Glenn Beck: L.A. Times Holding Damaging Obama Video



Related Story
The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama's Khalidi Bash Tape


GLENN: Andrew McCarthy says let's try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party where known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given including a growing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say that McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, approval and solidarity while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that wreaked of hatred for an American ally and rationalization of terror attacks. Now let's say that the Los Angeles Times obtained videotape of the party. The question is, is there any chance, any chance whatsoever that the Times would not release the tape and publish front page story after story about the gory details with the usual accompanying chorus of sanction money from the op-ed commentaries. If the times was the least bit reluctant about publishing -- remember we're pretending here -- that the rest of the mainstream media, you know the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday party, would not be screaming for the release of the Tape. Of course they would. Andrew McCarthy brings us the details now of this real life scenario except it's not John McCain. It's Barack Obama. Hey, Andrew, how are you?

McCARTHY: Hey, how are you?

GLENN: I'm not surprised by this story. I've been watching Khalidi for a while and thinking to myself, when is this thing ever going to break, and you are bringing it. Tell us about the tape that the Los Angeles Times has.

McCARTHY: Well, in 2003 there was a farewell party for Rasheed Khalidi. He was leaving the University of Chicago to go to Columbia here in the New York area.

GLENN: Who is he so people know?

McCARTHY: Exactly. He was a spokesman for the PLO during the Arafat days and also was an advisor to Arafat during the peace negotiations.

GLENN: Well, that doesn't mean, that doesn't -- well, he was an advisor during the peace negotiations. That doesn't mean that he's a bad guy.

McCARTHY: Well, if you get peace negotiations by sort of bombing your way to the table, I think that needs to be factored in. In any event he's a longtime admirer of both the ideology and methodology of Yasser Arafat. His wife Mona was the top English translator in Arafat's publicity department at the PLO and together they put together something called the Arab American Action Network which when Barack Obama and Bill Ayers teamed you be to be on the board at the Woods Foundation, they underwrote that organization, the Arab American Action Network to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.

GLENN: And what's wrong with an Arab American Action Network? Don't we all need an action network? Isn't that like the white people's Justice League?

McCARTHY: Well, yeah, I suppose they have every right to Confederate and take their positions but I would think people would be interested in what their positions were, which basically is to an apologist for Palestinian tore and to take other positions like driver's licenses and other public welfare benefits for illegal aliens.

GLENN: Okay.

McCARTHY: So they are a leftist outfit of the same sort of coin as many of the other outfits that were funded by Ayers and Obama when they worked together during the Nineties.

GLENN: Okay. But I mean, this was just a party of a guy that he knew that he really didn't know and it was just a regular party. I mean, who else was there? There had to be some friends of Ronald Reagan there as well.

McCARTHY: Well, there were other friends. You know the who guys that hardly know each other at all, Obama and Ayers, it turns out by some really funky coincidence that they just happened to have the same best friend, Rasheed Khalidi. And as it happens then Khalidi, who is a frequent dinner command I don't know of the Obamas, also had in attendance at his going-away, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, the former weatherman terrorist. There are also a variety of other Palestinian friends and allies of Khalidi and the night was a night of testimonials not just to Khalidi but to the cause.

GLENN: Give me, give me some examples of what was said.

McCARTHY: Well, there were basically, there was one glowing testimonial that was given by Obama which as the LA Times reported was of a different sort of ferocity -- I guess ferocity is the wrong tone for Obama but it was a different tone for some of the other speeches. There were strident speeches that were given that basically portrayed Israel as a terrorist state and illegitimate, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone because that is what Khalidi's position has been. Khalidi has been somebody who has supported terrorist attacks at least on official Israeli targets. As I understand it, he at least says he doesn't support terrorist attacks against civilian targets but military and official government Israeli targets he has encouraged as something he calls resistance rather than terrorism.

GLENN: But Barack Obama, this happened in 2003. He was only 42 when Khalidi said those things.

McCARTHY: Yeah, that is true. He hadn't reached, I guess the age of reason. What is the age of reason for lefties these days?

GLENN: I'm not really sure. Okay, so he's at this with William Ayers. This is the Arab American Action Network is something that the Woods Foundation funded with Barack Obama's signature on it.

McCARTHY: Right.

GLENN: He was with a bunch of people that were celebrating Khalidi getting his professorship, I guess, at Columbia University. This is a farewell party for him.

McCARTHY: Yes, right.

GLENN: But can't it be said that he didn't really know Khalidi, he wasn't aware of who Khalidi really was. I mean, we all go to parties and we all say things about people who are leaving. I mean, they didn't really know each other, did they, Andrew?

McCARTHY: Well, from what we understand, they knew each other actually quite well. The families were intimate friends to the point that at least some reports indicate that the Khalidis actually baby-sat for the Obama children and even by Obama's own account at the party when he gave his speech, he and his wife were frequent dinner companions of the Khalidis and shared long meals and long conversations which according to Obama opened his eyes to his own prejudices, whatever those may be.

GLENN: Why do you hate people who are different than you, Andrew? I mean, it's unbelievable. Okay, so Andrew, the LA Times, they have the videotape.

McCARTHY: Right.

GLENN: Where do they get the videotape?

McCARTHY: Well, the reporter, Mr. Wallson, has not disclosed what his source is for the videotape and to the extent that he's given any indication at all, a blog site called Gateway Pundit has interviewed him and he basically said he considers the story over and didn't have any intention of releasing the tape.

GLENN: Andrew, have you ever seen anything like this?

McCARTHY: Well, no. In all seriousness I think this transcends the normal media bias that is basically a fact of life but is a constant irritant but something that we learned to live with. This really to me is more like the mainstream media being recruited in a wholesale fashion to be a subsidiary or surrogate of the national campaign. It really is an astounding phenomenon and I think it's of a dimension.

GLENN: Why do you think the media's doing this?

McCARTHY: They want Obama to win.

GLENN: Do they have any idea what that is possibly going to mean to free speech?

McCARTHY: I think they think that left wing free speech will be just fine. I don't think -- you know, they could end up being, you know, like the people who helped the left, you know. I think they think they will be fine and I think that Obama, really the instantiation in a way of everything that they have always held to be ideal. This is like one of them who is rising to the top and embodies all their hopes and dreams of what they call social justice and economic justice and what the rest of us call socialism.

GLENN: Andrew, what do you -- if you looked into your crystal ball and we just keep turning away and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are in the office, what do you think comes our way here in the next 12 months?

McCARTHY: I think we have a terrible time in the short-term. I think we have a terrible time economically when people start to see what redistributive economic justice really looks like. I think a lot of people are going to lose their jobs, a lot of wealth is going to be lost in the economy and I think frankly we're going to be a much less let's say nation.

GLENN: I don't know why you would say that. Barney Frank just said he wants the military cut by 25%.

McCARTHY: Yes, in order to create the department of peace and nonviolent resolution, I think I -- I wish that was a joke, by the way, Glenn. They actually have a proposal in the House that's House Rule I think 808 or something, in 2007. They want to create the department of peace which has a variety of different sub agencies, but it would be a cabinet level agency.

GLENN: I think that's a Dennis Kucinich idea.

McCARTHY: I thought it was a Saturday Night Live set when I just heard it.

GLENN: I don't know. Andrew, stay on the story. Bring us up to date on anything else that breaks. Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it. Bye-bye.

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.