Disturbing New Story About Trump Fits His Style

The Context

A disturbing article published Sunday in the Daily Mail chronicles a respected BBC journalist's documentary of Donald Trump from years ago. Selena Scott's account of her two weeks with the real-estate mogul echo the modus operandi he's displayed time again --- sweet talking and charming, followed by attacks and slander if he doesn't get his way.

White Leather & Beautiful Things

Ms. Scott described a particularly creepy encounter aboard Trump's private plane: "We were 30,000 feet on Trump's private jet, flying to Florida, when he showed me his white leather double bed. "I like beautiful things," he purred seductively. "That's why I like you so much." This must be the "sweet talking" portion of her experience. Ewww. It might be worth noting that Trump was married to Marla Maples at the time.

When the Shark Bites

Reminiscent of how Trump responded to Megyn Kelly's interview with Vanity Fair, Ms. Scott claims the so-called billionaire did not take lightly to her refusal --- or her documentary which showed him contradicting himself on his business holdings --- describing him as a shark that strikes with speed and vicious intent when it smells blood in the water. "I showed both assertions in my film with many other inconsistencies with the telling soundtrack 'It Ain’t Necessarily So'. Trump went ballistic. Over many years he sent me a series of intimidating letters branding me ‘sleazy, unattractive, obnoxious and boring.’ He said I was ‘totally uptight’, and that I had begged him for a date. In his dreams!"

Enter NBC

You'd think the media would report such a story if they knew, right? Well, they do. It seems NBC is more than aware of Ms. Scott's documentary --- the network purchased the rights to the story. So why haven't they aired it yet?

"I'm telling you, they're setting Hillary Clinton's win up. That's all they're doing," Glenn said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program. "NBC just bought a documentary from the BBC because they feel it's going to be relevant soon. Not relevant now. But relevant as soon as the guy gets the nomination --- if it is Donald Trump."

As Glenn has stated on air numerous times. The media are biding their time, waiting for Trump to win the nomination before revealing the skeletons in his closet. These revelations will be extremely distasteful the the American people, setting up Hillary for a win.

Common Sense Bottom Line

"The same thing is happening that happened with Obama, but for a different reason. They held things back for Obama because they wanted him to win," Glenn said. "They're holding things back from Donald Trump until he gets the nomination, and then they're going to slaughter him. They're going to slaughter him."

 

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: There was a disturbing, disturbing article that came out. And it's just like the press to do this. I'm telling you, they're setting Hillary Clinton's win up. That's all they're doing.

NBC just bought a documentary from the BBC because they feel it's going to be relevant soon. Not relevant now. But relevant as soon as the guy gets the nomination, if it is Donald Trump. And his supporters seem to be, you know, like they're all -- they all seem like they're coming out.

And NBC bought this unbelievable documentary about what happened to a woman who is kind of the Diane Sawyer of England. She was the first woman on what they call breakfast shows, the morning shows. She was the 5 o'clock news anchor on the BBC. She now works for Sky News. She's worked for NBC, she's worked for CBS. I just want to read some of this.

Even by extraordinary standards of Donald Trump, this is a creepy shadow, as she says. We were 30,000 feet on Trump's private jet, flying to Florida, when he showed me his white leather double bed. "I like beautiful things," he purred seductively. "That's why I like you so much."

This was just one of the many revealing and excruciating moments during the two weeks I spent with Donald Trump in 1995, while making a 60-minute profile of him for ITV.

Let's see. It's curious -- it is a curious truth about Donald Trump that he believes the more obnoxious he is, the more successful he becomes. Intimidation is a brutal weapon he's used all his life when sweet-talking fails to get his way.

Now, remember what I posted last week. I said, "He first sweet-talks. He tries to charm you into it. Then he starts to brutalize you. He starts to scare you. And then if you don't give up, he takes you out." Remember? I said, "That's who this man is."

So it comes as no surprise to me that this is a tactic that he uses to such an effect in the strangest wooing of American electorate in the nation's history. The more he trashes people in America, the higher his approval ratings. When he insults Mexicans, calls for a ban on Muslims, disrespects women, and declares that he will bomb the crap out of the Islamic State, the cheers go up.

Every time a commentator says he's gone too far, he proves he has found the direct link to the dark heart of the American psyche. As Iowa citizens vote in the first ballot to determine the Republican candidate for the White House, many are asking, "Who is the real Donald Trump? Is he a regular guy who speaks the truth as he sees it, or a bigmouth who appears to think he's the star of a reality TV show?" I think I have a unique perspective. She writes, "Trump is a shark. A shark has no yesterday and no tomorrow, just the next meal, the next victim to be destroyed and consumed. And a shark must keep moving or die. That's Trump. And let me tell you why I feel that."

Now, again, this is a BBC anchor.

I would like to say it would be easy to have been overwhelmed by the tidal wave of flattery and attention I received from Trump when I arrived in New York to make a documentary about the man now dividing America with his rhetoric. Checking into my suite at the exclusive Plaza Hotel, which Trump then owned, overlooking Central Park, I was greeted by a forest of blood red roses, with a tasteful, handwritten note that simply said, "Donald."

Later that day, I went in to meet Trump at his Manhattan office, and his secretary Norma had been well briefed. Although we had never met, she welcomed me as, quote, her dear, dear friend.

She ushered me into his paneled board room, high above the city with magnificent views of the skyline, where I was greeted, not just by Trump, but by a falex (phonetic) of suited male business associates.

"Gentlemen," said Trump, "I'd like you to meet our new partner in the deal, the legendary Selina Scott."

Now, I prided myself on being a pragmatic interviewer, well-versed in the wiles of those seeking to make favorable impressions on the camera. But now I was beginning to feel a little uneasy. As I was paraded before Trump's grinning acolytes, these words began to swim in my head, "Partner in the deal? What did that mean? Did he think that he had won me over and I was somehow incorporated into his publicity department, already wrapped up into his deluded sense of his own wonderfulness?"

Trump was turning on the full wattage of what he perceived to be his irresistible charm to women, but there was a great deal more of his theatricality to come. As viewer of last week's Channel 4 documentary, The Madness of Donald Trump would have seen, the station broadcasted an embarrassing clip of him dancing around me saying, "Isn't she beautiful? She doesn't think she's beautiful, but she's beautiful," as the camera caught me grimacing.

Now, think of this. This is from a British newspaper. The BBC aired this documentary last week. NBC has purchased it. But they're holding it back. Why?

PAT: It's unbelievable.

GLENN: How can the British press -- the same thing is happening that happened with Obama, but for a different reason. They held things back for Obama because they happened him to win. They're holding things back from Donald Trump until he gets the nomination, and then they're going to slaughter him. They're going to slaughter him.

This flattery came shortly after our first meeting and it was swiftly followed by Trump announcing, "She shares with Larry King an ability to charm and cajole you into revealing more than you intended, and she's also a lot better looking."

During the two weeks I spent with Trump, there would be helicopter rides over Manhattan, private jet flights on his lavish oceanside Florida estate, a trophy property once owned by one of the richest women in America. He invited me to a poolside party, boasted about his great skills as a billionaire businessman, and most tellingly, introduced me to the two most important women in his life, his then wife Marla and his mother Mary.

I believe it's not not too fanciful to suggest that the key to understanding Trump is his attitude toward women. As Megyn Kelly, the Fox News host, discovered when she asked him about his attitude to women, where he called women that he doesn't like fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals, the oily smile is replaced with a deep well of hate if he feels he has not emotionally seduced you.

This is true. This is absolutely true

PAT: Oh, yeah. No doubt about it.

GLENN: And Megyn Kelly, this is what's happening to Megyn Kelly. I know. I've been there. My 60-minute documentary exposed how through bluff, bombast, and braggadocio -- how do you say that?

PAT: Braggadocio.

GLENN: -- braggadocio, he had convinced the American business community he was far richer than he was. And that while the rest of his rivals were losers, he knew how to make the US great. This ability to blag people into believing that he was a commercial genius was vividly illustrated in a helicopter ride we took over New York.

Pointing to the Empire State Building, he said he owned it.

I asked, what? All of it?

Yep. 100 percent, he replied.

Later, forgetting that he had told me he wholly owned the building, he told me he owned 50 percent of it, which was greatly reduced. It was the same story with the Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlanta City. Wholly owned by me, he said. Are you sure, I asked. Well, maybe 80 percent, he demurred. Are you quite sure, I pressed. He replied, well, actually, it's 50 percent.

I showed both assertions in my film, with other inconsistencies, with the telling soundtrack It Ain't Necessarily So. Well, trump went ballistic. Over the many years, he sent me -- now, this is exactly what Megyn Kelly said is happening. Listen to this.

Over in years he sent me a series of intimidating letters branding me as sleazy, unattractive, obnoxious, and boring. He said I was totally uptight and that I had begged him for a date.

This vicious tirade was often accompanied by a fanzine newspaper cutting, which he purported to show how much money he was making. He scrawled across the top, "Selina, you're a major loser. Dear Selina, I hear your career is going terribly."

JEFFY: This guy, man.

PAT: Sound familiar?

GLENN: This is it.

PAT: You've been through it. Megyn Kelly is going through it.

GLENN: This is everybody who stands against him is going through it. This is his MO. I'm telling you, the guy is very dangerous.

In the meantime --

PAT: It's to the point of almost a psychosis.

GLENN: No, I think he is. I think there's psychosis. There's deep issues here.

This broadside was in stark contrast to the creepy chat-up line he deployed on the Trump jet where he showed me his bedroom. Later in the same plane, he persuaded Ruby Wax to rubbish me on the gray, while she tried to ingratiate herself with him. This harassment only stopped when I threatened to take legal action for stalking.

I return to my shark analogy: When a shark smells blood in the water, it strikes with speed and vicious intent. So with Trump. Any sign of vulnerability is exploited. He only understands when force is met with force.

Now, think of that. This is a guy who is going to be in charge of the nuclear codes.

PAT: Think of that too with Carly Fiorina and how she shut him down. I mean, she just --

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Hit him in the face in that debate, and he stopped from that point on because he realized he wasn't going to get away with that with her. So when you smack him in the face like any other bully, he skulks off and tries it with someone else.

GLENN: So it's with some amusement that twenty years after I made that film, the giant NBC network in America has asked to buy my channel for interview about Trump, including all of the unused footage.

STU: Gee.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

STU: What are they going to find in there? Times 20,000 documentaries this guy has done with different news people around the world, all the times he's been in front of the camera, all the unused footage. Gee, what are they going to do if this guy gets to the general? They're going to have a staff of 100 people for each one of them, going through all the footage, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours that Donald Trump has forgotten about.

GLENN: Did anybody watch the documentary from Scotland?

STU: You've Been Trumped, or whatever? I actually haven't seen it.

GLENN: You have to watch it. It's unbelievable. He is -- it's this -- it's like this little seaside community, and he wanted to build a golf course. And it's this little seaside community. And first he goes in and he tries to buy all the old ladies flowers, and he's like, "Oh, you're so great. And, hey, can I buy your house?"

PAT: Like with Vera Coking.

JEFFY: Like everyone else.

GLENN: He does the same thing. He wined and dined everybody and said it's going to be great. And I'll find a great place -- I'll buy your house so you can find a really great place to live.

Well, this little seaside community, these are all people that have lived there -- like a lot of them are old ladies that have lived there since World War II. It's their husband -- their family was raised there. And it's a farming community. It's just this little sheep-farming community right on the seaside. It's beautiful.

Well, once they said no, he started trashing them. And saying that they were pigs. They lived like pigs. They were insane. They should be institutionalized. They're just -- they've lost all reason. Just trashed them.

PAT: Oh, man.

GLENN: And it's all on tape. And this documentary shows him saying these things and these little old ladies going, "I don't think I live like a pig."

(laughter)

When America sees this stuff, it's going to be lights out. And if you think the media is not going to play that, you're crazy.

STU: Yeah, and that was the most effective negative about Donald Trump that they tested in the Des Moines Register Poll was his use of eminent domain, taking people's private property for his own personal gain. In fact, they even used it as -- they included for government purposes. So like a -- a road or -- they made it actually more broad than the way that Trump wants to use it, which is specifically he tried to use it for his own personal gain and supported the Kelo decision which was, "Oh, well. Well, then the government can get more tax dollars, so it's okay to take people's private property."

The biggest negative that was tested out of all of them on Donald Trump. People inherently know that that's an absurd stance, that you would be able to take someone's stuff that they own, that they had built their whole lives in this community, and because he wants to build a golf course or a parking lot, that he should be able to come in with the power of the government and take it from them. And he still supports that to this day. It's not an old stance.

JEFFY: Well, what if they live like pigs.

STU: They live like pigs.

PAT: They live like pigs. They need to move.

GLENN: You're right. They should be -- you know what, they should come up and have to stand before a board and explain themselves: Sir or madam, what is it that you have contributed to society? And if they can't explain themselves, then we shouldn't keep them alive. I'm sorry.

Featured Image: Selina Scott, Donald Trump and Marla Maples, circa 1995 (Photo Credit: Unknown)

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.