Glenn Beck: Obama's ties to Ayers




Bill Ayers audio

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the program. My name is Glenn Beck. I want to play a piece of audio for you. This is the latest piece of audio. This is from an interview in 2002 of William Ayers. Listen carefully to what the man says.

AYERS: I consider myself partly, I consider myself partly an anarchist now. I'm as much that as I am a Marxist which is to say, you know, I find a lot of the ideas in anarchism, you know, appealing and I'm very open about what I think and nobody is surprised about what I think, over various religious fundamentalisms beyond being, you know, the most visible but the religious fundamentalism of the Christians and of the Jews is equally troubling. Is one of those regrets that I took extreme measures against the United States at a time of tremendous crisis? No, it is not. I don't regret that.

GLENN: Okay. "Nobody was surprised by what I believe." He has said before in an interview that he is a communist. Here he says he has a lot in common with anarchists. He is not -- this is two years ago. He does not regret that he took extreme measures against the United States. Extreme measures? He was a terrorist. He was a domestic terrorist. Now, why does this matter? People will say, oh, well, he knows a lot of people. Well, he was working, the week he gave this interview, with Barack Obama. They were working on education together. Barack Obama has endorsed some of his education books. This man shouldn't be anywhere near our school system. That's not a surprise to me that he's in our colleges. Does it matter? It matters because you can't trust what Barack Obama says because what Barack Obama has been saying the whole time is he distances himself from, well, the latest is ACORN.

Stanley Kurtz is with us from the National Review and he's got some latest, the latest on Barack Obama and the New Party. Stanley, what is the New Party?

KURTZ: Glenn, a New Party was a party that briefly flourished and then died off due to a Supreme Court decision in the mid-Nineties. And the idea of this party was to be something like Ralph Nader's Green party, a very left-leaning third party force. But in contrast to Nader's strategy, the New Party was called a fusion party. That meant instead of being a spoiler, instead of drawing votes away from the major party candidates, the New Party wanted to be able to endorse very left-leaning Democratic candidates. They wanted to have a separate line on the ballot but they would still endorse the leftist Democrat and in that way they would try to pull the Democratic party far to the left.

GLENN: Okay. So they were actually, they were actually a support to the Democrat as long as you were leftist?

KURTZ: Exactly, exactly. And we see some of this in New York state. They have liberal and conservative parties and they try to pull the major parties in one direction or other. Now, the New Party had an awful lot of very, very far left leaning people on it. Some people have argued, and they've got a good case, I think, that the New Party was either socialist or very close to being socialist. But even if we bracket that question, it's difficult to give a final answer to, the New Party was really left leaning. In Chicago they were controlled by ACORN, very strongly controlled by ACORN. Now --

Stanley Kurtz

GLENN: How do you mean, how do you mean they were cold by ACORN?

KURTZ: Well, ACORN, the way ACORN works is it spins off a lot of side organizations and gives them a slightly different name and tax status but really they are all basically the same organization.

GLENN: That's the story in the New York Times today about ACORN and Project Vote which Barack Obama ran. The New York Times is saying that the people who are -- some of the people that were involved in Project Vote had no idea they were involved in Project Vote. They thought they were working for ACORN.

KURTZ: Yes. In fact, you go to some of these offices, Glenn, I've heard people who would go to the office and there would be one telephone with maybe five lines on it and each line would be for a different organization and all the same people would answer and they would just answer as to a different name but really it was all the same people. So ACORN decided, hey, our nonprofit status says that we can't directly go into campaigning and be a political party, but we really would like to be a political party. So let's help create one. So ACORN's lead organizers got together with some other very left-leaning folks in the mid-Nineties and created a party and particularly in the cities where ACORN was strong, the party was strongest because basically they were the same, the same thing with a few socialists added on. In Chicago it was ACORN and a few what they call Democratic Socialists of America, maybe 80% ACORN, 85% ACORN. And Barack Obama, who's had, despite all his denials, very close working ties with ACORN through the years, Barack Obama was endorsed by the New Party in his very first run for office. He was running for the Illinois State Senate and according to documents that have been put on the Internet, Barack Obama was a member of the New Party.

GLENN: Stanley, when you say according to documents on the Internet, there is a lot of stuff that's on the Internet that I don't believe at all. Did you check these documents out? Are these accurate documents?

KURTZ: Well, they certainly seem to be. They are actual publications of the New Party which brag about the fact that some of our New Party members have won the election. And as I understand it, the New Party used to ask people they endorse to sign a pledge. Now, the New Party did not require that you be a full member to endorse you because this fusion idea meant that sometimes they would endorse a Democrat even if the Democrat didn't really belong to the New Party. But according to these documents on Internet that I believe are reliable and that I haven't seen anyone dispute the reliability of, in fact there's a fellow who's the top expert on the New Party. His name is Micah Sifry, and I used a lot of his work in the article I wrote. He actually had a post after my article came up and he did not dispute the legitimacy of the documents that said Obama was a member of the New Party and if anyone might have, it would have been him.

GLENN: Stanley, I know that there are people in the audience and I know there are people that every time they see, you know, William Ayers or ACORN or anything else come up on the news, they've gotten to the place to where they say, "Oh, well, what difference does it make." I mean, I've watched the news -- the network news numbers now are dropping like a stone. I believe that's because America's made up her mind. America's to a point to where, "Okay, I've heard enough, I get it." But why, how would you respond to, why does William Ayers make a difference? Why does Barack Obama's even endorsement from the New Party, let alone his involvement with the New Party, ACORN, why do these things make a difference?

KURTZ: Well, Glenn, that's a great question and I don't think the McCain campaign has done enough to connect the dots on it. Certainly the media has blocked the issue. But even the McCain campaign has portrayed it chiefly as the focus on Ayers, chiefly about what Ayers did in the 1960s, chiefly as a question of judgment. Those are all important. I don't deny it. But I actually think what's most important is this very large, detailed, and systematic pattern of Obama throughout his career in the Nineties, which is not that far back, working very closely with people who are very far onto the radical left. This isn't just William Ayers, it isn't just about what he did in the 1960s. Obama was closely associated with people on the very far left, and his portrayal of himself, so far successful in much of the media, has been as a post-partisan, post-ideological, pragmatic moderate. In fact, that itself comes from some of these radical community organizers. They actually have a whole philosophy coming out of Saul Alinsky that when you work with people who are blue-collar people, you don't start quoting all the leftist ideology. You call yourself a pragmatist, you say that it's not -- you're not Democrat or Republican; you just want to solve real problems of working people. And yet the very people who say that tend to be these far left-leaning folks. So I think if people say, "Look, Obama is not a centrist, he's not a post pragmatic, he's very far to the left now," people want to support someone far to the left, okay, that's great. I don't think it means that Obama shares every single idea that Bill Ayers has, but Obama was the most liberal senator in his voting record. Obama has a very, very sharply liberal record. He's tried to portray himself as something other than that. And again and again and again his past -- I won't even call them associations. They are really political partnerships. And his past issues that he has focused on all place him far onto the left end of the political spectrum and that message has not gotten across.



GLENN: So Stanley, here a something that concerns me. You have his associations with ACORN. ACORN is -- and we're seeing it now. The election, the election fraud that is going on right now is in a group that says that they're a nonpartisan group that says they are just trying to get out the vote, they are not trying to campaign for Barack Obama. Dan, play the audio from, you know, the speeches that ACORN recently has given, the convention speech. Can you play these quick pieces?

VOICE: This has been the worst presidency that this country has ever known. But that's all right because we're getting rid of his ass. He got to go.

VOICE: We're getting Obama for President (applause)! Obama needs us, ACORN. We need Obama, don't we.

GLENN: So here's the thing. They say one thing and do another, and a lot of these people that he knows and he's associated with will break the law, go around the law, do anything they have to. Bill Ayers doesn't regret taking up arms and blowing up the Pentagon in the 1960s. He is a terrorist and he doesn't disavow it by any stretch of the imagination. No matter what Barack Obama might believe, the people he has constantly surrounded himself are not necessarily trustworthy people.

KURTZ: Well, that's right, Glenn. The truth, Glenn, is that Barack Obama was part of all this, as actually Senator McCain said in the last debate. What Obama and Ayers were doing on these foundations was funneling money to ACORN. Now, at the time Obama was funneling money to ACORN, he knew he was about to run for office. And ACORN people, although they call themselves individuals instead of ACORN officially, were walking the precincts working for Obama's election. Now, technically it's illegal to give money to an organization that supplies your precinct workers and, you know, this is one of those cases where Obama himself was involved. Why did Ayers and Obama give out $150 million to improve education in Chicago and yet there was no measurable improvement. Because I don't think they were as focused on improving achievement tests as they were in funneling money to these community organizers who would help them politically.

GLENN: Okay. Stanley, answer this. There were Republicans on that board. It's not just Barack Obama. Why isn't this an indictment on everybody that was on that board?

KURTZ: Well, the truth is that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge did have this one Republican fellow but he was a dissenter. That's what Obama doesn't want to talk about. When Obama and the others came up with a plan to funnel money to the developing communities project, his original radical organizing group, this fellow, Arnold Weber, who is the Republican, he dissented. And we also have indications someone whose name is not given but their description fits Arnold Weber's description who said that the proposals that came in were awful proposals that were getting funded. So they actually ran roughshod over a dissenter and it was certainly the Republican.

GLENN: What about these two, these two heads of universities that were on that board with him that supposedly are -- you know, hold a picture of Ronald Reagan, you know, close to their heart at night?

KURTZ: Well, they don't. Weber, the businessman was also at Northwestern University. He was a dissenter and, he was a liberal. The rest of the people were super left leaning foundation people in Chicago. I mean, it's just, it's just absurd. I mean --

GLENN: Okay. So Stanley, you're a thinker. I mean, you look at this stuff and you must say this matters for what reason? This matters to you. You feel compelled to get this information out. You've done a lot of your work on this. Nobody else is in the mainstream media really focused on this. Why personally do you think this matters? What's coming if we don't, if we don't pay attention to this?

KURTZ: Well, Glenn, Barack Obama is a clever fellow. I think he sees himself -- I haven't published this yet but you had a quotation earlier where he sees himself really like Paul Wellstone but who is smarter politically than Paul Wellstone. Paul Wellstone was a super left leaning Democratic senator. He sees himself as the smart guy on the left. He isn't necessarily going to favor every single radical left proposal right away because he wants to retain power, but what many voters believe is that whatever moderation he will show is coming from his soul. Actually in his heart of hearts, he wants to go as far left as he can and he'll go as far left as he thinks the political traffic will bear. He'll do everything he can. He will only stop short because he's being cautious politically. But if you want to know where his heart is -- and he's said over and over himself, his heart is with his community organizing days, with the thoughts and philosophy of community organizers. And as I read into what community organizers believed and as I saw that Barack Obama and Bill Ayers who, by the way, Ayers was also a community organizer and thinks of himself that way, they both did everything they could to funnel money to these community organizers which, when you see what they believe, you see that it's just like Reverend Wright. And I'm not exaggerating. I had an article called Senator Stealth in the National Review. You have to subscribe to read it, but you read the philosophy of the Gamma Leo Foundation which is the network that Obama first worked for. It's just like Reverend White Wright, and I'm not exaggerating.

GLENN: Who's using whom? You've got the Reverend Wrights, you know, the nation of Islam, the Black Panthers, you have the George Soroses of the world. They are all supporting Barack Obama. He doesn't necessarily have to have ties or endorsements, you know, going his way back to them. Who is using whom? Who do you think is the -- who do you think is the winner in that game? Which one has the real power to shut the other side down?

KURTZ: Well, I think Obama, again Obama is a fellow who has a lot of sympathies with people on the far left but who sees himself quite accurately as being a lot smarter politically than they are. He sees himself as someone who's going to deliver for the left, broadly speaking, in the most pragmatic way you can if you're in a country that is center right. So he's going to be torn if he gets in with a Democratic congress because the Democratic congress is going to be split between the people who want to go for everything they can possibly get in the two years that they're certain that they hold power and the people who fear that that will cause a reaction, something like the Gingrich reaction to Clinton, and Obama will be mediating. He will be torn between both sides, but in his heart, his heart will be with the left and he will give them as much as he can.

GLENN: I have just about a minute left here. The New Party and the philosophy of the UN themed peace school which William Ayers and Barack Obama funded, the peace school, the UN themed peace school, the philosophy between the two, is there a link?

KURTZ: Well, you know, I haven't seen a direct link but to talk about the peace school a little more, Ayers, Ayers has a book where he gives examples of teachers who teach social justice in an appropriate way, and one of his examples is a woman -- this is not from Annenberg funding but it's something Ayers was touting, a woman who wouldn't let her children say the "Pledge of Allegiance". She stopped them from saying the "Pledge of Allegiance". By the way, most of them were illegal aliens, most of her students, and she wrote for them something called "I pledge allegiance to the world." And Ayers touted this in his book as an ideal example of teaching for social justice. So then you move over to a school, the peace school where all the holidays are focused around the anniversary of the founding of the UN or the anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

KURTZ: You know, now I don't think Obama was particularly closely tied to Louis Farrakhan. I haven't seen a lot of that.

GLENN: I'm not saying -- no, no, no, but Louis Farrakhan is tying himself to Barack Obama.

KURTZ: Right. But the thing I want to do --

GLENN: I'm not saying the other way around.

KURTZ: Even though he is not personally directly tied, one thing people forget is that when Jeremiah Wright went with Louis Farrakhan to visit Kadafi in Libya, that was all this same period. I think it was '95. So Obama knew that his pastor and his mentor, Reverend Wright, was palling around with Louis Farrakhan visiting Muammar Kadafi. So I think that's not a particularly patriotic idea, if you know what I mean. So Barack Obama's at least willing to tolerate all of this because of his general sympathies with the left. Even if he doesn't accept it 100%.

GLENN: Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow of ethics in public policy center and writer for the National Review. Thank you so much, Stanley. We'll talk to you again, sir.

KURTZ: Thanks much, Glenn.

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.