-Queda enigma? More to the point, how did KSM of Baluchistan become the mastermind (commander) over a cell of fanatic Saudis like Mohammed Atta? What was the role of Ramsi Yousef — billed as KSM’s nephew but in reality an Iraqi of no relation — in modern terrorism, specifically Operation Bojinka, the WTC and OKC bombings? What language did the KSM Group use to conduct its most sensitive communications? I’ll answer that one — it was Baluch. And given that fact don’t you think your obsession on Afghan politics is a bit myopic and might be causing you to miss a bigger picture?

    Again, just some food for thought because the frustration you express about the simple-mindedness of others also applies from me to you.

    • Jeremy permalink
      September 22, 2009 12:08 pm

      J.D.

      Well, I did state a bit earlier that I am at work and I didn’t have time to really formulate my thoughts when I was talking to David Swindle and others. That’s my fault, and of course would make my argument look a bit simple minded.

      In my opinion, KSM is a puzzle in itself. I have been reading articles over the past 7 years or so that discuss both his capture (and torture of course) and his killing in Pakistan during a raid.

      I am currently parsing through a detailed time line that references all the people you brought up and supposedly tracks their activities for decades. I don’t have a full opinion on it yet, but it certainly hits on quite a few topics that I have already researched quite a bit. (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1980syousefcia) The key with everything is putting it all together, and KSM did have ties to the Pakistani government as well as some of his relatives. I am also researching General Ahmed and the potential ISI / Atta connection. Also, I have recently found out (I heard reports a long time ago but didn’t research it) that Ahmed was in Washington on 9/11… looking into that as well. If that’s true then I think there are more questions to be asked.

      I understand your point about being to focused on Afghanistan as well… it’s not off based considering my earlier posts. The reason why I focus on the Afghan / ISI / CIA the most is because I believe this is where a lot of the confusion and misnomers stem from in regards to mainstream reporting. Certainly, my research goes in many tangents, but it also seems to end up or start with either the ISI, CIA, and /or Afghanistan (specifically the Russian conflict).

      Perhaps we can discuss this more on another forum. I don’t want to steer this one off course.

  25. Ed Powell permalink
    September 22, 2009 2:22 pm

    You may not agree with Ron Paul on the gold standard, but his position is very comfortably in the mainstream of economic thought, that of the Austrians. Marginalizing the Austrian economics school does no one on the right any good. Read Paul’s book, “End the Fed.”

  26. Brian Macker permalink
    September 23, 2009 5:57 am

    “Further, the economic ideas of the founding fathers were appropriate for the non-globalized economy of the 18th century.”

    Wow, David, that’s a terribly ignorant understanding of economics. In fact, as economies grow larger and more complex any kind of interventionism in the economy becomes a larger problem.

    Besides that your statement is ignorant of the source of Paul’s actual economic understanding, which is far superior to the founding fathers or any of our recent presidents starting with Hoover and ending in Obama. Had Paul been elected for Bill Clinton’s first term, had gotten cooperation from congress, and held office till now then we wouldn’t be in the economic mess we are in. Few other candidates could make that claim. Most of them are economic ignoramuses like you. There’s nothing wrong with being ignorant of economics till you start giving economic advice on that basis.

    The conventional wisdom on economics from the likes of Krugman, Bernarke, Greenspan, and even Milton Freedman has been proven wrong, over and over through out history. These men all believe in central planning, like the Soviets, when it comes to monetary policy. They fail to grasp that interest rates are prices just like any other prices.

    It’s only the ideas that Ron Paul is promoting that have any scientific traction given the underlying facts. Ron Paul is one of the few politicians actually familiar with the school of economics that predicted this economic mess, Austrian economics. Seems like that is completely off your radar.

    Many of the economic ideas promoted by so called modern economists like Krugman were first laid out by economic cranks like John Law centuries ago (and in some cases millennia ago). Debasing the currency has never been a good way to go economically. So call conservatives like Bush I, Bush II, and McCain are just fine with this kind of economic central planning, fractional reserve banking, and the like.

    While most people were heralding Greenspan as the new economic messiah, the Austrians were writing about how his approach could only lead to ruin, as it has. We continue down the same path and it’s just incredibly stupid to again lower interest rates (set a price control below market prices) in an attempt to solve the problems caused by that very price control in the first place.

    Below market prices caused consumers to consume more and producers to produce less than the proper market clearing quantity of a good, in this case savings. Interest rates are, after all, the price paid by borrows, the consumers, for what the savers produce. The internet bubble had all the markings of a distortion caused by below market interest rates, when it collapsed the response was more of the same, and that is why we are where we are at now. Bernarke’s response (and by proxy Obama’s) is to repeat Greenspan’s, Clinton’s, and Bush’s mistakes.

    Of policitians I’ve heard only Paul knows how to get us out of this mess. Stop the central planning, and outlaw the fraud inherent in fractional reserve banking. The fraud that causes the ponzi scheme like business cycle.

    • September 23, 2009 8:44 am

      “Wow, David, that’s a terribly ignorant understanding of economics.”

      I guess the majority of economists who reject Paul’s ideas about the Fed and the Gold Standard are ignorant of economics. I guess only you and Paul have the “Truth” about economics. Everyone else is “terribly ignorant.”

      Paul’s economic ideas really aren’t my primary concern, though.

      • Dan T permalink
        September 23, 2009 2:31 pm

        Thank God we have the well educated economic geniuses at the helm of our economy, because we all know how well that’s turning out. Paul was such a crackpot that he actually predicted the problems we’re having now, even though he knows absolutely nothing about economics. On the other hand, we have Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, Alan Greenspan, and Ben Bernanke, who were all smart enough not to be able to predict the housing bubble.

      • Brian Macker permalink
        September 23, 2009 4:32 pm

        The ignoramus charge was connected to the belief that small economies are more suitable to free market ideas than large ones. In fact it is much easier to run a command economy with just a few people than it is with larger numbers.

        In fact Paul Krugman is ignorant of anything except Keynesian style economics and it’s John Law style economic fallacies. In fact Krugman doesn’t even understand the difference between money and labor dollars.

        I’ve read stuff from many of those you quote, and I’d say they are terribly misguided. They get their historical facts wrong along with their economic models. That is why we are in the screwed up state we are in.

  27. September 23, 2009 6:51 am

    For those who are interested, this old post of mine refutes the idea that Israel actually needs the United States to defend itself against its enemies. In fact, Israel would be better off if the United States just left it alone since they don’t even need our “aid” to defend themselves.

  28. WATYF permalink
    September 23, 2009 8:23 am

    @David

    I wanted to address some of the positions you took while addressing Jeremy (and in other places). I find your logic to be severely lacking. The “reasons” you come up with for decrying Paul (and his likes) are almost completely without substance (and by that, I mean that you have yet to give them any substance). Let me explain.

    You said: “That’s all right. Some of our posts have been a bit hostile to Paul with our use of terms like “crackpot” and “Anti-Semite.” So it’s not like we shouldn’t be prepared for an emotional reaction back.”

    You are correct. Many of your comments (and those of your commenters) are nothing but ad hominems and appeals to (their) popular terminology. Calling something “isolationist” is not an argument. You have to demonstrate what is “isolationist” about it and why that would be bad. And by demonstrate, I mean give evidence to support it… not just say, “because I say so”.

    You said: “The United States gives billions per year in military aid to Israel. In Obama’s 2010 budget $2.8 billion was allocated. If this aid was not vital for Israel’s survival then why would we be giving it?”

    This is one of your most shocking arguments. You’re basically saying, “Would the government be spending money if it wasn’t necessary?”. I find this to be an incredible thing for a “conservative” to say, seeing how conservatives claim to be the party of less government. The idea that government spending *must* be necessary simply because it’s happening is quite absurd.

    You said: “Do you really think nothing would change regarding Israel’s security if it disappeared and we became neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?”

    Do you have any evidence that it would? Conservatives claim to be against welfare. They claim that welfare never improves the situation, but rather only encourages dependence and lack of self-accountability and self-motivation. So why do they do an about-face when it comes to Israel and (without evidence) just *assume* that they would be worse off without our welfare? Where is the evidence for this conclusion?

    You said: Support for Israel and the rejection of non-interventionism are ideas with broad support across the body politic.

    This is classic argumentum ad populum. This isn’t even a reason, it’s just an emotional appeal. What you just said there is the exact logical equivalent to going back to pre-emancipation days and saying, “Slavery is an idea with broad support across the body politic”. Saying something is popular is not an argument.

    You said: “It’s only at the fringes of both the Left and the Right where you get these ideas promoted.”

    This isn’t even an argument in favor of your ideas or against other ideals. Simply calling something “fringe” doesn’t make it invalid. Not to mention that there are several ideals and principles that you hold strongly to today that were once at the “fringe” of the body politic.

    You really should start coming up with actual reasons to support your beliefs instead of empty appeals.

    You said: “My principle gripe with Paul and his supporters is on Paul’s “non-interventionist” foreign policy. That’s the main thing that bugs me about him.”

    Could you explain exactly which parts of his non-interventionist policies that you don’t support and why? Unless you’re talking about Isreal (which we’ve already addressed somewhat).

    You said: “His economic ideas about the Gold Standard and the Fed are eccentric and meet the definition of “crackpot” but I would be willing to entertain them.”

    Again… calling something “crackpot” is not an argument. WHY is it crackpot? Which parts of what he says about the Fed and the gold standard are so obviously and provably incorrect that we should be calling them “crackpot”? Is he wrong about the historical instability of fiat currency? Is he wrong about the devaluation of the dollar by the Fed? Or the inherent faults of a fractional reserve system? As a conservative, are you perfectly OK with such a large, powerful entity (the Fed) being in control of our money/credit supply without being accountable for it (as we can see by their recent refusals to 1) be audited, 2) disclose who the bailouts are going to, and 3) submit to governance inquiries from the Federal Government.)

    You said: “However these issues of economics and social policy are secondary to foreign policy. We can’t have an economy or a society if we’re not protecting ourselves and maintaining America on the world stage.”

    And yet the argument from Paul is not, “We shouldn’t be protecting ourselves”. But rather, “What we’re doing is making us less safe”. And it’s on THAT field that you should engage the argument… not on naked assertions that Paul somehow doesn’t want us to “protect ourselves”.

    As for “maintaining America on the world stage”… you’ll have to be clearer on what that means. If you mean, “nation building” and “global military presence”, then history would argue that both of those approaches are proven failures. Not crackpots… empirical historical record.

    What evidence do you have that spreading our military all over the world and engaging in costly, no-clear-victory wars makes us safer? Why (exactly) would we not be much safer to focus our efforts on defense and secure borders/immigration?

    Give reasons…. not talking-points.

    You said: “And I will point out accurately when your views align with the Chomskys of the world.”

    Where did you do this? The vast majority of what you’ve presented (both in your column and in the comments) has been empty appeals and naked assertions. I haven’t seen any significant alignments to Chomsky in any of the comments yet (and surely not from Paul). And that’s not to mention that you’d still have to establish which alignments they were and why they are fallible. Simply saying, “You’re like Chomsky” is not an argument either.

    WATYF

    • September 23, 2009 8:41 am

      Which issue from the book you’ve written would you like addressed first?

    • Jeremy permalink
      September 23, 2009 9:17 am

      WATYF,

      Your synopsis of David’s approach to reasoning and debate are the exact reason why I did not reply to him. Yeah, I certainly came off as a pissed off guy, which I am.

      I calmed down and asked David to state his case, which in my opinion does not warrant a response. He brought nothing to the table other than labels and terms without any supporting evidence. Not even a link to an article or book reference. I can argue ideas all day if I wanted to, but I would rather argue the facts and evidence that make up these ideas. I wanted to know why David feels the way he does, not a recap of his article that is already full of holes. Without the underlying meanings you get nowhere, which is why this country is in such bad shape. The majority don’t know what they believe are even what they want to believe anymore. It’s apparent from all of the unjustified labeling and rhetoric, which closely mimics daily talking points on the mainstream news stations.

      I see a lot of parrots out there, and in my opinion this kind of article is the worst of it. Neither Frum nor Swindle really have a grasp on the dynamics of Glenn Beck and his ability to cater to all groups. He’s a nut bag in his own right, and any of his varying opinions on Ron Paul and anything else for that matter should simply be ignored. He is an entertainer, not a reporter. He jumps sides from show to show to the point where I don’t even think he knows who he is. There are several good videos out there showing many of his liberal, conservative, and independent rants… depending on the mood and audience he is catering to of course.

      • September 23, 2009 10:12 am

        If you don’t want to engage me in discussion then don’t comment on my blog. I have cited facts and provided links, you’ve just chosen to ignore them. (You yourself have not cited the research you promised.) If you’re just going to harass and insult me and not engage in reasoned discussion then that would be a violation of NewsReal’s commenting guidelines and grounds for being banned.

        • Jeremy permalink
          September 23, 2009 11:46 am

          David,

          Please tell me where there is one link or reference in your reply to me below. I was certainly looking forward to a debate / discussion with you, but I clearly remember saying “Let’s start with some facts on your position, and I will reply with my research in a polite way.” I see no facts in your response, only unsupported opinion based on your false left / right views. I fear that you and many many others will remain trapped in the liberal vs. conservative debates, which distracts from the much larger and more important picture about the direction of this nation. I truly feel sorry for you in that sense.

          You now say, “You yourself have not cited the research you promised”, which is true in the context of our conversation. Not so true with my other posts. You see, I thought the agreement was that we would “start with some facts on your position, and I will reply with my research in a polite way”. So, I have your position, but I am still waiting for some facts and evidence. The links in your article are suspect as well.

          For example, “John Podhoretz fisked this issue of Paul as an anti-Semite for Commentary back in 2007 and isolated several reasons why people could regard Paul as an enemy of the Jews. (Though Podhoretz himself disagreed with the overall assessment.) So that’s the central problem with Paul.”

          You give an example of why you think Ron Paul is an “enemy of Jews” and referenced John Podhoretz who ended up disagreeing with the overall assumption! His own article states, “I’m inclined to think that Paul, who is not the most careful and prudent of speakers, is not an anti-Semite — because in a public career dating back 30 years he would likely have said something more explicit and unambiguous. Nor do I think he should be held personally responsible for the fact that he might be attracting extremist support from the neo-Nazi Right.”

          So why did you reference someones article that disagrees with the point you are trying to make? Are you trying to show that there are indeed people who look into or think that Ron Paul is against Jews? Again, you even said that John Podhoretz disagrees with the assessment (which was a good thing to say on your part), but then you followed up by saying this is the key problem with Paul. What is the problem again? Is is that people think Ron Paul hates Jews, or is it that you think Ron Paul hates Jews?

          It looks to me like Ron Paul clearly is NOT AGAINST Jews or Israel when he says that he doesn’t want to reaffirm “steadfast support for the nation of Israel”, and this becomes quite apparent when you look past the loaded anti-Semite rhetoric that people ignorantly spew. For your information, Ron Paul does “not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts.” Nobody can say that Ron Paul is against Israel as a nation or the Jewish people due to his own description of his position. If anything, they would have to ignorantly say the Paul is against ALL nations which would obviously still be a massive distortion.

          To single out the nation of Israel from Paul’s overall foreign policy position, and then label him as an “enemy of Jews” is so entirely illogical and childish that I have to simply laugh at anyone who makes this reference. What if I didn’t believe in giving to charities because some charities funnel money to terrorism? Would that mean that I am specifically again Jewish charities? Obviously not, but that’s what people who are dishonest do to try and make a point.

          In reference to your comment about my not providing references, I would advise you to read the posts that weren’t directed to you. I cited a key interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski to back up my point about the United States and the problems caused by intervening in other countries affairs. My reference showed that we knowingly armed terrorists before Russia invaded, and that the invasion of Russia into Afghanistan was expected due to our deliberate actions.

          Do you really think we expected extremists to stay out of the conflicts when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Every action comes with a reaction you know, and to think they we could get rid of Saddam and clean up Afghanistan without the obvious problem of foreign fighters getting involved is ridiculous at best. I certainly don’t support the apparent fact that Iran is providing weapons to protect their interests in the region, so why would I support the United States and their equal actions (I’m not comparing our Govnernment to Iran, just simply making the point that we act just as they do when it comes to protecting “interests”)? Intervention is not the answer, it’s the problem. It causes further conflict and death, which could be avoided if we talked with our words and not with JDAM’s.

          I also cited a very detailed time line of terror suspects and their activities over several decades, which clearly references the CIA and other intelligence agencies as being players (sometimes key players) on the world terror stage. I posted this in regards to questions about the 9/11 masterminds, and the information in my reference could be used for many other topics like non-interventionism and failed military / economic strategies.

          David,

          Feel free to read through your post again, and pay particular attention to the part where you said, “His economic ideas about the Gold Standard and the Fed are eccentric and meet the definition of “crackpot” but I would be willing to entertain them.” If you can… please tell me first the definition of crackpot as you use it, and then concisely explain Ron Paul’s positions on the Federal Reserve and our monetary system. Lastly, define why the his positions (which you should be able to recite very quickly since you can so easily label them) are “crackpot” ideas in comparison to your views of how our system should work. Hell, write a whole new article just on that point. If you don’t perhaps I will, but then I would have to interview you to make sure I understand your “crackpot” ideas. Oh sorry, was that a little below the belt? Please don’t ban me as I will cry to my mommy.

          David Swindle writes (which has zero references and is riddled with language that shows how narrow minded and clouded his views are):

          “Jeremy,
          That’s all right. Some of our posts have been a bit hostile to Paul with our use of terms like “crackpot” and “Anti-Semite.” So it’s not like we shouldn’t be prepared for an emotional reaction back.

          The United States gives billions per year in military aid to Israel. In Obama’s 2010 budget $2.8 billion was allocated. If this aid was not vital for Israel’s survival then why would we be giving it? Do you really think nothing would change regarding Israel’s security if it disappeared and we became neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? (And this is not a conflict in which both sides are equally at fault.)

          Support for Israel and the rejection of non-interventionism are ideas with broad support across the body politic. It’s only at the fringes of both the Left and the Right where you get these ideas promoted.

          My principle gripe with Paul and his supporters is on Paul’s “non-interventionist” foreign policy. That’s the main thing that bugs me about him. He’s not responsible for some of his kooky Truther supporters. His economic ideas about the Gold Standard and the Fed are eccentric and meet the definition of “crackpot” but I would be willing to entertain them. On certain matters I will agree with some of his views — such as his position on the War on Drugs.

          However these issues of economics and social policy are secondary to foreign policy. We can’t have an economy or a society if we’re not protecting ourselves and maintaining America on the world stage.

          I’m not going to ignore the Left, the Right, and those who genuinely want America to be destroyed. And I will point out accurately when your views align with the Chomskys of the world. I’m not going to label you as an individual as somehow anti-patriotic of un-American. (Not yet at least.) I don’t know you.

          Your disillusionment with partisanship is admirable. I no longer consider myself a Republican or a Democrat either. I think transcending one-party allegiance and looking to a post-partisan sensibility is a good thing.”

          • September 23, 2009 11:54 am

            I pose the same question to you that I posed to WATYF: what from your book do you want me to respond to? My time is limited — I have other things to do than go back and forth with hostile Ron Paul fans.

            Filibustering me with ridiculously long, zealous responses does not lend itself to constructive debate.

            So pick the issue that you’re most concerned about and we’ll talk.

            • Jeremy permalink
              September 23, 2009 12:02 pm

              David,

              More labeling I see… now I’m hostile?? I said I was mad, now you distort that into hostile? Wow, good one there…

              “Filibustering me with ridiculously long, zealous responses does not lend itself to constructive debate.”

              Sorry David, but sometimes a point can’t be made in a sentence, unlike your desire to “come up with other 1-sentence banishment requirements.”

              Don’t be threatened by a long post. I touched on a few points in detail, it’s not a “book”. I wrote, read, and re-read my post in about fifteen minutes. You can read it in a few minutes.

              If you would have actually read my post then you would have seen the following,

              “Feel free to read through your post again, and pay particular attention to the part where you said, “His economic ideas about the Gold Standard and the Fed are eccentric and meet the definition of “crackpot” but I would be willing to entertain them.” If you can… please tell me first the definition of crackpot as you use it, and then concisely explain Ron Paul’s positions on the Federal Reserve and our monetary system. Lastly, define why the his positions (which you should be able to recite very quickly since you can so easily label them) are “crackpot” ideas in comparison to your views of how our system should work.”

            • WATYF permalink
              September 23, 2009 2:33 pm

              I’m not hostile, in the least… and my views have nothing to do with Ron Paul or being a fan of anyone.

              And do you really think that calling it “filibustering” is a counter-response? Really? My main contention was that you had no substance to your argument, and you counter with a complete lack of substance? Can’t you at least pick ONE thing to defend? Any of it?

              Not replying at all just makes your argument look all the weaker.

              As for sources… not all of my comments required detailed sources. Many of them were pointing out your lack of an argument, which is apparent in the logic. No source necessary. You can feel free to defend only those portions, if you like. However, I will provide cites for whichever other portions you require. But at this point, you are the one being called out on your naked assertions. Once you’ve actually substantiated so much as one of your arguments and called me on something that I need to further substantiate, I will be happy to do so.

              WATYF

      • September 23, 2009 10:19 am

        Further note that WATYF failed to cite sources too. These are off the cuff internet comments here, not academic theses.

        The point of my post was to demonstrate that Beck and Paul are not identical. I cited research to do it. My point was not to take apart Paul’s non-interventionism and Gold Standard ideas. If it was then I’d have plenty of facts that I’d cite.

        But bottom line: don’t be a pot calling the kettle black.

        • Jeremy permalink
          September 23, 2009 11:55 am

          “The point of my post was to demonstrate that Beck and Paul are not identical.”

          THANK THE LORD FOR THAT!

          I agree with you there, but I still completely disagree with your article. I also completely disagree with Frum as well.

    • Samuel permalink
      September 23, 2009 6:25 pm

      Very well put…but I couldn’t help but try to figure out what WATYF stood for?

  29. Kenneth Gareau permalink
    September 23, 2009 8:59 am

    David said: “I guess the majority of economists who reject Paul’s ideas about the Fed and the Gold Standard are ignorant of economics. I guess only you and Paul have the “Truth” about economics. Everyone else is “terribly ignorant.”

    Paul’s economic ideas really aren’t my primary concern, though.”

    I am glad they are not your first concern, I sent you links to documents which if you bothered to even glance at them would begin to open your eyes a bit wider. You never responded! I asked you what economists you cite when you bloviate? You gave none. Yet you want others to stick to facts, facts which you do not cite, I guess you mean your own private facts. Oh by the way just because some people beleive something is true does not make it so, thus a complete reading of the literature is in order for those wishing to form an opinion not based on sand but rather rock. Some of what I sent you to review touches on the Gold issue big time from the late 1890’s and the 1920’s but then you wouldn’t know that having ignored the references!

    • September 23, 2009 10:15 am

      It’s been a busy few days and I get a lot of emails. My apologies for not responding.

      Entertaining the virtues of the gold standard is not at the top of my priorities list. (You’ve been respectful but the vast majority of the Paul True Believers have not. Not that I particularly invited it with my “crackpot” descriptor.) As I’ve stated, even if I did come to agree with Paul’s Gold Standard and “End the Fed” ideas then it would be for naught because his policy of non-interventionism is a deal-breaker.

      • Kenneth Gareau permalink
        September 23, 2009 11:24 am

        David, Thanks for the response. I guess you should also know that like you I look and research issues and do not buy the whole cow just to get a glass of milk. I like some things of what Paul says and when they intrigue me I do research to find the history and facts relating to the position. Again thank you.

        • September 23, 2009 11:47 am

          You’re welcome. And my apologies for not getting back to you sooner or responding to your email.

  30. September 23, 2009 10:50 am

    I guess the majority of economists who reject Paul’s ideas about the Fed and the Gold Standard are ignorant of economics. I guess only you and Paul have the “Truth” about economics. Everyone else is “terribly ignorant.”

    If economists want to continue to prattle on about their field being some form of science, then they would do well to admit that in science consensus has no inherent value. 10,000 scientists saying one thing are made to look like fools by the 1 scientist who brings hard evidence refuting their position. In Paul’s case, he has the evidence that shows that there has never been a successful fiat currency, and that fiat currency has always ended up as worthless and has always been a ruiner of nations’ wealth.

    Whatever wisdom there may be in the federal reserve, it has no bearing on the fact that the gold standard is preferable to the fiat currency we have today. We don’t have to go back to a gold standard, but it should be a standard based on something of more finite value than the optimism that 437 smiling morons (Congress + Pres. + Veep) have in the long-term viability of the federal government’s ability to pay its IOUs.

    • September 23, 2009 11:34 am

      Consensus is not necessarily a value. 99/100 people can still be wrong about something. But saying that someone is just “ignorant” because they disagree with you is not necessarily accurate. My point is that there are plenty of people that know a lot about economics who reject Paul’s theories.

      • Brian Macker permalink
        September 24, 2009 7:04 pm

        Plenty of people who were responsible for the current economic mess, and who made the mistake of thinking they had the business cycle under control. I didn’t call you ignorant because I disagreed with you. I called you ignorant because you are. Your ignorance showed in your statement about the founding fathers who were not of one mind on much and certainly not on economics. You are also ignorant of exactly what Ron Paul’s economic background is. It happens to be one of the best if not the best in congress.

        I certainly don’t like Paul’s statements about 9/11 during the debates but that is a completely different issue. I think the economy is a far more important issue. That’s a possible difference of opinion between me and you, and I certainly wouldn’t call you ignorant because of it.

  31. September 23, 2009 10:51 am

    **537 smiling morons. Sorry, I didn’t mean to give the Senate any benefit of the doubt there for an above room temperature intelligence.

  32. September 23, 2009 10:54 am

    As a form of evidence countering their positions on the fiat currency, I recommend this analysis of Roman monetary and tax policy from the Von Mises Institute. It’s long, but when you get done reading it, there will be little doubt in anyone’s mind that the United States is following a modern path which closely resembles the post-Augustinian Roman monetary policy.

  33. September 23, 2009 12:17 pm

    Jeremy,
    “You can read it in a few minutes.”

    I did. Your tone and your approach just does not give me much desire to continue. I gave you a friendly response and you spat on it. And there was a fact in there — I included the amount of money that’s budgeted for Israel, which I’d linked to earlier.

    Sorry if you’ve failed to motivate me to want to invest any time in trying to persuade you. I have better things to spend my time on.

    -D

    • Jeremy permalink
      September 23, 2009 12:35 pm

      “I did. Your tone and your approach just does not give me much desire to continue.”

      David, I’m sorry you don’t like people pointing out the flaws in your article, both factually and logically. What’s wrong with my tone now? Did you not like that I made a tiny little joke about trying to understand where you are coming from? I hope that harmless remark didn’t do it for you. As for me pointing out that you still failed to convey your position, that’s your problem not mine.

      “I gave you a friendly response and you spat on it.”

      Not quite, I think you’re too sensitive. My first posts, which I admit were harsh, would be considered “spitting” if you will. The same can’t be said for my recent followups with you, unless of course you take offense to someone logically pointing out some of the flaws in your article.

      “And there was a fact in there — I included the amount of money that’s budgeted for Israel, which I’d linked to earlier.”

      Wow David, one fact to support all of your unrelated left / right comments? How generous of you.

      “Sorry if you’ve failed to motivate me to want to invest any time in trying to persuade you. I have better things to spend my time on.”

      No loss to me David. I certainly didn’t want you to persuade me that’s for sure. That would be like listening to a five year old teaching calculus.

      David, I am glad you don’t want to debate. I don’t think you could ever get past basic labels and terms like “anti-American” and “crackpot”. You are saving me time as well, so thank you.

      I accept your surrender, and you may retreat to work on your next illogical article which I look forward to severely critiquing.

      😀

      • September 23, 2009 12:43 pm

        “which I look forward to severely critiquing”

        If that’s your plan then you might want to read our commenting guidelines and remember that I’m the editor of this publication and if someone is being rude and disruptive then I ban them or delete their comments.

        http://newsrealblog.com/commenting-guidelines/

        I don’t ban people because they disagree with the views expressed. I ban them for how they continually voice their disagreement. If you want to have a thoughtful intellectual engagement then that’s fine. But you don’t. You want to heckle and harass. That won’t be tolerated.

        • Jeremy permalink
          September 23, 2009 1:55 pm

          David,

          Seriously, stop it with the childish threats. How does saying that I will “severely critique” your work get translated into being “rude and disruptive”? I’m simply saying that if you are going to make accusations like anti-Semite, anti-American, and crackpot then your article had better be spotless. You can’t make those kinds of claims with flimsy research. That’s my point and there’s nothing rude or disruptive about it. You even admit that other posters are rude and that you expect people to react to it.

          “That’s all right. Some of our posts have been a bit hostile to Paul with our use of terms like “crackpot” and “Anti-Semite.” So it’s not like we shouldn’t be prepared for an emotional reaction back.”

          The only difference is I dropped my emotional reactions after my first posts, and now I am working on factual reactions. (Yes, again I admit I originally came off as way too pissed off.)

          I find it quite insulting (and others should too) that you would say the things you said in your article, and then not back them up in a debate forum. You are instead saying that I am “voicing my disagreement” in an intolerable way. Please explain what you can’t tolerate. Is it someone who disagrees with you that you can’t tolerate, or is it someone who disagrees and shows you exactly why using your own words and references? I know that’s a direct question, but please don’t take it the wrong way.

          I’m sorry a crack a joke here and there. I would never say anything vulgar or emotionally hurtful. My dry humor is meant to create a very small chuckle, and them go right back into my point. I’m not going to apologize for my personality… I just wish you weren’t so defensive / sensitive. I’m not trying to degrade you or anyone at all… it’s just a joke. Besides, how do you get off labeling someone the way you do? Wouldn’t that be intolerable in its own right, or is it okay because you are saying it on your own site? Seriously, what’s your opinion on that? I’ll quote you again so you know what I am referring to.

          “That’s all right. Some of our posts have been a bit hostile to Paul with our use of terms like “crackpot” and “Anti-Semite.”

          You should expect to be questioned and “picked apart” so to speak if you are a journalist in these days. Don’t threaten to ban someone when they step up to the plate and challenge your views, which you are openly posting on the Internet for all to read.

          You cannot expect everyone to agree, and you should expect a certain number of people to “vehemently disagree” and challenge you. That’s human nature and the basis of a democracy.

          Shutting out opposition is the worst option you could make. Of course, the choice is yours though.

          My point is that your article is very flawed, and I pointed out some of the reasons why. Are you upset because I do so in a logical and factual way, which incorporated the use of your own citations to show how you are lacking sense and reasoning in some of your points?

          If so, then don’t be mad at me… you know who to be mad at.

          David, if you find this post intolerable then please ban me immediately because this is about as toned down as I can get. I truly hope you don’t see anything offensive or disruptive in this post.

          • September 23, 2009 2:49 pm

            Now you’re improving.

            “I’m simply saying that if you are going to make accusations like anti-Semite, anti-American, and crackpot then your article had better be spotless.”

            These are judgments of opinion, not fact. And again, the purpose of my article was not to make a case against Paul but to demonstrate that he and Beck are not bosom buddies — a point you admitted you agreed with. If I were to write a whole article on this subject (and I’m really not planning on it, the only reason I wrote about Paul was because he came up in this dispute with Frum and Horowitz.)

            Anti-Semitic

            I consider a foreign policy which cuts off alliance and military aid to Israel as being anti-Semitic because it would result in the deaths of thousands, potentially millions of Jews and the empowerment of people who are openly anti-Semitic. Paul might not think of himself as anti-Semitic, he might have Jewish friends, but he promotes policies which would be disastrous for Jews. You can disagree with this judgment if you want. There’s room to disagree (which is why I linked to Podhoretz.)

            Here’s a comparison. It’s a racist policy for there to be different legal penalties for possession of the same amounts of crack vs possession of cocaine. Why? Because the end result is that the same drug in a different form which is used more by blacks causes them to be punished at greater rates. The people who wrote the law might not think of themselves as racist but they have embraced a policy which has racist results.

            Anti-American

            Paul’s foreign policies views and those of his supporters line up with the views of people in the political Left who openly denounce America. I talk with Paul supporters and they talk about the “military industrial complex” and about “Israel’s war crimes.” They — and Paul — talk about the negative influence of the “Israel lobby.” These exact same terms and concepts can be found in the writings of those who publish in venues like The Nation and Counterpunch. To learn more about the Left I suggest you visit Discover The Networks, one of our sister publications:

            http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/

            I do not recall labeling Paul as anti-American. I merely stated in a previous comment that his foreign policy views and those of his supporters are very similar to those who reject the American Idea.

            Crackpot

            Here’s the definition of the term:

            crack·pot (krkpt)
            n.
            An eccentric person, especially one with bizarre ideas.
            adj.
            Foolish; harebrained: a crackpot notion.

            Paul’s views on foreign policy and the economy are indeed eccentric and bizarre. (He’s often the lone “no” vote as he’s famous for.) On both key political subjects he is well outside the mainstream of political thought. Sorry that you’re so offended that I’ve labeled your hero as such.

            ——————————–

            I welcome vigorous debate. I love to be challenged in my ideas. I consider myself a postmodern conservative and welcome an engagement with ideas from all over the place
            http://booksindepth.blogspot.com/2009/07/david-horowitzs-conservatism-postmodern.html

            What I don’t appreciate is the rudeness you’ve demonstrated. You want to engage me in debate. Why? You don’t respect me. You’ve dismissed the possibility of your mind ever being changed. (All but confessing that you only want to be disruptive.) You don’t consider me an equal. And communication can only occur between equals.

            If you will respect me and put me at an equal level with you — instead of standing above me — then I’m happy to play ball. Otherwise I’ve got better things to do with my time.

            And shorter, more focused replies are more likely to be answered. I have a lot of work to do keeping NewsReal running.

            • Jeremy permalink
              September 23, 2009 7:05 pm

              David,

              Your response to my comment about the need to have a spot on article if you are going to use anti-Semite labels and others was, “These are judgments of opinion, not fact.”

              Are you saying that your anti-Semite remarks are opinion based and not fact based? I realize that you gave explanations below for anti-Semite and anti-American, but those still look like a lot of opinion to me. I believe that Paul would act in defense of Israel if they were attacked and requested support. Do you disagree? Our main difference seems to be aiding Israel (and other countries to bring in Paul’s position) militarily to protect global interests for that reason alone… global interests. I would argue that Congress could approve whatever may be necessary to defend a nation requesting it, but should not openly give weapons and whatnot as part of our national budget. I believe our money could me more wisely spent.

              I agree with your crack / cocaine example, but I would also add that lawmakers are harsher towards crack users because the lawmakers probably use cocaine themselves! 😀

              Your anti-American section doesn’t make any sense to me. Ron Paul is aligned with people that denounce America? And these people are the political Left? That’s a debate all by itself… how the heck do you get to these conclusions? You can’t pin that kind of accusation on one party even if it was true that Ron Paul is anti-American. I think both sides of the aisle are treating America pretty poorly, and they are the ones that denounce America by continuing to exercise aggression and failed policy. It just so happens that a Democrat is the one at the helm now for the first time in a while, which means nothing to me personally… I don’t think the Republican option (McCain) was going to get the car out of the mud either.

              “Paul’s views on foreign policy and the economy are indeed eccentric and bizarre. (He’s often the lone “no” vote as he’s famous for.) On both key political subjects he is well outside the mainstream of political thought. Sorry that you’re so offended that I’ve labeled your hero as such.”

              Yes, I see how you come to this conclusion. When you look at how far we have sailed from our foundations as a nation, then of course someone who believes in our foundations is going to be out of the mainstream. Of course he is going to be the lone vote of “no” on many occasions. That’s a good thing. So yes, its easy to see him as “eccentric and bizarre” without understanding how messed up things are monetarily and economically.

              Lastly, Ron Paul is not my hero. I could say that was rude of you to assume, but I really don’t care. You know, I could argue that Glenn Beck is your hero too from some of your posts! You’ve said some pretty heroic things about the guy you know… did I see a “true Conservative” reference somewhere above?

              David, I do respect you… otherwise I wouldn’t have engaged. I do not think I am better than you either (just right on some issues). I do apologize for coming off as rude, I am certainly direct though… it could be conceived as rude if you don’t know me I suppose.

              This will be my last response to this forum / article. Feel free to respond to some of my questions above if you want. I’ll butt out and give you the last word… on this topic. 😀

              I hope you show the willingness to engage in discussion on future topics.

              (I tried to keep my response short, but clearly I have failed miserably.)

            • September 24, 2009 6:00 am

              Jeremy,
              Another more encouraging response.

              1. Virtually all judgments of “anti-Semite” are based on opinion, not fact. What constitutes anti-Semitism is very much in the eye of the beholder. What’s fact-based about my analysis is in the facts of Paul’s foreign policy views. It’s my opinion that a non-interventionist foreign policy which cuts off aid and alliance with Israel is Anti-Semitic in its results (the empowerment of anti-Semites and the deaths of thousands or even millions of Jews.)

              2. “I believe that Paul would act in defense of Israel if they were attacked and requested support. Do you disagree?”

              Please provide evidence to support this belief. I don’t think Paul’s absolutist philosophy would allow it. Further, Israel IS being attacked. It’s always being attacked by Islamist terrorists and it has requested support which we are providing.

              3. “Your anti-American section doesn’t make any sense to me. Ron Paul is aligned with people that denounce America? And these people are the political Left? That’s a debate all by itself… how the heck do you get to these conclusions?”

              We haven’t read the same books and been influenced by the same people. Much of the political perspective of NewsReal, FrontPage, and those of us at the Freedom Center is shaped by our knowledge and experiences with the political Left. David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the ’60s and Jamie Glazov, FrontPage’s editor, is the son of two prominent Soviet Dissidents. (Read Jamie’s book United In Hate: The Left’s Romance with Terror and Tyranny http://www.amazon.com/United-Hate-Romance-Tyranny-Terror/dp/1935071602/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253796913&sr=8-1) I myself am also an ex-leftist.

              Here’s a link at my colleague John Perazzo’s publication Discover The Networks (DTN) which will explain the Anti-Americanism of many on the Left:
              http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=94&type=issue

              Browse through DTN a bit and you’ll begin to understand how we arrive at these conclusions.

              4. “Lastly, Ron Paul is not my hero. I could say that was rude of you to assume, but I really don’t care. You know, I could argue that Glenn Beck is your hero too from some of your posts!”

              You just responded with a pretty strong emotional reaction to Paul being criticized. If you’re not in some way emotionally engaged in Paul’s crusades then what does it matter if some blogger calls him a crackpot and an Anti-Semite?

              Beck is not my hero, he’s an ally of the Freedom Center. He’s doing at a mass scale what David Horowitz has been working at for 20 years. So I will support him when he’s unfairly attacked but still correct him when he goes too far.

              5. “I do apologize for coming off as rude, I am certainly direct though.”

              Apology accepted. I’m sorry if I came off as rude myself. Feel free to email me sometime if you want to dialogue further. Your tone and style of your responses reminds me of myself not long ago. DavidSwindle AT Gmail Dot Com

  34. Chris permalink
    September 23, 2009 12:22 pm

    David, I congratulate you on your mastery of the “fighting retreat.”

    Good job!

    • September 23, 2009 12:27 pm

      ?

  35. September 23, 2009 3:02 pm

    WATYF,
    “My main contention was that you had no substance to your argument, and you counter with a complete lack of substance”

    My argument was that Glenn Beck and Ron Paul are not identical in their views. And I had plenty of substance in that.

    “And do you really think that calling it “filibustering” is a counter-response?”

    I can point out that it’s annoying for you to write a book and expect me to answer every one of your charges. It shows a lack of respect for my time. If you have a question or a disagreement then by all means, but come on now. Focus.

    What do you REALLY want to talk about?

    -D

  36. Kenneth Gareau permalink
    September 23, 2009 8:53 pm

    Jeremy you said: “I would argue that Congress could approve whatever may be necessary to defend a nation requesting it, but should not openly give weapons and what not as part of our national budget. I believe our money could me more wisely spent.”

    Lets be completely correct, and while we are at it realize that it is better to give material support to your freinds rather than put our troops in harms way when and especially since Israel is very able under present conditions to defend herself with the appropriate weapons! You could not expect Russia or Western Europe to supply weapons since it is well know that the USA makes the best there is.(not withstanding the current threat from China which would not sell to Israel anyway!)

    Plus while military aid has increased for their self defense economic aid is now zero. See below.

    “Israel has received more U.S. military assistance than any other country, both in terms of grant aid and military sales on a concessional basis. However, unlike most other countries who receive military aid, the Israeli government is required to spend the majority of that money in the domestic United States. AND….(my emphasis)

    “In 2007, the United States increased its military aid to Israel by over 25%, to an average of $3 billion per year for the following ten year period (starting at $2.550 billion for 2008, growing by $150 million each year).[19] The package is scheduled to start October 2008, when regular economic aid to Israel’s economy is to end.”
    The last quote is from Wikipedia quoting the New York Times, August 17,2007.

    Ken

    • Jeremy permalink
      September 23, 2009 10:05 pm

      Ken,

      You said – “Lets be completely correct, and while we are at it realize that it is better to give material support to your freinds rather than put our troops in harms way when and especially since Israel is very able under present conditions to defend herself with the appropriate weapons!”

      I agree and disagree. I didn’t say Congress would pour troops into Israel if they were attacked and requested help, but it would probably be an option to decide on. It was really a hypothetical statement anyway. What I don’t agree with is supporting a nation that can already defend itself. The Israeli’s have engineered some fantastic hardware that rivals ours any day… offhand I can think the TAR-21 rifle and the Uzi, which is used by special forces all around the world. Their Merkava tank has come a long way too.

      Anyway, good point.

      • jbtrevor permalink
        September 24, 2009 8:38 am

        Jeremy, you said:

        “What I don’t agree with is supporting a nation that can already defend itself. ”

        Do you think that ability to defend itself would last without our support?
        Julie

        • Jeremy permalink
          September 24, 2009 9:00 am

          Julie,

          In my opinion, yes. They did okay against Lebanon a couple years ago, and as I mentioned earlier they have some amazing military hardware that they designed and manufacture on their own. The Israeli’s are a very strong and determined group of people.

          I guess we should really define support too. I’m not against selling them weapons, but I don’t think aid should be in the budget for Israel or any other nation. Sure, if they want to buy some hardware then send the Pentagon a purchase order, but I disagree with us giving them money to be used to buy weapons. Why can’t they buy them on their own?

          Trust me, I don’t want to see Israel attacked, but when one applies logic you have to apply the same logic across the entire spectrum. If you think that the United States arming Israel is okay because they are our allies and we want to protect our interests and their nation, then Iran and North Korea should be able to arm their allies for the same reasons without people throwing a fit. Basically, if the notion that countries could mass weapons and hardware around the world in support of interests is okay with you, then I hope you’re okay with Russian or Chinese troops trouncing all over our country one day too. They too might decide to secure some world wide interests, which may happen to be on our soil. I don’t like the sound of that, so I can’t support the United States doing the same.

          • September 24, 2009 9:55 am

            What books have you read about Israel that have led you to come to such conclusions? Where are the hard facts that you’ve been demanding of me?

            Israel did well but to say they did it on their own demonstrates a lack of understanding. We’ve been giving them billions of dollars per year for decades. This can’t be ignored as you seem to be doing.

            • Jeremy permalink
              September 24, 2009 10:17 am

              David,

              I will reply when I get home today… to answer your question properly I need to go into my filing cabinet. Yes, I keep files on pretty much everything I look into so that I can reference it easier… this doesn’t help me while I am at work though.

              I have a strong point that I would like to make, but I’m not going to do that without doing some “re-research” and verification on my part. I think you will accept that as a “fair enough” approach since I do admit that Israel and U.S. military aid in the Middle East hasn’t been my focal point recently… it was about a year ago or so.

              I will of course cite what I am referring to if the current thought I am having is confirmed through my research.

            • September 24, 2009 11:08 am

              Delightful. And I do hope you respond to my previous comment in our last dialogue. I know you said you would give me the last word — which I very much appreciate — but I think we’re just starting to make progress on that last dialogue and would certainly enjoy continuing it.

          • jbtrevor permalink
            September 24, 2009 1:25 pm

            Jeremy, like David I will wait for your response, but your last paragraph is puzzling to me. Providing aid to a country (Israel) that is a ally to every nation in the world except those who wish to wipe her off the face of the earth (i.e.Arab states) is quite different than providing aid to a country that seeks harm to many i.e. North Korea, Iran

            Perhaps I see the strategic benefit of the Israeli presence in the Middle East, that you don’t; but I can’t imaging trade in/out of the region without a strategic partner…a partner I think both Russia and China underhandedly support.
            Julie

            • Jeremy permalink
              September 24, 2009 2:02 pm

              Julie,

              You said – “… your last paragraph is puzzling to me. Providing aid to a country (Israel) that is a ally to every nation in the world except those who wish to wipe her off the face of the earth (i.e.Arab states) is quite different than providing aid to a country that seeks harm to many i.e. North Korea, Iran”

              I agree, and I think you missed my point. I certainly would not support aid to North Korea, Iran, etc… this goes in line with my stance in general.

              What I was saying is this… if we here in America deem it acceptable to provide aid to our allies, then we also have to find it acceptable if other nations provide aid to their allies as well… even if their allies aren’t our allies. Follow me? This is why “entangling alliances” are a problem. We can’t send weapons around the world to protect our interests, and then throw a fit when a report comes out the Iran is doing the same thing (providing weapons to groups to support their own interests in Iraq or Afghanistan). If you agree with a nation (like the U.S. for example) being able to protect it’s interests and allies militarily, then you must agree with all nations being able to do this based on what their particular interests and allies may be. If you disagree, then I would have to say that you openly support a double standard.

              It’s simple logic.

            • jbtrevor permalink
              September 24, 2009 2:34 pm

              Jeremy, re double standard. All things being equal, I think I would agree.

              However, providing nuclear fuel to Iran, is not the same as providing nuclear fuel to Israel. I would be naive to think Iran would not have nefarious intentions for it’s use and yes I would strongly object to any nation doing so…this is not a double standard, because the my belief of “intention” for use is different…therefore a different standard applies.
              Julie

            • Jeremy permalink
              September 24, 2009 5:20 pm

              Julie,

              That’s interesting. On the topic of supplying nuclear technology to Iran (fuel in your example) you said, “… I would be naive to think Iran would not have nefarious intentions for it’s use and yes I would strongly object to any nation doing so. You could be right… I won’t argue that one. I certainly am not for a nuclear Iran.

              When you said, “… nefarious intentions for it’s use …”, I immediately thought of North Korea and their ABB deal. Do you know who was on the board for ABB when the deal was made?

              http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/09/nuclear.northkorea

              Now clearly North Korea should not have been given this technology, especially given their recent tests, and people involved in these deals should not be working in our Government at in intimate level… or any level for that matter.

              Thoughts?

              David – if you read this… I am putting together some stuff… probably won’t get to post it tonight though.

            • jbtrevor permalink
              September 24, 2009 5:55 pm

              Jeremy,

              From the article you linked to:

              “The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton’s policy of persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.”

              What a dumb thing to do…what would have been dumber would have been to have a non-USA company provide the technology & parts…i.e. no oversight or insight into what was going on.

              Additionally; at the time there was uproar from Republicans about the deal; that Donald Rumsfeld sat on the ABB board and some unnamed (i.e likely not real or not completely truthful) boardmember said he “hawked” the deal … this “hearsay” means what? A smear perhaps?
              Julie

            • Jeremy permalink
              September 24, 2009 8:19 pm

              Julie,

              I was simply trying to show with one example that our Government, and it doesn’t really matter whether its Democrats or Republicans, has shared, provided, and funded the kind of technology that you and I agree shouldn’t be in the hands of hostile nations (specifically nations hostile towards Israel). There are many more examples with many other countries, including Iran.

              Take a look –

              http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31480

              I stated earlier that I don’t subscribe to any party so I have no intention on smearing the left or right. I believe the majority of politicians take care of that (smearing their reputations) quite nicely themselves!

              😀

            • jbtrevor permalink
              September 25, 2009 5:46 am

              Jeremy,

              On this we can agree 🙂

              “I believe the majority of politicians take care of that (smearing their reputations) quite nicely themselves!”

              Julie

            • Jeremy permalink
              September 25, 2009 5:54 am

              Julie,

              No thoughts on taxpayer money going to fund Iran’s nuclear program? I can provide more sources…

              I find this kind of information very troubling, and it goes back to what I was saying when I first “showed up”.

              Many of the issues we are trying to fight or stop were actually set up or enabled by us in the first place. I wish this wasn’t so, but history speaks for itself.

            • jbtrevor permalink
              September 25, 2009 7:35 am

              Jeremy,

              My thoughts on taxpayer monies to fund Irans nuclear reactors?
              Similar to my thoughts on the use/misuse of American taxpayer monies by the Federal Government’s “pass through” agencies. If we really new where the money is going, more people would be opposed to turfing power/control to the central Government.

              In this specific case, it was a small part of a larger payout to provide aid to many countries; that someone in the Federal Gov. overlooked the fact Iran was one of those countries is confirmation of why we need to reduce the size and hence accountability of our Government, not increase it.

              Julie

            • Jeremy permalink
              September 25, 2009 7:55 am

              Julie,

              “In this specific case, it was a small part of a larger payout to provide aid to many countries”

              True… but it should be said that Syria, Sudan, and Cuba were also receiving money through this program. I see a pattern there that I don’t like… it’s not just one “bad” country that was overlooked… there were several, which makes me wonder if it was really an oversight.

              “the fact Iran was one of those countries is confirmation of why we need to reduce the size and hence accountability of our Government, not increase it.”

              Reduce the size of Government… YES! But, I don’t want to reduce the accountability of the Government too… I want it more accountable for its actions, which would bring topics like funding other nation’s nuclear programs to the mainstream instead of having to dig for them.

              Julie, I think we pretty much agree on the premise of the argument, but we differ on the execution and application of the premise onto different nations, some being allies and some not.

              It’s been good talking with you, and I’m you glad to stuck around for my “cool down” period. I think you will see that I am not a trouble maker, and in fact have sparked some healthy discussion.

            • jbtrevor permalink
              September 25, 2009 8:31 am

              Jeremy,
              I have enjoyed our conversation…how boring it would be if everyone here agreed on everything…we’d never learn a thing!

              I didn’t mean to imply I wanted less gov accountability…I agree we need to how our gov accountable and a large central Government is very difficult to hold accountable – just look at the one program you cited.

              Thanks,
              Julie

  37. Kenneth Gareau permalink
    September 23, 2009 10:20 pm

    They will not be buying the items they make which as you said and I agree they out shine us in manufacturing. But when it comes to our aircraft and missle systems, and our rocket defenses they go shopping with us. I also agree we should not be providing help to those who can do things themselves. I was not addressing that you would send troops in, although that would be a resonable assumption if Israel was attacked because where else would they have an attack launched but Israel, rather my point was focused on not having to do any troops (current conditions apply) because the military aid would supply them with what they needed except man power. I think that we should re evaluate our current military obligations based upon what we are getting out of the expenditure, politically and through the ability to protect this country at advanced military locations. One item that seems to come to mind is the US presence in the “Clinton Follies” which after we got there there was genocide but by those we were supporting. By the way Bush was no different in that he never requested the troops come out! He could have. There are others.

    Nice talking to you.
    Ken

  38. MisesFan permalink
    September 24, 2009 6:48 am

    Ron Paul’s ideas regarding economics are Austrian – since, you have no obvious idea what this means, let me break down a few facts for you. Austrians believe in hard money because it mitigates the booms and busts that occur with fiat currency, such as the crisis we are currently experiencing. He is ‘Against the Fed” because central bankers will also encourage fractional reserve banking since this also induces the boom- bust cycle. Hard money also put a finite limit on government expansion, since only through fiat currency can government expand beyond reason.

    Now, your foreign policy defense of neo-con adventurism is patently absurd, given the fact that those who were once allies to the US are now at war with the US. Is this a cohesive strategy with US foreign policy? I would rather be non-interventionist than basically outspend every other nation combined in defense. Especially when the US is basically an insolvent nation.

    • September 24, 2009 7:03 am

      I’m familiar with Austrian economics.

      I find the practical consequences of non-interventionism (the destruction of Israel) to be far worse than the “absurdity” of the “neo-con adventurism,” which I have not advocated.

    • jbtrevor permalink
      September 24, 2009 7:24 am

      MisesFan,

      While I agree our monetary policy is odd, i.e. I have heard and read that when we abandoned the gold standard our inflationary overspending began; no one knows where we would be had we kept it.
      However, I hope we can agree that over manipulation (including politically motivated micromanagement) of monetary policy especially as it affects our domestic economy markets has been disasterous.
      If we agree on that, then the discussion becomes one of the solution. While I’m immediately uneasy with the notion of “hard” currency; I would at least entertain the idea but I’ve not come across a satisfactory explanation of what to me is an important consideration; how do we get there from here?
      Julie

  39. September 24, 2009 5:34 pm

    Jeremy,
    “David – if you read this… I am putting together some stuff… probably won’t get to post it tonight though.”

    I never have any expectations of promptness in debate. If you’re unable to reply for a week then that’s acceptable. Just remember the secret to great communication: brevity.

    • Kenneth Gareau permalink
      September 24, 2009 5:57 pm

      David,

      I would suggest that short simple sentences rather than brevity are the hallmark of good communication. Brevity invites incomplete responses, which can lead to further misunderstandings(sp)and elongation of discussion unnecessarily (sp).
      Ken

      • September 26, 2009 8:47 am

        brev·i·ty (brv-t)
        n.
        1. The quality or state of being brief in duration.
        2. Concise expression; terseness.

        The second definition is key. I was encouraging Jeremy to eschew his overly-long rebuttals and focus on the issues that matter to him most. 50 focused words are often better communication than 10,000.

  40. JamieN permalink
    September 25, 2009 12:19 pm

    >>”Paul gets cast out because of his insane foreign policy views. He’s an absolute isolationist who wants us to cut off our support and alliance with Israel. His foreign policy is all but in line with the anti-war Left.”

    Come on now. The so-called “anti-war Left” were opposed to the Iraq war only as a means of damaging Bush and the GOP. Their foreign policy position is whatever they feel will best help the Democrats here in the US. You don’t REALLY believe that Pau shares that position.

    • September 25, 2009 8:23 pm

      The Left’s anti-war position had far more to do than just damaging the GOP. Most of the hardcore anti-war people hate the Democrats more than the Republicans.

      I’m talking about how when I find myself debating a Paul True Believer they spout the same talking points as the left. I hear about “Israel’s war crimes” and about how our foreign policy provoked 9/11 and the “military industrial complex” and so on and so forth.

  41. JamieN permalink
    September 25, 2009 12:24 pm

    >>”Here’s a simple formula for writing up the Conservatism Banishment Applications: you need to be able to summarize in one sentence why someone needs to be banished. These things really are not that complicated. Someone openly expresses and consistently defends a particular view which is intellectually poisonous. Examples:”

    I have to say, I don’t agree with a single example you suggest. When the Democrats start booting people out of their party for being racist, for believing nutty things, etc, I might reconsider.

    Lastly, what is with the obsessive focus on Israel?

    • September 26, 2009 6:21 am

      Then you disagree with William F. Buckley Jr’s approach to building and maintaining the conservative movement. Frankly I don’t think Klansmen should be apart of the conservative coalition. And I don’t think 9/11 Truthers should either. How is that a controversial opinion?

      Further what does it matter what the Democrats do? Because one’s neighbor does something bad doesn’t me you should do it too?

      I don’t have an “obsessive focus” on Israel as anyone familiar with my work (of which you clearly are not) knows. But I think it’s legitimate to speak out strongly when someone like Paul advocates disaster policies that would result in the destruction of Israel and the empowerment of Islamofascists.

      Why the indifference to the Israeli people?

  42. Tennwriter permalink
    September 29, 2009 7:58 pm

    If Israel were unleashed to do whatever they wanted, including nuking Tehran, then I could support Dr. Paul as President, I suppose. That would be the Non-Interventionist Strategy after all.

    We give the Israelis some money (not nearly as much as the money we give Arabs who want Jews to ‘die, die, die’ for oil and foreign ai…tribute.), but in turn we restrict their freedom of action.

    The Arabs have far more people, and far more money. Robert E. Lee can tell you about what happens when one side is more skillful at war and it faces a side with ten times its resources. I say the Israelis need our help to survive. I say ‘Never Again’ means something. And I say the Palestinians are death cultists.

    There is a reason I get upset about China’s moves and not America’s. Its because they’re the Bad Guys. I want to win and kick their heads in. So yes, I’ll support Israel and be glad, and if China supports Venezuela, I’ll be unhappy. Its not a double standard. My foreign policy is Reagan’s….We win, they lose.

    Dr. Paul is a Christian. He should read the passage in the Old Testament about how God blesses those who befriend certain people, and consider that just maybe the reason America is powerful is because God put us here to protect Israel.

    This said, I’m not willing to kick Dr. Paul out. He’s not David Duke. BUT…if it comes to Israel or Dr. Paul, don’t even bother asking, just start packing, Doc.

    • Jeremy permalink
      October 6, 2009 10:00 am

      “If Israel were unleashed to do whatever they wanted, including nuking Tehran, then I could support Dr. Paul as President, I suppose.”

      This is insane on multiple levels.

      “We give the Israelis some money (not nearly as much as the money we give Arabs who want Jews to ‘die, die, die’ for oil and foreign ai…tribute.), but in turn we restrict their freedom of action.”

      You can thank our Government for this. There used to be a huge electric car initiative until GM and the government shut it down (and recalled and crushed electric cars that were already on the road against the will of the owners) to research hydrogen cells that are estimated to be working in 2015. Sure, our dependence on foreign has to stop, but so does our open exporting of weapons and/or money for weapons. You are lumping together two completely separate issues and using a comparison of the two to support your illogical point… yikes.

      Israel can and will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Ask Iraq…

      “There is a reason I get upset about China’s moves and not America’s. Its because they’re the Bad Guys. I want to win and kick their heads in.”

      Again, insane on multiple levels. Bad guys? That’s just a perception. We’re the bad guys to many countries too (some of which I would agree with). You want to kick the Chinese heads in? What’s the matter with you? Why are you so militant?

      I fail to see any of the points you tried to make due to lack of creditable examples and genocidal tone.

  43. Joe permalink
    October 19, 2009 1:40 pm

    Something tells me that Ron Paul would spank David Swindle in a debate on the economy.

    Paul doesn’t advocate a return to the gold standard as it existed, but hows the paper system that your “conservative” leaders instituted workin’ out for ya? Let me know in about 18 more months, if you can still remember Republican Keynesian pre-Obama. I think it was that great genius Dick Cheney that told us that deficits don’t matter anymore.

    After reading Radical Son I was inspired to check out this site. Unsurprisingly, its full of who should and should not be shunned out of the debate. The more of the core problem they bring to light (The Fed) the more they are trashed as crazies. If you aren’t a Zionist, you are a racist. Just like the old New Left tactics. Yawn. Good-bye.

    • October 19, 2009 1:56 pm

      Something tells me that Joe has no problem with Truther conspiracists and the destruction of Israel.

      Might want to check out what your man “Dr. Paul” has to say about 9/11 Truthers:
      http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/08/crackpot-chronicles-van-jones-glenn-beck-ron-paul-rorschach-the-truthers-and-me-%e2%80%93-part-v/

      • Jeremy permalink
        October 20, 2009 6:13 am

        “Something tells me that Joe has no problem with Truther conspiracists and the destruction of Israel.”

        Here we go again… what else do you talk about besides the “destruction of Israel” and “conspiracy”?

        If you are so worried about Israel being destroyed by Islamic terrorists, then why do they fund them? Why does the United States fund and arm groups that want to destroy Israel? Did you know that Israel funded Hamas, David?

        http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=16447

        http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/feb/12/00017/

        http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54810

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/18/usa.israel

        • October 20, 2009 6:25 am

          “Here we go again… what else do you talk about besides the “destruction of Israel” and “conspiracy”?”

          Quite a bit actually. You just have only chosen to read or comment on the comparatively few articles that I’ve written on Paul and conspiracies. I’ve written 345 posts for NewsReal and so far I’ve only seen you comment on 2 involving conspiracy theory and Ron Paul’s anti-Semitic foreign policy views. That says more about you than it does about me.

          • Jeremy permalink
            October 20, 2009 8:09 am

            (David carefully ignores more evidence that Israel and the U.S. support terrorist that want to destroy Israel, yet he still believes Israel could not survive without U.S. support and military aid.)

Trackbacks

  1. PoliGazette » Beck on ‘Obama’s a Racist’
  2. PoliGazette » Beck on ‘Obama’s a Racist’
  3. Nightly Ramble: The “Where’s the Fire” Edition | BitsBlog
  4. Most Ridiculous Comment of the Day: A Ron Paul Supporter Equates Michael Moore with Ronald Reagan « NewsReal Blog
  5. Crackpot Chronicles: Van Jones, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Rorschach, the Truthers, And Me – Part I « NewsReal Blog
  6. Comment of the Day: Standing Together To Support America « NewsReal Blog
  7. Can One Be Informed on Foreign Policy Without Understanding Left and Right? « NewsReal Blog

Comments are closed.