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

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America. Hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the Glenn Beck program. May name is coincidentally enough Glenn Beck. That's why they hired me for this program. Here is what I I hope you were listening last hour and I said please call all your friends. Make sure they gather around the radio because I, for the first time in I don't know how long, I see an actual light at the end of the tunnel. I'll be real honest with you, and I've never lied to you, but I will be real honest with you. The 9/12 Project was a grasp for me. I know that you are the secret. I know that you are the answer. I know that you are the answer to the economy, you are the answer to the end of corruption. You are the answer. And I'm going to share with you something that I read in this old novel written by one of the chief progressives back in the early 1900s and it says everything. It says why we're in this predicament and it's because too many of us, me included just, you know, they will deal with it; I'm busy; I got other things to do. And I know when you're involved, I know when the American people want to rally and step to the plate and save their country, they will. But quite honestly, you know what, it's like this: I know that there is a politician out there. I knew all last election this is the best we can do? This isn't the best we can do. And then I met Sarah Palin. Oh, my gosh. Now, she may not be the one that should be the president. I don't know. But she gave me great hope that somebody is out there doing it and doing it right and gets it! So I've been trudging along saying, hey, we're going to make it, we're going to make it and we've got to get together. But I hadn't seen the light at the end of the tunnel. I'm beginning to see just tunnel and more tunnel. Where's the light at the end of the tunnel? Where is someone with a torch that says, come on, this way! I just knew we had to stay together. Oh, I am here to tell you I see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Last hour when I started to describe this and said get all your friends together, make sure they are listening to this next hour, it's like a zombie movie. This hour let me tell you that what we're living in right now is the matrix. If you saw the movie The Matrix, what we are living in right now, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't even feel real. It feels like we're watching a movie, and it has for a long time. It's not about Barack Obama. It's about Barack Obama and George Bush and Bill Clinton and George H. W., it's been going on forever. And it doesn't seem right, and we're arguing about things that we shouldn't be arguing about and they just, it's a play, and we are pawns and we've finally gotten to the place now to where we can look at each other and go, oh, my gosh, yeah! We denied it for a long time.

The independents of this country are growing by leaps and bounds. They are growing faster than the Republicans are going down and faster than the Democrats are going down. But you combine how many people are dissatisfied with the Democrats with the number of people who are dissatisfied with the Republicans and you have the going up number of independents. It is like take the red pill or the blue pill. Do you want to live in the matrix? Do you want to keep playing this game, or do you want to wake up knowing that once you wake up, it's going to be a tough battle and it is going to be a battle to the end.

There is software that is running. It is called the progressive, the early 20th century progressive movement. It is software. It is software if I have time later, I have to explain. What I realized last night, finally something else clicked into my mind on the stress test. I know why it happened. I get it now. It's part of this software, and it's creating this illusion. It's why you feel there's no choice, why every time you're electing somebody, you're like, okay, he's better than the other guy. Because there is no real choice! The software has designed these choices for you and it's running a program. It makes you feel like you're in charge, but you're not.

Now, what is going to there are things because what we argue on all the time is what's going to slow this down. Forget about slowing it down. That's where we've been lately: What can slow this down, what can stop this? And the only thing that you keep coming up with, if we're honest with each other, is that at some point this system and our people, our country will be so separate from their government that the people will have to rise up. That's not a good option. I've been warning you on that option. That's a bad, bad option because that leads us to France and the French Revolution: Guillotines, prisons, death, chaos. Bad.

What shuts the matrix off? What is the matrix afraid of? Where is the power source of the matrix? Unplug it. Can we just infect the software? That's one option. Or can we unplug the machine so the whole thing goes... I've told you we've got to start challenging the Constitution. We have to start challenging the government. We have to start saying, "You know what, we're going to adopt a sovereignty clauses in our states." But that was to throw the matrix up against the wall and scare them. It was like I was talking last hour, the zombies: Throw them up against the wall and hold them at bay. Scare them. Thomas Jefferson said a government, where a government is afraid of its people, there is liberty. Where the people are afraid of their government, there is tyranny. So that was, let's throw them against the wall. Instead the people of Montana and the people of Texas and the people of Utah, whoa. Texas and the mountain region and now the people in Tennessee. They've all come to the same conclusion: If we challenge the government on gun laws, specifically in this one way, if we make a gun in Texas and if it's purchased in Texas this is a Montana thing. So I should probably use Montana. If it is made in Montana, purchased in Montana and remains in Montana, there is no reason the federal government should have any regulation on that gun.

Now, that might sound ridiculous, that might sound like another attempt to throw it back, but it's not. This is an attempt to go after something that has been bothering me for about a year because when I saw that FDR you learned in history about court packing, right? FDR wanted to pack the courts. He wanted to put more justices on because he couldn't get his way on something. He then tried to say we should force these people to retire; they're too old. Because he couldn't get his way on something. Then he said, "You know what, these people are bad people and you should rise up against these Supreme Court justices," but it didn't work. It took him ten years to get what he wanted and it was a court case decided in his favor. I think it was 1941 or maybe 1942, about a farmer who just wanted to grow wheat. He was only growing wheat. He was grinding it. His wife was making bread. He wasn't selling it. He was doing it himself. The government made the case that he couldn't do that without federal regulation. It was fought in court. It was finally decided. That one case changed America. When that one case happened, now everything now you had to have certain hour workweek. Now you had to have federal regulations of hourly wages. Now the state could tell every businessman, every farm owner, every individual exactly what to do. Forget about the state. It was the State with a capital S. It changed and buried our Constitution and our founders' dream. What they're doing in Montana is challenging that, in the way that the justices have been waiting.

You've got six justices that don't like that decision. I think it might even be seven that do not like that decision from the 1940s, that think that it was a wrong decision, but they've never been willing to take it on because if they don't take it on on the right case and the people aren't involved, congress will make it worse. This is the case, but it doesn't it cannot just happen in Montana. It has to happen in all of the states, or a lot of them. Because of something called emerging consensus, this is a new thing that the Court loves: "Well, where are the people going." This is why they want the state this is the strategy for gay marriage: Get the states to pass these laws that okay gay marriage, then short circuit the system, get it kicked up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is bound to look at emerging consensus and say, "This is where the states are moving; so we've got to do this." That's the new progressive way to do it. Well, if emerging consensus is state rights, specifically and I'll explain later specifically on guns, the matrix is unplugged and the power goes to the states.

I will explain this in the coming days. Next week we'll explain it. We'll explain it in the newsletter which is free. We're going to have some experts write on it. We're going to talk to the people who are doing it, why they're doing it. And on next Friday's show on television, we're going to do a full hour. We're going to assemble those experts. We're going to put them in the studio and we're going to have them explain it and give you a plan of action, but I'm telling you, I think this is one of the reasons why the 9/12 Project was put I knew keep people together, I knew grassroots, network, but somebody else I think has come up with a darn good shot at a solution. And if you look I thought, oh, there's no way. You know, Supreme Court, that's if you read two cases, and we'll get into them next week. If you read two cases, would you have got the four conservative strict constructionalist judges. You know how they're going to vote. You need five. There are two other justices who have ruled on interstate commerce clause and on the on two cases involving interstate commerce, and they have both said, "This law is wrong; it should be overturned, not on this case because it's not the right case and it's not they are reading it wrong, et cetera, et cetera. We want to overturn it. Because the gun is involved, this, America will pay attention because if they lose, now you've got the congress with full control of guns. I think it could be it. I thinking the light at the end of the tunnel. It's a two year process. But this is something that is going to distract the matrix. This is going to the matrix now is going to go, oh, crap, we've got to work on this. Because they will immediately know. I ask myself, why has this not been covered? We've been talking about it all week. Why has no one been covering this? Because they didn't get it. Believe me, this is the path, or at least one of them, and a really good shot, and it's going to be as soon as the progressive movement gets it, they are going to be telling you that there's going to be, you know, child pornography in, you know, Idaho and there's going to be guns that are bazookas and tanks, they are going to say that people are going to be enslaving children to make wooden shoes in Florida, which, maybe that's a problem with wooden shoes, they are just not cheap enough. But it takes the power of the federal government to regulate everything in your life. Dunkin' Donuts may still have to be regulated because of interstate commerce, but if you're a mom and pop store, they ain't got nothing to say about you. You don't like what they're doing in your state, move to another state. The federal government won't tell you what to do. Only your state will. It gives the power back to you. There are some constitutional scholars that believe this would reset it back to Jefferson. I don't happen to believe that. I'd like to get back, I'd like to get back to 1900 and the understanding of the Constitution and the power of the state and stop capitalizing the state when it looks at the federal government. Okay, great stuff. Pass this on. I'm going to have the e mail newsletter for you next week. Start paying attention to those stories in the newsletter. I'm going to not only going to explain it so you can send it to all your friends, but what you need to do is you need to start organizing on this. Pay attention. Learn. We'll help you do all of it. Learn. Get it into your statehouses. You've got if we could have 20 states do exactly what they've done or similar things on guns in their states, an emerging consensus, Montana is ready to short circuit the system. They go on sale in November. They have designed this system to be challenged immediately. On the first day those guns are for sale, they are going to be challenged in the court. There's a good chance it's going to be kicked up, but the Supreme Court doesn't have to take it, unless other states are also being challenged and they are kicked up into all the different circuit courts of appeals and they all start to conflict with each other. The matrix says, "Uh oh," and it has to be answered by the Supreme Court because it will all be in conflict. Risk big, win big. Risk big, lose big. But pray for those Supreme Court justices, that they all eat broccoli, that they all are on a treadmill. God save them until you can get this into court.

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.