Hostage crisis in Sydney just another example of Glenn’s predictions coming true

Monday morning, a radical Iranian cleric burst into a café in Sydney, Australia,holding approximately a dozen people hostage at gunpoint for 16 hours. The standoff ended with two hostages dead and the cleric killed by commandos who raided the cafe. Sadly, the whole tragedy is just the latest example of Glenn's "crazy caliphate" prediction coming true. The world is becoming destabilized, radicalism is destabilizing the world, and we are seeing the fruits of revolution grow. Glenn welcomed TheBlaze's National Security Expert Buck Sexton to the program Monday night to discuss this story and the oft-ignored threat of radical Islam.

Glenn: It’s finally over. Early Monday morning, a radical Iranian cleric — who would’ve seen this? — burst into a café and held approximately a dozen people hostage at gunpoint for 16 hours. Two hostages are now dead. The cleric, darn it, was killed when commandos raided the café this morning. The Prime Minister took an interesting politically correct route and said that he was shocked. Watch.

VIDEO

Prime Minister Abbott: It is profoundly shocking that innocent people should be held hostage by an armed person claiming political motivation.

Glenn: Alrighty, an armed person claiming political motivation…I would say that’s the result of being on the bottom of the earth when all of your blood is rushing to your head, but we are this stupid as well. The guy was a radical cleric. He was holding up a store directly across the street from a television news network. He forced hostages to hold a black jihad flag with Arabic writing, not the Islamic State flag, but on his list of demands was a demand, can you get me an ISIS flag?

He posted this hostage video on YouTube:

VIDEO

W: One is to send an ISIS flag as soon as possible, and one hostage will be released; to please broadcast on all media that this is an attack on Australia by the Islamic State.

Glenn: By the Islamic State, so I guess yes, technically the cleric was an armed person with political motivations, but it seems to be just a little bit of wishful ignorance given Australia’s jihad problem already which we’ll talk about here in a second.

Hundreds of Australians are fighting for the Islamic State, including this guy, whose idea of a father-son bonding involved tweeting photos of his son holding severed human heads. Australian Islamic State radicals called for the beheading of random Australians. ISIS named Australia one of their main targets and encouraged attacks, lone wolf attacks. “Every Muslim should get out of his house, find a crusader, and kill him. It is important that the killing becomes attributed to patrons of the Islamic State who have obeyed its leadership. ‘Rely upon Allah and stab the crusader’ should be the battle cry for all Islamic State patrons.”

This is what they’re saying to do, but Sydney police say this is an isolated incident, nothing to worry about. That doesn’t make any sense at all. Obviously Australia is taking the jihad problem seriously. They have fought back with tough crackdowns and raids on homegrown terrorists. Jihadists are getting more and more organized in the country, and the government knows it. Why? What is happening?

Do you remember when we talked about the Arab Spring when I was at FOX? We have to go back to what should be the most important thing I ever did at FOX. I didn’t do anything more important than this. I told you radicals, Islamists, Communists, and Socialists would work together against Israel. Has it been done? Yes. Work together against capitalism? Yes. Work together to overturn stability.

Then I added part two. Protests would become then contagious. They would cascade. Have we seen that? Yes. They swept to the Middle East? Yes. Begin to destabilize Europe? Yes. And the rest of the world? Yes. That’s what we’re seeing, the fruits of that revolution.

Radicals are rising up, and we can expect to see more of this type of action. Yes, this particular terrorist attack in Sydney was one guy. Yes, he was an amateur, letting hostages go, letting them use their cell phones, not having the right flag, which was bizarre. It’s easy to dismiss him as a lone wolf, but here’s the point, there’s more than one wolf, and when you have a bunch of lone wolves, they all belong to a pack.

ISIS cannot easily transport militants from one country to the next, so they’ve done the next best thing, they inspire radicalism abroad and let individuals carry out attacks in their name. It’s the perfect system.

Glenn: We have TheBlaze national security editor, Buck Sexton, with us now from our newsroom in New York. Buck, what am I missing here?

Buck: Glenn, you’re not missing anything. I mean, the tie-in to the Islamic State is pretty clear when you have an individual who saying he’s doing this in the name of that entity, and so I think that the debate that’s happening right now as to whether he received a specific exhortation to do this or he just decided to act on previous instructions isn’t really particularly meaningful.

Glenn: Does it matter?

Buck: It doesn’t matter at all. This is exactly what the Islamic State wants, and we can see that the Australians, while they have gotten aggressive, there were hundreds of police officers involved in raids back in September, it’s not enough. They’re not going to catch everyone. We saw a few casualties from this attack. There could’ve been a lot more casualties, Glenn, quite honestly, and I think that the Australians have recognized that this problem is going to continue on. We’re not even counting possible returnees from the main fronts in Iraq and Syria. These are people that are already in Australia.

Glenn: Okay, so we didn’t talk about his criminal record. The guy is not a nobody. What do you have to do to be deported in Australia? Explain his criminal record.

Buck: I want to know what you have to do to be put in prison for a long time in Australia, because he is charged with dozens of different sexual crimes, various assaults, and also on top of that is a suspect, allegedly stabbed or was involved in a stabbing death of his ex-wife and lit her on fire and left her body in the stairwell of an apartment building. So he was a very bad guy with all sorts of outstanding incredibly serious criminal charges before he decided to seize a number of hostages and execute some of them when the assault actually happened today. So I think that’s actually where the Australian government is vulnerable to some real criticism. How was this guy still walking around on the streets?

By the way, Glenn, you can still rifle through his Twitter account which makes it quite clear that he thinks people should join the Islamic State, he hates Australia, and he wants to wage jihad, so he was literally advertising this.

Glenn: Tell me the difference between that guy and an Islamic jihad guy, I mean, somebody who’s with Al Qaeda or the Islamic State. It doesn’t matter. He is following their instructions. He’s doing what they ask. He’s doing their bidding. What’s the difference?

Buck: There is no difference. It’s just a command-and-control discussion that doesn’t really mean anything, Glenn, except for the possibility of follow-on attacks, so if he did receive, for example, a direct order from the Islamic State. And by the way, in those September raids in Australia, there was a direct connection. There was an Islamic State member who was Australian who was saying get involved in this strike. They wanted to behead a random civilian in Australia, and that was one of the plots that was disrupted, but the only reason you’d want to know this, Glenn, is in case there are others who may have received similar instructions.

So for investigative purposes, it could be necessary, but for ideological purposes, no, all we need to know is that this was in solidarity with the Islamic State, and there are more of these lone wolves or self-radicalized individuals out there.

Glenn: So is there a reason, Buck, at all that we excuse our politicians, not just in Australia, but here too, that we excuse our politicians? I read the statement, you know, from the Prime Minister, and he said well, you know, it’s just a lone wolf, and we don’t want to give them everything that they want. That is exactly what they wanted. In their order, they said rise up, make sure you give credit to ISIS, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Is there a reason why we can all just say okay, they don’t want to give ISIS more power, or is that just bull crap?

Buck: No, Glenn, I think that the acting on the instructions here is very much the game plan from the Islamic State’s point of view, and I think the government, the Australian government, is always taking this position of well, you know, this happened this one time, and we need to have these stricter security policies, but let’s not jump to any conclusions. And when you have a guy who’s saying please get me an Islamic State flag so I can really put their signature on this thing, you’re not jumping to a conclusion, you’re just making one. And the Australian government seems to be falling into the same trap that we have here.

Remember, after Fort Hood, we had a general saying, we had a general, a four-star, saying that he hoped diversity wasn’t a casualty, and this was after we had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. You have Australians already speaking out about how they’re so concerned about a backlash. The backlash never happens here. No one’s worried about an individual or rather about a society deciding to pick on one individual for this.

We’re worried about a society that’s under assault from extremist elements that are working in a systemic fashion over time to try to undermine the very freedoms the Australians enjoy, and the same thing with us here at home. That’s the real concern, not the possibility of there being some sort of an overreach if we just call it what it is. We all know what it is.

Glenn: So we’re going to be launching a show with Buck here soon, and I went up to New York last week, and I started talking to him about showing that basically I would want his show to pretty much center around that chalkboard — radical Islamists, Communists, Socialists, work together against Israel, together against capitalism, together to overturn stability, the protests become contagious, they cascade, sweep the Middle East, begin to destabilize Europe and the rest of the world, and show you those connections, because it’s not just happening here in the United States. It’s happening all over the world, and anybody who thinks that it’s a lone wolf, what’s the difference?

I was at a mall, Buck, this weekend, and I went Christmas shopping. And I’m at a Belk store. Al Sharpton did not call for this no justice, no peace. I’m sure Al Sharpton wasn’t there, but a group of local people got into the mall. They carried the signs, and they were doing no justice, no peace. It’s the same story, is it not? Is that a lone wolf, or is that connected?

Buck: Well, the broader ideology, Glenn, does have an impact, and revolutionary ideology, which we should be clear, global jihad is a revolutionary ideology. It’s based upon individuals and groups around the world acting to overturn existing societies to create a totalitarian Islamic theocracy around the world, so it’s very much a revolutionary ideology, and the whole purpose of it is to be spread, is to be spread through fear, through violence, and through intimidation, and we see various iterations of revolutionary ideology here at home as well.

I walked into a protest also trying to just buy Christmas presents for my family, and I couldn’t believe the things that are being said. They’re talking about racist, murdering cops walking around in the streets. No surprise here, Glenn, we’ve already had now a number of serious assaults against police officers in the city from these protesters. They’re planning to do another big one tomorrow night.

Now, we can either believe that this is all just them venting, letting off some steam, and they don’t actually, none of them, even the hardcore elements among them don’t believe this is going to mean anything, or you can think that they’re actually trying to push for some kind of a real inciting event and a transformation of society. I think the hardliners would say it’s the latter in a moment of honesty, and I’ve heard them say that, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we see some pretty outrageous stuff from them the weeks ahead.

Glenn: Buck, thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

Buck: Thanks, Glenn.

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.