Evil Progressive Donors: The Four-Part Series

Former Senate majority leader Harry Reid attacked billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch almost daily from the floor of the U.S Senate --- 134 times to be exact --- vilifying their efforts and donations to elect conservative candidates. He even labeled such private citizens as "unAmerican." Despite his distaste for politically active billionaires, Reid and his counterparts regularly accept hordes of money from billionaire supporters. According to the federal election commission, Democrats raised $250 million more than Republicans in 2014. In fact, you'd have to go back to the election of 2004 to find Republicans outperforming Democrats in fundraising. In this serial, we follow the trail of cash leading to the most influential progressive donors, revealing the true agenda behind their donations.

Listen to the full series on Evil Progressive Donors:

Evil Progressive Donors Part I: Soros

Perhaps the most disturbing of all radical Democratic billionaire donors is the Fabian socialist, George Soros, who openly seeks a new world order and financial world order. Soros is openly anti-American, anti-Constitution and actively seeks to correct the "flaw" that "only Americans have a vote in Congress."

In his book, The Age of Infallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror, Soros wrote, "The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States." Soros believes capitalism is the enemy of the open society he envisions, and his solution is to turn to regulated markets not governed by capitalism. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Soros said, "The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communists, but the capitalist threat."

How can American politicians accept huge sums of money from anyone who feels this way about America and capitalism, let alone a foreign-born billionaire with the power and influence wielded by George Soros?

Soros made his first billion dollars in 1992 by shorting the British pound and bankrupting the Bank of England. He accomplished this by leveraging billions in financial bets on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and life savings cut drastically almost overnight. He also nearly collapsed the economies of Russia and Myanmar and Malaysia. He helped break down Czechoslovakia, brought on regime change in Croatia, Yugoslavia and Slovakia, and financed the orange revolution in Ukraine.

Soros admittedly enjoys collapsing the governments and economies of sovereign nations and, in fact, finds it "fun." While he strongly condemned the United States for intervening in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has no qualms about inserting himself into the internal affairs of other nations. In his 1987 book, The Alchemy of Finance, Soros explained his omnipotent behavior stating, "I admit that I've always harbored an exaggerated view of my self-importance, to put it bluntly. I fancied myself as some kind of god."

From 2001 to 2010, the total donated by Charles and David Coke as individuals to the federal election cause was 1.5 million. For George Soros, it was 32.5 million, nearly 22 times as much. Taking into account Soros organizations like Open Society, the amount skyrockets to more than $7 billion given to radical left-wing causes, including U.S. elections.

According to the U.S News and World Report, the Koch brothers plan to sit out the 2016 election season without donating one dime. In December, George Soros donated $6 million to the leading super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The massive check marks the return of the billionaire finance year as among the biggest givers in all of American politics.

Soros also funds a myriad of radical left-wing organizations like the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.Org, the Working Families Party and the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that put historian David Barton on their terrorist list.

Some Americans may wonder, with innocent-sounding names like the "working families party," how could they be radicals? Fellow Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw described the Fabian methodology: Use "methods of stealth, intrigue, subversion and the deception of never calling socialism by its right name."

Evil Progressive Donors Part II: The Steyer Brothers

It's likely you've never heard of the Steyer brothers. However, Jim Steyer and his billionaire brother Tom have donated millions --- if not hundreds of millions of dollars --- to their favorite Democratic causes. While progressive liberals regularly attack Republican donors, Democrat donors get a pass. Why? Because big money donors like Tom and Jim Steyer support liberal causes and candidates.

Tom Steyer, formerly an "evil" hedge fund manager and "villainous" executive at Goldman Sachs, donated $5 million in 2014 to the Senate majority super PAC run by Harry Reid's former aides --- a drop in the bucket to his pledge of $100 million to influence elections and kill the Keystone pipeline. He wound up donating about $75 million and was, by far, the largest single individual spender in the midterm elections. Liberal Michael Bloomberg was a distant second at $40 million.

Despite donating millions to liberal causes and elections, Steyer has been an outspoken critic of the Supreme Court decision to allow big money to enter politics, describing Democrat donors as the "small shepherd boy with five rocks and a sling" compared to a Goliath-sized Republican money-making machine. However, the facts belie this claim.

In 2008, according to the ABC news, then Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama raised and spent over $770 million compared to challenger John McCain's $238 million --- more than triple. In 2012, President Obama became the first candidate in the history of the world to raise over $1 billion --- $1,123,000,000 to be exact. According to a political analysis of the top 100 donors during the midterm election, Democrats received $174 million and Republicans received $40 million. Democratic donors routinely gave more to political campaigns while supporting the perception that Republicans buy elections.

Tom Steyer's biggest crusade has been climate change, despite the fact his vast fortune was made primarily from huge investments in oil and coal. One major investment was a pipeline rivaling the Keystone pipeline. When his heavy investments in oil, coal and competing pipelines came to the attention of the media, he instructed brokers to divest from all fossil fuels. Doubt still remains as to whether the divestment ever took place.

It has been estimated that Steyer funded over the years CO2 production equivalent to about 28% of the total amount of CO2 produced in the United States by coal burned for electricity generation. Additionally, his personal "footprint" matches the size of his bank account.

Steyer's primary home overlooks the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco --- on each of its three stories. With an estimated value of $11.7 million, the home sits on a cliff with beautiful vistas, wrecking the area for all wildlife. He also has a second home in San Francisco for a total combined 11,000 square feet in the city. Add to that his humble, $8.5 million beach home in Marin County, his $2.6 million Sugar Bowl ski resort home in California and two homes at a Lake Tahoe ski resort, respectively valued at $15 million and a more modest $1.1 million. And last, but not least, Steyer owns a 2,000-acre California ranch --- worth an estimated $23 to $50 million --- where his wife keeps her show horses.

No honest capitalist would begrudge a billionaire of his luxuries. But when said billionaire makes a massive carbon footprint while preaching about catastrophic climate change and spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections and climate legislation, that sounds more like a man living in a glass house, casting around some mighty big stones.

Evil Progressive Donors Part III: Hollywood

Democrats complain they just can't keep up with the horrific spending of the evil Republican machine. Yet, for more than a decade Democrats nearly always out raise and out spend Republicans. One of their primary sources of cash is, of course, Hollywood, and the leading man of donations is Jeffery Katzenberg, CEO of DreamWorks.

President Obama spoke fondly of Katzenberg in 2013 at DreamWorks, calling him "a great friend." He should consider Katzenberg a great friend. In May of 2012, Katzenberg co-hosted a fundraiser for President Obama at the home of actor George Clooney. The event raised almost $15 million, making it the most profitable presidential fundraiser in history.

Katzenberg was reportedly the largest bundler of contributions for President Obama's two presidential campaigns, but were his efforts purely altruistic? Did Katzenberg's desire to build a DreamWorks movie studio in China influence his pocketbook? Interestingly, the deal was fast-tracked by the White House, according to the Sunlight Foundation. Oriental DreamWorks is scheduled to open in Shanghai next year in a $2.7 billion complex featuring cinemas, shopping areas, galleries, hotels, restaurants and the world's largest IMAX screen.

In the 2016 election cycle, Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg tied at the top of the largest donors list at just over $1 million each, all going to Hillary Clinton and her super PACs. JJ Abrams is the next at over $500,000 donated to Hillary Clinton. Way behind the top three is Kelsey Grammer, who gave $500,000 to both Ben Carson and Rand Paul. The donor list from Business Insider also includes Beyonce, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kanye West --- all Clinton donors. Danny DeVito gave to Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders. Tom Hanks is a Clinton donor as are a bevy of stars --- Elton John, Katy Perry, Julianne Moore and Jamie Foxx --- who performed at a concert for Hillary.

A report from The Los Angeles Times last year noted that 90% of all Hollywood donations went to Hillary Clinton. Hollywood is all about the progressive movement.

Ironically, some of these financially-blessed stars struggle morally with the massive amounts of cash they flush into the political system. For example, George Clooney, who hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton at $350,000 per couple, called the amount of money obscene. They decry income inequality, yet charge $350,000 per couple to attend a multimillion-dollar event for an elitist politician living a lavish lifestyle far out of the reach of her constituents.

While Hollywood's elite bemoan the amount of money in politics, they regularly raise more for Democrats than Republicans.

Evil Progressive Donors Part IV: Labor Unions

Sixty percent of the top billionaires contributing to political causes are Democrats or progressive liberals. Flying under the radar are the largest political donors on planet earth: unions.

Unions top the list of organizations donating to political causes --- and large corporations are behind them. Fourteen of the top 25 political donors are unions, and virtually all donate exclusively to Democratic candidates.

Democrats also have the largest single donor source of any kind over the past 25 years: a PAC called ActBlue. Launched in 2004, ActBlue has amassed an incredible fortune of $1.1 billion, with only $100 million spent thus far.

Massive labor unions like SEIU wield enormous power and spend vast amounts electing candidates that further their agenda. And if going through legals channels doesn't suit their purposes, they're more than willing to use other means. Former SEIU president Andy Stern has said, "We've been trying to use the power of persuasion, and if that doesn't work, we use the persuasion of power, because there are governments and there are opportunities to change laws..."

Stern and SEIU have unabashedly put up tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars, for government healthcare and amnesty. Stern, the president of an international union, was the top visitor at the White House during Obama's first year in office, with a record 22 visits. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka visited the White House two to three times weekly and talked daily to someone in the White House. No one else has had that kind of to President Obama, including most members of Obama's cabinet, some of whom have had zero contact with him.

SEIU tops the list of labor union donors at $232 million, with 99 percent going to Democrats. The National Education Association is second, followed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Then the Farr Group, an executive search consulting firm. The Carpenters Union and the American Federation of Teachers round out the top six groups for political contributors, all of which gave nearly every dime to Democrats. In fact, eight of the top ten, and 18 out of the top 25 are Democratic donors.

Believe it or not, the NRA has also donated to Democrats. Of the $22 million donated since 2002, 17 precent has gone to Democrats.

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials.

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.