Glenn interviews Texas Senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz

Glenn has said before that he think Ted Cruz understands what the country is facing economically and, if elected, will help put a stop to some of the big spenders in Congress. Cruz joined Glenn on radio to discuss his campaign - as well as some attack ads targeting him that are so bad they seem like an SNL parody.

Transcript of interview:

GLENN: We're just listening to these amazing Ted Cruz, anti‑Ted Cruz commercials.

PAT: Oh, they're horrible.

GLENN: Here in Texas. You have to hear just one of them.

PAT: Here's one of them.

GLENN: See if one word sticks out.

VOICE: The competition Ted Cruz is also lawyer Ted Cruz. Cruz is helping this Chinese company put this American manufacturer out of business. Cruz's Chinese client stole American blueprints.

VOICE: The jury found them liable for stealing our blueprints.

VOICE: But with lawyer Ted Cruz's help, the Chinese keep counterfeiting and Ted Cruz keeps getting paid.

VOICE: There's too many people like Ted Cruz.

PAT: That's because he's a lawyer. Have you ever noticed how closely lawyer and liar sound?

GLENN: Many of the same letters in "lawyer" and "liar."

STU: (Laughing.)

PAT: Quite a few, in fact.

GLENN: Is it a coincidence that not only lawyer, but trial lawyer politician Ted Cruz.

PAT: Following in the footsteps of other trial lawyers like John Adams.

GLENN: John Adams was a lawyer.

PAT: Who tried to overthrow the U.S. Government.

STU: Traitor.

PAT: Call Ted Cruz and ask him why he's a traitor lawyer, lawyer traitor.

GLENN: Lawyer, politician trial lawyer.

PAT: Lawyer.

GLENN: Revolutionary lawyer.

PAT: Lawyer.

GLENN: (Laughing.) And this is all done by Dewhurst who is just ‑‑

PAT: A nightmare.

GLENN: ‑‑ a nightmare. Texas, come on, come on, you're better than this. Ted Cruz is on the ‑‑ lawyer Ted Cruz.

PAT: Thank you, Glenn. Lawyer. Ted Cruz, who's a lawyer.

GLENN: Have you noticed, Ted, how many letters in "lawyer" are also in "liar"?

PAT: And liar?

CRUZ: I've got to say y'all have a future in comedy and attack ads.

GLENN: Really?

CRUZ: That is right in front of you.

GLENN: Will you defend us when we're in court trying to put American companies out of business?

PAT: Call Ted's office and ask him, why do you defend people? Why?

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: Why do you defend?

PAT: Is it because you're a defense lawyer?

GLENN: (Laughing.)

CRUZ: Well, we know it's silly season when we're 19 days out from the election.

STU: Yeah, we probably think this is a lot more funny than Ted does.

PAT: Probably.

GLENN: Ted Cruz isn't laughing when we call him lawyer.

PAT: So Ted, tell us about the Chinese company, the Chinese company and why you defended them.

CRUZ: Look, the ad that you played is filled with lies, and Dewhurst is spending $3 million saturating the airwaves with it.

PAT: Yep.

CRUZ: It's a lie.

PAT: I hear it every day, several times a day.

STU: All the time.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I have to tell you I've met with people in Texas, I was for Ted Cruz but have you heard he's a lawyer?

PAT: He's a lawyer?

GLENN: He's a lawyer politician.

CRUZ: It is filled with lots of lies, the biggest one of which is they tell you that the opposing party in this lawsuit is, quote, an American manufacturer.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: What they don't tell you is 20 years ago, he moved his factory to China.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

CRUZ: This is, in fact, a lawsuit between two Chinese tire factories.

PAT: Really?

CRUZ: Really.

PAT: That is conveniently missing from the ad.

CRUZ: They just omitted, he incorporated his company in the Channel Islands, a notorious tax haven, and he spends eight months a year in China running his factory there.

PAT: What was the underhanded technique that was used supposedly? Because one of them, one of them is that supposedly some underhanded technique was used to defend them?

CRUZ: Which is that the company filed an appeal, and there are actually three tire companies in the case. All three appealed, including the plaintiff, including the fellow in the ad. He appealed.

PAT: Wow.

STU: Wow, he used the same underhanded technique?

PAT: As lawyer Ted Cruz?

GLENN: There's too many people like you, Ted Cruz.

CRUZ: Well, and you know what's interesting, he also doesn't tell people that I didn't argue the case. I wasn't the lead lawyer. And if you look at a case I did argue last year in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Chinese counterfeiting. I represented a major manufacturer against a Chinese company that stole a U.S. patent.

GLENN: So let me translate. He was using his tricks again in a courtroom, as a lawyer.

STU: On the same topic.

PAT: Again, with China being involved.

CRUZ: It IS hard to argue with that.

GLENN: We can turn it against you any way you throw it at us.

GLENN: And you know what? If I were Dewhurst and I had millions and millions and millions of dollars, I would turn it against you every single way. I mean, it wouldn't matter anymore. "Do we have enough lawyers? Don't we have enough Dewhursts in Washington already"?

PAT: Boy, that's for sure.

GLENN: We do.

PAT: We do have more than enough Dewhursts in Washington already.

GLENN: Tell me about ‑‑ tell me why you should be there, Ted.

CRUZ: Because our nation is in crisis and we've got too many go‑along‑to‑get‑along establishment politicians to Washington. We need conservatives and with he need fighters.

GLENN: Are you a Club For Growth guy?

CRUZ: Club For Growth has endorsed me, Freedom Works has endorsed me, the five strongest conservatives in the U.S. Senate, Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Rand, Paul and Pat Toomey, and Tom Coburn have endorsed me. And just an hour ago, you may not have seen the news, Governor Sarah Palin endorsed me.

PAT: Wow, that's nice.

GLENN: Now let me ask you this: Texas, what the hell is wrong with you! How are the poll numbers doing?

CRUZ: The poll numbers are great. It is a two‑man race between me and David Dewhurst. He is the moderate establishment. He is a tax‑and‑spend Republican.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

CRUZ: And our numbers are surging because conservatives are uniting behind Tea Party activists, Republican women. And I'll tell you the Dewhurst campaign is terrified, after Mourdock's win in Indiana.

GLENN: They should be.

CRUZ: Because as you know, all the pundits said that the moderate incumbent there was unbeatable and the people rose up and said, look, we're tired of these spineless jellyfish that don't believe anything.

GLENN: But how do you honestly, how do you combat somebody who has unlimited funds that are running ad campaigns? I mean, these ad campaigns make you ‑‑ Ted, I don't know you well but I've met you several times. You're not a monster and you're certainly not the guy that is portrayed in these ads.

CRUZ: Right.

GLENN: And, you know, if I didn't know you and I was just kind of a casual person, I'd think... he's a lawyer.

PAT: A Chinese operative.

GLENN: I mean, I would think you were the worst monster on the planet. How do you fight this without a lot of money against a guy who has an unlimited amount of cash?

CRUZ: Yeah, he's putting a million bucks of his own money in. You know the answer is support from the people all over Texas and all over the country. We've raised over $5.2 million from 19,000 people. Every time I'm on your show, Glenn, I've got to tell you hundreds and hundreds of people all over Texas and all over the country come to our website, TedCruz.org. They contribute. And it's how we're keeping up because this is conservatives all over the country.

GLENN: But here ‑‑ hang on. Here's something interesting. I mean, here's a guy who's running for the Senate seat from Texas and again one of his dirty tricks: He doesn't spell "Cruz" the way you would normally spell "cruise." Another dirty underhanded trick. So if you're going the Website and you're trying to find "cruise" ‑‑

PAT: Yeah. TedCruz.org, you would spell it Ted Cruz, C‑r‑u‑z, if I'm not mistaken.

CRUZ: That is exactly right.

PAT: Isn't that the underhanded trick you're using?

GLENN: Underhanded trick.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: It's not "cruise" like, hey, I'm putting it in cruise control.

PAT: No.

GLENN: It's that kind of underhanded stuff ‑‑

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: ‑‑ that we've had enough of.

PAT: Tell us, what's the biggest difference between you and David Dewhurst? Why should Texas vote for you as opposed to him, the guy everybody knows?

CRUZ: I'm a conservative and I'm a fighter. I've spent my entire life fighting for the Constitution and fighting for freedom. As the solicitor general for Texas for five and a half years serving under Greg Abbott, we led the nation fighting for conservative opinions, we defended the Ten Commandments and won, defended the "Pledge of Allegiance" and won, defended the Second Amendment and won. And we stood up and fought the world court and the United Nations and the president of the United States defended U.S. sovereignty and won.

PAT: Against Mexico, right?

CRUZ: Mexico and actually 90 nations against us. Mexico sued the United States and the world court.

GLENN: You did that as a lawyer.

PAT: As a lawyer. Tell us about that case because that ‑‑

GLENN: I didn't know you were the guy who did that.

PAT: Yeah, that was an important case. Tell us about that one.

CRUZ: Well, it was a case that began tragically in Houston. Two teenage girls were gang‑raped and murdered.

PAT: 1993?

CRUZ: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah.

CRUZ: And one of the gang rapists and murderers was named José Medellin. He was an illegal alien. And he was convicted and what happened was Mexico sued the United States and the world court, and the world court issued an order to the United States to reopen the convictions of 51 murderers across the country.

PAT: And in my final straw with George W. Bush, he actually sided with Mexico on this.

CRUZ: It was heartbreaking. I think he received some very, very poor advice.

PAT: Yep.

CRUZ: And he signed an order that attempted to order the state courts to obey the world court.

GLENN: This is ‑‑

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: This is ‑‑

PAT: That was unbelievable.

GLENN: This is where I really lost it with George Bush.

PAT: Me, too.

GLENN: When this stuff was starting to happen, this was when I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

PAT: What?

GLENN: What the hell was George Bush doing? And you're the guy who fought it and argued it in the Supreme Court?

CRUZ: Yeah, I argued it twice. And as you know, one of the things we need ‑‑

PAT: And won, by the way.

GLENN: Yes.

CRUZ: Is we need leaders who have the backbone to stand up not just to Democrats but to fellow Republicans when they go off the reservation and they are not honoring the Constitution.

GLENN: Thank you.

PAT: Exactly.

GLENN: Thank you. Okay, now look. Last Tuesday Indiana, the Tea Party and Freedom Works and everybody else got together and they got Dick Lugar out.

CRUZ: Yep.

GLENN: We're not fighting the Democrats. We're fighting the Republicans. Got Dick Lugar out. Now the eyes are going to turn to Texas. Can the Tea Party, can freedom lovers, can constitutionalists, can real conservatives stand and make it past somebody who has millions of dollars and deep pockets to smear this guy left and right? This guy doesn't have deep pockets.

PAT: An established, moderate establishment candidate in David Dewhurst.

GLENN: Big time. Big time.

PAT: That's who that guy is. I mean, "moderate" is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

GLENN: Big time. This is ‑‑ you know, this is another one of those RINOs, this is one of those GOP "I'll play whatever game they want me to play" and Ted Cruz is not. Running for U.S. Senate out of Texas. If you want to donate, if you want to help him, go to TedCruz.org, C‑r‑u‑z‑e. TedCruz.org.

PAT: C‑r‑u‑z.

GLENN: What did I say?

PAT: No E.

GLENN: Okay. Another dirty trick?

PAT: Yes. Still another one.

GLENN: Oh, my goodness. I don't know if I can ‑‑

PAT: It's a long U sound without the E at the end. How did he pull that off?

GLENN: He's being outspent 9‑1. Early voting starts on Monday all over Texas. Dewhurst needs 50% of the vote to avoid a runoff which would most likely be with Ted. Concentrate your efforts one at a time. We've got to take the Senate back and that means even taking it back from the Republicans. We've got to have people who understand what we're facing, and Ted is one of those guys. Thank you, Ted. I appreciate it, man.

CRUZ: It's always a pleasure. You guys are fighting for freedom and making a difference. And you know what? A lot of the media said the Tea Party was dead. Tuesday proved that wrong. And on May 29th, 19 days from today, Texas is going to prove it wrong. We're going to send a strong conservative and a fighter to the Senate. And you have my word: Texas will lead the fight to stop the Obama agenda, to defend free market principles, and to restore the Constitution.

GLENN: And you have my word that if you don't hold that up, you will... you'll receive the wrath, the wrath of this program and everybody who voted for ya.

CRUZ: And Glenn, I am asking you, hold me accountable.

GLENN: Oh, we will. You don't have to ask. It's our pleasure.

CRUZ: Because if I am anything other than leading the fight with arrows up and down my torso.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

CRUZ: I mean, Glenn, as you know my dad fled oppression in Cuba. I mean, he was imprisoned. He was tortured. Freedom for me is not an abstract concept in a book.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. Is your dad still alive?

CRUZ: He is. He's a pastor ‑‑

GLENN: We'll get him on a plane and we'll personally have him punch you in the face if you start screwing around in Washington. No, I mean it. It will be your worst nightmare. I mean it.

CRUZ: I'm much more scared of my dad than I am of you.

GLENN: You should be.

CRUZ: Because I'd have to look him in the eyes if I didn't fight for freedom and help turn this around.

GLENN: All right. Ted, thanks a lot. I appreciate it, man.

PAT: TedCruz.org.

GLENN: Again is lawyer Ted Cruz.

PAT: TedCruz.org.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.