The #1 Journalist Targeted for Anti-Semitism on the Internet Talks With Glenn

Ben Shapiro holds many titles, awards and distinctions --- editor-in-chief, author, attorney --- but perhaps his latest is the most compelling. Shapiro was recently named the number one journalistic target of anti-Semitism on the internet.

"I was always of the opinion that the vast, you know, anti-Semitic left was a much bigger threat, with regard to anti-Semitism, than the right," Shapiro said. "Virtually all of the anti-Semitism I received this year was from the alt-right. You know, that came as a shock to me."

According to an Anti-Defamation League survey, about 20,000 anti-Semitic tweets were directed at American journalists since March of 2016. Eight thousand of those were at Shapiro.

Unswayed by the hatred, Shapiro remains as focused and committed as ever to conservative principles. His new book --- True Allegiance --- is available now for pre-order and at bookstores everywhere next week.

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

• What gives Ben hope in millennials?

• Why could Ben's new book be a history book very soon?

• What's Steve Bannon's scam?

• Does Trump even care about being president?

• What does Ben wake up every morning thinking about?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. Welcome to the program, sir. How are you?

BEN: Hey, doing pretty well. How are you?

GLENN: Pretty good.

So we find out now that it is indeed a Jew, Ben Shapiro, that has been torching Donald Trump. They were right all along. They were right all along, Ben.

BEN: Yeah. If only they had known I was an international banker, this would have changed everything.

GLENN: That's right.

BEN: It is amazing how all of the people who foisted Donald Trump on us in the primaries are now insisting that anyone who says that Donald Trump was a bad candidate from the beginning is at fault here. If only we had jumped on the Trump train sooner, then he would be losing by presumably by six points, instead of by eight.

GLENN: Right.

BEN: Everybody is preparing for the post-election fallout. The people who timed themselves to this electrical fire, more than anybody else. They're already prepping Trump TV. And I look forward to the lineup, including, you know, some of our good friends who will presumably be appearing shortly.

I mean, Trump debuted Trump TV in the middle of the debate last night. And it's clear that's what this rigging talk is about, by the way. This whole routine is not designed to win any votes. No, independent voter across the country is going, "Well, you know, if Trump says it's rigged, that means I'm going to vote for that guy." This is just all about the coalition of the dispossessed. It's about creating a grievance culture where people think that the real reason Trump lost wasn't because he's the worst major candidate in presidential history. That the real reason he lost is because there are all these media people and evil pollsters and evil voting fraud gurus and the Never Trumpers who combine to stop him. And the only way that you're going to be able to fight back against those people is by paying 10.99 a month to watch Laura Ingram talk to Sean Hannity about the wonders of Donald Trump.

GLENN: So, Ben, how does this actually shape up at the end? Because he is not going away. As you said, during the debate two nights ago, he was debuting Trump TV. The BBC even tweeted that. Are we watching the beginning of Trump TV? It was clear that was the prototype broadcast of what was coming.

And he's not going away. And the reason why he hit Hillary as hard as he did was -- was not to expand his base, which he had to do. It was to make sure that his base was die-hard for him. They are going to say that it was rigged. They're going to blame it on the G.O.P. They're going to blame it on the media. They're going to blame it on people like you, people like me. And a good portion of those people are going to believe that from -- from now until the end of time.

BEN: Yeah, and that's a scam. That was Steve Bannon's scam, you know, when he moved over from Breitbart. I said it immediately. I'm admiring him. That Bannon is too smart not to have a backup plan. His backup plan is if Trump loses, they convert, you know, a million or 2 million of the big Trump fans into the a subscriber base for some sort of TV network. That was always the plan here.

I mean, Trump is not a great businessman. He's a great branding magnate. His brand is ruined internationally because of all the things he's done inside of this election cycle. But that doesn't mean he can't make a lot of money off of the die-hards. They're attempting to increase the number of die-hards here by suddenly narrowing all the Tea Party language that Trump despised at the time, but suddenly he's a Tea Partier, because they're trying to grab on to that audience, hold them tight, and then claim the real reason that people have moved away from him is not because he's not conservative enough, not because he has no values. The reason that people moved away from him is of course because he's just too tough and we're too wimpy to really take the fight to the enemy.

GLENN: So with -- with Steve Bannon who is -- and you worked for him for years, or worked with him for years. One of the more despicable men alive. Would you agree?

BEN: Yeah. I'm not a Steve Bannon fan.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

BEN: Yeah, he's a bad guy.

GLENN: Right. A really bad guy. He is -- he is -- he will use -- I don't know if he believes in the alt-right, but he is certainly willing to use the alt-right for fuel.

This is going to be a very bad chemistry lab experiment that that could blow the conservative movement sky-high. How do we navigate around this? How do we -- how do you expose what's coming and what they're going to be doing?

BEN: I mean, the only thing that we can do is, of course, tell the truth about what is going on. And this is sort of the final con in what has been a con of a campaign.

But beyond that, I think that we also have to make clear, some of the stuff that you've been saying, Glenn, I think has been useful in this respect. And I've been trying to say the same thing.

My hard feelings are not with the people who feel like they have to vote for Donald Trump in order to stop Hillary Clinton. I totally understand that logic.

GLENN: Correct. I do too.

BEN: You know, I wake up every morning trying to figure out for myself on a personal level, is that logic that predominates over other logic that suggests you can't vote for this guy.

GLENN: Hang on. Before you say anymore. Was there a time -- any time at all in the first ten minutes a couple of nights ago on the debate when you heard her talk about the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment, and abortion, that before he started talking, that you said, "I've -- I have to consider voting for Donald Trump. She is awful."

BEN: Yeah. Pretty much every time she opens her mouth, I have to consider voting for Trump. And I think that that's true for virtually everybody who considers themselves Never Trump.

GLENN: Correct. I agree. And I think that's why both of us -- all of us, we do not condemn anyone who is voting for Donald Trump. We get it -- we totally get it.

BEN: Right. Exactly.

GLENN: Unless you're part of the alt-right -- you know, when you had 16 candidates in front of you, I don't understand that.

BEN: Right. Even if you had 16 others in front of you, but you weren't following the news that closely, and all you saw was sort of the headlines that he's going to be a fighter.

GLENN: Yeah. I agree.

BEN: But somebody who backed him because you're sort of a nationalist/populist and you want that sort of constitutional conservatism that's always driven the Republican Party or has since the Reagan era, then that's the part that I don't understand.

I think that what you're seeing is sort of a preemptive strike from a lot of the Trumpkins, the Bannons of the world, saying, "Look, we know we're going to go down in flames here, but we have to make it seem as though people like Beck and Shapiro and people who aren't going to vote for Trump are sneering at you, like they're looking down their nose at you for voting Trump. I'm not looking down my nose at anybody. I've made a personal calculation. I've never said to anybody, "I'm encouraging you not to vote for Donald Trump."

I have said that, "Here's my -- you know, here's calculation, why I'm not voting for Donald Trump." I think that Washington takes the heart out of the Republican Party over the last year alone is good evidence that he's going to do much worse over the next eight years and pervert the Republican Party into the Steve Bannon alt-right, and that is something that I'm not going to stand around for. But, you know, that said, I understand the differing risk assessments that people have.

GLENN: Sure.

BEN: The civil war is entirely a creation of the Bannon/Trump brigade. They want the civil war. Neither you nor I want the civil war. We would like to see us come together and actually fight the left. Listen, the reason that I opposed Trump in the primaries because I thought he's an agent of the left. I still think that he's leftist in his heart.

GLENN: Yeah. I do too. You know, I don't think you meant that literally. But there are some -- and I think you could make a pretty strong case that Bill Clinton, you know, called him up a week before and was like, "Hey, Don, I know you're thinking about it. You should do it because, you know, it will be good for your brand. And you'll be able to have fun. And, you know, you'll be able to clean up those crazies on the right."

BEN: Look, I don't think Trump is the plan. But if he were, I'm not sure he would be acting much differently than he has been for the past few months.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

BEN: I think he's -- I think Trump is an ad hoc guy who has never really thought about politics very much. What he does think is about (inaudible). He has no ties to the Constitution. He has no ties to conservatism. And so he's this sort of reactionary who doesn't like some of the stuff that he saw from Barack Obama. That's all.

GLENN: So let's just assume that the polls don't change -- because he didn't have a game-changing debate. And so let's say the polls are accurate, which is still an if. And Donald Trump loses. We know what he'll do. He'll start Trump TV. There will be an alt-right party that grows out of this. Let's talk about, how do we come together enough to stop Hillary Clinton? Because that's -- that's going to be the important part. And I will tell you, because some show hosts have said, "I will never come together with you. I will condemn you for you, you know, losing the vote for Donald Trump." So how do we get together and stand together as a bloc to block Hillary if she wins?

BEN: You know, I think that we're going to have to ignore the flames and arrows. Unfortunately, this capitulation -- there's a phrase in the Jewish prayers -- (cutting out) I let my soul (cutting out) -- I think there's going to be have to be some of that. (cutting out)

GLENN: Hang. Hang on. Ben, I don't know if you just walked into another room or something, but you broke up. Can you tell us -- we lost you at the -- at the Jewish prayer.

BEN: No.

Yeah. Can you hear me now? Is that better?

GLENN: Yes, yes.

BEN: Okay. So there's a part of the Jewish prayer service where it talks about, you know, let my soul be as dust to people who criticize me. And I think that we're going to have to adopt that, that idea. Because we're going to get hit with blame for Hillary, because everybody who selected Trump in the primaries and backed him so ardently, they have to shift the blame somewhere. We're just going to have to keep the focus. We're going to have to ignore it. We're just going to have to keep the focus, where it ought to be, which is on attacking the left, attacking Hillary Clinton.

And, look, I think that the recriminations are going to last longer than they did after 2012.

GLENN: Right.

BEN: It is amazing. I don't remember after 2012, the whole Republican -- a large swath of the Republican Party turning on the Trump people, who didn't show up for Romney. And saying, "It's your fault Romney wasn't elected." But the Trump people, some of them, are going to do it to us this time. But, you know, I think that -- people have short memories. And the only thing that's going to matter is, how do we stop Hillary's agenda? So alliances of conveniences to the Republican Party -- has shown are not foreign to the Republican Party or a lot of people who are in it.

STU: Ben, this is Stu, and it's very rare that we have award-winning journalists on the program. You have won the award for the number one journalistic target of anti-Semitism on the internet. Congratulations.

BEN: Thank you. I thank God. I thank my neighbor --

(laughter)

STU: Did you want to give -- I -- you have to look at this -- I mean, A, it must be just a nightmare to even sign on to Twitter or any of these places these days with this stuff going on. Not only were you the number one target of anti-Semitism. It was by a really, really large margin.

GLENN: I know what it's like, Ben, to sign on for me. The things that they say -- my wife blew a gasket the other day. I just got an email, and she said, you are never talking to another person in the press ever, ever again. I don't care what it is. I don't care what happens. You're never talking to another member of the press.

And I can't imagine what it's like to be you, with the anti-Semitism that is going on. How are you dealing with it?

BEN: You know, at a certain point, you start to tune it out because you have to. But on the day of your baby's birth and you're getting notes from, you know, people who write for Breitbart, you know, that are essentially racists. And then you get other notes from people that are -- just pictures of gas chambers and talk about cockroaches. And I hope the four of you die in a gas chamber. That kind of stuff. At a certain point, it moves from the mildly irritating to the actually upsetting.

I mean, I've received -- according to that ADL survey, there were something like 20,000 anti-Semitic tweets directed at American journalists since March. And I was the recipient of nearly 8,000 of those.

So, you know, at a certain point it's kind of amazing that there are that many people that think they're that important in their lives that they're going to do that. And my feeling has always been that if you're pissing off the mouth-breathing Jew hater, then you're doing something right.

So it didn't bother me on any moral level. But I will tell you that it's pretty clear that it's coordinated. I mean, there are certain spike points where people did it based on the news cycle. There were a couple of accounts that were taken off of Twitter. By the way, I'm not an advocate of taking people off Twitter for anti-Semitism. I retweet these people because I think it's important to expose them.

But there are a couple who were taken off of Twitter when Milo Yiannopoulos was booted off of Twitter, which I didn't advocate for. When that happened, the amount of anti-Semitism in my feed dropped by at least 50 percent.

So, you know, when people ask why are you concerned about the Breitbart/alt-right movement, why are you worried Trump, you know, being kind of confused with that, well, it's because the major players in that movement are a problem. I mean, they believe some pretty terrible things. And our fellow travelers (phonetic) are people who believe even worse things.

GLENN: Ben, I -- I have to tell you, we've been a fan of yours for a very long time. But this -- this last year has really shown people's colors. And I don't know if the -- the people who read you or listen to you on the radio understand the difficulty that you have put up. And anybody who has taken this stand. It's a very, very brave thing to do.

And we've been watching you for the last year. And we are -- we're really impressed. Really impressed. Can I switch topics? Go ahead.

BEN: Yeah, that's high praise come from you obviously. Because of the people who have taken a lot of hits in this election cycle, you're definitely number one on that list. So it's been brutal, and I'm just hoping that after this election cycle, we can move into a period where people actually go back to principle instead of sort of the tribal fight that they've wanted to engage in.

GLENN: Yeah. Can you hang for a minute. Because you also have started another project that I think is really interesting. And I'd love for you to share with the audience. Do you have time to stay?

BEN: Sure. That would be great.

GLENN: Okay. Great.

[break]

GLENN: Ben Shapiro is with us. Ben, you've written a novel. You want to tell us about it?

BEN: Sure. That would be great. The novel is called True Allegiance. And it sort of takes all of the political crises we're facing in the country and ratcheting them up by a factor of about 50 percent. And it talks about what the dissolution of the country would look like.

And the reason that I wrote it as fiction as opposed to writing a sort of nonfiction book as to what the future looks like, is mainly because -- and, Glenn, I know you've been a proponent of this for a long time, Andrew Breitbart, my mentor, or my former mentor, was promoting this as well, the idea that culture is upstream of politics.

And if you tell it in a story, what you can't necessarily say in nonfiction, you know, here's one possible future, here's how bad things are on everything from the border to government's encroachment on land rights to race relations in the inner city, then people are more likely to read it and take it seriously, oddly enough, than they are to take a non-fiction book about the same topic seriously. Plus, you end up with more readers.

Ayn Rand did more for capitalism probably than Milton Friedman did, just because there are so many more people who read Atlas Shrugged. So the idea was to take all of these crises, stack them up one on another, and say, "Okay. How close are we really to everything collapsing?" And I have to say, I wrote the thing maybe a year and a half ago I started writing it. I completed it probably a year ago. And since then, half of the stuff in the book came true. So it turns out that I thought it was all 30 years away, and it may only be about 15 years away, which is a little scary.

GLENN: I did -- I'll tell you, I did the same thing.

We published -- what was it? Eye of Moloch. I don't remember what it was. Oh, it was the NSA stuff. The Eye of Moloch was a novel that I wrote. And it was about the spying on American citizens and how the NSA was going to do this and everything else. And I wrote it. It took about a year and a half to write.

And we put it out. And the day it came out was the day that I think the WikiLeaks story broke. We were like, "Good heavens, man. This is supposed to be in the future." It's amazing.

BEN: Oh, yeah. It is incredible how the future has accelerated. I mean, all of the worst fictional things that I talk about in True Allegiance, again, a lot of them came true. I wrote about major race riots in an American city and the attempt by the race rioters to kind of mainstream their politics into the politics of the upper echelon of the city. And obviously that's now been happening in pretty much every major Democrat-controlled city in America.

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. I have to take a quick break. Come back and just tell us the things that are in the book. And what the solutions are, if there are any. I'd like to hear your version of what's coming in America. Next, Ben Shapiro.

[break]

GLENN: Ben Shapiro, the biggest target for anti-Semitism in America today. He's an amazingly brave man. And a -- a brilliant, brilliant mind. And I'm glad he's on our side because I'd hate him to see him use his power for evil. Ben Shapiro is with us. He has a new book -- is it out this week?

BEN: Yeah. It's coming out next week.

GLENN: Okay.

BEN: So you can preorder it now.

JEFFY: True Allegiance.

GLENN: True Allegiance. Tell me the scenarios that you put in the book that you thought were 30 years away.

BEN: So one I talk about at length is a major race riot breaking out in a major American city and the government, led by presidents of the United States, essentially pushing the notion that the -- that the government -- the local government should give into the race rioters and allow them to take leadership of the local government.

And obviously, we've seen things along those lines from the presidents of the United States. I talk about precipitous pullout from a country. In this case, Afghanistan, that leads to the rise of a major terrorist group that hooks up with Iran to start pursuing nuclear terrorism.

And, you know, it turned out, I had the wrong country. The precipitous pullout from Iraq is what caused the rise in ISIS. But the idea that precipitous pullout causing rise in a major terrorist group, I wrote that before the rise of ISIS.

I talked about the idea of raids across the southern border from Mexican drug cartels, causing tensions on the border such that the government of Texas has to start disobeying the federal government in attempts to enforce the border, causing serious conflict between the state of Texas and the president of the United States. Obviously, you can see that beginning to materialize now.

GLENN: Ben, this isn't 30 years in the future. This was Wednesday.

(laughter)

BEN: Exactly. That's why I have to tell it now because it will be history --

GLENN: Right. It's a history book very soon. So how do -- how do -- I mean, I don't want you to tell me the whole story. But is there a solution to these problems that you see? Are you in this novel, are you proposing solutions?

BEN: Well, there are some solutions. And I think the number one solution that I sort of propose is that everybody start relying on basic human decency, which I know sounds ridiculous. But that's what we've come down to in this country. Is, are we going to have a country founded on individual decency, or are we going to have a country founded on everybody taking advantage of the situation at hand?

But the book does -- you know, I don't want to give away the ending of the book. But I will say that not everything is resolved peachy keen. Because I'm not sure that everything is resolved so peachy keen easily. I think these are deep abiding conflicts. And I think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. But people of principle are going to have to ban together because tough times are coming.

If we do that, then I think we're going to be able to rebuild from some pretty bad things that are about to happen. But I think that it may be -- I mean, not to be a pessimist. I think it's late to forestall some of the worst things that are already happening from taking further material effect.

GLENN: Ben, I was talking to a guy -- yesterday I was having a meeting. And a pretty famous commentator -- and he just stopped by the studios to say hi. And we were having a private conversation. And he said to me, "I no longer believe people are good." He said, "I used to." He said, "I used to believe" -- he said, "I've heard you a million times, you know, you put good against evil, side by side, and Americans will always pick good." He said, "I don't think so."

Do you?

BEN: I think that unless there's a serious revival of morality in the country, I agree with your friend. And I think, by the way, our Founders didn't believe that people were naturally good.

I think our Founders, they said in Federalist 51, they believe that people are capable of good. They're capable of evil. That's why you can't have a government that's overpowering because the people who run it could be evil. And the only way that you're actually going to protect liberty is with a decent citizenry.

Obviously, the Republican Party -- conservatives have done a very poor job of maintaining the culture, maintaining the educational system, maintaining the media. And a lot of these values have dripped down all the way into -- you know, what was shocking to me about this election was, is that I didn't realize how far a lot of this had dripped down into our own party.

GLENN: Yeah.

BEN: You always like to think of yourself as sort of you're on the side of the angels and people on your own team aren't part of the tribal problem. And then you look around and you realize, some of the people on your own team are not really on your team.

And that was -- that came as a rude awakening to me. You mentioned the anti-Semitism thing a little bit earlier. I was always of the opinion that the vast, you know, anti-Semitic left was a much bigger threat, with regard to anti-Semitism, than the right. I really had never -- I'm a guy who wears the Yamaka every day. I had never seen anti-Semitism from the right. Virtually all of the anti-Semitism I received this year was from the alt-right. You know, that came as a shock to me.

I think that we're going to need to re-inculcate values from the most basic level with our kids because people just don't know anything about, not only basic economics and basic politics, but basic decency. Because in the end, politics is just a reflection of values. When you have an entire generation of voters who are looking at Bernie Sanders as some sort of savior and socialism is a good, moral thing. And that's -- that's our fault. I mean, that's because we haven't done enough. Because my parents' generation hasn't done enough. I have to do a better job as a father in order to rectify the breach. And that's going to be a long process. That's not something that happens overnight. I don't think that we're one election away from restoring the country. I think we're one generation away from restoring the country. The idea that Reagan said, we're -- liberty is always one generation away from disappearing. You know, I think that liberty is always one generation from restoration, but it's going to be a hard generation (inaudible).

GLENN: How old are you, Ben?

BEN: I'm 32.

GLENN: So you're a millennial. How much faith do you have in the millennials?

BEN: I'm hoping for the millennials. I think the millennials are bored. I think the millennials don't pay a lot of attention to politics. I think they're dispossessed. They don't like all of the institutions. So there's not the same faith in the government and the same faith in the media that you see with the Boomers.

So there's an opening there. I think they're susceptible to basic reason, but they have to be -- they have to be pushed off the moral superiority they feel. And I speak at probably 30 colleges a year. And when I speak at these colleges, the first thing that I do is I immediately take the feelings question off the table, by basically saying, "You think you're a good person because you believe these things politically. Here's why what you believe politically is actually immoral and it hurts people."

And it's an argument who are young have never heard before. Because they've grown up in a millennia that's told them that the way to assure your ascent to political heaven is just by voting Democrat or by saying socialism is a great system of redistribution or by talking about white privilege.

When you say, look, the real way to be a good person is to actually be a good person. I agree with you. When young people are presented with the argument for good, then they will become more good. But if they're never presented with the argument for good and they're just told that politics is politics and everybody is corrupt and the whole system is rigged and nobody is good in the end and it's get yours at the table before somebody takes it away from you -- or (cuts out) the ultimate sacrifice that you can make is voting somebody else's money away, then you're going to go with the side that gives you a feeling of moral superiority. And failing to recognize that on the part of the right has been a mistake.

GLENN: Do you think that -- do you see when you're speaking out in universities, when you really start to teach some of these things, do you see the millennials at all get a little pissed that they've kind of been robbed by -- by people who have been teaching them garbage? Are they ticked at all?

BEN: Yeah, there's definitely a backlash that's building. I mean, I get probably somewhere between 50 to 100 emails every day. And all from millennials. People who are my age or younger. Who are excited that -- who have watched -- there are these videos on YouTube that have started to go viral, called Ben Shapiro thug life videos. Where somebody took like my kind of destroying somebody in the debate. Then they put sunglasses on me and an Obey hat on me.

It's really ridiculous stuff. But it's become very popular with young folks. And I get a lot of emails from young people saying, I was never even exposed to basic arguments or moral arguments. And if you speak dispassionately about what is good and true, then I think the young people resonate to that. It's actually one of the areas where I do have hope.

I speak on enough college campuses that I have hope for young people. I actually have less hope for some of the Baby Boomers than I do for people who are my own age and younger. I think a lot of the people, my own age and younger, are still malleable. They don't know a lot. They haven't been taught a lot. And when they're made aware of arguments they've never heard before, they're kind of shocked by it. They're actually vulnerable in that way because they're being blind-sided by the truth.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. Always good to talk to you, sir. Thank you so much. And thanks for all your hard work and taking such a hard stand. Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of dailywire.com. Thank you so much, Ben.

BEN: Really appreciate it, Glenn.

Featured Image: Ben Shapiro on radio

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.