Freddoso on Spector, forced Health Care


The Case Against Barack Obama

by David Freddoso


GLENN: Let me go to David Freddoso. He is with the National Review. Hey, David.

FREDDOSO: How are you doing, Glenn?

GLENN: Very good. So David, help me out here. Are you one of these guys who's like, Arlen Specter, the Republicans have got to move closer to the middle and more progressive.

FREDDOSO: You know, what really strikes me, Glenn, is the severe case of amnesia that Senator Specter seems to have as though, you know, the Republican Party is supposedly so completely intolerant of, you know, more moderate members that if you'll recall, President Bush went in there and dedicate and basically saved him from becoming a former senator in 2004, if you recall that, and also Senator Rick Santorum basically sacrificed his reputation with his entire base in the same year to save Arlen Specter's political career and that all of a sudden, oh, the Republican Party is so, you know, it's moved to the right. Well, no. The reason that Arlen Specter has gotten out is that the Republican voters in Pennsylvania according to the polls are just waiting to end his career. That's what's going on.

GLENN: They are waiting to end his career because he doesn't stand for anything. I mean, this is the to me this is the quintessential example of how spineless these politicians are. He says just a few weeks ago, "You know what, there needs to be a balance of power." That one sold out the window. As soon as he realized, oh, crap, I could lose and not have my job anymore? I've got to switch parties.

FREDDOSO: Yeah. And when I hear him talk about how this is for the good of Pennsylvania, I think, well, okay, that may be true if no other senator, Democrat or Republican could do for Pennsylvania what you've been doing for it which I think is a ridiculous proposition, just extreme arrogance.

GLENN: Oh, I don't know if anybody could really I don't know, David, if anybody could really pull off what he's pulled off, you know, and brought all those great things to Pennsylvania.

FREDDOSO: Well, you know, maybe that's right. I mean, the interesting thing now is that there's no guarantee the Democrats are actually going to give in their nomination. I would be rather suspicious. People, party switchers often face a lot of trouble. And you know what? Frankly Specter on some things from a conservative perspective has been very good and now all those things are going to come back to haunt him in the Democratic primary. They are going to run ads about how he doesn't support the Employee Free Choice Act, they are going to run ads about how here's a guy with a picture of Dick Cheney and George Bush, here's Arlen Specter who helped to push Sam Alito and John Roberts through the Senate judiciary committee, here's Arlen Specter who voted for President Bush's tax cuts. So now he faces you know, he's been spending all his time trying to move to the right, expecting a Republican primary and all of a sudden he realizes he's going to lose. He has to now spend the next year moving toward the left in order to prepare himself for a Democratic primary, and I just don't know if he can do that, switch around fast enough.

GLENN: Tell me about Joe Schwarz and Wayne Gilchrest.

FREDDOSO: Right, okay. So here are two members for congress that the club tore growth decided to take on, Joe Schwarz in Michigan, the 7th district in Michigan and Wayne Gilchrest in the eastern shore district out in Maryland. Both of them, after losing their primaries to conservative candidates, endorsed a Democrat. Now, that's called, you know, sore loser basically. If you recall in 2004 when Pat Toomey lost to Arlen Specter, he endorsed Specter right away and this whole business about having a big tent party and don't criticize your fellow Republican, the old 11th commandment of Ronald Reagan doesn't seem to apply when it comes to moderate Republicans. All of a sudden there's this different standard. People didn't you know, right now as you mentioned, we have this media feeding frenzy saying, oh, you know, this Specter thing is proof that the Republican Party's going in the wrong direction. Well, when Wayne Gilchrest and Joe Schwarz went off the rails and started endorsing Democrats, did anybody say well, you know, this just goes to show you how moderates, you know, can't be trusted to be team players. I don't think anybody tried to make that case at the time. I don't think as a blanket case it's a true; it would be a true case. But the case they are making now and I'll admit I've been watching MSNBC, which is bad for my blood pressure, but that's all you seem to be hearing now is that

GLENN: Well, you know what, David? I contend this is a bogus argument. I contend that the whole idea that the conservatives the Republicans need to be more conservative is a bogus argument because conservative means something to everybody, and it means something different to everyone. What they need to be is more classically liberal. They need to be more libertarian. They need to be more rights, protect people's rights, make sure that people have freedom and also shrink the size of government. That's what the Republicans have been missing. What they need to do is irradiate the cancer inside the Republican Party that is called progressivism. That's who they ran. They ran the most moderate progressive the Republicans have. John McCain.

FREDDOSO: Yeah, I do think that the problem is complicated in many ways. I think that McCain's loss doesn't clarify too much as to the state of conservativism. I mean, let's face it. We're in the desert right now. We really are. And it's not just the Republican Party, but right now conservative ideas have lost a lot of credence with the public. And what I think has to happen is unfortunately we're going to have to go back and relearn all of the lessons that we've learned in the last 50 years about what happens when government gets out of control, lessons that helped, you know, ultimately elect Ronald Reagan, that helped usher in the 1994 Republican revolution. But the public may just, the voting public may simply have to relearn those lessons once we run into the brick wall of, you know, Obama style big government with all the borrowing we're going to be doing now and the massive debts that our children and grandchildren are going to be facing. We may just have to relearn all those lessons.

GLENN: David, I contend again that it is not the public that needs to relearn that. There is a good portion, maybe 40% of this country has no clue whatsoever how bad big government really is, maybe. But I contend the average person knows, but there's not anybody out there that knows it that is running, that knows it and can articulate it.

FREDDOSO: No, and that's a good point. Republicans really need to put up they need to be making the good arguments right now. They need to be putting up a good opposition, a strong opposition that, you know, so that at least the arguments out there and so that people will realize, oh, yeah, gee, maybe all this spending wasn't a good idea, maybe nationalizing healthcare, just nationalizing it wasn't a good idea.

GLENN: Right.

FREDDOSO: Maybe nationalizing banks wasn't a good idea.

GLENN: Maybe. You know what, David, let me take a break. Let me come back because I want to talk to you about the nationalization of the banks and the nationalization of healthcare that is going to be slipped in in the cover of darkness. Well, now that Specter's in, maybe they don't have to do that. But how we are fundamentally changing because of these last 100 days. And people don't realize how big the changes are and what they mean for the future. We'll be back with David Freddoso in just a second.

(OUT 9:45)

GLENN: 888 727 BECK. David Freddoso is on with us from national review. You know, David, I'm looking at this stress test from the banks which is completely bogus. The FDIC does a stress test and then it's mysteriously leaked out so it shuts the door on CitiBank or Bank of America, you know, being able to go out and raise any real capital with any confidence. It hurts the stock price immediately. So now they have to even raise even more. Meanwhile the government's standing there saying, you know what, why don't we just convert our shares into common stock.

FREDDOSO: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: Which is a back door to nationalization, which is exactly what we're doing now with General Motors.

FREDDOSO: No, that's the data that was announced, in fact, that that would happen, it was very little notice by most people, but the market absolutely swooned with that news. I think it was two weeks ago or maybe early last week. But yeah, I just found out my bank failed the stress test.

GLENN: David, I mean, here's the thing that I don't think that people really understand, that we're seeing everything in the light of an emergency, but when the emergency goes away and they turn on the regular white lights, which have all been converted to fluorescent light bulbs, so it's that real sterile awful white light, you'll see exactly what we have left. And in the blink of an eye, we have taken control of the financial sector and that ain't going away. We're taking control of General Motors, and that ain't going away. And now we're about to do it in the cover of darkness with healthcare.

FREDDOSO: Yeah. No, that's you know, in fact, what the Democrats plan to do in congress. And it's slightly complicated but it's very interesting. They want to use a tactic that would limit debate, prevent amendments and prevent a Senate filibuster, and it's called budget reconciliation. The purpose of budget reconciliation is actually to save money. It's to make the government's bottom line look better, but they are actually going to do its that they can they are going to use this tactic to enact a major new policy. You won't see much it's on a level that's unprecedented. You can say, okay, the Republicans used this to pass President Bush's tax cuts in 2001, they use it to do welfare reform. It's been used to do policy things in the past, but this is something that is massive and means a takeover of about 17% of the U.S. economy. So the fact that they are going to do it this way, it really just shows, hey, we don't care, we won the election, we're going to flex the muscle and, you know, I guess it's a risk they are willing to take but it's definitely an abuse of a Senate procedure that's designed to save money, not to create massive new expenses.

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.