The Times Have Changed: Glenn Finds Common Ground With 'The New York Times'

Glenn recently had the opportunity to sit down with the editorial board of The New York Times for an enlightening conversation.

"So I don't want to quote anything that they said or take anything and make them look one way or another," Glenn told radio listeners Tuesday. "I will tell you that the thrust of the conversation was, who is your audience? Who are the people of the Tea Party, and are those people the same people that are supporting Donald Trump? And what happened if they are?"

RELATED: The GOP Must Do Something About the Conservative Media Industrial Complex if It Wants to Survive

From Glenn's perspective, those he met with appeared to have a keen and genuine interest in understanding what was happening in the country, particularly on the right. Could this signal a step toward bridging the divide and bringing people together?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• How did Glenn describe members of the Tea Party?

• Did Glenn adequately express the frustration felt by conservative Americans?

• Had the editorial board ever heard the truth about conservative Tea Party patriots?

• Did Glenn kiss a frog or a toad?

• What would make conservatives lose their credibility?

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

GLENN: I met with a New York Times editorial board yesterday, and it was all on background. So I don't want to quote anything that they said or -- or -- or take anything and -- and make them look one way or another.

I will tell you that the -- the thrust of the conversation was, who -- who are -- who is your audience? Who -- who are the people of the Tea Party, and are those people -- are those people the same people that are supporting Donald Trump? And what happened if they are?

To be able to sit with all of the editors of the New York Times and say, "Look, here's what happened: The press mocked, belittled, called them racist, called them dangerous, called them names, when these were families who came so far out of their comfort zone because they actually believed in something."

These aren't Marxists. These aren't revolutionaries in college. These are the people who just put their face in a book during college and did it and didn't get involved in any of that stuff. Have never done any of that their entire life. Have lived a law-abiding quiet life.

And then they saw in justice, they saw things that they thought were wrong. And the press immediately said they were dangerous. And then, riding in on a white horse, to their rescue was -- who? The G.O.P. And Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. Come. You are such great friends. We needed you. And we then had a historic election for the G.O.P. and sent Tea Party people there. And those very people in the establishment turned those people against us.

And nothing changed. And then Mitt Romney, in 2012. And it was between 2010 and a week after the election of 2012 that everybody who was part of that movement said, "There's no way to win. Nothing is going to change. We've been defeated. There's nothing we can do."

And then a new man rode into town, who said, "I'm your defender. I'll crush them." And what he was promising or what his record was, wasn't as important as finally getting somebody to stand up who will refuse to sit down and will burn the whole damn thing down because the whole thing is corrupt. That's what happened.

It has nothing to do with racism or anything else. That's a subset.

That's not who these people are. They're tired, and they're frustrated. And they've looked for someone who can finally tell people like you, "Shut up. That's not who we are."

I don't think those people had heard that before.

PAT: How did they respond to that?

GLENN: They were amazing. They were amazing. And I don't --

PAT: It really sunk in, you think?

GLENN: Yeah, I do. For some. I do. There were 19 people in the room. I don't know. I didn't get a chance to talk to them. But I will tell you that it was not what I expected.

And, you know, people were blasting me on Facebook saying, "You know, you just went to bash Trump." No. Not really. Uh-uh. They weren't really that interested in Donald Trump. They were interested in who you are.

Now, I think, personally -- nothing to base this on, but I think personally, they know that the world is changing. They see trouble on the horizon, and like all of us, they may be saying now, "Gosh, it's a different world. It's a different game, make we should reexamine everything we're doing.

I don't know that. But that's the feeling I got. And here's why -- here's one of the reasons why I said yes to going up and meeting with them.

When I was at RedState this summer, somebody from the New York Times -- I didn't know they were from the New York Times, somebody in the press gaggle asked two questions. I don't even remember what they were. But they were thoughtful. They were really thoughtful questions. And I answered those questions.

And I wondered where she was from. And I thought she was from a -- a right side organization. And they were very smart questions. And she came up to me afterwards and asked a couple of other questions. I said, "Who are you with?" She said, "The New York Times." I said, "The New York Times?" She said, "Yes. We're trying to understand what's happening." Now, she's a documentary filmmaker. So we spent some time talking off the record. Her family is from, I think, Louisiana or Arkansas. They're Republicans. I think they're Trump supporters.

She's not. But she wasn't virulent either way. She was just like, "You know, I don't know. I'm not a Trump supporter, but my family is." She understood the center of the country, like no one else I've met in media.

And she said, "Would you be a part of this short documentary?" And I said, "I think so. But I don't know how it's going to be edited."

PAT: That was the problem, isn't it?

GLENN: Yeah, no, it is. But it was edited. And it was fair. It was fair. It was like eight minutes. But it was very fair.

And represented our side very well.

Yesterday, after it was all over, I was talking to her producer and somebody else from the New York Times, and they said, "Thank you for being a part of that." And I said, "I have to tell you, I was really skeptical." And they said, "We are really trying to understand. We're trying -- we don't want to be flippant on things." I said, "Oh, I know that feeling. Yes."

"We're really trying to understand." And they said, "The best thing about that is that -- now, this is key.

Said, "Did you read any of the comments underneath that when it first went out?"

And I said, "No."

And she said, "It was really good." She said, "So many of your people said, I can't believe this is the New York Times." And she said, "And so many of the New York Times people said, I can't believe there are conservatives like this. I didn't know they existed."

That is critical.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: If we're going to heal the country, that's critical.

Now, whether the New York Times or anybody else continues this the day after the election, I'm assuming I just kissed a frog. I'm assuming I just kissed a toad, hoping that they would be a princess. And they're not going to be a princess. That's how I have to go into this.

Anything that you get on the other side where you go, "Oh, my gosh. Look at that. It's tiny movement." Is a blessing. But we have to start doing that. We have to start looking for anybody who is actually willing to stand. And what I recommended to the New York Times -- I recommended, first of all, that Hillary Clinton, if she was serious about bringing the country together, that she said, "I'm not -- at this point in the country's history, I'm not going to replace a Scalia with a Ginsburg. I'm going to replace a Scalia with Mike Lee. A conservative constitutionalist with a conservative constitution."

PAT: She won't do that. But even if she did, a moderate --

GLENN: To be able to say that, in the New York Times and explain the thinking behind it --

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: -- I thought was important.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I said, "If she's serious, then de-weaponize the IRS." That, she could do. It was wrong when Nixon did it. I don't want to get into the past. But it's wrong now.

De-weaponize the IRS. Her side -- I said, "The only way that it will make any difference is if she hurts her own self with her side. If her side isn't screaming, 'What are you doing,' it won't mean anything to the left -- to the right. They won't believe it."

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And even if she does it, they'll still say, "There's a catch." But it will come in a long-term pattern. Did that really do what she said it would do? And if it doesn't, it makes it worse.

But the reason why I came up with this, you know, Watergate begat Travelgate is because I said the other thing is -- and it won't mean anything coming from people on our side. What means something to the right -- to the left is us on the right standing up and saying, "Here's the infection point on our side. Here are the things we have to take care of." We can't say we're for morals and we don't hate women and then stand with a guy who says, "Come on. Tell me she hasn't been grabbed there a few times in the past." Holy cow. He actually said that yesterday.

We can't accept that. Forget about them. But we'll have no credibility with anyone. And the same thing with them.

I said, "What have you -- by ignoring, what has the left promised us now that she can get away with?" You have to take a hard line on corruption, no matter who wins. You have to take a hard line on corruption. And I don't know -- I don't know what their thinking was. And I wouldn't want to characterize it either way. But I have hope that they will see and say, "We do to have take a hard line." The times have changed.

Featured Image: People walk past The New York Times building on October 1, 2014 in New York City. (Photo by Andrew Burton/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.