Glenn Beck: White=Racist


Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...

GLENN: Here's the thing. I'm so sick of hearing about this race thing. Have you noticed that it is that they are not pointing out things that disagree with their thesis here. For instance, in your own personal identity do you think of yourself as a member of your race first or an American first? I'm agriculture American. You ask me do I consider myself Christian first or an American first? I'm going to say Christian first and here's why. I say a Christian first because my Christianity, my faith actually builds my faith in this country. My faith in God actually builds the faith in our founding and our founding documents. In my faith, one of our articles of faith is obey the laws of the land. My faith makes me a stronger citizen. My race means nothing. What does your race mean? You think of, "I'm a white person first." What kind of racism would that be? "I'm a white person, you're darn right. Then I'm American." 4% of whites think of themselves, their race before their country. 45% of African Americans think of their race first. Americans first, 91% of whites, 46% of blacks. Do you have more in common with you do you have more in common with the people of the same class as you or with the people of the same race? Isn't this a quintessential racist question?

Who do you have more in common with? People who are in your class or people who are in your race? Class, whites, say 79%. Blacks say 60%. Race, whites say 15%. Blacks say 36%. We shouldn't be separated by color. You have more in common with those of the same color. Why is that?

There's this new study out and it's driving me because it's you know what? There's a whole section in this study out that says lists a bunch of statements and asks, does this make you angry. One of them should be, this poll. Does this poll make you angry? Yes! It does. It generally has bad things like companies polluting the environment, does that make you angry. Hmmm. Yeah. Athletes making million dollar salaries, does that make you angry? Hmmm. No hang on just a second. Are they black? The government raising taxes on gasoline, blah, blah, blah. Then some blatantly racist examples: A black family moving next door to where you live. A black person serving as President of the United States. Okay, these are racist. Hello. By the way, the way they present the poll is key. They talk about people having negative feelings towards blacks. If you say you don't want to have a person living next to you that is black, then yes, you have negative feelings about blacks but are you racist? If this makes you angry: Black leaders asking the government for racial equality in the workplace. I don't know, that kind of makes me angry. Does that make you angry? I mean, not angry but I'm like, yeah, that kind of pisses me off. Do you know why? It's a loaded statement. The term "Black leaders," who does that bring to mind? The self appointed black leaders. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. That's who that brings to mind. And Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? This is the way the question reads to people. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton asking the government for their idea of racial equality in the workplace. Does that piss you off? It's their idea of racial equality. If they wanted a real answer on who was racist, they could have easily worked in, you know, where did the question "African Americans being treated equally in the workplace." Does it piss you off when African Americans are treated equally in the workplace? No. Of course not. But that's not what they wanted. You had to re you had to rework and reword the question. What else shows racism? Well, they don't give their entire formula away but look at some of the questions. Does Barack Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright his former President show you Barack Obama would be a better President? Now, the question is broken out to whites only, 41% say it makes him a worse President, 2% say better. But all respondents, the ratio is 34:5. So two things are clear from the polling. Jeremiah Wright is viewed very negatively by almost everybody. That's a good sign for America, the guy who says white people invented the AIDS virus to kill black people, not real popular. Jeremiah Wright is viewed slightly more negative by whites than all races but does that make them racist? Does blacks view him more positively than other races, are they racist because he says that whites invented AIDS to kill blacks. By the way, we can't answer any of those questions because for some reason or another they didn't break out the "Blacks only" category. Why not? It's almost like the study is designed to show whites as racist. Will race influence your vote? 18% say yes. You racist. Unless you break it out. More likely to vote for him? 9. Less likely to vote for him? 9. I guess the people who just want to vote for him because he's black and not white kind of racist kind of cancels out the person who's white and just doesn't want to vote for him because he's black racist.

Do black people have too much influence? 14% say yes. But take a minute to remember the ad of McCain and all of his houses. Do you remember that? How many times do they hit McCain on how rich he is? There was a story in Drudge Report yesterday: He's got 450,000 cars. Why did they do that? Because five and a half times as many people think rich, the rich have too much influence. And by the way, do blacks have too much influence? 14% say yes. How many of that 14% go back to the original question about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Black leaders. 86% of whites feel sympathy for blacks at least occasionally, most at least moderately often. 91% feel 91% of whites feel admiration for blacks at least occasionally. The vast majority is at least moderately often. What kind of survey is this? 91% feel admiration for blacks? Have you ever thought, "Gee, I admire those black people an awful lot." Have you ever thought that? I never have. I have thought, that Condoleezza Rice really is impressive. I have even thought Barack Obama, look where this guy came from. And then I thought, yeah, look where this guy came from. But look where this guy came from. He did it. I have more admiration for the job that he has done than he does. Either that or he just believes he's the Messiah because you can't do it but he can. But I've never thought, gee, I feel sorry for those blacks; gee, I have admiration for those blacks.

Then they go through a long list of attributes and ask which one describes a specific race. Now, one of the big findings this is the one you are seeing everywhere the big findings is that 13% of whites think lazy applies to blacks, extremely well or very well. Of course, among all voters it's actually a combined 13%. So whites think lazy applies very well or extremely well by 13% to blacks, 13%. That's whites. But the combined number is also 13%. So wait a minute here. Assuming that blacks would say zero, Hispanics must be more racist than whites. Or... Hispanics, blacks and whites all by a number of 13% think that lazy describes blacks. Which is it? I don't know. But somebody, unless it's perfectly balanced, is more quote/unquote racist than whites are. And by the way, nowhere in this survey did they ask how would you say whites? Would lazy describe whites? No. It's not in there. And believe me, I've met my fair share of white people that are lazy. I've been to a fast food restaurant lately. Tried to get my order right. I've seen people busting their butt behind the counter, and I've seen people who could give a flying crap that they are at work. I don't know which color I've seen more lazy people of, but I know I've seen a lot of lazy people. Point is, laziness like racism, not a black/white disease. It's a human disease. That's the way it is. But you're not going to get that from the American media. No, no, not during the election, not before the election, probably not after the election. If he loses, definitely, definitely not after the election.

VOICE: It's a deadly disease and it's only getting deadlier. It's racism. How can you tell if someone you love has racism? Symptoms include frequent use of vulgarity and racial slurs, racial profiling, making baseless accusations, showing favoritism, voting for Republicans, noticing cultural food trends, color based basketball pickup game recruiting and, according to the media, residency in West Virginia. Racism can be difficult to detect in some cases but if you suspect someone you love has this disease, consult your doctor. If you cannot afford a doctor because of racist Republican healthcare policies, simply check the skin color of the patient. If they appear to have a white tone to their skin or think Larry Byrd was the greatest player of all time, they do indeed have racism. Racism, it's like a racist country club, only white people allowed. This message brought to you by the Damned Whitie Coalition.

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.