New York Times Forced to Issue Correction for Rewriting History

Hell must have frozen over. The New York Times actually issued a correction for linking the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords to Sarah Palin, a claim soundly debunked six years ago. The outrageous rehashing was included in an editorial regarding the attempted slaughter of House Republicans at a baseball practice yesterday morning.

RELATED: The New York Times Runs the Worst Editorial in Human History, Blames SARAH PALIN for Giffords Shooting AGAIN

"It's quite unusual . . . I mean, they do issue corrections, a lot of times on kind of meaningless stuff, but one of the main points they were making is pretty freaking significant," co-host Stu Burguiere said.

Prior to the correction being issued, Glenn made the point that conservatives have plenty of reasons to claim incitement --- although he urged them to take the high road rather than retaliate in kind.

"Incitement? How about holding a picture of Donald Trump's bloody head? Incitement? How about a play this week in New York City making Caesar look like Donald Trump and having a bloody assassination in Central Park, so much so that the sponsor . . . Bank of America pulls out?" Glenn questioned.

The New York Times must have felt the heat from their blatant hypocrisy, not to mention the rewriting of history. The publication issued this correction on June 15, 2017:

An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

Again, before the correction came out, Glenn urged Americans to document the truth.

"Write a diary, because your children have absolutely zero chance of reading the truth," Glenn said.

In point of fact, the Tea Party was the biggest American populist movement in which grassroots efforts changed the course of an election in two years.

"That wasn't even put in TIME Magazine's year in review. Why? Because they don't want records of it. Why put a record of that so we have a hard time diminishing the impact and telling the truth of what really happened. This is a writing and rewriting of American history in realtime," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Today is the New York Times was full-fledged New York Times. Today, the New York Times today MSNBC, today, CNN, they're back to their old tricks. It didn't take them long before they started blaming this on the left -- I'm sorry. On the right. Before they started blaming this on Donald Trump.

Now, if we remember, they blamed the right and Sarah Palin for Gabby Giffords, because she had released something about districts that needed to be targeted. "She used the word 'targeted.' In this atmosphere, with what they're saying, of course that's going to drive -- well, the person who used the gun to shoot Gabby Giffords was a lefty -- and nuts! Was not on the Sarah Palin email list. Let's just put it that way. Didn't see the targeting stuff. It wasn't Sarah Palin. And yet, the New York Times wrote this.

Conservative and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to man forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals.

They're right. Though there's no sign of incitement, as direct as in the Giffords' attack, liberals should, of course, hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right. But there is no sign of incitement.

Okay. Somebody puts out a political piece and says, "We have to target these districts." That's incitement. But Kathy Giffords -- Griffin. What is her name?

STU: Griffin. Griffin.

PAT: Yeah, it's Griffin.

GLENN: Sorry. She was never a star in my world. I don't know what she did to think she was a star. But she'll never get her career back of that one gig a night --

PAT: Once a year.

GLENN: On CNN.

Anyway, incitement. How about holding a picture of Donald Trump's bloody head? Incitement, how about a play that week in New York City making Caesar look like Donald Trump and having a bloody assassination in Central Park, so much so, that the sponsor -- what was it, Bank of America?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Pulls out. Unsolicited, pulls out and says, "This is over the top." So much so, that even the New York Times' critic says, "This is over the line."

But there's no incitement there. No, no, no. Nothing as strong as, "We need to target these districts."

STU: And that is legitimately the quote. This is from New York Times, not in 2011, but today. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other --

PAT: Unbelievable!

STU: -- Democrats under stylized crosshairs.

This has literally been disproved and debunked for six years, and today they're still writing it.

GLENN: It doesn't matter. Those -- those elites -- those in the newspaper -- this is why I've asked you for years, write a diary. Write a diary. Because your children have absolutely zero chance of reading the truth.

Remember, the Tea Party, the biggest American movement of -- of -- of a populist movement. A movement where grassroots takes over and changes the course of an election in two years, the Tea Party, that wasn't even put in TIME Magazine's year in review. Why?

Because they don't want records of it. Why put a record of that so we have a hard time diminishing the impact and telling the truth of what really happened.

This is a writing and rewriting of American history, in realtime, as historians go back.

But I will tell you, I've learned more from the lost diaries of the German people, than I have from any history book on what really happened in Germany.

Keep a diary.

So here's the New York Times saying this today and saying there's no link. Write in your diary and cut out any posts that you have, and make sure it's on paper. Cut on any post that you have, and make sure that you have the Kathy Griffin -- Griffith -- Grifford -- that one.

STU: Grifford, that's it. Kathy Grifford.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: That one. Whatever her name is, make sure you have the picture of her holding the bloody head two weeks before this shooting. Make sure you have the story of Shakespeare In the Park, one week, days before this shooting. And then I want you to write this: These things did not cause this crazy lunatic to shoot. It wasn't -- make sure you put that he was a Bernie Sanders volunteer. But then I want you to make sure that you put Bernie Sanders and what he said yesterday. Here's what he said yesterday.

BERNIE: Madam president, I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice this morning is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign.

I am sickened by this despicable act. And let me be as clear as I can be: Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. And I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.

GLENN: Stop. I'm asking you one question -- I want you to listen to this one question and only answer this question. Do you believe that he believes what he just said? Pat.

PAT: Yeah. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Jeffy, do you believe that he believes what he just said? That he condemns violence.

JEFFY: I'm not sure.

GLENN: Wow. Stu.

STU: I mean, his actions from last time this happened --

GLENN: That's not the question.

STU: That's not the doubt. The literal words he says, yes. He does not want violence. He condemns it.

GLENN: He has a long history of condemning violence. However, question number two, is he a political human being? Pat.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Jeffy.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: Stu.

STU: 100 percent.

GLENN: Which explains what he said after Kathy -- after --

STU: Kathy Grifford.

GLENN: Whatever. After what he said about the other shooter.

STU: Yeah, Jared Lee Loughner. He raised money off of it. He said he blamed it on right-wing reactionaries: This horrendous act of violence is not some kind of strange aberration for this area, where it appears threats and acts of violence are part of the political climate. Nobody can honestly express surprise that such a tragedy finally occurred.

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

I believe -- I believe that yesterday Bernie Sanders, when he found out that this was one of his guys that was a campaign volunteer, I believe he was horrified that somebody could say that -- not for political reasons. I believe Bernie Sanders would not want somebody shooting at Congress members.

STU: Of course.

GLENN: Period.

Now, we don't get that respect from the press. We don't get that respect. They won't give that to us. They're still relitigating a false claim of -- of a shooting that happened by a crazy person on the left. They're still blaming that on Sarah Palin. And relitigating that today. They're, still, on MSNBC -- there was a tweet that went out and said, "Donald Trump is responsible for this."

I'm going to give you two answers to the question on who is responsible: Who is responsible? I'm going to give you two answers. And both of them are absolutely true. But both of them are separate and apart from each other.

You want to belly up to the big boy table? You want to hear things that -- that everybody will tell you today, to make you feel good, that you should tune to another show -- if you want to hear the truth stick around. I'll share it, next.

Continued in hour 3

GLENN: Hey, before we get into -- before we get into what we can do, could -- I think it's important to start with the correction of the New York Times today. The New York Times has issued a correction to what they had printed about Gabby Giffords. Do you want to go over that? This is unusual and remarkable, I think.

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's quite unusual, especially from -- because, I mean, they do issue corrections, a lot of times on kind of meaningless stuff. You know, details -- they do issue a lot of -- to correct one of their editorials, one of the main points they were making is pretty freaking significant. Here's what the correction reads: An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

GLENN: That's amazing.

STU: I don't know how it gets to print. I don't know how they don't that know before they put the actual editorial up.

PAT: Wow. Yeah.

STU: But I'm glad they corrected it. And it is important. There is absolutely zero evidence -- in fact, it is proveable that this had nothing to do with it. You know, to the point of, he was obsessing about Gabby Giffords three years before the ad came out. And, you know, there's -- if he had any leaning, as we said -- an acquaintance called him a liberal. But it was not a political assassination. It was not that.

I mean, this is a guy who believed grammar was a conspiracy.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It's almost incomprehensible what --

GLENN: Yesterday, it was a political assassination attempt. Yesterday, it was about politics. But it had nothing to do with Bernie Sanders and Bernie Sanders rhetoric or anything else. This guy was nuts. This guy believed what he believed, and he's the one who loaded the gun, got the gun. Lived in his van for two weeks. I mean, the guy was nuts, period.

It was politically motivated. Who had anything to do with that? Did Rachel Maddow wind him up?

STU: No, she -- he tweeted about Rachel Maddow. He tweeted about Ed Schultz. He tweeted about all these shows.

GLENN: I will tell you this, if you buy into that, then you better check his Facebook and what he tweeted and what he Facebooked about. A lot of stories from Russia Today.

STU: Yeah, Russia Today is another one.

GLENN: So was he wound up by the Russians?

STU: And I don't know if this was been widely reported, but he was also pretty much -- he was very pro-Sanders. Anti-Clinton, right? Like he was that left-wing socialist, wants Bernie, but not Hillary type of guy.

But he loved a lot of these left-wing shows. Is it their fault? No. Of course not. It is not their fault at all. It's not Rachel Maddow's fault. It's nobody on MSNBC's fault.

GLENN: You could make the case that the uber, uber left, just like the uber, uber right, they do want revolution. And he may have been a supporter of the Antifa movement, I don't know.

STU: There are groups certainly that advocate for violence.

GLENN: That want revolution.

PAT: Wouldn't it be refreshing if the left did the same thing we're doing right now?

STU: Wouldn't it be?

PAT: Wouldn't that be great? Give it -- a balanced look at it. A fair and balanced -- since Fox just dropped that, we can take it from them. We got a fair and balanced look at --

GLENN: Did they say what they were replacing it with?

PAT: I think most watched, most trusted.

GLENN: Isn't the most trusted name in news, isn't that the CNN most trusted --

PAT: I don't know. But Fox has actually won every poll along those lines for years now. So maybe they're going to take it from them. I don't know.

STU: And there were some examples today -- for example, of the Jared Lee Loughner thing, you said, wouldn't it be nice?

GLENN: Yeah, there are.

STU: Chris Hayes, for example, on MSNBC, when that out, people on the right were criticizing. How can you tie this?

And he said, yeah, I'll step up here and say that's completely nuts.

PAT: Wow.

STU: These are tough examples. It's hard to do that when you're on the left in a moment like this, and those people should be given credit. We should also criticize the people who don't -- who don't do that, and who break the -- you know, who create a double standard for themselves and blame the right for 2011 and don't do it here. When here it actually -- there's at least a tie.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Jared Lee Loughner didn't support Sarah Palin. There is an absolute -- that is provable. Here we have a situation where this person did support all these left-wing causes. But that still doesn't make them responsible. That is not the way this works.

GLENN: Right. So it is really easy -- it's really easy on the left to do what the New York Times did at first. It's really hard for them to issue the correction.

It is really hard for people on MSNBC to come out and say, look. Just like with Gabby Giffords, it was crazy then, it's crazy now.

It's really hard for people on the right to say that. And not throw stones. Because everything depends on clicks now. Everything depends on ratings.

I mean, it was really interesting to listen to Bill O'Reilly talk about ratings earlier this week. He's on with us tomorrow, by the way. But when he was on with us, he talked about ratings and how everything is done for ratings.

Well, how do you get ratings? You get ratings by dividing people. You get ratings by calling out a bogeyman. Because that's what -- that's what people want. They want the red meat. So who are we going to be able to work with? Who can we -- who can we trust to give us the news and give it to us straight? Well, people like Jake Tapper, who were consistent then and are consistent now.

Those are the things -- these are the times that we can learn, who is trustworthy? Who is going to say it, when it was tough?

STU: Let me give you a little flashback here, which is perhaps maybe the best example of this. We haven't even discussed since this whole terrible tragedy happened.

This is back in 2010. A couple hosts on the program, Pat Gray, Stu Burguiere, filling in for Mr. Glenn Beck that particular day. And there was a shooting, eight people killed at a workplace. And we talked about it. I said, a guy like that, who is a little bit unstable anyway, can't help but react to the constant pressure of Keith Olbermann on the air on MSNBC, talking about all the racism there is out there. Because that was his complaint.

And then we said, Keith Olbermann was responsible. Keith Olbermann was responsible for the shooting. And Media Matters did a big report about how we --

PAT: That's right.

STU: We -- blaming Keith Olbermann for the shooting. What an unbelievable charge. How dare you.

Of course, they cut out the next paragraph and next few seconds where I said, "Obviously we're making a point here." Let's move that to the case of the Tea Party members. They're constantly convinced the government is after them, and they're going to come take their guns. Well, who is always talking about that? Glenn Beck. So, therefore, he's responsible every time anyone does anything. They actually had to issue a correction because they --

GLENN: Media Matters.

STU: Media Matters issued a correction. Because what we were saying at that time, when it was hard for us, was, you know what, Keith Olbermann is not responsible for a murder. He can say anything he wants in a political context, outside of actually saying specifically go murder people. And it has nothing to do with the shooter.

Media Matters intentionally cut that off and later got caught and had to issue a correction about it. And here we are, years later, where the same crap happens, from many of the same people, and, you know, we have to choose whether -- you know, what kind of people we want to be. Do we want to be the people who actually stand up and say -- and can live with ourselves and sleep at night, knowing that we have consistent principles, or do we just want to throw around the same crappy accusations the other side does in those moments?

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.