Shakespeare: Too White for Ivy League Students

The outspoken and fantastically fierce Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke filled in for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program today, Tuesday, December 20.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 3 for answers to these questions:

• Will consumers ditch Cheetos for healthy snacks?

• Would you eat a PepsiCo quinoa or spinach dip at a party?

• Was political correctness given its last rights on November 8th?

• Why does diversity exclude white people?

• Are black lesbian poets more diverse that white male playwrights?

• Can tweets cause seizures?

• Is assault via the internet a federal crime if it crosses state lines?

• Have people killed in the name of Black Lives Matter?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

DAVID: Thanks for staying with the Glenn Beck Program. You're going to think this story came out of the Onion, you know, that satirical newspaper. But actually, this comes out of the Wall Street Journal.

Did you know that the chief executive of Frito-Lay has vowed to turn the maker of Fritos, Cheetos, and potato chips, and Pepsi into a health juggernaut? I'm not kidding.

This story here says: But while consumers say they all want to eat healthy, often all they really want are potato chips.

It goes on to say: But buoyed by less-healthy snack brands such as Doritos chips and Cheetos Puffs, PepsiCo's sales and volumes are on the rise and its profit margins have expanded in 15 quarters straight. Selling junk food. Yeah, that's what people want from Frito-Lay. They don't want health food.

If I want eat healthy, I'm not going to -- if I want to eat healthy, I'm not going to buy Frito-Lay products. I know where the produce section is in the store.

So it goes on to say that these are hard chews for big food companies. Taste is the biggest factor in snack purchased.

No kidding. Salt. That's what they want to taste.

So it says here: When people get together, they have snacks like potato chips and pretzels. They don't all sit around and snack on granola bars.

It says: Norman Deschamps' head market researcher Packaged Facts.

It's a lot easier for a food behemoth like PepsiCo to generate revenue by tweaking just the Lay's brand of potato chips, the world's top selling food brand, than to start from scratch with quinoa or spinach.

It says: The world's biggest food companies have been trying to wrap up healthier offerings for years, but consumers haven't given up their love for all things sweet and salty.

Do you think you'd have to pay a researcher to tell you that? This is fascinating.

If I was a shareholder, Frito-Lay, I wouldn't be happy about this. I'd say, keep selling the junk food. You know, McDonald's tried this.

McDonald's, hamburgers and fries, that's what people want when they go to McDonald's. But we've turned into the nanny state. Where government -- the federal government and the state government -- remember New York with Mayor Bloomberg and his elimination of the Big Gulp sodas to try to get people to eat and drink in a more healthy fashion? The government -- the federal government steps in and puts all these requirements on the food makers. Now they have to list all of the ingredients and all of the caloric intake and how much sodium and fat and carbohydrates. I never look at the wrapper at that crap when I go to eat it. If I'm eating a Baby Ruth or a Butterfinger, I just rip the package open and start eating it. I don't care what the ingredients are. I know what it is. It's a candy bar. It's sugar covered with chocolate. It tastes good.

I know where to find cucumbers and carrots. So we -- you know, you look at the stuff here from McDonald's. You know, they try to get into the healthy food eating. Remember that? They had this healthy menu section in their restaurants. It bombed.

You know, there's some people that went in there and wanted a salad. I wouldn't go to McDonald's to order a salad. You know what people want when they go to McDonald's? Grease!

Because it tastes good. French fries, cooked in oil. Hamburgers, which are -- they're Quarter Pounders with cheese. Now it's a double Quarter Pounder with extra cheese. And now they put bacon on it. That's what people want from McDonald's.

So McDonald's abandoned that healthy menu. You know why? They were losing money off of it. They realized -- they came to the realization, which they didn't have to pay some marketing research guy or woman this. They could have just asked me. How do you think this is going to work? We're going to offer a healthy menu at McDonald's. I'd say, "Are you guys nuts? Do your stockholders know this?" Do you know what people want from you, McDonald's? Quarter Pounders with cheese, french fries, and shakes. That's what they want. They don't want wraps, salad wraps. You know, some people eat that. They don't go to -- if you're a healthy eater, do you go to McDonald's to get your health food? Don't you go to Whole Foods or one of these other places that, you know, has a little healthier menu? Who -- what person that wants to focus on healthy eating steps foot in a McDonald's? What, so they can order a shake and fries with their healthy wrap?

I mean, this stuff is insane. It really is.

And this goes kind of in line with this other thing I came across here from The Daily Signal. Ivy League students tear down Shakespeare portrait in the name of diversity. That's how crazy this world has become -- actually this country, with this political correctness, I hope on November 8th of this year was given its last rights. I really do. It's going to take some time.

It says here: Students at the University of Pennsylvania have removed a portrait of William Shakespeare and replaced it with a picture of a black lesbian poet for the sake of having greater diversity.

The large Shakespeare portrait had resided near a staircase in Fisher Bennett Hall for years until a gaggle of activist students removed it and placed it in the office of the English department head. In its place, they taped up a photograph of Audre Lorde. I guess she's the black lesbian poet. Never heard of her.

The portrait won't be moved back, according to a statement from the English department head because a white male Shakespeare didn't embody the value of diversity.

To which I would ask, why not? If you listened to the program yesterday, you heard me ask -- or say that, you know, a lot of these -- these liberal mainstream media that were picking on -- picking apart Donald Trump's cabinet nominees as being too white -- and I said, "Somebody needs to ask these people: What do you got against white people?" So the diversity has to be to the exclusion of whites. You can't have whites, blacks, Hispanics. It can only be blacks, Hispanics, lesbians, transgenders, Muslims, but it can't include whites?

So this -- this department head said: Students removed the Shakespeare portrait and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.

So that doesn't include Shakespeare? He can't be a part of the inclusiveness -- their inclusive mission? Shakespeare can't be a part of the diversity? It can only be a black lesbian poet?

This is part of that totalitarianism on college campuses. The left knows better than anybody else, control the language, you control the narrative.

It's Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. We have to take a break. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the program. Merry Christmas from your host today, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Here's another one that you think you would find in the Onion. This Newsweek writer claims assault by tweet from The Daily Caller.

Newsweek senior writer Kurt Eichenwald claimed Friday he was assaulted by a tweet that caused a seizure. Now, the seizure part isn't funny. But assaulted by a tweet. My God, would my Twitter handle be in trouble.

It all started with a tweet Thursday from Eichenwald's account that said @Jew_Goldstein to his wife: You caused a seizure -- I'm sorry -- this is his wife: You caused a seizure. I have your information. I've called the police to report the assault.

That's why I said you would think this was out of the Onion. This guy would call the police because someone sent him a tweet that he says caused his wife to have a seizure.

So it says the Twitter user Jew_Goldstein had sent a gif. G-I-F. An animated video of changing colors with text that said, "You deserve a seizure." The account has been suspended by Twitter.

Newsweek told The Daily Caller they could confirm that Eichenwald's wife, what she said was true. Oh, yeah, that means -- if Newsweek said it, then that's confirmation -- that's enough confirmation for them, I guess. It's not enough confirmation for me.

Eichenwald himself went back on Twitter Friday to say he's taking a hiatus from the social media site as he works with law enforcement to bring this guy to justice.

(chuckling)

You've got to be kidding me, that the police would even respond and spend time on -- I wonder what police agency this is. It doesn't say here.

The Newsweek writer also suggested that the FBI might get involved.

(laughter)

No, this is not from the Onion, folks. This is from TheDailyCaller.com.

So he wrote -- and this is this Eichenwald -- at this point, the police are attempting to determine if this is a federal crime because it appears to be crossing state lines.

(laughter)

The FBI did not respond to an inquiry about whether assault via internet gif is a federal crime.

Speaking to that, let's talk about fake news. Unbelievable.

And I want to talk about this Russian hacking -- all this uproar over Russian hacking and how the Russians were to blame for defeating Mrs. Bill Clinton and the Democrats. It was the Russians that led people in the swing states, including Wisconsin and now Michigan, that hadn't gone Republican for several decades -- and Pennsylvania, how it was the Russians -- I mean, I live in Wisconsin, right?

I voted for Donald Trump. Supported Donald Trump. What these stories suggest is that I was going to vote for somebody else. And I said, "Well, you know, since the Russians have hacked, I guess I'll go vote for somebody else. I guess I'll vote for Donald Trump." I mean, this is insane.

But this is what they've glommed on to. Remember, they started with the, it was James Comey's fault. That's why she lost. Then it was fake news. And now it's the Russian hacking.

And since not much is going on in the political world, most of the media is content to just report on this, this Russian hacking. And I'm not here to suggest. Because I don't know. I'm not hear to suggest that Russia doesn't try to hack into databases. They don't try to get an edge. The Americans do the same thing. But to say this caused Donald Trump to get elected is insane.

I mean, I'm looking at this piece here from Rasmussen. And it says: The New York Times story titled Russian Hackers acted to aid Trump in election, is based on entirely, what else? Unnamed sources, including political appointees of current President Barack Obama.

Play that first clip for us, please.

OBAMA: But the larger point I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even -- you could even rig America's elections. In part, because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.

And so I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes. And if you got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government.

DAVID: Now, that was before November 8th. That was President Obama. And that was when the Democrats were claiming at the time that Podesta's emails were hacked. They may have been. I don't know that the Russians did it. You heard the president.

He says it's impossible, with all the intricacies involved for them to -- not to get into these systems, but to swing an election. Then he accused Trump of whining. And he said -- this was before November 8th. If Trump gets more votes, Trump wins the election -- he apparently won the popular vote because of California. But if Trump wins the election, then she should graciously concede and let's move on. Well, that didn't happen.

So then we have all this stuff about the Russian hackers. There's no evidence at this point.

Now, post election, Obama has ordered an investigation into Russian hacking. Obama says, "We need to take action, and we will." Democrats are -- are saying that Americans believing fake news is sowing confusion.

This is incredible. The electoral college came back uneventful, no drama yesterday. I believe Trump ended up with 304, it might have been 305 electoral votes. Only two defectors in Texas, out of 36. And then he got one in Maine. I don't know if Maine doles theirs out proportionally or not. But one defector went for Trump -- I shouldn't say defector. He got one electoral vote in Maine. And Mrs. Bill Clinton got the other two. So he got 300 electoral votes. And the liberal mainstream media is saying, "Well, that's not a mandate. He better move cautiously."

I beg to differ. I like the fact that Paul Ryan, speaker of the house, has suggested that the Republicans need to go big on policy issues and policy recommendations. Don't squander this. You don't know how long it's going to last. They control the Senate, albeit, not necessarily filibuster proof. But they control the House of Representatives, and they control the White House.

I don't want to hear anymore complaining from the Republicans that they can't get anything done because they don't have any power. You strike while the iron is hot. You may not have the super majority for too long. The midterms are coming up in two short years. Often time, that favors the party out of power. So if we end up with a bifurcated Congress, where let's say the Dems win back the Senate -- I don't think they will, but who knows -- then we'll have gridlock. So they have to strike while the iron's hot. And they better.

We got to take a break. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program. Coming up in the show is David French. We're going to talk about Black Lives Matter.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. In for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Let's go in this direction: I have on the line David French. David French is a staff writer at National Review. He's an attorney. Concentrates his practice on constitutional law, the law of armed conflict. He's a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And he recently penned an article in National Review, and it had to do with Black Lives Matter and this love affair with the late Fidel Castro. And I want to talk to him about that.

David, thanks so much for joining me today.

FRENCH: Thanks so much for having me, I appreciate it.

DAVID: Why don't you get right into it, this sickening essay from Black Lives Matter in terms of making Fidel Castro into some -- a guy that's to be admired?

FRENCH: Yeah, it's really amazing. Right after Fidel Castro died, Black Lives Matter published a piece, an essay -- I mean, you really have to read it to believe it. But it begins with: We're feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. And it's a really remarkable essay that laments his death, talks about his revolutionary street cred, and then essentially -- and then thanks him for sheltering some of the most vicious cop killers in American history.

There were black revolutionaries who killed police officers, three of them, for example, hijacked a jet after they killed a police officer at knife point, sent the jet to Cuba, and Fidel Castro gave them sanctuary. And so what we're talking about here is a man who not only had a human rights effort, where over a million people left his own island to escape and where he ruthlessly suppressed dissent, he actually harbored in the United States -- I mean, harbored in Cuba cop killers, and Black Lives Matter was praising him for that.

DAVID: You know, one of those cop killers is Assata Shakur, who was -- Werner Foerster, I think was the New Jersey state trooper that she killed or she was involved in the killing. He had pulled over these individuals, this car for a traffic violation. And in part, she got out of the car. She was a passenger in the rear seat. And went over. Werner Foerster had been wounded. So he laid in the street. She ran over to him, grabbed his firearm, and shot him multiple times as he laid on the ground there. She was caught. She was convicted. She was sent to prison in the state of New Jersey. I think it was New Jersey, yeah.

And she escaped. There was an unbelievable escape. Some people came in. They took many of the prison guards hostage. They got her out. She fled to Cuba. She resides in Cuba to this day. And she's one of the ones that I have pleaded with -- with no success, to the Eric Trump-led attorney -- United States Department of Justice to get her back after President Obama normalized relations with Cuba. I said, "Okay. Something good can come of this normalization of relations with Cuba. Let's get those cop killers back here." And, of course, they're not interested in that.

But I have said -- and I have been very vocal about it, I have labeled Black Lives Matter as a hateful ideology. They foster division, as you write in your story here. They support an anti-cop rhetoric, cop hatred. And there are people who have killed law enforcement officers in the name -- name of -- of Black Lives Matter. Why do you think -- other than the obvious, you know, that they look at Cuba and they look atrophied he will Castro, that murderous dictator, and they idolize somebody like that.

FRENCH: Well, you know, they look at everything in the United States through one lens and one lens only, and that's race. And so Fidel Castro, as part of his anti-American campaign, decades-long anti-American campaign was constantly trying to create greater racial tension in the United States.

And one of the ways that he did that was by -- was by backing and explicitly supporting, both rhetorically and providing, you know, a home for people who are a part of organizations like the Black Panthers or the Black Liberation Army.

And so these guys -- these Black Lives Matter activists who are really the spiritual descendents, so to speak, of the Black Panthers, for example. They look at that history. And because they're only looking at it through the lens of race and race only, they don't realize -- or at least don't care, the extent to which Fidel Castro was cynically using American race tensions to advance its own agenda.

I mean, this is a guy who in Cuba discriminated against black Cubans in ways that were grotesque. And he was only exploiting racial divisions in the United States for his own communist means.

So he wasn't -- he wasn't some sort of social justice warrior. He was a communist dictator thug, but these people refused to see it.

DAVID: You know, part of the problem with this hateful ideology is these people who wrap their arms around it, people who have been invited to the White House, I should add, numerous times to hold counsel with the president of the United States, they don't know their history. They don't know the history here.

It's kind of like Colin Kaepernick, the quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, you know, taking a knee. Sitting down initially and then taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem. He's another one that showed up at a post-game conference. You know, you do the thing after the game. He shows up with a T-shirt with a picture of Fidel Castro on it. And I look -- first thing I think when I see this: These people don't know their history. They don't know what they're talking about.

But when I look at Black Lives Matter and I look at how this ugly chapter and what it's been and what it's meant for the American law enforcement officer -- and like I said, a couple minutes ago, you know, it's led to the death -- people have killed in the name of Black Lives Matter. But this has also caused police in ghetto communities throughout the United States to not be as assertive as they need to be, to not engage in the kind of discretionary policing, quality of life enforcement, some people call it, and it has led to an increase of crime.

You look at the city of Chicago -- and I talked about it on the program yesterday. They're up to like 753 murders in the city of Chicago in 2016 alone, compared to about 495 last year. And last year's total outpaced the year before that. And in the city of Chicago, you have over 3,000 people who have been hit by gunfire in non-fatal shootings.

So you look at that sting across America, and then these people have the nerve, the audacity, to run around saying black lives matter. But you look at stuff like that, where are they? They're nowhere to be found.

Black people -- good law-abiding black people in many cases, children, you have seniors living in fear in these ghetto communities. And where are they? You know, they're nowhere to be found. And that's the phoniness of, you know, their mantra, the phoniness of their claim, their slogan, if you will. Black Lives Matter. What are your thoughts on that?

FRENCH: Yeah, it's one of the most clever marketing campaigns in history, that's contradicted by then about everything that the group actually stands for.

For example, on its website, it says flatout that they want to destroy the nuclear -- the Western prescribed nuclear family. Well, the destruction of the family is one of the main drivers of social conflict, not just in black communities, but in American communities at large.

And when it comes to -- to -- to violence, what you are seeing about the change in policing tactics, which are changes in tactics that Black Lives Matter has been pushing for, there's mathematical -- there's strong mathematical correlation.

If you look in -- if you look in Chicago, there's been a decrease in the number of stops. There's been a decrease in the number of -- consequently, decrease in the number of drug confiscations -- I mean, gun confiscations. A decrease in the number of arrests. And a corresponding dramatic increase in the number of murders. I mean, all of this is -- is very well documented. And so, you know, if you're talking about what -- what is it that saves black lives? Well, one of the key things that helped end the murder crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, was very aggressive policing. And also with -- and this is something that a lot of people don't realize, with the active and enthusiastic participation of black communities in the US. Everything from pastors to politicians, the congressional black caucuses out front in the late '80s and early '90s in trying to have -- in moving towards tougher policing. There was -- there were African-American lawmakers in states around the country seeking relief from this crime epidemic. And so it was the black community that really rallied in the late '80s and early '90s. And now along comes Black Lives Matter. As you said, they don't know their history. And they're trying to undo a lot of the reforms that the black community had led America in advocating for generations -- a generation ago, that has since saved countless lives. So I'm not sure, you know, which community they purport to be speaking to.

I think they're speaking for a media community that loves them a great deal. And like I said, they have a very clever marketing slogan. I mean, of course, everyone believes that black lives matter. But what's behind that slogan is a very, very radical agenda that is actually costing lives.

DAVID: Right. And, really, in essence though, black lives do not matter, at least to these individuals. They matter to you. They matter to me. Matter to a lot of people, but not these individuals. They put out some manifesto not too long ago where some of the tenets were, you know, railing against Israel for the treatment of the Palestinians. Railing against -- or demanding more money for global warming studies.

And when I read this manifesto, I said: You know what, black people do not care about global warming. They do not care about what's going on in Israel. Not that we shouldn't care about what's going on in Israel. We do. But I said, here's what black people care about: They care about jobs. They care about better schools for their kids to be able to go to. And they care about safer communities.

David, I want to thank you for joining us. Keep up the good work and Merry Christmas.

FRENCH: Thanks so much for having me. And Merry Christmas to you too.

DAVID: Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Radio Program, and we have to take a break.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the program. Final segment. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program. This has been fun. Two straight days. This was new for me. I've done fill-in radio. I've told you that before. I've been a guest host nationally on some programs, as well as locally back home. But I've never done successive days.

I'll tell you, I got a new admiration, not that I didn't before, but for people who do this for a living, who are good at this, people like Glenn and others. He comes in -- he's got to do this five days and no weekends off, of doing other things. Putting these programs together takes a lot.

Again, I want to thank the people on the set here, the producers and everybody involved in the production of this program. You guys have been great. You really have provided -- you guys with the training wheels for the -- you know, in case the bicycle got a little wobbly, I'd have the training wheels to rely on. You guys are what makes the show go. I don't know if Glenn tells you that enough, but you do. He probably does. But thanks for everything that you've done. It's been great.

And, you know, it's kind of interesting -- I want to close with this. And, again, this is kind of like the gift that keeps on giving.

To rehabilitate the Democratic Party, Obama plans to coach young talent.

So Obama to the rescue again. He spent eight years destroying this republic, and now he wants to coach new talent.

He says here: What I'm interested in is just developing a whole new generation of talent, Obama told NPR's Steve Inskeep in an interview on Morning Edition.

There's such incredible young people, who not only worked on my campaign, but I've seen in advocacy groups.

You know, he's the community organizer.

I've -- I've seen passionate about issues like climate change or conservation or criminal justice reform, you know, campaigns too for a livable wage and health insurance, and make sure that whatever resources, credibility, and spotlight that I can bring to help raise them up, that's what I want to do. That's something I think I can do well.

Because, you know, he excels at everything. There's nothing that Barack Obama can't do. You know, there's no short suits in his talent box. At least that's what he thinks.

I hope that he's serious about this because what he'll end up doing is he will coach a generation of young starry-eyed liberals in the area of community organizing in this Democrat Party that is in free fall, will continue to flounder. So what I always tell people when they point out what's wrong with the Democrat Party -- I'm talking people on the right -- I say, "Be quiet. Leave them alone." I say, "They're doing fine. They will figure this out on their own." So we'll see what happens there.

Again, it's been a pleasure to be with you these last two days. I want everybody to have a very Merry Christmas, a blessed Christmas. A Happy New Year. And remember, Donald Trump is going need to all of us to provide that pushback against the people that want to see him fail. And he's going need to our energy as well in order to make America great again. Put the country first. Leave the other stuff out of it and everybody will be fine. This is the Glenn Beck Radio Program. David Clarke. Thank you very much.

Featured Image: The first four folios of William Shakespeare's work during an unveiling for auction at Christie's King Street on April 19, 2016 in London, England. The preview of the sale commemorates 400 years since the death of Shakespeare (1564-1616). The auction will be led by an unrecorded copy of the first folio, the first collected edition of Shakespeare's plays, which contains 36 plays and is estimated at £800,000-£1.2 million.The folios will go on public display in London from 20 to 28 April and then later being put up in a four lot auction on 25 May 2016. The sale is expected to reach in excess of £1.3 million (Photo by Chris Ratcliffe/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.