Glenn Beck: Battle in Florida: Rubio v. Crist



Learn more about Marco Rubio

Glenn: You know, I really do believe that the secret to life is just remembering who you are, not who you've allowed yourself to become. With all the problems that we have in the world, remembering who we are, remembering where we came from, remembering what the truth is, remembering why the Pilgrim's came here in the first place and why so many fought and died, what they fought and died for, everything will solve itself. I know that sounds simple, but it is, because if you remember who you truly are, you truly are someone of honor and integrity, you may have allowed yourself to become something different, but when you remember, then you have a choice. Am I going to still be this person I've allowed myself to become or am I going to change myself and when we change ourselves, we'll change the world and the country will right itself. It is part of a -- it is part of what I think the tea party movement is all about. The 9-12 project is that. It's the values and the principles. It's people standing together going, wait a minute. This isn't who we are. What are we doing? None of this makes sense. And that's the thing that the media doesn't understand. When I was down in Florida a few months back, I heard from so many people that had gone to tea parties, 9-12 members, so many people said, you've got to talk to Marco Rubio. I don't involve myself in, you know, politics, local politics. I've met very few politicians that I actually like, but I don't remember what it was we were talking about the other day and I said to Stu, I said, do you know what? I would like to reach out to Marco Rubio, I would like to know a little something about him, because I'll tell you, there are going to be a lot of politicians that are going to try to co-op the tea party movement and -- especially Republicans and they're going to say, I've been with you the whole time. Those guys are playing a very dangerous game if they're not the real deal, because you burn people who are looking to you and they are damn near hopeless on I need a leader, I need somebody to represent me and you burn them, you lie to them? Oh, it's just not going to end well. Marco Rubio is running against Charlie Crist in Florida and he's on the phone with us many now. Hello, Marco.

Rubio: How are you?

Glenn: Good. How are you?

Rubio: Just coincidence. A lot of people told me I needed to speak to you. So, I'm glad.

Glenn: So, I don't even know where to begin with you to figure out if you're the real deal. I know a lot of people in Florida say that you are. Let me ask you the same question that I asked Sarah Palin yesterday.

Rubio: Yeah.

Glenn: Why should I believe you?

Rubio: Well, I mean, that's probably the fundamental question you ask any candidate. Two reasons: One, because I have a political record. I mean, I served in the Florida house, was speaker of the house. My upbringing, all these things point to the fact that these principles of limited government are not something I figured out back in May, after taking a statewide poll. They're things I believed in my whole life, my whole adult life, both because of where I come from, you know, my upbringing and because of what I've learned in my time in public office. The other is because I'm running for the right reasons. You know, some -- most people that get into politics get in politics because they want to win and get elected to something. This is not the easiest race. I mean, I'm running against the incumbent governor of the State of Florida in my own party. That's not exactly the next logical step up the political ladder. You only get involved in a race like that early on when nobody gave me a chance because there's a certain set of principles you believe in strongly and you don't think anybody else in the race is standing up for them.

Glenn: What are the principles?

Rubio: I think Constitutional limited government has made America the freest, most prosperous nation in the entire history of the world and why we would abandon that and come like everybody else is just beyond me, you know, and I think that's primarily what's happening. I think both parties are to blame to some extent. I don't think we've ever seen the pace as fast and furious as it is right now, but what we've seen here in the last year is a systematic attempt to completely abandon constitutionally limited company and embrace something mere akin to what you see in other industrialized countries around the world and, in essence, an effort to make America just like everybody else and I don't want to see that.

Glenn: You know, Sarah Palin said to me yesterday that she's a Republican and -- because we have a two party system. I don't know if we have a two party system, quite frankly, anymore. We have kind of a two and a half party system -- or a one and a half party system. The Republicans are progressives and they're for big government, big spending and everything else. Tell me about the Republican party and the problem inside the party.

Rubio: Well, look. I think the vast majority of Americans, whether they call themselves or not, I mean, most people don't wake up in the morning and say, Good morning. I'm a conservative or, Good morning, I'm a limited government believer. They just wake up and have certain principles. They're too busy raising their kids and living their lives to identify that way, but the vast majority of Americans agree with limited government and I think the Republican party has been successful only in those times when it has been the home for that movement. Unfortunately what happens is once people win office and they're in office or in Washington or a State Capitol somewhere over a period of time, they start to become like everybody else who was ever been in power. They fall in love with the fundraising, with the power, they think the purpose of serving in office is to get reelected. And I think that's happened to the Republican party. You know, at this time last year there were Republicans and pundits across the country saying that the way the Republican party would become more successful is by becoming more like the Democrats.

Glenn: Well, how do you avoid that? You've been in power for awhile.

Rubio: You know, listen. It's the hardest part of being a pragmatic leader versus sticking to your principles. I think ultimately what you do is you make a commitment to yourself that there are a certain set of principles -- you know, ideas are always on the table but principles cannot be. There are a certain set of principles you believe in. It's the reason why you're serving in office ultimately. Your ultimate goal in office is not to get reelected, is not to do well in the next public opinion poll. It's to stand up for those things you believe in and to use the opportunity you've been given to serve to be a voice on behalf of the things that one believes in and I think you've got to surround yourself with people that remind you of that, I think you've got to work to constantly remind yourself, and I think you've got to tell yourself that the day you forget that, that's the day to get out.

Glenn: What is the difference between you and Charlie Crist?

Rubio: I don't even know where to begin. I think the one people would probably most recognize is that he's kind of running around the state now saying that, you know, he should not be blamed for accepting the stimulus dollars but what sets him apart from every other Republican governor in the country is that he actually campaigned for it. He went to Fort Meyers, stood on a stage with Barack Obama, said that he thought the stimulus package was a great idea. He then pressured our congressional delegation here in Florida to vote for it. And I think what I tell people ultimately is, look. Last year, last February, if I had been in the U.S. Senate, I would have voted against the stimulus and I would have offered a clear alternative. If he had been in the U.S. Senate, he would have been one of only four Republicans -- well, Arlen Specter switched -- so, let's say three Republicans in the whole country to have voted for it. So, for Republicans in this primary, the question is: Do you want your next U.S. senator to be someone that would have been Barack Obama's third Republican vote?

Glenn: The stimulus money is -- do you believe that it is -- it's enough rope to hang yourself with, it's a chain around the states and a way that the Federal Government is going to muscle their way into the states and then pretty much just take the state system apart?

Rubio: Well, let me say. The states have been complacent in this and I as a state officer can tell you that one of the things that folks are constantly looking at is what can we do to draw down Federal dollars, what can we do to draw down, you know, Federal matching grants and so forth. I think the states are guilty of increasingly going to the Federal Government and asking for aid, as well, but I think the real failure of the stimulus is that it was supposed to stimulate job creation and the only thing it has stimulated is the national debt. By and large, when you spend money you don't have, governments spend money they don't have, it's destructive and now, you know, my kids owe $800 billion, that they and their generation are going to have to pay off, and we have no jobs to show for he the. There was no progress made as a result of it. So, I do think it's part of a larger trend, which is what you're alluding to, to the Federal Government being involved in virtually every aspect of American life, you know, from the bowl college football system to, you know, creating jobs and part of the problem is that the people who -- part of the problem is that we have a president and a Congress who think the Presidents and Congress are job creators and they're not.

Glenn: Marco Rubio is who you're hearing now. He's running for the Senate in Florida against Charlie Crist, a Republican. Your parents were from Cuba.

Rubio: Yes.

Glenn: They saw it happen there. Do you believe that we are on the same sort of trajectory that Cuba or Venezuela or any of these countries have been on? Are we on that same -- do we have --

Rubio: Let me tell you why I'm always careful about those comparisons. I understand why they're made, but let me tell you why I'm careful about them. Fidel Castro imprisoned people. He executed people. He divided families. He created a Diaspro and exile community and so, I mean, he's a straight-out criminal and a thug and he was before he even took over the country. Here's what I think the lessons from Cuba are about and, that is, that you can lose the essence of your country in a very short period of time. I think one of the things I have always known as a young child, because my neighbors -- I mean, I have a neighbor who served 22 years in a Castro prison for handing out leaflets. I have, you know, people who have had their fathers executed when they were young children in Cuba. I mean, it's hard to grow up in an exile community and be apolitical. So, my entire life I have known that politics matters, I have known that who's in charge of government matters, and I have known innately that things can change quickly in your country if the wrong people are in charge.

Glenn: Wouldn't you say -- wouldn't you say that the wrong people are the same kind of people that are -- that were around Fidel Castro are like Van Jones?

Rubio: Well, Van Jones is an extreme example of exactly that kind of thought process and, you know, to your credit and the credit of those who joined you in exposing that in government in America today and, look, there is no doubt that there are socialists and collectivists in America today. I mean, few people wear that badge proudly, but they do it because they don't because they know it's unpopular, but let me say this: There is no doubt that those in charge of the America government today are folks that have an unhealthy faith in the ability of government to stimulate the economy and, more importantly, folks that I believe think that government needs to be more involved in our lives because only government can provide us with the things we need. In essence, government knows better than we do.

Glenn: Marco Rubio, could you hold for just a second?

Rubio: Yep.

Glenn: I need to take a quick break here for the network.

(Out at 11:18 a.m.)

Glenn: Speaking to senatorial candidate down in Florida, Mark Rubio, who is a -- pardon me? Oh, I'm sorry. Marco Rubio, who is a -- I almost said "polo" when you said that -- when you are -- you're running against Charlie Crist and you are really kind of the bridge -- this is what they're saying about you, you're the bridge between the tea party and the Republican party. If the Republicans don't get their stuff together, burn that bridge down, as far as I'm concerned, but we were talking a little bit about you're Cuban American and I want to talk a little bit about illegal immigration with you, but before we do that, I want to ask you, do you watch -- do you watch my TV show?

Rubio: I do. I have a lot of folks -- we TIVO it mostly.

Glenn: Okay.

Rubio: Does that count? Does that count on the ratings?

Glenn: Yeah. It doesn't matter. As long as you're watching, that's the deal.

Rubio: Yeah.

Glenn: I'm wondering if you buy into -- have you looked into Cloward and Piven, that strategy of collapsing system?

Rubio: I have not. I haven't. That's not --

Glenn: Okay. That's kind of one of the things that I talk about on the show is that this is something that Rudy Giuliani talked about that happened in New York in the 1990's, Cloward and Piven strategy to collapse the system, financially overwhelm it. Do you buy into that or do you think these people in Washington are just so stupid on their financial planning here or do you think that it's a little more nefarious?

Rubio: I think there's a combination of two things happening. There are people that just don't believe in capitalism or they don't believe in the free market. I mean, thy know the overwhelming number of Americans support. So, they will never admit. I mean, it who ever runs, saying, I'm a proud liberal or I'm a proud progressive or elect me and I'll have government more involved in your lives. I mean, people get elected by, you know, running away from that kind of stuff.

Glenn: Yeah.

Rubio: Even in the Democratic party. And so -- but there are people that don't believe in the free market, they're more interested in what they call economic justice or social justice, which is really code for let the really smart people tell you what to do because we know what's best for you. I think there is definitely a thought process out there like that and they see this opportunity, this downturn in the economy, as an opportunity to implement policies that we won't be able to return from. And part of it is incompetence. I think you do have people in Washington that don't have any idea how jobs are created. You know, in the commercial break you talked about small businesses and, you know, that's exactly right. I mean, in America some of the best companies started out out of someone's garage or someone's spare bedroom.

Glenn: Microsoft.

Rubio: You know, presidents don't create jobs. Jobs are created by people that have access to money and they risk that money in pursuit of a great idea that they're willing to work for and I think a lot of the folks making public policy in this country don't believe that, don't get that, and, therefore, their policies don't reflect that.

Glenn: Okay. Good. I think that's a great answer. All right. So, Marco, you, Cuban American, you clearly don't hate people because they are different than you unless -- maybe I'm supposed to hate him. He's Cuban America. Should I hate him, because he's different than me?

Pat: Well --

Glenn: You understand immigration because your parents came here. Now, Cuba is a different story because you're fleeing oppression, etc., etc.

Rubio: Right.

Glenn: The big issue that I predict is going to be happening during the fall election is going to be illegal immigration and the left is going to make it all about racism. I personally believe that the more immigrants, the better, as long as they're here legally, the more immigrants, the better. They are the ones that built this country. I've got to tell you, you go down to the Cuban American community and they understand freedom better than those who have lived here for 100 years with their families. They get it. And it is important to have people who want to come here because they will renew is but illegal immigration to me is different.

Rubio: Yes.

Glenn: Do you agree, disagree, and --

Rubio: I always tell Republicans, when I speak to Republican groups, I always say the Republican party has to be the prolegal immigration party, not simply the anti-illegal immigration party. There's nothing more destructive to legal immigration than illegal immigration. And let there be no mistake. We have a legal immigration system that's broken, but we can't fix this until we get a hold and a grip of this illegal immigration.

Glenn: So, what would you do -- what would you do, because this is what's going to happen, because they can't make that charge against you that it's racism, because I don't want people coming from, you know -- I come from German heritage. I don't even know -- 150 years ago. I don't want people coming from Germany that are here illegally.

Rubio: Right, right.

Glenn: How are you going to make this case or how should the Republicans or the tea party people make this case clearly so you can't be charged with racism?

Rubio: Well, first you need to make people understand this was an issue of rule of law. It's not an issue of -- as you said, it doesn't matter where you're coming from. It doesn't matter if you're coming from Canada, Mexico, whatever part of the world. We want immigration, particularly immigration that's a positive for America, but it has to be through organized and legal process that ensures that it's a net positive for us, not to mention the national security component of it. I think the first step is border security and, by the way, something many people don't realize is that border security is not enough because close to half of the folks in this country illegally entered legally and overstayed visas. So, we've got to get a hold of the visa program.

Glenn: No. We fixed that after 9-11.

Rubio: Well, the problem with the visa program is part of it is they're not being renewed because the system is so bureaucratic. Others never intended to go back and manipulated the system to stay here. So, you've got to show you're serious on the enforcement side, but you also need to deal with the demand side. The reality of it is that there are American employers that are knowingly hiring illegals. There are American employers that are looking the other way and don't want to know because as long as you can produce a document. Some sort of a verification system is essential.

Glenn: Marco Rubio, glad I spoke to you. Thank you, sir.

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.