Glenn Beck: Garofalo ruining '24'




Related Video - Janeane Garofalo made an appearance on Countdown with Keith Olbermann recently in which she claimed that the only reason hundreds of thousands of people attended Tea Parties was racism.


GLENN: I declare that I can no longer watch 24, unless they no, no, no, I can't take the commercials! I can't take the, "You know what we really are concerned about here on 24? Global warming. It's no joke. We'll all be dead before this episode is over if we don't act right now."

STU: That is agonizing.

GLENN: I can't take them.

STU: TiVo the commercials.

GLENN: I do TiVo. They still piss me off.

STU: You are very sensitive.

GLENN: And Janeane Garofalo.

STU: She's terrible.

GLENN: Going to end up being a good person, too. You watch. "See, everybody loves her. She was very minded, she was..." arghhh!

STU: It really is, just looking back at it, it's very difficult to understand why they would choose her. She has no buzz to her, she's not a good actress in any way.

GLENN: No, she has buzz to her. She does have buzz. Here she is, this is on Keith's show, right? Keith Olbermann, you know, the Shakespearian performer. She's on Keith Olbermann. She's talking about the tea parties. She's got lots of buzz on this one. Listen to what Janeane Garofalo, star of 24, has just said about the tea parties.

GAROFALO: Let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston tea party was about. They don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.

GLENN: Okay, hang on just a second. Let me just go through this again. Let me just go through this again. Get ready to stop and start it. You ready, Dan? Here we go. Take.

GAROFALO: Let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston tea party was about.

GLENN: Okay. It's not about the Boston tea party because you don't have any idea what history is. You're not smart enough. You're not smart enough to even understand history, and it's certainly not about taxes, okay? You're not smart enough, you don't understand taxes, you don't understand history. You don't know what the Boston tea party was. They're being honest. Let's just be honest about this. They're being honest: You're too stupid to even be honest.

GAROFALO: They don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.

GLENN: Hating a black man.

STU: It's unbelievable. Yeah, because when she's saying this, "Let's be honest about it," what she's saying is not let's be honest about what the truth is, at least to me. What she's saying is let's be honest about what we really think about these people. Let's be honest about what our opinion is about

GLENN: You are giving her too much credit.

STU: Really?

GLENN: You are giving her too much.

STU: I'm not giving her a lot of credit.

GLENN: Oh, I know that, but you're still giving her too much credit. They have no fear. Stu, they have no fear of saying anything. They don't care. They can say anything they want because they are not held to the same standard as conservatives are. They have no idea. I welcome Janeane Garofalo to walk in my shoes for a months. She would melt down. She wouldn't be able to stand the scrutiny. She would not be able to stand it. She couldn't take it.

I mean, Stu and I were talking today. I get Google alerts, all of these things taking me apart. Stu said, did you see the Charles Barkley thing on you? And I said, what? He said, yeah, he was on I don't even know what show. Do you even know what show?

STU: No, I don't know.

GLENN: Okay, he was on some late night show. It may be Leno, I don't know. I'm so used to now I mean, here, where's my bag? Did you see People magazine?

STU: No.

GLENN: People magazine. People magazine, next to Vivica, what's her name?

STU: Fox?

GLENN: Yeah, is she the one with the middle initial B? I don't know who she is because she's black. So I just hate her.

STU: You hate her. That's why you were the he tea parties.

GLENN: Exactly yes! Let's just be honest about it. So I'm going through People magazine not me. My daughter going through People magazine: Dad. "What?" "People magazine?" Yeah, I know. It sucks. What about it? "You're in People magazine." Why am I in People magazine? You should see what they write. You should see what they wrote about me.

STU: An interesting analysis of our financial. Is that what it was?

GLENN: Oh, and I'm a dummy and everything else.

STU: People magazine published it.

GLENN: I know. I welcome, I welcome these people to try to walk in the shoes of a conservative. Try to walk in the shoes. Try this. Don't just try to walk in the shoes of a conservative. Walk in the shoes of a conservative libertarian because that's a double whammy. If you don't want to play the game of Washington, oh, Sarah Palin, here you come. Tina Fey is just licking her chops. Janeane Garofalo, they're not afraid. "Let's be honest. Let's just say what we really mean." They have no fear. Try being Miss what is it from the Miss USA pageant. Miss California. You have the opportunity in America, the great thing you can choose. But in my world it's between a man and a woman.

STU: An opinion that's shared by about 60 to 70% of people.

GLENN: But not the elites. Not the right people. Not the people that control the media. Not the people that control opinions. Not the people who are so open minded. No, no, no, she's immediately a hate monger. She's immediately dismissed. You can't have that opinion. Who are the people really that are afraid to say anything? And I'm telling you, America, I am so proud of my country because my countrymen are no longer afraid. They're starting to stand up. This is about racism? Really? Show me the person that hates Barack Obama because he's black and I'll show you the biggest idiot on the planet. I mean, jeez, give us more credit. We can actually hate people for real legitimate reasons. And I don't know a soul that hates Barack Obama. I know people who strongly disagree with him. I do. But I don't hate him. I pray for the man every night! I don't hate the man. I strongly disagree with him.

STU: What would the I was trying to think of what the opposite of this, like what could a conservative say? Essentially being like Barack Obama hates the people in the tea parties because they're white.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

STU: Like would you ever say that? It's such a ridiculous idea, and these people who claim to be so intellectually superior trot out an argument that is that weak.

GLENN: Wait. But wait, but wait, there's more.

STU: Is there?

GLENN: People who actually say that the white man is Satan, that the white man is the problem with it, i.e., Jeremiah Wright, they don't have a problem with that racism. They don't have a problem with the racism of Jeremiah Wright.

Now, I haven't been to racist meetings. I haven't been to Klan meetings, nor would I go to a Klan meeting. I don't know people like that, but Barack Obama does. But apparently that's not a problem. So don't tell me that Janeane Garofalo has a problem being honest. Jeremiah Wright can say that white men are trying to kill the black man because they're black. He can say that they are Satan.

STU: Creating the AIDS virus.

GLENN: That they created the AIDS virus. You can say any of that stuff without any ramification, without any. But God forbid you say this government is out of control, and it was out of control under George W. Bush and it's out of control now. God forbid that you say this president has spent twice the amount that George Bush did. He doubled the debt of George W. Bush, and George W. Bush doubled the debt from Clinton! God forbid you say that and couple it with this: I think we should get out of both of these parties. I think both of these parties are bad. That's the next whammy that's coming, gang.

When did conservative when did the conservative value have anything since Ronald Reagan, when have the Republicans really been for the true conservative movement, small government, sovereignty? George W. Bush I'm sorry. George H. W. Bush was the one who was like, yeah, we got a new world order thing going on right here. No, thank you, no, thank you. "You know what we're going to do? We're going to strengthen the United Nations, we're going to make it work right for the first time." No, thank you.

STU: There's been elements of it over the years but never

GLENN: They only give you enough to say, "Well, okay, better than that guy." What did we just go through? John McCain: Well, better than that guy. We've got to stop doing that. You're not throwing your vote away. You are throwing your vote away when you say "Better than that guy." I just did it, gang. Better than that guy, no. No more. When you read the American Progressivism and you see the disease, the disease that is the progressive movement, it started over 100 years ago, you see what they're doing and it is both the Republicans and the Democrats.

So the only one that really should have fear in this country is the one who is telling the truth, the one who is walking down the center path and saying, you know what, wherever I find truth, whether it's under a rock of Republicans or the rock of Democrats, those people are right. Those people are the ones that are going to be the end of this corrupt power in Washington. And don't think they don't know it.

So Janeane Garofalo is on saying that we're all racists. That's all this is about is racism. Can we go back to 2003, Janeane Garofalo?

GAROFALO: There has been so many inappropriate responses to dissent, which is the most patriotic thing you could do, and the First Amendment guarantees everyone's right to speak out.

GLENN: Okay, wait a minute. Hang on. There's so many inappropriate, like being that the tea parties are only about racism? See, this is where you have to be consistent, and everybody drops the ball on this. Who was with me during the Iraq war and the buildup? Who was listening to this show? The media, they can't transcript? What? They can't even begin to understand the concept that I've got 30 years of broadcast and I've got, you know, the last eight years you can look at what I was saying about George W. Bush. What I was saying about dissent, I was the guy on the air defending the people in Hollywood saying you cannot call them un American. There's nothing more American than speaking out, and now is the time to speak out. That's what you do: Speak out. However, my problem with Hollywood was they wanted it both ways. They wanted to be able to speak out and be loved and have us go watch their movies. No, sorry. If I can no longer see you as anybody about the woman who, you know, sold out her country overseas which is now no different than Barack Obama. So, you know, what do I know. You know, and I can no longer enjoy your country music, Dixie Chick, well, then that's not my fault. I can no longer enjoy your music because I think of you doing that overseas. That doesn't make me un American and it doesn't make you un American. That makes us capitalists, which again I see that we don't really embrace anymore in this country. So again what do I know.

Back to Janeane Garofalo again. This is current day Janeane Garofalo on Keith Olbermann's show.

GAROFALO: The Olympic brain inside a rightwinger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it's pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring.

GLENN: I didn't know she played a doctor on TV or was a doctor, but in other words, this is what's wrong with you: Your brain is too big. It doesn't work right. It's just too big because it's making everything misfire and that's why you become such a white power racist.

STU: Right. And conservatives equal white power.

GLENN: Yes. That's all you are. If you are a conservative, you are white power. Here she is back in 2003.

GAROFALO: Like I said, it's very Archie Bunker, antiintellectual, unfair way to treat dissent.

VOICE: All right, so we're in favor of celebrities talking or Republican figures talking about politics if they want to?

GAROFALO: I'm in favor of any citizen talking in favor if they want to.

GLENN: Right. Just don't make unfair comments about them if they do.

STU: Like, you know, calling them white power.

GLENN: That their brain's too big.

STU: Frontal lobe.

GLENN: And it's a white power synapse thing. Oh, okay.

Here's our number, 888 727 BECK.

STU: What were you saying about 24?

GLENN: Hmmm?

STU: I can't remember what your opinion was on 24.

GLENN: I can't remember. It's just something pushing on my frontal lobe. So I can't really figure that out. I hate that show. Too many, too many minorities on it.

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.