Beck: We are on the wrong side!

Beck’s TV show should be interesting tonight as he spent a fair amount of time talking about how we are aiding our enemies in the middle east and shooting ourselves in the foot by killing our oil production. Beck gets really passionate in this clip as he see America on the wrong side.



It’s intense!

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

39 thoughts on “Beck: We are on the wrong side!

  1. If the “collective” tense is going to be used,then “We” should be on “Our” side.

  2. You can say to a tornado that you don’t believe in it, but it will still rip through your house. Regardless of your beliefs, Israel is God’s chosen people. When it comes down to the end, you don’t want to be against them. It is as if we are coming down from the mountain and we see America dancing and partying around its Golden Calf saying, “We don’t need God anymore! We choose who we will defend based on our own morality!”

    God doesn’t see it that way. I am praying that God listens when we ask, “God, if there is just 10 among us…” that he will find enough to not wipe America off the face of the Earth.

    1. And people wonder why Christ Matthews and his guest made those statements highlighted on this website a few days ago?

  3. The Fundamental reason for America to support Israel.

    Israel is part of America’s DNA. As Michael Novak showed so effectively in his book On Two Wings, America’s founding drew on the uniquely Hebrew concept of holiness of the individual and divine love for the weak and powerless, as much as it did on the natural law tradition of Grotius and Locke. The destiny of the United States of America and the people of Israel are inextricably intertwined for that reason, and America’s affinity for Israel and deep interest in the welfare of the Jewish people are bred in American marrow.

    From this point of view, what is sacred about America is a reflection of the holiness of Israel. If America succeeds in banishing the sacred from public life – and that is the broader agenda of the liberal Democrats– there will be little reason for America to have a special relationship with Israel except for military convenience. And if this banishment of the sacred from public life were to coincide with a demoralized retreat from the exercise of power in Western and Central Asia, there would be little reason at all for a special relationship.

  4. “Israel first! Israel first! Israel first! Israel first!” -Glenn Beck

    *The “Israel” lobbying is a foreign group using (often American tax) money and political clout to bribe and pressure American politicians to use American money and American lives for the political benefit of ISRAEL

    Since when are any lobbyists a good thing? Especially foreign lobbyists who look to use you and I for their own personal gain? I swear, Conservatives/Liberals do an about face and turn 180 degrees on every issue if the word “Israel” or “Palestinian” comes into play in the right way. Would Conservatives and Liberals be so accommodating to Saudi lobbying if the subject ever came up?

    Don’t subsidize the Israelis OR the Palestinians! Just like how they never should have been subsidizing Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, the Shah, Saddam Hussein, or the many others.

    1. some choices are not about money. To choose between Israel and the Palestinian movement is a test of the moral character of our nation. It is what we as people will be judged on.

      1. Actually, I’d argue to NOT CHOOSE is the ultimate test moral character for our nation. It’s easy to give into temptation and make the emotional jump in and defend Israel. It’s MORE DIFFICULT to do what’s BEST FOR AMERICA and let the chips (in that region) fall where they may.

        1. You said, “Actually, I’d argue to NOT CHOOSE is the ultimate test moral character”

          I hate to quote what is already making the rounds after Beck’s show, but:

          “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” -Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

          Not to choose is to choose.

          You may argue not to choose (not to act) but I sure hope you will be prepared to live with where the “chips” fall: because where they fall will not be pretty. Whether you accept it or not… the battle is already here on our shores. To be blind to this would demonstrate one thing only… that you’ve been listening to the monotone of mainstream media.

          The chips of inaction are already falling here in America. The biggest chip is that enabler of the barbarians, and his leftist minions, sitting in the White House. Of course this is a narrative the MSM does not want exposed. We’ve already lost precious time confronting the realities of Jew hatred, West hatred, Infidel hatred, America hatred. It’s here… its all here, not just on the shores of the Mediterranean.

          Disagree with Beck all you want… he’s putting things together that have been known in other circles for decades now. But it was not popular then to say so, and it is even more unpopular now. They are desperate to shut Beck down. Think about that for a moment… even if one disagrees with Beck and if Beck really is such a kook… Why would armies from the MSM be taking aim? Oh yeah, I know… its for the sake of the children… those poor misguided children watching Beck… they’ll get kooky ideas. Shut him down! Protect the children!

          Not choosing for Israel is best for America? I think not.

          1. Then I guess John Quincy Adams as evil when he said that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

            I guess the US and Canada were “evil” for not stepping in to act regarding the Spanish Civil War, Finland’s war with Russia, Hungary’s war with Russia, Yemen’s unrest, Bahrain’s unrest, the 1972 slaughter in Rwanda, the 1994 slaughter in Rwanda, the Greeks uprising against the Turks.

            Please tell me how far back that standard for “evil” must extend, and how far. Does it only go back to 1948? Is it only in the special case of Israel? Or is it part of the tired old nonsense line of “The world changed after 9/11!”?

            1. Two things… J.Q. Adams was talking of a search for monsters. I’ll acknowledge America has made enemies, but explain to me again how America is searching for enemies.

              Alinsky Rule #4, “Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

              Dan, you certainly have that rule down. In fact you employ it quite a bit because it serves the one track one rut position of the anarcho-capitalist stance. No answer on any of the examples you site will suffice or satisfy because the question is designed to have but one outcome: how the answer stacks up against the hard core uncompromising libertarian law of absolutes.

              But if I would give it a shot about national interests not being served or American security not being threatened or Warsaw Pact countries’ spheres of interest being carved out post WWII… or dumb vacillating UN incompetence, or pure callous indifference to the suffering of “lesser humans”… no answer would suit… because the question is a fake strawman question designed to goad.

              Gotta love Alinsky he probably had some Christians in his milieu whom he really hated yet he can thank them for inspiring in him a whole tactic. Just for the record, I don’t always live up to my Christianity either. Just thought I would throw that in there and wipe that off the table as well before it comes back to bite me in the backside.

              1. I was not stacking you up against my ethic or even the more mainstream and more media-friendly version of it espoused by Ron Paul.

                No, I was stacking you against your own words. You described non-intervensionists as evil in their non-intervention to halt the designs of evil. Who’s definition of “evil?” Is there any limitation or is the extent of this ethic of heroic intervention of your boundless in it’s need of blood and treasure?

                The Syrian* monarch is pretty brutal, should your government and mine coercively volunteer our money and lives to deal with his evil? How about the evil of the the Yemen* government? The Bahrain* government? The Saudis* can be pretty nasty, how about there?

                Or how about Russia*? Putin is a fan of clandestine extermination of dissenters
                China*? That State is none to nice to the population, or to the Tibetans*
                Sudan*?
                Ethiopia*?
                Liberia*?
                Sierra Leone*?
                Zimbabwe*?
                Kenya*?
                Pakistan*?
                Any of the South American countires* with brutal regimes?

                Where does it end? Is it a special case for Israel* or is it a general rule, in your book? If there is a limit due to the finite extent of western military power, should the regions to be invaded and overthrown get in line?

                I ask only half-goadingly, because what you suggest is absurdity, and what it necessitates is immoral, should it be executed by anything other than a “government” and in pursuit of some espoused “righteous” goal, in the eyes of most people when laid bare.

                *The names of “nations” are simply the familiar labels of regions, in my eyes.

                1. I’m unsure if I labelled non-interventionism as evil. It is probably more fair to say that non-intervention is some instances could be evil. I am not disagreeing with you that all these examples exist… you don’t have to yet again list them… I could compile a hefty list myself… so we’re agreed then at least on the fact that yes… evils exist.

                  You argument is basically the Alinsky argument with regard to Israel. It’s not an argument but a tactic. That tactic demands that if I see a need to protect Israel then that need has to be fulfilled consistently in conjunction with fulfilling all other needs in the World. That’s the strawman alinskyite tactic. It’s compelling only if one sees things in a simplistic utopian way. It’s not an appeal to reason or to the messiness of real world interests and differences. It’s a dishonest appeal and goad to require people to live up to unattainable demands.

                  You get no argument from me. America or the West should not be global policeman in all instances… an impossible task. But I just wish the Israel bashers would apply this goading logic to their own pet projects. Until they solve Sudan, female genital mutilation, misogyny in the Arab world… name it… the list is long country by country… until all these problems are solved… then tackle the Palestinian problem and not until. But the demand is always one sided.

                  Now to be fair to you, I don’t think that is what you are suggesting. But you nonetheless take refuge in the belief that if all “individuals” lived under the Anarch-Capitalist model… then problem solved. But that is an even more impossible task, more impossible than the goading demand you make on me. I hope you can see this.

                  But I will concede to you that for the sake of argument… if Anarch-Capitalism as you envision it does what you say it will do… then great. Now… I don’t believe it will for various reasons. The main reason being that anarchic “states of being” will invariably evolve (or devolve from your perspective) into constituencies and tribalisms. Tribalism per-se is not necessarily a bad thing… depending on the tribe… but that’s my take on it anyway. But because of this evolution or devolution being an automatic natural development… then this development renders anarcho-capitalism to be a utopian project. You have rejected, a priori, government as “immoral”, so all other options are off the table other than anarcho-capitalism. You have boxed yourself in and your opponent as well because nothing else is worthy of discussion other than your hard line option. The difference between us is that I at least consider and validate some of the AC ideas… and do heartily agree with some Libertarian ideas and can see their implementation. But I get no reciprocity from you. Forgive me, but you pump everything through the meat-grinder of a strict ideological construct. All other options are barred.

                  We can get into the specifics of why this is so. I believe the seeds of anarcho-capitalism’s own demise are sown in its basic assumptions of law, free agency, eschewing of constituencies and other real world phenomenon. You see…. What makes something utopian is not the intent but the rejection of what naturally is. In my opinion that is where anarcho-captalism falls.

                  Now… where were we…. Oh yes. You ask… is it a special case for Israel? Yes it is, but this will take miles to lay out and we could get into it. There is more, so much more I would love to explore with you… but this venue is limited. If you have another forum or suggestion where we could beat each other up, let me know. Fine regards, las.

                2. Robert Timsah urges to not choice a side in the “Israel vs Palestinian” conflict, and a stance of non-intervention. You rebutted this in part with the Dietrich Bonhoeffer quote, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

                  Had your citation of the that been on it’s own and not in response to a statement of support for non-intervention, the intent would have been much more open to interpretation. As it was, I inferred that your use of it in response to Robert was applying that standard of passive evil to non-interventionists.

                  If my inference was in err, so be it, but I think it was an understandable leap at worst.
                  ————————-
                  “Unattainable demands,” unattainable indeed. That is, as you said, entirely the point. A consistent interventionist position is a total absurdity from strictly looking at just the costs and logistical limitations. Appeals to a grand moral imperative to intervene, like Krauthammer and O’Reilly do, don’t make those problems go away.
                  ————————-
                  The only options off the table in my view for you are the options that exercise coercion on me. If you want to play out the “social contract” ritual with people fine, I’ll vocally object but I won’t use violence or the threat of it against you. Condemnation is not the same thing as aggressive violent action.

                  I know, I’m such an stubborn bastard for not wanting to allow anyone the moral sanction to use violence against me. I suck!
                  ————————–
                  I’ve always said that what makes something utopian is a denial of nature. As someone who probably sees humanity as a fallen creation, and the view of human nature as without fail that “man is a wolf to man,” how are you not denying what you see as the nature of man when you defend the government/State which is made up of the same fallen man as the rest of us? That was the same mistake Hobbes made with his Sovereign, his pessimistic view of man, and his assertion that his social contract would take man out of that State of nature.

                  If man truly is a wolf to man, then your view is just as utopian as my view because of your denial of the nature of man in your denial of the nature of the State.

                  If man is a social creature, as Locke, Libertarians, Socialists, and Anarchists believe, then your State is unnecessary and waving a red flag before the bull by granting power to an individual beyond his right. As we both acknowledge, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

                  Does a social man mean that there won’t be jerks or acts out of desperation? Of course not, but the centralizing of power in the State only ever draws those kinds of individuals.
                  —————————
                  I can assume that your reasons for Israel being a special case, going of of your own words, are as follows.
                  A. Religious, which you yourself said flat-out in the other page. I can only guess your Eschatology is at the heart of that.
                  B. As a buffer to keep the wolves from the heels of the Sunday People.

                  If any reasons you have differ fundamentally from those feel free to throw them out.

                3. Your idea of rights is the problem Rothbard has … very narrow and materialistic.

                  Re: interventionist costs… yeah… there are costs… by the same token there are costs to non-intervention as well and can be both monetary and non-monetary.

                  Can’t disagree with you that centralizing statism draws jerks… now imagine the legal litigious nightmare, the armies of judges and the power wrangling under anarcho-capitalism.

                  But these issues are addressed further down in our communication… lets close this thread.

      2. Tell me, will supporting Israel cancel out the murder of thousands of babies over the last thirty years in this country and the apathy of the Christians to rise up and fight this atrocity? I mean we are screaming now because our hard earned money is being confiscated and redistributed…but what about the rallies and the in your senator/congressman’s face about supporting this atrocity of killing such innocent and helpless human beings? No America has surely lost her way. And it has nothing to do with supporting Israel or how we handle money for that matter. We will be judged on this blood that has been and still is being shed everyday.

      3. “Our nation” is a myth, there are only individuals here. The way you collectivize the 300+ million people living here is reminiscent to the teachings of “collective salvation” in Liberation Theology. Be careful the path you tread.

        If you want to support Israel or Palestinians with your money and your blood fine, but you have no right to support Israel or Palestinians with MY money and blood.

    2. Hi Dan… I am going to interject here as this is related… Here is my response to your latest response from the Matthews posting.
      __________________________________________

      Regarding just wars… The distinction is made between “just wars” between individuals … and “just wars” between States … the former exists, the latter does not.” Herein is another Libertarian weakness and fallacy. The libertarian’s inability to logically extrapolate from the individual to the nation because to confess a nation is to undermine the Libertarian’s carefully built dogma of illegitimacy. Yes… there are just wars against aggressor individuals who happen to run nations, no matter how distasteful to the Libertarian sensibilities. And yes… the latter does exist in spite of the wish that it were not so.

      This “tax-cattle” platitude is a tad old. it’s stock-in-trade sanctimony akin to the screaming left-wing hordes crying about the rich fat-cat capitalists. It’s another prop, another device to garner sympathy for the cause… because of course nobody likes money taken from them. But it’s a prop nonetheless in the Libertarian larder of sins.

      “After all, since the Barbary Wars the US had no conflict with Islam until post-World War 2”. Do I hear isolationism? … oops sorry… non-interventionism. Wrong… it’s a fallacy to exclude the US from the economic and philosophical, cultural and civilizational connectedness to the West. An ocean does not de-connect the two. The US is “The West”. To assert otherwise ignores the truth of what is. And yes… the West’s struggle with Islam predated Barbary. America’s Judeo Christian roots automatically makes it a member in Club Infidel. You are implying that if not for 1948 Israel we would have not problem with Islam. This is only tangentially true… the core of hatred for Infidels is a constant… who knows how long it could be held in check. But there is a whole host of reasons for Jews to re-claim their homeland after 1900 years.

      “. . .brutes that have no other reason for being than that of being brutes.” That sounds a good bit like “they hate us for our freedoms.” Come now, you know better than that” — Yes I do know better than the naive belief that “Muslims love their kids too”. I’m not surprised you fall for it because you still seem to miss the significance of Islam’s malevolence by insisting that a Libertarian realignment would save us all. Sorry… it is what it is. The theocratic, supremacist and totalitarian nature of Islam which sees Mohammed as the perfect man does not let Muslims off the hook. Do I have to reiterate yet again to people who think Muslims are just another people like Communist Russians. The difference between the Russians and Muslims is that the Russians almost to a man didn’t believe anymore in the socialist utopia… not so for Islam. Muslims believe and are ready to kill for it. Muslims are controlled by the mosque structure from birth, to marriage, to death. They can hide from it a bit by living in the West… but the structure soon finds them wherever they live. Moderate Muslims there may be… but there is no moderate Islam. This is one of the realities that causes hard-line Libertarians cognitive dissonance… they ignore this truth in order to protect their creed.

      Regarding Reagan… I am not a statist, I may be one as defined by the postulates of libertarianism, but I just ain’t in reality. You are right however… the Soviet Union would have collapsed under its own load, but it took someone like a Gorbachev who relied heavily on such think tank thinkers like Giorgi Arbatov from the U of Leningrad Institute for the Study of the United States and Canada. Arbatov contributed heavily to Gorbachev’s informed understanding of the world otherwise the Soviet Union would be cranking heavily along under some other Andropov type leader. Such decrepit despotisms have a habit of going a long long time without outside influences changing their course.

      Regarding Nuclear Islam… emotional appeals! Really. Rothbard didn’t think so when he was advocating nuclear disarmament. His was a wholesome appeal to disarmament, however much I disagreed. I would not classify it as emotional. An appeal to stopping a nuclear Islam is an appeal to cold hard facts… not an emotional appeal. And a nuclear Islam is not tempered with the rational roadblock of Mutually Assured Destruction. Because MAD is precisely what they want. Emotional… hardly.

      Regarding Palestinians… yup there are problems… my solution would be that the Palestinians already have a homeland… it’s called Jordan. Over a million Jews were forced out of Arab lands into Israel after the WWII. Oh, but that’s history… sorry we can’t do anything about that now… how convenient an argument! But to suggest a population swap of Palestinians going to Jordan… how dare we1 If the Jews were displaced our of Arab lands and forced out… what’s good for the goose… is not however good for the gander… how convenient!

      The Palestinians were a fake construct of the PFLP to put continual unending pressure on Israel. Even one of the founders of the PFLP admitted it… he was assassinated… quelle surprise!

      We can cry and wail all we want about the legitimacy of the various changing mandates which sliced and carved up Israel down to less than 15 percent of its original size as promised in the mandate. At a certain point … enough is enough. This is real world stuff.

      Let’s talk putting our money or freedom where our mouths are. You challenge me to pick up a gun and money and go to Israel. ..I challenge you… go ahead and withhold all your income from the Feds, if you are a free-enterpriser or sole proprietor. And don’t hide behind the fact that your taxes are automatically stolen at source. Go ahead… refuse to pay your taxes and stand on Libertarian principle. If its theft… you have a right to “thieve” back. Go ahead… put your strict ideology where your mouth is. Allow yourself to be thrown in jail and your property to be expropriated. Go ahead, I challenge you, sit in prison like St. Paul did and write a Libertarian screed to the injustice of big government statism. The difference is that Paul didn’t rail against the authorities however… he understood the deeper issues. I realize it’s a bit unfair to compare your cause to St. Paul’s… but at least he went to prison for his actions and was executed. Who’s being emotional now!

      All this… and there’s more, to mitigate against the strict and blinding limitations of the Libertarian dogmas. It’s not that I don’t see real value and some sound truths of your position. But there is much that is wobbly and idealistic in light of just how horrible the real world can be. I hope I have not been too hard hitting… it’s sometimes a challenge to not get too personal. I respect your mind and find this back and forth fun, I look forward to your responses even if it means I have to get up early before I start my day. I always admire pundits in the media who are bitter enemies regarding their beliefs, but can joke and have fun together outside their beliefs. Regards, las

      1. “Just wars.” There can be just wars of individuals against individuals, and the cause of individuals against States are just. The wars between two States are not just from either side. No failure to extrapolate, it’s your failure to consistently apply a perspective of Individualism to the entire notion as opposed to the collectivist bullsh*t that States are real entities and that they act for “us.”

        “Old Platitude.” F=MA is old too. Age does not diminish the truth of a Statement, and your whining about the frequency in which it is brought up is just that, whining.
        ————————————–
        “US = The West; The West = hated by islam; Islam = inherently bad;
        Westerners used to believe in the absurd notion of the “Divine Right of Kings” and used Christian theology as justifications and apologia for dyranny, despotism, and brutality as well. Need I point you to Fourth Vow Jesuits? Need I point you to the Christian clerics at the side of every despot in Europe for centuries? Need I point you to religiously incited and justified violence official by the church and unofficial?

        The Catholic vs. Protestant violence in Ireland sure sounds like a good old Sunni vs. Shi’a war too me. But I’m sure you’ll just try to write that off as politics without noticing where that might also be applied.

        It’s good you acknowledge that there might even be such a thing as a moderate Muslim, I was worried you might start advocating for invasion of predominantly muslim populated “countries” for the reason alone, bombing muslims and locking them up at the moment of conversion or any other ideas of reciprocal holy war. You wage your holy war on your own dime, I’ll have no part of it

        What’s the difference between Christianity and Islam? One is younger, they have different schizophrenic madmen as their prophets, and one has been defanged by the Enlightenment. Islam hasn’t gone through that yet, and desperately needs to.
        —————————————
        On to topic of moderate vs. radical. Perhaps one should analyze the what talking points among Muslims have the most traction with radicalizing. The Ayatollah Khomeini railed against American Decadence and sin and short skirts all the time and made very little headway. Osama Bin Laden talks about US Military occupation of the Arabian Penninsula, blind US support of Israel, and several other REAL WORLD POLITICAL REASONS for opposing the US government, and Bin Laden has been lightyears more successful than Khomeini. They might cite religious scripture for their violence after being radicalized, but it’s the sense that it’s a world war against THEM and their religion that radicalizes them.

        Christians sang about “God” this and “God” that in the crusades but what was it really about? Politics, the Byzantine Emperor wanted his lands back in Asia Minor and the Levant. Frankish and Sicilian princes who would get no inheritance wanted to forge their own way. Peasants were to most adamantly religions in the entire mess and they ended up stupidly attacking other Europeans and the Byzantines themselves never even making it to the “Holy Land.” It’s always about politics that gets 8 or 9 out of 10 people into the fight, and then religion that makes them do the craziest crap.

        Osama Bin Laden’s 1 truly indespensible ally in all of this is United States foreign policy. It invariably proves him right and drives more people right into his ranks. Madeline Albright’s saying that the starving to death of 500,000 Iraqi Children was “worth it” might not have been on American of Canadian TV very much, but it’s been played in Muslim populated “countries” more times than I dare count. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

        Governments can’t do anything about the undeniable core of violence in Islam, but it can do something about its foreign policy. As I said before, if Israel were smart they would pressure the US government to knock off the interventionist warmongering because it’s caused more Muslims to actively look for Israeli blood than in years.
        —————————————-
        It’s mind boggling to me that you can point to the role played by Russians no longer accepting Leninism or Stalinism in the collapse of the Soviet Union, yet seem not to consider that education, enlightenment, and awareness of the failings of their political philosophy might work on the people of the middle east. I’ve said it on this site multiple times before, a couple of them to you directly. It’s all about the intersubjective consensus, and US government foreign policy is CONFIRMING the Islamist influence on that consensus.
        ——————————————
        “Jordan”
        Thought Experiment: How would you react if the UN too the Palestinians and moved them all to Canada, made the Canadian government however the Palestinians wished, if you objected you were painted as a dangerous subversive who should be thankful to be alive and allowed in the new Canada? How would you feel if when you objected to this ridiculous, racially and religiously based authoritarian thuggery, that you were met with “then go to America, that’s where you belong!”?
        ——————————————-
        The Palestinians are the people who were living there during the times of Ottoman Syria and the British Mandate of the League of Nations. They are not a made up group of people. The PLO is older than the PFLF.
        ——————————————-
        “Real world stuff”
        You place yourself as the arbiter of what is to be considered rational and realistic real-world discussions on the topic, big surprise your position and side you try to dichotomize the issue into are the only two you likely consider “real-world.”

        If you need me to tell you why that is just absurd, then is and has been nothing more than a waste of time.
        —————————————
        Nice dodge in getting around the crux of my issue with your support of Israel, your challenge to me was a nice fat red herring. Stop distracting from the issue of what I said regarding INDIVIDUALS and the right to support, oppose, or play Switzerland on the problem of Israel

        I’ll say it again;
        You have every right to support Israel with your money and/or your blood. You don’t have any right to support Israel with my money and/or my blood.

        If you claim you do have some right to use my wealth and blood to support your cause regardless of my consent then lay it out from start to finish. You can’t though, because your reasons are emotional and religious, thus nothing more than insubstantial fiat derived from the realm of personal metaphysics.

        P.S. I’ve long since made my peace with whatever may come when I refuse to comply with the Obamacare Mandate and fine. I also don’t completely turn my eye from what you call “the real world,” violent resistance of taxation in the current political climate where too many and the media consider taxation legitimate is to do nothing more than waste the 1 life and death I have for something that would advance my cause not an inch.

        1. Whoa there sparky… lower your blood pressure. Let’s keep it friendly you and me Ok. I’ll try from my side.

          You say – “The wars between two States are not just from either side. No failure to extrapolate…” If it’s not a failure to extrapolate, is it not a certain stubbornness that holds onto cherished and rigid libertarian notions about legitimacy in spite of real world threats from real world dictators holding real world nations captive. I’m having difficulty that you can’t see this.

          I will not say my position does not have contradictions. As free agents we all make choices. That’s where I stand on my own contradictions. But is it not ironic that you are in a position of defending a non-entity people (the Palestinians) against another non-entity people (the Israelis)… a position which contradicts the anarcho-capitalist idea that collective peoples don’t really exist. What say you to the internal contradiction of American anarcho-capitalists making a collective retreat into the “mythical” entity called the USA under the justification of non-intervention- we can discuss another time if it’s really isolationism. Think about that for a moment. A libertarian, not believing in nation states yet comforting one’s self under the defending wings of a mythical nation state called America. You chide me for my contradictions, which I acknowledge, yet I’m not the dogmatist. Is not this contradiction more glaring.

          *******
          I reiterate the contention that Palestinians are just Jordanian Arabs. Zuheir Mohsen a Syrian Bathist PLO (not PFLP… my error – both groups were formed about the same time in the early 60’s) operative for Syria confessed in the late 1970’s that the Palestinian people were a fake construct designed to permanently leverage Arab claims to Israel proper and the Mediterannean. He was assassinated in 1979 or early 1980’s if I remember correctly. Mosad was blamed, but usually such heresy departing from the accepted PLO line is rewarded with extreme prejudice by fellow Muslims.

          *****
          Regarding Al Qaeda. You really must understand Al Qaeda’s narrative put out in English to the West is a propaganda narrative. Their message is designed explicitly for Western media consumption and you unknowingly read their propaganda line back to me. Here is your quote, “They might cite religious scripture for their violence after being radicalized, but it’s the sense that it’s a world war against THEM and their religion that radicalizes them.” You got their message loud and clear. Their meme is that the West and America is to blame for Muslims’ disaffection, and that Islam is under attack from America and the West. The conclusion… if the West respects Islam and stops hurting Muslims, then Muslims will stop hurting the West. This propaganda is designed to provide popular support for their cause to a duped all believing Western audience already plied with the Palestinianization (see Bat Ye’or’s work) narrative worked out over decades in Europe to sever Europe’s foreign policy alliance from America’s and to garner support for the Palestinians.

          But here I’ll reference the book Al Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim who has analyzed the Arabic pronouncements by Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri . Their Arabic narrative is for Muslims only. They reiterate standard Mohammadan doctrine that the world is divided into two camps… the House of War (infidels) and the House of Islam. Jihad is the only way, taqiyya (lying for Allah) and deceit for Allah is war, and to have continual enmity against the infidel according to Mohammed’s strictures is the duty of all Muslims. Bin Laden also lays out the classic Mohammedan doctrine of Hudna. The West misunderstands Hudna as a simple peace treaty. Not so for the pious doctrinaire Muslim. It’s a ceasefire or appeasement until Muslims become ascendant. In short, Islamic strictures mandate that there can be no permanent peace with Islam. These are components of the classic Islamic worldview and can never be mitigated by anything the West does or does not do. In short… justification for Jihad lays in Islamic doctrine and not in Western actions. It’s important to stick with what Muslims tell each other, not what they say in English to the West. Arafat practiced this tactic to perfection.

          ***********
          I’m sorry… this is not a red herring… so I’ll make you a deal… I’ll use my money and guns and go to Israel if you withhold your taxes and sit in prison for your principles. Otherwise you can put that puppy argument to bed.

          ******
          Dan… do you really think I advocate bombing Muslims, invading their land in holy war and locking them up upon conversion… or something?

          *********

          Let me preface this following with the fact that I agree… lots of horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity. There is no argument from me there. It’s how we interpret this that differs. I’m having a difficult time not getting the message that your animus toward Christians and Christianity is coming from something other than what you believe to be a coherent and balanced analysis of history. I don’t want to offend, but it really does tend to the sophomoric. When you employed relativism between Islam and Christianity and started adhominem about “schitzophrenic madmen” that was my cue that further discussion on this subject was probably not possible.

          Let’s just put aside the Old Testament for the moment… it’s a more complicated subject for maybe later…. But you’ve read the New Testament and I hope you’ve read the Koran or portions of it. I have… numerous times, and I would not blame you that only a stubborn persistence and sheer force of will would ever propel the rational mind through it. But a simple and honest cursory comparison between the New Testament and the Koran could not possibly lead one to a conclusion of relativism between the two. It’s just not possible. It’s a study in contrasts. And I believe you know that given your (I assume) knowledge of the NT.

          You claim (and it is a claim) that the Enlightenment defanged Christianity and that Islam has not gone through an enlightenment yet. Point one… the Enlightenment was born in the lap of Christianity. Christianity enabled the Enlightenment. I know that grates to on the sensibilities of dyed in the wool secularists, but we can have that discussion another time. Second point… Yes… Islam has had its englightenment of sorts… more apt to call it a reformation. This occurred in the late 1920’s with the writings of Said Kutub and followed by Hassan Al Banna and the Pakistani Islamist, Said Maudoudi. The result… a back to the Koran movement mixed with radical Marxism spawning the Muslim Brotherhood and leading to Al Qaeda.

          I’ll lay out my right to use your wealth and blood right here. No its not emotion or religion… it’s mutual advantage and survival. You said –“You have every right to support Israel with your money and/or your blood. You don’t have any right to support Israel with my money and/or my blood.” Your interests and my interest diverge at this point. My rights clash with your claimed rights. Theoretically you have a right to be taken over by your enemy if you want. The problem is that my right not to be taken over by your enemy as well is also a problem since we live in the same neighbourhood… and the enemy has designs on the same neighbourhood. I want to band together, with others, my goods, my blood, and my money to protect myself and my hood. By banding together I know we can defeat our mutual enemy. You don’t want to however, and if I don’t get your support your position will lead to the demise of both of us and our hood. Who then has the greater right. So I am sorry… your idea is the true emotional one… and worse… a form of sanctimony imposed on others because you place your rights above others. But then your position is logical given that the social contract to the anarcho-libertarian is as garlic to Dracula. So we will have to simply disagree on this. To be charitable I’ll just call it competing rights. But the rejection of social contract to the Libertarian leads to other problems… but I think I will leave it there for this evening.

          We have got to pare this stuff down and deal with topics in small bites, or find another venue to discuss because I wanted to address other things you wrote, but time restricts.

          1. Forgive me, I lapsed in my use of quotes around “the Palestinians.” Let me clarify my regarding of the term; The individuals living in the Levant which have been displaced and abused by the fiat establishment of absurd State of Israel, ie. the people who lived in the region called Palestine (Like I am a person who lives in the region called Florida). I said I have no problem admitting that there are people among “the Palestinians” who are guilty of Aggression, also known as criminals, the same as I regard individual “Israelis” as aggressive criminals as well as the State of Israel and the Hamas “government.” The whole situation is a clusterf*ck of epic proportions and I defend no real criminal of either side.
            —————————–
            I got my description of “madman” for Jesus from C.S. Lewis, actually. That was someone I might have assumed you would appreciate, perhaps I should have used his words, “lunatic,” or “liar.”

            “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg – or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.”

            I don’t believe that “Jesus is Lord,” so my other options are clear. Nor do I believe Muhammad was the last prophet of Allah, so applying Lewis’ reasoning again I must come to the same conclusion.
            —————————–
            It is indeed a red herring, seeing as you are advocating that I support your cause or be thrown in a cage or killed. Nowhere have I demanded that you be locked in a cage for my principles. My position overall is you support your own damn cause. Leave me to make up my own free mind about your cause, as I do not use force to impose whatever conclusion I may draw or have drawn about Israel on you.

            If you want to CONVINCE ME to adopt your cause as my own, that I might voluntarily contribute my wealth and/or my blood, that’s fine. Just as I wish for people to adopt the cause of genuine freedom as their own, thus making mine there own.

            Coerced compliance is the circumstance of nearly all Libertarians and Anarchists today. Resistance where able, but only those with foolish childish notions of “glory” think it a maximum contribution to advancing freedom to eagerly throw yourself on the sword of the State. We humans have but 1 life and 1 death, if my death has a real chance of serving a purpose greater comparatively than the good I might do with what is left of my LIFE, then it a good trade-off in my opinion. Given my age, and the current futility of such a death in this current climate of political belief, my efforts would be better spent on changing minds or attracting sympathies. I have already persuaded several in my real life, with more to go I hope.

            You may well get your wish in the coming years though, anyway. If Obamacare is not repealed or struck down and is then enforced. That is a piece of legislation with enough popular disapproval that some good might be served.

            If it still hasn’t gotten through at this point, it never will and we had best move on or give up.
            ——————————
            The “back to Koran” movement you describe sounds like a more successful Islamic version of the Fundamentalist movement. I’m assuming you’ve seen or heard of the “Jesus camp” for little Christian kiddos to go to in order to learn to be “Soldiers for Christ?”
            ——————————
            As per your hypothetical of my supposed right to be taken over by someone I wish, I point you to Lysander Spooner.

            “. . . Any such delegation of power is naturally impossible, for these reasons, viz:

            1. No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of arbitrary dominion over himself; for that would be giving himself away as a slave. And this no one can do. Any contract to do so is necessarily an absurd one, and has no validity. To call such a contract a “constitution,” or by any other high-sounding name, does not alter its character as an absurd and void contract.
            2. No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of arbitrary dominion over a third person; for that would imply a right in the first person, not only to make the third person his slave, but also a right to dispose of him as a slave to still other persons. Any contract to do this is necessarily a criminal one, and therefore invalid. To call such a contract a “constitution” does not at all lessen its criminality, or add to its validity.

            These facts, that no man can delegate, or give away, his own natural right to liberty, nor any other man’s natural right to liberty, prove that he can delegate no right of arbitrary dominion whatever – or, what is the same thing, no legislative power whatever – over himself or anybody else, to any man, or body of men.

            This impossibility of any man’s delegating any legislative power whatever, necessarily results from the fact that the law of nature has drawn the line – and that, too, a line that can never be effaced nor removed – between each man’s own interest and inalienable rights of person and property, and each and every other man’s inherent and inalienable rights of person and property. It, therefore, necessarily fixes the unalterable limits, within which every man may rightfully seek his own happiness, in his own way, free from all responsibility to, or interference by, his fellow men, or any of them.”
            -Lysander Spooner, A letter to James Asheton Bayard

            I cannot surrender my rights, and will not, there is only resistance and willful compliance to aggression/coercion.

            It is not a matter of “greater right.” It is a matter of you having no right to my consent, support, wealth, or blood. To insist such a claim/right is to insist that I be your property and your slave. Such is the claim of any authoritarian when resisted sufficiently, we have only found what rationalizing is sufficient for you.

            1. Regarding this nation/region distinction. It’s exactly that… a distinction without a difference. Regarding the clusterfark… agreed. But the fact that this clusterfark exists does not logically imply a relativism between the two factions. This is where we majorly disagree.

              Could have fooled me about C.S. Lewis with your “madman” quote. It is Lewis’ most quotable quote however. Accepted… you don’t believe Jesus’ claim. No problem from me on that account… other than you are going to hell in a hand basket!!! Just joking my friend… you kinda half expected me to say that didn’t ya… be honest… be honest…because in a previous post you confessed exactly this sentiment… and I quote… “I’ve never met a Christian who didn’t talk about my supposed fate in hell without a sickening glimmer of satisfaction in their eyes as they stare into the distance. Nor have they ever in my experience managed to say “I’ll pray for you” without an underlying tone of “f*** you. So very Jesus-like.” P.S. Dan… I still pray for you on an occasional basis… yup… you got me figured out.

              Regarding going to jail… read my comments carefully. I’m not recommending throwing you in jail because it satisfies a certain statism which you impute to me. I am stating the obvious consequences for you if you stand on your own principles in the society as it now is. Heck… I’d love not to pay taxes… I’m with you there… but I admit… I’m a coward… I don’t want to go to jail. You and I can be co-cowards on this one.

              Regarding my support for Israel… let’s tackle the mutual self-defence issue first. You have not addressed my theoretical about you and me being neighbours with a common enemy. I know this is a conundrum for libertarians. Let’s tackle this first then we can move on to Israel, because they are related.

              Use of ad hominems… keep them to a minimal. They don’t advance the discussion other than to make one feel satisfied over a lack of evidence. Things like “absurd state of Israel”. Huh! It’s an interjection of no relevance. Or things like “foolish childish notions of “glory”. We all know some people may think this… that’s not where you and I are at however. Some ad hominem can be useful and funny… most are just fronts. But I am glad you see some level of self-sacrifice is noble, if at least theorhetical. I am happy your heart is not completely of stone.

              Re: Obama Care and my death wish. Gee I think you think I am a screaming progressive. For the record… I ain’t. Heck… you can keep your Obama Care… we have Government Care flying out of our butts up here… we are moving in the opposite direction toward at least two-tier… better than nothing.

              Re: Back to the Koran and the Fundamentalist movement or Kiddo camp something. More unthinking relativism. If you have reduced what I’ve said to some petty municipal grievance that you have with a small Christian kid’s group set up somewhere then you can’t be taken seriously in light of the profundities I just explained to you regarding Al Qaeda and Bin Laden and Al Zawheiri. If you can’t get it yet… then further elaboration is pointless.

              Daniel… I am not trying to get around the notion of right against aggression which you espouse, but a more thorough groundwork needs to be laid in order to demonstrate that the laissez-faire-esque notion you espouse is unworkable.

              Here is the one of the problems with the natural-rights issue as espoused by the Libertarian. Since there is an abolition of the state, and since the Libertarian has a general classical liberal notion of rights… then it necessarily follows that a classical liberal notion of protecting those rights would be in order… a wide collection of established rights in the form of a fundamental law, or a classical constitution. But the Libertarian rejects this notion and then is left with Rothbard’s “objective” values which make concensus unworkable. You fall into Rothbard’s trap that all rights come from only two sources man’s right to his body (which you amply defend) and his right to transform unused land and resources. But these are material principles and make for really difficult law making and procedural rules. On top of this is that Libertarianism is unavoidably a rule by elites. Since democracy is ruled out, then rule by elites makes them avoid the political questions… that is someone has to make the rules since the material two-point notion of rights is insufficient to build a comprehensive body of law… so elite judges will be the backbone of the anarcho-stateless state. It will be a hornets nest of lawyers and judges… a litigious nightmare with individuals forming groups to get more power. Regional tyrannies will ensue, constituencies formed and state-creep will result undermining the intended nirvana of statelessness. Sorry.. I can’t see it any other way.

              Anyway these are but a few of the problematic issues I have with Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism.

              1. Governments acceptable to an Anarcho-Capitalist…
                1. Self-Government
                2. Unanimous Direct Democracy
                3. Contracts with an employer, etc. Distinct from the “Social Contract,” due to the actual explicit consent of the Individual given upon signing, rather than being bound to it by birth and the signature of a group of people with no right to sign on your behalf.

                I’m sure there is more, but You’ll forgive my ignorance I am sure.
                —————————-
                Regarding jail…
                Throwing me in a cage is precisely what you advocate any time you argue in favor of any State action or using the State to achieve your goals. It’s rarely laid bare for poeple in many of the pychological tricks of the status quo, but at the heart of it, if you get the State to do your will on an issue or it already is and you cheer it on, then you are cheering on the jailing of those who refuse, the beating of those who resist, and the killing of those who resist sufficiently.

                There are no two ways to this, that is the power falsely regarded as the “authority” of the State. All action is done, as Mao said, with the barrel of a gun. When you say that the government is to volunteer our collective support for Israel you are saying, “you should support Israel in whatever terms the Legislative body determines, and if you don’t then we’ll cage you like an animal, beat you like an animal, or kill you.”

                It’s worse though, for those who insist the RIGHT of the State to make such demands, because at the heart of it you are insisting that we are no more than the chattel slaves of the State. The crook who holds you up on a street corner makes no claim of his RIGHT to rob you and abuse you, he simply has the power to; The State claims it is it’s sovereign right to treat you that way.
                —————————
                Mutual self-defense…
                I did address this, both in your claim to manifesting rights to my person and property, as well as your claim that I might be taken over by someone I wish. The excerpt from Lysander Spooners letter to Bayard addresses that.

                Free riders exist. Deal with it. A threat to both you and I does not grant you the right my person and property. There is no competing rights or question of “who has the greater right?” It is a matter of you have the rights to your person and property, and I to mine. For you to claim you have any right at all to my person or property is to insist that I be your chattel slave, just as you have already insisted I be to the State.

                You can solicit my support, but you have no right to it. If you want to open that door, then literally anythreat you can make a case against compelling to a sufficient % of the mob would magically grant you the right to enslave anyone considered sharing that threat with you.

                This is a moot point anyway. If there was some mad slathering horde of suicide vested Muslims charging you and I, I would no more submit to their claims as to yours. If I felt the threat were real and had the means, I would contribute freely (likely). If they were upon us, I would invite you into my home and hand you a weapon if you didn’t have the means to defend yourself already.

                If you need me to explain the difference between that kind of resistance and to the established State of the area, then let me point you to the prevailing opinions of people to The Alamo vs. Waco.

                I will violently resist the State when I feel public opinion of the State has reached the level where they will perceive it as the modern Santa Anna.
                —————————-
                Will you permit me a chance to gaze into your crystal ball?

                The Natural Rights argued by Libertarians is in the vein of Immanuel Kant’s view of it. They are derived from Reason.

                What you call Rothbard’s Trap is strongly borrowed from Locke. That is why it is referred to as Neo-Lockean property rights.

                Locke’s:
                Individuals own themselves; Individuals own their bodies; Individuals own the labor that comes from their bodies; Individuals own what they take from the unowned state of nature, mixing with their labor and making their own, so long as they leave enough for others.

                Neo-Lockean:
                All of the above + a recognition of scarcity and an application of the above reasoning to land-property.

                The Social Contract, as it is, is discarded due to the internally contradictory nature of it. The State, in it purported enforcement of Natural Law and protection of Natural Rights, tramples the Natural Law and Natural Rights in it’s charge. Then there is the problem of the State being nothing more than a collection of the same fallen man as the rest of us, they are not a group of Ubermenschen somehow immune to the same corruptibility as you and I.

                I’ve already given 3 rough examples of “government” (different from the State) that Anarcho-Capitalism can operate under.

                As for your insistance that the complications of Law would invariably lead us back to the Status Quo or a new-age Feudalism…

                The term is “polycentric law”
                http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Liberty-Justice-Rule-Law/dp/0198297297
                http://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/0812690699
                http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Ethics-Private-Property-2nd/dp/0945466404
                http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0814775063

                Many many other examples of how things MIGHT organize are out there. I might be sophomorically arrogant, but I’m not so arrogant as to presume that any system of Law I might come up with would be a one-size-fits-all.

  5. Beck talked a lot in this video, but I’m not sure exactly where he went. I believe that the United States and Israel are actually two separate countries. Odd, I know. Beck says we’re on the wrong side but in the Middle East, the right side is often in not taking a side. That is, don’t take a side. Stay out of it. It’s none of our business. It’s not in our interests. It doesn’t benefit us (in the long run) to get involved. As a constitutionalist and non-interventionist my motivation for our non-intervention is the constitution. I’m not sure what Obama’s motivation is in the Middle East, nor his goal.

    He says we’re losing our oil? I’m not sure what that means. And as for that plan, well who says they’ll be able to carry it out. I mean, I have a plan to be a millionare – nope, hasn’t happened. This is why I’ve stopped watching Beck. I prefer judge Napolitano. He’s more focused on the Constitution and not the Bible. He’s more focused on liberty and freedom and not a holy war. Please, the Right Scoop, show more videos of Judge Napolitano! lol

    1. The problem of your summary misses the most important part is how this administration has instigated lots of unrest in the area AND helped point the finger at Isreal. Remember it was Obama himself that said Isreal did NOT have the right to build inTHEIR own borders shortly after taking office, so your position of staying out of it is based on misinformation…or misleading

      1. I never said Obama has stayed out, not sure where you got that from.

        I’m a far right (anarchist haha) libertarian.

        Obama’s been worse than Bush.. at least after this Libya action.

        And now Gates is warning Syria.. This has become quite dangerous what I’m seeing.

        I see a dangerous situation brewing where we won’t be able to get our troops home from around the world when the dollar crisis hits and we’re sitting ducks over there.

    2. The problem of your summary misses the most important part is how this administration has instigated lots of unrest in the area AND helped point the finger at Isreal. Remember it was Obama himself that said Isreal did NOT have the right to build inTHEIR own borders shortly after taking office, so your position of staying out of it is based on misinformation…or misleading

  6. Glenn is absolutely right – if Israel retaliates there will be all out war with Egypt (and others). Their retaliation will guarantee the most extreme, hard line, Muslim brotherhood government for Egypt with the backing of the people to go to war as the hate for Israel in Egypt is palpable.

    I was in Egypt in December last year and spotted a lady carrying an ”I love Israel” bag in the cafe at Luxor temple. I pointed her out to my wife and joked ‘that’s the bravest woman in Egypt right there’ and took a photo. One of the waiters saw me aiming my camera and started making hand gestures – I only have the pic of him doing a thumbs down but he also made ”machine gun” gesture as she walked away. He came over to our table and showed me that he had already taken photos on his phone and sent them to his friends – he explained ”In Egypt, we do not love Israel”.

    I found the Egyptians I met to be lovely people – but when a people are brought up on a diet of anti-semitic propaganda and then find themselves gifted an opportunity to be rid of the hated neighbour whilst still high from the rush of uniting against and overcoming a hated dictator… I think war is on the cards if Israel gives them the slightest opportunity to look like the good guys.

  7. There is no apostrophe in the present-tense, third-person-singular conjugation of a verb (like “get”). Why people feel the need to add an apostrophe before the “s” escapes me. Yes, I’m a grammar nazi.

    1. After hearing that, you are concerned about an apostrophe? Actually, you have added a little levity.

      1. The moment I see a gratuitous apostrophe, it triggers the basic reaction “If they can’t be bothered to get the pgrammar/spelling/unctuation right, did they get the facts right?”.

Comments are closed.