You know, my views are pretty much the same. I do favor some regulations on the internet, as there have been some terrible privacy-violating acts by individuals that only the government can regulate and punish (such as videos which violate privacy). I think that is within the stated purpose of government. However, things like Net Neutrality, or any effort to really get the government involved in how the internet is run or what kind of speech is posted on it, is dangerous. As for the FCC, well, I feel the same way I do about the FDA and other such organizations--it's useless and it hurts us. I may be a parent within the next few years, and of course I will want to protect my kids from explicit imagery on television. But that's my job, not the government's, and the government actually makes it harder for parents to have market-based options when it gets so deeply involved.
I believe that there are really two things to take into consideration on any philosophical argument about government: morals and law. The law should always take what is moral into account, but should not necessarily enforce all types of morality. The non-aggression principle (the idea that no person or organization should initiate violence) should be held supreme by law, but other moral ideas, which may differ by religion or personal beliefs, should not be enforced by law. For example, I am a Christian, but I do not think the government should show favoritism to Christian organizations because 1) that is unChristian and 2) that can very easily be turned against Christians in the near future.
The Constitution is not a perfect document, but it is fundamentally a great social contract for binding down government and should be enforced in the United States. That means limited federal government, more state sovereignty, etc. Of course, I would also amend it to get rid of the income tax and the government's power of eminent domain, among other things. I favor judges like Clarence Thomas, who understands both the historical context of the Constitution and the importance of interpreting it properly. Ultimately, however, a love of freedom must come before the Constitution, or it will never fulfill its stated purpose.
On a side note, if you're interested in the Constitution, I highly recommend the book Who Killed the Constitution? It's a great crash course in the history of how our Constitution has been decimated by every branch of government. It's especially startling how much power the executive branch has always wielded.
I am not personally a big fan of Glenn Beck, though I don't mind him very much. I think he hurts his case sometimes when he favors foreign intervention or bashes Public officials with whom he disagrees. However, he is unfairly hated and however questionable his methods I think he has done some good things for the cause of limited government.
It's funny: I favored our foreign wars, regulations, etc. until I went to college and studied philosophy. There, I learned how important logic was, and followed it to the only consistent political conclusion I could: libertarianism. I don't buy moral relativism, nor do I buy arbitrary laws. It's amazing how many people do, and I think our whole world is suffering because we are so quick to accept double-standards from our political leaders (ick...the very notion of a "political leader" should be anathema to any free people) and ourselves.
I think it's awesome that your parents taught you to respect limited government from the beginning! My parents both left socialist countries for America, so they definitely helped instill in me a love of liberty--I am indebted to them for that, and without them I do not think I would have come to accept how truly important it is to guard our freedom!