Glenn Beck is Wrong, the Liberals Were not Right About Iraq

Glenn Beck: Now, in spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said: We shouldn't get involved. We shouldn't nation-build. And there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free.

First, most of those who have been to Iraq, over the long run, disagree with that notion. I've combat deployed to Iraq as an infantryman. I disagree with that notion as well.

Second, liberals argued in favor of slavery up to the end of the Civil War, should we have listened to them? Liberals said that we should conclude the Civil War and negotiate with the Confederacy. Should we have listened to them? Liberals argued in favor of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and other oppressive laws. Should we have listened to them?

Historically, liberals have advanced the wrong argument. Starting in the middle of the 20th century, they have argued as "useful idiots" for our enemies and adversaries.

Advance to the 21st century.

When the liberals argued against the Iraq war, they were doing so because they disagreed with George Bush. Every justification that the liberals came up with, against the Iraq war, was wrong. The Iraqis wanted freedom. Reconstruction went a long way to improving their lot.

Glenn Beck: I thought that was insulting at the time.

Yes, it was insulting at the time. However, what's more insulting than that is a "conservative" throwing his hands up and waving the white flag when the going gets tough. To rub salt into the wounds? That same "conservative" suggests that both sides should come together under that white banner.

Do you honest to God believe that we will come together with the other side? This given that they have been wrong for decades? You think we would come together with them simply because of your opinion about them being "right" and that we should move forward?

I'm sorry, I will stick to the facts. You were right before. You are wrong now. Your attitude, and your claiming that the liberals were "right" about the Iraq war, makes you precisely what our founding fathers had in mind when they coined the term "Summer Soldier" and "Sunshine Patriot."

Glenn Beck: Everybody wants to be free. They said we couldn't force freedom on people. Let me lead with my mistakes. You are right. Liberals, you were right.

Liberals were wrong. There's an excellent chance that the majority of the liberals, that claimed that the Iraqis did not want freedom, did not deploy to Iraq.

I have news for you guys. The Iraqis wanted freedom. I saw that in their eyes. I saw it in their actions. 

It's so easy for you guys, sitting within the comfort of US civilization, to look over at Iraq and say, "They did not want freedom." 

The US military was not able to continue on with maintenance training with the right amount of troops. There was a lack of will in Washington D.C. to support this military request. This resulted in the deterioration of the Iraqi force. You can't use that as an explanation as to why you think that the Iraqis "did not want" freedom.

You could blame that on the failure of leadership in both Washington D.C. and Baghdad. You can't look at the results of that failure and say, "The Iraqis did not want freedom."

If the Iraqis did not want freedom, they would not have fled many of the cities and towns. They were getting away from the Sharia Law that you insinuate they preferred. They are fleeing from radical Islamic law. They are fleeing to safe areas where they would not be exposed to radical Sharia Law. 

Being protected from those realities, due to being within the comfort zone within US civilization, blinds liberals that you agree with to that reality.

Glenn Beck: We shouldn't have.

Wrong Glenn Beck, we should have. Going into Iraq was the right thing to do. However, as with anything else in the world, an effort like that requires decades of involvement. Granted, the military portion could end, but that does not mean the supports and other areas could not continue.

Washington D.C. failed to secure the straight cut victory that we achieved in Iraq. Don't turn around and say, "We should not have gone in."

To me, that makes you, or any other conservative that believes the same thing, nothing more than summer or sunshine conservatives. 

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: Bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck Is Wrong, Liberals Opposed the Iraq War for Political Reasons

Glenn Beck: Now, if you believed those things, let me say: You were right. If you were just using it for political purposes, well, we don't have anything in common, But if you really believe those things, I would like to have a conversation with you now to find out exactly how you came to terms with that -- especially being a progressive.

It does not matter if they were doing so for political purposes, or for what they felt were "valid reasons." They were wrong.

I've been debating these liberals, who have opposed the Iraq war, since early last decade. The vast majority of them did so for the wrong reasons. They disagreed with the war simply because George Bush was the one that pushed for it.

The vast majority of those that argued for the reasons you mention here did so through ignorance. They did so via being ignorant about asymmetrical warfare and about history.

I found that many liberals, who argued against "nation building" applauded our attempts to nation build in Somalia back in the 1990s. It's amazing what a different president, from another political party, would do with regards to people's perceptions.

These liberals, that opposed the Iraq war, repeated the same talking points that liberal talking heads talked about. These liberals didn't bother researching the facts before coming to their conclusions.

Glenn Beck: If you know the history of the progressive movement, it was Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson that started imposing democracy in South America.

Do not confuse the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century with the progressive movement of the late 20th Century and early 21st Century.

We were going through a period of rapid industrial development during that earlier progressive movement. This brought about some negative side effects, which included government corruption at all levels. Or, rather, intensified government corruption.

"Progressive" in this sense was "progress" in terms of cleaning up this corruption and fighting against "big boss" exploitation of the "little guy." This also included addressing industrial and other developments, like using the "scientific method" in industry and other areas.

Progressiveness, as used by the liberals/Democrats, has another meaning. In this case, it means progressing towards quasi-socialism and away from free-market capitalism. This kind of "progressivism" counters some of the things of the turn of the 20th Century progressivism.

For example, the old progressivism argues in favor of using facts to improve an operational condition. The new progressivism relies heavily on emotion and feeling. It relies heavily on assumptions.

We are talking about two different kinds of "progressivism." 

Latin America has made strides in improvement when it comes to being democratic.

Glenn Beck: The reason why South America is just loaded with communists is because we put a lot of them in. That's the progressive ideal.

Wrong. We did not put the communists in place in South America. The US government made repetitive attempts to get anti-Communist governments in place. In areas where there were already there, they made efforts to try to keep them there.

It was the Soviet Union, and its allies... Specifically Cuba... That planted the seeds for communist governments in Latin America.

People accused the United States of "setting up puppet governments" in Latin America. Yet, many of them are clueless of the fact that the Soviet Union and Cuba set up puppet governments in Central and South America... These happened to be the communist governments.

We had to erode and undermine those communist governments. This is not the same thing as what the "progressives" pushed for at the turn of the 20th century. 

Glenn Beck: But I agree with you: You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else. It doesn't work. They don't understand it or even really want it. They may be too immersed in their own belief of Sharia Law to embrace liberty or at least at this time. If people vote for Sharia Law, they vote for Sharia Law. We tried. What can we do?

I don't know which elections you're talking about, but the Iraq that I combat deployed to was nothing like what you describe.

When I was there, the Iraqis very much wanted freedom. I lost count of how many times Iraqis came up to us to shake our hands, or to give us friendly honks from their vehicles. It was like walking around in New York City shortly after 9/11 while wearing a military uniform.

It was the Iraqis that pushed a lot of information campaigns to get other Iraqis out to vote. They were turning out in large numbers. If they did not want freedom, they would not have done this.

While I was there, their democracy was nothing like the radical Islamic law that the terrorists wanted to push.

You forget the Sunni awakening with the Sunnis throwing off radical Islamic law. They did not want that. They wanted freedom. They knew that by taking control of their future and by fighting off the terrorists, that we would have an easier time making democracy a reality in the area.

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: Bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck is Wrong, we Must be Willing to Sacrifice More Lives for our Future

Glenn Beck: We have lost thousands of American lives.

We lost thousands of lives during the Civil War. Perhaps we should've quit, as many liberals/Democrats in the North wanted us to do. We certainly would've saved a lot of lives that way. We lost thousands of lives during World War II. Perhaps we should've decided to quit and not fight Germany or Japan in order to spare us from losing more lives.

"But wait", you might say, "those were different, we secured our victory." Not quite. The transition from the end of those wars was not smooth either. 

In fact, I remember reading an article, written in 1946, that was titled, "America Loses the Peace in Europe." From reading that article, you'd think that we would fail in securing our victory. When are we going to pull our troops out of Europe? We're still there, long after World War II, like what should've happened with Iraq. 

We're dealing with an ideology that believes that the whole world should be under radical Islamic law. They will not stop in the Middle East. They intend to export this radical Islamic law and require us to convert to it.

Too many here in the United States think that this would be "un-achievable." In reality, if we give up the will to fight, it's very possible.

I'm sorry, I choose that we keep fighting, even if we lose thousands more... if that means that America's daughters are not raped/violated and sold into slavery or forced into marriage with thugs...

* If that means that America's sons are not beheaded for refusing to convert to Islam... If that means that Americans do not see members of their families tortured and murdered in front of their eyes... 

* If that means that American communities don't see hundreds, or even thousands, of their fellow countrymen piled into mass graves... 

* If that means that American law, culture, freedom, etc., remain supreme on US soil...

This may seem "far-fetched" to most people living in the US. Unfortunately, this becomes an ultimate reality if we decide to not fight anymore. 

Our enemies cast a vote in this ongoing war. This war will only have one outcome. One outcome is we succeed and prevail in this war, no matter how long it takes. The other outcome is that radical elements succeed in converting America and other parts of the world into Islamic caliphates. 

The newly converted areas will suffer an ongoing holocaust.

If we give up, as implied in Glenn Beck's speech, we are abdicating this war to the terrorists. That's not acceptable. No real conservative would advocate that we quit when the enemy intends to keep fighting.

In this war, we cannot assume that the enemy will not pursue his new momentum. The enemy casts a vote in this war and will act on it. 

Glenn Beck: We have lost thousands of lives on the Iraqi side and tens of thousands have been wounded. We have spent $2 trillion -- say that again -- $2 trillion, and upwards of 200,000 Iraqi citizens, aid workers, insurgents have been killed. That's the conservative number. Liberals will tell you it's almost 1 million people.

And a lot of that was a result of terrorist attacks against the Iraqis. They were not just attacking Americans, they attacked Iraqis.

However, you suggest that if we had not gone in at all, we would not have lost all those lives.

That is part of the realities of war. You can lose people. That happened during the American Revolution. Perhaps we should not have fought that war in order to prevent us from losing the civilian lives that were lost during that war.

I mean, if we did not fight that war, Americans would not have any need to become refugees fleeing to the Spanish Empire to escape the war.

As with any war, you don't argue for cutting and running when you lose lives. Even a single loss of life is tragic. But, as we have done successive generations throughout history, people were willing to their lose lives in order to throw off tyranny and secure freedom.

The Liberals/progressives advance the 1 million figure when it comes loss of lives. That was based on a faulty survey. Those that did the survey were extremely liberal as to what constituted a casualty.

The methodology of that survey would not have passed muster with a basic survey class. With the way they identified "loss of life", you're bound to have inflated numbers. Official counts were still lower.

There's an equivalent saying to, "Let's pull out of there before we lose any more lives." It's called "Living on your knees rather than fighting and dying on your feet." That is the future we face if we do what Glenn Beck suggests we do. 

The reality is that many Iraqis were praying for the bombing runs to begin. Many were seriously contemplating suicide if the bombings didn't begin. They would've rather that they get killed during those bombing runs, in the hands of the allies, then to continue living under Saddam's oppressive rule.

Then we have the mass graves that were filled during Saddam's reign. That would've continued. 

Even in the more recent events, with ISIS taking over large parts of Iraq and Syria. Many were committing suicide or praying for the allies to bomb them to death. They preferred death, by our hands, to the reality they faced under ISIS's Sharia Law. 

These people were choosing death over loss of freedom. These people enjoyed democracy, then lost it in the hands of ISIS. They wanted death instead of what ISIS, and their radical Islamic law, offered.

Not exactly what you claim they wanted. That's a far cry from preferring Sharia Law instead of freedom.

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck is wrong, Washington D.C. Faltered, ISIS Flourished

Glenn Beck: I don't know what the number is, but after all of that, hundreds of thousands of lives, $2 trillion, the best minds in the world trying to do it, it's about to fall apart. Terrorists of the most radical kind -- maybe the most radical we have witnessed since Nazis -- are now poised to overrun the capitol city. All of our effort, all our sacrifices, all of it is gone.

And so, to respond to that, you raise the white flag, both hands up, and demand that we all pull out and go home?

It's falling apart due to failure to capitalize on the straight cut victory that we handed over at the end of 2011. This is a repeat of Vietnam. Back then, the United States military defeated the Vietnamese in the battlefield. They handed a victory over to Washington D.C.

What did Washington D.C. do? They pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory and gave us a loss in the Vietnam War. 

Do you honest to God think that those lives that we lost, prior to ISIS, would be thankful if you... and others like you... Throw up their hands and raise the white flag?

That kind of defeatist attitude risks us taking a course of action that would result in their lives being lost in vain.

You simply do not give up. Your opinion about the left being "right", quotation marks used strongly, amounts to you suggesting just that.

Instead of complaining over what happened, how about putting efforts into figuring out better ways to defeat this new enemy? The United States military can easily defeat ISIS. There has to be a will, among the American Electorate and political leadership, to defeat ISIS. 

When the majority of the American public agrees with you... when it comes to thinking that the liberals were right... is when we know that the will of the United States to win the fight is over. When that point happens, we will know that it will be a matter time before we're dealing with intensely persistent radical terrorism on American soil.

Again, we fight, regardless of the setbacks on our part, or the momentum on the enemy's part. We don't simply put our hands up and say, "We should not have gone in, the left was 'right.'"

That makes you no different than the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot... All in favor of the war effort in the beginning. But, when the going gets tough, they try to slither back into society.

Glenn Beck: And yet, this is something I think that we can come together with, on the right and the left.

If you would've talked about that embassy by itself, as a stand-alone topic, without spending a lot of time waving the white flag, both sides could come together on the issue on that specific embassy.

However; abdicating the facts, and elevating an ignorant assumption... that liberals advanced about the Iraq war... to the same level as the factual narrative... will not bring either side together.

Do you honest to God believe, that by telling the people, that we have proven wrong over and over again since 2003, that they are "right," and suggesting that those of us with the facts are "wrong," that we would willingly come together with the left?

They are wrong. They were wrong during the Iraq war. They were wrong about the Vietnam War. In fact, they have been wrong since the 19th Century.

Those of us on the right, the conservatives, will not abandon the facts in order to come together with the side of the argument that does not know what it's talking about.

Glenn Beck: And it's this -- I have more of a chance of hacking off my loyal listeners and audience by saying this, but so be it:

You did not do anything remotely close to having a "revelation" that the other side was "right." You took the easy way out. The speech you made was you throwing your hands up in frustration and advocating that we give up.

You did nothing to see this from a strategic standpoint. This is war. The Iraq War was a part of that war. Yet you do not see this from a strategic outlook. Instead, you're pontificating to an audience as if you are sitting in an armchair, on the porch during the summer night, talking about how something should have happened.

We were right for going into Iraq. We did, in fact, argue that pulling out of Iraq, before the Iraqis were truly able to sustain what we trained them, would result in the enemy being able to create itself a new base of operation.

Where is your "revelation" to that fact? 

In fact, George Bush warned about it. What he warned, what those of us on the right argued, ended up happening. We advanced an "if then" statement. The "if" was the desire of the left/liberals. The "then" was the consequences the conservatives said would happen if the liberals got what they wanted.

ISIS is that "then" of the "if then" statements we made against the desires that the liberals wanted.

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck is Wrong, More Lives Will be Lost if we Wait for the Enemy to Come Here

Glenn Beck: If we are directly attacked, so be it. But this must end now.

I'm sorry, what you're arguing here is that we should live on our knees rather than fight and die on our feet. I will not be willing to sacrifice the United States, its people or its future, for the convenience of "stopping now."

The price you pay, for "ending it now" overseas will be doing away with what America was envisioned by our founders. The horrors and atrocities being committed in the Middle East will find a way to America if we give up the will to fight.

That's what you're asking us to do. That's not acceptable. 

Glenn Beck: Can't we come together on that? Are we not all a people that can come together on that?

Never. I will not give up the facts, and what the facts say we should do. Not so that we could come together with a bunch of people that are clueless about what's going on... and who don't know what they're talking about.

I refuse to join others if living on one's knees is what we should be doing together. I refuse to do that. I'm sorry, I will not quit when the going gets tough. I will keep going.

Glenn Beck: Wedon't want our sacrifice to be a waste.

I'm sorry, but if we do what you are imploring us to do here, our sacrifices would've been wasted. The lives lost would have been in vain. That sacrifice is part of the reason we have to keep going until we achieve our ultimate objective in this war.

Glenn Beck: Let me ask you this question: What good will one more life do? To waste one more life, what good will it do, to waste another dollar, let alone another trillion?

We must be willing to sacrifice more than just one, over the next few years, decades, or even centuries. That's what we have to do if that's what it will take to prevent us from suffering the holocaust that they're suffering in the Middle East.

Understand that if we do what you want us to do, to pull back and not to get involved, the enemy will cast its vote. They will not sit by and mind their own business over there. They will finish up their objective over there and then work their way towards our direction.

What you're demanding that we do is nothing more than demanding that we kick the problem down the road. You're trying to get us to embrace a solution that amounts to "hoping that we get eaten last."

So yes, we have to be willing to sacrifice as much lives as possible. To do otherwise is to invite the holocaust, happening in Iraq and Syria, to happen on US soil. Throwing the towel over there will virtually guarantee that Americans ends up suffering that holocaust in the future.

The loss of lives in this scenario would rapidly eclipse the loss of service member lives over there.

Glenn Beck: And conservatives, is there one that believes this President will prosecute a new war in Iraq properly?

We have to do something. Doing the bombing runs that we are doing over there is a lot better than what you are proposing.

Had the President given the military what it needed in Iraq at the end of 2011, for 2012 and beyond, you would not be here waving the white flag of surrender. However, since he did do that, we have to do something.

The bombing runs are a good start. We need to do something more substantial if the troops already on the ground recommend it.

Glenn Beck: When the biggest hawk of them all, the Darth Vader of the entire galactic empire, Dick Cheney and George Bush didn't prosecute it right? No.

When I combat deployed to Iraq, it was blatantly obvious that the United States and its allies won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory.

We can look back and criticize what President Bush and Dick Cheney and the others did to prosecute the Iraq war. There are plenty of examples, in our past history, where we did not prosecute wars properly either.

In fact, we came dangerously close, during the American Revolution, to losing. There were a lot of blunders in that war. Then, as now, there were a lot of times when what was planned ended up changing drastically. Patriots made several mistakes during that war.

Advance to the American Civil War. Again, I can point to examples where mistakes were made. Lots of lives lost to the American Revolution and the American Civil War because of these "blunders."

Today, we have the convenience of looking back in time and seeing how they could have done things better. That is not always a convenience that we have when dealing with situations that are happening "right now."

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: Bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck Is Wrong, we Must Fight Perpetually if we are to Win

Glenn Beck: In the end, the result will be the same. Another group of radicals will pop up again. It is like a never-ending game of whack amole over there. The only way to prevent Baghdad from being overrun eventually is stay there and continue to fight this militarily in perpetuity. Are you willing to do that?

And that is how they know they will defeat the West, by fighting in perpetuity. They know that the West has a microwave mentality. The West wants solutions, and closure, "right now." They note that the West will buckle when it comes to things that drag out into infinity.

It's an Asiatic philosophy, the idea that you go on in infinity. The only way we can fight against that is by fighting this militarily, politically, economically, etc., in perpetuity. THAT's the only way that we are going to defeat these guys.

Outlasting the opposition when it comes to patience is one of the things they use to achieve victory. You're giving them the impact indicator that they want by suggesting that we just go home with our tails tucked between our legs.

So yes, I'll be willing to fight them indefinitely. That's a better option than seeing the holocaust happening here on US soil. Because, if we do pull out and disengage, we will be suffering the holocaust on US soil. It won't be a matter of "if," but a matter of "when."

It wouldn't stop there. Just look at the justice system in many of the Muslim countries. 

Look at what people are being punished for, how they're being punished, and imagine that happening on US soil for centuries. Would you put future American generations' lives through this to end current loss of life?

This has been a process that has been going on since Islam started to spread in areas that were formally Christian. Again, their fight against the United States is nothing but a drop in the bucket. They'll keep fighting until they achieve their ultimate goal... Global Islamic law.

They will try to achieve that even if it means working over the next few centuries to do so. They've "only" been doing this since the beginning of the "dark ages."

So yes, even if another group of radicals come up, we'd still choose to fight them. To do otherwise would be like telling our police to lay down their weapons and to stand down their departments because "another group of criminals will pop up and break the law."

Just as the police will continue to chase and detain criminals, America's warriors should fight our mortal enemies indefinitely. The fate of our civilization, and our quality of life, hangs in the balance.

Glenn Beck: Don't even start with me on your oil an gas. Guess we should have thought about that earlier. Maybe if we use our own oil and gas, we wouldn't have to worry about this.

If this was about "oil and gas", we would have invaded Venezuela instead. The United States gets most of its oil from the Western Hemisphere. We get it mainly from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Venezuela.

This makes sense considering that it is more economically efficient to have our oil come to us via pipelines than by ships.

The Iraq war was not about oil. It never was. It was more about changing a philosophy via a structural, political, and economic change to the environment in the Middle East. 

The Japanese used to see it as an honor to take out a lot of the enemy via suicide. Where are those Japanese now and what's there percentage of the population as compared to before?

Likewise, democracies will take time to develop. Keep in mind that we kept US troops in Germany, South Korea, and Japan decades after the respective wars were fought there. Why do anything different with Iraq and Afghanistan?

Once these democracies are in full force, and the free market is allowed to do its thing, the environment would produce people that would be more interested in earning money and prospering than in blowing themselves up.

While we are on the topic, if you want to have true energy independence, let the free market do its job. Get the US government out of its way. No invasion of another country needed.

Glenn Beck: Liberals, you were against it in the first place.

The liberals were wrong then, they're wrong now. They've been wrong throughout history. 

Glenn Beck: How could you be in favor of more intervention now? How could you possibly be for that after everything you have said about how it's going to fall apart in the end was right? Everything I said that we could hold it together was wrong. We need to pull out and end the long nightmarish involvement in this mess. We need to do the same in Afghanistan, once and for all. 

Easy, because the alternative to this "intervention" is a kind of intervention that we would see within our borders. Don't think that this is the kind of "intervention" that we would easily be able to deal with.

This "intervention" would act like a "cancer." Just look in the many areas of this country where progressives/liberals were able to set policies for decades. It's in these areas where we will see our first radical Islamic enclaves... What will later end up becoming "no go zones."

It's from these areas were most recruits for ISIS in America will come from. If not ISIS, some other radical terrorist group. This would just be the beginning. Take a look at Europe to see what's going to be our future when it comes to dealing with radical Islam.

The left/liberals said that everything was going to fall apart not because of any real knowledge or understanding of history or current events. They said that it would fall apart simply because they disagreed with the man that was pushing for it. They did so to repeat liberal mantra from liberal talking heads.

The conservatives also warned that the situation will fall apart too. It was predicated on the liberals getting what they wanted. What did the liberal/left want? They wanted us to be out of Iraq regardless of how ready the Iraqis were for us to pull out.

With no residual force remaining behind to preserve our victory, this fall was bound to happen. We conservatives consistently argued that "if" the liberals get their way, "then" things would fall apart and it would just be the beginning.

What we predicted ended up happening. The "if" in this case was the liberals getting their way with regards to the ultimate troop pullout of Iraq. The "then" that the conservatives predicted would happen in this situation is what's going on right now in Iraq.

When are we going to hear you say, with frustration, that we conservatives were right all along? Because that's what's really happening. The conservatives have consistently argued from the facts. They have consistently argued from the context of current events as well as history.

The situation in the Middle East right now resulted from the liberals getting their way. Here you are telling them that they were "right" all along. How about holding them accountable for demanding their way, in the form of a near-complete troop pullout of Iraq?

Whether you like it or not, this is a global war. This was called the "Global War and Terrorism." You keep forgetting in your rants that the enemy has a vote. You assumed that the enemies is going to stay over there and mind his own business.

The reality is that the enemy that the US-led coalition is fighting over there have a vision. That vision includes the United States and the rest of the free world under the flag of radical Islam.

The demands to pull out "right now" is essentially an abdication of our part. It's ceding to the enemy. That's just begging for a holocaust. A holocaust is happening in Iraq and Syria, this holocaust would come to America if it accepts your suggestion.

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: Bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck is Wrong, We'd Still Have Those Problems without the Space Race

Glenn Beck: I remember back in the 1970s, we were going to the moon and liberals at that time would say, 'We have bigger problems here on earth that need to be taken care of.' How much more is that argument correctly applied to today's situation?

First, the liberals were wrong for saying that back then. A lot of the technological spinoffs that happened from the space race ended up benefiting our civilization. We take many of the spinoffs for granted. The liberals use some of those spinoffs to rant their ignorance and misguidance.

Perhaps the Europeans should've taken care of their problems in Europe before ever thinking about finding that western passage to the Asian Indies. The Europeans should've thought about eliminating hunger, poverty, and other problems before ever thinking about sending maritime explorations overseas.

These Europeans had "bigger" problems.

Heck, maybe all seafaring countries should have thought about that first. Where would we be today if they thought that way?

The reality is if we did not engage in maritime or space exploration, we'd still have the problems that liberals complain about.

Second, that has no application to the Iraq war or any other war that we fought in modern history. The liberals were wrong about the Iraq War when it occurred, they are wrong about it now. The liberals have been consistently wrong about geostrategic, geopolitical, and geo-economic issues throughout history.

The liberals were wrong when it came to space exploration. They're wrong when it comes to war. They have yet to prove otherwise.

Glenn Beck: Finally, there are some things we can agree on. Finally, there are some things we can come together on and clean up our own house.

Sorry, you do not speak for the rest of the Republicans or conservatives. You only speak for yourself. You, also ready to throw in the towel, have put yourself in a situation where you could finally agree with the liberals.

These liberals/progressives have all been about throwing in the towel when the going gets tough. They have been all about "giving up" or "surrendering" in order to "stop" the conflict. It's no surprise that when you got into that mindset, you came up with this screed that I'm addressing.

Glenn Beck: But if we do to the liberals what they did to us and George W. Bush and make it just about politics, we will be divided more. This cannot become about the President. It cannot become act the Democrats.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to do for them what they refused to do for us... Especially when they refuse to accept what the facts tell him.

We're dealing with a bunch of people who do not care about the facts. All these people want is for you to agree with them, regardless of how outlandish their story is. They will trash people who represent your vote. However, they will expect you to respect people that got their vote.

Even if we were to treat them the way we wanted them to treat us and those that we voted for, they will not reciprocate.

The liberals have made it just about politics. Their disagreement with the Iraq war, and their demands for us to pull back, was all about politics. 

Their disagreement with the Iraq war, and their predicting gloom, and they're getting it, is more about their hatred against George Bush than it was about knowledge or awareness.

The liberals/Democrats need to know what they're talking about. This is a prerequisite if they hope that those of us that embrace the facts could meet them halfway.

Glenn Beck: This has to become about the principles because in the principles we all agree.

I'm sorry, but the "principles" that you embrace are consistent with those that liberals embrace.

Those are the principles of surrender. Throughout your rant, you call us to do something. You think you're calling us to come together with the liberals. What you're actually doing is calling for us to surrender the fight to the enemy. 

Bringing our troops home, when the enemy still intends the fight, amounts to surrender. It's failure. These are not the principles that I agree with. "Giving up" when the going gets tough may be a "principal" that the liberals/progressives embrace.

It won't be one that I embrace.

Glenn Beck: Enough is enough. Bring them home, period.

When the enemy is willing to continue to fight, and has every intention to outlast our fight, it's never enough. No, we should not come home until our job is done. Or, rather, the military should not stop its operations until the enemy is truly defeated.

It doesn't matter if it takes another decade, another century, or another millennium. We have to sacrifice all if we have to, because the alternative is far worse than what we could imagine.

Having lived most your adult life in Western civilization, enjoying the best of what it offers relative to others, you don't see the gravity of what you are asking us to do.

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: Bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Deconstructing Liberal Spin on Capitalism and Socialism

Attempting to redefine the debate

Many liberals claim that conservatives are trying to redefine socialism's and capitalism's definitions.

One of their myths entails conservatives labeling socialism as the government taking over everything. They claim that conservatives want to label capitalism as patriotism. They also dismiss the fact that the most successful, the rich, create jobs.

Those claims are straw man attempts to redefine a debate.

Conservatives label increased government control, of the economy, as moving closer towards socialism. This is socialism as it's actually practiced in the real world, not socialism in its true sense.

More regulations and red tape hamper economic progress. A look at the two Koreas could tell you which system does better. One of the Koreas practices socialistic economic policies, the other practices many capitalistic economic principles.

A "from space at night" perspective will tell you that the capitalistic Korea is doing far better.

Conservatives don't label capitalism as "patriotic."

People succeed better, economically, under capitalism. Free market forces reward people for coming up with the best method to meet customer demand. People do succeed in socialistic societies, but not as frequently, or as easily, as they do in capitalistic societies.

Free markets create the conditions needed to create a true "land of opportunities." Isn't that what people come to America for? That's where the patriotism comes in.

Capitalism isn't just an economic term; it's a concept

Capitalism facilitates people making money... if they want to.

If people want to start a business, they invest in equipment and items they'll need. They'll spend money to hire people to work in their business. Since the business owner purchased the equipment, materials, buildings, etc., those items belong to his business, as assets.

These items shouldn't also belong to the employees, unless they also paid money to obtain the business' equipment.

The business owner invested money in a venture he, or she, hopes would bring profits. If that business brings profits in, the business owner has rights to what's left over after expenses are paid. Payroll is one of those expenses.

Employees are entitled to what they agreed on during the employment negotiation. They're not entitled to anything more than that.

In a capitalist system, employees have a role over who they work for. They can work for one employer; then work for another one that pays them more. If a business doesn't pay people enough, workers can work for someone that does.

Our founders had the free market/capitalist system in mind when they wrote the constitution. This system allowed our type of democracy to evolve into something the rest of the world wants to copy.

It allows more people to succeed. That's the American way. The system liberals want would make it harder to achieve the American dream. This is what conservatives mean when they argue patriotism.

Most people that start successful businesses, and corporations, are loyal Americans that won't hesitate to put their hands over their heart when they see the passing U.S. flag.

Socialism looks good on paper, but fails to factor real life variables

The idea that socialism doesn't advocate free market's "termination" is another liberal myth.

Under socialism, everybody involved with a business organization owns that organization. They own the operation, the decisions and the profits. Gone is the pay scale that pays people according to their skills and hierarchy. Under socialism, everybody shares the profit according to their needs.

That's not how human nature, and the free market, works. Let's say that a person wants to work for a business organization.

He has skill sets that this company needs, so he submits an application. Human Resources, HR, reviews his application, and calls him in for an interview. He's offered employment, so they negotiate his wage. Once they reach an agreement, they sign an "employment contract."

When it comes to employment, workers agree to contribute their labor in exchange for monetary compensation. This compensation covers labor over a period of time. What workers get will depend on many variables, including supply and demand, as well as skill level.

Capitalism rewards people according to merit, and value to the organization

This is why white collar workers generally get paid more than blue collar workers. This is why people working in technical, engineering and construction tend to get paid better than cashiers or fast food floor employees.

More people know how to mop a floor compared to the number of people who could successfully run and manage a business operation. The higher you go on the corporate ladder, the more impact you have. The higher you climb, the more specialized skills, and experience, you'll need.

The pay scale reflects that reality.

For a floor employee, their worries are restricted to their job descriptions, and the time they're on the clock. Once they clock out, they could put their job out of mind until they clock back in. Salaried managers don't have this convenience.

Progressives claim that a business can operate, temporarily, without the manager. This same business would grind to a halt if a low level employee doesn't show up for work.

The restaurant serves as a popular argument piece. Say the busboy and dishwashers decide not to come in. That restaurant's business operation has to come to a halt. But, if the shift supervisor doesn't show up, business still goes on.

Now, what happens if the manager, usually the one that gathers data for the accounting books, fails to gather this data? What if payroll data isn't submitted to the agency that processes pay? What if the business owner failed to pay space rent, local, state and federal taxes, etc? What if the restaurant owner fails to make sure that accounting is done?

Not only would the employees not get paid, but the business would come to a screeching halt.

The cold hard reality is that busboys and dishwashers are more expendable than the manager. There are more people who could spray water on dirty dishes, then shove them through the washing machine, than there are people who could successfully manage a restaurant.

Contrary to liberal myths that a dishwasher and busboy are as important as the management, thus should get paid as much, they're easier to replace than the manager.

Can government funded services improve if the free market took over?

Many progressives argue that the police, fire protection, prisons, education, health care, parks, electricity, water supplies, sanitation, roadways and other services, shouldn't run for profit. Since everybody needs these, no organization needs to be profiting from them.

The free market has consistently provided superior services than the government.

Schools serve as a perfect example. Our universities rank among the best in the world, yet our K-12 school system is among the worst. How could one country hold both extremes in education?

The free market system places a strong influence on our universities. The Government manages our public K-12 schools. Their standings shouldn't come as a surprise.

Children attending private schools tend to do better than their counterparts in public schools. The free market has more influence on private schools than the government.

Liberals also argue that the government can do as good, or better, than the free market when it comes to health care.

Military healthcare, on military posts, is an example of why that assumption is wrong.

Many military hospitals, on large bases, near large urban centers, have Emergency Room waiting lines. Patients sit in the waiting areas, sometimes for hours, to get attention for minor ailments and injury.

Go to a clinic in that same urban area. The chances are great that the waiting time is real short, and you'll see a doctor. Many of these clinics advertise having both, doctors on shift, and the ability to quickly take walk-ins.

A few years ago, Walter Reed made the headlines. Their health care was nothing but a nightmare. Incidents, like a recovering soldier falling from his bed, and not being discovered till later... or where a soldier was able to see the bathtub, for the room above him, through a shower ceiling hole... rightfully resulted in an outcry.

Liberals tried to attack George Bush, but they missed a major point: Walter Reed was an example of a health system that that fell under the government's domain.

This isn't unique to US military hospitals. Canada had some issues where ambulances had to be turned around, and sent to another hospital, because of backlogged Emergency Rooms.

Commercial optometrists hardly use the machine that "puffs" materials into your eyes. Many optometrists, and their nurse assistants, consider those machines as archaic. Yet, this is standard equipment in military optometry clinics.

Free market hospitals tend to have more advanced equipment than government ran or military hospitals.

Health care, offered in the free market, costs more for the consumer than health care that the government subsidized. Liberals don't understand that government funded and managed healthcare also costs a lot. They don't see that, as the government pays it, not the consumer.

In countries where the government funds "universal" healthcare, the tax payers pay a really high tax rate.

Why is it that free market organizations tend to do better than their government funded counterparts?

It's survival of the fittest in the free market. Those that satisfy consumer demand, more efficiently and effectively, do better than those that don't. Those that fail to meet consumer demand, better than the others, lose business. If they continue to not be effective, they go in the red, or go out of business.

It's imperative for a "for profit" organization to provide a better product, or better service, than its competitors.

Not so for a government ran and funded organization.

An organization that receives money, "no matter what," doesn't need to have the best business operation to survive. Bad decisions, poor organization, ineffectiveness, multi dimensional red tape, etc., don't drive government organizations into the ground.

If you privatize many of the above services, economic competition will force those services to get better.

Try driving on a "toll road," compared to a "non toll road." You drive a substandard road until you get to a machine that issues you a ticket. You drive pass the stations and get back on the road. It's not long before the road quality improves. You get to the end, and pay your toll. Not long after that, the road's quality goes down.

If the government puts most its highways under a toll system, and quits using taxpayer money, that part of the tax system becomes fairer. People who use the highways more often pay most the money that's paid to highway improvement.

Now, there are some exceptions.

The military, police, and other first responders are properly placed under government control and provided government funding. You want the military's loyalty to be to the people, and to the country, and not to the highest bidder. Likewise, you want the police to be loyal to the community, and not to the highest bidder.

Credit unions aren't examples of Socialism, they're examples of free market at work

Liberals talk about credit unions being great examples of socialism at work.

Credit union employees get paid according to position, and where they're at in the pay scale. People, that bank with the credit union, generally own a part of that institution. They get a percent of the profits via dividends paid to their accounts. However; the employees and customers aren't "playing boss" for every aspect of the operation.

An employee runs the overall operation during a given shift. This supervisor works for a general manager, who works for someone that oversees several banks. The credit union still has a "corporate ladder" that pays higher the further you are in the chain of command.

Under socialism, employees on the lower rungs would get as much, or more, than the CEOs. This'd be the case if no other factors were involved. Employment compensation, under the credit union, doesn't match socialism's "everybody is the owner" concept.

Credit unions tend to be more user friendly than regular banks. If credit unions ride out recessions better than regular banks, this is why. Again, under the Free Market, you do better if you cater to the market better.

Government shouldn't be a hedge against poor personal economic decisions

Liberals argue that "basic necessity" demands are non negotiable. Organizations that provide basic necessity items should be protected from the free market's ups and downs. Since everybody needs gas to go to work, progressives argue that gas prices shouldn't be raised.

The point they miss is that it's not the government's job to protect them from facing rising gas, electricity and food prices.

Food prices go up?

It's time to start becoming economical. Maybe the $10.00 T Bone steak isn't a good idea. That $1.50 beef slice, enough to feed two people, is a better idea. Maybe it's not a good idea to constantly have boxes of soda when regular water could suffice. Maybe the junk food could remain on the store shelf, in favor of more natural foods.

You have food that the rich can afford, you have food that the middle class can afford, and you have food that the poor could enjoy. If your income lowers, then you should adjust your food selection to match your income reality.

Gas prices go up?

Maybe it's a good idea to start car pooling. Liberals love to argue that we should take care of the environment. Here's a good chance for them to do just that. If the workplace is close enough, maybe they could take a bike or go for a walk. If the city has public transportation, then they might save on gas money.

Basic household utilities become too expensive? It's time to stop that magazine subscription, cable subscription, internet subscription, fancy phone features, and other "want base" expenses.

If cutting unnecessary expenses still doesn't do the trick, a person could always find a second job.

Know someone that thinks that this isn't doable, given the current economic climate? I know a woman that works three jobs. She won't have sympathy for those that refuse to get additional jobs to help make ends meet.

As long as there are establishments with "help wanted" signs and advertisements, there's an opportunity for a second job.

Many liberals argue that since there are household services that everybody needs, these prices shouldn't go up. They must understand that they're not entitled to government guarantees for these services, simply because they're human needs.

Higher taxes and government red tape drives jobs out of this country

Our economy doesn't sit still. It's constantly growing and evolving. This has been the case throughout US, and Western, history.

Corporations and businesses in the United States aren't restricted to the U.S. The whole world is their option. Businesses are constantly measuring their performance in the economy. Business owners are looking at what they have to spend in order to make money.

If they could achieve a net gain in profits, by going overseas, they'll go overseas.

Companies have to pay tax expenses. If tax expenses go up, their break even point goes up. The higher their expenses, the les profits they make.

Companies pay payroll expenses. If the government forces them to pay higher wages, payroll taxes go up. Again, this eats into their profits. Companies react by not hiring more, by laying people off, or by going overseas.

Healthcare related laws, that force a company to pay more toward employee health insurance, increases healthcare related expense. The reaction is similar to increasing payroll taxes.

CEOs and business owners offset increases in these expenses by outsourcing. They'll move some or all of their operations to a country that charges fewer taxes on earnings. They'll move to a country where labor costs are lower.

When a company moves operations overseas, they cut both tax and labor expenses. They produce the goods, then ship them back to their American markets. This arrangement helps them meet customer demand while increasing their profit margin.

The American people's purchasing habits also force companies to move jobs overseas

The vast majority of the American public doesn't discriminate between what's made in the US, and what's made overseas. Their main concern is getting the best quality at the best prices.

A company can provide similar quality, at lower costs, if they could reduce labor and tax expenses. American companies achieve this by going overseas.

What would happen if US based manufacturing companies refused to move their operations overseas? Foreign manufacturers would wipe them out, since they're also moving their manufacturing operations outside their home countries.

Free market forces governments to make business friendly decisions

A government that wants to create jobs needs to create a business friendly environment. This includes low tax rates, and minimal laws that drain cash from these operations. When companies move in, they bring jobs with them.

You can't prevent jobs from going overseas with tax hikes on the businesses and companies that create those jobs.

The liberal's myth that the wealthy don't create jobs

Free market works when people make money by meeting customer demand.

Remember Bill Gates and Paul Allen?

Their venture had humble beginnings. They built from these beginnings and ultimately created Microsoft. Just think of the numbers of people who work for Microsoft. Corporations and businesses hire employees to do basic service and manufacturing jobs.

Many liberals claim that it's demand that creates these jobs, and not the corporation. They argue that it's the customers, and not the corporate and business owners, that are the true job creators.

That's like saying that you don't need chickens to create chicken eggs. You need both, rich's ability to hire new employees, and consumer demand.

Corporate and business ability to hire is key.

You don't want demand that becomes possible with government handouts. You want demand that becomes possible when businesses and companies hire employees... and provide them with a constant paycheck.

This happens when companies and businesses see the financial environment getting better. This includes corporations seeing increased profit potential... with increased hiring as a needed ingredient to achieve those profits.

And get this. The rich and super rich are also consumers. They're able to buy more than the average consumer. This means that they're able to place more money into the economy than the average consumer.

When times get tough, the average consumer reduces spending. This includes average employed consumers. If these consumers get more money, they either save it, or reduce their debts. This is less money entering the economy.

But those making more than the average consumer are still able to spend money during a recession.

Why businesses and corporations would hold onto their extra cash... and the catalyst that could cause them to open their money coffers...

People who run businesses and corporations constantly look ahead. They want to see how their business will do down the road. They weigh government actions heavily. Is the government going to raise taxes on corporate earnings? Is the government going to let reduced tax rates expire? Is the government going to do something that'll affect its credit rating?

CEOs and business owners understand that they're taking risks. They're not willing to spend more money when the business and economic environment risks getting worse.

One tactic they could utilize is to wait and see if the political landscape changes in Washington. If politicians are known for pushing for business friendly policies, and these politicians have numerical advantage, expect corporations and businesses start expanding.

This expansion would include hiring new employees.