.jpg)
Glenn Beck strikes a nerve with Dems and Republicans
Earlier this week, I wrote an article that claimed that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are beginning to be used as a potential "bogeyman" to be marginalized in political discourse. Today, I will present Examiner Ryan Witt's article about Glenn Beck as "Exhibit A."
Radio and television host (and fellow Latter-day Saint) Glenn Beck has been the focus of a firestorm in the past week. His approach to challenge the Obama Administration and the media has been ingenious. He has simply assembled a list of questions that should be answered by the Administration and inquired as to why the media isn't asking them. He has not drawn any conclusion, allowing his viewers and listeners to take the facts at face value. He has asked the Administration for a cogent, alternate explanation. So far, the only facts that they have "refuted" are the nature of the titles of various individuals, insisting that they should be called "special advisors," not "czars."
These individuals have been appointed by the president without oversight from Congress. They are unaccountable to the elected representatives of the people. They exercise power and authority that is not granted in the Constitution. The appointment of these individuals skirts around the FBI's vetting process, which is how they would normally obtain a security clearance and access to classified government information. Glenn Beck has simply revealed that several of these individuals have public information available through their writings and speeches that indicate that they have criminal backgrounds and have been members of radical, communist organizations.
One of the standard questions one is asked when he is vetted for a position of public trust, whether that be enlisting in the armed forces or assuming elected office is whether the individual has ever belonged to an organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by violent means. If the answer to that question is yes, they will be excluded from service and, more particularly, be denied access to classified information. I spent years in the intelligence services of our country. I know what the vetting process is like for access to sensitive information. This process has been subverted and the White House is doing its own vetting because none of these individuals would otherwise pass the background investigation.
All Glenn Beck has done is to raise the questions. None of the a priori facts about the background of these individuals has been challenged by the White House. Instead, their response has been to engage their loyalists in ad hominem attacks on Glenn Beck himself. Beck readily admits that he is a recovering alcoholic and that his past was far from exemplary. Nevertheless, he has shown great honesty, courage, and moral character, which has been the foundation of his recovery. Most offensive to latter-day saints have been the attacks against his religion.
Today's article by Ryan Witt, the Political Buzz Examiner, engaged in character assassination, not only against Glenn Beck, but also latter-day saints in general. This is a form of bigotry. Were such generalizations to be made against another religious or ethnic group, such as Jews, Muslims, or African-Americans, there would surely be protests lodged.
Witt wrote:
"First, using Beck's logic we could say that he is a big believer in excessive drug use. After all, Beck has admitted to a past filled with alcohol and substance abuse. Beck also recently interviewed Rush Limbaugh who also admitted to the abuse of controlled substances. Clearly if we follow Beck's logic he believes in the free use of currently illegal substances and a drug-based culture."
The present conduct of Glenn Beck clearly shows that he does not advocate substance abuse. Beck works as a volunteer with an addiction recovery group today, assisting others in overcoming their addictions. This assertion does nothing to negate the fact that Van Jones was a self-avowed, militant, communist radical, Inasmuch as Beck has turned away from alcohol addiction and discourages others from doing the same, should we not ask Van Jones if he has disavowed his communist past and teaches others to avoid the dangers of such harmful political ideals? Or unlike Beck, is Jones still an unrepentant radical?
Witt's second point:
"Secondly, based on Beck's past we must assume he is opposed to traditional family values. Beck divorced his first wife partially due to his substance abuse. Beck's previous friendly interviews with Mark Sanford demonstrate his complete disregard for the sanctity of marriage. Clearly, based on Beck's logic we can assume he does not believe the traditional family unit to be an essential part of the American way of life."
Again, Witt makes Beck's past more relevant than his present. Beck has openly admitted his faults, tearfully at times. There is clear evidence of his attempts to make things right with his loved ones and his God. Since his initial "friendly interviews," Beck has openly criticized Sanford since the revelations of his marital infidelity and his misuse of the office of governor. Are we to blame Beck because he did not have some psychic ability to discern that the man was a moral hypocrite? The argument that Beck's "logic" leads us to assume that he doesn't believe in the traditional family is absurd. Liberals would protest a militant right-winger's propensity to judge everything that the late Senator Ted Kennedy accomplished by what occurred in Chappaquiddick. Are we to assume that a person is incapable of self-improvement, regret, and repentance? If there is no forgiveness for faults, particularly those committed in our youth, then no one would ever qualify for a position of trust, much less eternal salvation.
Witt's final point is an overt display of bigotry.
"Finally, based upon Beck's logic we can also question his past with the Church of Latter Day Saints. The church has been criticized by some for its past associations with polygamy. Some critics claim the church also holds racist beliefs. If we can assume the worst about Van Jones can we not also assume the worst about Glenn Beck based upon our worst assumptions of the Church of Latter Day Saints (even false allegations)?"
All this point displays is a narrow-minded prejudice against a religion that is nearly as large as the entire Jewish population in the world. Did not ancient Hebrew prophets practice polygamy? Did they not hold the opinion that they were a chosen people above all others? Were those beliefs not racist? Do Jews come under similar condemnation from Mr. Witt? Religions evolve over time. At times they are militant. At times they moderate. At times, new revelation comes that brings greater understanding. The continuum of faith does not exclude progress. Nevertheless, if religion can provide ammunition for a politically expedient attack, Ryan Witt is willing to set aside fairness and indulge in the stereotyping of 13 million latter-day saints. If his reasoning is to be granted any credence whatsoever, the underlying assumption is that any citizen who belongs to any religion may have his opinions summarily dismissed by reason of his faith.
In Mr. Witt's summation, he states:
"Some will say I am comparing apples and oranges. To those people I would simply say if you believe my attacks on Glenn Beck are a bogus manipulations of facts (which they are) then you also must concede the attacks on Van Jones are a stretch from reality. If you accept Beck's logic you must also accept the same logic used against Beck."
The purposeful use of bigotry and character assassination, only to obsequiously disavow it is an act of moral cowardice on Mr. Witt's part. He has displayed his prejudice and seeks afterward to hide his contempt for latter-day saints, claiming it was just a rhetorical device. Again, let me reiterate, the White House has not denied the a priori biographical information on Van Jones or any of the other radical czars that Glenn Beck has revealed. The facts speak for themselves, that's why character assassination on Beck is the only tool available to them.
Glenn Beck has not advanced any explanations of these various facts. He has yet to draw any conclusions and has repeatedly invited the White House to provide an alternative explanation of these things. Glenn Beck has allowed his audience, some three million strong, to see the truth and draw their own conclusions. If the administration's supporters are comfortable with having dedicated, radical communists advising the President of the United States, yet they are uncomfortable with having the facts about these appointees exposed, it says something about them that is not at all reassuring to the rest of us.
As for Mr. Witt, he needs to be more circumspect when airing his prejudices in print and realize that bigotry against latter-day saints is every bit as offensive as when such sentiments are directed towards Jews or other faiths. Concerning Glenn Beck, I echo his message that, if Americans don't "awake[n] to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you" (Ether 8:24) we may very well see the collapse of our Republic. Glenn Beck is sounding the alarm, and those who wish to destroy our liberty are not happy about it. In the process, the enemies of freedom will use his religion as a "bogeyman" to persuade others from listening to verifiable, objective facts about them.
For more info:
The Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism
Glenn Beck: Reasonable questions for unreasonable times
David Horowitz (Frontpagemag.com)
Comments
Absolutely agree. Why is Glen Beck the only person asking these questions? What has happened to the media in the US? The fact that the only response has been personal attacks on Mr Beck while remaining silent on the questions raised actually speaks volumes. Wake up America!!
Thank You Greg West! I cannot tell you how great it is to read something in the Examiner written by a sane, rational human being. All Glenn Beck does is present evidence and facts backed up by documents and/or recordings and asks questions. Every article that I read against Beck only badmouths him and NEVER present any FACTS to refute Becks findings (AKA that ridiculous article by Ryan Witt). Even the White House wont give anyone a straight answer on anything. Thank you again Mr. West and please keep writing-the Examiner needs people like you who are willing to write without bias and speak the truth. PS- Examiner, any more nonsense crap from these anti-Beck people needs to be backed up with FACTS or you should no publish it. I would gladly read an article that proved Beck is wrong or whatever as long as they have a legit argument backed up by FACTS!
He's the only one in the media asking these questions because he's the only one in the media who has a serious mental health problem. I mean, others in the media may have problems, but they're not this serious. They guys a loon.
Dude. Your a loon. Did you even read his article? Including the part
"Let me be clear I do not believe these statements. I am simply using them to demonstrate the kind of absurd statements you must accept if you also accept Beck's guilt by association and guilt by past logic."
Wow so asking questions that as yet have still not been answered gains one the label of a "loon" or "a person with a serious mental health issue" - isn't the right to free speech amazing!! I wonder how citizens would react if that right was taken away?
here is an alternate explanation for why Glenn Beck "Glenn Beck has been the focus of a firestorm": he alleged on national televison that the President of the United States has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Who could possibly defend someone says such a thing?
"Again, Witt makes Beck's past more relevant than his present."
People's past being more relevant than their present is Beck's entire platform.
Hypocrites being hypcritical of hypocrites... no wonder logic is such a lost cause on your type.
Glen Beck is brave. He understands that instead of answers to his questions he will get personally attacked and yet he goes on. Let the man think and instead of passionatly attacking him passionatly answer the questions. It will be better for you and for your fellow american.
nyp: If you want to understand what I am about or what my policies are about you need to look to the people around me - hmm I wonder who said that!! Do the research!!
The fact that people actually watch and beleive everything this man says is amazing and quite scary to be honest!! Just goes to show that there are a lot of idiots in american!! The sad thing is that everyone gets a vote!! There should be an some kind of IQest before they allow you to vote...
Sandi:
1. I suppose I am simply too lazy to figure out who your quotation is from or what it has to with Glenn Back's allegation that the President of the United States has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Could you please enlighten us?
2. Do you happen to agree with Mr. Beck that the President of the United States has a "deep-seated hatred of white people"?
Glenn Beck is a lying, hateful lunatic. The fact that he's Mormon is beside the point. Stop trying to play the Mormon Persecution card.
nyp: Those words were spoken by President Obama. My point is that if people did look at the people around him (including the czars) they may see something worth questioning. Insofar as Mr Beck's comment is concerned perhaps he could have "calibrated those words differently" again another quote from President Obama.
Why in the world does this buffoon think he is entitled to have the President of the United State answer to HIM? That in itself shows what in egomaniacal nutcase he is.
As usual the leftists always get upset when someone practices free speech (remember that right?) in this country when it is in conflict with their stalinist beliefs. I remember all wo well when Bush was called every name in the book and actually blamed for causing global warming. If Obama can't take the heat he better get out of the kitchen as they say.
Dude. Your a loon. Did you even read his article? Including the part
"Let me be clear I do not believe these statements. I am simply using them to demonstrate the kind of absurd statements you must accept if you also accept Beck's guilt by association and guilt by past logic."
Sandi - questioning authority is a good thing (although the bit about "czars" is pretty loopy.) Stating on national TV that the President of the United States "deep-seated hatred of white people" is not a good thing. It is reprehensible. And defending the speaker by saying only that he "could have calibrated those words differently [with] another quote from President Obama" is also not a good thing. What callebration should he have done? What should he have said about the President's attitude toward white Americans?
Let's discuss Barack Obama's "hatred of white people". I wouldn't go that far, but I do believe he is prejudiced against white people. Why else would he assume that Sgt. Crowley was at fault, when, in fact it was Prof. Gates who was out of control, disrespecting Sgt. Crowley's mother, and accusing the Sgt. of being a racist. Anyone who prejudges someone on the color of their skin is a racist. Barack Obama - in this case you were a racist.
A
Also, Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed a case against Philadelphia Black Panthers who were intimidating voters who "might not vote for Barack". Why did Holder dismiss the case which was sure to result in a conviction.
Is racism rampant in the Obama administration? Yes.
With regard to Glenn Beck and his discussion of Van Jones:
If Van Jones had a turning point at which he denounced the radical group he was involved with and became a truly changed human being, please show us that turning point.
Beck's logic isn't faulty. Since when is it illogical to question? The faulty logic belongs to Van Jones's supporters who apparently accept and defend whomever Obama appoints simply because Obama appointed them.
It does seem interesting that all of the criticism of Mr Beck is personal. Completely ignoring his questions? I wonder why no one is criticising his questions, or commenting on them. I would like to know why we need an additional security force as well.
America needs to awake up and see things as they really are! The media is not playing "Harball" with Obama at all. They are selling him to the American people in cups,dolls and coins! Please people, this is America, we are suspose to ask questions to our government both republican and democrat!~ "We the people" are responsible for who we elect! So don't defend someone who is not willing to give us the straight answers not just what we would like to hear! Let's make sure we get the "truth" from our Congressmen, Senators and yes especially our President. He is not the King, we don't worship him! Who cares what the color of his skin is, he is human and needs to be accountable for what he is doing in OUR White House, just as any other President!
This one of the poorest piece of writing I have seen in a while. It is entirely based on ad hominem argumentation which is by definition a fallacy. Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given and not proven.
An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often an appeal to emotion. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
Bottom line? If you have neither the evidence nor reason on your side, through sand in the air ( or crap in this case) and make a lot of noise.
Blogger...you missed the point all together. Beck is asking legitimate questions that clearly have serious implications for ALL AMERICANS...regardless of political inclinations.
If we have communists in the Whitehouse...if Obama has shown preferences to one race or another...if the process of vetting for the public trust is being circumvented in a way that allows radicals access to sensitive documents and informtion...and that puts them in positions of power...is this not a problem?
If it is, we ALL have a problem and Beck is right to draw attention to it. If not, we need to have answers in the interest of responsible citizenship.
Lisa...President Obama answers to every American. The fact that Beck is in a position to have his voice heard is not the point. The point is that there are valid concerns.
Should Richarad Nixon have been required to answer to anyone about his activities or knowledge of such? Or would that have been too much...in your opinion?
By the way, regardless of what the blinded leftist, hard-core radicals think...
...nice article.
Lorna,
>>Glenn Beck is a lying, hateful lunatic. The fact that he's Mormon is beside the point. Stop trying to play the Mormon Persecution card.<<
Please provide objective evidence of:
Beck's lies (def: tell an untruth)
Beck's lunacy (def: insanity)
It is clear that Beck "hates" certain things (def: dislike intensely; feel antipathy or aversion towards.) But it appears you hate Beck and things he believes, thus, if true in your case, your antipathy is a non sequiter (def: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it.)
Answers please.
Those who are critics of Beck are obviously NOT in tune with his radio/T.V. programs. He has grown in understanding of the difficult challenges which we Americans are currently facing. He has grown as a critic of the Obama administration as he has uncovered more shocking and dark secrets which this administration is involved with. WE MUST STAND UP against the tyranny we are currently facing. If we do NOT oppose this administration's tactics of bullying, control, power, and complete disregard for us and our country of America, we will never be able to redeem/ salvage what's left.
Happywoman: Do you happen to agree with Mr. Beck that the President of the United States has a "deep-seated hatred of white people"?
A key part of democracy is that a free press asks the questions. The government may choose to answer or not. The press and the people must loudly ask those questions, a failure to do so would be a failure of a free democracy. When the press fails to fulfill its role in a democracy the government will be tempted to abuse its power. We saw this under a number of previous administrations. Stop criticizing Beck or any other press commentator. The issue is the question, not the questioner.
(I even hate when commentators just attack each other, even when Beck does it. The political issue is the question, not the commentator.)
I think Beck's questions are legitimate and need to be raised.
So keep asking the questions, Glen. Raise the issues about those who serve in government. It is the government of the people, not the President.
In all the discussion back and forth...the questions raised by Beck and not answered. Surely some of the large staff..Tsars or whatever...could give some answers?????
Glenn Beck is a lying hateful idiot, he would have done great in Hitlers time as a propagandist I grew up in the 30th's listing to idiots like him, he does no good, shame on him, who tought him, american haters ? read the bible, and the book of mormon.
Glen Beck is filled with common sense. His questions are important. His voice is a light on a hill. His personality and delivery are unique. All things that make Americans great.
I agree with Beck's questioning of gov't and of Van Jones and all Czars who are unqualified for their positions. Beck is right on the money, smart man and I respect him.
What I don't agree with is this writers assessment that Beck is being run through the mud for being LDS. I see no religious persecution against him. Has it been brought out that he is LDS? Sure - and some writer used a 'red herring' as it were to make a point about it. But is he being persecuted for his beliefs? No. The point in this article was supposed to be that Beck's religious beliefs were being stomped on and his faith was the target. Not so. Few reports, blogs etc. even mention his religion. There are far more negative reports about Christianity, Baptists, and Muslim reporters and politicians than anything Beck has ever had to supposedly 'endure'.
Give us a break.
What? I didn't know he was a Mormon. I thought he was an alcoholic! Nobody ever told me he was a Mormon. Is he in good standing? Is he married? I thought most of the Fox people weren't Mormons because of all the sex and girls on that channel.
"FIRE!!" A man shouted when he saw smoke on his trail...
Suddendly everybody started saying that:
Whose he to tell us that?
What is his motive?
Isn't he weird for his beliefs?
EVERYBODY forgot that he did see smoke and wanted to warn about that...
To "Jim A": Do you happen to agree with Mr. Beck that the President of the United States has a "deep-seated hatred of white people"?
This one of the poorest piece of writing I have seen in a while. It is entirely based on ad hominem argumentation which is by definition a fallacy. Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given and not proven.
An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often an appeal to emotion. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
Bottom line? If you have neither the evidence nor reason on your side, through sand in the air ( or crap in this case) and make a lot of noise.
This one of the poorest piece of writing I have seen in a while. It is entirely based on ad hominem argumentation which is by definition a fallacy. Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given and not proven.
An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often an appeal to emotion. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
Bottom line? If you have neither the evidence nor reason on your side, through sand in the air ( or crap in this case) and make a lot of noise.
Per the second paragraph in Greg West’s article in referring to Glenn Beck that, “He has not drawn any conclusion, allowing his viewers and listeners to take the facts at face value,” what about his conclusions and statements in the past that President Obama is a Marxist and a racist who hates white people. On another point, Beck has interviewed on his show and thinks that Jon Huntsman, Sr. is one of the great men of our time, but was skeptical about the character of Jon Huntsman, Jr. when he nominated as the U.S. Ambassador to China. I have got to believe that Beck would have offered a more positive opinion on Huntsman, Jr. before his nomination by President Obama.
Our 11 year old grandson was at our home last spring while Glenn Beck was on T.V. We had previously asked him if he knew that Glenn Beck was a Mormon. He didn’t. He later turned to us during the program and said: “he can’t be a Mormon with the way he talks and the language he uses.” We no longer watch the Glenn B
The complete last paragraph of my previous post follows:
Our 11 year old grandson was at our home last spring while Glenn Beck was on T.V. We had previously asked him if he knew that Glenn Beck was a Mormon. He didn’t. He later turned to us during the program and said: “he can’t be a Mormon with the way he talks and the language he uses.” We no longer watch the Glenn Beck show, not because of our grandson’s observation, but because of what and how he says it. Whatever your political leanings or fears for the future may be, we need fewer “shock jocks” and hate mongers like Glenn Beck (and Rush Limbaugh) and more voices of reason, and a more intelligent dialogue on all sides of the political debate.
First I would like to mention the fact you did not even give me, a fellow examiner, notice that you would be calling me a bigot in your piece. Very Christian of you to not confront a brother in person before assassinating their character to the world. Who is being the coward now?
You missed the entire point of piece. You also selectively quote my article. I would politely ask you to remove this piece unless you appropriately include the quote from my piece in which I state I DO NOT BELIEVE the arguments presented but am merely using the to illustrate the absurdity of Beck's arguments. I was using the bogus arguments I present to demonstrate the faulty reasoning of Beck. If one uses the example of Hitler's final solution to illustrate the evil nature of eugenics this does not mean they are advocating eugenics. Of course you never mention this.
Oh and Van Jones has disavowed his radical past. Why do you not give him the same credit you give Beck?
Oh and please put a caption underneath your picture or delete the default one. Right now it it looks bad by saying "insert photo or caption or here." See how I actually say something directly to you rather than posting an article of my own that says "Idiot posts picture in his article with default caption" without even giving you notice. I have many close friends who are Mormons. I believe you do the religion a disservice by attacking someone without first attempting to show him his fault in private. Matthew 18:15
I find it very distasteful that one columnist would make a name for himself by piggybacking off another columnist - and all the while just going on a rant because he was personally insulted over his religion.
Shame shame...perhaps you need some down time to pray about it and come back with a more Christ-like column.
It would be great to have a Proper Logical Debate on these issues but instead of answering, questioners are attacked.
Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck are big. There are many, like myself who are just citizens who question. Citizens who complain when we se something wrong with OUR government. Instead of answering the questions, because they can't win by confirming the charge, the leaders and those that will agree or plan to get gain under their administration attack the questioners.
Who is safe from a tyranny? Although I hope that it doesn't happen, it looks more and more that this administration (or the next one)is headed in that direction. If so and the big ones arn't, will normal citizens be safe? I fear so.
Now you misspelled your caption. It is "Republicans" not "Republicns."
Is it appropriate for you to change this piece without noting your edits in the comments section? I think not.
I would also kindly ask you one more time to remove this piece unless you are willing to include my statement in the article that I DO NOT BELIEVE the arguments you present me as believing. Your omission of this statement dramatically alters the meaning of my piece and at this point I must believe you are doing this purposefully to defame me. If you do not include this statement or remove the piece I am afraid I will have to take other civil measures to address what I view as libel.
Greg, you obviously didn't understand Ryan’s column. He was clearly dissecting Glenn Beck’s flawed logic and argumentation. You ignore that he wrote, “Let me be clear I do not believe these statements. I am simply using them to demonstrate the kind of absurd statements you must accept if you also accept Beck's guilt by association and guilt by past logic.” You use the same flawed approach that Beck uses. I am LDS and I took no offense whatsoever from Ryan’s column. I think as Latter-day Saints we need to quit playing the victim card. You do a great disservice to all of us by making accusations of “bigotry” and “character assassination” to people who did no such thing.
Greg, you obviously didn't understand Ryan’s column. He was clearly dissecting Glenn Beck’s flawed logic and argumentation. You ignore that he wrote, “Let me be clear I do not believe these statements. I am simply using them to demonstrate the kind of absurd statements you must accept if you also accept Beck's guilt by association and guilt by past logic.” You use the same flawed approach that Beck uses. I am LDS and I took no offense whatsoever from Ryan’s column. I think as Latter-day Saints we need to quit playing the victim card. You do a great disservice to all of us by making accusations of “bigotry” and “character assassination” to people who did no such thing.
CommonSnese, I didn't bring up religion and I certainly didn't do it to fall back on to discredit others. It was a response to your fellow fanatics who did bring up religion and claimed that Ryan took a shot at the Mormon religion. I understand that this may be difficult for you to follow. And thank you for supporting my claim about Beck pandering to the uneducated.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!