Glenn Beck CPAC 2010

The following is Glenn Beck's key note address at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) this last weekend. I invite everybody to watch it. If you're not a fan of Glenn Beck, I still encourage you to watch it but to do so non-objectively.

Withhold your opinion of Beck, and see what you make out of the substantive presentation. I completely affirm his position in this speech.

PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE


PART FOUR


PART FIVE


PART SIX

Power Struggle?

Some pundits have recently explained that the overall distaste the majority of Americans feel toward the federal government is because it just seems that both parties are only interested in power. I agree.

However, the movement seen within the Republican Party, the tea party or the 9/12ers, differs from both parties in how it is devoid of power lust. Candidates born of this movement only seek positions in DC to see that the power in America stays where it belongs, with the people. They know that Washington is broken because the majority who serve there have usurped and continue to usurp power from the people in efforts to further their own reelections and to satisfy the wishes of lobbyists and big business. It's pretty simple, really. The incumbent receives huge campaign donations from the lobbyists who want to keep him or her there, and with those huge campaign contributions they crush the competition. It's classic win-win. The politicians keep their seats, and the lobbyists ensure that legislation passes to further the interests of the companies they represent.

Unlike conflict management as seen in "The Office," however, this is not a win-win-win situation. The politicians win, and the lobbyists win, but the people lose, and here's why. First of all, money is not a zero sum game in this country, but power is. The politicians and lobbyists don't create power out of nothing; they can only get it from the people. This power theft is exemplified by the unbridled spending of both parties. They have enslaved us and future generations with unprecedented amounts of debt, and all of you with personal debt know what's like to be a slave to your monthly payments, right? Well the government maxed out our nation's credit cards long ago, and they continue to grant themselves greater limits. But they keep maxing them out with each extension.

This problem will ruin this nation, and as far as I can see, none in either party will have a solution so long as they remain corrupted.

This new grassroots movement, however . . .

Wrong

Sorry, Mr. President, but the majority of voters in Massachusetts didn't vote for Scott Brown for the same reason that the rest of the country voted for you. They're not sending Brown to Washington as a knee-jerk reaction to the Bush era. Scott Brown will fill the seat democrats have long since designed to support the buttocks of one of their own, and he will do so because his electorate is upset with you and your progressive style of huge government. Thankfully, enough people in this country are sufficiently versed in constitutional government and the history of this nation's founding that they see right through your policies that unfortunately have no historical merit and are founded in Utopian, marshmallow wonder. And no, the problem isn't that you got too busy and forgot to truly explain things to the American people. Not even my parents remember a president who released more statements, gave more interviews, and was on television more than you were. Not even close. We get what you're saying, but luckily we have not descended too far as a society that you can treat us like an Orwellian proletariat and further your agenda without a fight.

This country is right of center, always has been and always will be (hopefully). So by all means, continue to perambulate toward your own and your party's ruin with your progressive, leftist, and radical ideology. Or you could try to channel 1995 Clinton and move to the center, but even if you do, it's too late. We already know what you really want.

The Liberal/Progressive Politician

I'm an easy going, cheerful kind of guy, and there are few things in this world for which I have serious contempt. One of those things is the liberal/progressive politician. This rare, pretentious, and haughty "civil servant" operates on the premise and assumption that the American people don't know and can't do what's best for themselves without the intercessory guidance and aid of a strong, centralized government. Nancy Pelosi is one such and perhaps the very personification of the sort. In her most recent op-ed piece she describes the task ahead of the current congress and declares it the mission of congress to build a new economy. Huh?

Call me stupid, but I don't know how our government goes about the work of building an economy unless it has assumed more power and authority than otherwise permitted in the constitution. And I don't know of any government that produced a very successful economy anyway. However, Pelosi and the like are deluded into thinking that somehow they know better, and if we morons would just get out of their way, then we'd all be fine.

Would someone try and sell me on this?

The only thing the American people need from Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is for them to get out of the way and let us take care of ourselves.

At least they're trying to fix things!

A common theme I hear from those who support Obama and his agenda is the paltry, "well at least he's trying to fix things!" This defense seems almost automatic as I and countless others continue to criticize the president and congress. Our logic is sound, and our arguments valid, but at least they're doing something! What this argument does is emphasizes a core distinction between liberals and conservatives. Liberals are somehow deluded into believing that the majority of our nation's elected officials are altruistically motivated and that they really want what's best for us and can get it done. And it's this kind of delusion and ignorance that has elected this circus of a congress with some of the lowest approval ratings ever and a dithering White House whose approval ratings have plummeted with historic speed (Again, bare in mind that I am no Republican Party homer but an espouser of conservative ideals). And granted, some bureaucrats may desire to use the government for good, but consider the following example of government impotence even with good intentions. The percentage of poor people in this country is STILL the same as it was when the government declared war on poverty some forty years ago. Say what?

Conservatives simply understand that governments don't fix things; the people do. What government officials do is get elected and reelected on the promissory illusion of fixing things.

Obviously there are the necessaries like departments of transportation, the police, the military and the like, but outside providing for the "general welfare" of the people, the government just does not fix things. It makes things worse via its own expansion. In this time of economic decline and recession, the only sector that has grown is the public sector. Unfortunately their isn't one solitary government outfit or position that turns a profit, and you know what that means? We the people have to pay those salaries. Again, yes, it is absolutely necessary that tax dollars go to provide for the necessaries, but this nation will collapse on itself as the sector that doesn't produce continues to squeeze money out of the one that does. While I'm on that note, I'm increasingly enraged when I hear politicians say they're going to focus on creating jobs. THEY DON'T CREATE JOBS! The greatest impact they ever had on the job market was to lower taxes so that actual profit turning companies can grow their companies. That is it! (Note my astute use of italics to convey emotion.)

To sum up, conservatives send candidates to office to do less, to legislate as dictated in the constitution. Liberals send them to fix stuff. Fixing things is not a government forte but rather that of a free people. Even with all the corresponding ups and downs, successes and failures, it is a free, responsible, and accountable people that is the most successful.

Copenhagen Collapse

Let me be brief. The world leaders that have converged on Denmark for the Copenhagen Climate Summit have done so with 1,200 limos and 140 private planes. Oh the irony!
So what is supposedly worse for the environment, the abundance of hot CO2 emitted from the mouths of all these leaders or their modes of transportation?

The truth is that these leaders aren't as concerned with the environment as they are with money, power, and control. The redistributive responsibility of trillions of dollars is possibly at stake, and there's not a self-important politician in the world who doesn't want a piece of that action.

Trust in and deference to the government is foolhardy I tell you . . . FOOLHARDY!

The Big Tent Philosophy

I conceptualized something about conservatism over the past few days that highlights a profound distinction it has from other forms of political thought. Many of the supposed elite in the Republican Party want the GOP to incorporate a “big tent” philosophy which requires no adherence to any ideology and accepts a vast array of viewpoints. However, the big tent party philosophy is in most respects antithetical to conservatism, and here's why. Conservatives espouse the idea that certain principles and values, when followed by individuals and governments, lead to peace and success. In order for these principles to yield future achievement, however, they require prospective adherents to manipulate their thoughts, words, and actions so as to coincide with those principle and values. It requires huge efforts from the individual and huge restraint from the government. Be it understood, though, that conservatism does not necessarily discourage varying perspectives and diverse thought. It simply admonishes that these perspectives not contradict the aforementioned values and principles. For a succinct list of these principles and values, click here.

However, liberal ideology promotes the idea of a big tent, all inclusive kind of political party. On a side note, however, all viewpoints are welcome inside the tent provided they are not conservative. Those in the tent seek to marginalize others with a conservative point of view by using ad hominem attacks and labels such as right-wing-extremist or terrorist, tea bagger, nazi, and hatemonger, just to mention a few. However, this big tent philosophy seems to be so wildly popular among liberals and progressives because more is expected from the majority in securing the individual's success rather than more being expected from the individual.

Inside this big tent, minority groups are neither required nor encouraged to forgive the culture and the individuals who systematically oppressed their ancestors, and they are also not required to forgive those who continue to mistreat them. This has gotten so out of hand that even language from a white person in this big tent is to be straight way censored and the white person swiftly punished in the event his or her language honestly criticizes individual members of other races. The responses to Rush Limbaugh’s involvement in a group interested in purchasing the St. Louis Rams exemplify this reality. They branded him a racist for bigoted things he never said, and they also hammered him for other things he said which weren’t actually racist. Therefore, this philosophy is more focused on promoting a culture where the extreme and superfluous censorship of many is preferred over teaching and expecting others to forgive and to be humble.

The all inclusive, all loving big tent of liberal thought also discourages the belief in a supreme being from whom all human rights originate. This view point is repellent in the big tent because it also teaches that the right to marriage extends only to one man and one woman. They hate and disparage this point of view, and they label those who have it as hate-mongers, homophobes, and religious extremists (among other things). As a conservative maintaining this belittled belief, I neither hate nor am fearful of anyone who participates in a homosexual relationship, and I am not deluded into regarding myself as superior. However, I reserve my constitutionally protected right to vote according to my conservative value system, and I respect the right of others to vote contrarily. Though some may be fear-mongers and hateful, the vast majority votes according to the peaceful dictates of its individual consciences. But according to the big tent philosophy, these many are expected to abandon their principles and values in order to accommodate the desires of a few, thus again requiring much from the majority while requiring nothing from the minority.

The big tent philosophy will ultimately fail those who desire cozy residence therein, and it will fail the nation it now seeks to fundamentally change. This illusion of this all accepting, all inclusive, and all loving philosophy will fail because it ventures away from the simple mandates of the constitution; big tentism ventures away from the security and anchor of sound principle. The Declaration of Independence refers to this idea as the laws of nature and of nature's God. Accordingly, the constitution has provided the freedom that produced the most exceptional, successful, and flourishing nation ever designed (Like it or not, conservatism is the only ideology left that champions the constitution and intentions of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, etc). No other nation's story in the annals of history compares to the greatness of this one, and its success can only be renewed and replicated by quickly abandoning "big tent" thinking and by strictly adhering to constitutional principle. Unfortunately, our current administration refers to it as a charter of negative liberties and laments that it limits the government's power and doesn't enhance it. Go back over the last few years, and you will see that our government has acted contrary to the constitution, and we are and will be the worse off for it if we allow them to continue.