Cruz Crushes During CNBC Interview on Economy

In an interview on CNBC'S Squawkbox, a panel grilled Ted Cruz on the state of the economy. Cruz answered each question succinctly, showing a deep understanding of how the economy works --- and what it will take to get back on track.

The interview also displayed a stark difference between the two Republican candidates leading the field.

"Honestly, everybody is playing this except for Ted Cruz, and it is the victimhood card," Glenn said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Donald Trump is saying we're a victim of China. . . where Ted Cruz is saying, 'I'm going to get the government and the tax burden out of the way for the American people because the American people can do this.'"

The Squawkbox panel asked Cruz detailed questions, demanding explanations and specifics --- and Cruz delivered every single time.

"The fed has, for those with assets, has driven up stock prices, driven up assets values, but that's not built on anything real. It's not built on an increase in the intrinsic value of those assets. It's just based on playing games with money, which means a crash will be coming," Cruz said. "It's far better, if you want to drive up the economy and jobs, it's far better to reduce the burdens on small businesses, where you're creating a whole lot more jobs and we're producing more. That's actually growth. I want asset values to go up because there's more production because it's actually worth more."

While some of the candidates whine about corruption and a rigged system or apologize for America, recommending a European style of government, there is one candidate who believes in the American people. That candidate is Ted Cruz.

Co-host Stu Burguiere also had a tip for journalists interviewing Donald Trump.

"End a lot of questions with, 'Can you explain this?' and see what [Trump] comes up with. Because he can't explain any of it because he doesn't know. He'll go back to China and everything else. Hold him to it. Make him explain those specifics. That would be really helpful," Stu said.

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

GLENN:  There was an interview -- there was an interview with Ted Cruz on CNBC, where he was talking about, you know, the -- the basis points in Germany and the VIX and stuff that most people don't even know.

Can you explain some of these things?  Can you explain what's happening to the economy, what's happening to the global economy and how to fix it?

PAT:  The VIX.  Yeah, you rub it on your chest when your nose is all stuffy and --

GLENN:  Does anybody know what that is?  Yeah, volatility.  Okay.  Good.  It's the spread of volatility and what the market thinks.

PAT:  You're telling me it's not a vapor rub?

STU:  Well, it's also a vapor rub.

GLENN:  Yes, yes.

STU:  You're both right.

GLENN:  You're both right.  Yes.  Okay.  Thank you so much for that, Stu.

So let's listen to some of these answers from Ted Cruz because it goes to the credibility of who can handle the economy without nationalizing the banks?  Who understands what's coming and how to fix it?

TED:  The problem with using monetary policy, it's a very ineffective way to juice the system because you create bubbles.  So you're right:  The fed has, for those with assets, has driven up stock prices, driven up assets values.  But that's not built on anything real.  It's not built on an increase in the intrinsic value of those assets.  It's just based on playing games with money, which means a crash will be coming.  It's far better, if you want to drive up the economy and jobs, it's far better to reduce the burdens on small businesses, where you're creating a whole lot more jobs and we're producing more.  That's actually growth.  I want asset values to go up because there's more production because it's actually worth more.

PAT:  Now, you tell me that Donald Trump could have had that conversation.  There's no possible way.  All he would have said was, "We're losing to everybody.  We're losing to Mexico.  We're losing to China.  We're losing to Taiwan.  We're losing to Japan.  We're losing to everybody."  That's all he would have said.

GLENN:  Because, honestly, everybody is playing this except for Ted Cruz.  And it is the -- the victimhood card.

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  Donald Trump is saying we're a victim of -- of China.  And, really, of ourselves because we have bad negotiating tactics against China.  And I'll make China, I'll make Mexico pay.  Where Ted Cruz is saying, "I'm going to get the government and the tax burden out of the way for the American people because the American people can do this.  They've just been told they didn't build this.  They've been told that, you know, they have to do their patriotic duty and pay higher taxes.  They're not victims here.  They just need to get the government under control, and they're going to be able to do it."

And I think that's -- that is the biggest difference.  Who is a victim?  And who says, "Yes, we can.  We're going to do this.  We can do this?"

PAT:  He also shows that he understands how the system works.  He understands what makes the economy run, the inner workings of it, what the fed has to do with it.  He knows all that stuff.  And he proves it again with this.

JOE:  Growth around the world.  Economic growth --

TED:  Yep.  Yep.

JOE:  -- almost cures all ills.  It cures the sentiment that we have right now, the feeling that people aren't getting ahead.  Helps you pay down deficit.  Helps everything.

TED:  Yes.

JOE:  But we're in a weird world right now.  I checked for you this morning, the German tenure (phonetic) is at 15 basis points.  Japan, there are negative interest rates.  So it's not just the anemic recovery in this country, it's a global phenomenon that we've really never seen the likes of, and I don't know how to explain it.  I wonder if you know how to explain the cause and the cure.

TED:  Well, Joe, you're preaching to the choir.  And I wish that more of the presidential candidates would focus on growth.  Because you're right, growth is foundational.  My number one priority as president will be economic growth.  Every other problem we've got, whether it's unemployment, whether it's the debt and the deficit, whether it is strengthening and preserving Social Security or Medicare or whether it is rebuilding our military and keeping us safe, you got to have growth to make it work.

And we have been trapped in stagnation for the last seven years.  And if we don't turn that around, nothing else gets fixed.  And it's driven by a number of factors.  You know, historically since World War II, our economy has grown on average about 3.3 percent a year.  And yet from 2008 to today, it's averaged only 1.2 percent a year.

If we stay at this level of stagnant growth, one in 2 percent GDP growth, these problems are not solvable.  And that's why we need an economic agenda.  My economic agenda is focused very directly on growth.  Because if you get back to historic levels, 3, 4, 5 percent growth, suddenly the federal budget numbers turn around dramatically.  It is by far the biggest factor impacting the federal money.

GLENN:  You know, here's the amazing thing, I spent -- last week I spent seven hours with him.  And we were at my house and in between tapings of stuff they were cutting, we talked about this.  And for the first time, I was overcome with security that, we're going to make it.  We're going to make it.  He is so rooted in the facts of how an economy works, that he was like, "Glenn, I'm telling you, we have $19 trillion in debt, but we have a 17-trillion-dollar economy."

Do you know what the rate of growth was under Ronald Reagan?

PAT:  Yeah, it was -- I think we talked about this the other day.  It was like seven.

GLENN:  7 percent.

PAT:  7 percent.

GLENN:  He's like, "If we can just get us up to 5 percent, it changes everything.  You don't have to worry about it.  You have the money to pay that debt down."  He said, "The problem is, we're at this growth of 1 percent."  And he said, "We've got to stop that."  And the way to do that is to get rid of regulation and to change tax policy.  And here he is on his tax policy.

TED:  My tax plan is simple, it is a simple flat tax.  For a typical family of four, first $36,000 you earn, you pay nothing.  Zero income tax, zero payroll tax, nothing.  Above $36,000, each marginal dollar, you pay a simple flat tax of 10 percent.  No longer is a hedge fund billionaire paying a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.  Everyone pays the exact same.

Another difference, by the way, no longer do you have any differential rates between ordinary income and dividends or cap gains.  Short-term and long-term cap gains, it doesn't matter.  Everything is 10 percent, which means people actually allocate capital based on where it's efficient, rather than what the tax laws say because the tax laws are neutral to everything.

And then on the business side, on the business side, we abolish the corporate tax.  As you know, we have the most punitive corporate income tax of any developed country in the world.  We abolish the Obama taxes.  We abolish the payroll taxes, which are the single biggest tax most working Americans pay.  And we abolish the death tax, which is a tremendously unfair and punitive tax on farmers, on ranchers, on small businesses.  And we replace all of those with a simple 16 percent business flat tax.  And the effect is an incredible catalyst for job creation and wages going up and bringing jobs back to America.  That's my priority:  High-priced jobs coming back to America, wages going up for everyone.

GLENN:  Okay.  He goes into the tax plan.  Now, why will this actually work?  Listen to this.  726.

PAT:  Yeah.  Okay.

TED:  The problem is the history of the fed has not been very good in terms of being smarter than the market and I think trying to guess what's happening in the market.  I think we're far better having a rules-based monetary policy, ideally with some tie to gold so that you just have stable dollars.  So that you know that when you're investing a dollar today, you know that the dollar is going to keep a consistent worth, rather than fluctuate wildly.

VOICE:  I guess my point -- and then back to Joe's point about the growth stagnation around the globe.  What explains that?

TED:  Well, some of it is, many countries in the globe have followed the pattern of the United States of hammering small businesses with taxes and regulation, and you end up with a spiral.  That gives an incredible --

JOE:  They might have led the way, Senator.  I don't know if they followed us.

TED:  You're right.  You're right.

JOE:  Europe, you know, they invented structural --

TED:  Well, now Bernie Sanders tells us how wonderful Sweden is.

VOICE:  Don't get me -- we've been talking about that today, the -- the notion that there's big sum of money and greedy corporations and greedy rich people pull out of that.  They don't generate any of that wealth or any of that growth or any of those jobs or any of those tax receipts.  All they do is take.

But 51 percent of the country in polls is buying into that.  What have we done wrong?

TED:  So, Joe, you're telling me, you don't believe it when Hillary Clinton said, "Don't let anybody tell you businesses create jobs?"

JOE:  No.  That's another one.  Or, "You didn't build this."  I don't believe that one either.

TED:  The catalyst of our economy is small businesses.  Two-thirds of all new jobs come from small businesses.

GLENN:  Two-thirds.

TED:  If you want to have the stagnation we have, it's very simple, you do what we've done the last seven years, you slam small businesses with crushing taxes.  You know, yesterday I was in Buffalo, New York.

GLENN:  Now, listen to this.

TED:  I met with Charlie, the butcher.  He's got seven restaurants.  By the way, an incredible sandwich, the Beef on Weck, I highly recommend it.

And I remember visiting with Charlie, great example of a small business man.  And he was talking about the effect of a $15 minimum wage here in New York State.

And he said, "Listen, I've got seven restaurants."  He said, "I'd like to have 20."  He said, "I could have 20, but I can't afford at this rate."

How many jobs are you talking about, if you added another 13 jobs?  He said, "It would be about 160 jobs."  And this was a conversation I had with him, just talking to him.  That's being replicated in small businesses all across the country.  So if I'm president, my priorities will be lifting the tax burdens and lifting the regulatory burden so that small businesses, we can go from those seven Charlie the butcher shops to 20.

GLENN:  If my tax burden went from 40 percent to 16 percent, how many jobs would we create?

PAT:  Hundreds probably.

GLENN:  Hundreds of jobs.

PAT:  Hundreds.

GLENN:  Hundreds of jobs.  And we're all the same.  Anybody who owns a small business, we're all the same.  We are being -- if they cut regulations, now, not necessarily in this business, but I know just from HR, we've got three people, I think, working in HR.  What are their jobs?  Their jobs are to keep us compliant.

If we just reduce the regulation that -- that eat up so much of a small business' time and so many of our resources just keeping us in compliance with the federal government, how many jobs would we create?  Who has a compliance officer in a small business just to keep you compliant with the laws for Obamacare?

How many jobs are being eaten by the federal government?

See, they say -- Barack Obama says, "The federal government creates jobs."  And that's because, if you go to Washington, they are creating jobs.  These places are getting bigger and bigger and bigger.  And they're all federal jobs.  What do those federal workers do?  They create paperwork for people like us.  They create situations where you need somebody to stay in compliance.  That's the problem.

And nobody else is really talking about these things.

PAT:  How do you -- if you're an economic person at CNBC and you know this stuff pretty well, like they obviously do, how do you not say, "Wow.  That's our guy --

GLENN:  I don't know.

PAT:  -- that's our guy?"

GLENN:  I posted this.  This is 41 minutes of his interview.  And I have never heard a politician talk like this.  Never.  This guy smoked MSNBC -- or, CNBC.  There was nothing they could bring up on the economy that he couldn't answer.  Remember, they started with, "Can you explain this?"  And then she followed with, "Okay.  But tell us, how is this happening with Europe?"  And he answered the question.

I mean --

STU:  Yeah.  By the way, quick tip for journalists interviewing Donald Trump:  End a lot of questions with "can you explain this" and see what he comes up with.  Because he can't explain any of it because he doesn't know -- he'll go back to China and everything else.  Hold him to it.  Make him explain those specifics.  That would be really helpful.

GLENN:  Right.  Right.

STU:  By the way, you're talking about regulation, Glenn.  The average US firm, the annual cost burden for regulation is $233,000.

GLENN:  How many jobs do you create with an extra 233,000?

PAT:  50,000 a piece.  Four.

STU:  Yeah.  Four or five jobs.

GLENN:  The average place.  The average place in America.

STU:  And that's --

GLENN:  Would have money for four extra jobs and some money left over.

STU:  And, by the way, that's just federal regulation.  The total cost nationally, $2.08 trillion.  Trillion.

GLENN:  And that is just burnt money.  That is $2 trillion that is just burnt.  There's nothing -- there's nothing being created with that $2 trillion.  Nothing being created of any value.  Anything that you can take and turn into something, there's nothing that you can turn and sell to somebody else.  That's $2 trillion of burnt money.

STU:  And just to go off on manufacture specifically, because everybody talks about them, the average cost for manufacturers, just compliance, is $19,564 per employee.  $19,000 per employee.  But that hits different for the size of your firm:  A big employer, it's $13,000, it costs.  For a small manufacturer, small businesses, as you were just talking about, two-thirds of all --

GLENN:  All jobs in recessions are created by small businesses.

STU:  13,000 for big employers.  35,000 per employee for small businesses.

GLENN:  So you want to raise -- you want to raise -- you are working in the manufacturing industry, you go ahead and say, "I want -- I want Ted Cruz as president because he's going to cut all of the regulations or a lot of the regulations.  They go from $35,000 a year just to keep that employee in compliance.  And they cut it down to $10,000 a year.  What do you say those -- those jobs and those employees get a 10,000-dollar raise?"  And the rest of it is used to create new jobs, to grow their business, or to be able to reward the people that are -- are -- took the risk in the first place.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Squawkbox

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.