Glenn Beck: Global warming, global government?

Why Global Warming is not a global crisis. Learn more...

GLENN: From high above Times Square in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America. Hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the program. We go to Christopher monk con, otherwise known as Lord Monckton. I mean, call him Christopher or do I have to call him Lord? I can't remember what we decided last time we spoke. Lord Monckton

LORD MONCKTON: It's very simple.

GLENN: How are you, sir?

LORD MONCKTON: I am fine. Are you on one knee and wearing white gloves and touching your forearm?

GLENN: Of course I am, my lege.

LORD MONCKTON: In that case you may carry on.

GLENN: So you are quite the hot topic on Twitter and on the Internet. If we could just find a way to control the Internet oh, I remember. Net neutrality. We'll get to that Thursday. Anyway, you are quite the topic because of this new global climate treaty that is coming in December.

LORD MONCKTON: Yes.

GLENN: Tell me about it.

LORD MONCKTON: This is the conference of the state's parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change, which is a hell of a mouthful, I know. But this has been in the planning for two years, ever since the same conference met in Barley. They always meet somewhere nice. This time it's going to be Copenhagen. And at Barley it was planned. As soon as they had got George Bush out of the way, they would push through a climate treaty which would involve the vast transfer of wealth from the west to poorer countries, in the name of what is called reparations for climate debt. Now, the extraordinary thing about the draft treaty which I have now seen is that it goes far further than anything that was planned at any previous session. What they're now going to do is to set up a world government, and the word "Government" actually appears in the treaty. But you heard it here first. The word "Election, democracy, vote, or ballot" does not appear anywhere in the 200 pages of the treaty.

GLENN: All right, you are talking hold on just a second. You are talking about Paragraph 36 and 38 from what I understand.

LORD MONCKTON: That's absolutely right. The word "Government" appears in there.

GLENN: Do you have it in front of you?

LORD MONCKTON: I don't have it in front of me but I can remember it quite well.

GLENN: All right. Of course you can.

LORD MONCKTON: And what it says is this: There will be a new vast interlocking bureaucratic entity created at huge expense to you and me and that bureaucratic entity will have three purposes, the first of which is twice stated to be government. The second purpose is stated to be the transfer or redistribution of wealth from countries like ours to third world countries in reparation for what is described in the treaty as climate debt. In other words, we've been burning CO2 in huge quantities. They say that's altering the climate. Actually we now know it isn't, but they say it is. And therefore they say we have to pay, get this, anything up to 2% of GDP every year to poorer countries. Now, the third element in the task of this new government will be what is called enforcement. In other words, the power of the new government to make Democratic countries hand over their cash, whether they like it or not. But more than that, there will be an interlocking series of so called technical panels which will have the right directly to intervene in the economies and in the environment of individual countries over the heads of their elected governments. So what we are talking about is a fledgling world government and because it's not elected, it's essentially a communist world government.

GLENN: May I where are you now?

LORD MONCKTON: I am at the moment in Texas. I'm speaking at Texas A&M tonight. But I will be in D.C. or New York for the whole of the next week because I'm trying to make sure that your congress does not allow any of this to happen.

GLENN: All right. You don't stick out at all in Texas, do you?

LORD MONCKTON: No, I fit in just fine. I'm tall, I wear snakeskin cowboy boots.

GLENN: Right.

LORD MONCKTON: And, of course, my Texan accent is famous.

GLENN: Yes. You can just say, howdy, y'all. Go ahead.

LORD MONCKTON: Howdy, y'all.

GLENN: See? You fit right in. All right. So what I'd like to do is I'd like to, I'd like to spend an hour with you, quite honestly, Lord Monckton, and have you on the TV show and maybe bring in ambassador John Bolton about this as well.

LORD MONCKTON: He would be a wonderful man. It would be an honor to take part with you and him in such a program.

GLENN: Now, does he I mean, does I mean, have you ever met before?

LORD MONCKTON: I have met him briefly, but it would be really good to have a proper chance to talk to him on this.

GLENN: All right.

LORD MONCKTON: Because he would certainly, with his vast experience, be able to put this in context far better than I could.

GLENN: Well, now here's what now, this is the global climate treaty that we are expected to sign, right?

LORD MONCKTON: That's right.

GLENN: And this is something that the president has made a priority, et cetera, et cetera.

LORD MONCKTON: That's right. The danger is that now that he's been given his Nobel Peace Prize, if he goes to Copenhagen with Al Gore at one elbow and Jim Hansen at the other in front of the teeming zombies in their tens of thousands, he will sign anything. And he won't read the small print. Nobody seems to have read the small print until I picked it up. It's quite extraordinary that this has got as far as it has with nobody noticing that what they're going to do is what Maurice Strong who originally, he's a Canadian bureaucrat who originally set up the structure of the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change 20 odd years ago, he has always wanted this to transmogrify into a world government and he is now going to get his way far faster than any of us had realized unless we can stop him. And we only have weeks to stop this.

GLENN: Well, I do know that if you look at the transnationalism and the transnationalists, you know, that the New York Times has denied, you know, that Barack Obama is surrounding himself with.

LORD MONCKTON: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, this is the direction they're going. Now, here's the concern.

LORD MONCKTON: Yeah.

GLENN: The concern is that President Obama would sign this and then it would be ratified by congress.

LORD MONCKTON: Well, now I'll tell you what has to happen. Under your Constitution, I think it's Article VI, there has to be a 2/3 majority of the Senate in order to ratify it. Now, I don't think that he'll get a 2/3 majority in the Senate. I'm reasonably sure there are enough senators including blue dog senators who will realize that if they hand over your democracy and your Constitution and make it subject to this new treaty because that's how your Constitution works, Article VI taken with the Vienna convention on the interpretation of international treaties means that an international treaty prevails over your Constitution. And so if he signs away your Constitution, he is signing away for the first time your democracy to an alien bureaucratic entity that you don't elect. That's the danger. Now, if he can't get it through the Senate, during his election campaign he and his staff began saying that they didn't like that part of the Constitution but meant they had to get 2/3 of the Senate to agree. And the way that he is proposing to do it and this was announced during his campaign is to get a simple majority in both houses, which he can of course get because he has a reasonable majority in both houses so that the treaty will be enacted into your domestic law. Now, that is slightly less drastic than if the Senate were to ratify it because at least in theory you can repeal a domestic law, whereas you can't resolve from a treaty and once you sign a treaty, the only way you can get out of that officially is by getting all the other states parties to let you go. And since you'll be the country that's big most in the way of reparations, there's no way they will let you go once they've got you into it.

GLENN: Right. And here's also the other problem

LORD MONCKTON: Yeah.

GLENN: that we have. When you can't get the Senate to ratify it, what they do is they get the states to join in and the cities to join in and then have it contested in court. And what they do is then the Supreme Court looks for the movement of law.

LORD MONCKTON: Yes.

GLENN: They look and say, well, which direction is the country and the world moving.

LORD MONCKTON: Yes.

GLENN: And if the country and the world is moving into, well, yeah, there's several cities, several states, several countries that are moving in this direction, well, then it's okay.

LORD MONCKTON: Aha. There is one obstacle that they are going to face this they go down that route and they know it. It's this: That we now know for certain by measurement that the effect of CO2 and all greenhouse gases on temperature globally is less than 1/6th of what the UN says it is. This was a paper published just last month by the gallant professor Richard Lindzen of MIT who I'm sure you've heard of. He's the Alfred piece professor of planetary and atmospheric sciences.

GLENN: We've had him on the program before, yes.

LORD MONCKTON: He is a lovely man and he is the guy who really understands what's happening in the atmosphere. He has done a dazzlingly simple but dazzlingly careful measurement that was taken in 20 years, he's been accumulating the data so that he could do it. And he's just published the result. The amount of outgoing radiation escaping into space is supposed to reduce enormously as the temperature warms down here. That's the official theory because of all the greenhouse gases getting in the way. What is actually happening is that nearly all of it is getting out into space just as before. So the warming effect of CO2 over the whole of the next 100 years is going to be well below 2 Fahrenheit degrees, just negligible, it might even be 1 Fahrenheit degrees. And now that that is known by measurement, all of the UN's report on which this treaty is based are out of date, and the Supreme Court's own judgment in Massachusetts V. EPA where they said CO2 was a pollutant because it might cause warming are now also out of date. Because the facts have changed, and it's now been a measured result. There's no argument with it. Nobody's dared to argue with this paper.

GLENN: How does anybody argue with the fact that when sunspot activity was at its highest, the Earth was the warmest; and when solar activity is now at literally zero

LORD MONCKTON: Yes.

GLENN: It's cold.

LORD MONCKTON: That's right. You've had your first snow in Pennsylvania in October since records began.

GLENN: Oh, we haven't had snow in Connecticut we had snow last week.

LORD MONCKTON: Yeah.

GLENN: We haven't had that kind of the last time we had snow this early or this kind of weather, we had 15 feet of snow that winter.

LORD MONCKTON: That's right. And the one thing I think we can very safely say is that that is not consistent with a story of global warming. But now that we've got this measured result, all the previous UN reports were based on computer models. Now, computer models are another word for guesswork. They were just guessing. And their guesses were wildly implausible. I'm actually feeling very smart because a year ago in the Journal of Physics and Society, I published a long paper which established by theoretical need that the warming for a doubling of CO2 this century would be less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit. And I published that result a year before Dick Lindzen did it by measurement. But it's Dick's paper with his formidable authority behind it and because he's done it by straightforward measurement of the comparison between changes in surface temperature and changes in outgoing radiation, that is the paper that will bring this scare finally to an end.

GLENN: Well, I know you are the 3rd viscount Monckton of Brenchley, but what the hell does that even mean? Who are you really? I mean, you sound honestly, a lot of people listening right now, Lord Monckton, he sounds like Dr. Bombay.

LORD MONCKTON: Well, how very kind of you. My

GLENN: (Laughing).

LORD MONCKTON: I am a hereditary peer. In other words, I did not achieve anything I achieved by merit. I had it thrust upon me, you know, as Winston Churchill used to say, some are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them. I had nobility thrust upon me by having very carefully chosen the right parents.

GLENN: Right, right.

LORD MONCKTON: So it's only a matter of luck. I therefore can't claim any special brilliance just because I am a Lord. On the other hand, the title does fascinate people, and I'm afraid I do exploit it quite shamelessly.

GLENN: Right, but what is your background?

LORD MONCKTON: My background is as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher on scientific questions including this one. I spent four years in her office when she was prime minister of the United Kingdom at 10 Downing Street. Mine was the office if you go two floors up just above the door and two windows to the right, those are the ones where I was. She was furious one Christmas when she was taking a picture of the Christmas tree outside Downing Street and the only two windows that weren't lit in the whole building were mine because I had gone home. But I worked there for four years and I gave her advice on all manner of policy but particularly science policy. Not because I'm a scientist. I am not. I don't pretend to be. I am a classical architect by training. So I do have a certain amount of mathematical knowledge. I've made a very good fortune out of mathematics over the years.

GLENN: As the guy who did this for Margaret Thatcher, what do you think of John Holdren, our science czar?

LORD MONCKTON: Well, I'll tell you what I think of him. He was the guy who predicted 30 years ago that there was going to be an enormous ice age and so much ice would build up on Antarctica that there would be a tidal wave of enormous proportions when the ice fell into the sea and half of humanity would be wiped out by it. Now, that was the guy who was saying that 30 years ago and saying we must therefore close down everything. And he said we must have population police to tell you and me how many children, how many little honorable Moncktons there can be. He wanted to do that, worldwide population police. That's the kind of guy he is. And if you ask me whether I like the sound of that, the answer is no.

GLENN: Well, it's amazing that, you know, what country that sounds like is China. And there are so many people now that are in our administration that are revolutionaries and Marxist or Maoists.

LORD MONCKTON: Well, Glenn, can I say that you have been doing your country an enormous service by exposing who these people are, how they are connected and the unpleasant organizations who do not mean the West well with whom this administration seems to have far too many close connections. And I think had it not been for you, none of us would ever have known any of this. And I do congratulate you on having picked it up.

GLENN: Well, thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it and, you know, I just wish I could be knighted or something, but we don't do that here. I think I get a Slurpee at the end of it.

LORD MONCKTON: Well, I'll tell you one thing you get. President Obama has decided he doesn't like Fox News on which you appear so splendidly.

GLENN: Yes.

LORD MONCKTON: And I dare say that you are part of that.

GLENN: Yes. I'm very well aware of that.

LORD MONCKTON: So take that as a compliment.

GLENN: All right, I tell you what, Lord Monckton, let me get together and see if I can get a time when you can be on and also Ambassador Bolton. There's no bad blood between the two of you, right?

LORD MONCKTON: Not in the least. I should be enormously honored to appear with him, yeah.

GLENN: Okay. Then let me see if I can arrange that and then we'll take that and get people on this right away because, you know, these people will do it if people don't wake up.

LORD MONCKTON: They will. And if you get that on the television for an hour, that will frighten them off. I think it will be enough.

GLENN: You got it, sir. Thank you very much.

LORD MONCKTON: Bless you.

GLENN: You bet, bye bye. Lord Monckton. So Stu, see if you can line that up.

STU: Sure, absolutely.

GLENN: Thank you. Splendid, isn't it? Doesn't he sound like Dr. Bombay from the old Bewitched?

STU: I think he's funny, too.

GLENN: Yeah, he is. I like him.

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.