What America Would Look Like if Hillary Had Won the Election

With Glenn on vacation, entrepreneur and former police officer John Cardillo filled in on The Glenn Beck Program Tuesday. Townhall columnist Kurt Schlichter joined him to discuss what America might look like if Hillary Clinton had won the election.

"Every day I wake up giggling and smiling at the utter rejection and humiliation of Hillary Clinton, and with a sense of exhilaration at the giant bullet America dodged," Schlichter said.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

JOHN: Now, I don't know if you're like me, but one of the shows I really enjoy, one of the television shows I really enjoy -- it's actually on Amazon, I'll just call it Amazon on demand or Amazon digital streaming. Is The Man In the High Castle, which is a great show. Some people don't like it. I find it really interesting. I binge watch it. And if you don't know what it's about -- it's about -- if Germany and Japan had won World War II. Germany controls the eastern part of the United States. Their headquarters in New York City. The Nazis do. And the Japanese empire controls the west coast, with their headquarters in San Francisco. So I watched season two. And I think season two launched -- they released season two, December 16th. Well, three days after that, Kurt Schlichter, Townhall columnist, did a story that I call The Woman With the High Collar. And it was entitled The Terrifying Aftermath of Hillary's Election Victory. If Hillary Clinton -- what America would look like if Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election. And Kurt Schlichter joins me now to discuss -- you know, Kurt, you scared me with this. You know, Man In the High Castle is a little bit depressing. You wonder what might have been. Then three days later you put this in my face.

KURT: Well, you know, I'm always there for you, John.

JOHN: You are. You are.

So tell us a little bit about what America would look like if we had Madam Clinton of being inaugurated in three weeks.

KURT: I don't even like you saying that. I have a terrible cold right now, and you've made me feel worse.

Look, every day I wake up giggling and smiling at the utter rejection and humiliation of Hillary Clinton. And with a sense of exhilaration at the giant bullet America dodged because that -- we -- we -- we told that daughter (phonetic) and corrupt monster, go back to Chappaqua. Just think about what would have happened if she had won. First of all, I think we'd all be choking on her smugness. The smugness in the media. The smugness issuing from her, of just the -- the utter -- utter hate and contempt they'd express for the rest of us. We'd be written out of the game.

JOHN: Let me ask you, Kurt, do you think they would be preaching unity and reaching across the aisle and concessions and -- and we need the White House to understand that there's another half of America, or would they be saying? Elections have consequences, again, deal with it.

KURT: Let me think about the track record of the last eight years. Yeah, I'll go with option two.

JOHN: Yeah.

KURT: Can you imagine the stream of leftist monsters she would be appointing?

JOHN: Well, that's the thing.

KURT: Oh, climate change weirdos. Anti-DOJ people. Forget every investigating any corruption anymore.

JOHN: But the Supreme Court -- you're an attorney -- yeah, you're a trial attorney and you're a legal scholar, the Supreme Court, I argue, the Supreme Court would have been tipped from 25 to 35 years, depending on the age of somebody she appointed.

Because, look, if Trump say nominates a Ted Cruz, right? What is Cruz? 45 years old. He's a healthy guy. Cruz could conceivably sit on the court for 35 years.

KURT: Oh, I would love that.

JOHN: How terrifying is that if Hillary appointed a 45-year-old far left radical?

KURT: Look. Just think of what we would have. You know, discovering a constitutional requirement that we all, you know, chip in to pay for long-term abortions.

JOHN: Yeah.

KURT: How about the Second Amendment. Nope. How about the First Amendment?

JOHN: That would be gone.

KURT: Oh, well, there are exceptions now. Stuff like that.

JOHN: As an attorney, what do you think -- and you've been a great satirist of the political process. I'm speaking with Townhall columnist Kurt Schlichter, who is also a trial lawyer, and I should note, a retired colonel in the United States Army, served 27 years. You know, Kurt, what do you think that a left -- a Hillary Clinton-appointed Supreme Court, had she won, thank God she didn't -- what do you think the top three agenda items they would have gone after? Would have been. I think Second Amendment, First Amendment.

KURT: Yeah, Second Amendment definitely. First Amendment.

You have to understand, she keeps talking about Citizens United. Citizens United was a case brought to determine whether the government could criminally prosecute you for putting out a movie critical of -- wait for it -- Hillary Clinton.

Now, here's Hillary Clinton's argument. The government has the power, despite the First Amendment, to put you in jail if you put out a movie criticizing her. Let's roll that around in our heads for a minute.

JOHN: You know what's interesting, I never heard that on CNN.

KURT: No. You never heard that. I was on with some leftist on some show. And, you know, being a lawyer and having a legal background, I said, do you know what Citizens United was?

It's about money.

Well, let me ask you something: If Citizens United resolved in your favor, what do you think the appropriate jail sentence for someone putting a movie critical of Hillary Clinton, that Hillary Clinton like should be? And she gives me this blank stare. And I'm like, "You do know what Citizens United is about. You do know that the solicitor general of the United States went up and heard you before the United States Supreme Court that the government could ban a book."

JOHN: Right. But what people were told -- and you know this. You and I have discussed this on my show. People were told -- the American public was sold by the DNC's cohorts in the media, that Citizens United was all about big bad rich corporations run by Republican conservatives, being able to donate to political campaigns. That's what most Americans believe that citizens united is about. Prior to it, you could only make an individual contribution to a hard money campaign. Now corporations can do it.

They have no idea that it has anything to do with the First Amendment and production of media projects.

KURT: Well, you know, this is -- that they would allow the government to put people in jail for being critical of the government is not a flaw in the eyes of Hillary Clinton. That is a feature.

JOHN: Right.

KURT: Hillary Clinton is not a believer in freedom. She is not a believer in free expression. She is a leftist totalitarian who hates us.

JOHN: I'm concerned about one thing though. I think I lost some money here. I was going to surprise you here. It was a Christmas present. I bought you a plane ticket to New York with me, and we were going to walk through the woods, looking for Hillary together. I really thought you would enjoy that. But now I'm a little concerned that I might have missed the mark on that one.

(laughter)

KURT: Oh, I like how she's wandering through Whole Foods, taking selfies with random losers. People going, "I cried for so long, Hillary. Now I can't make love to my husband because Trump's won." And their husband is sitting there going, "Yes!"

JOHN: And she's walking through the woods like finding Bigfoot, that reality show. It's like people are out there with GPS and night vision, finding Hillary in the woods of Chappaqua. It is the most bizarre thing.

KURT: How about The Nightmare of Naked and Alone with Hillary. Ugh.

JOHN: Yes.

KURT: That's scarier than anything in Man In the High Castle.

JOHN: Yeah, survivor man, Chappaqua. You're out there with your little GoPro on your little tripod.

KURT: Can you imagine how horrifying it would be? Because this is a woman -- and, again, I have to say it, and I want to be very clear, she and her cohorts hate us. They don't dislike us. They don't find us opponents. They hate us and want to do things to harm us, simply because they can. There is no other reason -- for example, the giant cake baking thing has happened.

JOHN: Right. Right.

KURT: Other than just to rub our faces in their power. And what happens when you rub America's -- Americans' faces in something for long enough. You're a student of history. You're a New Yorker. You were a cop. How do Americans react when you push and push and push?

JOHN: Well, look, it's about power though. You nailed it, right?

Hillary Clinton has had power in some form for 40 years -- 30-some-odd years, right? She was the wife of the attorney general of Arkansas, in a state like Arkansas in the '80s. That's pretty powerful.

Then wife of the governor. That's really powerful. Then went to the White House, which is the ultimate power. I mean, remember that debacle back in the '90s when she mapped out that convoluted Rube Goldberg rendition of health care?

KURT: Oh, yeah.

JOHN: On that whiteboard. And the congressmen were all sitting there like dogs looking at a milk bone dog biscuit, like they were just utterly confused. What in the world is this woman talking about?

And then she kind of disappeared. And -- and -- but what's even worse is Hillary Clinton was Bill Clinton's liaison on the hill, who sold the most radical anti-gay agenda in history, right? Defense of Marriage Act. Freedom Restoration Act. Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And you didn't hear a word about that.

I mean, now, the reinvented Queen Hillary was the champion of gay rights. She sold Bill Clinton's crime bill on the hill. Look, I was a cop. I benefited. I got a new gun. We got new cars. But we also got these Draconian sentences. And we were locking guys up for dumb drug offenses. And our lieutenants were shaking their head, going, "This is the south Bronx, why are we doing this?" That was all Hillary Clinton. And it was always about power. The ability to impose the power of the Clinton regime.

KURT: Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think it frankly would have torn this country apart. Imagine -- I just came back from Texas. Spent a few days there over Christmas with my wife's family. Texas is vibrant. The economy is moving.

JOHN: It's doing great.

KURT: It's doing great. Now, can you imagine when Hillary's EPA says no more fracking. No more oil drilling. We're going to leave it in the ground because of this global warming pagan nonsense.

JOHN: It's so ridiculous. That's what they're afraid of, Kurt. That's what they're afraid of. They're afraid of energy exploration. Because look at North Dakota.

Energy exploration is the quickest path to prosperity and job creation. Really in terms of US industry, it's the quickest path. You pull oil and natural gas out of the ground, you need thousands of bodies to get it to market. Progressives are terrified of that.

KURT: Well, and they can't take any of that power. They don't get the money. They don't get the power.

With these green -- this green nonsense -- the Solyndras, they can reward their friends. They can choose winners and losers. It's more power and more money for them. That's the common -- this is the common key. Remember in the '70s when they were talking about the impending ice age.

JOHN: Yes, I do. I was in school. I was terrified. I went and bought -- I wanted new winter coats for Christmas every year. I didn't even want toys.

KURT: And, of course, their solution was more money and power for liberals.

JOHN: Of course. And, look, it's the same people --

KURT: Same with the ozone hole.

JOHN: Acid rain was the -- yeah, that was big in the late '80s. Early '90s.

You know, Kurt, it's always an absolute -- I feel so much after I talk to you. And after the show, I'm going to give you a call. I'm going to get you to Chappaqua with me. We're going to walk through the woods.

KURT: We should go. We need a camera crew.

JOHN: We got to go. Kurt Schlichter, everybody. Catch him on Townhall.com. The great Colonel Schlichter will be speaking soon my friend.

You've been with John Cardillo. Well, you're still with John Cardillo, sitting in for Glenn Beck. The Glenn Beck Program. We'll be right back.

Featured Image: Justin Sullivan/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.