Thanks, Obama: Why Guest Host Sheriff David Clarke Was in a Bad Mood Today

The outspoken and fantastically fierce Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke filled in for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program today, Monday, December 19.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 1 for answers to these questions:

• What had Sheriff Clarke in a bad mood this morning?

• How did President Obama kick law enforcement in the teeth one last time?

• Why did Sheriff Clarke support Donald Trump?

• Will President Trump's first 100 days be peaceful?

• Is Nancy Pelosi a racist?

• How are Democrats like a colony of carpenter ants?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

DAVID: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not in a very good mood this morning. Welcome to the program. We'll get into that a little bit. It has nothing to do with the NFL Sunday that we completed yesterday. My team did win, the Dallas Cowboys. Been a life-long Cowboys fan. They made it interesting, but won nonetheless.

Let me start with an introduction: I'm your host for today, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. You may know me. You may not know me. It's irrelevant at this point. I'm the host today.

Let me take care of a couple of housekeeping measures first. This is the Glenn Beck Program. Glenn Beck is a brand. Glenn Beck has built this brand. He's worked hard at it. He's good at what he does. Every once in a while, he allows somebody to pilot the ship. I've done it before for him. It's an honor to be with you this morning and to be a part of this brand, the Glenn Beck Program. And I'm here to the protect the brand. But at the same time, as always, TheBlaze has given me the freedom to express my views, and they may differ from some of the things that Glenn says -- not many. They may differ from some of the things that you believe and espouse and so on and so forth. And that's okay.

I don't mind discourse. But I'm here to protect the brand. Not only to me, but it's important to Glenn as well, but there may be some times, some rocky moments. But I always remind the people tuning in, don't take it out on Glenn, please. Don't take it out on TheBlaze. Take it out on me. I have big shoulders. I get blamed for a lot of stuff. I get piled on a lot. It's kind of the environment I'm in. I don't whine about it. So if I say something that rubs you the wrong way or whatever, you feel like you want to call in and talk about it, the number is 888-727-BECK. That's 888-727-2325.

What's coming up on the program today? Well, first, we're going to start out with an election wrap-up. I know the election has been over since November 8th, November 9th. And -- but there's a lot going on still. Today's a big day. The electoral college meets. That's when they truly pick the president of the United States, by the Constitution, by the law, and that will happen sometime today. All 50 states will gather. Their electors. And they'll make that determination.

If we go by the states that were won on November 8th, Donald Trump should be elected, duly elected, president of the United States, by the electoral college. But, you know, we're in some weird times. And some goofy things have happened and some goofy things will continue to happen. People continue to try to work the electors of the electoral college. Going to talk about that in one of the segments down the road.

Also going to talk about immigration. That is going to be a big issue for this upcoming Congress, the new Congress that will be seated on January 20th as well.

And the first 100 days are always talked about. A president -- a new administration comes in. Even if the president is reelected and he starts another term, the first 100 days are important. They set the tone. The first 100 days is an opportunity, if you will, for the incoming president to set the stage, set the vision for the country, get some things going. It's very important they get off to a fast start. That's why they have this concept called the first 100 days. And I'll tell you what, it can make or break an administration. If you get bogged down, you will be that way, and you will struggle. So you've got to get out of the gate fast. Donald Trump plans to do just that, as he's putting his cabinet together. But immigration is one of those things this new Congress is going to have to take up.

It was one of the major platforms of the Trump campaign. Immigration reform. Closing the border. Building the wall. So on and so forth. There's some other things that he wants to address in that first 100 days as well, the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. So we'll talk about the immigration aspect of it because it's going to be big.

And there's many facets to that, as you may know. So I want to hear from you on that. Again, that number is 888-727-BECK. 888-727-2325.

Also, this first hour, we're going to talk about the opioid epidemic sweeping America. Folks, I want to tell you that this thing is touching everybody. It is a crisis. It's not getting all the attention -- it's getting some media attention. But it's not getting all the attention that I think it should be. Because we're talking about a generation now of people, specifically young people, who have been gripped by this opioid and heroin epidemic. And we'll talk about that.

Also, I'll be joined by Heather Mac Donald, author of The War on Cops. Heather is a researcher, a Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute. She's a contributing editor of the City Journal Magazine. She's written several books. Her latest one being The War on Cops. And we're going to talk about an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, how Donald Trump can change the rhetoric in the war on cops. So we'll be joined by her. And we'll have much, much more.

But here's where I want to start: This thing I opened up this program by saying I was not in a real good mood this morning. I learned over the weekend that President Obama in one final move, kicking law enforcement in the teeth by selecting an individual, Abu-Jamal. He's a cop killer. Actually, he didn't appoint Abu-Jamal. But Abu-Jamal is a cop killer, 1981, he killed Danny Faulkner in Philadelphia, a police officer who was 25 years old.

Abu-Jamal was a Black Panther. And what happened was the officer, Faulkner, made a traffic stop. A scuffle ensued. Abu-Jamal's brother was scuffling with the law enforcement officer. Abu-Jamal saw it. He came over. He shot and killed Officer Faulkner. Officer Faulkner was found face up, bullets in his back. He shot him before he hit the ground, then stood over him, straddled him, and shot him in the forehead. Very famous case.

Abu-Jamal was convicted and sentenced to death. And then in a turn of events, he was granted a new trial because there was an error in the jury instructions on a death penalty. So they settled the case, giving him life in prison without parole.

Anyway, there was an attorney. Debo Adegbile. Debo Adegbile was an attorney for the NAACP, the legal defense fund. He was not representing Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal had competent counsel, but he entered a brief into the case -- a friend of the court, talking about Debo Adegbile.

Debo Adegbile is a straight-up cop hater and a black racialist. Several times President Obama tried to jam Debo Adegbile down our throats, first by nominating him to be a federal judge and then tried to nominate him -- both of these required US Senate confirmation. He tried to nominate him to head the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice.

Now, keep in mind, Debo Adegbile is a straight-up cop hater. He's not a good fit to lead the civil rights division of the United States Department of Justice. He's also not a good fit to be a federal judge.

Because like I said, he's a black racialist. He sees everything through the lens of race. Thinks all whites are racist. The Senate struck down his -- his judgeship. And then he withdrew -- Adegbile withdrew his name from consideration for the US DOJ Civil Rights Division post because he wasn't going to be confirmed.

Well, in one last move, President Obama put this individual -- I got to be careful here. But I said I'm not in a good mood today. But he put him on the US DOJ Civil Rights Division, in an appointment that's going to last six years. A kick in the teeth to every law enforcement officer in the country.

This is who Barack Obama is. Barack Obama is also a straight-up cop hater. I've said that before. I've said that on TV, nationally. And people would ask, "Do you really believe that President Obama is a cop hater?" And I'd look them right back in the eye and go, "Yes, I do, and I can prove it." And I'd go on to state these instances. This is just one. But you remember the Cambridge, Massachusetts, case, where a friend of Obama's was arrested by Cambridge Police. And Obama said the police officers academy stupidly in arresting his friend.

No, they didn't. They were doing their job. That started it.

Obama was also very intricate in starting the war on cops. So we'll see how this goes. I think incoming US attorney Jeff Sessions would do well to find a spot, if they can't stop this move -- to find some spot in some corner office and have Debo Adegbile counting paper clips. That's kind of what needs to happen. We're going to take a break. On the other side, we're going to come back, and we're going to talk some post-election wrap-up. I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. This is the Glenn Beck Radio Program.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the program. I'm your host for today. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

I'm here with you tomorrow too. I don't know if that's going to be good or bad news for you. Joined us today, I think it will be good news. But I'll let you know as well. Two days, so I can get some stuff going here.

Let me do a little self-promoting before I get into the first topic, which is going to be some post election results.

You can follow me on Twitter @SheriffClarke. And that's C-L-A-R-K-E. Don't forget the e, otherwise, you might get some other Twitter handle. And you'll look, and you'll say, "What the heck is this?" That's the good stuff, folks. That's the stuff the national -- the liberal media pays attention to. And they look every time I put out a tweet to try to contort it into something I did not say. But that's okay.

But it's @SheriffClarke. C-L-A-R-K-E. I also have a blog. You can follow me on my blog, and it's ThePeoplesSheriff@Patheos.com. Patheos is P-A-T-H-E-O-S. And I also have a book coming out. My first book is going to be coming out in March of 2017. But you can preorder it now at Amazon, or you can go to Barnes & Noble and get your preorder in.

What's this book about? It's called Cop Under Fire. As you may know, we've become an increasingly divided and polarized nation in recent years, growing racial tension. You have animosity toward law enforcement professionals. Government corruption and disregard for our constitutional process. There's no easy answers to these. This book is not just going to be a recitation of things that are problematic in America. I don't say wrong in America. We have some problems. We have some issues. But it's not going to be the same, you know, here are the issues facing America. But what I try to do is take those things that deeply affect us, and I point out in this book, Cop Under Fire, how we can rise above these current troubles and these issues and we can truly become that great nation in pursuit of liberty and justice from all. So, again, that's Cop Under Fire at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. You can preorder that, in you have a law enforcement friend, if you have a law enforcement officer retired or current in your family. It's going to be a must read if you -- even citizens in general. It's going to be a fascinating book, not just because I wrote it. But it comes from the heart. And anybody that has listened to me over the last, I don't know, three, four, five, years, you know, I speak from the heart. I don't pull any punches. I don't hold anything back. I just tell you the way I see it. Am I right on everything? Of course not. Do I have all the answers? Not hardly.

However, I put it to you straight. Straight talk is what you're going to get from me. Unvarnished. And I offer some things that are food for thought for a way forward.

Now, let's get into this post election, presidential election. 2016. Happened on November 8th. A lot has been said about it. Much has been talked about, but you haven't heard my perspective on this thing.

We may differ a little bit on some of the things here, but like I said, I don't shy away from that. I believe discourse, differing points of view, different schools of thought, I believe that stuff is healthy in a democracy. We should be able to politely disagree. Some spirited discourse back and forth. Nothing wrong with that. I love that. Like I said, I think it's healthy in a democracy. And it shouldn't denigrate into the name-calling and some of the other things that it does when people differ with somebody else's views. Let's just have educated conversation and skip all the other stuff. You know, I mean, if you say something -- for instance, if somebody has different views on gay marriage, all of a sudden you're a homophobe. You know, if you believe that the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation -- not to the exclusion of any other religion. Did not say that. But if you believe that the principles that this country are founded on were Judeo-Christian, if you believe that, then you're an Islamophobe. Right? That's what it denigrates into.

And you can go on and on and on. You're a racist if you believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, the Founding Fathers, the history of this nation, you're a racist. And that's what everything seems to end up -- where everything seems to end up, and it's very unfortunate. Because like I said, you know, with critical thought, we truly can move this nation forward and become this shining city on the hill that I believe we already are. But we've gotten away from some concepts that have grounded this nation and led it to be that shining city on a hill. But if we just allow people to shut down people we don't agree with, it's not going to be very good.

But, you know, the post election, I look back -- and I supported Donald Trump for president of the United States. I supported him after the primary. I stayed out of endorsing anybody in the primary, Republican primary, I'm talking about. First of all, I'm not a member of the Republican Party. I'm not a member of the Democrat Party.

I run as a Democrat. Sheriff in Milwaukee County. I'm elected as a Democrat. But I don't belong to a political party. I don't believe in belonging to a political party. If you do, that's your business. I don't care what your politics are. It's neither here nor there. But that's why I didn't endorse anybody in the Republican Party. I wanted the people -- we, the people, the members of that party to select a candidate. So I stayed out of the way. I had numerous candidates ask me to endorse them during the primary. I stayed out of it. I made it clear. I'm keeping my powder dry. But I made this clear to whoever comes out of this process as the nominee for the Republican Party, I will back and I will back 100 percent.

Folks, I'm a man of my word. And when I say something, you can take it to the bank. So Donald Trump obviously was the victor. And he came back around to me and asked for support. And I said to him, "Mr. President -- he wasn't president at the time. I said, "Mr. Trump, I don't know what I can do for you. But I made it clear I'd back whoever won. You are the winner. I will do everything I can. I will fight as hard as I can to help you become the 45th president of the United States. That's how I arrived at my decision.

And I just believe that after that process, the convention, which I spoke at -- that was an honor. I thought it was time for conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, some independents, to put all that stuff aside in the name of the country. That's what I did. And that's why I supported Donald Trump. I offered no apology. I'm just trying to tell you where I came from in that decision. But you look at what's happening now with this -- this whole process. Election is over. The election is over. We have a president-elect, his name is Donald Trump. He's putting his government together. He's putting his cabinet together.

And he needs our support, folks, for the country. All right? The left even today, with the electoral college, they don't want to believe that the election is over. But it is.

We need to take a break. On the other side, we'll continue this. This is Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DAVID: I'm your host today. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. Thanks for joining us.

You know, coming out of that election November 8th, there were many important aspects of why I got behind Donald Trump to become the 45th president of the United States. But I think at the end of the day, the Supreme Court. I believe that we'll get a strict constructionist, appointed by Donald Trump to replace Scalia. That was huge. If you believe in your gun rights, if you believe in the Constitution, if you believe in the rule of law -- the Supreme Court, that thing would have tilted hard left, and we would have been talking about a hard left United States Supreme Court for the next 30 to 40 years.

If you look at the age of the justices right now, the ones that Obama put up for Supreme Court justices, they're going to be around for a long, long time. Some of the ones who are getting to that point where they're starting to look -- you know, Kennedy, even Justice Thomas, a young man by age standards, but, you know, there comes a point, it's time for me to move on. Would you have wanted Mrs. Bill Clinton to appoint the next three to four Supreme Court justices? I mean, think about some of this stuff. Which is why I told people during the process -- you know, the conservatives, slash, Republicans, slash, some Libertarians, slash, some independents. I reminded them, "Put all that behind you, and look at what's at stake here." And many of you did.

But, you know, in looking at what's happening -- goes about putting his government together. He's made several cabinet appointments. I think very fine selections. But look at some of the stuff coming out of the mouth of the left on some of his cabinet selections.

You had Dr. Ben Carson, who was been nominated for Housing and Urban Development. Here's what Nancy Pelosi. The ink wasn't even dry on the memo, folks, the news release.

Ben Carson is a disconcerting and disturbingly unqualified choice to lead a department as complex and -- the country deserves a HUD secretary with the relevant experience to protect the rights of homeowners and renters, particularly low-income and minority communities and to ensure that everyone in our country can have access to safe and affordable housing without facing discrimination. There is no evidence, she said, that Dr. Carson brings the necessary credentials to hold a position.

DAVID: Take that quote I just read from Nancy Pelosi. Take Dr. Ben Carson out of that quote and insert Barack Obama in 2008. You could have said the same thing after the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Disturbingly unqualified. Disconcerting. Doesn't have the experience. No evidence that he brings the necessary credentials to hold a position with such immense responsibility and impact on families and communities across America.

That was Barack Obama in 2008. Folks, he was a freshman senator. He was a couple years removed from being a state senator in the state of Illinois. He was in a state legislature. And now he assumes the presidency because he won the election.

You may not have voted for him. But, you know what, he won the election. But had you had said this about Barack Obama in 2008, you would have been labeled a racist.

And, you know what, the entire liberal mainstream media would have come down on you like a ton of bricks. But no such accusation toward Nancy Pelosi from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC. No such claim that Nancy Pelosi is a racist for thinking that a neurosurgeon -- think about this, ladies and gentlemen. A guy who understands the working -- the intricate working of the human brain can't figure government out?

She's not qualified. Nancy Pelosi didn't even make this statement, or to judge the qualifications of Dr. Ben Carson. Then you have this guy from California, Democrat congressman who called on Ben Carson to withdraw his nomination as secretary of Housing and Urban Development because of his utter lack of qualification for the job.

Some two-bit congressman from California is going to stand in judgment of a neurosurgeon. You know the history of Ben Carson? Grew up in Detroit, in the ghetto of Detroit. Single mom who dropped out of the third grade, worked any job she could to raise her two sons as a single parent and successfully, she did this.

And they're saying Ben Carson doesn't understand urban issues? This is fascinating.

So we have that going on. We have the riots that ensued post November 8th. George Soros funded. Or at least purportedly. We spent millions on recounts.

One of those recounts was in the state of Wisconsin. $3.5 million Jill Stein paid for recounts in the state of Wisconsin. That works out, if you do the math, to about $21,000 a vote to recount. And guess what, Donald Trump ended up with more votes than he had on election night.

So this is the stuff going on. And now the Russians did it. It's the Russians' fault. Now they've glommed on to this because there's nothing else for them to look at, the media. And it's all the media. They're trying to stretch and make something -- fake news, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm not here to suggest that the Russians don't try to hack into cyber systems in the United States. The United States does the same thing. Remember the Stuxnet virus?

Had to do with Iran's nuclear capability. The United States did that. That's the kind of stuff that goes on. But I think it's an insult to the American people -- a total insult that we, the people didn't go out and vote for Donald Trump or that we were influenced by Russian hacking. I don't know if the Russians hacked into the -- I don't know. I mean, you're hearing stuff all across-the-board, right?

They did, they didn't. Who knows? Donald Trump was duly elected by the people of this country. It is time to put this nonsense aside because we have this thing that's very near and dear to this representative democracy, and it's called the peaceful transition of government, of administration. Peaceful. We did it in '08. People that didn't vote for Barack Obama did not take to the streets. They did not blame the Russians. They did not harass electors to the electoral college.

We sucked it up. We said, "Hey, he got elected. Time to move forward." It doesn't mean you can't oppose his policies and whatnot for the next four years. It doesn't mean you can't oppose -- or the left can't oppose and fight Donald Trump on trying to get his Make America Great Agenda happen. They can do that. That's what's great about this country. But to try to delegitimize it before he even takes office, folks, this is fascinating.

I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the Glenn Beck Program. I'm your host today. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. Again, the call-in number, (888)727-2325. It's 888-727-BECK. Talking about some post election news, some wrap-up in the November 8th election, today is a big day. Constitutionally, the electoral college meets. In all 50 states, electors will gather to cast their electoral votes. Some states, by law, that if -- if a particular individual won the state, they have to vote that way. Some states, it's a little more loose. I know in Colorado, the Democrats have gone to their state court to try to get them to overturn their law. This is how the left operates.

See, defeat is never final. They're still fighting the election. The Democrats. So they're trying to get a court to overturn the law that says the Colorado electors have to vote for particular individuals.

This is amazing.

You know, you heard me talk about the criticism of Donald Trump's cabinet, of which I have none by the way. Zero. But here's another one, this is from the Mercury News: Trump's White House, how white will it be? So far, all five of Trump's first picks for key White House advisory cabinet posts have been white men, several of whom who have been accused of being racist or anti-Muslim.

First of all, if you're on the right, by their standards, we're all anti-Muslim and we're all racist, including me. I mean, that's what -- that's how they look at us. That's how they view us. So that means nothing to me.

But check out these first couple of paragraphs here. From the moment Donald Trump first uttered his slogan about making America great again, his critics countered that what he really wanted was to return to an era when white man ran the ship of state.

It goes on to say that so far, the president-elect is doing little to dispel their fears. Trump's first five picks for key posts are all white males, several of whom are causing chills to run down the spines of several Libertarians.

Let me stop there for a minute. Has anybody asked themselves what the people on the left, liberals, Democrats, have against white people?

I know I don't. I don't have anything against white people. You noticed when I talked about Ben Carson, I didn't call him a black neurosurgeon. I call him a neurosurgeon. I don't view everything through the prism of race. Every once in a while, from time to time, you'll hear me refer to myself as a black conservative. But that's not to point out my race. It's to point out how and why the left reviles me. Because, it's bad enough -- if you're on the left, it's bad enough to be a conservative, but if you're a black conservative, you're a conservative of the worst type, the worst kind.

I remember when Jeff Sessions was announced to be the nominee for the next attorney general. Again, before the ink was dry on the Trump transition news release, Senator Elizabeth Warren demanded that Trump withdraw the nomination. I mean, it was -- it was within the first five minutes of the announcement.

This is what we're going to be up against, for four years. Because remember for Democrats, defeat is never final. The fight is never over. Never over. That's why I've likened them to being a colony of carpenter rats.

Put "carpenter rats" in your favorite search engine, and look at some of the stuff -- they're amazing -- they're amazing species. They constantly just build the nest. That's all they do, continually. You can't get rid of them. You can call an exterminator. You may temporarily slow them down. But then they move on and build a new nest. That's how the Democrats operate. It's never over.

So the electoral college meets today. You have these people in the electoral college being harassed.

Folks, that is a violation of federal law.

And it's 18USCS594 (phonetic), it says, "Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person who is voting for president, vice president, or presidential elector, shall be fined or imprisoned for one year or both." Where is the DOJ investigation because if this happened in 2008, there would be an investigation started? Where's the FBI?

The campaign is over. You cannot coerce. You cannot threaten. You cannot intimidate presidential electors. But it's going on -- Obama hasn't said anything about it. Loretta Lynch hasn't said anything about it. And Comey hasn't said anything about it.

This is fascinating. Just -- you know, rewind back to 2008. If this same thing were happening, you know there would be screams by the left for investigations of prosecutions and imprisonment. I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program. Coming up on the other side of the hour, we're going to talk to Heather Mac Donald.

Featured Image: Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke (L) exits elevators after meetings with President-elect Donald Trump November 28, 2016 at the Trump Tower in New York. (Photo Credit: EDUARDO MUNOZ ALVAREZ/AFP/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.