Glenn Beck: Expelled

GLENN:  We have Ben Stein on, who is in the new documentary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed."  I'm actually seeing it tonight.  I know Stu saw it over the weekend and has given it a rave, rave review.

STU:  Yeah, they did a great job with it.

GLENN:  I mean, you go to these documentaries and you see them and I don't think I've heard you talk about -- maybe Spurlock you said things in the general area as this, but is this --

STU:  Yeah.  You know, like obviously most of the documentaries that come out are horribly liberal documentaries.  Conservative ones that come out, some of them are good.  A lot of them are just really, they are not entertaining, they're boring, they're not well done.  This one's -- I mean, this is a pro -- you know, this is a pro package.  I mean, it's Ben Stein.  So it's not a surprise.  But I mean, it's really good.

GLENN:  And Ben Stein is on with us now.  This is a documentary that will show that your kids have no chance in fighting Darwin in college universities.

STEIN:  No chance unless -- I mean, there are very few universities, I suppose some extremely orthodox Christian universities like Bible Institute of Los Angeles or Pepperdine but otherwise not a chance.

GLENN:  Hey, are you familiar, Ben, with Professor Robert George at Princeton?

STEIN:  I'm not.  I'm sorry.

GLENN:  You know what, look him up.

STEIN:  Okay.

GLENN:  Seriously, look him up.  This guy's amazing and he's the head of the James had son project at Princeton and he is the main other voice against Dr. Peter Singer.

STEIN:  Well, God bless you.  That's great stuff.  Dr. Peter Singer is --

GLENN:  Nightmare.

STEIN:  A very strange guy.  I don't know where he comes from.  I cannot imagine what his formative aspects were.

GLENN:  You kind of wish that his mom would have harvested his body for organs before he was 2.

STEIN:  Well, I don't wish that, but, you know --

GLENN:  He says there's not a problem with that.

STEIN:  Oh, I know.  Oh, believe me, I'm well affair.  I'm well affair.

GLENN:  So I didn't mean it in a bad way.

STEIN:  Exactly.

GLENN:  (Laughing).  Look at that.  You can't even say -- you say something like that, which I clearly don't mean.  You say something like that and people would say, oh, my gosh, he said that he should harvest his -- why?  He thinks that's a good thing, that if your child is under 2, you can harvest them for organs!

STEIN:  I know.  He's -- there are a lot of people out there that don't really care much about life.  You know, what's scary to me is that there are these professors who are teaching young people and they are not only, it seems to me so wildly off base but so viciously angry.

GLENN:  Yeah.

STEIN:  I got a posting on MSNBC from a professor at the University of Pennsylvania yesterday who is the most angry person I've ever encountered in my entire life if I'm to judge by what he wrote.  And he's teach, I assume, teaching young kids.  That's kind of frightening to see that level of anger.  I mean, and why are they so angry?  They are supposed to be wanting to be challenge.  They are supposed to be wanting to be in debate.  But that's the last thing they want.

GLENN:  You know, that was the thing that really turned my head on professor George was he said, you know what, I think universities need to start teaching their students that you don't want a strawman argument.  You don't go after the weakest argument.  You go after the strongest argument.

STEIN:  Yeah, I don't understand.  You know, I think this has changed very dramatically from when I was in college.  Now, bear in mind I'm a lot older, a lot, a lot older than you.  So this was a very long time before you.  But I don't remember any of our teachers being dogmatic about anything.  I just, I mean, I remember them wanting a debate.  If you could come up with a good point of view, even if you disagreed with the professor, the professor would respect you.  Wow, is that ever not true now?

GLENN:  The Sixties changed everything.  The liberals have always been in the universities but then they decided, well, that guy's not that much more liberal than me.  I mean, sure he's crazy on a couple of things but I mean, you know, hey, all points of view.  And they let these radicals in and get tenured and the radicals were not going to let -- they didn't have an open mind.

STEIN:  No, they didn't have an open mind.  They had basically a Stalinist co-optation theory.  That is, we'll get other people that are more like us and then we won't let anyone who isn't like us.  And the result has been a wildly unbalanced academic system where you can get only one side of any argument.

GLENN:  Are you surprised at all that the film Expelled, per screen, was number 4.

STEIN:  Yeah, per screen was number 4.  I thought it was great.  I was expecting it to do well.  I just hope it can stay in theatres for a while.  I think what we urgently, urgently need is to have people in the faith community come out and see this because it is a movie that I think will cheer up the faith community if they went to see it.  They are not coming out in the numbers we had wanted but there's still time for them to do it.

I tell you what has amazed me the most and this really scares me is to see the level of rage that there is out there when these people are challenged even a little bit.  I mean, and I'm saying this movie, you're going to see when you see this movie, Glenn, it is extremely modest in what it says.  It doesn't call anybody over the coals.  It's very modest and yet it just was like we stuck a pin in these people.  They just went crazy.

GLENN:  I have to tell you I'm seeing it tonight, Ben, and I'm sorry I haven't seen it yet.  I just haven't had a second.

STEIN:  No, I'm deeply honored that you've shown as much interest in it as you have, deeply honored.

GLENN:  Stu saw it and said it's absolutely phenomenal what you do to something.  How they -- you let them expose themselves.  They hang themselves in just remarkable ways.

STEIN:  Yes, but then they get very mad at me for sort of giving them the rope to hang themselves.  They get very, very mad at me and their friends are really, really, really mad at me.

GLENN:  Let me ask you this, and let's be honest.  You wanted a really bad review from the "New York Times," didn't you?

STEIN:  No, I didn't.  You know, I'm a columnist for the "New York Times," Glenn.

GLENN:  I know you are.

STEIN:  And I had repeatedly thought, well, they will say we hate it, but he's a nice guy, we like him but they hate the movie.  No, no, no, not that at all.

GLENN:  This is probably the worst review I have ever, ever read.

STEIN:  Oh, it's a screaming, it's a screaming bad review.  And I don't know that the woman even saw it.  And when you see the movie, you are going to say, what was she talking about?

GLENN:  I can't wait.  I mean, let me just give you a couple of lines out of this, New York Times:  One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time.  "Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed" is a conspiracy theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.  The last part is, mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn, Expelled is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike.  It's fudging, editing, refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.  It is rated PG, parental guidance suggested.  It has smoking guns and drunken logic.  Wow.

STEIN:  You know, it's interesting that she says it's insulting to believers.  When I went to the university to various faith-based group, we got shrieking standing ovations and when this movie opened last weekend, people in theatres all across the country stood and cheered.  The New York Times doesn't want you to see this movie.

GLENN:  Right.

STEIN:  All over America people of faith are standing up and cheering and coming back to see it.  We've had families who have driven 200 miles each way to see it.

GLENN:  Ben, it's the New York Times.  When they talk -- when the New York Times says people of faith, that's like, yeah, I've seen the Ten Commandments, I saw it when I was a kid on TV.  Wasn't it on CBS a while back?  Those are the people that the New York Times reporters consider people of faith.

STEIN:  I don't think that the New York Times people would really recognize faith if it hit them.

GLENN:  All right.  Ben, I understand we're going to do a full hour with you next week.

STEIN:  I'm looking forward to it.  I'm coming to fun city just to see you, my friend.

GLENN:  Isn't that great.  Isn't that great.  Pack me in a suitcase and take me some place out of this island, will you?

STEIN:  Well, you could come to visit me in Rancho Mirage out in the desert anytime.

GLENN:  Yeah, yeah.  I think that's a little too close to Hollywood.

STEIN:  No, you would love it out there.  It's a very conservative country out there.  It's mostly good country out there.

GLENN:  Ben, we'll talk to you soon.  Bye.

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.