Glenn Beck: Anwr or Bust!


Congressman Steve King

GLENN:  So let me just, I just -- first let me start here.  I compiled a list just a few minutes ago.  See if I'm missing anything.  So far congress has said no drilling in the ANWR, no drilling off the coast of Florida and California, we're not getting any new 100-year leases to drill in the Gulf while China and Venezuela and Cuba are going in.  Congress, as well as all three presidential candidates, said there's a cap and trade legislation that will increase the price of gas according to the EPA by $1.50 a gallon.  We're shutting down oil fields in Colorado, we won't develop shale oil fields in western states.  Yesterday -- love this -- we pass legislation that let us sue OPEC.  I'm sure they're not going to retaliate.  We have allowed environmental attorneys to sue the oil companies for possible future destruction of an Alaskan Eskimo village.  We also have protected the polar bear and its habitat right where the oil deposits are located.  We're talking about seizing windfall profits, won't allow anybody to drill in some small areas -- no, I'm sorry.  We have allowed them to drill in small areas in Alaska while creating very generous environmental laws that have tied up the very production because the oil companies are in court.  We've also not allowed anybody to build a new refinery for 30 years.  In fact, we've cut our operational refineries in half since 1982.  We won't develop coal-to-oil, and also we're telling the oil companies which blends they have to make.  What -- these evil oil companies, why is the price of gas so high?

KING:  Well, that is the most extensive list that I have heard.  Compared to the list that I've been rolling out here and when I hear that and just the weight of it all, it almost makes me want to go to my knees, let alone think what happens to the economy of the United States of America, which would be brought to its knees if this isn't reversed.  I just stepped out of a conference this morning and listened to a presentation by the Heritage Foundation and I've been convinced of this for a long time.  They've got empirical data and it's very convincing that the people that are advancing this cap and trade want to slow our economy down, want to reverse our economy, and they know that if they shut down energy, they back the economy off and they are doing it all because they worship mother nature.

GLENN:  Dan, do we have the audio of Bill Clinton saying that in a speech?  We have -- we'll have to find it.  We have audio of Bill Clinton talking to an environmental group.  He was talking about green energy and everything else and he said we all know that the only way to really do this is to halt the economy.  And we were dumbfounded that this man would actually admit to that.  But we have it on tape.  We'll try to find it for you.

KING:  Occasionally Bill Clinton told the truth evidently.

GLENN:  Evidently he did.  So right now overnight long-term oil futures went up $9.  They are saying now that oil per barrel will be at least $140 a barrel.  T. Boone Pickens says that we're looking at $200 a barrel coming our way.  What are we doing?  Is there anybody in Washington that is, besides you, that is saying, okay, we've got to go and get every bit of resource out of the ground we can?

KING:  There are a few that are doing that.  It's a growing number of Republicans.  And there's also a certain amount of apprehension on the part of other Republicans.  You know, one of the green movement environmentalists line up their lobby and they start to come after and target members of congress because they utter things that are logical and rational about energy supply, there's a significant political punishment that's there, and the environmentalists have not been held accountable to answer up to the facts and the data that they are putting together and so politically what this is is a reflection of the voices of their constituents.  And it has not -- the American people are not well enough informed.  They have chosen sides on the global warming issue, for example, and I would say you can walk the streets anywhere in America and you can't find anybody that actually knows the science behind it.  They just decide who they want to believe and that's really going to bring us to our knees in the next generation.

GLENN:  So tell me about the ANWR.  What did you find out when you threw over the ANWR and you went up to check things out?

KING:  I flew over and I also went down on the ground, I talked to the Eskimos there that want to drill.  It's 19.6 million acres.  There's not a single tree in that entire area, not for 700 miles from where they want to drill for oil.  This is a carbon copy of the ecosystem that we drilled in the north slope of Alaska in the early Seventies.

GLENN:  Didn't they say that was going to cause all kinds of ecological problems in the north slope?

CALLER:  I think it was because the caribou herd quadrupled than what it was in 1970.  They all said of course the caribou multiplied because they shot the wolves.  Now they didn't have any guns up there.  I was signed up.  It's just they will contrive any argument.  If there ever was a safe place and a good place for this to be oil, it's up in ANWR.  There is no caribou herd in the ANWR region.  There are a few musk oxen, I saw a few white birds.  They are going to do fine whether we drill or whether we don't.  So if the question I ask, it goes off of the question of if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, did it make any noise?  If we drill environmentally friendly wells in the ANWR and no one is there to see them, did it damage the scenery?  That's the question.  And are we going to starve this nation for energy because somebody is afraid that they will have to look at a drill rig up there in ANWR.  By the way, when they get the drilling done, they put submersible pumps in.  You don't see a pump jack above the ground.  You just see a little workover pad that's a square patch of rock that they will go out and pull the pump out if it needs work in the wintertime.  It couldn't be any more environmentally friendly.  Dennis Kucinich couldn't identify the north slope oil fields today.  They would be a lot harder to identify in ANWR.

GLENN:  There is enough natural gas in this country that we could tap that environmentalists won't let us tap.  How much natural gas do we have?

KING:  Well, the numbers are different, reports there are out.  One is out of Continental shelf itself, at least 406 trillion cube I can feet of natural gas.

GLENN:  How much is that?  What does that mean?

KING:  I don't know if I can equate that into how long that will work for us, how long it will last, but another one, some data that was produced here about three years ago was underneath our nonnational park public lands in the United States, there's enough natural gas to heat every home in the United States for the next 150 years.  That's another way to quantify it.  We have a lot of natural gas.  And as we know from the oil finds, there's a lot of gas out there that we haven't identified and haven't declared to be a reserve at this point.

GLENN:  What do you think the reaction from OPEC is going to be if the Senate decides to slap OPEC and say we're going to see you?

KING:  Well, I think the futures have already indicated that overnight.  I took to the floor and debated against the NOPEC bill as they call it, the one that outlaws OPEC.  And if OPEC is making those decisions and they are watching congress and they think there's going to be a bill that will grant the authority to the Department of Justice and the attorney general to sue them, that means that the ultimate result of that suit, if it's successful, would be the freezing of their assets in the United States.  So I think that they freeze -- they hold their oil production where it is now, they are certainly not going to increase it to try to get ahead of the criticism of congress.  So they either stop it where it is or they reduce their production and I think there's going to be talk about whether they will pull assets out of the United States to avoid them being frozen.  That's going to be the natural thing that would happen.  All of that makes it harder for our economy to function and all of it makes harder to have more energy on the marketplace.

GLENN:  We've got them right where we want them.  We went over there and begged them for oil, we went over there and begged them to prop up our financial sector.  We got them where we want them, congressman.

KING:  Well, at the beginning of the program, I don't know how anyone can contrive more things to do to drive up the cost of energy and slow our economy than the list of things that the Democrats have done to take energy off the marketplace and intimidate the futures market as well.

GLENN:  Well, for anybody who thinks that it is not their intent, Dan, roll the speech from Bill Clinton.  Listen to this clip.

BILL CLINTON:  We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse emissions because we've got to save the planet for our grandchildren.

GLENN:  There it is.  We've got to slow down our economy to save the planet for our grandchildren.  If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know, nothing will.

KING:  I think Bill Clinton has told the truth on that.  That is their agenda.  I've been saying it from the floor of congress, this whole 110th congress that they have convinced me that they want to increase the cost of energy and they want to do that and it will slow down the economy.  And increasing the cost means people will use less energy.  If they use less energy, there will be fewer carbon emissions and they believe that it keeps the greenhouse gases out of Bill Clinton said it and it will save our planet.  Now, it doesn't matter to them that the science doesn't necessarily support that and that there are 31,000 scientists that have signed up that said they don't buy the global warming argument.

Let me make maybe a new argument out here, one that I've been making and that is that I think this Earth has a built-in thermostat and in this way, that 4/5ths of the Earth is covered by water.  If the Earth warms, there will be more evaporation of that water and the evaporation has to come down in the form of rain.  If it rains more, there will be more plant growth, which means more photosynthesis which means more carbon sequestration just by formula.  So there has to be a built-in thermostat in this Earth.  I don't know if it's 1 or 2 degrees or if it's 7 or 8, but I do believe that if the Earth is going to warm, we'll get more rain, we'll get more photosynthesis and that will pull the carbon out of the air.  It has to.  That's the environmentalist formula.  They just don't want to admit the Earth has that built into I.

GLENN:  Congressman, best of luck to you, my friend.

KING:  Glad to be with you today.  Thank you.

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.