Sally Yates: The Left's New Hero

Going out in a blaze of partisan politics, acting Attorney General Sally Yates --- whose departure was imminent upon President Trump's AG nominee being confirmed --- chose her personal morality over the law, refusing to uphold the president's order temporarily banning individuals from certain countries entering the US. The move resulted in her being fired within hours.

"A lot of people like to make a name for themselves when they have the opportunity at the very end of an administration, to go out in flames, to go out as the hero. And I think that's what she did. She saw an opportunity, and I guarantee you, she is going to be a hero of the left," Glenn said Tuesday on radio.

Sally Yates' job was to enforce the law. President Trump's executive order was legal. She made a purely political and calculated career move that had nothing to do with upholding the law.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America. Welcome to the program. Glad you're here. Last night I turn on the TV. I'm in Los Angeles. And thank you so much for listening today.

But I got in last night, I don't even know what time it is. And turn on the television, and Donald Trump had just fired the interim attorney general. And they were calling it the Monday Night Massacre.

Now, in case you don't know what the Monday Night Massacre is referring to -- which, by the way, is crazy, crazy to compare it to the Saturday Night Massacre. This comes from the Nixon administration. It is absolutely amazing to me how the press is so out of control. They are hurting themselves even more.

To refer to what happened last night as the Monday Night Massacre, to immediately -- within minutes, within minutes, compare it to what Richard Nixon did is obscene.

What happened on the Saturday Night Massacre is Richard Nixon was being investigated for Watergate. His appointees would not fire the special investigator. They had a special investigator to look in to see if Nixon was indeed a crook. And he said to his Justice Department, "You have to fire the independent investigator." And they said, "No." And he said, "I'm telling you, I'm the president of the United States. You'll fire them." And they said, "Mr. President, it is independent. We will not fire them."

Now, what's the difference?

Here's what happened last night: The Muslim ban goes into effect, and the Justice Department is the one that has to police the ban. Are you doing it? Are you doing the right thing? Are you following the law? Which, by the way, the problem is, the law is an executive order.

Are you following the law? The interim attorney general says no. Now, not on legal reasons. The Saturday Night Massacre, it was on legal reasons. This wasn't a legal reason. She said her morals told her she couldn't do that, not the law. Her morals.

What else is the difference? The difference between the Saturday Night Massacre and the Monday Night Massacre was that she wasn't appointed by the president. Here's a woman who was appointed by Barack Obama.

Here's the temptation: A lot of people -- a lot of people like to make a name for themselves when they are -- when they have the opportunity at the very end of an administration, to go out in flames, to go out as the hero. And I think that's what she did. She saw an opportunity -- and I guarantee you, she is going to be a hero of the left.

This was a purely political and career move. That's all this was. There was nothing legal about it.

Her job is to enforce the law. Now, if she wants to have some sort of moral reason to do that, she can do that. But don't confuse that with something that happened in the 1970s that was about deep corruption and legal reasons.

So last night, I tweeted something -- I don't even remember. Stu, maybe you can look up my tweet. Because I was talking to Stu this morning, and we haven't even had a chance to talk about this yet. He said, "I gather you're against him firing the attorney general last night?" And I said, "No." And he said, "Oh, I read your tweet."

STU: Yeah, it was the one about you talked about them being betrayed.

GLENN: Read the tweet.

STU: You were betrayed? This PR is unlike anything I've ever seen from the White House before. Principles over parties. Return to the balance of constitutional powers.

GLENN: Yes. Okay. This is the problem with the 144 characters.

STU: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: The problem I had was -- read this PR -- this press release. Read it from start to finish. The entire government is now starting to speak and reflect the actual language of Donald Trump. Either that, or he's writing the press releases, which I hope to God he has other things to do.

But listen to the language of this. Do you have it, Stu?

STU: I can get it.

GLENN: I'm sorry. I thought it was connected to the tweet.

STU: Yeah. Hold on one second. Yeah, White House statement here. It's loading. There we go. All right.

White House statement: The acting Attorney General Sally Yates betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form legality by the Department of Justice office and legal counsel. Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who was weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration. It's time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for -- it does sound like Trump.

JEFFY: It sure does.

GLENN: It does.

STU: Calling for tougher vetting for individuals traveling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. So I agree with him. This is reasonable. This is not a ban.

However, the problem is, he wants both sides. When he signed it, he said it was a ban. As he was signing it, he said, "I'm doing the Muslim ban." He used the word "ban." So why? Why would you do that?

Because everyone is playing populist politics. Why did she refuse to move and put herself in a position where she knew she had to be fired? Because she knew she would be popular with her side.

Why did he use the word "ban" when it is a pause? If you don't want to enflame things, what you do, as you're signing this, you say, "Look, this is -- I want to make it clear, this is not a ban, this is a pause. All I'm doing is pausing so we can look into how we're vetting people and make sure we're safe." That's what you do.

But everyone is playing into populism. And so he immediately said, "It's a ban." But then he later said, "It's not a ban." Well, which one is it? And he knows which one it is: It's not a ban. But he wants to play into his crew that wants the ban, that want that tough stand. He's no longer playing -- or he hasn't ever -- but the president is no longer playing into the center. He's continuing to do what Barack Obama did. He's not trying to embrace the entire American public, he's embracing the people that think like him. She was embracing the people who look like her or think like her.

That's what happened. And that's -- I heard last night on CNN -- I watched -- oh. I watched all the networks last night, and I could not take it. You can see if you read my tweets by the end. I'm just -- I'm losing my mind.

But I actually heard -- who was it? Who is the guy that does that globalist thing on CNN? It's hard to narrow that down.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Fareed.

STU: Oh, Fareed Zakaria, yeah.

GLENN: Zakaria. Zakaria and Alan Dershowitz were going back and forth and yelling at each other. I shouldn't say that. Dershowitz wasn't. But Dershowitz was saying, "I'm not a fan of Donald Trump, but what he did here was legal. It was right. She was -- yada, yada, yada.

Zakaria, at one point, in the middle of Dershowitz just explaining, said, "I'm not even listening to you, Alan. I'm not listening to your explanation anymore. I'm just not listening to you, Alan."

I'm like, what -- Alan Dershowitz is one of the brightest attorneys on the planet. And I don't agree with him all the time, but he's proven himself to be fairly reasonable on almost every topic. Again, I don't agree with him, but he's reasonable. For someone like Fareed to interrupt and just say, "I'm not listening to you," that's when I turned the TV off. I'm like, "Nobody is listening to each other anymore." I was watching Fox, what did Fox do?

The language of Fox made me or people like me feel pretty good. I'm like, "Yeah, get 'em." I had to turn it off because I'm like, "This is not helpful. This is not helpful."

Honestly, I looked at my wife last night, I said, "Is it just us? Is it just us that sees how close to the edge we are?"

And if we don't start listening to each other, if we don't start calming things down and not saying that it was a massacre last night -- it was not a massacre.

Let me give you this: Let's see if I can find -- try this on for size.

In an article published Sunday on Medium -- if you don't know what Medium is, Medium is a really very smart blog site. It's like -- it's Facebook for people who have patience. Okay?

You can go and you can write posts, but it's not designed for clicks. It's designed for reading time. So it will tell you: This is a five-minute read. This is a ten-minute read. And instead of tracking clicks and shares and everything else, what they track is how long you've spent on that article. And so if people read the entire article and spend time with that article, that article is moved up. It shows that it's -- it's engaging people and they're thinking and reading it.

So it's a very different website. But it is -- it's -- it's much more geared toward I think a Silicon Valley kind of mindset. So it's -- it has very interesting points of view.

Article published Sunday on Medium.

Google privacy engineer, Yonatan Zunger, examined the details of what he believed was a sordid conspiracy among President Trump and his inner circle, which will lead to an eventual coup d'état.

Now, listen to this. First he cited CNN, writing: It's notable that this -- that the DHS lawyers objected to this ban, this Muslim order, specifically the exclusion of green card holders, as illegal, and also pressed that there would be a grace period so people currently out of the country wouldn't be stranded. And they were personally overruled by Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. Also notable is that career DHS staff, up to and including the head of customs and border patrol, were kept entirely out of the loop, until the order was signed.

Next, he cites the Guardian, writing: The mass resignations of nearly all senior staff at the State Department on Thursday were not, in fact, resignations, but a purge ordered by the White House. This leaves almost no one in the entire senior staff of the State Department at this point. It leaves the State Department entirely unstaffed during these critical first weeks, when orders like the Muslim ban, which they would resist normally, are coming down.

He then added: The DHS agents were still detaining and still deporting individuals, even after two major court rulings that said they can't do that.

Some of what Zunger writes is true, the story goes on. Insomuch as it comes from CNN and other reputable outlets, but it appears to be an extrapolation or an interpretation of the news. However, in the end, Zunger seems to believe that all the chaos means one thing: Quote, the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS and other executive agencies can act and ignore orders from other branches of the government. This is as serious as it can possibly get. All of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional means nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

Yesterday was a trial balloon for a coup d'état against the United States. It gave them useful information. He also wrote that the orders are being made via the inner circle of Trump, Bannon, Miller, Priebus, Kushner, and possibly Flynn, and that the gutting of agencies and the shuffling of the National Security Council represents something nefarious.

He speculated that Trump will want his personal security to take a higher position, writing: Keith Schiller should continue to run the personal security force which would take over an increasing fraction of the Secret Service's job.

He concluded, especially if combined with the DHS and the FBI, which appears to have remained loyal to the president throughout the recent transition, this creates an armature of a shadow government. Intelligence and police services, which are not accountable through any normal means, answerable only to the president.

Zunger has chosen to view the absolute chaos of the last 72 hours as a trial balloon for a coup d'état against the United States. Nothing is out of the realm of possibility, and Trump's rhetoric suggests he views governing with a more centralized eye than most. However, there is another possibility that bears mentioning.

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.