Glenn Beck Scares Academics

I have been touting the virtues and deriding the less so about Mr. Beck for quite a while now. Beck has become more controversial than Limbaugh, and that's a real mean feat. Why is Beck so disliked and by whom?

Of course the rank and file liberal hates him because the things he says calls into question nearly every tenet of liberal thought. His economic lessons anger them because the facts he tirelessly researches and presents totally debunk so much of liberal dogma in that field. His history lessons do the same - they take the liberal spin and expose the talking points to the genuine facts, and that's another tick mark against Beck.

But his best work I think is in exposing education in this nation as an entirely liberal enterprise. Of course he angers all the same folks for this actions but where it gets really good to me is that the education system is exposed for what it is - an agenda driven industry that has a stranglehold on truth.

Education must be neutral with no point of view advanced in any way. For the conservative educator, all three or four of them in the entire nation, this is hard because to present educational facts about history, economy and basically all the social sciences is difficult. Why, you ask?

Because the dogma of education is entirely liberal in it's positioning, therefore to counter the ingrained liberal positioning is in and of itself seen as playing politics. It is easy to write off proven factual concepts by claiming they are political efforts by conservatives trying to mislead kids and taint the pool of facts. By the very nature of the left/right dichotomy, any disagreement with a lefty is political, even when in truth the disagreement can be 100% shown to be a conservative's total wedding to facts and none to spin. I'll provide and example.

I argued recently, and very well might I add, the Nazi's were without doubt NOT in anyway conservative, but as the Nazi's are National Socialist German Worker's Party, they are socialists! But I had a commentator disagree that just because their name had socialist in it did not make them socialists.

Nazi's were indeed socialists and I did a compare and contrast between the Marxist Bolsheviks under the USSR, the Nazi's and American conservatism. In only one area - nationalism - can American conservatives and Nazi's be even remotely linked, but since the USSR was an extremely nationalist ideology, it seems nationalism is not a sufficient connection to prove their liberal point and denigration - that conservatives and Nazi's are two sides of the same coin. I totally debunked the leftist mantra in this regard. I cited at least15 other similarities of Bolshevism and Nazism and clearly showed those similarities ARE NOT what American conservatives believe or accept.

Now what the foregoing has to do with my thesis is this: the factual argument I presented was not a partisan one, but lefties will paint it as such to then justify their ignoring the facts. This is what happens to Beck too.

No matter how much documentation to support his presentations of fact, because Beck is a partisan Commie hater (me too), his arguments against the education system are dismissed as politics when the truth is it is factual history that just HAPPENS to completely debunk the lefty spin. Are y'all getting me here?

Beck has lately been driving to the hoop to counter the progressive written history that our Founders - Washington and others - were Deists and not actually religious, God fearing men. This "Deist" mantra has been pushed by progressive writers since the turn of the last century. But what do the PRIMARY sources indicate?

When we read Washington's own words and speeches he was indeed a God fearing man and not at all a Deist believing in the "Blind Watchmaker" theories that God flipped a switch and walked away. And for Beck's proving through the use of scholarly works and primary sources, he has demonstrated his case beyond any reasonable doubt. I mean if Washington called himself "God fearing" who the Hell can ever come along later and claim otherwise? Only a liar, the uninformed as to fact or those with a political axe to grind.

Conservatives are way behind the eight ball here, but the why's of it are inexplicable to me. I have long argued that conservatism IS NOT an ideology at all but merely a wedding of fact to one's political hopes. I do not care WHAT the facts are, but I need to know them, unvarnished, untainted and accurate.

I have also screamed from the mountain tops that IF Marxist thought were PROVEN to be the best way for Man to organize society, I would be a Marxist, for truth and fact are not allowed to be weighted by merit. The truth is the truth. If the numbers of Marxist economy were proof of superior delivery and mitigation of the Human condition, I would be screaming the joys of Marxism, but the history does not in any way support the claims of Marx, nor the claims of those who fantasize that Marxism is the superior way to live.

On the other hand, the system of autonomy and limited government installed by our Founder's has been nearly flawless in its delivery. Now of course the naysayer screams "The recession happened under Bush's watch." And that is true, but I fail to recall any mention that any political system will never have cyclic economy.

Cycles of boom and bust happen in Marxist systems too, so what is the lefty point here? The cyclic nature of weather, politics, economy, and all the rest is the nature of the world - has been since two men traded the first thing that ever comprised Human economic interaction. But for the leftist mantra to hold water they must scream "it is the capitalist system to blame!" That's unmitigated BS because Marxist systems have the exact same cycles of climate, economy and politics too.

Look across the Pond at the EU. They are tossing out socialists and electing conservatives all over the place. Why? Because the socialist economies of the EU are gong through rough times. But I thought that wasn't possible to hear a lefty tell it? This proves the lefty mouthpiece is dishonest or clueless as to the facts. When the day comes that socialist economies go on banging away while the US dwaddles in the doldrums, THEN and ONLY THEN will I grant them their talking point as having any merit. Thus far in my considerable studies of this topic, there is NO there there - NONE!

Beck and conservatives do have an uphill struggle to make folks see the facts as opposed to blithely accepting the things the educational system has allowed them to learn. What to make of the Texas school book controversy? Liberals have been running the school systems and teacher's unions since the 1960's and since that time our educational system's results have been is steep decline, no? We always hear a lefty decrying the testing scores of American kids in the public systems.

The crying lefty will argue that American's are undereducated compared to the rest of the industrialized world due to conservatism in some way. How might that be considering progressives have been deciding the curricula, the testing and have controlled the teacher's unions for more than 40 years. So if American education is lacking, maybe we should look at those who decide the curricula, the things kids are taught, how they are tested and who controls the hiring and firing of teachers, etc? Isn't this almost transparent in clarity?

In Texas the school book deal became inflamed because now conservatives control the boards deciding what will be in the Texas public school books, so progressive's are going nuts because they have lost one of, if not the most important of all, fundamental powers they possessed - the ability to determine WHAT our kids would learn as the truth about history, politics, social structure and economy.

Considering so much of the progressive teaching was first and foremost political in deciding what to teach, boy are they now screaming from the rooftops! Did ya hear that prior to this blowing up into national news someone had proposed adopting American history books to begin in 1877? That is after Reconstruction and interestingly enough, just about the time progressivism began to rise in this nation. Progressivism is the all-American version of Marxism. Odd connection, no?

The education system attacks Beck because the facts he demonstrates are beyond doubt correct. Even a writer at Huffington Post, and NO, not a blogger, but a paid HuffPo writer, last week said "It's not that Beck is wrong, because he's not, but it's his attributing as to the conclusions he reaches that are flawed." (paraphrased) This would seem the appropriate place for a well placed Hmmmmm . . . . So even those who hate the facts now are slithering from the woodwork to admit that Beck's facts are above reproach, they just don't like his conclusions based upon the facts. Fine, that's politics, but at least SOME lefties are manning up and acknowledging that BECK IS NOT LYING.

What does all this mean? Well, it means truth will overtake progressive wishes. It means progressives will grow more desperate and inflammatory in their denigrations because their positioning is being exposed for what it seems to be - a blatant attempt to filter and control facts that present other interpretations, all in order to forward their predisposed progressive bias.

When facts are presented using only primary sources it seems most everything maintained by progressive educators is lacking a telling of the whole truth. They conveniently reinterpret the primary sources or just leave them out entirely in teaching our students. The history of American education is that before the lefties got hold of the teacher's unions, curricula and tenure tracks at schools and universities, Americans were the best educated society in the entire world, yet since WWII and the total taking over of American education by progressive thinkers, we are in decline in that area.

For any interpretive discipline ALL THE FACTS and ALL THE PRIMARY sources must be used and fairly represented. It is fodder for those with an ideological desire to do otherwise, for if they can pick and choose what should and should not be taught and how it should be presented, and from what starting point, the misery and total ignorance as to facts will be the results.

When any entity can arbitrarily decide to teach American history beginning 270 years AFTER the first permanent English settlement (Jamestown, 1607), that had better be a huge clue to one that something foul is afoot. But in truth, it is a great way to make sure the Founding concepts of individual autonomy, capitalism and especially those of Constitutionally limited government are not taught to our children and that is the EXACT recipe for then teaching that our nation was founded by rich old white slave owners out to make money for themselves, no?

Now show that anything I have stated is inaccurate. Show me what time line I have wrong or misrepresented. Prove, with facts and evidence, that the US education system was in decline BEFORE progressives started running it entirely sine the 1960's. Let's see it. I await it eagerly.