Low-Level Democrat Strategist Fails Miserably to Make a Name for Himself on Social Media

So much for hoping the rhetoric would dial down following last week's shooting at a GOP baseball practice where five people were shot. Tuesday on radio, Glenn addressed Democratic strategist Jim Devine starting a hashtag that turned a few heads, and a few stomaches --- #HuntRepublicans.

RELATED: Tucker Carlson Shuts Down Democratic Strategist Who Tweeted ‘Hunt Republican Congressmen’

"What was that guy doing? He was hunting. He had a list of people he was trying to kill. He was an assassin. That's like after Oswald, you say, 'Hunt Soviets. Hunt Russians in America. Hunt -- hunt Republicans then.' What are you talking about? You don't use that after someone has attempted to assassinate someone," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Listen to Tucker Carlson interview a -- a -- a progressive who put out a tweet as a columnist, right after the shooting last week, with the #HuntRepublicans.

TUCKER: People were horrified, of course, by last week's assassination attempt on Republican members of Congress, which wounded five people and nearly killed House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

But most people, apparently, does not include some people, including New Jersey Democratic strategist Jim Devine. After the shooting, Devine tweeted this, quote, we are in a war with selfish, foolish, and narcissistic rich people. Why is it a shock when things turn violent? #HuntRepublicanCongressmen.

After many people objected, Devine did not back down. He followed up by tweeting this: I'm sorry if my HuntRepublicanCongressmen hashtag hurt the feelings of any G.O.P. snowflakes. But you have not engaged in civil discourse, end quote.

We invited Jim Devine to come on the show, and remarkably, he agreed. He's brave at least. Jim Devine joins us tonight.

So, Jim Devine, under what circumstances is it morally acceptable to use violence for political ends?

JIM: It's never -- it's never acceptable to use violence for political ends, except perhaps in the most extreme cases like George Washington and those guys. The fact of the matter is, we do with ballots in this country what they do with bullets elsewhere. And it is not uncommon in politics that we use the language of war. We talk about fierce rhetoric. We talk about the crusades. And so on. You were on a television program. And I don't know what your body count was, when you were on crossfire. I assume that there were no real casualties there.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. What is he saying there?

PAT: It's ludicrous.

GLENN: He's saying that we're used to this. We're used to this. This is violent rhetoric, sure. War rhetoric, but there was no body count on crossfire. So he is accepting CNN's crossfire. CNN's crossfire.

And saying that there was no body count.

STU: And also, by the way, retroactively mocking every Democrats' position in 2011. Retroactively saying, "That was completely fine." What do you mean? It was on crossfire. You guys, was there any body count there?

GLENN: Correct.

STU: Now, that was the exact opposite position they took when it was thought initially that a Republican may have shot a congressperson. Of course, that wound up not being true. But when they thought it was true, they said it was about the violent rhetoric. It was.

GLENN: Violent rhetoric. We got to stop the violent rhetoric. Okay.

VOICE: You know what, stop. You know what, I want to have a reasonable conversation. I want to demagogue this.

But in the hours after, five people were shot, including the House Majority Whip, you sent out a tweet that said hunt Republicans. I mean, it was clearly a reference to the assassination attempt against Congressman Scalise. It's hard to imagine how you could justify writing something like that.

JIM: In the immediate aftermath of the shooting at the Sandy Hook school, we heard people say, "This is not the time to talk about gun violence." We've heard lots of things follow this.

PAT: What does that have to do with it?

GLENN: Stop. Yeah, what does that have to do with it? In the immediate aftermath, we don't make policy decisions. That's when you're emotional. You don't -- you find out exactly what's going on.

PAT: You make terrible decisions when you're super emotional.

GLENN: Do we need to talk about the Duke lacrosse team?

PAT: Come on.

Yeah.

GLENN: When things are at an emotional high, you make really bad decisions and you destroy people's lives. That only makes sense. You don't strike out in anger.

STU: This also seems like when you have your quarterback and he gets hurt and then your backup comes in and he gets hurt and then your third string guy comes in and he get hurt, and then you have to have the punter be quarterback for the rest of the game. That's this guy's role of the Democratic Party. He is not good at this.

PAT: No.

TUCKER: But that's not what you were saying. You were encouraging gun violence. Wait. Hold on. You were encouraging gun violence.

JIM: Absolutely not. Oh, no, absolutely not. I've never encouraged gun violence, and I stated --

TUCKER: What did you mean by that? And put down that paper. I'm talking about you, not some other paper. I mean, please.

JIM: But this is what's been out there.

TUCKER: But put that down. I'm not interested in what other people --

JIM: We see stuff like this. This is not an uncommon thing --

TUCKER: That's great. But we're not -- okay.

So your excuse apparently is other people have done it. That's not an excuse. I'm here to ask you about something that you wrote, and why don't you explain it?

JIM: It's not an excuse. What I'm saying is that for too long, Republicans in this country have failed to distinguish the differences between politics and war. And a lot of Democrats have failed to see the similarities. So you guys either have to tone down the rhetoric, or we have to step up.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

TUCKER: So by saying hunt Republicans --

JIM: Hunt Republicans.

TUCKER: -- there's nothing wrong with that?

JIM: Sarah Palin put the crosshairs on Congress. I'm just saying hunt Republicans.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop.

PAT: Oh, jeez.

GLENN: Here's the difference. Here's the difference: This -- Sarah Palin did that before. He did this within hours of someone attempting to assassinate. He wasn't a shooter. He's an assassin.

PAT: Sarah Palin's implication too was target these districts for election purposes. His implication is hunt them down and shoot them. Because that happened right after the shooting.

GLENN: Target the district is different than hunt Republicans.

PAT: Unbelievable. Yeah.

GLENN: What? How do you hunt? You hunt with a gun. What was that guy doing? He was hunting. He had a list of people he was trying to kill. He was an assassin. That's like after Oswald, you say, "Hunt Soviets. Hunt Russians in America. Hunt -- hunt Republicans then."

You -- what are you talking about? You don't use that after someone has attempted to assassinate someone.

STU: Yeah. It's obviously -- the timing there is crucial. I mean, the Sarah Palin thing -- and, by the way, Democrats were also using maps with targets with them at the exact same time.

GLENN: It doesn't matter. I know. But it's been so overdone. And the press here and the Democrats -- and this is your point, I think, is we all know this.

STU: Right.

GLENN: We all know this.

STU: Yeah. It's an obvious thing. Both sides have always done it. This guy's point -- even his ridiculous point that the Democrats need to start doing it more isn't even valid. It's all a bizarre justification.

My guess is he, at the moment, tried to do something controversial so he would get attention. Because we're in that age, right? The social media age, where here's an unknown punter-level quarterback trying to make a name for himself in the Democratic Party.

GLENN: That is an insult to all punters.

STU: It is. It is.

But that's why I said punter-level quarterback. Punters are fine.

GLENN: No, no, no.

It's -- that is an insult to all punter-level quarterbacks.

STU: Okay. This is the water boy --

GLENN: Yeah. Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Oh, wow. Wow.

GLENN: Holy cow. This guy is not even in the stadium. He has not seen a football.

STU: Right.

GLENN: He thinks football is soccer. That's how far away he is.

STU: And this is a guy who thinks saying something like this will make him brave so he can get on television.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: And stand out from the other 9,000 Democratic consultants out there. But this is not --

GLENN: But he is a guy -- he is speaking a different language. And I don't think he's speaking American. He might be speaking English, but he's not speaking American.

So the question is, why is he doing this? I don't know.

Is this healthy? No.

How do we respond? That is what has tripped me up for the last probably four years. You have been asking me: Glenn, how do we get out of it?

And I've given you platitudes. I've given you, "Well, stick by your principles." And, quite honestly -- and I've said this to you before, I've given up hope. I mean, I've been lying to you, when I'm saying, "Well, there's a way out. We're going to -- been lying.

Because I know there is. I just haven't been able to find it. I don't know what it is.

I have been doing a lot of studying and a lot of soul-searching in the last eight months. The last four months, I've really gone to work and buckled down and -- and got up off the floor and said, "Okay. Enough is enough." The -- the -- the answer is surrender or find a new way to live. And I knew I didn't want to surrender. I've been here before.

As an alcoholic, I was down on the floor in my apartment that smelled like soup. And I was broke and out. And I was on the floor. And I thought to myself, "I'm either going to die and commit suicide, and I'm done, or I'm going to stand up and start again."

And I didn't have any idea when I stood up, what it was going to take. And for a long time, I didn't know. I've done it again. And this time, I am at the beginning of really knowing exactly where we need to go. And I want to share some of that with you when we come back.

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.