Kansas town flirts with "progress" and loses traditional values

November 29, 2012

Writer

There is a sign in the town of Buhler, Kansas causing controversy in the news this week. The sign in the small town, described as a town rooted in "small town values", featured a large cross, representative of much of the towns values. The sign is now being changed following a law suit from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).

The group complained, claiming the cross "violates the Constitution." TheBlaze reported that the cross has been included in the design for the past 24 years, however the FFRF didn't complain until the image was posted in a city park just four months ago.

After the city council decided to comply with the legal demands, the citizens responded with an extensive Facebook campaign. After just two days, the campaign gathered a lot of strength and the people of Buhler decided the sign isn't going very far. They're moving the sign across the street to private property.

Watch the local news report here:

This morning on radio, Glenn expressed his opinion on the FFRF's campaign and the cities response.

"The really missed the point of this sign," Glenn said this morning. "…nobody is talking about the progressives ideas being the problem on that sign."

Glenn was referring to the slogan on the sign that on one version reads: "Our second century of progress," and on another says, "Tradional Values. Progressive Ideas."

Glenn pointed out that the town is ironically up in arms over a group wanting to remove the cross from the public sign — they don't understand why.

Well, because it's a progress organization and they're pushing their "progressive ideas".

"You're eventually going to lose the cross in your seal if your seal has "progressive ideas" in it," Glenn quipped. "No doubt about it."

Glenn continued to point out the irony in the situation noting that the communities solution is to move the sign to private property.

"What is the progressive idea? The elimination of private property," he said. "If you continue with these progressive ideals and ideas, you will lose your private property. Which means you have no place to have your point of view. None."

The situation with this town's sign is a great example of what progressivism does to traditional values, Glenn pointed out. The sign mixed the church with progressivism from the get-go.

They took traditional values and the Bible together with "progress" — which is antithetical in the eyes of a progressive. But, in the name of progress, they got together and said 'we'll compromise to make this baby step'. But in doing that the "traditional values" are really what are continuing to be weakened — weakened to the point where they are now doing all of the compromising, not the progressives.

"The and thing is they didn't have to move it in the first place. This doesn't violate anything constitutional," Pat noted.

The FFRF even said that they sent a letter to the city council citing it was illegal based on federal rulings. Federal rulings are not the same as constitutional rulings — they're simply acting on precedent, a progressive idea. Using precedent makes the Constitution nearly irrelevant in most court cases now. The law can just be progressed ruling after ruling.

"The you can change the constitution. That's the way our system work. They [progressives] didn't like that. What they decided to go — and they started at Harvard — they stop teaching constitutional law to teach precedent," Glenn explained. "So now it's what does the court say? It's not about the constitution. What is the precedent from the public? Does the public -- are they moving in this direction? Are they progressing in this direction because we'll just use the evidence of the movement of the country is this way. So they've completely taken the constitution out."

Glenn pointed out another example of an anti-religious progressive attack that was highlighted on O'Reilly's show just last night. This attack was directed towards Christmas. Watch O'Reilly's confrontation with the anti-religion spokesman below. You can get the full story on TheBlaze.

These ‘conservative’ Glenn Beck critics are now supporting Kamala Harris

Drew Angerer / Staff, NBC NewsWire / Contributor, NBC NewsWire / Contributor | Getty Images

There’s a certain irony in how some of the loudest critics of Glenn Beck within the conservative ranks have now thrown their support behind Kamala Harris, a figure whose politics stand in stark contrast to the values they once claimed to uphold. Let's take a look back at these self-proclaimed guardians of conservatism, who once claimed Glenn Beck was a threat to the conservative movement, but are now backing the most far-left, radical candidate the Democrats have ever produced.

Adam Kinzinger

Adam Kinzinger was elected in 2010 as a Tea Party conservative, riding the wave of anti-establishment sentiment that defined the movement. However, by 2013, he was already distancing himself from the principles that got him elected. Criticizing Glenn Beck for labeling him a RINO, Kinzinger said, "The perception is, if you do one thing out of line with what is considered hard-core conservatism, or what Glenn Beck says or what Mark Levin says, then you are a RINO." Now, he’s taken his political shift to the extreme, endorsing Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention and praising her as a defender of democracy—all while claiming to be a Republican and a conservative.

Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol’s flip-flop is even more astounding. Kristol, who once took it upon himself to attack Beck for his warnings about radical Islam and creeping authoritarianism, now finds himself on the same side as Kamala Harris. Kristol’s past criticisms of Beck, comparing him to fringe elements like the John Birch Society, now ring hollow as Kristol himself becomes an apologist for the far left. His endorsement of Harris shows that his commitment was never to conservatism but to whatever political winds would keep him in the spotlight.

Jennifer Rubin

Jennifer Rubin is a prime example of how establishment figures at outlets like The Washington Post have masqueraded as conservatives while working to undermine genuine conservative voices. Rubin, who once criticized Beck by saying, "Rather than reflexively rising to his defense when questioned about Beck, why don’t conservatives call him out and explain that he doesn’t represent the views of mainstream conservatives?" was never truly aligned with conservative values. Her columns have consistently pushed establishment narratives, and now they read like PR pieces for the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to Kamala Harris. Rubin’s journey from supposed conservative commentator to one of the Biden administration’s staunchest defenders shows that her critiques of Beck were always about protecting her place within the Washington elite, not about upholding any real conservative principles.

Kinzinger, Kristol, and Rubin once posed as guardians of conservatism, warning about the supposed dangers of Glenn Beck. Now, they’ve endorsed Kamala Harris, a candidate whose policies are anathema to conservatism. Their criticisms of Beck were never about protecting conservative values—they were about steering the party back under their control. But the real target wasn’t just Beck; it was the audience he represents—everyday conservatives who challenge the status quo. These insiders have always seen that base as the real threat, and their actions make it clear who they were really trying to sideline.

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison)

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Glenn's Show Prep