Glenn Beck Never Thought He'd Say THIS About Film Director Oliver Stone

Legendary movie director Oliver Stone, director of the new movie Snowden, joined The Glenn Beck Program for a fascinating discussion about national security and cyber warfare.

"Hello, America. And welcome to Friday," Glenn greeted his radio listeners. "Well, I never thought I would be saying these words (and I have no idea how the next 20 minutes will end up), but here we go: Oliver Stone joins us on the program, beginning right now."

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these mind-boggling questions:

• Does Oliver Stone think Glenn's name is Jeff?

• Was Glenn rude to Oliver Stone?

• Does Snowden deserve prison or a parade?

• On what topic does Stone accuse Glenn of jumping to conclusions?

• Why did Snowden go to Russia and stay there?

• What's the one thing Glenn respects about Oliver Stone?

• How closely does the movie follow the actual story?

• Is the central CIA figure portrayed as a father figure or creepy, spooky guy?

• Do we need a cyber treaty with the rest of the world?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Mr. Oliver Stone. How are you, sir?

OLIVER: I'm fine. Is this Jeff?

GLENN: This is Glenn.

OLIVER: Oh, Glenn. I'm sorry. I talk to too many people at once.

GLENN: That's okay. That's all right. You can call me Jeff. I'll call you Bill. How are you?

OLIVER: No, Oliver is fine. I'm fine. I'm good. And I'm in New York.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Okay.

So, Oliver, do you -- because this is a really dicey thing because I think there's a billion things we really strongly disagree with you on.

OLIVER: Uh-huh, sure.

GLENN: And, you know, I watched -- I saw Snowden.

OLIVER: Yes.

GLENN: And I will tell you that I -- I wanted to believe his side, but you made the movie. And so -- you know, I don't know -- you do -- and one thing I do respect you on is you at least say what your agenda is. So how is somebody like me or somebody in my audience supposed to take Snowden knowing you have a very strong opinion on America and --

OLIVER: Well, Jeff, I -- I'm sorry. Glenn, I'm sorry.

GLENN: Right. Right. Okay. I got it.

OLIVER: Beyond embarrassing.

But, listen, I have a strong agenda as a citizen, but when I do my work, I take it very seriously, as you do. And I'm a dramatist. I am a dramatist above all. I tell the story.

This is a story that speaks for itself. I spoke to him many times, but I also spoke to other people. And we got as realistic a story as we could out of it. And maybe new things had come out. But this is -- is as authentic as you can get it. Because not many people have written about the NSA or the CIA from the inside.

GLENN: Right. Well, as you know, I mean, we have gone up with whistle-blowers and gone up against this government with whistle-blowers.

OLIVER: Yeah, I admire that.

GLENN: Well, thank you.

And it is not an easy thing. And we have been very torn on Snowden. I think personally if he hadn't have gone to Russia, he would be viewed as a hero. But because he went to Russia, it puts it into question. And his relationship with Julian Assange, who is also getting, you know, Russian Secret Police, you know, protection.

OLIVER: Well, yeah, you're jumping to conclusions there.

Keep in mind that Snowden went to Russia on his way for asylum in Ecuador via Cuba. He had to get there, and the airspace allowed him to do that. He did not stay in Russia out of his own volition. His passport was cancelled by the State Department in mid-air, which is rare. And happens that they wanted him perhaps to be stuck in Russia. I don't know.

But, anyway, he's there. And they have given him asylum, and they're one of the few countries in the world that could actually protect him.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Edward Snowden in the new movie 'Snowden,' directed by Oliver Stone. Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Edward Snowden in the new movie 'Snowden,' directed by Oliver Stone.

GLENN: That is true. How do you feel about Russia and Putin?

OLIVER: That's another. You're -- that's next year's movie. Let's -- let's not go there.

GLENN: No, because honestly, Oliver, we are probably one of the shows -- I don't know how many people have done this -- I know one show lately -- one show was for him to be in prison, and now that he's against -- or now that he's for taking out Hillary Clinton, "Oh, let's give him a parade." We still don't know.

We tend to feel that he is a patriot. However, there is that -- that Russia connection that makes it --

OLIVER: Yeah, I could understand your concern. But, look, there are two central truths here. One is that our government deployed and developed the most massive surveillance system global that we've seen in history.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Yes.

OLIVER: The second truth is that there was a person that revealed it. A person who has tremendous patriotism and conviction that we were breaking the Constitution by doing this.

GLENN: Yes.

OLIVER: So that was what -- those are the facts of that movie, as it stands. The Russia element is a distraction used by Democrats, Republicans. You know, you can be a Libertarian and still support Snowden in this matter.

GLENN: I am a Libertarian.

OLIVER: Oh, good.

PAT: How closely did you stick to the actual story? Did you take a lot of liberties for dramatization?

OLIVER: Oh, we had to. I mean, it is a nine-year -- it's about nine years in his life. And we see you can't do that as perhaps a documentary, but we're asking for a large audience. And we made a dramatic thriller. That was always my fear, that this thing was going to get too technically heavy. Because it is complicated.

GLENN: Yeah.

OLIVER: We threw out about 50 percent of our research but kept this film as simple as possible, but put the tension in. Don't alter the truth. And stick to it. Stick to what -- the propulsion of the story carries itself. You don't have to invent anything.

GLENN: But here is where the Oliver Stone moviemaking comes in: Did you have to make the guys from the CIA like the spookiest guys ever?

OLIVER: Well, they weren't. I disagree. I think the fellow who plays the senior NSA and CIA official -- he's played by Rhys Ifans -- is actually a father figure because he nurtured his career. And, you know, he does say things --

GLENN: Well, you know, a really creepy father, yes.

OLIVER: Well, that's what you think, but, you know, he has his views. And he talks about the mission that they have to protect the world.

GLENN: Yeah.

OLIVER: He talks about, you know, global intelligence. He talks about the need for it. He talks about America's position in the world. At one point, he even criticizes the Iraq War as a waste of energy and time. And he says, "You don't have to be a patriot to disagree with your politicians."

GLENN: So how can you -- I'm trying to -- I mean, this is just such a complex thing because your involvement.

OLIVER: Well, you keep putting it back on me.

GLENN: Well, because you made the movie. And so you are a very good filmmaker. And so, you know, films are very, very effective. And what interests me here is that here we are supposedly on the same side of saying, "Hey, the government cannot do these things, the Constitution."

OLIVER: Yeah.

GLENN: And yet, you are a guy that will hang on with some of the worst dictators around.

OLIVER: Well, here we're talked about the American system. And that system was deeply violated by the NSA. I think you'll admit that.

GLENN: Yes, I do.

PAT: Definitely.

OLIVER: And we're trying to come to terms with it, but we don't a lot. So we have to start somewhere by talking about these issues, by bringing some awareness to the American people who are left in the dark. They haven't trusted us with that information.

GLENN: Are you surprised -- and in talking to him, how surprised is he that America didn't go crazy when they found out the truth?

OLIVER: On the contrary -- before he said my greatest fear was that it would drift into indifference. And that's how tyranny -- tyranny will happen. Because the steps will be taken away from us. The freedoms will be taken away from us. The civil liberties. And one day we'll simply be a passive Orwellian population. And there will be a new guy coming along, or woman, who may be completely different and play a harder ball game, if he or she faces pressure.

GLENN: Are you concerned about the man or the woman that are currently --

OLIVER: Absolutely. Everyone should be.

You know, we're living in a world of great privilege in this country. We have tremendous -- consumerism is a religion. But this can all be -- how do you say it? Destroyed, by this overreaching that we're doing in the NSA, as well as we're listening on everybody.

And we're -- the whole other element you haven't discussed yet what Snowden revealed was about cyber warfare. Cyber warfare is extremely dangerous. It was us that presented the program, that used it first on an offensive capability in 2007 in Iran.

And since then, it's gotten out of control. Snowden described it as a surveillance free-for-all. Nobody knows who is doing what because it takes months and months to unwind these things and find out. So crazy accusations go out there.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, we're very concerned. And it doesn't seem like very many people are, that we are in a cyber war right now.

OLIVER: Yes.

GLENN: That's what's happening. World War III, I believe, is already happening. It's just happening with digits at this point.

OLIVER: There's some truth to what you say. But it's not necessarily a war with Russia. It's a war with all hackers in every country. If you remember, cyber warfare -- remember when the atomic bomb got dropped in '45, Truman told Oppenheimer back then, you know, "This is -- we're going to keep this a secret." And Oppenheimer scoffed at him. He said, "You can't keep this a secret."

Same with cyber warfare. We started a new form of warfare. We're very good at it. We've spent a huge fortune on it. And we need is a treaty, to cut to the quick here, a cyber treaty with the rest of the world. Very important.

GLENN: The one scene where he first sees the Arabic woman coming in and undressing and he's very uncomfortable. One of the guys from the CIA or NSA comes in --

OLIVER: Yeah, yeah, NSA.

GLENN: And hacks into her phone or her iPad.

OLIVER: Right.

GLENN: And he's just watching her undress and he's very uncomfortable.

OLIVER: Right.

GLENN: I don't think people really understand as they put their iPhone next to their bed as they charge it at night and they're doing what they do at night in bed. Nobody understands that.

OLIVER: No. The program was described as Optic Nerve, which it was. That was a British program. You know, the NSA has more than 150 programs. The depth of this stuff is even beyond that. We showed that as even an obvious example. Snowden is a bit of a prude, and certainly he didn't want to go there. But they have pornographic abilities to use to discredit their enemies.

Now, they used it on the Muslim population in the United States. They passed the raw intelligence -- this is outrageous, and it pissed off Snowden. They passed the raw intelligence that they were getting while he was in Hawaii to the Israeli Mossad. So imagine, you know, what they can do with that, with all the Arab relatives of the people who live in the Middle East close to Israel. It's this huge. It's an overreach and an arrogance about people's lives. It's disgusting.

STU: Oliver, if you make a movie about a historic event that, you know, was decades and decades ago, you have a long time to essentially marinate in perspective and look back and see the full picture of that. What's the difference between doing something like that and something like Snowden, which is really you're making a movie about an event that is still going on today?

OLIVER: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Mr. Obama has presided over the worst excesses of the surveillance age. I mean, he's taken the Bush program which was illegal in the first place, and he's doubled down. And that was part of the story we're telling. And you see very clearly the Obama path. You see Snowden believing -- believing that Obama is going to reform that system in 2008 when he's elected. And by 2013, when he released those secrets, he's given up hope that Obama will do anything.

GLENN: When you see all of this going on and America not paying attention, what do you think is going to happen when we watch this movie? We're just going to take it as a movie and move on with our lives?

PAT: Move on?

OLIVER: As I said earlier, I don't have an agenda. I'm not an activist that way, although you may think I am. I really think it's presented to you. It's a movie. Enjoy it. It's an intense movie. It's a thriller. You walk out, you make your own conclusions, or you might just think about it some more and start to do a little more research because there's a lot to be done.

GLENN: Yeah, there is. Oliver Stone, thank you so much.

OLIVER: Thank you very much, Glenn.

GLENN: God bless. You bet. Buh-bye. Buh-bye.

STU: It's out this weekend, right?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: You saw it already?

GLENN: I saw it last night.

PAT: So it opens today?

GLENN: Yeah, opens today. I saw it last night.

PAT: Nice. You liked it, or not?

GLENN: It is -- I'm not sure. Yes, it's worth seeing. It's worth seeing. I, again -- and I didn't mean to be rude to him, and I hope I wasn't --

STU: No. It was an interesting --

GLENN: No, but I was just being honest, and he was being honest back to me.

I don't trust him. He's Oliver Stone, so I don't trust him. And when you see the movie, you will see -- you know, I should bring it in on the break. I'll show you a couple of places in the movie where you'll watch it and you'll say, "Oh, my gosh." I mean, he's -- you tell me, you watch that scene with the CIA guy when he's asking Edward Snowden, "So tell me about yourself. How come you want to be in the CIA?" He's the creepiest dude ever. And then the guy who he says is his father figure is always in the shadows and always like, "So what do we've got to do? What do we've got to do?"

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So, I mean, you've got just that layer of Oliver Stone moviemaking that does taint it, which I wish it didn't have that because I think it would be a much more powerful film. You wouldn't walk out dismissing because it was Oliver Stone.

STU: Did you see the documentary about Snowden?

GLENN: Oh, no.

PAT: The actual documentary.

STU: My joke all the time. The actual documentary.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I'm curious if it's consistent largely with that.

GLENN: I didn't see the documentary. I wish I did. I didn't see the documentary.

Featured Image: Director Oliver Stone attends the 'Snowden' premiere during the 2016 Toronto International Film Festival at Roy Thomson Hall on September 9, 2016 in Toronto, Canada. (Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)

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.