Glenn Beck: Will Riots Follow an Obama Loss?



Related Story
Police prepare for unrest


GLENN: Yes. So tomorrow's the big day. We have the coronation -- the election -- tomorrow where, you know, it's a formality, make it official: Hey, look who's God. And I just thought, you know, I want to put -- I just want to -- maybe it's just me, and you can comment on any of this. You know, anybody who wants to call in and be heard on these things, you go ahead and we'll write it down.

Stu and Dan, chime in on these things. I'd like to know the odds of a riot tomorrow. I think the odds of a riot tomorrow if Obama does not win 100%. Yea or nay?

STU: It's not a very good Vegas odd line there because I don't think there's the other side of that. But yeah.

GLENN: No one's going to take that bet. Of course it's 100%. And if it breaks out in Detroit, they will do hundreds of dollars worth of damage.

STU: Yeah, but you have to ask the people --

DAN: You have to ask the people of Detroit to clear up the answer on the bet. What are they rioting for? There's several reasons to riot in the streets.

STU: Could be a normal Wednesday riot.

GLENN: Hang on a second. First of all, in Detroit they may actually do -- it's like a public service. This might be part of the green corps: Hey, burn down that entire neighborhood, will ya? I mean, and again they would do like, I'm guessing but I mean, the insurance companies would be on the hook for, like, 50, 60 bucks. So you've got that going for you.

Now, odds that there's a riot because he wins.

STU: You mean like we won the championship, now a riot?

GLENN: Yes. Not like Wyoming, you know, is all of a sudden, "What!" I mean, yoo! I mean, all of a sudden they burn Detroit down because he's won.

DAN: There's going to be at least be cars rolled over. I would at least say that.

STU: It has to be, right? I mean, that's --

GLENN: It doesn't have to be. In the world that we're now living in, yes, I suppose the odds are in its favor, but it doesn't have to be. I don't think we've ever had -- has anybody ever rolled a car when the President has ever won before?

STU: I don't know. That's a good question.

GLENN: Could you look that up for me at some point today? I'd like to know.

STU: Definitely, I'll check that out, Glenn.

GLENN: All right. Check back especially, especially in that Hoover administration thing. That was a big one.

DAN: They were pushing cars in the Jimmy Carter one just to get them to the gas stations.

STU: Yeah, and that might start again.

GLENN: Okay, so come on, really. Odds, if he wins, a celebratory riot.

STU: I'm going to say -- I'll go no. I'll say no.

DAN: I'm going to say, yeah, I think so.

GLENN: Do you guys know how to play the odds? Yes and no, that doesn't work. You give me a percentage.

STU: What's supposed to work is that you are supposed to give us odds and then you take it or not take it, Mr. "I've never -- I've gambled one time and I've told a story about it 500 times." I mean, the way you are supposed to say it is --

GLENN: Dan, Dan, do me a favor.

DAN: Yes.

STU: Would you bring a box in for Stu Friday? He is going to need it.

DAN: Sure.

GLENN: You know what, Stu, I just want to help make sure that you get part of that bailout package.

STU: Thank you. I appreciate that.

GLENN: You're welcome. One way or another, I'm going to be paying for it. So --

STU: I'll say 35% chance of riot if Obama wins. I'd say 85% if he loses.

GLENN: If he loses, 100%. 100%.

STU: I thought the game was I was supposed to say a percentage.

GLENN: Is anybody writing this down? I guess I should have said that at the outset. Somebody should write this down. I say 100% of you loses. I agree with you. I'll take a little -- I'll be a little riskier. 40% if he wins. I think you are probably accurate, 25, 30%. But I'll go, oh, what the hell.

STU: So you are saying --

GLENN: What we need is a good riot!

STU: All right. So 100% if he were to lose.

GLENN: If he loses? Do you think, anybody disagree with me?

STU: I said 85%. Do you listen to this show?

GLENN: No, I don't listen to you. I listen to this show. It's fantastic.

STU: You just hear silence when I'm talking? Doesn't seem like --

GLENN: Hello, are we still on the air?

Okay, let's go to the stock market. On Wednesday has everybody cashed out at this point? Is everybody who said, "Holy cow, socialism is right around the corner," have they cashed out. What is -- can you look at a chart of ExxonMobil? Because if ExxonMobil hasn't lost half of its value, oh, it will.

STU: I know it's down quite a bit actually. Let's see if I can get a stock quote here.

GLENN: Look that -- who's the biggest coal producer in the country? That's got to be -- I mean, coal's going to just take a -- if you are an energy company, bye-bye. So stock market, down -- is it going to be up or down? And is it going to be big in either direction? I'm torn on this one because if you didn't get your money out yet, you're just so stupid that you -- I mean, you know, if you are still, "Well, I don't know, I think Obama, he may not be so bad." I mean, who's running for the exits after he wins?

STU: I think an Obama win has been priced into the stock market already.

GLENN: I think so, too. I think so, too.

STU: I think that's what everyone's expecting at this point.

GLENN: I think it's going to be down but I don't know if it will be big.

STU: On Wednesday? All right. You are going to say down by how much? Just give me a number.

GLENN: I don't even know what big is anymore. I say a couple of hundred points.

STU: 200 points? I'll say up 75 points. And then because that's the whole thing of you sell the news -- what is it? You sell the rumor and buy the news or the reverse, however that works. As you can see, I'm a financial genius. But I think that everyone's already priced that into the market than when he actually gets elected, it will bounce a little bit.

GLENN: Here we go, next one. The year the Democrats actually stop running against George Bush.

STU: Oh, God.

GLENN: I think 20 -- I don't know, you know, 2030. What do you think?

STU: 2030? Yeah, see, I don't think so. I think it's going to have to be -- you've got to figure -- I'm going to say 2204 because in 2204 there's going to be a lot of new issues on the table and I don't know that they are going to be able to quote George Bush.

GLENN: They will still -- you know this economy -- well, let me go back a step. How about the economy? Does the economy magically look better now that Obama is in, according to the media? Are they deemphasizing it or do they just continue to tell the news but now really emphasize how bad George W. Bush was and how this economy is called?

STU: Well, clearly the economy here is going to all of a sudden be magically helped just like it was -- remember in 2004 they ran their whole campaign on George Bush was worse than Herbert Hoover and then we went on to have like three, you know, very good years in the economy. So I think that they will probably start doing that immediately but I just wonder, what is the statute of limitations on George Bush's economic policies? Are they going to be able to -- in 2012, you know, will they still be able to say, look, we just haven't been able to recover from all that evil George Bush stuff?

GLENN: They will. They will continue to run on -- they will run against George W. Bush until the end of the Constitution. So that could be three weeks from now. We're not sure but until this country is over, they will run against George W. Bush.

I don't think the media is going to -- the economy is going to look good. I think all they are going to do is dogpile onto George W. Bush the evil capitalists, the evil Wall Street, the evil bankers, the evil CEOs. That's all they are going to do. And they will continue to say how awful this economy is, where normally it turns around. But this economy's not going to turn around. And when they realize it's not going to turn around -- I mean not going to turn around at least, you know, quickly, when they realize that, they are just going to dogpile on which will make Obama's job seemingly more easy.

Now, next question. Percent of purchase price that is the new sales tax for a firearm.

STU: By when? When is this -- whenever he UPS it?

GLENN: Twelve months. Within 12 months.

STU: What is it now? Do you have any idea?

GLENN: No idea. Joe, can you check that out for me? What is the current sales tax -- federal tax, not sales tax but federal tax on firearms?

STU: I'll go with a full double of it, whatever it is.

GLENN: I'm going to go for three times. If guns are still available.

STU: Right, yeah, that's always the --

GLENN: Number of prisoners in Gitmo released.

STU: 100%. You mean released or just out of Gitmo. Because he's always talking about closing that thing down.

GLENN: Well, released to --

STU: Released to freedom or released to, you know, they go to trial in America and they go through, you know, another -- a different prison, different circumstance?

GLENN: Can you imagine if we're trying, if we try terrorists in our own courtroom?

STU: Yes, I can definitely imagine it. It seems to be our goal.

DAN: They are going to get therapy. The sentence.

STU: Seems the only thing we care more about than main street is the terrorists' feelings of late.

DAN: They had troubled childhoods, you know.

GLENN: The date Obama hits a 30% approval rating.

STU: See, how do you get to a 30% approval rating when you are a Democrat? Is that possible?

GLENN: Oh, it's going to be.

STU: George Bush is between 25 and 35 right now. Now, he has been absolutely viciously attacked for eight years, some of it legitimately for many commentators but some of it completely unfair, that much of it completely unfair. If you are Barack Obama, you are going to get the full-fledged support like a "Pledge of Allegiance" from 90% of the media. How do you ever get that low?

DAN: Even if it did, they are not going to report it. I mean, look at congress now. Democrat-controlled congress is even lower than Bush by far.

GLENN: Here's what I think's going to happen. I think that in -- ten years ago he would hit an all-time low. I mean, congress, the approval rating of congress is at 9%? I bet you it gets down to 6. You have a -- in the old days 100 -- I mean, 10 years ago -- in the old days -- I would have said that he could hit an approval rating of 30, but I don't think that he will. I think Joe Biden is right. I think there is going to be an event and the pendulum is going to stop swinging. I really think these guys will grab the pendulum and making sure it never swings again. It never goes away. You know, I have talked to so many regular people, so many regular people that I swore, if you would have given me and said, you know, Glenn, bet your house on whether that person agrees with some of the stuff that you said, I would have bet my house, no possible way, no way that person agrees with me. I have met so many people just this last weekend that said, "Glenn, I mean, I think we're headed for a Civil War. I just, there's -- I think there's a possibility this guy turns out to be a fascist." And I've talked to Republicans, I've talked to independents, I've talked to Democrats that have said this guy really spooks me. And with the combination of congress, I think they could stop the pendulum. I think that there is a lot of people in this society that their gut says real trouble on the horizon but they think they're alone, and they're not. I just think this warning bell is going off like crazy and, you know, get all spooky, freaky religious with you, I really think that God is awakening his people and I think the opposition force is just as strong. I really do. I think the opposition is just working their own kind of miracles right now and I just think that those people -- you know, I was talking to a family member of mine and I rarely talk to her. I just happened to talk to her this week even. Rarely talk to her and she is one generation removed from the Great Depression. And we were talking about it and she said, "Boy, everything, everything my father, who lived through the Great Depression and was raising kids through the Great Depression, everything my father said to look out for is coming." And she said, "I can't understand your generation." She said, "Your generation, we taught you these things. We passed it on. How is it when these things start to come that you miss it?" I said I don't know, I don't know. She said, "You know, I have found that the people who are spiritually aware right now are the ones most likely to be awake." And I said, I don't know, I've met a lot of people who I think are, you know, real spiritual people, you know, going to church all the time, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, don't get it. They don't see it, they don't get it. And I don't understand how in a country where freedom, freedom and freedom with religion and capitalism, how people aren't saying, "Well, wait a minute, hang on just a second, I don't want a big heavy state telling me exactly what I can and cannot do."

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.