The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
97 votes

Glenn Beck apologizes to libertarians, begs them to welcome new people into the movement

Glenn Beck is upset about how he's received by libertarians. He says we're unwelcoming to newcomers and compares some libertarians to Nazi's. He even goes as far to apologize to libertarians for not knowing about liberty sooner... he's begging us to be nice and teach him and everyone else about liberty.

"Libertarians, I'm begging you... please... see the opportunity you have with 30-60% of the nation... people will come your way."

Glenn Beck famously once called Ron Paul supporters terrorists. In spite of that, he makes some good points about how we treat new people like him, who used to not agree with or even be downright mean to us. I was one of them. This is worth listening to.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


I used to believe that cowering, lying coward who lives on spewing his propaganda and lies for financial gain and power. HE IS A GLOBALIST who prays on the innocent, decent people of our country. Listen to his words and if he doesn't scare the hell out of you then you are not listening. This man called Dr Paul, a true statesman, AND his followers, RACISTS, CRAZY and DANGEROUS! His greed is now showing because he can NOT fool the true Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters because WE SEE RIGHT THROUGHT HIM! I used to believe in Glen Beck, I used to respect him and I used to praise him. Then I WOKE UP and really started listening to what he said. NO MORE!

"Hurt me once, shame on you....Hurt me twice, shame on ME"

This man is dangerous and the sooner the Beck cult
followers realize this, the faster we can join together to save our country.

JustLiberty4US's picture

This cracks me up every time

This cracks me up every time I watch it. A la George Bush:

Just the fact that he'd be willing to vote for Christy

against another liberal is the biggest clue that he is far from understanding this government we have. IF he is waking up, the man hasn't even begun to rub the sleep out of his eyes.

Christy is not an option and neither is Rubio. The fact that he doesn't get this is why I'm not holding my breath. He either has a long long way to go, or he just playing at being a libertarian for what ever reason.

Appology? This is an Appology?

This is Glen Beck defending himself and wining because people don't like him. Wah wah wah. Calling us Nazi's and crazies thinking that will warm us up to him? Why does he need approval to be liberty minded?

As if we aren't inclusive! Palease. Was it not us that have been shunned and excluded from most all media and political parties? Hasn't Glen himself been doing the excluding?

What a whiner jeeze.

Beck get a clue. It takes time to show your quality. By all means be a liberty minded Republican or even a libertarian if you want. You don't need our permission for that. You should realize that People shouldn't be following you. YOu aren't a leader in the liberty movement. YOU DON"T FULLY UNDERSTAND liberty yet. YOu admit you are learning. Fine. But don't expect people to slobber at your feet waiting for your wisdom. By all means, grow. But quit expecting to be an instant guru of libertarianism. I wager you barely understand the basics of the constitution....if that.

He may not be a leader, he

He may not be a leader, he may be just learning, he maybe pandering or lying. I don't know if you read my post below, but what I was trying to say is that he's right. Last years primaries were exhilarating and bitter, but it's time now to shift from war tactics to teaching and marketing tactics. I'm really happy he said this, and I really think we're gaining ground. Even my father, who was about as main line republican as it gets, has come to this understanding. I think that Glen, and Limbaugh, could be great allies. Better allies than enemies, right? What do you think?

We're gaining ground because people are catching the message

We did this..not him. He worked against us.

And no he isn't right..It was greater than 1%..They cheated plain and simple.. We even caught them red handed at it. If we keep the message pure we will gain the 60%.. If we allow it to be weakened and morphed.. the 60% that have been apathetic will see it for what it is and remain so.

I was one of the apathetic. When I heard Dr.Paul's message for the first time, I went to research him to see if he was for real.

When I saw his record and it sank in I cried like a baby many times along the way. That message is what really woke me up. It's the same one I've carried in my heart for as long as I can remember and now it's out in front for all to see.

People like Beck trashed those ideas.

No we teach those that are willing to hear.. We make war with those that weaken the message.

Seriously.. They are in power seats.. why, if they have been against us all of this time would they now be calling for us to let them in.

It's a Trojan Horse. Here's a gift of friendship.. Just open your gates. You have won, we want to show our respect.

Yeah right lol.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Like he said though, he

Like he said though, he trashed the ideas because he didn't understand them. I know so many people like this. I don't ever mean that we should change our principles, that's what is attractive about it. What I'm saying is that we need to change our tone of voice. We're all smart, we're all right, but we also come off like bitter pricks to some people. Just look at some of these post. Everyone said nearly the same thing and it goes something like, "f*ck you, because you hurt us." There are even some that are like Beck is globalist, as if this person thinks, that Beck is disinforming intentionally, because he goes to meetings in robes and masks, and meets with the Bush's, Clinton's, the Royal Family, Jay-Z, Led Zepplin, and the ghost of Anton LaVey. We need to get over our bitterness from the primaries, from the rest of the world marginalizing us, and be the Trojan horse. Just like Beck is saying here, Ron Paul was a Republican. This is the tactic that will work, and we have to stop attacking people who are not 100% in line with us. Who are we reassuring when we do that?

i dont trust him at all, im

i dont trust him at all, im sure when push comes to shove next election when rand needs it help the most mr beck will ditch him. however hes actually atleast on the right track, there really isnt much else on tv or radio for reaching the regular still zombified population. we have the judge who doesnt get on tv for more than a few minutes a day, stossel who even i dont watch and does a terrible job when on bill oreilly.

i think we need to relax and find a new way of thinking. there are two different types of compromise in the context of us getting what we want. the vote for romney type of compromise where things are getting worse so you try to stop the bleeding. i dont believe in this type of compromise to me its kind of like abdicating your rights. for instance with the gun grabbing i have heard people say we should put our own gun control bills but just do them on the lighter side like a 30 round mag ban or let them ban 50 cal ammo or universal background checks. we are essentially giving away rights that will be almost impossible to get back. if you look at the pres of the NRA theres a video of him talking about how we need background checks when he abdicated in the 90s now he basically loses credibility on this issue.
however there is the rand paul compromise, where its no longer about stopping the bleeding its about fixing the problem. i dont agree with everything he says but he actually steps in our direction! when was the last time a president even did that a little bit. he would be on that stage arguing to stop the wars and indiscriminate bombing not who we should bomb. he would argue that we need to cut all spending not which part of the government needs to be the biggest. would everything we or i want changed the way they would if ron was in there? no but things would actually get better! not just moderately worse. and thats what matters that we move in the right direction, because were not going to just appear at our destination.

in other words let beck talk liberty, when hes wrong call him out, when hes right praise him. dont attack, guide. be civil this is how we spread liberty. like my mom always says you get more bees with honey than vinegar.

Here is something to think

Here is something to think about, and you're right by the way.... Have you ever realized how democrats never attack each other? The reason is progressive liberalism knows its leading both parties, and the only one that must correct itself is the republicans. They are using the harmonic disonance to tear apart the republican party. Republicans have to go back and compromise their principles everytime a new issue is brought up. Those who disagree are now not only out of step with the party, the are portrayed by the media as being out of step with reality. I've been watching this happen for years now. So like saying "I agree with Rand because he's really come around, and even though I don't agree with him on everything, he's still like a B+ in my book," is what is causing the problem. When, and I don't know this for sure, but it seems like Rand isn't intentionally 100% in line with you, because he' wants to nullify the ability of the media and the parties, to portray us as lunatics. He endorsed Mitt to gain ground for us, and not leave us marginalized. And he's doing a great job at that. That's why I like Rand better than Ron (I love them both), because Rand is craftier and not as blunt. He's mainlining the message and Paul's supporters seem less and les like cult followers of some old guy, and more and more like leaders in true conservatism.

I think he's right. Here is why.

The liberty movement as we know may seem as old as the founding fathers, but in our present time it is relatively new. We think that it is so obvious that it is a given and that all "conservatives" should understand it as such. What we are failing to see is that the movement has arisen from a need. Maybe we realize this, but the realization takes a back seat to its apparentness. We're forgetting that we have the upper hand if we are trying to radically change the republican party, which is doable, but if we are merely putting forth our principles as an ultimatum (or manifesto); if we claim to have no ties to any political party or even having interest in mass appeal, we're lunatics.

Lots of us like to think of ourselves as guerilla warriors. It's romantic. Believe me, when my girlfriend and I were driving to Indiana to dupe voters into voting for liberty delegates, i felt more like Bonnie and Clyde, or Abbie Hoffman, than I did being a member of a political party. That last primary season was very exciting... the most excited I have ever felt about American politics and human history ever! It was huge! For as exciting as it was, it was also galvanizing and ruthless. We unfortunately did not get what we wanted, yet look at what we did, and what we continue to do. Glen Beck is right, and he could be an incredible ally. If we get Beck, we'll get Limbaugh.

We have to stop looking at this as a war now. The primaries are over. And though the scars have formed bitter wounds, we must be the bigger man. Listen, I have not always been libertarian. It was my girlfriend who turned me on to it, like last year. My first impression of libertarians came from a college student who was saying thing that seemed very intellectual. When I disagreed with him out of not knowing anything, he immediately became very pretentious. That's the problem! Had I not met my girlfriend, I would be just as clueless, and maybe a touch more jaded about libertarianism. Who knows? So, like Beck is saying, we need to change our stance from warrior to teacher. We should think of ourselves as marketing managers. We are almost there!

Phxarcher87's picture

i could see how a TROLL could try and use this topic to divide

I will remain open but reserved on my opinion.

One thing i do find in agreement is i will be supporting rand in 2016
as of now.

That is unless Dr. Paul Sr. saddles back up!!!!!

James Madison

He's welcome to join

but don't expect us to trust you Glen!

RP R3VOLution

Do You Remember ...

When Sean Hannity started to loose all his ratings after making some outlandish statements a number of years ago? He whined and whimpered and softened his nationalist lean... then slowly worked his way back using half truths until he could begin brainwashing his listeners back into believing in BLIND flag waving nationalism (socialism).

He now has people actually believing that if you do not pay an UN-Constitutional income tax, that you do not pay taxes at all! And are Unpatriotic! (even if you pay taxes placed on products, property taxes, burden of taxes transfered by producers on products, gas taxes... nope, if you don't pay an Unconstitutional unenumerated income tax... you are a unpatriotic bum that pays no taxes at all!)

And but by golly, promotes carrying a copy of the Constitution!

Yet, if you actually read the Ratifying Conventions that define the meaning of the Constitution ...well, THEN you were a Ron Paul radical! haha!

You think Glen Beck different? The man with little opinion?....(so that you will keep giving him yours)

Apparently they don't want anyone to read these statements:

James Madison - Virginia Resolution 1798:

In Full:

"...That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their DUTY to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the "ONLY BASIS" of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness....

...That the General Assembly doth also express its DEEP REGRET, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to "enlarge its powers by FORCED CONSTRUCTIONS" of the constitutional charter which "DEFINES" them; and that implications have appeared of a "DESIGN" to "EXPOUND" certain >>>"GENERAL "PHRASES" (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued)


and so as to CONSOLIDATE the states by DEGREES, into "ONE SOVEREIGNTY"


the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to >>>"TRANSFORM" the present "REPUBLICAN" system of the United States,

into "an absolute", or "at best" a mixed >>>"MONARCHY".... "


or the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

In Full:

Mr. PENDLETON. "Mr. Chairman, this (supremacy - sweeping) clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution,(N)or to make ANY REGULATION that may affect the interests of the citizens of the Union at large......

...With respect to the necessity of the TEN MILES SQUARE (Washington, DC - Federal Government) being superseded by the subsequent (sweeping - Supremacy) clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the "foregoing" powers, and "all other powers "VESTED" by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,

I understand that CLAUSE as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers".

What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED" powers,but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the "PLAIN LANGUAGE" of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."

American Patriot Party.CC


Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Don't know what kind of pathetic socialistic tramp

would vote down your words here but I voted you up. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Thankyou! Maybe Glen Beck is a Closet Daily Pauler...

Hannity Maybe? ... You just can never tell...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

My Liberty is too precious to take

a chance with the likes of them. As for closet readers, I'm sure they do, why not keep tabs on us. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I was thinking in the line of "Visiting Saboteurs"

Following the adage.

"Keeping their friends close, and their enemies closer."

Something we should think about as well...

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

If you're speaking as we should follow that idea

I'm against it and it reminds me of people that keep wild animals as pets. It's dangerous and irresponsible.

I remember a guy in Jacksonville Florida that had a Boa for a pet.. He raised it from a baby and it grew to a huge size.. He felt safe.. in control I'm sure.

He awoke one night to a sharp pain in his right leg.. Startled to see the snakes head up half past his kneecap. The snake was trying to digest his ass.

Playing political games with known snakes is always a bad idea.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Only to the point of being watchful;

Certainly not to mingle, or even being perceived to mingle.

Your comparison on that point is correct and I agree.

However keeping a close watchful eye upon their actions, ears to their words and listing those they associate with, can prove valuable defense; and to warn us of their future plans and stratagem;

The ability to timely uncover and reveal their corruption to the rest of the public through such media; such as the Daily Paul as with others, Can prove (and has proven) to be a valuable practice in educating others and turning the tables on them.

American Patriot Party.CC


RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

The Drag Queen - The Drunk - The Pill Head

Ann Coulter - Glenn Beck - Rush Limbaugh

The three stooges try to deal with the fact that they have become irrelevant.

Natural Order

Does "Ann" Coulter have natural born children?

Have you ever seen her Adam's apple?

I'm not joking here.

did he cry?

Would have been more convincing. Like when he faked cried for the magazine cover shot.

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within" W. Durant

Me: The movement has many

Me: "The movement has many smug and arrogant people."

Response: "Don't be a fool..."


"A true competitor wants their opponent at their best." Lao Tzu

You: Disingenuous

Your post:

I agree with him. There's a lot of smug and arrogant people in the movement. Just because someone isn't an anarcho-capitalist or as pure a libertarian as we'd like, doesn't mean they don't help the cause by bringing to the attention of millions, various key principles of liberty.

My reply which you never replied to and just grabbed a line that suited your agenda:

And what would someone that didn't carry
Submitted by rp4pres on Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:50. Permalink

the core principles of Libertarianism bring to the people?

War with Iran?

Don't be a fool.

Maybe you just don't get what would happen if we weren't so careful. It may happen anyway because of people like you..

I am open to new people coming in..what I'm not open to is them bringing their ideas of "lesser Liberty" is better.

They can remain socialist as long as they truly understand that they cannot force others to participate in their ideology. To someone like you I'm sure that seems ironic as well... Should we give way to socialistic ideas and change to their ways? Uh no...I want everyone to get what they want but they must be denied it if it means taking mine from me because mine is the path that gives them what they want while I get what I want.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

No thanks. -1Has Beck

No thanks.


Has Beck ever apologized to Debra Medina?

Debbie's picture

Good point. No, he has not, and never will.

He showed his true colors there.


I have been a libertarian for

I have been a libertarian for about 20 years, and I have always just been by myself, practicing and believing in the cause of liberty, like Paul, on my own. Never forced anyone to accept what I believed or dismissed people that were curious or wanted to change their old ways.

But when I deicded to "join" a bigger movement, the so-called re_LOVEution, I have to say although there have been many great and mindful people in this, there is equally as many obnoxious, unforgiven, self-destructive, self-righteous, people.

This probably won't ever change, because it has been a constant complain from so many over the last 4-5 years since Paul really took off, and this is DESPITE Ron Paul doing and behaving the quite opposite (you can learn something). One example is the people that believe certain "conspiracy theories" if you do not agree you are part of the conspiracy or a "plant."

It is this fringe fraction of the libertarians, mostly younger newcomers from what I see that take this zealot position of absolutism and you cannot reason or rhyme with them, because then you are just a "troll" "neocon" or like I said, a "plant."

There are legitimate issues people can disagree over. Even debate facts and evidence on issues, but it is the self-destructive nature among some that is just astonishing to me. For example, on this beck issue, if Tom Woods, or Ron Paul came out and said they were happy to see him change, the same people would vote it up instead of down.

This is a very small movement that doesn't even break 1-3 million votes each cycle and here we have people isolating others from letting it grow bigger.

I'm sure this will be voted down too, which just proves my point. I don't care or even watch O'Reilly, Hannity, beck, Maddow, Matthews or whatever on TV, because I don't have a TV, but I'll be dammed if I am going to tell any of those, IF they were willing to learn more or join the liberty movement, to stay away because of their past short comings, no matter what they did. That included Karl Rove or whoever. You wanna join or learn more, I say come on in...

Some of you say get on out and that is where I find this movement fail unfortunately.....

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

All of what you say is true, but ..... doesn't make Beck a good guy or one we should welcome.

They are two separate issues and need to be treated separately.

Beck is using that issue as a wedge to try to sneak himself in.

So, logically speaking:

Are there arrogant, brash, stupid, sometimes nazi-like fascist hypocrites in the movement claiming to be libertarians?


Does that mean we should welcome Beck in. NOT ON YOUR F* *KING LIFE

These are two completely separate and unrelated issues.

"mostly younger newcomers from what I see"

"This is a very small movement that doesn't even break 1-3 million votes each cycle and here we have people isolating others from letting it grow bigger."

That is only what is permitted. "A little hope is effective. A lot of hope is dangerous."

Turnouts numbering into the thousands. Delegates locked out and stripped of credentials, fingers broken, hip dislocated. msm blockout. Ron Paul was undisputed in 2010. The numbers are there. Had it run its course naturally and honestly...

Brian, do not lose all hope. There are many others beside the young generation. I am but one of them :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

To be honest with you I lost

To be honest with you I lost hope before I identified myself as a libertarian until I saw Ron Paul in 2007, but even that hope was just a pipe-dream because I think what most of us are guilty of is surrounding ourselves with juts libertarians and thus creating an illusion for ourselves that the movement is much bigger than it actually si, then getting disappointed when there isn't enough votes or people that support us.

What is more hopeless is the kind of eating ourselves that I see so much among libertarians. We don't see that in the democrats or even mostly in republicans, because it really gets you nowhere. Disagreement is fine, but not to the point where it gets so personal you push people away and destroy a movement before it gets started.

Do I stop the belief in liberty? No. Does it turn me off to be part of some of this movement? Yes.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...