"He's a good friend and a good guy": Glenn talks to congressional candidate Dan Bongino

On radio today, Glenn introduced listeners to several candidates who have expressed support for constitutional values through their words and values. One person Glenn has had onto the show several times is former Secret Service Dan Bongino.

Bongino is running for U.S. Representative of Maryland's 6th Congressional District.

Watch the interview below:

GLENN: We have Dan Bongino. Dan is a former Secret Service guy. A really fine upstanding guy. Really gives me hope that there are good people that are in Washington who wake up. He was standing listening to some meetings after watching my program on Fox and at one point it was like I don't think these guys make any sense at all. What am I doing. And got out and decided that he was going to run and has put his whole family at risk quite honestly, put his family in financial risk. Walked away from everything to be able to run. And doesn't -- doesn't find anything but honor in running for the office. I don't think Maryland could have a better Congressman. Dan Bongino, welcome to the program.

BONGINO: Hey, thanks, Glenn, I appreciate all those kind words that. Means a lot, thank you.

PAT: Dan, there's no real polling on this race, there seems like. Where do you stand? What kind of sense do you have? Do you have any kind of internal polling over when are are you right now.

BONGINO: We did, I'm almost afraid to tell you, because we had $6,000 worth of our signs stolen last weekend and my opponent dumped about a quarter-million negative ads in my head. One poll had us up by six. So why no one is paying attention to this case except for TheBlaze family and a couple of other talk radio hosts out there with an audience is beyond me. It's not even that far of a democrat-leaning district. It's just a slight tilt.

GLENN: Who else is paying attention to it? What other hosts?

BONGINO: Well, Sean, who's obviously a friend of yours. Mark Levin has been good to me as well.

PAT: Good.

BONGINO: Rush gave us a shout-out about a year ago when I spoke out about Benghazi. But outside of that, Glenn, I mean, listen, I'm known you for a long time before I decided to run for office. I'm probably here because of passion and appeal you gave on your old Fox News program one time that made me go look at "Road To Serfdom" and read through it. It's probably the reason I would say I'm doing this.

GLENN: Tell me the -- tell the audience the pivot point. What was it.

BONGINO: Well, were you given this argument and the gist of it was that this is going to require some sacrifice. Obviously I'm not quoting you directly. I have it on T i V o upstairs, the actual episode, so I'm hoping I can take the actual box with me when I leave. But it's an older one and the division is the what did you think this was, goes to be ease?

Listen, the folks, the fights we're undergoing now are not the fights we were -- you know, having even a hundred years ago. These are now fights against people who are saying things like, businesses don't create jobs. You know, you didn't build that. I mean, this is a far different fight than arguing over a 19 or 20% tax rate. But the sacrifice theme you had made me ask myself, what in hades am I doing here. I'm just throwing the Nerf football at the screen collecting a government paycheck as a Secret Service agent. There's tons to do and not talk.

GLENN: So you're a fair tax guy. Can you tell me why -- I'm a flat tax guy. I don't understand the fair tax thing.

BONGINO: You know, I've got issues with both. The fair tax had some issues as well. It's a consumption tax. The reason I like it is because of the incentives or disincentives. The fair tax tax is consumption, it's a sales tax. Whatever you earn you take home. There are no federal sales tax at all. It doesn't disincentivize this thing we called work that conservatives really like. We should work. We work, we produce. We produce, we're wealthy. People's prosperity is measured by what they have. You know, their food, their cars, things like that. So it doesn't disincentivize work. The flat tax I like the idea as well, but the flat tax is still an income-based tax. But both of them have issues. I'm thinking we may be able to move towards more of a hybrid scaled program, flat tax to fair tax later, but they both have pluses and minuses.

PAT: The thing that scares me about tear fax and we're going to get a billion calls, so please don't.

PAT: The fair tax requires that you get rid of the IRS, which is just a monumental undertaking.

GLENN: I'd love to do it, though.

PAT: I'd love to do it, I just don't know how you do it.

GLENN: Needs to be done.

PAT: Do you think it's possible, Dan?

BONGINO: I hope it's possible, because as we've seen, whether it be Nixon who tried it or this administration that successfully implemented, you know, using the IRS as a -- you know, political attack dog program as their own 501( c )(3), something has to be done with our tax enforcement. One of the issues of the fair tax as well, is I think as -- I had a conversation about it this weekend with someone. They may be underselling the evasion rate. And you do need some semblance of revenue neutrality to sell it to people. You're going to have to get some people on the other side to go along or else you're never going to get it passed. So there are definitely issues with both. And I agree. I know when you mention that word, I'm totally with you guys. My Twitter feed will go crazy, too. But we have to be realistic and we can't pretend that there's some kind of -- panacea out there to solve all our tax problems. There's not.

GLENN: So the president printing up nine million green cards. They won't -- they won't verify. They won't talk about something as meaningless as what color the paper is that they're printing in Washington. That's almost a quote. What do you think it means and what do you do?

BONGINO: Well, I think we all know what it means. We're all terrified to say it because we're afraid we almost might incentivize him to do it. Do you know what's amazing about this administration, Glenn? They always pick the issue that really annoys Americans the most and then they poke and prod. Even when it comes to judicial nominees, it's like when they have this -- this portfolio of people and they're like, okay, let's rate them 1 to 100. A hundred meaning the most vile that conservatives will go crazy about. That's my guy. So with this thing I always fear the worst, because with this administration the worst always comes true. This is going to be a massive, lawless, completely lawless amnesty where people who just walked into the country -- by the way, my wife is an immigrant. We did it the right way. I always ask, do I --

GLENN: Why do you hate immigrants.

BONGINO: We paid to be legal immigrants. Do we get refund physical they're going to declare amnesty of of course they're going to do it after the election, which is amazing.

GLENN: Why do you hate Mexicans?

BONGINO: Of course, that's got -- you know, it's funny you say that, because my opponent ad doesn't like -- he eats them after he doesn't like them. So -- did you see that clip with the female candidate running for office who goes off the war on women and the audience starts cracking up like they can't control themselves anymore?

PAT: Yeah.

BONGINO: It's gotten so absurd on the left.

PAT: It's you can blink.

GLENN: It really has. Dan, five years ago when you were first listening to me and I said things are going to be upside down. You won't recognize your country. And up will be down, down will be up. What was liquid will be solid. You never really thought we'd actually get there, did you? Because I only halfway did. And I was the one saying it.

BONGINO: I remember reading on my time when I had a personal Facebook feed all of the -- the left wing Bloggers who would say, this guy is crazy. But you notice none of them are saying that now, because they're afraid to reprint and link to the old articles where the stuff actually happened. The dark money you were always talking about between tithes and Soros, funding these campaigns. And they do the little -- dipsydoo fliparoo, the left. Dark money, the Koch brothers. The Koch problems 15th in the country in donations behind all these left wing people who are out there pumping money with the campaign. All the stuff you talked about undo influence of our government and total evaporation like an Alka Seltzer tablet of liberty is now sadly coming true and Americans need to wake up and the independents among us and the moderate Democrats need to wake up too, that don't think they won't come after you next. Remember, there are Democrats who have been targeted too by this administration. Just ask people at the chase bank and other folks who have been -- and the guy in the -- HHS and the IRS who were Democrats who were gone after the administration after they spoke out.

PAT: Dan, what's going on -- you're for -- I think most people in our audience understand this and know this, but you're a former Secret Service agent. What has happened? I mean, as we watch the meltdown of the Secret Service agency, how -- what is going on with them? Do you have any sense of what's happened there?

BONGINO: I'll give you the Reader's Digest version. When we transferred from Treasury to Homeland, it became just a bureaucratic mess, just about like everything else in the government does. When you expand and grow bigger. The layers of management grew and they became insulated. In my opinion, there was a small group, not all, there are a lot of good managers there, but a small group of innings whose incentives then became to look for security jobs after their retirement with these Homeland Security personnel. They were now almost in bed with now that we from in the department of homeland security. That wasn't the case with treasury. The Secret Service wasn't going to leave with Tim Geithner to evaluate black shows derivatives. That's not the way it works. So the over bureaucratization of the agency created a perverse incentive to abandon the rank and file Secret Service agents for management. It really all comes down to that. And someone said to me you can't blame poor management for the fence jumper. No, you can't. I'm not absolving them of this catastrophic failure of course, but there were people there on the front lawn of the White House that had six months on the job because the uniform division can't retain anyone because they're led by really terrible managers. That does have something to do with it. You can't view in it a vacuum.

PAT: Where were the dogs that night? Because --

(overlapping speakers).

PAT: Well, the Secret Service did. The second time. But the first time, no one let the dogs out. Do you know what happened there?

BONGINO: Well, from what I'm hearing, I saw it in a couple media reports and a couple of my friends give me an inside scoop on it. That the handler was apparently afraid that a couple of the folks that were chasing them, that they would be the ones targeted by the dog. I don't know about that. These dogs are pretty well trained. I was in our train center, I was an instructor there and these dogs are pretty well trained to discriminate amongst targets. I don't know. I don't know if he just dropped the ball. There's no question it was a catastrophic mistake.

PAT: Bizarre.

BONGINO: You had some asking why didn't we shoot the guy, which I find absurd. You -- this is the United States. We don't shoot trespassers. It just doesn't happen. Then they --

PAT: Even when they're trespassing on the White House lawn? I would think you would. When they're trespassing on the White House lawn --

GLENN: Or --

PAT: Or inside the house. He took down one of the agents.

GLENN: We paint the front door because it's been stained a little bit.

(laughing).

BONGINO: I don't agree. No, here's the thing. If he had a weapon in his hand, if he vocalized the threat, you would be absolutely correct.

GLENN: Dan, Dan --

BONGINO: But remember the south grounds incident with Miriam Carey when the woman with the car went on the --

GLENN: They shot her in the head, right.

BONGINO: Right.

PAT: That we didn't agree with it.

GLENN: But she wasn't inside the White House. We shot somebody outside of the White House gates.

PAT: In a car.

GLENN: In a car. And we just let somebody run into the White House. I mean, it's insane. Just -- here's the thing, Dan. On this, because you and I agree on everything. Just remind me if I ever become president, you're not the head of treasury.

(laughing).

BONGINO: All right, I'll remind you.

GLENN: Or as long as you just say, yes, sir, Mr. President, when I say, I don't mind repainting the front door. Keep my family safe.

PAT: Don't worry, Dan, that's smog you'll ever have to worry about.

GLENN: You'll never have to worry about.

PAT: You don't have to consider it ever.

GLENN: Dan, best of luck to you. And we're really counting on you to do great things when you get to Washington. We're just really excited for you. And I just -- I can't endorse you any higher than I have. In fact, I never endorse candidates. What the hell, I just did.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: He's a good friend and a good guy. And I wish you all -- I wish you all the best.

PAT: How do you help if somebody wants to jump in and help out?

BONGINO: Thanks. Bongino.com. And I really, really appreciate that, Glenn. I hope you can hear the emotion in my voice. I mean it. You've been a good friend to me and I really appreciate that. Good to know there are people out there willing to take a chance.

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.