Glenn Beck: Fundamental Transformation

America is at a crossroads.   We have known this for 10 years now but after each tragic event or “bubble” America has gone back to sleep because we wanted to believe that we could have it all and “it just isn’t as bad as they say.”  Our gut however, has told us that it was time to wake up and use what used to be known as “common sense.”   It is what Americans from all points of the political compass meant when focus groups gave every politician the presidential campaign slogan, change.

After spending years, and thousands of man-hours, in research, reflection, and prayer, my team and I have come to realize that a “Fundamental Transformation” is required.  While it is just as powerful, it's also the polar opposite of what President Obama touted last election.   President Obama and the progressive ruling class of both parties believe in the collective planned society.  I believe America’s answers are to be found with, by, and in the individual American honestly pursuing happiness not in 2,000 page bills.

If one is looking for a “collective” based solution it can be found in the phrase:  America is great because America is good.  When we look for our answers in Washington we ask our politicians or parties to “make us good.” They cannot.  But we can, must, and will. The secret our Founders understood was that America is good because individual Americans are honest, just, thrifty, responsible, educated, charitable and God fearing.

"America is great because America is good" is not just some trite slogan. It is a deep and well thought out philosophy that has over 200 years of evidence of its truth. Yet we are being told on every level from our classrooms to our newsrooms that America is not good and never was great.

We cannot as a nation survive much longer. We must take a page from our own history at the Alamo and “draw a line in the sand.” We must decide who we are, what we are capable of and look to the heavens to chart our course.   Do we return to the ideas of the past or do we continue West to the yet unrealized and unfulfilled promises laid out in our Founding ideals? We must choose as individuals and then put those choices into action.   We must demonstrate to our children, neighbors and to ourselves that it is not policies or politicians but people that make this nation what it is for better or for worse.

This year, I as an individual and private citizen stand at those crossroads and boldly declare my choice.   I will not accept that America’s best days are behind Her, that there is no such thing as American exceptionalism.   Nor will I stand by silently as the most charitable nation in the history of mankind now needs the IRS to act as our charitable collection basket.   I refuse to believe that Eric Holder is right when he states that we “are a nation of cowards” when it comes to issues of race.

I will admit our wrongdoing, but I will not be a constant apologist for our nations mistakes.  However, I will also look for historical context.  I choose to believe that while many Americans may be ignorant of even the basics of our own history, Americans are waking up in record numbers educating themselves.   One of the first things they will find is that History tells us when this happens Americans change the world.

I will no longer look to others for leadership or answers.   I will lead my family and teach them to be independent, honorable, educated and charitable.   With firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence I choose to ReFound this amazing nation by rediscovering within myself, and my own circle of influence, the principles and ethics that defined American exceptionalism.

In 2011, my wife and I will dedicate significantly more of our personal resources to what some call charity but as you and I will show is nothing less than “investing in people.”  I have also charted a new and exciting course for my company Mercury Radio Arts.   I currently have plans on hiring more than 40 people as I expand many of our operations as well as creating new divisions such as one that will be known as “E4 Experiences”.

Over the next 12 months, all Mercury divisions, radio, television, books, digital and stage will focus on what I call ‘The E4 Solution.” The four “Es” consist of: Enlightenment, Education, Empowerment and Entrepreneurship.    We will challenge ourselves and those who choose to chart this course with us, to find what we as individuals really believe, challenge what we think we know and dig deep to find out what we are each capable of.

Today, I call out to those who are tired of feeling powerless.  Commit to become the person you were meant to be, not who you have allowed yourself to become; the Father, mother, sibling, friend, businessperson and American.   As the old story goes:

A man decided that he would change the world.

But, he wasn’t successful.

So he decided to change the country.

But, he wasn’t successful.

So he decided to change his community.

But, he wasn’t successful.

So he decided to change his street.

But, be wasn’t successful.

So he decided to change his family.

But, he wasn’t successful.

So he decided to change himself.

AND HE WAS SUCCESSFUL.

AND HIS FAMILY CHANGED AND THEY AFFECTED THEIR STREET.

AND THE PEOPLE ON THE STREET AFFECTED
 THEIR COMMUNITY.

AND THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY AFFECTED THEIR COUNTRY.

AND THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY AFFECTED THE WORLD.

Today, I ask you to take the first step in your success.   This is part Enlightenment and part Empowerment  (E1 and E3 of the E4 Solution).  One of America’s premiere psychiatric minds, concerned American and good friend Dr. Keith Ablow has been working with me on a project called “The 7.”  Together we have developed 7 steps that can help you change your life, I know because they are the 7 steps that I used to change my life.  This book meant for those who are tired being less than happy, fulfilled and want to be a part of a life that is bigger than they can currently imagine.

In the next 12 months, I challenge each American to come to the place where they can say without equivocation “YES, I CAN.”  I believe strong, educated, charitable individuals who can stand on their own two feet, because they know who they are, will be remembered by future historians as those Americans who once again answered the call and changed the world again.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.

"We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights," tweeted pro-choice organization NARAL.

“Now, I don't know much about Kavanaugh, but I'm skeptical because his name is Brett," said late night show comedian Stephen Colbert. “That sounds less like a Supreme Court justice and more like a waiter at a Ruby Tuesday's. 'Hey everybody, I'm Brett, I'll be your Supreme Court justice tonight. Before you sit down, let me just clear away these rights for you.'"

But as Glenn Beck noted on today's show, Steven Colbert actually changed the pronunciation of his name to sound French when he moved from South Carolina to Manhattan … perhaps to have that certain je ne sais quoi.

Watch the clip below to see Colbert attempt to explain.

Colbert's name games.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Before the President left for Europe this week, he issued a pardon to 76-year-old Dwight Hammond, and Hammond's 49-year-old son Steven. If those names sound familiar, you might remember them as the Oregon cattle ranchers who were sentenced to five years in prison for setting a fire that spread onto a portion of federal land in Oregon. In 2012, the jury acquitted the Hammonds on some, but not all of the charges against them, and they went to prison.

After serving a short term, the Hammonds were released, only to be sent back to prison in 2015 when the Obama administration filed an appeal, and a federal court ruled the Hammonds had been improperly sentenced.

RELATED: 3 Things to Learn From How the Government Mishandled the Bundy Standoff

It was the Hammonds being sent back to prison that sparked an even more famous standoff in Oregon. The perceived injustice to the Hammonds inspired the Bundy brothers, Ryan and Ammon, to storm onto the Malheur wildlife refuge in Oregon with other ranchers and militiamen, where they engaged in a 41-day armed standoff with federal agents.

The presidential pardon will take some time off the Hammonds' five-year sentences, though Steven has already served four years, and his father has served three. The White House statement about the pardons called their imprisonment "unjust" and the result of an "overzealous" effort by the Obama administration to prosecute them.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

The pardon is the second major move President Trump has made since taking office to signal greater support of residents in Western states who desire to see more local control of federal lands. Last December, Trump signed the largest rollback of federal land protection in U.S. history when he significantly reduced the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.

Critics say President Trump's actions will only encourage other fringe militia groups in the West to try more armed standoffs with the government. But have these critics considered Trump's actions might just have the opposite effect? Making citizens in the West feel like the government is actually listening to their grievances.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

Artful Hypocrisy: The double standard is nauseating

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Max Mara

All right. Prepare to jazz snap, because what you're about to hear is perfect for the nauseatingly pretentious applause of the progressive crowd.

For one, it centers around an artwork titled "untitled (flag 2)" by German artist Josephine Meckseper. Smeared with black paint and the engraving of a striped sock, which according to the artist "takes on a new symbolic meaning in light of the recent imprisonment of immigrant children at the border." The German-born artist adds: "Let's not forget that we all came from somewhere and are only recent occupants of this country – native cultures knew to take care of this continent much better for thousands of years before us. It's about time for our differences to unite us rather than divide us."

RELATED: The Miraculous Effect Disney's 'Snow White' Had on a Downtrodden America

It frowns out at the world like some childish, off-brand art project. Sponsored by the Creative Time Project, the art project is part of a larger series titled "Pledges of Allegiance," in which each artist designs a flag that "points to an issue the artist is passionate about, a cause they believe is worth fighting for, and speaks to how we might move forward collectively." Most of the other flags have clouds, blank canvas laziness, slogans like A horror film called western civilization and Don't worry be angry, as well as other heavy-handed imagery.

"The flag is a collage of an American flag and one of my dripped paintings which resembles the contours of the United States. I divided the shape of the country in two for the flag design to reflect a deeply polarized country in which a president has openly bragged about harassing women and is withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and UN Human Rights Council."

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully.

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully. They are expressing their opinions with their right to free speech. We don't have to like it, or condone it, or even call it art, but we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we didn't at least respect their right to freedom of speech. I mean, they'll probably be the same people who throw a tantrum anytime someone orders a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A, but that's their problem, isn't it? We're the ones who get to enjoy a chicken sandwich.

There is one problem with the flag. It's being displayed at a public university. Imagine what would happen if a conservative art collective stained rainbow flags and called it an art project and raised it on a flag pole at a public university. Or if the University of Texas raised a rebel flag and called it art. And there's the key. If conservatives and libertarians want to be political on campus, do it under the guise of art. That'll really steam the preachy bullies up.

Last Monday night, President Donald Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Over the coming weeks, we will get to witness a circus with politicians and the media competing with each other to see who can say the most outrageous thing about the candidate nominated and highlight who they would have nominated. We will then witness the main event – the hearings in the Senate where Kavanaugh will be asked questions with an agenda and a bias. Below are 6 things he (or any future nominee) should say, but will he?

Ideology

The folks in media on BOTH sides are looking for a nominee who shares their ideology. Our friends on the left want a nominee who is liberal and many of our friends on the right want a nominee who is a conservative. As the next Justice of the Supreme Court, I state clearly that while I have my own personal ideology and belief system, I will leave it at the door of the Supreme Court when I am working.

The idea of a Justice having and ruling with an ideology is wrong and not part of the job description – my job is to review cases, listen to all arguments and base my sole decision on whether the case is constitutional or not. My own opinions are irrelevant and at times may involve me ruling against my personal opinion.

Loyalty

Loyalty is a big word in politics and politicians love to demand it from people they help and nominate. As the next Justice, I should state I have no loyalty to any party, any ideology, or to any President; even to President Trump who nominated me. MY loyalty only belongs in one place – that is in the Constitution and in the oath I will take on a successful appointment; which in part reads, "

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Role of Government

During any confirmation hearing, you will hear questions from politicians who will bring up cases and prior rulings to gauge what side of the issue they share and to see how they rule. Would Kavanaugh show the courage to highlight the Constitution and remind those in the hearing that he won't always rule on their side, but he will enforce the Constitution that is violated on a daily basis by Congress? He should use the opportunity of a hearing to remind this and future governments that the Constitution calls for three co-equal branches of government and they all have very different roles on responsibilities.

The Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of Congress – there are 18 clauses under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants certain powers to the legislature and everything else is to be left to the states. If Congress passes a law that is not covered under those 18 clauses, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional? Likewise, the Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of the Presidency. The role of the President has grown un-Constitutionally since President John Adams and 1797 Alien & Sedition Act. If any President acts outside the clear boundaries of Article 2, or decides to pass laws and act without Congress, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional?

Damaged Constitution

Will Kavanaugh point out one of the worst rulings of the Court - the ruling of Marbury v Madison in 1803? This increased the power of the Court and started the path of making the Court the sole arbiter and definer of what is and is not constitutional. We saw this with President Bush when he said (around 2006/2007) that we should just let the Supreme Court decide if a bill was Constitutional or not.

This is not the government America's founders had in mind.

Every two, four, and six years, new and returning members of Congress take an oath of office to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States. Every member of Congress, the President, and the nine justices on the Supreme Court hold a duty and responsibility to decide on whether a bill is Constitutional or not.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government. It's time members of Congress and the President start to take their oaths more seriously and the people demand they do.

It is wrong for someone to abdicate their responsibility but it also puts Americans in danger of tyranny as the Supreme Court has gotten many decisions wrong including the cases of Dred Scott, Korematsu and Plessy v Ferguson.

Decision Making

If you have ever listened to any argument before the Supreme Court, or even read some of the decisions, you will notice two common threads. You will notice the Constitution is rarely mentioned or discussed but what we call precedent or prior case law is discussed the most.

Will Kavanaugh clearly state that while he will listen to any and all arguments made before him and that he will read all the rulings in prior cases, they will only play a very small part in his rulings? If a law violates the constitution, should it matter how many justices ruled on it previously, what precedent that case set, or even what their arguments were? Would he publicly dismiss this and state their decisions will be based largely on the actual Constitution and the intent behind our founder's words?

Role of SCOTUS

Lastly, will Kavanaugh state that there will be times when they have to make a ruling which they personally disagree with or that will potentially hurt people? Despite modern thinking from people like Chief Justice Roberts, it is not the job of a Supreme Court Justice to write laws.

The sole job is to examine laws and pass judgment on their Constitutionality. A law can be passed in Congress and can have the best and most noble intentions, but those feelings and intent are irrelevant if it violates the Constitution.

Conclusion

When you watch the media over the coming weeks, how many of these points do you think will be debated on either side? When you watch the confirmation hearings, do you think Brett Kavanaugh will make any of these points?

Lastly, put yourself in the Oval Office. If you knew someone would make these points, would you nominate them? Would your friends and family?