Congressman Ron Paul Interview




Glenn Beck interviews Ron Paul on Headline News, December 18, 2007.

GLENN: Ron Paul has joined us now on the program. Hello, congressman, how are you, sir?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: Good, thank you. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. That's pretty significant opening to a speech that you would give on the floor of the House.

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: Well, I've been concerned for a long time but more so than ever and my main thoughts are financial, but they're related to everything that we do, whether it's spending domestic or internationally, that our deficits are exploding. And everything puts weight on the dollar. So if you need to bail out the housing industry, where do they get the money. They don't have the money. But they, you know, start buying up hundreds of billions of dollars worth of mortgages. Just last week, for instance, a small nod, but it added up to $48 billion. Out of the generosity of the congressman's heart, they voted to send $48 billion to take care of AIDS victims in Africa. Well, may be well intentioned but if it destroys our country and destroys our dollar and destroys our economy, what good is it going to do. And I think we're at the beginning stages of an unraveling financially of a bubble that's been developing maybe for three decades, and it's going to be very serious.

GLENN: What is the bubble?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I'd say a dollar bubble. We've been able to create money out of thin air and we've had the privilege of it being the reserve currency of the world. So it's almost like we can print gold, that we don't have to work. And that's one of the reasons our jobs go overseas is because they'll take our dollars and we don't have to work for our dollars. We print them. So it's been our economic and military power that allows people to believe our currency is good as gold. But now they're coming to believe that it maybe isn't so good and they have been systematically behind dollars in these last couple of years. Our dollars go down and interest rates go up basically when you look at credit cards and mortgages and our economy keeps getting weaker and the banking system is in danger. And it's not going to be easy because if you allow the liquidation of debt, it's rather painful. But that's what I advocate because continuing to do this is going to literally undermine our whole economic system and our political system.

GLENN: Don't you think that this is?--?I mean, there are people that say, "Well, they're too big to fail." I think that if you are a bank that you aren't smart enough to figure out that, you know, Tom at the auto parts store shouldn't be owning a $3 million house, I don't think you're smart enough to be a global bank. You should fail. And in the short run, very painful. Long run, the only way to cure the financial cancer.

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: That's right. You have to liquidate the debt. The debt always gets liquidated. We're liquidating debt now by paying off debt with cheap money. So if you get a dollar back and it's only worth 50 cents, half your debt was liquidated and that's what they opt for. But the real liquidation of debt ought to be people who bank bad investments and can't afford it, they should have that debt liquidated and people suffer the consequences. But the people who are screaming for the housing bailout are the people who got their houses for free. You know, they didn't have to put any money down. The house went up in value. They even borrowed more money. Then they spent it. Now they want you and I to bail them out so that they can keep their homes.

GLENN: But if I'm not mistaken, doesn't this bill also include a chance for you to walk away with some cash?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: Well, I'm sure it is because it's open-ended. The rules aren't explicit because the secretary of the treasury has so much power to do?--?you know, to work this program out. So it's unlimited and I'm sure somebody's going to walk away with cash. I'm sure the mortgage companies are going to get?--?you know, even if some mortgage company has to close, their executive officer may get a huge bonus like they usually do.

GLENN: Congressman Paul, the average person looks at what's going on and they say, well, wait a minute, hang on just a second, this isn't right. With our oil crisis and everything else, I mean, we should be drilling, we should be protecting ourselves. And most people know when they look at the news these aren't good solutions. But they have no idea. For instance, the border with Compean and Ramos and just what's going on, we have a full-fledged war on our border. The logical thing to do would be to secure your border and yet it doesn't happen. And so that leads to all kinds of conspiracy theories. Are the people in Washington that are making these decisions, are they just this stupid or blind, or have they completely sold their soul to global corporations and financial industry?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I think the people who make the decisions want internationalism and they want globalism and they want a North American union and a European Union and they want international law and UN and WTO and world banks and WTOs. I think they want all this. Others go along with it are a little bit more naive. They won't even admit that they are giving up national sovereignty. I mean, we have some libertarian types who think that the WTO is just great and wonderful because it promotes free trade. And I'm not against the free trade but I'm opposed to this international government that benefits privileged companies. So it's the people who are in charge, whether it's our monetary policy, fiscal policy or foreign policy or internationally first, and they have a lot less concerns about our border. I don't think the leadership, either in the Republican or Democrat party, really care about the sovereignty of the United States. They are interested in a North American union and they will push and they will back off and then they'll try to move forward and that's why I don't think they protect our borders. They would like?--?they would like to see our countries blended together.

GLENN: Somebody told me a year ago, and I thought they were crazy, they said, you watch, Glenn. In a year our money will be so devalued that you'll be able to tie all of the, you know, Canada, America and Mexico together. The only way to save it is to make one currency, et cetera, et cetera. I still think that's nuts in the short-term, but do you believe that, do you believe that that is the intention of anyone?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I think eventually?--?and I think you are right about the short time. I don't think the American people would accept it and it's, the conditions aren't quite right. But, you know, it took them about 30 or 40 years to have a single currency in Europe, but they talked about it and they would have loose knit associations and economic agreements and until eventually they had one currency. So that will come unless some of us, you know, are able to influence the debate and talk about the Constitution and sound money and backing our currency and national sovereignty. But I mean, our views are alive and well. It's just that we don't have much clout in Washington.

GLENN: Okay. So how is that?--?so then how does that change because that's?--?I hear this from most people. They will say, well, Glenn, I get the problem; I understand the problem but it's just me. I don't have a special interest group, I don't have somebody that is protecting my, you know, my interests in Washington. And look at the other side. I mean, that must have scared the crap out of you last week when you saw Barack Obama stand in Germany and talk about strong institutions tying us all?together all across the world.

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: And you thought he was running to be President of the United States, you know, but here he is in Europe getting bigger crowds than ever and everybody seems to love it. Well, I don't know. The way it's done, I think it's a philosophic issue, it's an educational issue. You do what you have to do and you have a podium and you reach a lot of people. And mine's a little bit different. I now have continued our campaign and started something called the Campaign For Liberty and I just do my best to rally the troops.

GLENN: What is the Campaign For Liberty?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: The Campaign For Liberty talks about the very things I talk about in the campaign and you know we're having a parallel meeting, rally in Minneapolis during the Republican convention and we have a stadium there that's going to hold 15,000 people. So we want to have an impact and we want people to know that there is an alternative.

GLENN: Are you going to do the same thing in Denver by any chance? Because you know this. A lot of your supporters were not only from, you know, the deepest red areas of the country but also the deepest blue parts of the country. I mean, you had them in Texas and Berkeley, California.

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: Yeah, I think?--?and that's interesting. I think the reason it's in Minneapolis is because I still am a Republican congressman and theoretically?--?and I ran as a Republican and theoretically I could have been invited to the Republican convention but was not. So instead of taking the position that I'm going to obstruct and demonstrate and try to disrupt the convention, I'm just going to, hey, go down the street about eight miles and try to have a positive Rally For the Republic, that's what it's called, the Rally For the Republic. So it's something that I want to use. There's a few people paying attention and if I can keep this momentum going, because it will take some time. You can turn it around overnight. But the time is ripe and because of these events coming together, people know there's something wrong. And the young people especially. When I talked to the college kids, they knew there was something seriously wrong and they're willing to look at something else and, you know, Obama talks about change but if they want to find real change, they are going to have to come to our rally.

GLENN: The concept that libertarian?--?I mean, I think that?--?I mean, I'm a libertarian at heart and I am becoming more and more libertarian as days go by. I just, the government is completely out of control in our country and it's only getting worse. In the world we now have socialists, communists, parliamentary democracies, monarchy dictatorships, this new hybrid in Russia that just should scare the daylights out of people, a combination of dictatorship and capitalism that is just terrible, the state capitalism stuff that is coming our way. How come there is not a libertarian government anywhere?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: Well, probably one of the closest ones probably will be Switzerland. They have -- does anybody know the president of Switzerland? I always think this is just great. I'd like to be the president of Switzerland. Nobody would know who I was. They have small states and they have local laws. They do have a Republic form of government. It's certainly not pure libertarian, but they have the right ideas and they don't try to tell the people how to live at home and they don't try to tell other people how to live around the world. So?--?now, we're far from it and I guess just since there's never been a perfect communist nation, even in the Soviet system there was always an underground economy, there will never be a perfect libertarian society. But we have to be able to define it. And the founders had an idea about it and the Constitution gave us some pretty strong hints. So our traditions are pretty good and we have to not only just go back but we have to build on what we were given. We have to advance in the stages that we had a couple of hundred years ago. But the examples of tyranny have been so numerous, that's what history has been built on and that's what the world is built on is tyranny. And we have to present the case for limited government and a free society so people can see it's in their best interest to support those views.

GLENN: Ramos and Compean, do you think that they should be out of prison?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: Yeah, I really do. I think there's?--?you know, it's messy, but they definitely should be out and I've taken that position. I've supported Bill Delahunt's bill on this. It also brings up the subject of mandatory minimal sentences and that's part of this process that we're involved in. And I don't like that because, you know, I'm not a supporter of the way the war on drugs has been run, and you have all kinds of problems built and pressures put on judges. So when there's a conviction, sometimes the judges are compelled to do things. So there's a couple of issues there. The way things were run, the way the trial was run as well as the judicial system where the congress has put all these mandatory sentences on individuals.

GLENN: What do you think about the idea that you gotta vote for the lesser of two evils, no matter what side it is, you've got to vote for the lesser of two evils because half a loaf of bread is better than no bread?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I think it's one of the dumbest ideas around. I think that that is a real wasted vote because the two parties have blended together and there's not any difference, nothing really ever changes. You elect a conservative Republican and the deficits explode. And you elect the Democrat to change foreign policy and they make the foreign policy worse. So I think if you really want your vote to be counted, you have to take a principle stand and vote for, if you are left leaning, take a stand for one of the alternative candidates who are left leaning. If not, if you tend to be libertarian, vote libertarian or for the constitutional party.

GLENN: Who would be worse for the long run as President of the United States, John?--?just knowing what you know now, what's your gut tell you would be worse in the long run? John McCain or Barack Obama?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: You know, if you just listen to the message, I think it would be John McCain. But if you listen to politics, it would be Obama because he takes a different position on foreign policy and he wants change and, you know, he sounds so good. But they almost do opposite of what they stand for. So John McCain I fear because, you know, he's too anxious to bomb the next country. But, you know, once a person like that is in office, he's probably less likely to do it because, you know, he wants to neutralize that position. Sort of this whole thing like, it wasn't a Democrat that at least started to talk to the Chinese. It was Richard Nixon. The Democrats couldn't do that. So I guess the bottom line is probably a little less harm done with McCain but, boy, I don't even like picking that because I think they're both so close to being the same. And I think people behind them control both of them.

GLENN: You don't have to tell me who it is, but do you know who you're going to vote for for President yet?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: Not exactly, you know, because we don't even know who will get on the ballots. I've actually?--?

GLENN: Could you see yourself?--?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I couldn't vote for McCain.

GLENN: You can't vote for McCain?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: No, I can't vote for him. I've said that publicly. That, of course, gets me in trouble with my Republican friends. No, he doesn't stand for essentially anything that I believe in. So I wouldn't be able to do that.

GLENN: Last quick question. Then we'll let you go. I know you're on a tight schedule. But you say in the speech that you gave?--?and we'll post this. Can we put a link to the speech in the newsletter today? We'll put it in our newsletter today. But you say that things are coming fast and furious and you believe the time is coming soon. What does that mean to you, "Soon"?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I believe it's already started and I think we're very vulnerable if there is some event that is unforeseen and could occur tomorrow, the next?--?I think the foundation is so unsteady that the whole thing could come crashing down, maybe a rush out of the dollar, you could end up with runaway inflation. I don't?--?

GLENN: You are talking about the 19?--?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I sleep still okay at night. I don't think it's going to happen today or tomorrow, but the system is so shaky that it could. But I think within certainly the administration of the next President, something, it will be very evident that this dollar crisis is unfolding and it's going to be very, very serious because we can send out the checks forever to the Social Security recipients but if they don't?--?if the money doesn't buy anything, that is a major crisis.

GLENN: Ron Paul, thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it.

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: Thank you.

GLENN: We'll talk to you again, Congressman Ron Paul.

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.