Glenn Beck: Cap and Trade


Learn more about Glenn's Mid-Life Crisis in Fusion Magazine

GLENN: From Midtown Manhattan in Rockefeller Plaza high above the ice rink and within spitting distance of Keith Olbermann. Hello and welcome to the program. I'm -- no, I've tried. I'm almost there. I am. But welcome to the program. My name is Glenn Beck. I'm glad that you're here. We have to wish somebody a happy birthday today. Stu's wife Lisa, who is the voice that you hear, the -- what does it say?

STU: Fusion of entertainment and enlightenment. You've only heard it three times a day for the last eight years.

GLENN: So she's the voice of the program. And she works for a very trendy -- she's very trendy. She works for a very trendy, cool, fashionable radio station and, you know, basically she is the kind of person that Stu really has no right to hang around.

STU: Thank you for that. I would agree.

GLENN: No, I'm just saying. And apparently she's fighting -- she's being shoved through the exit door out of her 20s and right into another, more of a plus sized door, 30s.

STU: This is a big transition, yes.

GLENN: Yeah. She's not happy about it, is she?

STU: I would say she's taking it a little hard. Which is unnecessary for her.

GLENN: 40 kind of hit me. 40 hit me, but 40 hit me hard because none of my friends called, wrote, nothing. My wife threw a surprise party for me, but because of my schedule, and I don't remember what it was, she threw it for, like, three weeks after. Do you remember that, Stu?

STU: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: It was like three weeks after my party and, like, all my friends were just like, hey, whatever. And I was really, I didn't expect it and didn't expect a big party or anything like that. But then Tania said -- because Tania's really not a good liar and so she just, you know, blew by it because she didn't want to make a big deal and fake it. And so -- there's so many lines there. She just --

STU: How did I miss all of them?

GLENN: I know, I know. Good for you, Stu.

STU: I should be docked today's pay.

GLENN: Okay. So she didn't say anything and I'm, like, starting to think my wife, she didn't even really say anything about my 40th. I mean, it's starting to bother me; I don't think she loves me.

STU: So in her effort to make a great day for you, she almost drove you to depression.

GLENN: I almost killed myself. And we were down in Washington for something and I said to -- I said to Chris -- and it was the day of the party and I said, Chris, I said, you know what, I'm just going to call Tania. Let's just have dinner here in Washington. He's like, no! We have to -- and he started talking like, you know, William Shatner, we... have to... get to train... now. And it was just odd. But anyway, so 40 really hit me and took me by surprise. 30 for a woman, going to hit her. It's going to hit her.

STU: Why? She's never had a problem with any of the other birthdays.

GLENN: Explain cap and trade to me, Stu.

STU: Cap and trade as far as carbon emissions?

GLENN: Carbon emissions.

STU: Global warming?

GLENN: Explain cap and trade. I'm going to explain how the world works, cap and trade.

STU: All right. Well, in a global warming environment.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Basically you would put a cap, like a salary cap in sports.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: I know you understand that analogy. Like a cap in the total amount of carbon emissions.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And then companies that use less than their share, quote/unquote, whatever the government decides is their share, then they can trade the excess to companies who use more than their share.

GLENN: Got it.

STU: So you cap the total amount but then you can trade.

GLENN: But it's really all about money, isn't it?

STU: Oh, yes.

GLENN: It's all about money.

STU: Definitely all about money.

GLENN: The more money you have, the more you can trade, the more things you can buy. Right?

STU: Yes. You would be able to --

GLENN: The more carbon units you can buy.

STU: Yes. You would be able to buy as many units as you needed.

GLENN: Got it. Stu, what is the basic fundamental building block of the human body?

STU: I mean, the reproductive system?

GLENN: No, no, no. What is the basic fundamental building block of all of life?

STU: The molecule?

GLENN: No, the basic fundamental -- carbon.

STU: Carbon.

GLENN: We are carbon units.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Okay? So let me tell you about the basic fundamental building block, the cap and trade system of carbon units.

STU: I don't know where you're going with this, but it doesn't seem like it's going to turn out well.

GLENN: Stu, she's 30 now.

STU: Yes, she is. Today.

GLENN: Cap, trade.

STU: What does that mean?

GLENN: Cap, and trade. She's 30. You can cap her now. 30 is -- you cap her.

STU: Cap her as in, like, shoot her? You put a cap in her?

GLENN: Look. Stu, think of your salary.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Think of the salary you made when you married her.

STU: Sure.

GLENN: Okay. Do you think there's a difference there?

STU: There is a difference there.

GLENN: But you're walking around with the same thing that you, you know, you had when you were making the other salary.

STU: I didn't --

GLENN: And she's depreciated.

STU: I don't know what you're saying.

GLENN: Just listen to me. Just listen to me. She's depreciated, okay? So what you do -- and it's nothing against Lisa. You know I love her.

STU: Just because you're telling me that my wife is depreciating, you're saying there's nothing against her?

GLENN: No, no, no. Because she's depreciating to you. Like for me, she's not depreciating.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Okay? Because she's 30. But I'm 45.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So she's still, she's below my cap.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: My cap, 40. Tania, she's like, I don't know, 30 something or other.

STU: You don't know --

GLENN: I don't know.

STU: You just know her --

GLENN: I have a deal in my calendar on the, you know, desktop calendar, an alarm of when she hits 40.

STU: And then what happens then?

GLENN: Trade her. But I trade her for somebody like Lisa who is younger. Now, I wouldn't trade her -- if Tania were 40 today, I would trade her for Lisa because I know her, I like her. She's nice.

STU: Okay. This is --

GLENN: And she's hot and she's cool.

STU: All making me very uncomfortable. Go ahead.

GLENN: But I'm just -- we're talking carbon.

STU: Right. This is just --

GLENN: All we're doing is we're talking carbon.

STU: This is all mathematics you're saying?

GLENN: Yeah. We're trading carbon. You see what I'm saying? What?

STU: So I just want to make sure I understand the basics before we go on.

GLENN: You should be with somebody 22.

STU: That's a very good point. So you are saying that I have to -- I've capped my marriage --

GLENN: At 30.

STU: At 30 and now I'm going to trade for a 22-year-old.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And you're capping your wife at 40 and you are going to trade for a 30-year-old?

GLENN: Yes. But that always changes, see? So it's -- because people will say, oh, this is horrible, how could you possibly do this?

STU: A lot of people would say it. Like almost everyone would.

GLENN: No, no. It's because they misunderstand.

STU: They misunderstand the --

GLENN: No, they don't understand carbon trading, all right? Because it's not bad, because no matter what scientists say, carbon is not bad. It is the basic building block. I'm not going to -- what are we going to do? Sequester Lisa? No, we're not going to sequester her. It's carbon. It's the basic building block of life. She's just, I don't know how many carbon units but that's what she is, she's several carbon units.

STU: Okay. So she's the -- you're giving her the -- you are calling her the basic building block of life.

GLENN: Building block of life.

STU: That should be traded like a commodity?

GLENN: No, not like a commodity.

STU: That's what cap and trade is. I mean, it's -- essentially.

GLENN: Stu, we're trying to help the planet, right?

STU: Okay.

GLENN: We're trying to help -- we're trying to help the planet, okay? So let's just do what's right for the planet.

STU: Because I don't want to be accused of hating the planet.

GLENN: No.

STU: I will say that.

GLENN: No.

STU: Because now you are making -- you are kind of shining a different light on this.

GLENN: So now listen. So you might say in this -- because right now do you feel bad for Lisa? If you would say, hey, I'm going to cap and trade you?

STU: Yes, I feel terrible.

GLENN: Absolutely. But because she's 30, she would be getting another model, not a newer model, but a wealthier model.

STU: Right, she's going to trade up.

GLENN: She's going to trade up.

STU: The income ladder.

GLENN: Like me, okay?

STU: This is -- why do you keep using yourself as an example? Can we use someone else?

GLENN: No, I just -- I can't think of anybody else.

STU: You can't think of anyone else? There's so many people in the world.

GLENN: I'm just saying. So we cap -- you've capped her at 30. Now, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't do it because she's 30. You know, Tania I'm not willing -- I love my wife. I'm not willing to trade her until she hits 40.

STU: That's really gracious of you.

GLENN: I know. So -- but the great thing is she trades up and then it just keeps going. So for instance, like I would never be with a 22-year-old because that's too young.

STU: That would be weird.

GLENN: That would be weird.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: When you're my age, when you're 40, you don't go with a 22-year-old, you don't go with 28. That's why it's a sliding scale. That's how you get a 50-year-old woman to be with, like, an 80-year-old.

STU: So the 80-year-old guy --

GLENN: The 80-year-old guy, lots of money usually and he's like, she's hot. Because he's 80; she's 50.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Of course she's hot.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You know what I mean? It would be sick if the 80 was with, like, a 30-year-old. But 50, it's the cap and trade system.

STU: Are there actual levels, like, that you have to cap? Or is this a personal cap you get to choose from?

GLENN: No, we'll have some sort of a -- you know, we would have to get a committee together.

STU: A committee? Of --

GLENN: Somebody to, you know, say -- you know, to examine all of the people and to say, hmmm.

STU: So what do I have to do next? What's my next step? Because my wife turned 30 today.

GLENN: It's easy. It's in the name. Cap, and trade.

STU: So I trade for a -- I'm looking for a 22-year-old now.

GLENN: That would be capped.

STU: Well, I guess you are telling me I need to cap.

GLENN: Do you care about the planet?

STU: No, I don't -- I mean, I care about the planet.

GLENN: Sometimes it's hard to do. Do you know how hard it's been for me to use fluorescent light bulbs?

STU: No.

GLENN: It's been very difficult.

STU: So you are saying I need to make a sacrifice here.

GLENN: You need to make a sacrifice. It's for your children.

STU: For a 22-year-old?

GLENN: Yeah. It's for your children.

STU: I don't have any children.

GLENN: You know why?

STU: No, I don't -- well, I yes, I know why. I know the process. I understand why it hasn't --

GLENN: That clock is ticking there.

STU: I don't think that's true.

GLENN: No, it is. That clock is ticking. She's close to being barren. She's --

STU: This is -- all of this is making me very uncomfortable.

GLENN: She is close to -- it is a -- science -- look, it's not me.

STU: No, no, not you, definitely not.

GLENN: This is almost a scientific consensus. This close to being barren.

STU: When you say almost, what's --

GLENN: Within 1,000 years.

STU: It will be a scientific --

GLENN: Yeah, within 1,000 years she will be barren. No, it could happen in 15 years, could happen in five years, I don't know. But definitely within 1,000 years she will be completely barren and all because you wouldn't trade carbon.

STU: So you are saying it's my earthly duty?

GLENN: It is.

STU: To be green.

GLENN: Absolutely.

STU: I have to cap and trade my wife and give them to someone like you that you can't name another person as an example?

GLENN: No. But it won't be me.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Because I love my wife.

STU: Until she's 40.

GLENN: Yeah, but then she -- I mean, come on. We haven't talked about this but she understands.

STU: Are you sure that we would understand that? Have you explained the cap and trade system to her?

GLENN: No, but I'm pretty sure she would -- you don't think -- yeah, she would understand. She knows.

STU: It's possible she might not.

GLENN: Well, anything's possible. It's not probable. I mean, women have to understand the cap and trade. I mean, look who they're with.

Stu, look who your wife is with.

STU: Right. Me.

GLENN: You.

STU: Not good.

GLENN: Right.

STU: That was not a good move.

GLENN: Look who my wife is with.

STU: You.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Terrible move.

GLENN: She knows that ain't gonna last.

STU: That's against nature. I mean, really it hurts nature. Nature cries when she sees that coupling.

GLENN: Hang on. Sally is on the phone. Yes, Sally. Sally is -- Sally is gone, I guess.

STU: She must have got capped.

GLENN: Or traded. I'm not sure. She might be on the Laura Ingraham show right now. Could be.

STU: It's interesting. I just feel like it's maybe a little -- I don't know. I don't know that this system works for, I don't -- somewhere around 50% of the population. Seems like 50% of it would like it but then the other 50% -- I can't -- there's some, like, party line. Maybe it's on gender.

GLENN: Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this: You think that this is demeaning, treating women like meat.

STU: I would say yes.

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.