Posted on 09/15/2009 6:20:51 PM PDT by HorowitzianConservative
In the recent dialogue between David Frum and David Horowitz about the place of Glenn Beck and other bold talkers in the Conservative Movement Frum shot out a claim which threw Horowitz off guard:
Third – how do we define “our side”? Horowitz harshly condemns Obama appointee Van Jones. Van Jones was eventually forced to resign not because of any of the allegations Glenn Beck hurled at him, but because the Gateway Pundit blog unearthed evidence that Van Jones had consorted with 9/11 denialists. So that’s the other side, right? Except… the American politician who most closely associates with 9/11 denialists is Congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul. And who acts as Paul’s chief TV enthusiast and publicist? Glenn Beck of course.Horowitz was puzzled by Frum's charge that Beck embraced the embarrassing Paul:
Ron Paul is a crackpot, a conspiracy nut and a public menace. His crank views of the economy have a lot of Republicans snookered enough to ignore the fact that he is an anti-Semite and an America-hater — fundamentally at odds with America’s role in the world as the guardian of freedom. I have to confess that I am not familiar with Beck’s promotion of Paul. If David wants to engage this I would have to review Beck’s statements about Paul first.So let's review Beck's statements on Paul a bit and see if Frum was correct in grouping Beck with the kooks of the Whack-Job Right.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
I’ve always got the vibe that Beck is in the Romney camp.
No but he also agrees, Paul is a far cry better for the economy than a lot of them out there.
Thanks for posting that!
I love Horowitz, and his warnings need to be heeded, but I don’t follow his thought process on this one. Not that I agree with Frum on anything.
Thank you, too, some rational thought always helps.
Anything said by Axis of Weasels boy David Frum should be discounted.
And then ridiculed.
[If you want to believe Ron Paul nonsense; such as: the Israelis attacked the World Trade Center, go ahead. But don’t try to deny that he is an antisemite. ]
Can you post credible sources for the assertion that Ron Paul is an anti-Semite or that he believes the Israelis attacked the WTC? The only “sources” I’ve been able to find are nonsense ramblings from kook web sites.
AMEN , marron
Only to RINO’s who want to eliminate him as any kind of competition.
I’d like to see that too.
What IF he were, he’s still doing a damned good job of rooting out and exposing the evil taint that has corrupted our government for decades. That’s a lot more than most of the people who purport to be on OUR side are doing.
Whether he is a “follower” of Ron Paul or not, we’re VERY lucky to have a man like Glenn Beck working day and night to salvage The Republic.
Where do you get that Ron Paul believes this..?
I haven’t anywhere; if you are confusing Ron Paul with the crazy 911 Truther’s (who sometimes are followers of Ron Paul because tend to be libertarians), then you must recheck your ears, because Ron Paul (from what I have been told) does not believe in that stuff, and infact-rejects it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Slander_and_libel
"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[6] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel."
Don't worry, I'm sure the Anti-Defamation League is on the case!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
"In law, defamation–also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification–is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image."
Correction, Michael Savage goes after both Liberals and Conservative to. Unlike Beck, Savage is not feared, he is hated.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
“Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”
I agree with you. I’ll add that he seems to lift quite a bit of material from Mark Levin’s book without credit. Does he credit anyone but himself? The blogosphere deserves much of the credit that Beck reaps on himself. He has a high profile to get the stuff out which is great. I find his self-backslapping and dramatics, not to mention his delivery, a real turn off too.
You can’t be serious with that link. Even the author of that obvious hit piece admits that he doesn’t think Ron Paul wrote any of the questionable material - he just makes the spurious case that to share any kind of association in a publication with others who would write something that could be construed as bigotry is the same thing as writing it yourself and makes you a bigot.
How about actually reading from the huge amount of written material that Ron Paul actually wrote himself to judge the man’s beliefs?
Your claim appears to be wrong according to this interview (and others I have found)
He denies the “Truther” claims but rightly condemns parts of the 911 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihCP3cfS88E
What do you think about the Israelis that were found celebrating the collapse of the WTC? Were they antisemetic as this probably set back relations with Israel more than any other single event except, perhaps, the USS Liberty
At this point in time, I would trade Oscumo for Ron Paul.
Your falsified, truncated quotation is the functional equivalent of a lie.
You intentionally misquoted TNR’s hit piece, to make it seem to prove your previous defamatory claims.
You left off the beginning of the sentence which established that the newsletter was discussing the 1993 WTC attack, *NOT* 9/11 Truth WRT shady ‘moving companies,’ ‘art students,’ and DEA reports announcing Israeli infiltration.
What a low-down, scummy thing to do. Shame on you! Have you no Honor, Sir?
If not, I hear Maxine Waters wants help probing birthers and teabaggers for racist views....
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.