Glenn talks with Congressman Ron Paul


Congressman Ron Paul

GLENN: Now, we always have Ron Paul on when we talk about the economy because Ron and I are well, he'd probably disagree with this, but and so would many of his supporters, but I think we're pretty close to lockstep on many of the things that he believes in the economy. The Fed is absolutely just evil. We have gone away from the gold standard. We're spending money like crazy people and we're destroying our nation. We're just destroying it. I also think that Ron Paul and I are in the same territory when it comes to progressives and the idea of a big government, and he is probably closer to our founding fathers than probably anybody else out there right now as far as an understanding of limited government. However, sometimes we go off the tracks and that's why I wanted to talk to him today because I'd like him to explain it to me.

Ron Paul, welcome to the program, sir, how are you?

RON PAUL: Good. Good to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Would you say what I just said about our viewpoints is accurate or not?

RON PAUL: No, I think that's pretty good and it seems like you've dodged your way over a little bit closer to it. So maybe you'll come over a little closer on these things we disagree on, too.

GLENN: You know, I have to Ron, I am not a guy who's afraid to admit when I'm wrong and I'm not afraid, I think anybody who stops growing is dead. And I've come a long way toward you, you know. I didn't really understand the progressive movement up until, I'd say two years ago, I really started to get a handle on it and I really started to look at the history of our country and couple that with the context of the founders. And I've come a long way towards your way of thinking.

RON PAUL: You know, Glenn, I might say that you are one of the few that will, you know, interview me. A lot of other times, you know, they don't interview me. They ask me a question and if they don't like the answer, then they start shouting. But you over these last couple of years have been willing to interview me, and I really appreciate that.

GLENN: Not a problem. And I want to make sure that this doesn't sound like a giant love fest between us because I do disagree with you, but I want to see if I can if you can make sense to me on this.

RON PAUL: Okay.

GLENN: You said in fact, can we play the audio? Do you have it? Here's the audio clip.

VOICE: They are almost like they live in a different world. The military's down, the morale is down, the money isn't there and they are looking for a couple more wars to fight. It makes no sense whatsoever.

GLENN: Okay, stop for a second. Stop for a second. I think you are right on this. You are saying that the military is I mean, we're looking for more wars to fight. The administration, both administrations I think you are saying, are saying let's go for more war. Morale is down, this doesn't make sense. You are right so far, okay?

VOICE: The military anymore because there's been a coup, the CIA coup. They run everything.

GLENN: Help me out here, Ron. This is where we go off the tracks.

RON PAUL: I wasn't able to hear that.

GLENN: That was you, I'm sorry.

RON PAUL: I didn't hear the last sentence. Why don't you formulate a question.

GLENN: The last sentence says, but it's not even the military anymore. There's been a coup, the CIA has taken our military in a coup.

RON PAUL: Not literally. Symbolically this has happened and it's been annoying to me because you know not too long ago we had, what was it, seven CIA people were killed over in Afghanistan? It was on a military base and there was no military on there. It was only the CIA, and the CIA had charge of launching the drones, and the drones were going into another country called Pakistan. And some innocent people were killed over there. So you can't separate the CIA from our foreign policy. So the people over there knew exactly what's going on. They didn't go after soldiers that particular day. They wanted to make the point that they were in war against the CIA.

GLENN: Okay. Now, hang on.

RON PAUL: And I just disagree with that. I think the military should fight our wars and they should only be when they're declared.

GLENN: Okay. I would agree with you with that on both of those statements.

RON PAUL: Okay.

GLENN: However, is it possible that the CIA is now fighting our wars because we can't look into anything because all the weasels in congress are questioning our soldiers on every we've forgotten that you fight a war by killing people faster than they kill you.

RON PAUL: I know. But if you don't endorse this war, then you can't endorse the whole principle. And I don't endorse the war because we don't know who the enemy is. And we haven't declared the war, and it's a movement we're talking about, not a country, that we're bombing countries and so it makes no sense if the military has trouble handling it, hardly should we go to some organization that has no, really no oversight at all. So I just think that this compounds our problem. And then if you really look into the CIA and all their activities, it becomes even more complex because they at times, when they want to pursue certain clandestine activities, they might not have enough funding. The $75 billion that all our agencies get isn't enough. So they make their own money. They can make their money in the drug trade, they can own businesses. I suspect that the Federal Reserve may well be involved when the CIA's in certain countries trying the reelections or pull off assassination. There's no reason under the way the Fed works that they can't loan money to other central banks and other governments. And you already agree with me we shouldn't have that type of secrecy. So all of a sudden it comes together because the CIA is doing these things that it shouldn't be doing.

GLENN: Okay. So I agree with you I think in premise. However you've got to solve a couple of things for me. One, would you agree that we do need an organization that gathers intelligence to find out what our enemies around the world are doing and we do need some things kept secret not from our congress but kept secret from, you know, the front page of the New York Times?

RON PAUL: Yeah. Yes, I agree with that and, you know, the CIA is not exactly a very old organization. The founders didn't sit around the table and say, well, how are we going to create this intelligence agency that can get involved in these internal affairs secretly and do these things. They didn't do that. They came out of World War II. We didn't have it before World War II. But up until that time we did recognize that you

GLENN: Yeah, we had spies. George Washington had spies.

RON PAUL: Pardon me?

GLENN: George Washington had spies.

RON PAUL: Yeah, you were allowed to get intelligence, and I recognize that as being proper. But today the intelligence agencies are so bloated, there are 16 of them, they spend $75 billion. And then when they get information, they get a hot lead, like a father coming in and warning them. They don't even know what to do with them.

GLENN: Okay.

RON PAUL: So that's one of my biggest beefs. They don't really protect this and they don't even act on it. And then we're right about the FBI making all these reports when these guys were learning how to fly airplanes about not landing? And it was totally ignored. So it's the ineptness and the failure for whatever reason that bothers me to no end. But I agree with you. You should have it. But so much of that information is readily available and they should get it and we will always have people coming to us and giving us information. So I separate the two. Intelligence gathering from this intrigue of overthrowing government.

GLENN: All right. So and I agree with you. I think we've I mean, what we've done to South America over the last hundred years.

RON PAUL: Right.

GLENN: Through the progressive movement has been a nightmare.

RON PAUL: Right.

GLENN: All right. So let me go one more step with you. Where I always go off the rails with you and really so many libertarians is I agree with the premise, and I didn't fully agree with this even, I don't know, three years ago, four years ago. But I agree now fully because I've seen the error of our ways and where it has led to of the idea that we should be more like Switzerland. That's what our founders wanted.

RON PAUL: Right.

GLENN: Now, and I think we differ on this a little bit. I think we should pound the bat snot out of anybody who you come over to our shores, you do something to us, we crush you. Then we leave. We don't rebuild you. We crush you and then we leave.

RON PAUL: The big question there is who did the attacking and who are you going to crush.

GLENN: I understand that. I'm not talking about anything specific. I'm talking about if somebody comes after us, they hit us, we have evidence, we crush them and then we leave.

RON PAUL: Okay. If a missile left Cuba and bombed New York City, we both would understand, yes, you go and you crush Cuba for doing what they do.

GLENN: And if Cuba, if it was just a cell and Cuba, we have evidence that Cuba was involved and hiding behind these people and have them do the dirty work, then still Cuba again.

RON PAUL: But the big danger today is if you apply that to, say, the underwear bomber, does that justify going in and start bombing Yemen? I mean, I don't buy that.

GLENN: Not unless Yemen, not unless Yemen was involved with the underpants man.

RON PAUL: Right.

GLENN: I mean, if they are turning out

RON PAUL: If it's a government function.

GLENN: Yeah, if they are turning people out and they know and they are involved and we have evidence, then yes, we do. But here's the other thing. I believe that we should get out of all the rest of the world, but I just think we should get out slowly. We built this nightmare over a hundred years, is that we can't leave the world in a vacuum. Would you agree that if we had a, you know, if we put everybody on notice, "Hey, by the way, Germany, you are going to be responsible yourself. Japan, you are going to have to start defending yourself." Everybody else, that we could develop a plan to pull back and to let the rest of the world know we're not we've gone awry in the last 100 years and we're going to change back to what our founders wanted, but it's going to take some time to not freak out the world and also not to give us, you know, to create a vacuum.

RON PAUL: Yeah. No, I agree with that, too, and I work for that all the time. I would be willing to do that. But the problem there is it's not going to happen and we're going to leave in a hurry like the Soviets left in a hurry. Their whole system broke down for financial reasons and you understand the economics of what is happening. If we have a dollar crisis on top of this financial crisis, the dollar crisis meaning we can't pay our bills and they will be coming home. We will leave. And then you are going to see the independent movement in this country, the Tenth Amendment people and the nullification people and welcome home. But that will not be the gradualism that you might like and I might be able to support.

GLENN: Right. I understand that. I mean, I see on the front page of the Drudge Report now Bin Laden indicator of coming attack. And I was just driving in this morning and I was thinking, you know, can we afford another 9/11, what would happen to us, you know. And you are right. We would at some point we're going to run out of money and then it's all going to change.

RON PAUL: Yeah, that's it.

GLENN: All right. Congressman Paul, thank you so much.

RON PAUL: Thank you for having me.

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.