Glenn Beck: Comrade Schumer?


Get your free Comrade wallpaper...

SCHUMER: You -- there are people who feel that you should leave Burma, there are people who feel you shouldn't be dealing with such a harsh dictatorship. So my question is what is Chevron's future plans in Burma, in the wake of the massive popular opposition to the military junta and its initial refusal to accept disaster aid? Have you weighed in with the Burmese government about accepting disaster aid?

GLENN: Stop. Can you go back to the beginning? Remember I thought this was about why is gas so expensive. Now he's asking, because Chevron has gone into Burma and they are -- Stu, what is it? They are building -- they are helping pull oil out of Burma, but it is not an exclusive deal? They are working with Burma to get some of the oil? And the question now is, I guess, why are you there? Play it again, please.

SCHUMER: There are people who feel you shouldn't be dealing with such a harsh dictatorship. So my question is what is Chevron's future plans in Burma in the wake of the massive popular opposition to the military junta.

GLENN: Stop. Let me just answer that, senator. To get oil. That's our job, to get oil.

SCHUMER: And its initial refusal to accept disaster aid. Have you weighed in with the Burmese government about accepting the disaster aid and, more generally, does your presence in Burma not bolster the military junta?

GLENN: Stop. Have I asked about aid? I mean, my first initial reaction is have I asked them about aid? Yeah, we're in there. I've asked them about aid. I mean, what am I -- I'm an oil company. What am I supposed to do? And has it bolstered their credibility? Excuse me. Chuck Schumer, aren't you the one that says it's cool to meet with Syria? Aren't you the one that says it's cool to meet with Iran? Aren't you the one that says we should be sitting down at the table? Aren't you the one that says we should be engaged with these people? The opposition to you, sir, and the opposition to Barack Obama is that you bolster their credibility. You say that that's meaningless, we should be engaged. I'm sorry. Does it only apply to oil companies and conservatives?

VOICE: Well, thank you. We just in the last two days have committed $2 million to the aid in Burma. The agencies that we're working with, some of them have matched it. So it's $3 million. I have some photographs in my file here of aid being delivered to people in Burma. So I know it's happening, when we're saying it. So we are activities of daily living aid. Even though a lot of others cannot, we are. So that's an advantage, I think.

SCHUMER: Do you think they could use a lot more than $2 million?

VOICE: Of course they could.

GLENN: Stop. Who the hell are you to say that? "Don't you think they can use a lot more than $2 million?" I'm a private company. I'm a private company. And out of the charity of my own heart, I'm giving $2 million. Who the hell are you to say that to me? I and affiliated corporations are giving $3 million total. Our aid, and I have pictures here, sir, to show that it is being delivered. Do you have any pictures of your aid being delivered? Oh, no. You can't. You can't get yours through. Oh, by the way, how much have you given, sir? How much has the united -- the entire United States government of America given to Burma? The answer? $5.5 million. $5.5 million. I'm sorry. My company -- and we picked up the phone and we called some other people. We got $3 million. So private industry, one company, $2 million. Our friends, another million. The entire United States government, $5 million? Don't you think that they could use a little bit more than $5 million? After all, the United States as a people, the people of United States have given $12.1 million. Shouldn't they give more, Mr. Schumer? What an outrage. Aren't we here to talk about the price of gasoline and why it's so high? You want to know why it's so high? Because instead of going out and finding oil right now, I'm sitting here answering questions on did I give enough charity this year. How much charity am I going to have to give, Senator, when you've taken all of my profits. You know, that's another crazy thing about profits. If I've got profits, I can give to charity. Or, I cannot give to charity, just pay you more in taxes and you can pay $5.5 million instead of me adding on top of it $2 million.

I mean, if this doesn't prove that -- these are the McCarthy hearings. These are the McCarthy hearings. You notice -- I want you to listen to this and notice how they keep changing things. First it was, tell me about the aid, tell me about -- we gave $2 million. Do you really think that's enough?

Are you now or have you ever been the president of an oil company? These people, I'm not saying that oil companies are the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm saying that oil is our lifeblood right now. Do I want to get off it? You bet I do. Do I want new technology? You bet. Do I want natural gas? You bet, natural gas would be great. Natural gas burns cleaner. Natural gas -- we have a ton of natural gas. We have enough natural gas in the ground. If we pulled it up underneath our territory, we would pull the natural gas, we can heat every home in America for the next 100 years and we don't have to keep the thermometer at 72. But congress will not allow us to get it. So we go to really bad places like Burma.

VOICE: I'm saying what Chevron can do, we're doing and we're doing a significant amount, and that goes a long way in Burma. Our plan is to stay in Burma. I've been there and I've seen the people that live in the area where we operate along our pipeline system. I know for a fact that they are better off by us being there than by anybody else being there. So I know we're doing the right thing in Burma. The Burmese government is benefitting from the fact that natural gas is being produced in Burma, but the fact is that if we were there or anybody else was there, that gas will still be being produced. It's been developed and so the only thing we can do by leaving is enhancing the value to the Burmese government. They will get our -- they would get our interest. If we sell our interest, we would pay a large capital gains tax to them. Any way of extracting us would be a benefit, a windfall benefit for the Burmese government. And I know the people there are better by us --

GLENN: Stop. Listen to this. What Schumer is saying is we shouldn't be in bed with Burma because they're bad people. Okay, let's just be consistent on that and we'll get back to that in a second. If we leave, do you think that oil and that gas is just going to go no place? "Oh, the United States doesn't want it. Shoot, they were our only buyer." Or, does that go to somebody else to enrich some other company in some other country? And, in the end, make us more vulnerable. We are talking about strategic defense because we are talking about -- why did Hitler almost lose the war? Hitler almost lost the war. What were our biggest targets? Our biggest targets were his oil refineries. Anything to do with petroleum. We tried to take it out over and over and over again. We knew if we could get his oil, he would be done. Why do you think he was in Africa? Why do you think he was down in the Middle East? Oil. If they can shut off your oil, you're done. And yet let's just bypass Burma. But there's a bigger point. Listen.

SCHUMER: Are you trying to pressure the military government to let in more aid right now in addition to the $2 million you are giving?

GLENN: Stop just a second. Senator, are we here to talk about higher gas prices or are we here to talk about somehow or another some rogue diplomacy? Am I now a -- are you making me an ambassador for the United States? Is that what you're doing? Because I accept. Am I applying pressure? Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought I was the head of an oil company.

VOICE: I don't think we could have much effect on that. I can tell you that I am working with the United Nations ambassador who's Mr. Gabari (ph), ambassador Gabari (ph) who is working with the Burmese, we are working with the EU ambassador that's working with the Burmese. So we are doing everything we can.

GLENN: Stop. You notice we're not working with the U.S. ambassador. I wonder why. I wonder why we're not working with -- we're working with the EU and we're working with the UN but we're not working with the American ambassador.

VOICE: But I can assure you I don't think that us as a nonoperating partner in Operation Burma could have much personal effect on the Burmese government.

GLENN: Yeah, what we would like to do is, would you please, Mr. Chevron, could you just stick to the topic? We're here to talk about why gas prices are so high and we want to continue to talk about where you shouldn't be getting oil and gas from. First of all, if you want to play that game, you know, this is what he should have said. You want to play that game, Chuck Schumer, then we should get out of Saudi Arabia. There's a dictatorship. Women can't even drive. 15 of the 19 terrorists in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. They also told us, stick it up your yahoo when we asked them to pump some more out. You want to talk about an oppressive regime, you want to talk about being in bed with the devil himself, we're in Saudi Arabia. Are you also going to make a policy to get out of Saudi Arabia, sir? How about Nigeria? I'm just going down here the top oil producing countries, the ones that we import the most oil from. It's Canada. Okay, I'm cool with Canada. Saudi Arabia. Not really cool with that one. Mexico. I've got some issues there. Nigeria, run by warlords. Venezuela. Well, I guess Hugo Chavez isn't too bad. I mean, if you discount that he called Bush the devil right here in New York City, then kicked out American oil companies who couldn't agree to his corporate windfall profits tax, kind of like the one you are going for now which meant more of our companies had to give money to stabilize people and destabilize South America and, by the way, all the government computer disks related to funding a farct, the rebels raping and plunger South America. Yeah, we probably shouldn't get any oil from them, either. And Iraq, oh, well, you'll get into Iraq here in just a second. Colombia, whoa, I mean, these guys seem to be moving in the right direction, you know? I mean, I'm not a senator but, you know, the Democrats don't think that Colombia's doing enough to fight the narcoterrorist and death squads. At least that's what Nancy Pelosi said when she decided not to bring up the bilateral trade agreement for a vote. And I'm sure that decision had absolutely nothing to do with the presidential campaign and not wanting to force legislation that would require Obama and Hillary to take a stand on an issue like that, which splits the Democrats. I'm sure that had nothing -- oh, and Russia. We don't want to take any oil at all from Russia. I mean, that would be crazy talk. I mean, they just threaten another Cold War over the missile shields. They're poisoning their political enemies. They have Viktor Yushchenko, the president of the Ukraine who's all pockmarked and -- why? Because he was standing up against Vladimir Putin. They've arrested capitalists, they've arrested people in oil companies and then they made the president of Russia, appointed him because he's the head of an oil company. Of course, let's not forget about the plutonium 210 that was used to kill also enemies of Vladimir Putin. Oh, and the fact that they keep dropping missiles accidentally on Georgia. Let's not worry about that. We shouldn't take oil from them, either.

Where do we get oil? Here's an idea. How about off our shores? How about in the ANWR? How about from shale? How about in the Gulf of Mexico? Now, we've got to hurry because China is signing 100 year leases on the oil fields in the Gulf. Colombia is signing 100-year leases in the Gulf. We better hurry or we'll miss all those 100-year leases in the Gulf because we want to protect the Gulf, we want to protect our shores, we want to make sure that there's no environmental damage. And when it comes to doing that, I know we would do such, just a poor job in comparison to China and Colombia. Why are gas prices so high. I wonder.

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.