Is MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski Turning Conservative?

An amazing shifting is taking place, and the mainstream media doesn't seem to recognize it. Ironically, the left and the media are sounding like the Tea Party did in 2008 and 2012, lamenting about their constitutional rights disappearing.

"If I wanted to be a jerk, I would say, Really? Can you tell me which rights have disappeared? Because isn't that what they've said to us for the last eight years? We can't play that game anymore," Glenn said Wednesday on his radio program.

Another shift taking place is a new open-mindedness and objectivity among a minority on the left.

RELATED: Former Progressive Caller Josh Reveals His Incredible Transformation After Reading ‘Liars’

MSNBC news anchor Mika Brzezinski has, on several occasions, expressed her concern about double standards on the left while looking for new ways to communicate about and approach issues. Brzezinski recently voiced her displeasure with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), saying she might want to be a little inclusive because she's sounding like the people she's accusing of being exclusive.

Is Brzezinski turning into a conservative? No, of course not. She's just changing her approach, her tone.

"That is critical, just critical. And that's what we've been talking about. That's what the book Liars tried to do in the writing," Glenn said.

The bottom line is that we need each other. We need to be approachable to the other side and listen to the opinions of others.

"I don't mean that you change your principles. I haven't changed --- people believe I have --- but I have not changed my principles. I am changing my approach because this doesn't work, what we've been doing. It doesn't work. And it's going to lead us into very dark and bad places," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: This is an amazing thing. I'm now reading articles about how the Hollywood left is -- they're buying luxury bunkers. And what is it that these people know that the rest of us don't seem to know? All of a sudden now preparing is also kind of cool for -- for the left, I guess.

Now there's a reason to hunker down. To me, this says, we can make the case that the presidential powers are far too great. That if half of the country is terrified under a Democrat and then we -- and then we replace him with a Republican and the other half is terrified, would he give you a problem.

PAT: And, gee, who said that, "Don't give those powers to the president because you're not going to like it eventually?"

GLENN: We said that during Bush. We said that during Bush.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: This is the real problem. I want to get into this here in just a second, but I want to start with a phone call that we had yesterday that I think is -- I mean, we had so much mail and so many Facebook comments on this because it shows that, A, there is hope and that people are open-minded if you present yourself the right way.

Listen to this.

CALLER: Let me start off this way, I was a very, very progressive liberal, almost to the point of communism. I believed everybody should be -- you know, in the wage gap and everything. So a buddy of mine that I've known since I got out of the Army, he -- he came to me one day and gave me your book. One of your books. And he says -- he said, "You've got to read this."

GLENN: Which one?

CALLER: Liars.

GLENN: Okay.

CALLER: And he said, "You've got to read this book." And I said, "Oh, come on. Really?"

And, "No, you've got to read this book. You'll never believe the some of the stuff that's in it."

So he told me the first chapter to go to. And it was in August, so I can't remember, to be honest, what chapter it was.

But it was the part of the book where it talked about how they -- with Prohibition.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: And how they put poison in the alcohol to find out the tracking routes of where it was going.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: So I read that, and my jaw hit the floor.

GLENN: You looked it up too, didn't you? You didn't believe --

CALLER: I did. And I finished that book in three days. It was the most amazing book I've ever read. And I said, "I've got to do more research on this, and I've got to find out who this Glenn Beck guy is." So I went to YouTube.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

CALLER: And I searched your name and I found a video that you did on TheBlaze. I don't know how long it was. But you spoke to a guy that was an alcoholic. And you talked to him about some -- I forget who said it. It was to Peter Carr.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: And the statement was, "Set reason firmly in her seat, and question with boldness the very existence of God. For if there is a God, he must rather honest questioning over blind-folded fear." I will never forget that statement. Because that statement brought me to Christ.

I was an atheist before that.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Holy cow. So you were a communist, an atheist?

CALLER: Yeah.

PAT: And how long ago was this, Josh?

GLENN: He said August.

CALLER: I got that book on August 15th of this year.

PAT: Of this year! Wow, that's --

CALLER: Yeah, I voted for Barack Obama twice. I'm sorry, but I did.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAT: Wow.

CALLER: And I would have voted for Hillary Clinton with vigor. However, I pulled the lever for Evan McMullin this year.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: You didn't even go -- oh, my gosh.

CALLER: And I have never, ever, ever -- I'm telling you -- I want to be as serious as I can with you, Glenn, because this is a dream of mine, to speak to you since August. I have never, ever realized the difference -- I thought all conservatives hated me. I thought conservatism was hate -- was complete hate, until I listened to you.

PAT: Wow. That's --

GLENN: This is -- this is a dream come true. This has made the last year totally worth it.

Before we go back to this phone call, because we talked about -- we talked about a few things with him on what -- how -- because that's quite a statement to make. But I want to -- I want to shift gears. And can we go to Mika and what Mika said on MSNBC? Was this today or yesterday?

PAT: I think it was yesterday.

GLENN: Okay. Listen to this.

VOICE: And you have Elizabeth Warren who is stepping out and basically looking like she's going to be the de facto head of the Democratic Party nationally. That is a --

VOICE: Yeah.

MIKA: Do you lead on anger though? Because that doesn't seem very constructive to me.

I got to tell you, I love her. I'm getting tired of this act.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: She's definitely giving voice to the people in the party and in the country who think Donald Trump is a disaster for the country. She's going to be out every day --

MIKA: Yeah. But you know what, there's a huge part of the country that doesn't think so.

VOICE: Right.

MIKA: And she might want to be a little inclusive because she's sounding like the people she's accusing of being exclusive.

I mean, she's just got to stop. I'm sorry. It's getting exhausting. And this was not helpful during the campaign. It wasn't. There was an anger there that was shrill and --

PAT: Uh-huh.

MIKA: -- and a step above what it needed to be, unmeasured, and almost unhinged.

PAT: How about that?

GLENN: Now, listen, what people will want to say, on our side is, wow, is Mika turning a conservative? No. No.

PAT: She's changing her tone.

GLENN: She's changing her tone. That is critical. Just critical. And that's what we've been talking about. That's what the book Liars tried to do in the writing. And obviously, at least for one person, it was successful.

We tried to say, "Look, this isn't a Democratic problem. This is a Democratic and Republican problem. And this is not a liberal problem. This is a human problem."

PAT: And nothing proves better what you've been trying to say for a while now better than this. Because how did that make all of us feel? Everybody listen I objecting to that went, "Wow, thank you. Thank you for being a little bit reasonable and seeing the other side."

GLENN: And honest. And honest.

PAT: And honest.

Well, so if we did the same thing, how will the left feel?

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

And you're not going to get everybody on the left. You're not going to get the die-hards. You're not going to get the die-hards. But the die-hards eventually --

PAT: Some reasonable people might be able to come --

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: On both sides.

GLENN: And the die-hards will eventually be the absolute outer fringes that no one will listen to.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Another great example of this was David Axelrod, of all people.

PAT: Right.

STU: Who was in the Obama administration obviously. A real hard-core partisan and hasn't changed his beliefs. But while Trump was getting beat up for not naming his people fast enough in his cabinet, Axlerod came out and said, "Wait a minute. By this time in our administration, we hadn't named anybody, and I don't remember any criticism." We need more of that.

PAT: A little honesty. A little bit of honesty goes a really long way.

GLENN: Right. Right.

And if we can -- if the right can lead the way in this -- if we can not play the same game and not trash our enemies because they're our enemies, but call them as we see them -- not remain silent when an injustice is happening. Let me give you one. Let me show you an example.

Right now, you have Breitbart being boycotted. Well, first of all, I don't believe that Kellogg's was ever a major sponsor of Breitbart. Maybe. But I don't ever remember seeing Kellogg's Corn Flakes all over. And this was done to us.

There were people that would say they were going to boycott us, that never spent money with us. We were never on part of their buy. They never would have.

PAT: And everybody counted it, "That's the 37th sponsor." Yeah, like eight of them. Four of them. One of them was a sponsor before.

GLENN: Right. Right. Really, most of them were like BMW will never advertise -- well, they never advertise on talk radio. They've never advertised with me before.

So, A, I think this is the press doing to Breitbart what the press did to us. What the left did to us. I don't believe that that -- that boycott of Kellogg's is even real. But even if it is, let me make the case -- and everybody knows how I feel about Breitbart and Bannon. So I have nothing to gain here.

Let me tell you why I think it is a problem. I believe in legal boycotts. I believe you have the right to do it. It's a free market. You have a right to spend your money as a business or -- or an individual, any way you want. It's your money. So if you want to do a boycott, you can do a boycott.

But let me show you why it's not good: Breitbart, if the numbers are right -- and I'm trying to look this up. If the numbers were right, in the last 30 days, Breitbart claims they did 45 million next week.

That's a lot of people.

STU: That's a great number.

GLENN: That's a great number. And that's a lot of people.

Okay. So 45 million people -- Kellogg's, you're going to say, "I don't want any of you. I don't want any of you." Now, Breitbart has said they are the platform for the alt-right. Okay. That's a pretty big choice. To me, I'm not reading Breitbart anymore because I don't want to support something that has -- that says, "I'm going to give this group of people a platform." I don't agree with that. But 45 million people don't care. Forty-five million Americans.

Now, let me just give you this: Remember Richard Spencer. He's the guy who's the leader of the alt-right. He had a big get-together in Washington, DC. This was their big victory lap. How many people showed up?

JEFFY: I think it was like 80 million.

GLENN: Right. 80 million. Well, 45 million, right? Right. No. 275 people.

JEFFY: A little less than that.

GLENN: Yeah. 275 people showed up.

PAT: Yeah. Less than 45?

GLENN: Yeah, it is less than 45.

Now, you don't need 30 percent of the population for a real movement, but you need maybe -- well, definitely more than 275.

JEFFY: Yes.

(chuckling)

GLENN: The point is, Breitbart's audience is not alt-right. And this is the point the press has got to understand. They're all touting -- let me give you this: This is from The Daily Tar Heel. This is the newspaper for the University of North Carolina.

Here's their headline: We can -- this is the editorial board right --

PAT: Are they considered pretty liberal? Yeah?

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. This is the editorial board. We can all learn from Glenn Beck's change of heart.

And it goes in to say we're living in a world that is in perpetual status quo with different ideas for directions on where to go from the norm.

In many cases, the far right and silent majority have won, leaving many of those who generally aligned with that party, to be ecstatic.

It goes on to say -- I'm going to skip a bunch of. Regardless of which side you stand on these issues, let's praise Beck's open-mindedness to new ideas and perspectives.

Now, they are saying that I am praising Black Lives Matter.

PAT: That you've changed on certain things like Black Lives Matter.

GLENN: And I haven't. I haven't.

What I have done is what Mika has done and changed my tone. And I've said, "Let's listen." Not to the people who are praising Fidel and want an end to American capitalism, who are at the top of Black Lives Matter, but instead, the people on the street, who are not violent, who are not calling for death to cops, who just are wound up in this group that I believe is the majority of them. The majority of people that are saying, "You know what, at least Black Lives Matter is stepping up and getting people's attention.

I don't believe they want to destroy America. We need to listen to people who say, "No one is hearing me."

That -- now, by boycotting 45 million people that read Breitbart, what are you doing? You're saying, "You're not even worth listening to. You're not even worth marketing to. I never want to see you again." That's a mistake. Because .00001 percent of the people who read Breitbart are Nazis. Two hundred and seventy-five nazis showed up last week in Washington, DC.

PAT: Well, alt-right people, right?

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Yeah, well, I'm sorry --

PAT: I mean, they've got some of those tendencies perhaps.

GLENN: The 275, no, they were giving the Hitler salute. I will call them that.

PAT: Were they?

STU: No, they were saying hail -- hail Trump. That was their big excuse. They're like, it wasn't heil Trump, it was hail Trump.

GLENN: They actually did the Hitler salute and said hail Trump.

PAT: They said heil in English.

STU: Right.

PAT: Okay. Good. Good. That's unique.

GLENN: Completely differently. Completely different.

So I want to go back to this guy, but, again, the point of the phone call that came in yesterday and the point of Mika and the point of Liars, the book -- if you haven't read the book, we worked really hard on it. And it was a best-selling book, and it's really good. Please get it for Christmas, especially if you know somebody who has an open mind.

PAT: Like this guy.

GLENN: Right. And may I suggest that we need an open mind, that we need to be approachable to people on the left. I don't mean that you -- that you change your principles. I -- I haven't changed -- people believe I have. I have not changed my principles. I am changing my approach because this doesn't work, what we've been doing. It doesn't work. And it's going to lead us into very dark and bad places.

We need each other. We need to be able to listen to each other. We need to be able to -- how many of us had a Thanksgiving where we just couldn't stand sitting at the table with our own relatives for political reasons? I understand not wanting to sit at the table for other reasons with your family, but not for political reasons.

Featured Image: Host Mika Brzezinski speaks on stage during the Women In The World Summit held in New York on April 24, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Andrew Toth/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.