'Globalist': You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

Redefining words is a very dangerous thing. It's happened on the radical left for years through political correctness, impacting both society and politics. Old school Blue Dog Democrats didn't see it coming until it was too late, and the entire Democratic Party was taken over by radicals.

The same thing is now happening on the conservative side, with words like "nationalism" and "globalism" being morphed into new meanings.

"I want to show you the first example of me finding it on my own social media," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program. "I contend so many people will agree with a quick reading of this that it seems harmless, but it is absolutely the alt-right. This is the earmark of everything changing in language, and so suddenly that you will not even notice you've been sold into slavery."

It's time to pay attention and read between the lines.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these definitive questions:

• Is "nationalism" tied to improving the lives of Americans or neo-Nazis and racism?

• What does Bob in Pocatello say about the rejection of the virus that is globalization?

• Are iDentists online practitioners of dentistry?

• Do you think the alt-right should produce films on faith for your church?

• Would Thomas Jefferson have been for or against tariffs?

• Is American exceptionalism the same thing as American nationalism?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 1:20:50, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN:  I want to show you a post on my social media.  And let me just -- let me read it to you.  And don't overthink it.  Just tell me if you are kind of comfortable with it.

We/me is a crackpot theory, saying the we generation and the me generation.  It's clearly not a crackpot theory.  It is very well researched.  But this is somebody who happened to be watching the show from The Vault last night, where I mentioned it.  

And the we/me is a crackpot theory.  Don't accept a binary choice, America.

STU:  Hmm.  I thought we were supposed to -- isn't that we've been told for months?

GLENN:  Listen to this:  American nationalism isn't racial or ethnic-oriented, nor is it rooted in expansionist foreign policy like Bush conservatism.  Keeping people out is not invading their country, occupying their land and trying to bring democracy to them.  Modern nationalism and populism in America is a refocusing on improving the lives and well-being of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of globalization, which is rooted in social Darwinism.

(chuckling)

American nationalism and populism is a wholesale rejection of the virus that is globalization.

PAT:  This is just written by Bob in Pocatello.  Right?

JEFFY:  Right.

(chuckling)

PAT:  Bob just happened to be watching, and he thought, "You know what, I'm going to pop off something to Glenn."

GLENN:  With no followers.  No pictures.  No friends.

STU:  He wanted to sign up to social networks, just to post that particular paragraph and then never post again.

GLENN:  And then never post again.

PAT:  It's interesting though because you can be okay with all of that, mostly.  Almost all of it, you can say, yeah --

JEFFY:  Oh, on the surface, absolutely.

GLENN:  On the surface.

PAT:  I agree with that.  On the surface, I agree with that.

GLENN:  If you read it again, you're like, "Okay.  Wait a minute.  American nationalism.  No, I'm not for nationalism.  That's not good."

STU:  Right.  But patriotism.  People conflate those two terms.  Those are very different.

GLENN:  Yes.  Yes.  They're very different.

STU:  And we've seen nationalism rise and what it does.  But this is trying to save that term, right?

GLENN:  Yes.  To reintroduce this term.

STU:  Right.

GLENN:  Okay?  To reintroduce it.

STU:  Yep.

GLENN:  Listen to this again.

American nationalism -- it's not racial or ethnic-oriented.  Why would you say that?  Because nationalism is tied directly to neo-Nazis.

PAT:  And racism.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  And also, by the way, very specifically the people who are the intellectual heads of this particular movement have very specifically talked in overt terms about race and ethnicity being vitally important to this.  I mean, this is --

GLENN:  No, they're not racists.  No, no.  They're identists.

STU:  Right.  But, I mean, they've said, "We need an ethno-nationalist --

PAT:  They're dentists on the internet?

GLENN:  No, they're identists.  They're identists -- 

JEFFY:  ID.  

GLENN:  No -- yes, they recognize the identity of people, but that's not judging people on race.  It is looking at the identity of people.

PAT:  I see.

GLENN:  So if you want to call it racist, that's an old term.  That's -- that describes old things.  I do believe that we all have an identity that is unique from where all of us originally came from.  And there's nothing wrong with pointing out someone's identity.  You're black.  I'm white.  But I do believe there are specific things that are different in each culture.  And perhaps we shouldn't live together.

STU:  This is --

PAT:  Perhaps we shouldn't live together.

(laughter)

GLENN:  Okay.  Did you hear what I just said?

JEFFY:  Yes.

PAT:  Yes.

GLENN:  And if you're hearing this from a friend and somebody who you think is a conservative -- and you will.  I'm telling you, this is coming.  You're going to start hearing this from your church friends, people you trusted, and they're going to make a great case because they're changing the language.

STU:  This is Candle In the Wind and Candle In the Wind 1997, where like Princess Diana died, and we're going to release the same exact song with like three different lyrics.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  That is what this is.  It's the same pitch.  It's the same thing that you think it is.

GLENN:  Same song.

STU:  It's just using new terms and trying to overtake old ones.

GLENN:  And using emotions to push it to the top of the chart.

STU:  Yeah, yeah, yeah.  One of the terms that is attempting -- and it's an interesting, somewhat subtle thing that's happened over the past year or two, which is the term globalist -- now, the term --

GLENN:  Uh-huh.

STU:  I would not consider myself a globalist at all.  I mean, for example, we've been doing this show for how long.

PAT:  Why are we globalists?

STU:  Right.

GLENN:  Hang on just a second.  Hang on.  Before you get into this, I just want to set this up.  Globalism is a tripwire of nationalism.  Okay?

Once you hear your friend, who -- why are you hearing the word "globalist" all the time now about people?  Where is that coming from?

STU:  Yeah, all the time.

GLENN:  That's coming from people like Breitbart, who are into the alt-right, and they are poisoning the well.  And globalist is your first sign of warning.  Hang on just a second.  What do you mean by globalist, exactly?  And I'll bet that's what you were going to make the point on.

STU:  That's exactly what I want to go into because we've been doing this show for a long time.  There's been things that have, you know, leaned towards globalism, that the talk radio audience, generally speaking, rejects, as do I.  Things like the United Nations making our decisions on our military.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  And, you know, global climate treaties that --

GLENN:  IPCC.  Yeah.  The IPP --

STU:  The Kyoto treaties -- yeah, Protocol.  

PAT:  Nobody has been more anti-globalist than we have.

JEFFY:  Right.

STU:  Exactly.  Having global entities control what we do in our country.

PAT:  Right.

GLENN:  Even some global trade agreements.  We need to have trade agreements.  But are they about -- for instance, the T- -- what is it?  The TPP?

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  The TPP is an Asian global look at things.  And it is an Asian pact that supersedes our law.  

STU:  And there's elements of many of these agreements that we've fought against.

GLENN:  Uh-huh.

STU:  And so the idea that we would look towards global entities to influence our policy and the way we deal with our things here, we reject and have rejected for a long time.  And the talk radio audience, with that definition of globalist, has always been against that.

PAT:  But they've changed it now.  Right?

STU:  But now you notice -- and you say Breitbart.  But really, Alex Jones.  Breitbart and Alex Jones are one and the same at this point.

GLENN:  Absolutely.  Alex Jones is who he is, and everybody knew it.  And now one step closer to the media is Breitbart.  So one step closer to the average person as --

PAT:  And Drudge.

GLENN:  And Drudge.  Anyone want to talk about the new movie Torch Bearer?  Torch Bearer is a new movie, when man stops believing in God, he'll believe in anything.  Sounds really good.  Phil Robertson is in it, everything else.  You know who the producer is?  You know who the executive producer of this film is?

PAT:  Yes.

GLENN:  Who?

PAT:  It's Bannon.

GLENN:  Bannon.

PAT:  Bannon.  What's-his-face, Bannon.

GLENN:  So Bannon, who is Trump's campaign manager, who is, yes, we're providing a platform for the alt-right --

PAT:  Yeah.

GLENN:  -- is now producing films on faith for your church.

PAT:  Unbelievable.

GLENN:  Congratulations, America.  Congratulations.

PAT:  Wow.  Unbelievable.  

GLENN:  You are sliding into a cesspool that you have no idea what is coming your way.

STU:  On the globalist thing, to finish that, the old definition was, you know, international agreements and things that we were skeptical of.  We don't want to be controlled by international bureaucracy.

PAT:  Anything.  We want our sovereignty.

STU:  We want our sovereignty.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  And a lot of times that has gone along with having borders and border security.

PAT:  Right.

GLENN:  And we are for Brexit.  I'm for Brexit.

STU:  Yeah.  I believe in sovereignty.  I don't like the European Union.

GLENN:  Yep.  Don't like it.

STU:  What it's now turning into is, do you believe in free trade?  Are you against tariffs?  Are you for or against legal immigration?  Do you think we should have any interaction with -- with our allies?  Do we have any role in the rest of the world?

If you believe any of those things, all of a sudden now you're a globalist.

PAT:  Globalist.

GLENN:  If you don't believe in tariffs -- tariffs are the most destructive thing to the free market, which is what we are based on as conservatives --

STU:  Right.

GLENN:  If you're against tariffs, you're now a globalist.  Well, tell that to our Founders.

PAT:  If you're against Donald Trump, you're supposedly now a globalist.

STU:  Right.  And that's certainly where a lot of this comes from.  

PAT:  Yeah. 

STU:  And a lot of the passion behind it, obviously, because we're in the middle of an election season.

GLENN:  It goes way beyond him.

STU:  But, I mean, look at -- I can't remember -- was it Cruz or maybe Pat Toomey, when they were running, they were running ads against them, saying, "Hey, did you know that -- I can't remember which one it was.  But they were talking about free trade and how it's helped us.  But it's also helped lift billions of people out of poverty.

GLENN:  Yeah.

STU:  And the fact that we've lifted Chinese people, for example -- a billion Chinese have come out of poverty because they've started to embrace a little bit of capitalism and free trade.

GLENN:  Bono just said this.

STU:  It's a great commercial for what we believe.  Rooting for the success of people in other nations, wanting people to not starve to death all of a sudden is some weird definition of globalist.  I mean, these things do help the rest of the world.  I think free trade has been one of the most positive things that has ever happened to this planet, but it's also helped us.

GLENN:  Here's why nationalism is so wrong, and here's why saying that we are a unique country is right, but it is not the people.  American exceptionalism is not the people.  We're no different than anybody else.

Yes, do we have different work ethics?  Did we have different ethics than other countries?  Yes.

Do we now?  Not so much.  Do the Chinese or do the Saudis understand American exceptionalism?  No.  Does that make them different people?  No.  It means they don't buy into the idea of America.

America is not a country.  It's an idea.  It is also a country.  And nationalism glorifies the country and its people.  What patriotism should be is the -- the glorification of the idea that we aspire to.  The idea that we all men could be free, that all -- that all men can pursue their own happiness.  And it's a very subtle difference.  But if you don't get it, you are on the train to hell in these times.

I want to end this segment real quick just by reading this again, and I want to you listen because this is going to become -- I don't know how many people in this audience -- but I am still convinced that this audience is going to be the audience that will be remembered for pulling the republic out of the fire.  I'm convinced of it.  And I don't know when that happens.  And I don't even know if it's because of what you do, other than teaching your children these things.  Maybe it is because of what we do collectively that teaches our children and our children save the nation or bring it back.  I don't know.

But for those with eyes and ears, please hear me.  Let me read this again.  American nationalism isn't racial or ethnic oriented.

Yes, it is.

Nor is it rooted in expansionist foreign policy like Bush conservatism.

That is true.  That goes to the point on globalists.

Keeping people out is not invading their country, occupying their land and trying to bring democracy to them.

So what they're saying is:  We can keep foreigners out of here, and that's better than -- well, you're giving a binary choice here.

Modern nationalism -- modern nationalism, let me tell you, is exactly the same as old-timey nationalism.  Modern nationalism and populism.

What is populism?  Populism is nothing but tyranny of the majority.

Modern nationalism and populism in America is just a refocusing on improving the lives and well-being of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of globalization, which is rooted in social Darwinism.

Oh, my gosh.  Hello, Germany, 1930.

American nationalism and populism is a whole scale (sic) rejection of the virus -- hello, Goebbels -- of globalism.

Please, please, know the tripwires.  Please know, national -- nationalism is suicide.  Populism is suicide.  That the tripwire of globalism doesn't mean what you think it means.  To them, it means anything other than America, first and foremost, and nothing else.

STU:  It's okay to prioritize America.

GLENN:  Right.  It's fine to prioritize.  

STU:  That's what you should do.  But it does not mean -- 

GLENN:  It means a complete withdrawal and enemy outside -- it is complete isolationist, protectionist, and no trade deals.  Even our Founders made trade deals.  And we protested tariffs.  What do you think the Tea Party was about?  It was a rejection of tariffs.  And that's what nationalism is doing.  And it is coming.  And it is coming beyond this election.  And it will only gain strength after this election, no matter who wins, because this is not about Donald Trump.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Inigo Montoya (played by Mandy Patinkin) from The Princess Bride.

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.