Glenn Beck: Spineless Specter


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

GLENN: I want to talk to you a little bit about Arlen Specter and the bogus choice that we are being presented. The other thing I want to talk to you about is the swine flu, and I want to play the role of the three advisors if you were the president of the United States and ask you what would you do. But I think I want to start with Arlen Specter. This is so critical. I heard when I was listening to our flagship station here in New York City, WOR as I was driving in, I'm listening to Gambling. John Gambling is talking about Arlen Specter and he makes complete and the co hosts that were on with him, they were all talking and John says, no, the government doesn't need to get more or the Republicans don't need to move, you know, farther left. They just need to reestablish the principles that they have abandoned, they no longer stand for. And one of the co hosts said, you know what, John, I don't think most people are conservative. Because he said they are conservative and they were using, I think the wrong terms. And the co host said, John, you know what I think. Most people, they would just like some fiscal responsibility and then liberal freedom. And I was hoping that somebody would point this out and nobody did, but I think this is the typical conversation that is happening all around the country right now and it's frustrating to everybody involved because they were all right. Everybody that was in that conversation was right, but they're arguing because the terms no longer mean anything solid. They mean something different to everybody. I learned this a long time ago from my father actually. He said to me when we were having a conversation about God. He said, well, you know, Glenn, god has too many different meanings. It just, you can't really have a conversation about God with people because you will see god differently than I see God and we'll see God differently than somebody who is a Buddhist will see God. So God doesn't mean the same thing because of our upbringing, because of the culture that we grow up in, et cetera, et cetera. He said, you really want to be able to have a "Start from scratch" conversation about God, you need to call him first cause because nobody calls him first cause. But that's what he is. How did the Earth start, how did the universe, what was first cause. Now I can talk to somebody who doesn't believe in God, somebody who's deeply religious, somebody who sees God in a completely different way. I can talk to all of them, first cause. And I don't get caught up in all the petty arguments of, "Well, you just belong in some sort of being," you don't get caught up in it what we're talking about, what is the first thing that happened? What is first cause?

So let's have a first cause kind of conversation here about our political system. Everybody is caught in the trap of right, left, conservative, liberal and Democrat/Republican. Forget about that and I'll tell you why we have to forget about it. Because it has been so distorted and so it is my opinion. I don't have anything to back this up historically speaking yet, but I'm looking for it. It is my opinion that the progressive movement intentionally latched onto liberal because it took classic liberalism then out of the picture. And that is the problem with our system right now. That is the frustration. I contend most Americans are classic liberals. How many in this audience even know what a classic liberal is? In this audience we probably have the highest percentage. Any of talk radio have the highest percentage would know what a classic liberal is. The reason why most people don't know what a classic liberal is, is because of the progressive movement. It was distorted. The progressives distorted liberalism. Classic liberal basically is a libertarian. It is somebody who believes in personal responsibility. It is somebody who believes in the natural rights of man. It is somebody who believes in the self as the first cause or not first cause but the determining factor. It believes in small government. But the progressives latched onto that, and it was distorted. And when they did that and I don't know when they did it and I don't know who did it and I don't know how it came to be, but I will find the answer on that. I believe it was by design and here's why I believe it was by design. Because once you destroy the argument or destroy the place at the table of the classic liberal, of the libertarian, then you're only having a discussion between the same thing, just different paint color.

Let me describe it as this. I believe our system has become Kentucky Fried Chicken and Popeye's. Now, I personally like Popeye's. I like the service at Kentucky Fried Chicken. So there are times that I can't take the people just throwing the food at me and yelling at me. So I'm going to go to Kentucky Fried Chicken. But there are other times that I'm like, I don't like the chicken as much. It's better chicken at Popeye's. And this is the argument that we have. We have two choices between Kentucky Fried Chicken and Popeye's. What a lot of Americans want is a hamburger. Kentucky Fried Chicken, if you will, took the hamburger choice away. They started calling themselves Kentucky Fried Hamburgers and so now people are saying, you want a hamburger? Well, you should be over here having chicken. No, no, no, you're eating chicken, too. "No, I'm not. I'm eating a hamburger, and we make the best hamburgers ever." And then pretty soon Popeye says, "We're making hamburgers as well." No, that's chicken, too. That's just called a chicken tender. "Nope, it's a hamburger and ours is flame broiled." No, it's not. You put it in oil. This is clearly fried. "No, that's Kentucky Fried Chicken." No. Neither of you guys are serving hamburgers! I just want a hamburger, please. This is what's happening. We're arguing about chicken places. When the real moment of revelation is when America steps back and goes, "Wait a minute. My gosh, it is chicken. Soylent Green! It's chicken! As soon as somebody stands at the counter and says, "Where's the beef!" Then we'll be able to have an honest conversation in America about Arlen Specter. But you can't have an honest conversation about Arlen Specter because he is the quintessential example of chicken in both houses. He was serving people chicken who wanted steak, but they were convinced that it was either chicken or that, you don't really want steak. I mean, we can't we may not even eat. If we don't take this chicken, we may not ever eat. No, really, there is another choice. We can stop by the hamburger store on the way. "No, no, only chicken. We must have this chicken and pretend that it's beef." I don't think so. That's a waste of your food choice. You get to choose three times a day. "Chicken. Chicken and pretend that it's beef."

Here's what's happening. The chicken, if you will, is progressivism. It is big government, lots of spending, lots of control. And whether that control is how much you pollute, you know, carbon dioxide and the control is cap and trade or the control is how much or where you can get your healthcare and how much you pay into it, there's control and big government on the other side. And then over here with the other chicken place where they swear it's beef, they give you big, gigantic government in prescription drugs, they give you big gigantic government in the control of the, all of the defense and all of the control of how we fight our foreign policy but yet we never really win over here. We never really use everything we have, which is almost like the other chicken place, we don't really use everything we have. You have the big control of the, well, we've got to have all of these eavesdropping things, all of these different things that we've got to have, we've got to have for our security over here. Oh, no, we have to have all the controls on the banks because, well, we have to have all this security and then pretty soon the other chicken place is saying, yeah, we have to have all those controls on the banks for your security as well. And pretty soon they're both saying exactly the same thing. There hasn't been a change. There hasn't been a change. There's not going to be a change. You are going to continue to eat chicken. So let's reintroduce the hamburger joint because as we all know, America is not known for Kentucky Fried Chicken. While it's on the menu and it is a choice, that's not what made American fast food. What made American fast food and what changed the world was McDonald's. So let's talk about the glorious McDonald's for a second. McDonald's is libertarianism. McDonald's is our founding fathers. McDonald's is the Constitution. McDonald's is natural law and nature's god. It's not coincidence that they named I started the monologue with first cause. It's not a coincidence that the founders always talked about nature's god and the laws of nature because they said those are immovable. No matter how you see God, no matter what it is, doesn't matter if you're a Jew, Christian or a Muslim, nature's god. He endows everyone with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was originally life, liberty and property. They changed it to not help slave states. Of course, we don't learn that anymore but we certainly don't learn about nature's god anymore. Progressives believe that God is inconsequential, he does not give you rights. Progressives do not believe in the natural laws of God, in nature's god, in nature's laws. They do not believe you are born with certain inalienable rights. This is where collectivism comes. Whatever is good for the collective, whatever is best for the state, whatever it is this person has to do to help everyone else, forced help. This is where universal healthcare comes from. You are un American if you don't do this. This is where if you're against the war, you're un American if you speak out against the war. It's the collective mindset.

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.