Man in the Moon, Tower of Babel & Rabbi Lapin

There’s a part in Glenn’s July 4th ‘Man in the Moon’ show that features a stunning Tower of Babel replica - so what the heck is the Tower of Babel doing in a July 4th celebration? Glenn talked on radio today to Rabbi Lapin, the man who explained the history of Babel to him better than anyone.

Transcript of interview is below:

GLENN: I have with me one of my dear friends and he's the best teacher I think. I said on the era minute ago, I have such respect for David Barton and I think he's one of the best teachers known in America. Rabbi Daniel Lapin is David Barton on steroids, not on speed but on steroids. And I was just showing him a picture of something that's coming from the American Dream Labs for Man in the Moon and this is in construction now and I think it's actually finished. I'm just waiting for the film on it. But this is a model of the Tower of Babel that, when I'm telling the story of America in the Man in the Moon thing for independence week in Salt Lake, part of that has to include the Tower of Babel. And that came from a conversation where he taught me the story, Rabbi Lapin taught me the story of the Tower of Babel and it is so clear what the ‑‑ the Lord is so consistent, and we are battling the exact same problem over and over and over again.

RABBI LAPIN: Well, that's what the first nine verses in Chapter 11 of genesis, that's not just a silly story about some anachronistic nation that's vanished in some primitive archeological artifact. No, it's actually a blueprint for the faithful allure of socialism which will live and burn in the hearts of men until the end of time.

GLENN: He has a new book called Buried Treasure: Secrets For Living from the Lord's Language, where he is taking Hebrew and showing ‑‑ for instance, I love this, and this isn't in the book and let me just make this side note. One of the things he taught me was, "Glenn, there is no such thing ‑‑ there's no Hebrew word for retirement. It's not in the Bible. There's no word for retirement, not part of God's plan."

RABBI LAPIN: And it's a really bad idea because what it really suggests is that when I've got mine, I'm getting out of the game and talking my ball and going home.

PAT: And how many people seriously die shortly after retiring?

RABBI LAPIN: It's definitely not part of God's plan for humanity. You're right about that.

GLENN: Okay. So one of the things in the book you talk about, there's only one word for blood and money.

RABBI LAPIN: Yes. In Hebrew ‑‑

GLENN: And so when you're reading ‑‑ you're reading the scriptures, you have to know which way it's ‑‑ similar.

RABBI LAPIN: It's always like that, yes, and this is not like this in English. For instance, the sole of my foot has absolutely nothing to do with fried sole that I like with french fries.

GLENN: Right.

RABBI LAPIN: And we don't sit around figuring out ourselves what could one have to do with the other. But in Hebrew anytime one word applies to what appear to be two concepts, what we do is we wrap those two concepts and they are actually, by combining them and integrating them, some fundamental truth is divulged and ‑‑

GLENN: So the same word, it's "dam."

RABBI LAPIN: Correct. That's exactly right, yes.

GLENN: So "dam" is the word for blood and "dam" is the word for money. So you're saying that God's language is saying those are the same how?

RABBI LAPIN: Sure. Well, one of the ways they are the same, of course, is that they are both your life force and, in fact, scripture says blood is the life force. And we've got to recognize that money isn't this dreadful, awful thing that hangs onto us like germs or like an article of clothing we might put on. Money, our money is actually our life force. If we didn't ‑‑

GLENN: Hang on just a second. That sounds to me like you're worshipping money or that you've put money ‑‑ you've made money more than a vehicle that can drive either way.

RABBI LAPIN: Ah, and this is why we're not allowed to, in Judaism we're not allowed to eat blood. And number two, think about it. There's a real problem if you see blood. Anytime you actually see it, something's wrong. It's not a good thing. When you see money, when it's too evident, that suggests the love of money. That's something else entirely. So money should do its work behind the scenes, as it were, the way blood does it work thinned scenes.

PAT: Makes sense, doesn't it?

GLENN: I just love you.

PAT: That's great.

GLENN: You are so clarifying on stuff. The thing that you said last night, we were talking about the pope.

RABBI LAPIN: Yes.

GLENN: And when you talk about the pope, first thing you do is you call a rabbi. We had really ‑‑ we had actually one of your really good friends. He just flew in from Rome to be with us last night, and it's really good news about this pope. We did our homework, we've talked to several people, and we really believe this guy is a ‑‑ he could be, he could be the best pope in the history of the church and he very well looks like he's going to be the same kind of pope as John Paul was, which is help the poor. He was described as really kind of a Mother Teresa. Not a government thing. It's an individual thing to help.

But as we were talking about this, we started talking about the world and the president going over to Israel and you said something that I had never heard before. In fact, the reverend said, "Where is that in the Bible? Show that to me." When the Jews left Egypt ‑‑

RABBI LAPIN: Yes.

GLENN: ‑‑ not all of them left.

RABBI LAPIN: Correct.

GLENN: Explain.

RABBI LAPIN: Well, the verse in Gene‑ ‑‑ excuse me. The verse in Exodus says ‑‑ and in Hebrew it says (inaudible), the children of Israel went up out of Egypt 1/5th. And since the early 17th century with the King James translation of the Bible, they've had trouble translating that word because it raises so many more questions than it answers. "Wow, what are you talking about? Like only 20% left?" Well, yeah, that's exactly right. And so most English translations fudge that Hebrew word and turn it into something else. They might say the children of Israel left with weapons in their hands.

GLENN: Find it real quick, Pat, will ya? Do you remember which ‑‑

PAT: Do you know what verse it is?

RABBI LAPIN: How awful that I came here so unprepared.

GLENN: No, no, no, no, I'm sorry. In Exodus.

RABBI LAPIN: I can find it.

GLENN: Yeah.

RABBI LAPIN: It's in Exodus. It's going to be somewhere around about Chapter 12 in Exodus, somewhere there.

GLENN: Okay.

RABBI LAPIN: And the English translation will probably say something like the children of Israel went out of Egypt armed, or something like that.

GLENN: Why did they translate "1/5th" to "armed"?

RABBI LAPIN: Because in Hebrew 1/5th is meaning 5, and the word "five" is always linked to a hand, five fingers to a hand. And so what they ‑‑ you know, unarmed combat or empty‑handed. So here they threw in and they said, well, it must mean ‑‑

GLENN: How do you know that that's not the way they meant it, that that's not what ‑‑ that only, only 1/5 left? How do you know that that's what they meant and not that they carried weapons with them?

RABBI LAPIN: Ancient Jewish wisdom, about 2600 pages of densely packed Aramaic text from the time of Jesus 2,000 years old, and before that it was completely oral. What happened is Moses was on Mt. Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights, and a large part of that time the background was being explained because there are many bizarre mysteries in the five books of Moses that on the surface of it appear to be very, very strange. And as soon as we know some of the background, we know exactly what's going on and we understand why these things are. The whole point of the 20% is to teach us not only that even in spite of Moses, in spite of the miracles, in spite of the ten plagues, bottom line is 80% of people are going to say "Give me security. Just let me ‑‑ you know what? I'm okay with the Egyptians. They have problems, they exact a lot of texts..."

GLENN: This is so amazing because it was only 20% ‑‑ correct me if I'm wrong, Pat. It was only 20% that went with the founders. It was really only about 20% of the American people who said, "I'm willing to die for this." Right?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Wasn't it?

PAT: It was a small percentage.

RABBI LAPIN: It always is. And, you know, it's the rule in business as well. People who are professional salespeople know that 80% of your sales come from 20% of your customers. In the final analysis, in every epoch and in every orbit, it's about 1/5 of the people that deliver.

GLENN: So that explains why. So is the tipping point, you know, with, for instance, taxes, is the tipping point really truly 50/50 or 49/51? Because what we're having a problem with is people are saying, "Well, you'll never be able to turn it back because so many people are comfortable. They get money back and so they're comfortable."

RABBI LAPIN: When the takers exceed the makers, I think we have a problem.

GLENN: But you have only 20%. Because that's the problem. The reason why people take or they want security is they are afraid to risk.

RABBI LAPIN: Yes.

GLENN: More people are not entrepreneurs I believe because it's scary. It really is scary. To come out and say, "You know what, I'm going to do this. I'm going to leave ‑‑ I'm going to leave the comfort that I had." I mean, when I was at Fox, they told me, you're not going to leave. Nobody ever does. You're not going to leave. And I'm like, "No, I'm going to leave because I am an independent person and I'm an entrepreneur." But that takes a different kind of person to go out and strike it out on your own.

RABBI LAPIN: You better be able to live with fear.

GLENN: Yeah.

RABBI LAPIN: You better be able to live with uncertainty and above all what I find to be the defining characteristic and I've known you long enough, if I may say, to know that you possess this and that is faith. You can't do it without faith, which is why entrepreneurialism never thrives in a socialist or atheistic environment.

GLENN: I didn't know that, either. Is that why Europe doesn't have ‑‑ and that's why ‑‑ that would explain why Israel is so for its size, is so huge on so huge on entrepreneurial spirit and everything else.

RABBI LAPIN: There's no other way to explain it because ordinarily GDP is a function of population. Georgia has 10 times the GDP of Rhode Island and it's got 10 times the population. So the numbers match. Israel's four contiguous neighbors, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt have about ten times the population of Israel. You'd expect them to have ten times the GDP. That's actually closer to the other way around. And the only explanation is that Judeo‑Christian biblical culture focuses very much on the idea of faith, which is why the founders put the words "In God We Trust" not on the walls of churches but on the money. Because that is where it comes from. It absolutely depends on a faith. And Koranic culture does not possess the same focus on faith that biblical culture does.

GLENN: You are going to learn more from this one book, Buried Treasure ‑‑ this is the second edition, Buried Treasure by Rabbi Daniel Lapin than you will learn anyplace else. In fact, before I went on the air, just to show you that I love this man and I think he is really truly one of the greatest teachers alive today. I just asked him, I said, "You know, when you're in town, will you schedule some time and when you're in town, I'd like him to come and teach me, you know, and so I can learn and really be a student of Daniel Lapin. He is brilliant, and it is not ‑‑ it's God stuff that you will learn. Again the book is Buried Treasure: The Secrets for Living from the Lord's Language. Rabbi Lapin, it's available anywhere or you can go to RabbiDanielLapin.com and pick it up there. Thank you very much, Rabbi.

RABBI LAPIN: Thank you, Glenn. Great being here.

GLENN: God bless. All right. Back in just a second.

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.