Now not to pick a fight with the Big Lizard, but I think it’s entirely unfair of him to lump Beck in with Spencer and Geller. Spencer and Geller are clearly duplicitous crap weasels flirting with eurofascists. Beck is just a self-affirmed rodeo clown and drama queen who’s sins are a product of overexuberance. He’s sloppy and pretentious. Not my cup of tea, but hardly in the same camp as the others. So I have a specific question for Charles…as far as I can tell, the only works of Skousen that he has ever endorsed are Making America and The 5000 Year Leap. Both are largely inoffensive if overly sentimental and generalized histories of America’s founding.

Now let’s assume that the only Skousen Beck knows is the Skousen of these books and his later years, the respected religion professor who recanted much of his earlier views, especially those on race. I can’t be sure of this, but I think this is the most logical view.

Given that assumption, what exactly in those books are so objectionable? Has anyone ever heard Beck quote the 1960 Bircher defending Skousen? If I’m wrong, I’ll relent, but I don’t think I am.

I think you’re misreading Glenn on this point (perhaps all of his Ron Paul pimping negates this point, but I don’t think so.) Martin Luther was a piece of anti-semitic work (as were many other great writers.) If I endorse one of Martin Luther’s works, am I an anti-semite? I don’t think so. Likewise I don’t think you can paint Glenn with all of Skousen’s sins (many of which he repented from, but that’s another issue.)