Senate Campaigns Were Never Intended to Be National Elections

After reports about his alleged predilection for teenagers, Roy Moore’s Alabama campaign is becoming a national issue. But ultimately, his Senate race is about persuading voters in his own state.

“It doesn’t matter what we think,” Glenn said on today’s show. “It only matters what the people of Alabama think.”

Glenn and Stu also talked about the basic principles of conservatism that Republicans are leaving behind because they simply want to “win.” When it comes to governing, Republicans have so far failed to keep their promises to repeal Obamacare, pass tax reform and fight for the average American. Where is their credibility now?

“I want to win elections … but I’m not going to pay any price to win elections,” Stu said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: You know, Stu just said to me, you know he's going to end up winning. I think he's going to.

STU: He probably will.

GLENN: I think he will. I think the people of -- of Alabama -- I mean, think of this, this is the reason why -- one of the reasons why our Founders made sure in the Constitution that all of the senators were -- were picked by the people in their state. And each senator was picked by the --

STU: The state legislature.

GLENN: Yeah. The state legislature. So we reversed that. With progressives, we reversed that. Why? To make every Senate campaign a national election.

Well, that's not what it was for. They were to make sure that they defend the state. It's changed everything. But also, it has involved all of us in something that we have nothing to do with it. We have -- we can sit here -- I can sit here in Texas. You can sit in Utah or California or New York, and we can all talk about this all day long. It doesn't matter what we think. It only matters what the people of Alabama think.

And I think the people -- I just have this feeling that -- remember how the Democrats dumped all of that money into the Georgia election?

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. And they dumped it all and said, "This is going to be a big deal and everything." And what happened? The local people were like, you know what, screw all you people. Don't come into our town and tell us what to do.

I think that might happen in Alabama.

STU: Yeah. Sean Trende is an elections analysis, and we've had him on before. Really smart guy. Over at RealClearPolitics. He said this -- tell me this isn't exactly what's happening, not only now, but in past elections as well. And I think it's a really understandable response.

He says: I don't think you can underestimate the degree to which many conservatives have this attitude. A, we fought a battle over whether character counts, and we got our asses handed to us. And, B, liberal leaders always circle the wagons around their guys, and ours always cave.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: Both of those things I think individually are true. But to me, it adds up to something that we should try to resist.

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

STU: An instinct we should try to fight against.

GLENN: We don't want to be -- we don't want to be them. Otherwise, you have no -- otherwise, you have no credibility. They don't have any credibility with us. They can't ever make any inroads with us because they have no credibility. You can't talk to me about, oh, how much you care about women, Hollywood, when you're -- when you're defending all of these monsters and hiding them. You can't do it. You can't preach to me about ethics and how women are, you know -- have powerful males over them. And even if it's consensual, it's not really consensual, and then defend Bill Clinton. You can't do it. But they do.

I don't want to be that person. I don't want to be that. I don't want to defend people who are doing things that, you know, are slimy. I don't want to -- I don't want to be that person.

STU: And I think the battle there is, people will say, well, look at what that gets you. It means you lose.

If that's what it gets me, that's what it gets me. I want to win elections. I want to -- sure, yes. That's all true. But I'm not going to pay any price to win elections.

GLENN: Let me ask you this: That's what it gets you. Okay. If we don't stand by our principles, if we don't stand by and say, "No, I don't care if this guy can win, he's got to have principles," where does that get you? First of all, we have no credibility. We now as Republicans -- and I'm not a Republican, thank God. But now the Republicans -- and I'm afraid too many churchgoers and too many religious people and just blanket conservatives, now have lost all credibility to be able to stand up and say, "Hey, this is wrong. Morally, this is wrong. What are we teaching our children?" You can't say that anymore.

You not only have lost that. But you also have -- well, let's talk about Texas. We're for small government, right? Did we get that? Are we getting a giant tax cut?

No. Because the guy -- the guy who we elected doesn't really believe in that stuff. He's not a champion of that stuff. He just wins.

Well, he'll take a win. But it's not really a win. Not for conservatives. Not for small government. Not for low tax people. That's not a win.

How about -- give me the audio of the guy from the Pentagon? This is the new guy representing the DOD.

STU: Oh, yeah. Yeah. This is the Trump nominee for the DOD.

GLENN: Okay. So here's a guy that Trump is putting in, at the DOD -- now, he's talking about guns. This is our champion. Listen.

VOICE: I'd also like to -- and I may get in trouble with other members of the committee, to say, you know, how insane it is that the United States of America, a civilian can go out and buy a fully semiautomatic assault rifle, like an AR-15, which apparently was the weapon that was used. I think that's an issue, not so much for this committee, but elsewhere.

GLENN: Wait. What?

STU: Huh. Wait. What?

GLENN: This is the guy that Trump is appointing? What? That's not good.

And if you don't think that we are not entering a time where there is massacre after massacre, and instead of going after, one, the laws that have loopholes and closing all of those loopholes, two, making sure that the law is actually enforced every time, three, we go and examine the message health in this country, and four, we look at domestic violence. That's what's happening in our country.

Now, we're doing the same thing with guns that we are doing now with radicalized Islam. We are looking for any other reason, other than their religious belief. We're looking for, what did we do? What can we do? Maybe we should have grandma go through an anal cavity search at the airport. Instead of saying, no, it is the religious belief of these crazy people, that believe they have a right to enslave people that don't agree with them and kill people that they deem infidels. That's the problem.

But we're looking at every other place. And we're going to do the same thing with guns. A battle is coming -- and I'm telling you, if Donald Trump can appoint that guy in the Department of Defense, he thinks that's okay to have a guy who says, "Semiautomatics, I mean, how can you possibly have a semiautomatic?"

STU: It's insane that a regular person could go buy -- how could we let regulars go into stores and buy things like that?

GLENN: What is that? What is that? So did you really win? Because you've lost all credibility. All credibility. You can no longer say, we have the high moral ground. We're America in the Middle East. That's what -- that's what conservatives are now. We're America in the Middle East. We talk a good game. But we don't actually stand for anything.

We get in, our guys, we'll just accept everything.

STU: And, look, there are costs to some of these things. Sometimes standing on these values does have costs. You could lose elections. You know, there's -- a very defensible with Roy Moore is if you don't believe these people. If you go through this and say, I don't believe any of them, and here's my reasons why, that's a defensible position. If you believe them, but eh, I just want to win, that's not a defensible position to me. But, I mean, you make your own decisions. I think if you look at it though -- we talked to Johnnie Moore yesterday, you brought up the Middle East. We talked to Johnnie Moore yesterday. Look at what people will sacrifice for their principles around the world. He told the story about a family who had a letter sent to him by a terrorist, that basically threatened their lives.

GLENN: Didn't basically. Said, we will behead you, unless you convert.

STU: And they wrote back --

GLENN: I'm sorry. Crucify you.

STU: Wrote back to the terrorist -- now, I can't imagine wanting to respond to that mail. And said, you know what, we're never going to convert. And actually, you can come kill us, but please don't kill us through crucifixion, because we're not worthy of that punishment, because that's really about Jesus and it's a little bit above us. So please don't kill us that way. But kill us any way you need to. Come on over whenever you need to. Because they were so dedicated to their faith. They were willing to give up that cost. And were like, eh. I don't know. An Alabama Senate seat. I can't -- it's too much. It's too much.

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.