An Open Letter to Glenn Beck

“i beseech you, in the bowels of christ, think it possible you may be mistaken” … oliver cromwell,” uttering these famous words in 1650 urging the general assembly of the church of scotland to reconsider their alliance with charles ii, who sought thereby to reestablish his line upon the thrown of england.

and, so i say to glenn beck. in the matter of your labeling geert wilders a contemporary european fascist, I beseech you, pray consider that you are wrong. please, glenn, give it another think through.

your assessment of wilders stands as an impediment to the full & complete success of a rally against the construction of the “ground zero” mosque to be held september 11 in new york city, as sponsored by pamela geller and robert spencer. quite frankly, some might not attend the rally based on your opinion of wilders: some will anyway.

but, the greater and overriding reality is that more people will come to the rally if you endorse its aims and encourage their attendance, and if you reconsider your opinion that wilders is a fascist, and opinion, quite frankly, that i regard as ill taken. it is this matter i wish to address openly and without evasion, and it is for precisely this reason that i beseech you to look again at geert wilders.

i am very much like you, born in walla walla, washington of very humble origins. my dad was a blacksmith & welder, and a mechanic. my mom was a mom.

and, i probably might have followed my dad as my two older brothers, had not some teacher branded me, rather unjustly i think, as a bright little boy, let us nurture him. so, graduated whitman college in walla walla with a bachelor of arts degree conferred in political science, and graduated university of oregon school of law with a doctor of jurisprudence obtained in 1977. i remain a country kid, and my best friends are a truck driver, a couple gunsmiths and trucking boss with whom i hunt elk. i drove my first tractor probably before age 6, and i have built houses, worked harvests, and worked the bering sea crab grounds on a processor and on a boat plying the open waters fishing for crab.

i also practice law for 25 years, with my own solo law practice for 16 of those years, when my body started complaining of the other things, and i could not think of anything “legitimate” to do.

i am conservative, like you. as i age, i begin to see more and more the spiritual side of things. i was for years like st. augustine, who said, lord save me, but not just yet. well, i am 62 years old, with a year old quadruple by-pass. so, i am amply ready for salvation.

i am, quite frankly, disappointed in your stance with regard to wilders, and view it as ill taken and quite probably ill advised, or misinformed, or a decision simply based on inadequate facts or consideration.

i am a sober and deliberate person. i do not make snap judgments, but decide things only after long consideration.

since my sophomore year of college my constant intellectual preoccupation has been with european totalitarian government, both communists and fascist regimes. i have read extensively the history of fascist regimes, including hitler’s original writings, and the works of speer and others on the working of the nazi government. i can tell you i have never failed to watch a t.v. program about hitler, or goerring, or goebbels or anything related to the nazi regime. i have read tolstoy, dostoevsky, marx, lenin, trotsky, solzhenitsyn, anything i could get my hands on which might offer an insight into the totalitarian regime of the soviet union, or for anything that might allow me to understand the mass murders of mao ze tung and pol phot in Cambodia..

i have done this with a view towards personality, and institutional structure of government, and the relation of fascist and communist regimes to business and corporate structure, and how related to religious and family institutions.

and, i will tell you right now, geert wilders is not a fascist. not even remotely.

what he is, is an effective protagonist for conservative causes, and for dutch nationalism.

that he is a proponent for dutch nationalism no more makes him a fascist than you being a proponent for american nationalism, and the awakening of a religious impulse amongst the populace of america & for an assertion of our common values & heritage makes you a fascist.

well, mighty bold talk for a fat man, you say. i think i can back up the assertion, factually and analytically.—

as a matter of law. european law is not the same as american law. free speech is not an inalienable right possessed by individuals, but under the various versions of the united nations declaration of universal right it is a community standard of conduct which can be regulated to foster community harmony, and curtailed to prevent social upset or contest.

as applied under dutch and euro union law wilders’s speech, as viewed by the regulators of such thing, can be governed to prevent discord. and, the participation of political parties in the political process is also regulated, and generally throughout europe, if the political regulators find any fascist taint in a political party, its participation in political activities, or in elections, or being seated in legislatures can be curtailed or outlawed.

no such taint of fascist tendencies has ever been found applicable to wilders personally, nor to his political party. as it stands right now his party is growing, and it is currently negotiating to participate in the formation of the dutch government after winning a sizable number of seats in the dutch national parliament.

fascists, and fascist parties do not participate in euro union or european state politics. it is that simple.

does wilders espouse fascist beliefs and/or doctrine. he does not nor have i heard any suggestion that he espouses any views that propose any sort of radical restructuring of society or societal institutions or government along any sort of fascist theory. he does not, for instance, espouse a unitary state led by a unitary party with the result of imposing a unitary ideology upon holland. and, he sure as heck does not and has never espoused force as a way of imposing such a unification of “volk” and state in holland.

he is the head of a minority party, and likely to be that way for a while. his people do not take the streets as hooligans and thugs, trying to influence the will of the people at the polls. if you are looking for fascist tendencies, i should think a view a little closer to home of the new black panthers intimidating people at polling booths in new pennsylvania, and members of the s.e.i.u. intimidating and beating people at tea party movements might be a little more intellectually productive.

and, i would remind you that janet napolitano has branded those who participate in “tea party” assemblies as potential right wing terrorists, as has her department of homeland security has focused on returning u.s. military personnel.

what does he espouse. wildersis dutch, and he is conservative. he believes in those values of western civilization in terms of heritage, religion and political process that i suspect are very close to yours, and which emphasize self reliance, responsibility, virtue, integrity, piety and rectitude.

he is an advocate of free market economy. he believes in the rule of law, and of process. he believes in the fair, detached and objective magistrate.

and, if he is not a devout christian, he has none of the overt hostility to it of leftist “thinkers,” nor has he ever expressed any antagonism towards religious loyalties as presenting any sort of political issue. i think that you would do well to compare and contrast this rather fundamental aspect of his thinking to the total hostility of adolph hitler, benito mussolini and joseph stalin to religious faith. wilders does not see religious affinity as a rival to his followers loyalty to him, nor does he seek to impose any religious obligations upon persons as a source of loyalty to the state.

what he believes, and has stated very clearly, is that islam and jihad and the absolute duty of a muslim to the tenets of islam, do not comport and are not compatible with those values that underpin western society. he believes further that islam has embarked upon a scheme of conquest of the european political and social order, and he believes that european leftist politicians play into the hands of islam by courting their votes for various social entitlements and the likes. in short, he thinks that the left and islam have entered into an unholy alliance whereby leftist court islamic votes to the detriment of the long term values and interests of the dutch community, and to its liberties and freedoms, as it has developed to date.

he wishes no more than to preserve and protect what he views as dutch, and he wishes to prevent the destruction of that tradition and heritage of religious liberty, political process, free speech and involvement in their own rule which has been hallmarks of the dutch and the scandanavians for centuries.

and, there is something you should consider at this point.-- the italian courts have recently held that islam does not quality as a religious institution under european union standards and definitions. and, that islam will not be accorded such recognition in italy. does this make the italian court system fascist, that they view islam much as wilders does, that being that it is a political institution with totalitarian qualities?

so, i find it rather startling that you, holding basic values as you do with regard to the need for religious observance, obeisance to the lesson of history and heritage, and respect for constitutional and legal standards of even application and understandable/cognizable mandates, … , i find it rather startling that a person like you would find a person like wilders a “fascist.”

personally, i think somebody sold you a bill of goods, and that you went off half cocked. if you want me to tell you what i think.

he has said this publicly. and, for this he is prosecuted under dutch law. not for slander, libel or defamation, or for portraying islam and muslims in a false light. no, he is not prosecuted for lying, rather he is prosecuted for stating facts which are demonstrably true, but which portray islam in such a fashion as to “insult” muslims, and, in the view of the dutch authorities, promotes social unrest.

it is not coincidental that the dutch authorities conceptualize wilders’s very real challenge to their political longevity and continued hold on the apparatus of power, as promoting social unrest as well. which, in fact, they do.

as an adherent to traditional standards of american political and social free speech, you should be aghast at this situation. and, not only that , but you should be a firm proponent and supporter of him.

that is my opinion. you may or may not share it. but, that is of little concern to me, whether you would ever deign to support wilders in any sense. what is not a matter of indifference to me, is that you should wrongly continue to label him as a fascist. now, you are not going to hurt him in holland and in europe, … , he has dealt with such leftist accusations there, and even while being prosecuted, he is now in a position to become a member of the dutch cabinet.

again, this is not legally possible in holland, for to be found a fascist disqualifies you from participation in dutch political life.

as a matter of fact, the dutch prosecutor’s of wilders case have stated that it matters not that what he says is truth. the truth of a statement is not a defense under the euro union declaration of rights or the dutch statute in question as the only legal standard is whether in the estimation of the dutch authorities it is within the “interests of the community” that wilders speech and conduct, and ultimately thought, be regulated to conform to dutch “law.”

what wilders is guilty of is fighting those animals who are more equal than others in the dutch animal farm.

this is the same sort of “offense” for which mark steyn and ezra levant have been prosecuted under canadian “hate crime” legislation, by a special court which received complaints from muslim law students that they were insulted by their writing.

are you prepared to say mark steyn or ezralevant are fascists because of this, for expressing views substantially identical to wilders’s? i can assure you that they might be a little surprised and taken aback by such a characterization.

they are the same leftists who harangue you, who mis-characterize your statement and analysis, and who engage in the most vile invective and character assassination possible.

there is no difference. his accusers are your accusers. and, for precisely the same reason. he jeopardizes the ability of dutch leftist elites to continue unfettered and unopposed in the running of holland.

and, just the same as you did in rising up to defend america against the obama regimes transgression against our political standards. you know, for a long time in this, you and pamela geller were almost alone in such matters.

you and pamela geller: two peas in the same pod. i think most of the people who attended you rally in washington d.c. on the anniversary of martin luther king’s “i have a dream speech” oppose the construction of the “ground zero” mosque. somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% of all americans do, and i would be enormously surprised if a lesser percentage of the people who attended your rally oppose it.

most american’s acknowledge a free speech/freedom of religion component in the discussion.

and, most agree that aspect of it is not controlling, and feel that this mosque project is an insult to the persons who died in the jihad attack on september 11, 2001 as well as being a desecration of the site itself, which holds the remains of many americans.

and though the apologists for imam feisel abdul rauf’s “cordoba project” think that such is not so, and make all sorts of excuses why the structure is not a mosque but is a community center; and, that it really isn’t at ground zero; and that the mosque is a bridge building attempt at reconciling americans and mosques, the lie to these assertions is given in the person of imam rauf and the title of a book he wrote and published.

it was initially published by harper collins under the title, “what’s right with islam: a new vision for muslims and the west.” then, it was republished in america under a revised title, “what’s right with islam is what’s right with america.”

and, the truth emerged as to imam rauf’s beliefs thinks the function of the mosque to be when the book was published for an islamic audience in malaysia.—

imam rauf’s book was titled, “a call to islam from the world trade center rubble: islamic dawa in the heart of america post 9/11.”

“a call to islam from the world trade center rubble… .” so much for the assertion that the mosque is not on hallowed ground, is not part of ground zero. this is the book title that rauf and his publishers agreed upon. you know how the process works.

“… islamic dawa in the heart of american … .” dawais proseltization, recruitment, and the advancing of islam by aggressive preaching. from the “heart of america.”

when i read your biography, when i listen to your shows, my ear hears very little difference between what you believe and what pamela geller believes and espouses.

from what i see and read and see, if there are differences between you they are not matters of intellectual substance, but personality and style.

and, any meaningful dispute that you have with her regarding the 9/11 rally in new york city centers around geert wilders participation in that rally, and wilders’s remarks about islamic creeping sharia.

the stakes in successfully opposing the construction of this mosque is just too damned important to jeopardize over matters of personality as may exist between you and pamela geller, and to be impaired by your wholly inadequate understanding who and what geert wilders actually is.

in my view, you owe it to every person who attended your rally in washington d.c. to have them in attendance on september 11 in new york city.

it is the same fight. lord take pity on us all, if you do not understand this. those people who attended you shindig oppose that mosque’s construction, some of them quite passionately, and you owe it to them intellectually, spiritually and politically to encourage their attendance there.

when i look at this rally, i see it attracting and serving the intellectual and political needs of the very same persons who attended your washington d.c. rally. and, i know since i have gone to about three or four tea parties, that the congruence between those who attend the tea parties and those who will attend pamela geller’s protest rally against the mosque is about 100%.

i think that you and pamela geller owe it to the great nation which you both serve, to make sure that the social and religious and political needs of the people of america are served as well.

if you took a poll of those in attendance in washington d.c., you would have found that a great majority of people oppose the building of the ground zero mosque. it is my contention, and i invite you to refute it if you have gotten this far, that you serve the people who attended your rally by encouraging them to attend geller’s rally in new york city.

central to this is, of course, your considered reevaluation of geert wilders. if you continue to think that he is in fact & in deed a fascist, then you cannot in good faith support a rally in which he will be a principle and featured speaker, as evidenced by your previous remarks. but, if, on the other hand, you are willing to consider who and what he actually is, and not to be gulled into accepting his portrayal as a fascist and nazi (by the very people, btw, who label you with the same epithets) by simple assertion and at face (and i would say, very superficial) value, then i would urge and advance the notion that you owe it to the people who attended your rally to recommend that they attend the geller rally.

in short, i am rather un-apologetically demanding, sir, that you put your thinking cap on in the next several days, and that you re-examine your thinking in this matter, and those opinions upon which you base it, and the source of those opinions.

if you conceptualize your role in all of this as service towards a great people, in helping them to protect their heritage and values, and their religious and spiritual heritage, and to protect their political and historical heritage, then you need to help them protect those values by promoting their attendance at this 9/11 rally in new york city, because it does the same thing.

or, if you conceptualize yourself as a stand up comic, i suppose you can just kiss the whole thing off without a care in the world, and say what you damn well please completely without heed to the consequences.

oddly enough, i find that latter proposition not in keeping with the likely motivations of the man who put on the washington d.c. rally.

so, i beseech you, in the bowels of christ, pray consider that you are wrong in your opinion of geert wilders. which i believe that you are, and that you have made a hasty and superficial judgment, which needs to be rectified to maintain the intellectual consistency and rigor of your thought, and to be fair to geert wilders. you owe it to such a person to make a correct judgment of him, and you owe it to me and the rest of the american public, as this is not a piddling matter nor a matter of little consequence.

you want to be taken seriously? then put serious thought and consideration into the process that causes you to make public utterances.

the fate of nations rest upon such assessments, and they should be taken soberly.

if you do change your mind, you owe it to america and those who attended your washington d.c. rally to make sure that your people are geller’s people as well, and that they are in the streets of manhattan protecting their heritage and posterity the same as they were in washington d.c.

now, the simple answer is, jay, you are a nothing bozo, and i owe you nothing along the lines you have suggested. if that is your answer, then your attitude is that you don’t owe anyone anything, and that further you should be to make your millions per anum any way you want, totally without heed to anyone.

if that is the case, i sincerely hope that you get out of the “political commentator” business, and go on to something else. i don’t mind you making millions, i just rather strenuously object to you posing as if you do it in the public interest, when in fact you care not a fig for such matters.

sir, i beseech thee in the bowels of christ, pray consider that you are wrong about geert wilders. and, if you should decide that you are, then i ask only that you behave as integrity dictates. we need those people in the streets of new york opposing the construction of that mosque, and if you feel that way too, and if wilders’s presence there is not an intellectual impediment to your support of the rally, … , well, that’s quite a sentence, ain’t it.

you get my drift. i have explained my position clearly enough. you chosen and moral path lies before you, if you decide that wilders is not a fascist, just a fellow who fights for his homeland.

Significant in that they have a greater say in the company across the board. Significant in that the SEC requires anyone with great than 5% ownership of voting shares to register within 90 days of reaching or surpassing that threshold. Significant in that many corporate raiders have had less than 7% and have taken control of corporations or “blackmailed” corporations for financial or political or ideological influence.

>>Ignore the Islamo-cult at your own and our nation’s peril.<<

You think that just because Beck hasn’t put it first and formost it means that we have “ignored” it?

Wow! That Beck feller must really be important!

One cannot address multiple concerns and still remain strong. It is for our elected leaders to handle specifics, it is for the citizens to “get right” with history, personal responsibility, and religion or not, sect or branch of choice. I really like what Beck has been doing, and will not criticize him for being effective, or because he won’t spread himself thin.

The entire world is choosing up sides.

Which side will you choose?

The side that loves and rmbraces freedom and liverty for all. The side that believes in free markets, free enterprise, entrepreneurship, fair trade, state sovereignty and limited government, low taxes and the freedoms guaranteed to all by God, the Creator, not government.

Or the side that believes in totalitarianism, of fascism, of enslavement, of dictatorship, of communism and socialism, of the subjugation of mankind, of indoctrination, of propaganda, of brainwashing, and the taking away of all liberties and freedoms mankind was born with and should retain until death, against the right to think and live for themselves, against the individual right to personal choice and to own property or safeguard themselves and their families with the ability to own a gun if they so choose.

"Glenn Beck is a mormon, and he takes his marching orders from his ward bishop"

you people are pathetic...and predictable

and ignorant of the facts,

As to "a cult" - no more so than the Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, etc.

–noun 1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. 3. the object of such devotion. 4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

Name me a church that doesn't fit that.

Actually, the LDS church stresses God's greatest gift: FREE WILL - they teach Gospel principles, they don't rule their members

If you click on this link, and then scroll all the way down to the bottom posting, there's LOTS of information.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2570371/posts

M U S L I M S A N D M O R M O N S

Seriously, people should pay attention to the religious LINKS between the LDS and Islam.

JFK IMHO was the last best democratic president in the WH. Yes he was a flawed man who cheated on his wife but politically he was a smart and intelligent man.

But he wasn’t the greatest democrat that ever was in the WH. That honor probably belongs to Truman.

The Greek Orthodox describe Cults also.

CULTS IN AMERICA--"Another definition is: "A cult is a religious perversion. It is a belief and practice in the world of religion which calls for devotion to a religious view or leader centered in false doctrine. It is an organized heresy."

The prevailing doctrine of past and present cults is the gnostic or secret knowledge to attain salvation or perfection that they alone possess. This is evident in early Gnosticism as well as in the nineteenth-century cults such as Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, spiritualism, theosophy and many more."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.