Glenn Beck: Problem solved! Not


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

GLENN: We fixed the banking problem.

STU: Friday banking crisis solved, right?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: So California, today California problem. Tomorrow, California bailout.

GLENN: Solved.

STU: Wednesday, California solved. Why don't we just pass bailouts for everything, then everything would be solved.

GLENN: I love this idea. May I tell you, I'm coming up with my own -- now we have the disclaimer? Hang on. The lawyers are making us do this.

VOICE: The financial opinions expressed on this program are solely the opinion of the host, which means you should immediately realize they are invalid. The radio network, this station, the United States of America and quite possibly God himself accept no responsibility for the words or actions of the host and honestly use it as an example of how not to act or think. The thoughts generated by those who follow the hosts advice should be dismissed and ridiculed at every opportunity.

GLENN: I think this is really, I think that's a little extreme. But anyway, so I have an idea for the bailout for California because I don't know if you know this. This is fantastic. California, you are -- well, first of all, the governor just went on a $40 billion spending spree. $145 billion budget was just passed for California just recently, in the last three weeks. It's 40 -- it's up 40% over the last five years. That's fantastic. And here's the best part. In this $145 billion budget that was just signed weeks ago, you know, while the whole financial thing, not a single spending cut, not one. No spending cuts. Just signed in just a couple of weeks ago. By the way, they also have the personal income tax in the state is the highest in the nation. It's at 10.3 now. They should just raise that. People in California, they've got enough money. They're living in the sunshine. What do they need a house for? They should just -- 10.3, why not make it 15.8? Why not make it 20.1?

STU: Those people won't notice the difference.

GLENN: They won't notice.

STU: They have so much money.

GLENN: No. They have one of the 10 highest business rates for income tax at 8.3, one of the highest minimum wage requirements at $7.50, that way you don't have any real jobs for low income workers. But don't worry about it. You just hire an illegal. What's the big deal there? The trial lawyers have implanted a workers' compensation system that adds $4.13 for every $100 of payroll. That's the second highest burden in the nation. According to the Pacific Research Institute's tort liability index, California has the least -- or is the least competitive state in all of the 50s. Oh, and it's not a right-to-work state. So California, you got no problems going on. That's why I would like to enact -- because you've really done your job. You've done everything you can. You just pass that budget. Some would say, hey, have you cut it a little bit? No. You've got oil and everything else? Hey, have you sold any to make some, you know, new revenue? No. I'd like just to come with a bailout. I'm calling this the Glenn Beck Go to Hell, California Act of 2008, and it's really pretty simple. Until you cut your budget, until you, you know, stop making people just have -- this is what they did over the weekend. They made sure that all of the fast food restaurants had the calorie counts up there. You know, no, they're prioritizing. They made sure that that was all done this weekend. So until you stop doing things like that, until you slash your budget, until you stop giving money away to everybody, until you start to say, "Hey, wait a minute, don't we have a gigantic source of revenue just off our shores," until you start doing that, you can go to hell.

Now, some might say, you know, why would I want to go to Massachusetts, and I just want to say that's not -- no, no, no, that's not -- I mean, it may seem like hell but it's not actually hell. Now, people on the other side of the country, they say, have you been to Massachusetts? And I say, yes, I have been. It looks like hell. The people who are running it seem like they're from hell, but they're not -- that's not technically hell. California, until you do those other things, I'd like to send you directly to... hell. Now, some others in California, many in let's say, I don't know, San Diego might say (laughing), can't go there, I'm already living there and I say, no, no, it could get much worse for you. Yes, it could. The people who are running you right now, you might think, they're worse than Satan? Yes, yes, believe it or not, Satan could be worse than the people in Sacramento. I'm just -- now, that's just, this is just, it's only a three-page bill right now. We could add more to it. I don't think we do -- do you have any amendments, Stu, that you'd like to add?

STU: Well, it's kind of -- what you are saying is perplexing because first of all I don't understand. I mean, you should at least have 448 more pages of just pork projects. Like carbon tax, maybe something like you can work in there like some wool research.

GLENN: Hold it just a second. You are not saying that in the bill that just passed just last week, the one that was rushed through congress real quick, you are not saying that now that we've done our research over the weekend that we found that there is the beginnings of a carbon tax.

STU: No. Why would I say something -- are you Ling to me? Why would I say something like that?

GLENN: That's what we found over the weekend, that in that bill that was just passed and signed by the President, there is the foundation of a carbon tax. Because that would be crazy.



STU: It would be crazy.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: No one would say that.

GLENN: Okay, good.

STU: But what I'm saying is you --

GLENN: But wait. You are not not saying that, though, either. Have you noticed that? I think Stu is not saying that but he's not not saying that, either.

STU: Yeah, I have no --

GLENN: It almost makes me say, gee, maybe somebody should look into that bill because there's a hidden carbon tax in it!

STU: Couldn't possibly be true.

GLENN: Couldn't possibly be, no.

STU: But Glenn, you are missing the whole premise of this conversation.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: You are saying that California should go to hell because --

GLENN: No, no, no, I'm not saying that. It would be law.

STU: It's a proposed -- right, it's a proposal.

GLENN: It would be law, they would have to go.

STU: Right. You know, despite the fact there's a lot of people there who think their government is as insane as we do. The point there, though, is --

GLENN: They mainly live in San Diego.

STU: Right, yes, that's -- at least seems to be the pattern.

GLENN: It's the only part of the -- I think they own all of the flags in the State of California, are in San Diego.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You don't see an American flag anywhere except San Diego.

STU: I don't think that's accurate but it's at least --

GLENN: Pretty close.

STU: Here's the thing, Glenn.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Okay. Why would we go, why would we make California go to hell when we can -- if a bailout is going to solve the problem? Remember the premise. You have a problem, you pass a bailout, then the problem's solved.

GLENN: I'm just being a stickler. I'm just being a stickler.

STU: Why, though?

GLENN: I'm just trying to be obstinate. It's what talk radio does. It makes people hate people. When there's a solution out there, I've just got to hate people, whip people up into hatred.

STU: This is an easy solution.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Just give the money away and --

GLENN: I know, but Stu, we're out of business. I've got to whip people up into hate. Even though that solution is so simple because we have fixed the bank -- oh, the Dow is down 208. We fixed the whole economic problem. By the way, by the way, now Massachusetts has come on board. Massachusetts has also said that they are going to need a bailout.

STU: Gee, that's smart because they know bailouts solve problems. Every time --

GLENN: No, Stu, I have a -- may I, I have another bill I'd like to introduce. It's the Glenn Beck Go to Hell Massachusetts Act of 2008. It's a lot like the Glenn Beck Go to Hell California Act of 2008 except instead of oil off the shore, I just remind Massachusetts that they have a lot of wind power off their shore that might -- you know, they could -- I know you don't want to wreck your view, Massachusetts, but -- and people in Massachusetts are like, how are we going to go to hell? What are you talking about? Why would I want to go to New York City? And they say, no, no, no. No, no, people in Massachusetts, you think that New York City is hell. Technically it's not. Hell is much, much worse than -- and I know this is hard to believe. Being a guy who lives here in New York City, I know it's very, very difficult to believe, but hell is technically worse than New York City. Although Bloomberg may be the antichrist. I'm not -- I'm just saying, he may be Satan himself. I'm not sure. We'll have to check into that. But until you cut your budget, you know, because Massachusetts, the great thing about you is you wanted to do healthcare. So you did this whole healthcare thing and then it just spiraled out of control. As many would say, the whole healthcare thing, really not a good idea. You know, the whole spending and taxing, really not a good -- you are driving people out of your state. Kind of like California is. So until you decide, yeah, going to lower my taxes, I'm going to make it more business friendly, I'm going to, you know, just not, you know, just tax people to death and then spend people, you know, so they can't even afford the grave, after they've been taxed to death, they can't even afford the grave, and you wouldn't dig a grave because that will hurt the, you know, beloved environment. You picked that one up from California, by the way. Here's what you do. You can just go to hell. And then I would like to introduce the last act because New York City is now talking about a bailout, too. And that one is the Glenn Beck, Holy Cow, I Think We're Already in Hell Act of 2008. And that one is just, you have nothing, New York. You can't really do anything because what you've done is you hate the rich so much, you've taught everybody to hate the rich and you've built all of your tax base in the entire state around Wall Street, the rich people. And then what's crazy is you have people like Barney Frank coincidentally enough from Massachusetts, and he -- they send him down to monitor the whole, you know, banking thing along with Chris Dodd who is weird, this is a guy who represents a lot of the people who live in Greenwich and places like that, you know, the big bankers and stuff. And you just hate those rich and so what you've done is you've created a system where the rich can't function anymore. So now the rich are gone. They are beating it. And there's no money being made on, buy all these rich people down on Wall Street. So now there are no more rich people here. So you don't have the money for the -- maybe you should tax those people who make under $250,000 -- no, that won't cover it. Hmmm. Maybe we shouldn't have put all of our eggs into one rich basket. Maybe we should have created a system where we spread the burden across the entire spectrum so if one goes down, we don't lose the whole ship. No, that would be crazy. What we should do is eat the rich, which by the way I believe if there is a total meltdown, people in New York will be eating not only the rich but their neighbors within 10 days. Oh, they will be feasting on the old lady who lives in 19-B within 10 days of a meltdown because the people in this city are completely unprepared. Of course, they will go after the old lady's probably cat within four days because they won't have any -- and they won't be able to get down the 70 flights of stairs. And so the old lady will be, "Where's Fluffy? Has anybody seen Fluffy?" And the people will be munching on Fluffy right there in 18-D. And as the old lady comes out, "Where's Fluffy," somebody will say in 18-C, "I knew we could lure her out just by making cat noises in the hallway," and they'll eat her in New York City because, yes, New York City is hell.

So Californians, if you would like to live in New York City, just keep doing what you're doing because it's working out well here.

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.