August 15, 1971: The Day We Wanted a Life We Couldn't Afford

December 12, 2016

WRITER

Chris Martenson with PeakProsperity.com joined The Glenn Beck Program today to talk about the federal reserve raising interest rates and its primary concern: its own credibility.

"Everybody I talked to says, Look, I like falling prices. That's not what the fed is targeting when it's worried about deflation. They have a different thing they're worried about, where prices rising or falling is the symptom, but the cause is what they're concerned about. And the cause is either our credit markets are expanding, or they're contracting," Martenson said.

To put the problem into context, Martenson quoted Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises:

There's no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later, as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

"These things have all been building for a really long time, Glenn. And I think if we had to, if we wanted to put our finger on something, we would say August 15th, 1971, when the United States abandoned the gold standard for the world, that's really where all of this started. And these imbalances are enormous now," Martenson said.

For fundamentals on the dangers of manipulating credit markets and currencies, read Martenson article, Money Under Fire: A Reminder of the Great Wealth Transfer Underway.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Well, as I'm reading the news, China is being negotiated. I mean, I want to put the good spin on this. Donald Trump is obviously negotiating with China. And China has responded saying it's -- the One-China policy will not be a part of any negotiation. And if you want to threaten us with that, all negotiations and future partnership will be over. They're taking a hard-lined stand, and so is Donald Trump. It's kind of a white knuckle kind of thing, quite honestly.

Russia is now our new best friend, and the Russian ruble is going through the roof. Oil is starting to go up. And this week, we are expecting the fed to raise interest rates. And Christmas Martenson is here. He is with peakprosperity.com. He is a guy who I think really understands the economy and understands the history of the currency war and the gold standard and trade and can kind of help explain -- because I think we're going to need a real basis of -- of history and knowledge to be able to talk our friends down from crazy tree in the coming months and years.

Chris, welcome to the program. How are you?

CHRIS: Glenn, I'm doing really well. It's a real pleasure to be back with you and all your listeners.

GLENN: So tell me, Chris, what you're thinking the fed will do this week and how it's going to affect us.

CHRIS: Well, they're going to have to raise rates because they're behind the curve here. The fed cares about their credibility, as much as everything. Remember, we have a lot of academics sort of at the helm of the fed. And, of course, to them, credibility is like the most important thing to preserve.

So they have to raise. And it's a very weird environment to be raising rates in. It's certainly created a lot of boost to the dollar. The dollar strengthened a lot lately. But we're seeing a lot of strengthening in the price of oil as well. And a lot of signs, Glenn, of weakening in the overall global economy. The stock market, notwithstanding. The trade data is looking iffy.

GLENN: Okay. So if the dollar -- if we raise the interest rates, that will boost the dollar. And if we boost the dollar, that actually hurts the job front at home and hurts prices at home. Right?

CHRIS: Yes. Except for the prices at home. Typically if the dollar is stronger, we'd be able to buy the BMWs cheaper.

GLENN: Okay.

CHRIS: But a rising dollar is not good for corporate profits in the United States. A little over 40 percent of all revenues from US companies are derived not in the United States. From overseas. So --

GLENN: And it makes -- it makes it harder for other countries to buy our products because our dollar is stronger. And them coming over here and buying our products is, it's more expensive.

CHRIS: Right. So typically what happens when your currency gets stronger, your trade, your exports go down, and your imports start to go up. Because you can afford more from other people. They can afford less of your stuff. That is the substance of the charge that Donald Trump has put against China, that they're a currency manipulator, by which he means they're keeping their currency much weaker than it should be because if the Chinese currency strengthened, then their exports would slow down. Their imports would rise. That would help to balance things.

STU: Right.

CHRIS: So that's his charge there.

GLENN: And it would be good if we didn't have an imbalance and everything else, you know, what it cost to employ people in America. If we could even get close on that level with China, which we could never -- they employ slaves -- but it's good for the person that's walking into Walmart and buying their stuff for the Chinese dollar to be -- or the Chinese yuan to be low and have them devalue. But it's really bad on jobs because they're not buying any of our stuff.

CHRIS: Very little of it.

GLENN: So it's a -- so it's a balance. What I'm trying to get to is, trade and the devaluing or the raising of interest rates especially in an economy as fragile as ours is, is really a very nuanced and delicate dance. And you play it wrong, and the thing spirals out of control.

CHRIS: Well, and that's exactly right. And this should be termed I think as much as anything, the age of imbalances.

So we're talking about an imbalance of trade between China and the United States, but there are similar imbalances that exist within the Eurozone with Italy needing a lot more money than it's got and Germany sort of providing it. And then, air quotes here, balancing it out by creating these massive imbalances in their central banking system inside the country.

These things have all been building for a really long time, Glenn. And I think if we had to, if we wanted to put our finger on something, we would say August 15th, 1971, when the United States abandoned the gold standard for the world, that's really where all of this started. And these imbalances are enormous now.

GLENN: Well, that's when we all started we wanted a life we couldn't afford.

So the United States did that. But we convinced the rest of the world that we'll continue to buy your stuff. So it will be good for you. But we all said -- all of us -- we want more stuff than we can afford if we base our dollar or our currencies on gold. Is that accurate?

CHRIS: It is. Because gold provides a set of restraints that you just can't get around. And if you can't get around those restraints, well, sometimes you get to live beyond your means. But very soon thereafter, you have to live below your means. The world collectively kind of said, "We don't like that below our means part. How can we just forever live above our means?" That's how these imbalances got started. And it's a very human thing, Glenn. We've seen this so many times in history. And here we are again.

GLENN: So we are worried now, if the fed raises their interest rates, that would indicate that they are worried more about inflation than deflation. And deflation is -- is bad. Because everything is -- is worthless. And becomes so cheap, you would think that this is really good. But I'm trying to figure out why it is really bad. And it is. Why is deflation something that they're trying to stay away from, at the fed?

CHRIS: Well, this is a more subtle argument because the way that it's presented to us in the newspapers is that inflation is rising prices and deflation is falling prices. And I can't find anybody who -- well, what's wrong with falling prices? I love buying stuff cheaper. Right?

GLENN: Unless you're selling your house.

CHRIS: Well, unless you're selling your house. Of course.

GLENN: Yeah.

CHRIS: But generally speaking, if you're buying a house, you would prefer to buy one that's cheaper rather than more expensive.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

CHRIS: So everybody I talked to says, "Look, I like falling prices." That's not what the fed is targeting when it's worried about deflation. They have a different thing they're worried about, where prices rising or falling is the symptom, but the cause is what they're concerned about. And the cause is either our credit markets are expanding, or they're contracting.

When they're expanding, which gives us inflation, everything kind of works. You know, governments can continue to run deficits and big banks can do crazy dumb things. And it all seems to work out the opposite though, Glenn, when credit is falling. That's also known as 2009 in the United States. It is deeply scary. What works in forward doesn't work at all in reverse. The whole system shudders and threatens to collapse. It's a really scary moment. So we have a system that either expands --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Is that because what I have as collateral is no longer worth as much so I can't get credit, or why is that?

CHRIS: Well, let's take a simple example. We just have a bank, you and I, and all we're doing is making real estate loans. And, you know, we're taking in one dollar and basically loaning nine more dollars back out because that's how our symptom operates. And we loan those $9 out to somebody who's bought a house. And if that house goes up in value, that person will be able to sell their house, service that mortgage before they do, and maybe buy a bigger house, and we'll loan them nine more dollars. Expanding is easy. But as soon as that person can't sell that house for what we've loaned the money them to, then lest all they have to lose is one dollar out of that nine that we loan them, and our entire capital stock of our business, our bank, is now wiped out.

So you can't have even tiny, tiny contractions in the credit system without really impairing and sometimes destroying the banking system itself. And that's what the fed cares about. Because let's remember, the federal reserve is not really federal. It's a private entity. It's got a charter from the US government. And it operates a very nice monopoly. But its first set of clients always is the banks. So if the banking system is happy and expanding, the fed is happy.

GLENN: Okay. So they're not worried about deflation. They're worried about the bank. But by doing what they've done, they are throwing caution to the wind by printing 7 trillion dollars' worth of currency. Never been done before in the history of the world. And expecting that hyperinflation won't happen. How can we have printed that much money and not had the problem of the Weimar Republic? What's the difference?

CHRIS: The difference is that today we have these really so-called robust financial markets. So I was just at a wealth conference on Monday of last weekend. That question was asked: Hey, where is this inflation? Well, it's in the financial markets. We see highly, highly inflated stock and bond markets. We see inflated real estate markets, especially on the top end.

Now, Glenn, who got that money when the fed printed all those trillions? Well, it kind of went to the upper .1 percent. So guess what, buying a Gulfstream 650 is a very expensive proposition. High-end art, very large diamonds, these all went up extraordinarily in price. So we have seen the beginnings of inflation. It just didn't show up in eggs and milk this time because the fed didn't print and give it to people. They printed and gave it to a financial system.

GLENN: So is that a savior for us?

CHRIS: Well, it's -- I think it's provided temporary appearance of relief. But when those rich people, when those concentrations of money decide, "I don't want another Gulfstream 650, I'm worried about the value of the currency," all of that currency rushes through what are very tiny little doors trying to get into real stuff again and away from paper stuff.

GLENN: And that's why real estate -- that's why art -- I mean, I've looked at the art -- we just sold I think one of the most expensive paintings I think ever. Again, was like $85 million for one piece of art. And I explained that as the people at the very top have so much money, they don't know what to do with it. They know that everything is overvalued. But it's like looking at a -- looking at a -- at a -- at a bill at a very nice restaurant that didn't have any prices on the -- on the menu. And you're looking at the bill, and you're thinking, "How the hell did we get here?" Well, I've got to make the broccoli now $35 a head because I've already priced the meat so far out, that the broccoli is looking like a deal. So the art is looking like a deal, even at $85 million, compared to where everything else is priced. Is that accurate, do you think?

CHRIS: It is. It's what happens when too much money is printed and put into a market. Things get crazy priced. And we saw that for tulips in the 1600s in Holland. And we've seen it with pieces of swampland in Florida. We've seen it over and over again. And the bubbles always have the same self-reinforcing mental map on the way up. It makes sense.

People go, "Well, the last guy paid 79 million. I paid 85. Somebody surely is going to pay me 100 million for this piece of art." That's all self-reinforcing on the way up, and we don't know why. But eventually, there's a pin that that bubble finds. And when it bursts, then you discover what the true value of things is, and things go down very quickly at that point.

GLENN: Chris, you talk to people in your business -- and I have -- this is the reason you work for me on these things now because I couldn't find somebody like you.

Everybody in your business will say, "It's -- no, we have systems now, and it's not going to be that way. And you don't to have worry about those things." No one will tell you what you're saying to me, that this is going to burst and it's going to be you will.

CHRIS: Well, you know, if it's not going to burst, we have to believe in the four most dangerous words in human investing history, which is, "This time it's different."

GLENN: It's different.

CHRIS: It's not different. It's never different. I'm seeing the exact same psychology. Rationalizations. Post-facto rationalizations that people make. "Oh, here's why that -- here's why we had this Trump rally." You know.

To me, it's much easier to understand where we are if you see that we've got a very scared set of central planners. They've worked themselves into a multi-decade corner. They don't know what to do. So they print.

And you can find this story in Roman times. You can find it in the first --

GLENN: Every time.

CHRIS: -- paper money in China. You can find it all throughout history. And it boils down through this, Glenn, it's very simple, humans would rather take a little risk today, instead of some pain today, in the hopes that things turn out better in the future. But we always go down the same path.

GLENN: Real quick, I only have 30 seconds: Are we going to see a hyperinflation situation like the Weimar Republic? Do you think we're going to see that? If so, are we going to see it in the next four years?

CHRIS: We're going to see it at some point. It could come at any time. It will happen at some point. And I think that the best quote on this comes from Ludwig von Mises. He's an Austrian economist. And he said, "There's no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later, as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

GLENN: Chris, thank you very much.

Peakprosperity.com. And Chris explains all of this and can help you through it and everything else. Peakprosperity.com. Chris Martenson, thank you for being on. And we'll have Chris in the studio with us hopefully several times next year to kind of really lay things out. Because I -- I want to show you what's coming and show you how the whole system works. And Chris is going to be instrumental in that.

Featured Image: Fine standard 400 oz gold bars. Photo Credit: Andrzej Barabasz (Chepry)

Why the Declaration of Independence still matters — Part 2: The Declaration's structure and purpose

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 notification — I 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 standards — Here'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 case — Here'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.

Why the Declaration of Independence still matters — Part 1: The Declaration and slavery

Patrick Perkins / Unsplash

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).

Antifascist mob goes FULL fascist in Portland

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.

Glenn's Show Prep