Glenn Beck talks with Senator DeMint


Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America and Senator Jim DeMint. How did you stop your head from exploding last night, Senator?

SENATOR DeMINT: It was a frustrating time and I know the other senators were doing what they believed was right.

GLENN: I don't believe that.

SENATOR DeMINT: But -- 

GLENN: Hang on. Please help me because I'm holding onto any faith in people not being just entirely weasels in Washington. So help me out on this. How do you vote for a giant bailout and say, no, I can't do it, unless you put in my wool research pork. How do you do that? And sleep?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, you've got me on that one because they have added a number of things mostly designed to get House votes because I honestly believe if you took the name off the top, the Senate could pass the Communist Manifesto. But it's not that their intentions are bad. It's the fact that their good intentions are misguided and they believe that we can do things through government that we shouldn't do and that's really what takes us down the road to socialism.

GLENN: How -- honestly is there any outrage in Washington, any number of people like you that are outraged and says, guys, if you want to pass a bailout bill, then pass one that is clean. I mean, I know you're against it, but if you want to pass one, how do you sleep at night when you've loaded it up with pork? I mean, you're selling your country, you're selling your vote for pork, on something that is supposed to be the biggest thing you've ever done in your life.

SENATOR DeMINT: I really did think it was shameless. I mean, votes on these tax cuts that I have supported and already voted on, they brought it back and made me vote on it again as part of this bill to try to pressure me to support the bailout. And we threw away all our freedom principles and free enterprise principles, we threw away all the principles of traditional legislation with no hearings and no debate and no amendments. We threw all this out and did something in a hurry and I tell you, I never in my life have I seen something big done in a hurry that was the right thing to do.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR DeMINT: So -- 

GLENN: Did you even have time to, people have time to read 453 pages of this bill and be able to make heads or tails of it before they voted?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, I didn't have time personally to read it all. I had six staff members working on it and we produced a lot of materials that we disseminated to colleagues because a lot of them didn't know the junk that had been added into it. But it's hard at the pace they try to get these things done. The whole idea is to get it passed before people read it, and we loaded it on the Internet as soon as we got it and a lot of talk shows and bloggers start taking it apart and pointing it out, what was in it. But it's not a good legislative process and if it was the right thing to do, we would not have to do all these shortcuts.

GLENN: You are exactly right. What is the -- what are the phones like in congress today?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, I'm getting a lot of positive response for holding firm, the speech I made, but actually we were looked at like scum as far as, you know, being in the Senate for not supporting the team and doing what we came here to do and take tough votes and so -- 

GLENN: Oh, wait a minute. You mean internal pressure?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, yeah. I mean, it's just internal disdain really for those of us who are not willing to, you know, tow the line here in this great bipartisan victory.



GLENN: Now, is that disdain in your own party or disdain -- 

SENATOR DeMINT: Oh, yeah, yeah. I mean, certainly it was. I mean, you know, our leadership supported it and, you know, again I believe they think they are doing the right thing in avoiding a catastrophe. So don't get me wrong. I'm not questioning their motives. I just believe that your principles are permanent. You don't throw them out when you have a crisis.

GLENN: Yes.

SENATOR DeMINT: Our default position should always be how do we make freedom work and keep government limited, but we threw that out and our first knee jerk reaction was to expand government and to ignore a lot of free enterprise principles that I know would work, and that's the biggest frustration of all here. We didn't give freedom a chance to work in this process and we continue the stranglehold of bad policies and laws on our free enterprise system and then we blame it when it doesn't work.

GLENN: Do you think that anybody is going to be able to stop this in the house?

SENATOR DeMINT: I don't think so, Glenn. At this point they have so intimidated and beat up the Republicans who held firm.

GLENN: Who did that? Who did that?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, the national media. You know, even media normally that we would count on like Fox, it looks like Murdock got to those guys because they were looking in the camera and saying, you won't get your paycheck if these guys don't change their vote.

GLENN: Well, you know what? I mean, here's the thing. Senator, you may not get your paycheck. The markets may freeze up, the commercial paper market may freeze up, but you know what? There are principles here at stake as well, and nobody's talking -- everybody wants to scare monger on your paycheck. Okay, well, let's have that conversation and then let's have the conversation of, what are you doing to make sure that doesn't happen. I happen to believe that the commercial market, the commercial paper market is frozen and I don't think that is, you know, a bogus thing. But this doesn't mean that this is what you do. It doesn't mean that you sell your soul to the devil. And I really, truly believe that if you do this, if this passes, it is not -- look at the market today. The market is down almost 300 points. It should be up, shouldn't it? Shouldn't everybody be celebrating? This is not going to do anything. And then you guys are in real trouble and so are we.

SENATOR DeMINT: Our job in congress shouldn't be to make the market go up or down, but I just want to kind of amplify a point you were just making because it's not right to tell a soldier to go fight for freedom that you may lose your life when at home we're afraid to fight for freedom because we could lose a paycheck and we're just not thinking long term here because no one, even Paulson is saying this is more than just a short-term fix, a Band-Aid. This doesn't do anything to actually encourage our economy to get back on track by cutting some taxes and taking the regulations off. So I just think we're all mixed up in Washington. We don't know, as I said before, we don't know where freedom ends and socialism begins and where good intentions run into bad policy.

GLENN: So Senator, help me out on this. You just said -- and if you would repeat that for me, make sure I have it right. You just said that Paulson has not said that this is anything but a short-term fix, that -- I mean, is anyone telling you that this will work?

SENATOR DeMINT: Oh, they're saying that it will loosen up the credit market some, but structurally it doesn't do anything to actually encourage more economic activity, although if credit is there, obviously the economy works better. But they are still saying there are other things we're going to have to do. But, you know, it's been hard to get the good information out of the administration and this creating a panic tells me that they don't know what they're doing. They're hoping this will work, you know, and almost anything would work a little better with $700 billion running around, but I think the long-term implications, and I mean long-term, may be only a few months as the world markets are going to see the size of the American debt and our inability to pay it and that's going to begin to really erode the whole foundation of our economics.

GLENN: Senator, I have somebody who is working with the Paulson team, in the room with the Paulson team. I may have better information than you have.

SENATOR DeMINT: Oh, I'm sure you do because I hadn't been in the room. Once I said this was not the way to go, I was uninvited back.

GLENN: Well, I have people who are contacting me who are in that room and they are all saying -- the message is the same that they hope this works to slow it down. Nobody thinks that this thing is going to stop anything. It's just going to slow down what they believe is a collapse.

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, we have to have a correction.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR DeMINT: And that's what -- you know, Richard Shelby, who's the ranking guy on banking, you wouldn't have thought he would come out on opposed leadership but until you let the market correct itself, we're not going to be able to rebuild it. And by artificially trying to hold up the values of homes once they've been overpriced and values of securities once they've been overpriced, we're just putting it off and we're spending a lot of money putting it off and so I just think we've got to realize that the government can't run the markets, we've got to let this correction take place. It's going to be painful. People will -- we've already lost value, anybody who's tried to work and save has lost something in this process and they should be angry at the government because it was the government that basically caused this. But we can't stop this from happening. But you're right. All we can do is maybe soften the fall so that when we hit bottom, it's not as painful. But I think all we do is stretch out the pain.

GLENN: Well, that's what -- we're doing the same thing that we did in 1933 and this is why the Depression was over in three years in the rest of the world and it took us ten to get out.

SENATOR DeMINT: Yeah.

GLENN: Because the government did this.

SENATOR DeMINT: Yeah, I'm just afraid that, you know, the Fed's policy and the congressional policy got us into this and it's the same type of thinking that's taking us deeper.

GLENN: But what kind of leadership did John McCain show on this? I mean, here's a guy who is against all kinds of earmarks and in the most important bill, we're told, of what could be in any senator's career, it's loaded with pork. It was intentionally loaded with pork and yet he votes for it. And he doesn't take a stand and say this is totally dishonorable.

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, don't get me wrong. I'm going to support McCain because the choice is really between socialism and a hope for freedom here, but I think John missed an opportunity to separate himself -- 

GLENN: Big time.

SENATOR DeMINT:  -- from Bush on this and actually played into the Democrats' hand where Obama looked like he was above the fray and McCain looked like he was part of the Bush team.

GLENN: So do phone calls make any difference at this point? Should people be calling their House members?

SENATOR DeMINT: Oh, gosh yeah. I think there are going to be some who are still on the fence. I don't think we have much chance to stop it, but I didn't think we could stop it earlier in the week. But I think if people just call and they say, listen, I know we're going to have some pain but let's not put it off. Let's do it now and instead of spend all this money. You know, the government is now one of the biggest businesses in our country in buying and selling assets based on what the Senate passed. But so, yeah, I think the e-mails, the anger phone calls, letters could make a difference at this point because one of the aces in the hole we have is there are some Democrats who don't like the tax stuff that's been put in to get Republicans and they've thrown in some earmarks for the Democrats, but this thing could come unglued if a few of the Republicans hold firm because Nancy Pelosi is still saying Republicans have to deliver, you know, more votes than they did before and if we don't, she's not going to make her people walk the plank. I think she's going to work this hard because she was embarrassed last time.

GLENN: Oh, they can't introduce it again and have it fail, can they?

SENATOR DeMINT: No, they can't. But I would just encourage people to call more than ever, e-mail more than ever, tell those Republicans who I think were heroic earlier in the week to hold firm.

GLENN: And the Democrats as well that didn't vote for it.

SENATOR DeMINT: Yeah. And there are some Blue Dog Democrats who just -- 

GLENN: There were 96 Democrats that didn't vote for it in the House.

SENATOR DeMINT: Right.

GLENN: I mean, that's an astounding number.

SENATOR DeMINT: But if people in congress think the people outside are mad with November right around the corner, it could make a difference because courage is not exactly the hallmark of congressional service.

GLENN: I'm going to do a fundraiser. I'm going to raise spines for all these weasels in Washington. I really am. I think we just need to have spine transplants left and right, either that or send Petraeus up on the hill. Senator -- 

SENATOR DeMINT: It is an interesting situation where you have 90% of the American people, or at least those who are calling saying don't do this, don't do this but then you've got, you know, 90% of the people inside congress and the media and the Wall Street guys saying we have to do it or the world's coming to an end. So it's a real interesting decision by members of congress.

GLENN: What do you say to the idea that this is just payback for all of the election money that everybody has received and all of the votes that have been purchased, you know, through these hedge funds and banks and everything else over the years?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, I don't think any -- very few members of congress are going to vote because they've gotten a campaign contribution one way or another. I just, that's hardly ever a factor. But, you know, friendships and networks do make a difference and if I have a group of bankers call me from South Carolina and say, DeMint, you've got to do something, I mean, that does have an impact on me. And you know, I agree we have to do something, but I don't like the idea we have to do something even if it's wrong.

GLENN: Are you getting calls from friends and bankers saying, Jim, what are you doing to me? You're killing me?

SENATOR DeMINT: Oh, yeah, I've gotten those calls, but I've also gotten calls from banks and Realtors that have said, "Jim, you are doing the right thing, hold on." But most of our calls just from, you know, average people in South Carolina, and we've gotten hundreds if not thousands by now from around the country just saying you're doing the right thing, just keep fighting.

GLENN: Do you think that the average person understands what's in the balance here? Do you think that the average person who is just like, "No bailout," or do you think the average person is saying "No bailout" or "This isn't the right bailout" or "This isn't the right way to do it and I understand how bad things really could be"?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, I think the average American and probably most members of congress do not know the severity of the problem that the government has gotten us into. Most of that goes back to our huge national debt and the implications long term that are much bigger than what we've been talking about. But I think the Americans instinctively know that something stinks here.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR DeMINT: And that we can't solve it with the government who tried to clean up after Katrina. They just don't trust this government to be able to do what they say they're going to do and so even if they thought what they said was right, they wouldn't believe the government could do it.

GLENN: You are exactly right. You are exactly right. Is there anyone on the Hill that is talking at all about if we do this and we lose our credit rating, if we lose our credit rating and we can't get loans or we have to really increase our interest rate, we're doomed. I mean, you don't pull out of that one.

SENATOR DeMINT: I think it's a Catch-22 in effect because some -- I believe if we don't do this and our credit rating's going to go down because then China and other countries aren't going to lend us any money.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR DeMINT: The problem is if we do it and borrow all this money to do it, our credit rating's going to go down anyway.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR DeMINT: So it's like are we going to pay the price of our mistakes now or are we going to amplify them and kick it down the road and pay it later.

GLENN: Unfortunately usually in Washington they kick it down the road. Senator Jim DeMint, thank you so much, sir, and keep up the fight.

SENATOR DeMINT: We will. Same to you.

GLENN: Appreciate it. Bye-bye. Please call your House member today and write them and tell all of your friends call and be informed. One way or another, you agree or disagree, call them. Call them.

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.