Glenn Beck: Happy with the candidates?


RELATED STORY


Zogby Poll: 48% of Voters Dissatisfied With Candidates


GLENN: So Stu, give me the polls that we were just talking about with the Insiders. The poll numbers for how satisfied are you as a Democrat, independent or a Republican with the candidate choices that are out there.

STU: Right. You start with Democrats are 82% satisfied and 18% not satisfied. And this is from about two weeks ago where Obama was clearly the, you know, big frontrunner but hadn't completely locked it up yet.

GLENN: Like to see where that number is today because that includes Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

STU: Yes, although Clinton was, I mean, you know, clearly behind at this point, you know.

GLENN: I understand that. Well, no, how do you mean she was clearly behind?

STU: I mean, she -- you know, it had been called by the media already.

GLENN: Yeah, it had been called by the media, but did you notice that Barack Obama, his polling numbers went down? After that big spike, she started polling better.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, she was winning all the way -- she was clobbering him it the end.

STU: Yeah, after the media called it, she destroyed him.

GLENN: Destroyed him, destroyed him. But anyway you can understand that. I would like to see that number now that it's going to be Barack Obama because I wonder how many Clinton supporters now say, I can't vote for, I can't, I can't vote for Barack.

STU: Yeah, I think that's a fake -- I think that's a fake group. I don't think they really exist.

GLENN: I think there's maybe, out of the Democratic party I bet you there's 5%.

STU: Yeah, maybe 5%. Maybe 5%. But it's very small. This whole idea that 27% of Clinton supporters are going to vote for John McCain, forget it.

GLENN: You know what, then again, once you start knowing that he is the most liberal guy in the Senate.

STU: With the exception of the Operation Chaos people, what person who's voting for Hillary Clinton is going to be upset at the most liberal senator in the Senate? If you are voting for Hillary Clinton already.

GLENN: No, no, no, I know a lot of Democrats, I know a lot of Democrats in the middle of the country, you know, in blue state territory that are Blue Dog Democrats, that don't -- they don't agree with, you know, pull our troops out now immediately. They're not Nancy Pelosi.

STU: What are they voting for Hillary Clinton for then?

GLENN: They are not Nancy Pelosi people. Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, I think that a lot of people look at Hillary Clinton -- I can't speak for Democrats, but as I read it the people who are the Blue Dog Democrats will say I'll take Bill Clinton's policies. He triangulated, you know? He wasn't George Bush and, you know, he was as far to the left as George Bush really is in many ways, you know, with an exception of the war policies, he did change but that didn't go well. So people who were in that mindset look at Bill Clinton much more as a centrist and so they say Hillary Clinton will be a centrist because she's got Bill with him and they're triangulaters. That's not who Barack Obama is.

STU: I don't know. To me these people have almost identical policies. I mean, their policies are almost identical. This whole idea of going back and forth between them has been stupid the entire time. They believe the same things.

GLENN: Yes, they do but they're not the same people and they're not -- I mean, Hillary Clinton did not say she would raise the capital gains tax out of fairness.

STU: No, but she still said she was going to raise it.

GLENN: But not out of fairness.

STU: I don't know. How many people know that? The bottom line is they're both -- I don't even know if anyone knows that both want to raise the capital gains tax, let alone why they're doing it. But the bottom line is they both want to do it and they both want to raise a lot of other taxes, too. You know, to me if you're -- there's a clear choice on a lot of these issues and I think a lot of Democrats they vote over things like the war and they vote over things like healthcare and there's a huge difference between McCain and those two on those issues. There's not much difference at all between Obama and Clinton. I mean, you're talked about, you know, 1-A and 1-B.

GLENN: I don't think so. I don't think so. You are right in what they say but not necessarily what they do. You are wrong, I think.

STU: I think you're wrong.

GLENN: No, you're wrong.

STU: You're wrong!

GLENN: You're wrong!

STU: Who's going to vote for me?

GLENN: Okay. So the other thing on Barack Obama is completely lost now. I'm sorry, riddled with ADD. It's completely gone.

STU: Well, I apologize for interrupting you.

GLENN: Go ahead. So the next poll number.

STU: The independents are 44% satisfied with the crop of candidates and 55% not satisfied.

GLENN: Total sense to me. Makes total sense.

STU: That doesn't -- I was a little surprised because I thought McCain was -- yeah, he was supposed to be the independent candidate. I don't know that he is.

GLENN: But I think McCain, I just think McCain, because he's up against Barack Obama, he looks like Bob Dole. Remember, I loved Bob Dole. I thought Bob Dole was a good guy. I thought he was a strong conservative. I liked him. I liked him a lot. But next to Bill Clinton he just looked like, you know, grandpa. Ronald Reagan never looked like grandpa. He pulled that off well. Ronald Reagan always pulled that off well, and he wasn't running next to somebody who looks like, you know, he just got off the basketball court and he's 12. You know what I mean?

STU: Yeah, Obama just looks, he's in shape.

GLENN: Yeah, he just looks healthy, he just looks -- I mean, honestly he just looks like a guy who's just like, whew, I just got off the tennis court, man, what, we're doing a debate? What? You know what I mean?

STU: Yeah. It's clearly a huge -- I mean, clearly the Democrats are the only party that have realized we don't just have radio anymore.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: We have television now and apparently there's only one party that recognizes that. But what I find is absolutely amazing is the Republicans, how satisfied are you with you are current candidate. 24% satisfied, 76% not satisfied.

GLENN: You know what this comes from? This is proof positive that we should have runoffs after -- if you don't get -- you should have to get 50%. You should have to get 50%. If you don't get 50%, you've got another one. This is, you know, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani. Because nobody, nobody that I know of was picking John McCain. Now, I know obviously he was picked, but he was picked, I believe, because everybody else was splitting it. You know, there's a bad history of people getting to power with 30% of the vote. Now we've got Republicans with 24% solidarity behind John McCain. 24% say they're happy with John McCain.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: That's because everybody was splitting it earlier. Because we had a whole field of really good candidates and we split it up. The Democrats didn't have what we had. I thought we had some really good choices in there. People were passionate about those choices and it ends up that we're sitting here with the guy everyone is the least passionate about.

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.