David Buckner: Nothing is Sacred

by David Buckner



Also see:


Permission to Think, from David Buckner

We live in a world filled with differing and often very divergent opinions. This is as they say “what makes the world go round”. When taken as a whole, these varied views of life can offer us a buffet of choices, a myriad of options and even a plethora of vistas from which to view and experience life. However, if such diversity of opinion or difference in viewpoints is limited or becomes a standard by which we judge, incriminate, and dismiss, we have lost the very gift that separates us from other forms of life in this world we call home. We lose the opportunity to THINK, DISCUSS, celebrate the texture we call life, and LEARN from the journey of others. We lose the ability to HOPE for better days, seek better opportunities, and create more innovative ways of doing things.

We find ourselves at a time in history where we have more information available than ever before. We have a buffet of choices with limitless options for discovery and debate. We can vote with our wallets, approve with the click of a button, or reject with the change of a channel. And yet, with so much at stake we find ourselves increasingly shackled by those who would limit this choice, dismiss the dialogue or simply control the possibilities. Under the guise of political correctness or moral high ground, we are increasingly being told to limit debate, control the message, or dismiss the messenger. Seeking more is greed and innovation is arrogance. And with any challenge to this position comes a blanket indictment of “ignorance” or “naivety”.

It was on a business trip to China I saw first hand the limiting affects such controlled debate has on the power to innovate, create and expand the possibilities. I had been invited to spend three days with a group of highly skilled managers, responsible for building their business in their respective regions. I started the event out with a challenge to elevate their thinking. I encouraged them to open the discussion and dialogue by thinking more broadly about the cause and effect of certain economic conditions. I encouraged them to challenge conventional thinking, discuss what we can learn from the past, and work to align with others in the room to build a better future.

Surprisingly, as our discussion shifted to the marketplace and how we can become more competitive, build our businesses and go to the next level, one participant began to speak out consistently. She challenged the concept of profit making, wealth creation, and spoke of corporate governance as a duty best managed by governments and politicians. Her comments, while welcomed in the spirit of adding to a dialogue, tended to be naturally off topic, consistently gravitating toward political banter and full of venom for certain politicians and political parties. Other contributions she often dismissed as “ignorant,” “naïve” or “stupid”. Little rationale was offered for her position but contrary challenges were quickly dismissed and labeled as “right wing” or wrong. Truly surprised by this shift, I pressed forward using only economic principles and laws as the foundation for discussion. Time and again, when she discovered that the economic principles did not support her agenda, she aimed her comments at the person rather than the principle. The room quieted, the discussion became more muted and the three days felt like a single item menu than a buffet.

Lost was the opportunity to seek a better understanding of how the markets work. Mired in the dogma of one way of thinking, true innovation was limited, and the final result was an email condemning every person who sees the world through a different lens. She went so far as to suggest, “I find it difficult to credit that any follower (referring to those who think differently than she does) can actually read or think past a third-grade level.” The attack on the person rather than the principle is tragically characteristic of those who cannot embrace the full thinking process or simply prefer to be told what to do. Such a response from someone culturally encouraged only to think one way or to limit dialogue might be understood or excused. But that was not the case. For this woman did not come from the host country. She did not come from nor represent a nation with a history of limiting debate, quashing hope and controlling possibilities. She was one of us, the product of a market economy. She came from the breadbasket of America. She was the beneficiary of all the wealth created by market systems. She was a product of U.S. schools and a recipient of free market opportunities. Yet somewhere along the way, she had been told that HOPE can only be achieved by giving up choice and limiting debate.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hope comes from knowing what is TRUE, seeking what is POSSIBLE, discussing and debating what is OPTIMAL, and celebrating what is ACHIEVABLE.

In a world where hope is left on the doorstep of political correctness, and dogmatic criticism, we must now more than ever stand up for a more vibrant debate, a more innovative discussion, and more thoughtful action. The deep deficits, decline in output, and suffocating debt we are witnessing around the globe can only be remedied with better ideas, more innovation and increased engagement. Anything or anyone that limits that process, fights the very HOPE we seek and eliminates the possibility that we can navigate our way out of the problems we face.

Sen. Ted Cruz: NOBODY should be afraid of Trump's Supreme Court justice pick

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Wednesday to weigh in on President Donald Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees and talk about his timely new book, "One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History."

Sen. Cruz argued that, while Congressional Democrats are outraged over President Trump's chance at a third court appointment, no one on either side should be afraid of a Supreme Court justice being appointed if it's done according to the founding documents. That's why it's crucial that the GOP fills the vacant seat with a true constitutionalist.

Watch the video below to hear the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Wednesday to talk about why he believes President Donald Trump will nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death.

Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will consider and vote on the nominee, also weighed in on another Supreme Court contender: Judge Barbara Lagoa. Lee said he would not be comfortable confirming Lagoa without learning more about her history as it pertains to upholding the U.S. Constitution.

Watch the video below to hear the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

This week on the Glenn Beck Podcast, Glenn spoke with Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias about his new book, "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger."

Matthew and Glenn agree that, while conservatives and liberals may disagree on a lot, we're not as far apart as some make it seem. If we truly want America to continue doing great things, we must spend less time fighting amongst ourselves.

Watch a clip from the full interview with Matthew Yglesias below:


Find the full podcast on Glenn's YouTube channel or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

'A convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists': Why is the New York Times defending George Soros?

Image source: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg via Getty Images

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday, Glenn discussed the details of a recent New York Times article that claims left-wing billionaire financier George Soros "has become a convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists who have falsely claimed that he funds spontaneous Black Lives Matter protests as well as antifa, the decentralized and largely online, far-left activist network that opposes President Trump."

The Times article followed last week's bizarre Fox News segment in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared to be censored for criticizing Soros (read more here). The article also labeled Glenn a "conspiracy theorist" for his tweet supporting Gingrich.

Watch the video clip below for details:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.