Glenn has two theories on why revolutionaries and protestors will fail

Chaos erupted in Ferguson last week, and days after the grand jury declined to indict officer Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown, protests continue to take place there and across the country. Things have only escalated in recent days, with Louis Farrakhan loudly encouraging people to "tear this goddamn country up" over the decision. But Glenn said the protestors and revolutionaries like Farrakhan will ultimately fail, and he had two theories as to why.

Watch Farrakhan's comments below, and scroll down for Glenn's reaction:

GLENN: All right. So there's Louis Farrakhan. This is, quite honestly, stuff that is happening all across the country and the world. They're sewing these seeds and people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in particular are sewing these seeds. The president is even saying, hey, let's keep this protest on track. I'm not saying the president wants violence or anything else.

What I'm saying is they believe it will work to their advantage to have an uprising. It's no different, quite honestly, than Occupy Wall Street. When you think about what happened in Occupy Wall Street. How did that go? They were talking about revolution. They were talking about the 1 percent. They were doing everything they can to pit the rich against the poor. Now, they're pitting the white against the black.

What did they find from Occupy Wall Street? They found out there were enough people to stand out in the cold for a while. Then it got kind of call, but then it's starting to get chilly and I don't want any of this stuff that much. That's what happened. It just dissipated. It feel apart. They were shocked. That's when Frances Fox Piven came out and said, look, where is the outrage? Why are people not protesting?

Remember, the Cloward-Piven tragedy was based on the Watts Riots. I contend that what they did -- what the real radicals and revolutionaries did, when they saw we couldn't pit rich versus poor in America, because honestly most people in America have it pretty well off. Even if you're struggling, we're still in the top 1 percent as a nation. The poorest Americans are in the top 1 percent of the rest of the world.

PAT: And they aspire to one day have wealth. How can you hate wealthy people when you want to be one?

GLENN: Right. That didn't work. They went back to the drawing board. And they looked at the original Cloward and Piven tragedy and that was race. You have to get the race riot to happen. You have to get all that pent up hatred on race. And unleash that. And you know that this is the strategy because look at what's happening at the border. Look at what they've done in the last six months. Try to poke race, race, race, race. And as soon as we have any kind of shooting with police, they will look to exploit that any way they can.

Now, the people who are on the streets in Ferguson, a lot of those are not from Ferguson. The real organizers, the ones putting this together are from elsewhere, as we showed you yesterday, many of the attorneys are the attorneys from Occupy Wall Street. One of the attorneys said yesterday, Occupy Wall Street is the gift that just keeps on giving.

So you have a different scenario happening here than what's being reported. What's being reported is this spontaneous movement, the same thing they were saying about Occupy Wall Street. It wasn't spontaneous. It was coordinated. Same thing happening here. It's coordinated. It's happening all over the country and happening in all the typical hot spots where all the real radicals are. Now, you're hearing people like Louis Farrakhan ratcheting his people up. You hear the uber left. This will go the same way that Occupy Wall Street did.

And here's why: And there's two theories. And I'm hoping one of these are right. You get to pick which one I hope is right, and you get to pick which one you think is right.

The reason why the progressive movement took off in the first place is because - as we've talked about in the book Dreamers and Deceivers, about Upton Sinclair - there were calls for revolution. There were calls for revolution. Communist revolution. By 1919, the communist revolution happened in the Soviet Union and, even Woodrow Wilson said, that was a "glorious revolution". That was power to the people. Finally the Russian people would be free. And he loved it. Progressives believed at the time that communism or fascism. They were split, which one would work. They no longer believed in the Constitution. They no longer believed in the Declaration of Independence. They no longer believed that man could rule himself.

There needed to be a strong centralized government ruled by elites. They all agreed on that. This was the time before Hitler and Stalin and everything else, so you can give them the benefit of the doubt.

They saw this new way involving medicine, technology, and superior elites up at the top. And those people could control the masses. They could control the masses through advertising and through propaganda, and they could get the dummies to follow along because the elites knew the best way to handle the country and the world's affair and what the world should look like. They could also weed out the undesirables through things like Planned Parenthood, sterilization, medicine.

We look back and judge them. But don't. Look back with their eyes. They had never seen any mass slaughter at the time. But the people like Woodrow Wilson and the people at the beginning of the progressive movement, they knew one thing about the American people. That is, the American people are generally good. The American people do not want violent revolution.

So the communists and the fascists, both of them wanted to change the system, but both of them wanted the revolution.

The progressives and the Fabians over in Europe decided, no, revolution is the wrong way to go because people of the West, they don't want the blood in the streets. They don't want that revolution. They don't like that.

So we'll have to take this communism or fascism, one of these two, and we're going to give it to them at a bite size at a time because they'll eventually eat the whole thing. By the time they figure it out, it will be too late because we have propaganda, we have the systems, we have the levers of powers. And so we'll be able to feed it to them and be able to play these games -- like Saul Alinsky lines out -- we'll be able to play these games to keep them off the scent long enough until they finish the whole meal. We will progress towards our utopian society.

And, again, look back at the time before you knew about the Soviet Union and before you knew what would happen in Germany, when fascism and communism were a good thing. These people are still trying to progress there and there is still the debate about whether we should take it through revolution or we should take it through the levers of power -- the levers of government and seize power slowly through the system.

But both of them are on full speed because they don't trust one another. It's why you're seeing the president's people fall away from him. The real radicals. The Cornel Wests, if you will, of the world. They're falling away from the president. They're calling him a traitor. Why? Because they know what he believes, but he's fallen in the progressive camp and said, let's just take it one step at a time. Where the Cornel West people are like, take it. You have it, take it.

So the same argument that was happening in the 1919 era, Woodrow Wilson era, is still happening today between the radicals. They both -- they both agree on the destination, totalitarian government of some form. They just don't agree on the vehicle that will take them there and how long it will take them.

But I go back to their original premise: The American people don't like violence. They don't like revolution. They don't burn things down in the streets. They reject that. That's not just the progressives of the early 20th century. That's people like Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King knew, peaceful, peaceful marches. That was the secret. Not violence.

Malcolm X, now today our Malcolm X is Louis Farrakhan. Malcolm X knew the opposite. Take it. Take it. Burn it down. Take it. Cloward and Piven know the opposite. Take it, burn it down. Destroy it. Force them to have talks with you.

This is why it's going to fail. It will fail for one of two reasons. You decide which one, but it will be one of these two, I believe. You decide why -- which one of these will be the leading indicator. And if that's good.

But, one, it will fail because Martin Luther was right. The American people are better than this. The American people are not revolutionaries at heart. They're evolutionaries at heart. But they're not revolutionaries. They're not violent people. How many countries did Hitler need to take over and how many people did he need to kill before we were in that fight? Same thing with World War I.

By the way, both happened under progressive presidents. Why? How long did it take us to get to the Civil War? And did we really want to fight that? How long did it take us to get to the American Revolution? Twenty-five years?

This is not something -- we're not quick to run to the gun. We don't like revolution. We didn't embrace Occupy Wall Street because it didn't take very long to see that it was powered by hatred.

Americans reject things powered by hatred.

PAT: I like that reason.

GLENN: Here's the other reason.

And this may be the reason -- I'm holding my -- I'm holding on to the first reason. But it actually may be this.

We don't give a flying crap. We don't care that much anymore. We're lazy. I'm not -- I'll go out and steal a TV maybe. But I'm not -- revolution? I don't really care that much. We're lazy.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We don't care enough about anything.

PAT: Including the revolutionaries?

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Including the revolutionaries. They don't care enough to get off their dead butts, get away from the video game, and go ransack the town.

GLENN: Yeah. There's a few, but there's not very many.

Most of them are like, look, it's too cold. It's too hot. That's too much trouble. I got to drive, where? I have to do, what?

PAT: I will say this, last week when it got cold in Missouri, it settled the town down.

STU: That was some of the speculation by the protesters that they were waiting to release the decision until it got cold so people wouldn't come out and protest. I don't know if that's accurate.

PAT: It would be smart.

GLENN: It proves the point that I think both of these will play a role. That we are generally peace-loving people, but we're also pretty lazy.

STU: Once you have the TV and video game, there's nothing to get up and loot. You're already there.

GLENN: I'll stay home.

PAT: You wanted revolution so you could get the TV and video game. Now you have it. So don't worry about it.

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.