Tomi Lahren: I'm Brave Enough to Put Myself in a Position Where I'm Going to be Attacked

A ridiculously-titled article from GQ Magazine labels Tomi Lahren of TheBlaze the 'queen of the alt-right.' The article follows an on-air interview Tomi did as a guest on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah.

"That is a ridiculous title for her. She was a Marco Rubio supporter. There's no evidence of that at all," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Thursday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Additionally, during the interview with Noah, the host deliberately misinterpreted Tomi's comments about the Ku Klux Klan, painting her as downplaying or being ignorant of the group's horrific activities.

"This is what I'm trying desperately to beg the press not to do. Please, no one will listen to who the alt-right is. This is five percent of the right. No one will listen to who those people are if you paint the brush that everyone is alt-right. Because they're not. Tomi Lahren is not," Glenn said.

Tomi joined Glenn on air to discuss the interview with Trevor Noah and how she's ready, willing and able to take the heat.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Listen to the first hour of the podcast today, where we showed you what happened with Tomi Lahren last night in GQ, based on a Trevor Noah interview on The Daily Show. Which, he is just horrible.

But she was denounced as the queen of the alt-right. Tomi Lahren is not an alt-righter. She is not. And -- she is a Marco Rubio supporter, for the love of Pete.

And while we disagree on a lot of things, this is why Donald Trump won. Because people are so sick of the press getting away, editing, and saying whatever they want. The big gotcha moment was her saying -- and I'm just going to give it to you like the press is, "So what did the KKK do?"

What did the KKK -- well, if you don't know, I can't help you. That's the way the press is reporting it.

Let me give it to you in context. Look at what Black Lives Matter is doing. They're calling for the death of a group of people. They are terrorizing people. They are setting cities on fire. Well, tell me, what did the KKK do?

Well, gee, now, that's different, isn't it?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And that's why the press is despised. And until the press corrals themselves and starts looking at themselves, nobody is going to listen to them when they say, "This person is good. This person is bad."

Tomi Lahren is with us now from the Blaze. Hello, Tomi, how are you?

TOMI: I'm doing well. Thank you, Glenn.

You know, we're used to this as conservatives. We're used to this as being outside of the mainstream idea. So I knew -- I had an idea that this was probably going happen. But at least we put ourselves out there, right?

GLENN: No. And I actually thought you did well.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And actually so did GQ. I mean, GQ wanted to hate you. You know, they took their typical shots, but they couldn't even hate you. In fact, they said you didn't give them the stereotypical angry, you know, right-wing hatemonger that they were obviously wanting.

TOMI: Well, I smiled through the whole thing.

And I have to say, the way that some of Trevor Noah's fans and others on the left and what have you are responding to me is vile in many ways. I've seen Twitter.

But Trevor himself, after the show, I was actually very impressed with the way he handled me. He said, "Hey, you know, I know we disagree on a lot of things, but I'm glad we could have the conversation."

Same thing happened with a few folks from the left today saying, "Hey, I think you did a good job. We disagree, but you held your own." I smiled through the whole thing. I was in obviously a tough crowd. I don't think that there was a conservative or a supporter in the crowd.

GLENN: Oh, no.

PAT: No way.

TOMI: And I just smiled and -- and took it. Because at least I'm brave enough to put myself in a position where I'm going to be attacked. And I think I held my own. And I'm happy with it.

GLENN: Oh, I think you did more than hold your own, myself. And Trevor Noah was -- I mean, he's just horrible. And I'm sure he's a nice guy and everything else. But he was just horrible.

And when it came to you -- we seem to feel this way. Did you feel this way? It was like he wasn't even looking at you. He couldn't make eye contact with you.

TOMI: He -- I think -- and I don't want to speak for him because I don't know what's in his heart and his mind. But I feel that a lot of times -- and you know this better than anyone, Glenn: The liberals, they want to come at you. They want to demonize you. And so they don't want to humanize you. They don't want to look at you and say, "Hey, you're an actual person." They want to look at you and say, "You're a racist. You're a bigot. You're the alt-right." And if they look at you and actually engage with you, it makes it harder for them to put you in that pigeonhole. So I think there's some of that going on.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Wow.

TOMI: I tried to laugh. I tried to have a good conversation. On the outset, I was told it was supposed to be late night comedy. We were supposed to have fun and disagree.

And then sat down, and right in with, "Why are you so angry?" And I sat down thinking, "I'm not angry. I'm typically a pretty happy person. But I guess if we want to go there right off the bat, that's fine. I'll play that game."

PAT: Tomi, did you ever ask anybody on the staff when did Trevor Noah ever engage in comedy?

(laughter)

PAT: Did you ever ask that question? Because that's a legitimate --

GLENN: Yeah, because we haven't seen any comedy coming from him. And neither has America. Neither did GQ.

They said, "It wasn't funny. But that was okay." Yeah, it's only okay because it's Trevor Noah. That's what you expect. But anyway...

TOMI: But to disagree with a liberal or you disagree with anyone on the left or anyone in Black Lives Matter or whatever, you disagree with them, and you're automatically a racist. They disagree with you, and they're a social justice warrior. And they really came at you, and they did, you know, some kind of a great deed for their cause. But as soon as I open my mouth -- it doesn't matter what I would have said. If I would have went out there and said, "I love the Black Lives Matter movement," it wouldn't have mattered. I mean, they were already determined to paint me the way that they wanted to. And at the end of the day, we're used to it. So I'm not going to cry myself to sleep.

STU: Tomi, I know that they heavily edited the interview. I think it was 26 minutes long, and they only aired maybe six minutes of it.

GLENN: What a surprise.

STU: So there was a lot taken out of it.

But one of the more amazing parts of what they showed on TV was he repeatedly said to you he could not understand your point. He -- and he kept saying it. I can't understand it. I've tried so many times to understand your point, that Colin Kaepernick, the NFL quarterback who kneeled during the national anthem to protest it, your point was, he has a First Amendment right to do it, but I disagree with him doing it.

How can you be for speech and against speech? He legitimately could not comprehend that point.

Did he ever at any point clarify, or did you ever get to an understanding on what seems to be a pretty basic First Amendment point?

TOMI: Well, he wouldn't listen to me. And that's the thing, he kept saying -- and everyone still says today, "You didn't answer his question. How is a black man supposed to protest?"

Again, I was telling him, I'm not talking about his right to protest. I'm saying, I think the way he did it and the outlet in which he chose to express it, being our flag and our anthem, was wrong in my opinion, and I voiced that.

But he didn't want to listen to what I said. And then he just kept continuing, "How should a black man protest?"

Well, Trevor, quite honestly, Colin Kaepernick didn't vote, so there is one way that a black man can protest in an appropriate way. I mean, that would be a start, right?

But it's all -- it's all their narrative. I don't think it would have mattered what I would have said.

PAT: Uh-huh.

TOMI: Because the left, they fail to understand because they don't want to understand. I -- you and I both have this in common: We legitimately want to understand the worldview of the left, of the liberals, of opposing views. We want to put ourselves in that position to strengthen our own arguments.

The left doesn't seem concerned with doing that. They are happy where they sit. They are happy and comfortable, and they feel like they're martyrs for the cause.

But I think like you said at the beginning, that's changing now. You know, we've got Donald Trump as president. Love him or hate him, you've got a lot of Americans that voted for him and, like you said, that are just sick and tired of this crap.

PAT: Uh-huh.

TOMI: We are tired of being labeled. We are tired of being scapegoated for everything. And we're tired of not being listened to. So the times are changing. And I think that the Trevor Noahs of the world are going to start seeing that.

GLENN: Well, here's the thing: I was really impressed with Penn Jillette when he went to the atheist, what was that? Reason rally.

TOMI: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah. They do every year.

GLENN: And it's all these atheists. And he got up. And what he said was really, I thought, impressive.

He said, "We cannot hate or treat people the way we feel we've been treated. We feel that we were yelled at, called names, and everything else. We can't do that to anyone."

In other words, let's love our Christian brothers and our Hindu brothers and everybody else who said, you know, atheists are bad people. Let's show them how we should react.

Do you feel you did that last night with Trevor Noah?

TOMI: Right. I think I smiled through it. We had a good conversation after the fact. I don't have any beef with the guy. I expected it to be that way.

And, you know what, at least they were kind enough to have me on the show. I appreciate that much.

Sometimes, as you know, they attack us, and they don't even bring us on. And they just want to attack us. So at least he brought me on. I hope to do more of these things. I hope that they --

GLENN: You realize, though, Tomi --

TOMI: What's that?

GLENN: You realize -- you realize that you don't need them. They need you. You know that, right?

TOMI: Well, and there was a part -- if you look at the extended interview, where he tried to tell me that I was now the mainstream because I pulled big numbers on Facebook. That doesn't make me the mainstream. It means that I'm more viewed than you are, but that doesn't mean I'm the mainstream.

GLENN: Right.

TOMI: I've been able to dupe the mainstream. So that doesn't make me a part of it. It makes me smarter than it.

(laughter)

GLENN: Tomi, was it worth doing?

TOMI: It was. Any time you're able to have these conversations, it's worth doing. At least it got people talking.

Like I told him last night, I could have gone on Fox News and then watched them kiss my butt. I chose not to do that. I chose to put myself in an environment where I knew I'd be challenged, and I will never regret that.

GLENN: Okay. Tomi Lahren, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

PAT: That's great.

TOMI: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Tomi Lahren. You bet. From TheBlaze. An up-and-coming, I mean, media powerhouse.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Tomi Lahren with Trevor Noah on The Daily Show.

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.