CHALKBOARD LESSON: 6 Eternal Truths of Self-Governance

Progressives want you to believe the Declaration of Independence is a worthless document. Why? Because it is the foundation upon which our house is built, and it's a house of freedom, equality and personal responsibility --- not government control.

"The Declaration of Independence tells you six things in the two opening paragraphs that are eternal. It tells you there is a higher law than man's law. There is the law of nature. Does it happen in nature? And if it happens in nature, that's good. Then we know that's a natural right," Glenn explained Thursday on radio.

He went on to detail the other truths established in the Declaration that ensure our rights as American citizens:

1. There is a higher law

2. All men are equal and have rights

3. Our rights come from the creator

4. Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights

5. Government gets all of its power from the consent of the governed (the people)

6. When a government becomes destructive to those ends (protection of our God-given rights) we have the right to abolish or change it, and to institute a new government that will make us happy and secure in our rights.

The Declaration of Independence is what we believe. Combined with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these three powerhouse documents have the ability to restrict the government and restore our Republic.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

The Declaration of Independence tells you six things in the two opening paragraphs that are eternal. It tells you: There is a higher law than man's law. There is the law of nature. Does it happen in nature?

And if it happens in nature, that's good. Then we know that's a natural right.

Now, does God come up above that and say because we're not an animal, we don't have a right to go kill other people for our food?

Yes. He says thousand shall not murder. He tells us what to eat. There's another law that usurps what happens in the animal kingdom.

And those two -- those two are your framework for all rights. It says, "All men are created equal and have rights." These rights come from the higher law. Nature and nature's God.

And the rights are not from any man. They're inalienable. So they come from God, which means no one can change them. Because I hate to break it to Al Gore: You can't change nature.

Rights are from the creator. Four, the government is only instituted -- what's its job? Well, it's got to build roads. It's got -- no, it doesn't. Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.

PAT: Oh, and -- and to make airports nicer.

GLENN: Yeah, no.

PAT: You want to make them really shiny. You want to have a mall.

GLENN: Governments, their main job -- their main job is to preserve the rights that you find in nature and nature's God.

Then the government gets all of its power. It has no rights. It has all of its power from the consent of the governed.

So who is the government serving? The people who are giving it power.

And it has to listen to the consent of the governed.

Well, I contend the Supreme Court isn't doing that. I contend the G.O.P. isn't doing that. The Democrats aren't doing that. Bush didn't do that. Obama is not doing that.

That when a government becomes -- let me get the exact words. When it becomes destructive to those ends -- which ends? To protect your right, which comes from God and nature. Then you have the right to abolish or change it.

But there's more. Everybody -- everybody who is made at the government stops there. We're going to abolish it. We're going to burn it down.

Okay. You have a right to do that. But you'll notice, there's not a period after that line in the Declaration of Independence.

To alter or abolish and -- key word -- and to institute a new government, laying its foundation and organizing powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to make them happy and secure in those rights.

Everybody now is for anarchy. Burn it down. No! You have a right to alter or abolish. But what are you going to replace it with?

And you only have the right to alter or abolish, if that government will hearken to the higher law. Nature's God and nature's laws. And that government is instituted to secure those rights, not to build more hospitals, more bridges. Not to ensure world peace or keep you safe from terrorists.

Now, progressives want you to believe that the Declaration of Independence is a worthless document. Then I contend, we are 229 years old and not 240, which everyone in the -- on the planet will tell you we're 240 years old.

Let me give you an example: The Declaration of Independence is the what we believe. What is it we believe?

Men got together. When you want to build a house, you generally meet with an architect. And the architect says, "What do you want it to be like? Be specific. I want to know, what do you want it to feel like? What do you want it to look like? How do you want to use the rooms? What do you want to see in the windows? Do you -- what do you want?"

And you start generally, "We want something cozy. We want something magnificent. We want something to bring the outdoors in. I want to stop seeing the dreary weather. I don't want to see my neighbor." Whatever it is.

But generally speaking, an architect wants to hear what you feel. What is the point of each room? What is the point of your house, and what should it say?

When you finish that and they finish the document, you engage him to do it, and you sign a contract. Everybody in the room signs a contract. This is what we want. We're going to build that.

Then you have to go get a builder. And the builder comes in. And you say, "See this? I want to build this." And he says, "Okay. Well, to build that, I'm going to need this amount of money. I'm going need to these things. We're going to have to do this. We might have to change your vision a little bit here or there."

All men are created equal -- you got some slavery going on here. We might have to change some things. But I understand your intent.

Are all people going to be equal? Are you telling me that all the kids can use any bedroom at any time?

Yes, the baby's room can't be a baby's room the whole time. The baby is going to grow up. So, yes. We said that that's the baby room, but it has to be a room that a teenager could be in too.

Okay. Just want to make sure. Because you said it was the baby's room.

Yes, but things will change.

Okay. Great.

And you all sign that document.

Now, if you've had a problem with a contractor, like everybody has, you might also do a third document that says, "Oh, by the way, I've been burned by some contractors before, and you will not do these things." I know you're the contractor, but you do not have the right to do these things to my house or my property or my money.

Now, you know who didn't sign something like that? The builder of the Guggenheim. The builder of Falling Waters. Frank Lloyd Wright. He didn't care what you wanted.

In fact, he -- he went so far as one of his houses, the woman said, "I collect art, and my art is really important. And I want art on all of the walls." It pissed him off so much, that she would dare tell him what to do, he made it impossible for her to hang any art on the wall of her home.

Instead, he built a special room with little easels and a stairway to a loft up above, where she could walk up the stairs and look down at the easels at her art. That is what you get from working with Frank Lloyd Wright. That's a guy that you would have a third Bill of Rights -- yeah, you can't do these things.

This is the Declaration of Independence. What do we want the house to feel like? The Constitution is how do you build that? And the third one is, you can't do these things. The Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights restricts the contractor so you don't end up Frank Lloyd Wright. If you take away, what do we want it to look like? That's the architect's renderings

PAT: And, again, that's exactly why the Bill of Rights is a charter of negative liberties. It tells the --

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: It tells the builder what he cannot do to the house.

GLENN: Correct.

PAT: Because if you tell him the things he can do, anything that's not spelled out, he'll believe is his right.

GLENN: His right to do.

PAT: And he can go ahead and do it.

GLENN: Right. And so they say, we want to make it clear. It's in the first document that among these things -- put we just want to make that really clear.

PAT: These aren't the only things.

GLENN: We know that that's in the draft here. We know that the architect has put that in. So you can see the pretty picture and it's in the plans, but we want you to know: Those aren't the only things. There are also these things that you cannot do to the house.

And if you don't have the architectural drawings, the builder doesn't know what the hell he's even building.

That's the problem. The progressives, the first thing they did was get rid of the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't make any sense. What did Martin Luther King say? What stopped us? It wasn't the Constitution.

It was -- it's about time this country starts living up to its ideals, that all men are created equal.

Well, if the Declaration of Independence is worthless, then why should we give a flying crap about that?

Because we hold that truth to be self-evident, that's why. Because that's the house that we built. That's the image of who we are. The machinery with the Constitution may have gotten lost because the builder is no longer even using it as a reference point anymore.

And, in fact, the builder is saying, "By the way, I think those warnings that you said that I can't do those things, that third document -- I don't even think that third document, I can interpret that. And believe me. I've got nine other contractors over here, and they've looked at your -- your building plans. You can't build a house that way."

Well, wait a minute. I'm sorry. You get your power from the consent of me. So I guess your nine little men over there don't count over my vote. Because I got my family -- my 330 million people together, and they outweigh your nine freaking people, Mr. Contractor. So you're going to leave it there.

But we do what most people do when they're building a house: I knew that was wrong. I didn't want to say anything because I thought they knew better. And then you're living in a house you hate.

That is the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Restore that, and you won't have a problem with globalism. Because the house was never designed to be globalist!

Follow these three things, and we won't have a problem with poverty. Because it says we have the rights and the responsibilities to care for each other, not the government.

Follow those things, and we're going to be okay.

Featured Image: The Glenn Beck Program

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

What we DO and DON'T know about Thomas Matthew Crooks

Jim Vondruska / Stringer | Getty Images

It has been over a week since 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks narrowly failed to assassinate President Trump while the president gave a speech at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennslyvania. Despite the ongoing investigations, we still know very little about the would-be assassin, which has left many wondering if the agencies involved are limiting the information that Congress and the public are receiving.

As Glenn has pointed out, there are still major questions about the shooter that are unanswered, and the American people are left at the whim of unreliable federal agencies. Here is everything we know—and everything we don't know—about Thomas Matthew Crooks:

Who was he?

What we know:Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, approximately an hour south of Butler. Crooks went to high school in Bethel Parks, where he would graduate in 2022. Teachers and classmates described him as a loner and as nerdy, but generally nice, friendly, and intelligent. Crooks tried out for the school rifle team but was rejected due to his poor aim, and reports indicate that Crooks was often bullied for his nerdy demeanor and for wearing camo hunting gear to school.

After high school, Crooks began work at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a dietary aide. In fact, he was scheduled to work on the day of the rally but requested the day off. He passed a background check to work at the facility and was reportedly an unproblematic employee. Crooks was also a member of a local gun club where he practiced shooting the day before the rally.

It was recently revealed that sometime before his attempted assassination, Crooks posted the following message on Steam, a popular computer application used for playing video games: "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." Aside from this, Crooks posted no warning or manifesto regarding his attack, and little other relevant information is known about him.

What we don't know:It is unclear what Crook's political affiliations or views were, or if he was aligned with any extremist organizations. Crooks was a registered Republican, and his classmates recall him defending conservative ideas and viewpoints in class. On the other hand, the Federal Election Commission has revealed he donated to a progressive PAC on the day Biden was inaugurated. He also reportedly wore a COVID mask to school much longer than was required.

Clearly, we are missing the full picture. Why would a Republican attempt to assassinate the Republican presidential nominee? What is to gain? And why would he donate to a progressive organization as a conservative? This doesn't add up, and so far the federal agencies investigating the attack have yet to reveal anything more.

What were his goals?

What we know: Obviously we know he was trying to assassinate President Trump—and came very close to succeeding, but beyond that, Crooks' goals are unknown. He left no manifesto or any sort of written motive behind, or if he did, the authorities haven't published it yet. We have frustratingly little to go off of.

What we don't know: As stated before, we don't know anything about the movies behind Crooks' heinous actions. We are left with disjointed pieces that make it difficult to paint a cohesive picture of this man. There is also the matter that he left explosives, ammo, and a bulletproof vest in his car. Why? Did he assume he was going to make it back to his car? Or were those supplies meant for an accomplice that never showed up?

The shocking lack of information on Crooks' motives makes it seem likely that we are not being let on to the whole truth.

Did he work alone?

What we know: Reportedly, Crooks was the only gunman on the site, and as of now, no other suspects have been identified. The rifle used during the assassination attempt was purchased and registered by Crooks' father. However, it is unlikely that the father was involved as he reported both his son and rifle missing the night of the assassination attempt. Crooks' former classmates described him as a "loner," which seems to corroborate the narrative that he worked alone.

What we don't know: We know how Crooks acquired his rifle, but what about the rest of his equipment? He reportedly had nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and several homemade bombs in his car. Could these have been meant for a co-conspirator who didn't show? Did Crooks acquire all of this equipment himself, or did he have help?

There's also the matter of the message Crooks left on the video game platform Steam that served as his only warning of the attack. Who was the message for? Are there people out there who were aware of the attack before it occurred? Why didn't they alert authorities?

We know authorities have access to Crooks' laptop and cellphone that probably contain the answers to these pertinent questions. Why haven't we heard any clarity from the authorities? It seems we are again at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy, which begs one more question: Will we ever know the whole truth?