Glenn Beck Hate Mail

STU: Where's the hate mail? This is nice mail. "Glenn, your skin appears so soft."

GLENN: Let me look here. Try this. I do have one of those. I have this: Glenn, I'm worried about that white spot that I see on your lower lip. I have recently had a similar spot removed and it was precancerous. Don't give me any lip. Have the spot removed, Peter, Georgia. That's a scar actually.

STU: It is?

GLENN: Yeah. I've always thought at least he thought it was like a cancerous growth. I always thought it looked like foam.

STU: Really?

GLENN: You don't see it? You've never seen it on TV? Like can you see the light?

STU: Oh, yeah, I don't is that what he's talking about? He's talking about the little like bump thing there?

GLENN: Yeah. That's a scar.

STU: Yeah. It doesn't look like foam.

Like hatemail? Then you'll love (or hate) or hatemail archive...

GLENN: It does when you're watching on TV. You watch it on TV and you're like, what's that white thing on his mouth? Is he foaming at the mouth?

STU: It would fit the program.

GLENN: It would fit the profile.

STU: It really would.

GLENN: So no, it's just a scar, and I apologize for it. I actually ask them to cover it every day with makeup.

STU: I'm so sorry I'm scarred. Thanks a lot, listeners.

GLENN: You want to know how that scar happened!

Dear Mr. Beck, I work at an old folks home. Oh, that's very PC of you. And we changed from Fox to MSNBC and the elderly are a lot happier now. They used to walk around and talk to your imaginary propaganda and were all frightened. Give up on the BS. You should be ashamed of yourself. Rob.

STU: How are our numbers? Because I know we're targeting old folks homes.

GLENN: Old folks homes? I'm targeting old folks homes and children.

STU: Right.

GLENN: We're way up at day care centers.

STU: Really?

GLENN: Yeah. Have you noticed well, you don't have kids. If you ever pick your kid up from a day care center and they're crying, they're watching my show.

STU: You're welcome.

GLENN: You're welcome. "Daddy, I'm so afraid." "Are you watching Glenn Beck again!"

Nancy Edwards writes in: I am a seasoned, licensed therapist with over 30 years of practice. You think this one's going to go well?

STU: No.

GLENN: I have never before encountered a more dangerous or disturbed person in public position.

STU: In 30 years?

GLENN: 30 years.

STU: That's a long time to be in practice and not find someone as disturbing.

GLENN: I would place Glenn Beck right alongside Dick Cheney. Well, now, he must be behind me because you just said in 30 years, you haven't seen a more disturbed or dangerous person.

STU: Well, no, he said he had never seen one that's more. So you could be tied with Dick Cheney.

GLENN: Tied with Dick Cheney, I'll take that tie. Dick, which a do you say we go fishing? Not hunting but fishing. The difference being that Beck has daily opportunities to brainwash and incite unsuspecting people who watch Fox. Now they're victims of the show. If you are watching Fox, you're a victim. (Sobbing). I can't get clean! Beck has a clear disorder, narcissistic personality disorder. That sounds kind of nice. I bet if I had that, I'd have it the best of anybody else.

STU: What is it? Narcissistic?

GLENN: Personality disorder, look that up. He has the extreme version of this lifelong so you've got to look at what's extreme narcissistic personality disorder. Do you have it?

STU: Yeah, let's see. A narcissistic personality disorder, or NPD...

GLENN: I've got NPD! It's leaving scars on my lip!

STU: It's defined as a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and lack of empathy. You, you, you

GLENN: Does that sound

STU: You. (Laughing).

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait. Do them again and let's be honest. Be honest.

STU: A pervasive pattern of grandiosity. All right, let me look up grandiosity. I need the exact definition. I mean, I get the idea, but grandiosity.

GLENN: I am pretty huge but usually only when I try on my clothing or I look in a mirror.

STU: Let's see. High flown style, excessive use of verbal ornamentation, the state of being grandiose, pompous or pretentious, impressive because of unnecessary largeness. There you go.

GLENN: That's me all over!

STU: That is exactly you.

GLENN: That's me.

STU: That is on the tombstone.

GLENN: Me and Dom Deluise.

STU: That really is a tomb that is the tombstone carving.

GLENN: It is, yes.

STU: Wow. He was best known for his unnecessary largeness. (Laughing).

GLENN: That's why he had to buy two plots.

STU: Okay. So that one we can obviously agree is true. Need for admiration. Everyone hates your guts.

GLENN: You think I'd be doing would I be a conservative if I needed people to admire me?

STU: I would say conservatives are completely out of the category of narcissistic personality disorder because everyone always hates you.

GLENN: That's exactly right. Stu, how many times, how many times have you heard me, how many times have you tried to stop me from doing things that you said, Glenn, everyone will hate you; no, please, I'd like to have a job!

STU: Yes. I would like to be able to list the last ten years on my resume after I leave. Understanding let's see. And then empathy, of course, understanding and entering into another's feelings, empathy is the capacity to recognize or understand another state of mind or emotion. So I mean, that one clearly you hate everyone because you, you know, want poor people to starve and you want

GLENN: I think I'm very empathetic.

STU: For yourself, yes.

GLENN: Oh, shut up. What do you know, you ooh, I got problems. Shut up; you should hear mine.

Okay, anyway. Beck has a clear disorder, narcissistic personality disorder. His extreme version of this lifelong condition, his hysterical mannerisms and gesticulations are abhorrent and disturbing only because he has access to ordinary people.

STU: So in other words, it wouldn't be disturbing if you were locked up, yes.

GLENN: If they locked me in solitary confinement, she would be fine with me.

STU: Right. As long as you were at the end of the Green Mile, no one would care.

GLENN: He never belonged on CNN... I don't think we

STU: We were on CNN Headline News, HLN, right before it was HLN.

GLENN: Let's just leave it. He doesn't belong on any national air wave. You may be right about that.

STU: That's a good call.

GLENN: That's a good call.

STU: That's not your fault.

GLENN: She's got 30 years experience. What are you going to do? It's like somebody comes to you with 100 bucks and says, here, take this? What are you going to say, no? Not my fault.

STU: Some guy gets in the major leagues and he's terrible and you say, that guy doesn't belong in the major leagues. It's not his fault he's in the major leagues.

GLENN: Especially if he turns around and goes, I know, crime?

STU: I don't get it, either.

GLENN: Then you kind of sit back in your seat and you're like, I kind of like that dude. (Laughing). I am no fan of Hannity no or Bill O'Reilly no.

STU: What?

GLENN: But at least they're measured in their behavior. Honey, let me tell you something. If you don't think I measure out, you're out of your mind. You should see me on

STU: You should see him in the cell.

GLENN: You should see me when I'm just me all by myself and nobody's watching. Of course, then again that may that actually may I mean, you're an unsuspecting person. That may scar you for life, a little like my lip, which you brought up earlier!

This man is a disaster. I'm not coming from a leftwing position in saying this, either.

STU: No. You just happen to hate Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. But I'm totally on the right! I'm so far right! You can even imagine it.

GLENN: If he held leftwing positions, I would be equally appalled that he commands the airwaves.

Did you hear that? She thinks I'm a commander. Ooh, I think I am, too.

STU: Well, you're narcissistic.

GLENN: I say this in all seriousness: He is the Jerry Springer of cable news. Wow. Really?

STU: Jerry Springer is a television personality. If you wanted to be the Jerry Springer of cable news, he would be the Jerry Springer of cable news.

GLENN: I don't think I've brought any people on to fight, although I'm not necessarily opposed to it.

STU: You did have you got in a fight with the ACORN guy.

GLENN: But I am far more dangerous than Jerry Springer. I didn't know Jerry Springer was dangerous.

STU: Seems like he's just trying to entertain the people.

GLENN: Anyway are you saying I'm an entertainer?

STU: I am.

GLENN: He is far more dangerous than Jerry Springer because the general public is fully unaware of his disorder (laughing).

STU: (Laughing). You've got to love the fact that this woman, who sure, she just obviously hates conservatives but she

GLENN: No, she loves them she says.

STU: Oh, yeah, forgot. But she seems to be legitimately concerned.

GLENN: I love that. I love that. You're unaware. You know what? I've got to read this on TV: Well, America, you are no longer unaware of my disorder. Thanks, Nancy, for helping all those people out. All those people will just be like, "Oh, my gosh. Oh, thank goodness for Nancy Edwards."

STU: This whole time he's been showing me a pervasive pattern of grandiosity and need for admiration and a lack of empathy. Now I understand.

GLENN: Signed Nancy L. Edwards, LICSW, MPH.

STU: No, I think that is a very good idea to read that on television because I think maybe we need to start coming up with a diagnosis sort of card for you. We're like, when you come on at certain points when you are doing these things, a new diagnosis pops up because we always get these. There's always somebody out there that's diagnosing why people are watching you. It's always some medical

GLENN: Well, I'm a crazy man with cancer of the lip!

STU: Yes. It's always a medical condition. It's never because people might agree or think or disagree so much that they think you're funny or something.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Never, never anything other than there must be a mass case

GLENN: Have you ever noticed? I mean, I'm not saying that our show is Jon Stewart, that it's not a laugh riot, but it's a humorous show.

STU: Right. I feel

GLENN: Have you ever noticed you've never heard anyone

STU: There was someone the other day who did that, who pointed that out.

GLENN: Were they locked up in an institution with a severe mental disorder?

STU: Well, actually it was in the subway and they were talking to a stuffed doll, but they did point it out and I thought it was helpful.

GLENN: Oh, I think I just wet myself. All right, let me tell you about

STU: Is that a separate, were you talking as a homeless person there or were you talking about yourself? I just want to make sure I understand.

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.