Glenn Beck: Brian Jennings - March to Socialsim

 


Author Brian Jennings | Buy Book


VOICE:  The Glenn Beck program presents more truth behind America's march to socialism. 

GLENN:  All right, look.  You can't just walk higgledy-piggledy into a socialist state or a fascist state where the government is -- and I know fascism is crazy.  I know, I know.  You know, that would imply that, you know, our president would be firing people, you know, CEOs.  It would be taking over companies.  It would be giving -- a fascist state, what would they do?  They would give giant corporations over to the people, to the workers.  I know that's crazy 55% of Chrysler went to the UAW.  I know, it's nuts.  But let's just say that that kind of activity were going on but in a friendly way.  You would have to minimalize the impact anyone against you would have.  First you would try scare tactics, you would try racist, hate monger.  You would shout anything you could to get them to cower, but there would be a few that would still say, you know what, I don't care about you.  There would still be a few that would be smart enough to be able to defend themselves against ridiculous charges, and as the country was just about to go to sleep from the hypnosis of an administration, there would be a few that would stand up and say, "Listen up.  Wake up, wake up, wake up."  Those people would be successful in waking people up, unless the fascist administration could find a way to silence those voices.  They tried everything else.  How could they do it?  Well, you couldn't convince a people that loved freedom to go in and have something called the Fairness Doctrine to shut down freedom of speech because the majority of people understand that the media isn't telling them the truth.  So there would have to be another plan.  What it would be?  There's several.  There's a new book out, censor ship:  The Threat to Silence Talk Radio.  It's not by some guy who doesn't know radio, not written by some guy who's just some schlub.  It's written by Brian Jennings.  You may not know who Brian Jennings is but people in radio know who Brian Jennings is.  Brian Jennings was a guy who oversaw all of it for Citadel Broadcasting which, Citadel is now ABC.  He's now released this book, Censorship:  The Threat to Silence Talk Radio.  Brian, welcome to the program, sir.  How are you? 

JENNINGS:  Glenn, thank you so much.  It's good to talk to you. 

GLENN:  Okay.  So Brian, I find it absolutely incredible what is happening behind the scenes.  I said a few months ago don't pay any attention to the Fairness Doctrine, they are going to come at this from a different angle entirely.  And the angle that I predicted but you have even more is localism. 

JENNINGS:  Absolutely. 

GLENN:  Let's start on localism, where it is right now and what's coming our way. 

JENNINGS:  Localism is a vague, vague rule within the FCC, Glenn.  What it is, is a force of the media to go to local programming and to require local programming in communities.  Now, requirement again, government regulating speech by requiring something called localism?  It's absolutely crazy that government would even have a whiff of regulating speech in America and that's what this is all about.  But under the banner of localism comes community advisory programming boards for radio stations. 

GLENN:  Listen to this, America.  This is important.  Listen to this. 

JENNINGS:  The FCC in January 2008 issued a 97-page report, rule-making report in which they eight times mentioned they would like to install, mandate programming advisory boards for every radio station in America.  And what that means is this group would have oversight over the Glenn Beck show and every radio station in America.  This group, organized by the community organizer himself, Mr. Obama, would be made up of far left liberal groups like ACORN, like radical Islamists.  They could go in and if you didn't match up to what they wanted to hear on that radio station, they could go in and complain to the FCC, you would be subject to potential fines and license revocation.  They could then reassign those licenses, broadcast licenses to other groups and those other groups would, guess what, force liberal programming onto conservative radio stations. 

GLENN:  Okay. 

JENNINGS:  Simple as that. 

GLENN:  Two things, two things.  First of all, Brian, I think -- and I know you, so I don't think you did this intentionally but it's really a big pet peeve of mine.  It drives me crazy when -- and I do it sometimes by myself without thinking, when people call President Obama Mr. Obama.  We all complain when we would call him Mr. Bush instead of President Bush.  And I know you didn't do that intentionally. 

JENNINGS:  Absolutely. 

GLENN:  The other thing is how much local programming is required from television stations, local television stations?  What is the percentage of programming data that must be local? 

JENNINGS:  Very minimal.  Two, three, four, five percent maximum, it all comes in their news broadcasts. 

GLENN:  Which is an hour, and maybe they are required to do some in the morning which, if you have a local morning show, most likely that's enough to cover the same minimums that television is required. 

JENNINGS:  Without a question, Glenn.  Without any question. 

GLENN:  So the FCC would be saying local television has to have this but local radio has to have more.  So it would tip their hand and show what their real intent is.  Do we know how these people would be chosen to be on this local advisory board? 

JENNINGS:  No, that's really interesting.  The language in this FCC report suggests should they be elected?  They asked that question.  Or should they be appointed?  They don't know.  The FCC is leaving this wide open for interpretation, and they're going to work at language right now trying to determine how they will mandate these boards.  It is just an incredible situation that in 2009 we're talking about regulating speech on American airwaves.  Argentina is looking to roll back this exact same thing.  Are we going to go down that route?  Come on. 

GLENN:  So Brian, so we have localism, which is the way I saw it coming.  But then there's also the new licensing rules.  They want to --

GLENN:  Yes. 

JENNINGS:  Yes. 

GLENN:  Right now how long do the licenses last?  Seven years? 

JENNINGS:  Eight years. 

GLENN:  Eight years.  So a radio station let's their license.  Every eight years they have to go back to the FCC and they have to say, hey, we want our license renewed.  So it gives you an eight-year period to do business. 

JENNINGS:  That's correct. 

GLENN:  They want to reduce that to how long? 

JENNINGS:  There are proposals out there for every two years and three years. 

GLENN:  Which, America, try to -- put yourself as a small business owner.  Imagine that you have to go back to anybody to get your license every two years and you are doing political commentary.  Is there any way into two-year period you would take any risks, you would have any kind of risky speech because the memory doesn't have to be that long and you're dealing with politics.  How does that affect, Brian? 

JENNINGS:  Well, Glenn, this whole effort is about one thing.  They, the far left, want to destroy conservative values in America.  And they know that if they can destroy conservative talk in America, the minority, the only equal balance to all other media, then they have no opposition to their agenda.  And this is exactly what that's about.  They want to destroy conservative values in America, like Charles Schumer, the senator from New York says those traditional values, all that's over and that's what this is about. 

GLENN:  They also are working on something now on diversity.  Explain the diversity laws. 

JENNINGS:  As a matter of fact, today the FCC is meeting and for the first time they're going into what they call diversity of ownership of radio stations across America and they want to force more owners, minority owners, female owners, which is fine, but the way they want to do that is to mandate it and take licenses, broadcast licenses away from current owners.  It's a land grab.  Eminent domain:  Give those to the minorities and then force liberal programming into American airwaves that way.  It's an absolute regulation that purely is aimed at censorship of the conservative voice. 

GLENN:  And this starts today? 

JENNINGS:  This starts today.  And on the board that they have, 31 groups they've invited to this meeting, none of them are conservative, Glenn, none. 

GLENN:  Who are the groups?  Can you give me some of them? 

JENNINGS:  BET, entertainment television, the CB black Entertainment Television network, many, many Hispanic organizations and others. 

GLENN:  Okay.  Brian, again the name of the book is Censorship:  The Threat to Silence Talk Radio.  Brian, is there any doubt in your mind that these kinds of tactics -- that this is not, this is not -- you know, you are just trying to drum up business to sell a book, you are not trying -- this is not scare tactics to get Republicans elected.  Is there any doubt in your mind that if people don't wake up and stand up and protect the right of voices on radio, both left and right, that these voices will be lost? 

JENNINGS:  Glenn, I'm absolutely convinced that the FCC and Democrats want to reregulate conservative speech in America.  I have no question about that.  I've been accused of being paranoid.  Well, guess what, I'm paranoid because Nancy Pelosi won't allow a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act on the house floor.  She stood in front of it for two years.  She's brought this on herself.  If she would allow a vote on that, it would get rid of any Fairness Doctrine forever in America, but she won't do it.  It's incredible. 

GLENN:  Brian, how long do you think we have before this really starts to impact radio? 

JENNINGS:  The FCC will have a 3/2 Democrat majority, Glenn, in the next 90 days when they seat their new chairman, Julius Genachowski.  When that happens you can expect the FCC with all five members to go into full motion at that point.  All these rules and regulations have been stacked up in language for years.  They have a real sense of urgency to get something done now. 

GLENN:  Do you think it's going to happen as quickly as everything has happened here in the last 90 days, last 100 days? 

JENNINGS:  Absolutely, I think it's right underneath our nose and that's the mantra of this administration, get it done before people know. 

GLENN:  Anything that Americans can do?  What do they do? 

JENNINGS:  There is a website.  It's called censorshipbook.  But on that website there is a link to a petition.  The Media Research Center put it together.  They are a great group out of Washington D.C., and it will link you right to that petition.  It's our best way to speak because we don't even have a filibuster to rely on now in congress, and I would hope that everybody would sign this and just speak as loudly as we can. 

GLENN:  You know, Brian, let me ask you this.  Again I'm talking to Brian Jennings.  He is the former vice president of Citadel Broadcasting.  That is ABC radio.  You know, I mean, everybody knows the size of ABC.  This guy, you don't know him but everybody in radio knows him.  A serious broadcaster, been in for a very long time, concerned as every broadcaster, whether they will tell you this on air or not, if you know anyone in the broadcast industry, especially radio, they will tell you that radio is in dire, dire trouble.  You are going to lose the ability to say what you believe on radio, and the only reason why radio does so well, talk radio is huge in advertising.  It is huge in listenership.  It is such an impact because the people, generally speaking, that are on the radio, at least nationally own their own show or at least they are part of it.  I know Rush Limbaugh and I, we own our show.  So this is -- I only answer to me.  No other business allows that to happen.  And so there is no other filter.  There is one filter between you and me and that is the call screener.  That's it.  There's nothing else like this and that's why it is so dangerous and that's why it's in so much jeopardy.

Brian, the average person, what do you think happens if Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity's voices just disappear because there's new censorship?  What happens to the -- what is it, about 60 million people total that listen to talk radio?  I mean, what happens to those? 

JENNINGS:  Absolutely, Glenn, 60 million people in America that listen to talk radio.  This is about -- if they take free speech rights away, marginalize them in any way, shape or form, we lose all other freedoms because all other freedoms hinge on your right to speak freely. 

GLENN:  But what I'm asking you is this is the thing that I think puts them in check.  The administration would have to understand that the people who listen to talk radio, no matter what they want to believe, are not hapless, stupid people.  They are very, very bright.  I know my audience is generally speaking, four-year education.  The next in line, I believe, is a six-year education, you know, on top of regular high school.  The average salary I think is $100,000 a year.  These are movers, shakers, entrepreneurs, very, very bright people that listen and they're not community organizers, they are not activists, they are not get on the bus because somebody called and said you've got to get on this bus on Saturday and we'll pay you $5.  These people take charge of their own life.  When they think that their voice or the people, the voices that they trust are being marginalized and taken out and taken away, what do those people then do?  I think they go crazy. 

JENNINGS:  Yeah, the only thing -- well, they haven't seen a tea party yet, you know? 

GLENN:  Are you kidding me?  You want a million man march, that's --

JENNINGS:  Absolutely. 

GLENN:  That's what it would be. 

JENNINGS:  Well, with pitchforks in hand, Glenn.  I think that it is well to speak up now and try to prevent any of this going on with the FCC because they are punch drunk with power and this has been a platform the Democrats have had ever since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987, they have tried numerous times to reinstate it and they've all failed fortunately because of voices such as yours which have prevented it.  We have to speak up loudly now because it's imminent and I's very scary in America to think that we're on the edge of tyranny.  We really are. 

GLENN:  The name of the book is Censorship:  The Threat to Silence Talk Radio by Brian Jennings, and the website is censorshipbook.com. 

JENNINGS:  Glenn, thank you. 

GLENN:  You bet.  We'll talk to you again.

Stu, you've been in broad -- when did you get in?  Was the first job with radio was with me? 

STU:  Yeah. 

GLENN:  Okay.  So you've only seen the late Nineties? 

STU:  Uh-huh. 

GLENN:  What is the -- because I was in radio when the Fairness Doctrine happened.  I was there.  I saw it before, I saw it after.  I saw it with all the regulation.  You wouldn't believe the kind of stuff that we used to have, and it's not anything like that.  You think this stuff is real, now that you -- you've only seen this freedom.  You think this stuff is real? 

STU:  I think that -- I don't think they are going to come back with the straight Fairness Doctrine but you are right, it's going to be these little drips and drabs, take a little piece with some diversity thing that sounds great and then another thing, a little piece with localism that sounds great and you take a little bit, piece here, there and everywhere and all of a sudden you have nothing left. 

GLENN:  Yeah, they are going to put these people out of business.  These are local radio stations, man.  They rely on your dollars, they really do.  And they rely -- may I say something?  I know I'm going to a commercial, but I mean this sincerely and I do all of my commercials as well:  Please buy from our sponsors.  Not if you don't need it and not if you don't find it a better value of what you're buying.  But if it is of value and you are interested in this, please buy from our sponsors.  Buy from the sponsors that you hear on other programs on this station because it's going to come down to putting these radio stations out of business.  They won't be able to afford to do it.

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.