Glenn Beck - Gingrich: Paulson ought to be fired


Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis

GLENN: Let me go to Newt Gingrich. Newt, I haven't -- I'm sorry to say I've been busy doing my own homework today on the ins and outs of all of this stuff. I don't even know where you stand on this bailout bill. Please, dear God, tell me you're against it.

GINGRICH: I'm not sure if I were in the congress I could vote against it. I think -- I mean, if I was the deciding vote, I think a lot of people will vote against it, but I have been talking to people who I respect in the business community who genuinely believe we're on the edge of a meltdown of just historic proportions comparable to the 1920s.

GLENN: Okay. I agree with you on that. And Newt, I've been saying for a long time, this is coming. I believe even with this bailout, it is coming. Can you -- have you heard any of these experts guarantee or give you a good sense that this bailout will stop that from happening?

GINGRICH: No. Let me be clear. I'm about as unhappy as anybody you know. I think that Secretary Paulson ought to be fired. I think this bill has been improved significantly by McCain and by the House Republicans but it is still a bad bill. But I also believe if you have a Democratic congress that the odds are pretty good that none of the things you really need to get done are going to get done. What we ought to be doing is repealing Sarbanes-Oxley which has become a huge mess, we ought to be going to zero capital gains tax. We ought to be reducing the American corporate tax to match Irelands 12%. There are a lot of things we could be doing. We should be controlling spending. We should have an energy bill that is decisive in bringing home most of the $700 billion a year we're sending to foreign countries, many of them dictators opposed to us. I've written a recent book, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. We have a movie which illustrates the maddening reality that we have more than enough energy in the U.S. and that it is our political system and our government which is blocking us from developing our own energy. So I mean, if you are asking me how big do I think the changes need to be, beyond the capacity of any of these folks who are currently engaged. I think we the American people are going to have to rebel to such a degree that you may well have a third party by 2012 because I just think the sickness of watching the system and the degree to which the Bush administration has failed is historic.

GLENN: Here is the problem with the bill as I see it. It includes a provision that is bailing out the union pension funds, it's bailing out cities, it's bailing out states. It allows the treasury secretary to expand this in any direction he feels is necessary. It also goes -- I mean, it goes right to the heart of capitalism. And Newt, I have to tell ya I last week came out and said we are going to slam into the side of a mountain economically and we have to have a bill because it will at least take the plane down and land it in the trees. We're not talking about landing on the runway. We're talking about landing in the trees. But Newt -- 

GINGRICH: I think that's exactly right.

GLENN: But this bill, I can't support this bill.

GINGRICH: No.

GLENN: It is cutting the heart out of capitalism.

GINGRICH: Look, I don't think you should support this bill and I'm not advocating anybody support this bill. What I am saying is that under our constitutional system you occasionally get to moments when you get to choose between two really bad futures and you wish you had had better leaders and you wish they had gotten you to a choice of a good future, and the fact is this morning we're in a place where we don't have a choice of a good future. We can do nothing, which is what would happen if the bill goes down. And I think as long as Paulson is the treasury, his arrogance, his background as the chairman of Goldman Sachs makes it impossible to get to a good bill and I can't imagine a circumstance where Bush is going to fire him. So we as a country are trapped by a secretary of the treasury who is adamant about aggrandizing his personal talent. On the other hand you have liberal Democrats who frankly wanted a much worse bill. They wanted to give billions of dollars to left wing activists.

GLENN: ACORN. I know.

GINGRICH: So finally you get to the least bad bill. Notice I have not once used the word "Good." I have not used the word "Mediocre." This is the least bad bill. And the question is if you are prepared to take a gamble that all of the people who are knowledgeable who say that on a worldwide basis we're on the edge of a credit catastrophe which could well lead to a fundamental meltdown of the system. I had two friends over the weekend who are both extraordinarily wealthy, neither of whom cares about the market. They don't make their money in the market. Both of them said to me -- and both of them have -- one has 53 years in business and the other has over 40 years in business and they both said to me, "That is genuine crisis. This is not politics. This is not let's play games with the margin. If we don't send some signal to the world market, we're going to have a credit crunch of 1929 to 1932 proportions."

GLENN: Newt, I have to say to you, you're exactly right. I happened to be with a billionaire this weekend. I was doing a charity thing. This guy is a multibillionaire. Doesn't care about the stock market, either. I mean, he's 73 years old. Doesn't -- I mean, he's the same kind of guy you talked about. And I can't believe that your guy didn't tell you the same thing I did. Because that conversation happened with me, too. This is a genuine crisis. This is quite possibly the biggest crisis the country has ever faced. However, if you don't have the tools of capitalism, if you take this country and you fundamentally change what the treasury and the government is doing and can do, you may never pull yourself out because the market -- the signal that the market wants to see is that business is stable in America, and this congress and this treasury being hands-on, fingers in the pie, you never know when it could expand does not send them the message to the market that we're stable. Does it?

GINGRICH: No. But the notion of the American system which has been deeply driven by partisanship locks up, may send a signal of instability on a scale that you and I can't comprehend. And all I'm saying is -- 

GLENN: I don't think anybody can.

GINGRICH: Right. All I'm saying as a historian is having been speaker of the House, having been through these gut checks on 10 or 15 occasions, if I were a back venture, I would almost certainly vote no because this is disgusting. But if I were in leadership and having been in leadership and I looked at the down side risk, I would say I'm going to do everything I can to get rid of Paulson, I'm going to do everything I can to get an economic growth package, I'm going to do everything I can to get an energy independence package, but I am not this morning going to walk off and not have this pass because I'm not prepared to live for my two grandchildren with the consequences if, in fact, the system collapses. And while this may be an inadequate Band-Aid, it is a Band-Aid and it is a step. And we may have to come back and take four more steps before the election. I mean, nobody knows what the next two weeks are going to be like and the congress should not go home. The congress needs to understand that this is a real historic moment and we can't afford to hang around and pretend it's politics as usual.

GLENN: Do you fear for your country?

GINGRICH: Yes. Absolutely. I think anybody who believes in a free country and anybody who believes in the system that gradually emerged with the United States as the primary defender of the world market, of freedom around the world and of safety around the world, you have to look at where we are today, and we just did an entire workshop on Saturday called American Solutions. It's our second annual Solutions Day workshop and people can see it at Americansolutions.com. And I founded American Solutions because I don't think either party is up to what we have to do.

GLENN: No.

GINGRICH: I'm very, very worried about where we are.

GLENN: Is this bill going to pass?

GINGRICH: Probably -- yeah, I think it passes in the end for the reason the conversation you and I are having which is the last marginal member who could vote no is going to stand there and say to themselves am I prepared to take responsibility, even if it was a disgusting bandage. And I think they say I hate doing this, I'm going to help pass it and then I'm going to fight like crazy to clean up the corrupt arrogant system that has put us in this position.

GLENN: All right. Newt Gingrich, thank you very much, sir.

GINGRICH: Good talking to you, sir.

GLENN: You bet. Bye-bye. I feel exactly the same way he does but I cannot put diseased bandage back on. I can't look at the doctor who had -- who gave me the disease in the first place, to say put this disease bandage back on your leg. It's insanity. It's insanity. But that's why I said to you at the beginning of the program, please, you must make this decision. You must make this decision, and you must make this decision -- do not pick up the phone and say don't, don't pass this bill without understanding the ramifications of this. I believe we now are talking about it one way or another. We are talking about 1929. We are talking about the Great Depression and we are talking about the possibility of it being worse than that, a 1989 style Soviet collapse. This is the moment that Americans need to become the greatest generation of Americans. You must stand to the plate, for the future generations of Americans to exist. You must be involved.

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.