Glenn Beck: Robert Creamer Strikes Back





Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel


I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the left is lining up to support convicted felon Robert Creamer, the patron saint of progressivism, who was recently crowned a lifetime achievement award for his wonderful work pushing the progressive agenda.

The Huffington Post, where Creamer blogs, called me a loser while in the same breath saying that all Creamer did was "float checks to keep a great progressive public interest organization alive that he was running at the time."

Oh, that's it? He only stole $2.3 million from banks? Geez, why am I so upset that this guy attended the White House state dinner and wrote the book that David Axelrod says is the "blueprint" for progressives?

And yes, progressives, as much as you try to excuse it: Taking money from a bank that isn't yours — even if you intend to someday pay it back or achieve social justice with it — is stealing.

Amazingly, this thief, who used his own trial as some kind of twisted PR campaign to glorify himself, now says this about me: "This is a man who lies about everything. He frames things in a conspiratorial, surreal light."

Let's get this straight: The man who swindled banks out of $2.3 million and cheated on his taxes says that I lie about everything?

What have I lied, about, Robert? Please, show me.

I'd love hear another explanation on the things we talk about. That's why I have a phone line just for the White House — because I want them to call! Maybe I'll give you the number and you can specify these "lies" of mine.

One of my big "lies" — according to the convicted felon whom the state of Illinois has deemed an official liar — is that influential people are being influenced by his book. Creamer doesn't agree, calling the claim "laughable" and saying: "I wish I had that much influence over the White House, but I don't."

Laughable? Let's see:

Creamer is married to a congresswoman from Illinois; he's a powerful Democratic lobbyist and well-known Democratic consultant, including at one time for the George Soros' funded Open Society Institute. He is so non-influential, his book gets rave marks as a "blueprint" for progressives from people with zero influence on American policy — including but not limited to:

• Senator Dick Durbin

• Senator Sherrod Brown

• John Podesta, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress

• Former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder

• Reverend Jesse Jackson

• Congressman Lloyd Doggett

• Congressman Jim McGovern

• Congressman John Lewis

• SEIU President Andy Stern

• Top Obama adviser, David Axelrod, who calls the book a "blueprint" for progressive victories

I am pretty sure Axelrod has the ear of the president. And isn't Andy Stern leading the way in visits to the White House?

So clearly Creamer has no connections — none. He's not so politically connected that even the judge in his trial considered recusing himself because he was well-connected in the Democratic Party in Illinois and his son-in-law worked for him.

No, Creamer is a regular Joe. So of course no one was paying attention when he laid out plans to achieve health care reform back in 2008. Thanks to Kyle Olsen of ACORNcracked.com, who sent in this audio clip:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, APRIL 25, 2008)

ROBERT CREAMER: We have to create a sense that this is a historic battle. This is about you're being part of something that will make you meaningful.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

A "historic battle" — gee, that sounds a little familiar:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

SEN. JOHN KERRY, D-MASS.: This is going to be historical when we pass it.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: This historic moment.

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID, D-NEV.: What we're doing is truly historic.

PELOSI: We had a historic victory in the Congress of the United States.

HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER STENY HOYER, D-MD: The historic time.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Answer the call of history and vote yes for health insurance reform for America.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

Remember, I lie about everything. He wants to "create a sense" that this is historic. And of course, any good Alinsky radical knows that you also need to create an enemy:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, APRIL 25, 2008)

CREAMER: We need to reduce the credibility of the private insurance industry... This is a political campaign. We need to bring down the positives and bring up the negatives of our opponents. And the private insurance industry is our opponent in this battle.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Bring down the credibility of their opponents? It's almost like that's exactly what he's trying to do to me when he says that I lie about everything.

But I digress.

Creamer was talking about those evil insurance companies — the ones who just reaped in those "windfall profit margins" of 2 percent. Has anybody the insurance companies look evil?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment and he died because of it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Looks like the administration got that memo too. Oh, and by the way, I am the one who lies about everything. That sob story Obama was telling? It wasn't true — completely changed the facts around. The guy didn't die because of the insurance company. He died years later. But boy, those insurance companies look evil, don't they?

Creamer also wanted to create a crisis:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, APRIL 25, 2008)

CREAMER: We need to establish as the political dialogue: "Everyone agrees there's a health care crisis in America. Here's our plan, here's their plan. Now your only alternatives, public, are to choose one of the two, not the status quo."

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Maybe it's just me, but that also sounds a little familiar, doesn't it?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

OBAMA: The need for reform is urgent and it is indisputable.

KERRY: Everyone in America knows the status quo is unacceptable.

HOYER: This is an urgently needed bill.

OBAMA: The urgent need for us to get to the finish line.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

It sure looks like Axelrod and company are following the "blueprint," but — once again — this saintly convicted felon views himself as the victim: "It's important for the targets of the smear machine to push back and to use whatever kind of means we can to prevent him from continuing these kind of reckless charges."

"Targets of the smear machine"? What have I said that is a smear, Robert? Are you not a convicted felon? Spare me the sob story that you were just trying to help, it was all harmless. That rings about as hollow as when some creep tells Chris Hansen he "wasn't going to do anything" with the girl. Hey creep, you had condoms and a six-pack!

And, if you want to talk about a smear machines, let's look at what happens when people on the right speak up:

• Van Jones. I was called a liar because his official title was not "czar," yet he resigned in the middle of the night

• When a watchdog uncovered the government violating privacy through "cash for clunkers" (on July 31st) I reported it and then I was mocked. Two days later, the White House removed the warning to "rework the language"

• When I said (in November of 2008!) that TARP would not be used for what it was designed, I was ridiculed. First it was the giant slush fund for Timothy Geithner, then two days ago the president said he wanted to use TARP for small business loans

• When I said, in 2007, that the economy was in trouble and the stock market was headed for a crash. Economists and politicians laughed (it was at 14,093). When I advised people to prepare for tough times and the stock market was 8,451 and unemployment was at 6.1 percent, the "experts" continued to laugh. Now the stock market is up and so is unemployment

• When I warned, in 1998, to listen to and take seriously the threats of Usama bin Laden, that there would be bodies in the streets, they called me a fear monger

• When hundreds of thousands of people across America gathered in protest of an out-of-control government, all the left could talk about was how scared they were of violence. How those crazy right-wing militia members would act out; how those anti-government "tea bagging" Second Amendment freaks clinging to their Sky God and boom-sticks would let loose — Nancy Pelosi was even crying about it before anything happened:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: I have concerns about some of the language that is being use, because, I saw, I saw this myself in the late seventies in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening and it gave — it created a climate in which violence took place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

After all of that, nothing happened; not one incident of violence.

So please, Robert, spare me your sanctimonious B.S. about being attacked by the smear machine. If you really want to be smeared, join the tea party or the conservative movement. Or just read the Constitution and tell a friend to read it. Because while we are simply calling for an open and honest debate, you won't read the bills and you mock anyone who stands in your way:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

REID: All Republicans can come up with is this: Slow down, stop everything, let's start over.

PELOSI: I think they're Astroturf... you be the judge.

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: The ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona. And those who believe the Earth is flat.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

And, if that doesn't do the trick, it's time to silence the opponent:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: There is something that we need to really pay attention to with Glenn Beck. We cannot just dismiss him. Because the truth of the matter is that there is a good reason why we have an exemption to the free speech protection by the First Amendment when we say you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater. And he's doing that every night.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I don't want people on the left to shut up. I don't want David Axelrod to shut up. I don't want Obama to talk less. I want him to tell me more. He clearly believes in Marxist principles. Great, let's have that debate. Let's see what is really happening. Let's read the bills instead of "act now — act now — hurry!"

Slow down. Make the case. Let's talk.

I'm the one saying shut up and sit down?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

That's not new; we are just used to it being phrased a little differently:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

OBAMA: We don't hang on to the past...

OBAMA: We don't cling to the past...

OBAMA: To rise above the failures of the past...

OBAMA: We are going to reach for the future and not look backwards...

OBAMA: It's a choice between the past and the future...

OBAMA: Trapped in the past...

OBAMA: We can't be prisoners of the past...

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

Progressives would rather just say the debate is settled and march forward; destroying anything that gets in the way using whatever kinds of "means we can to shut the opposition down." You don't need to go to extremes. I've got your "means" right here.

If I'm so full of lies, if I'm so wrong, please, call me. I'm pretty sure that call would make a lot of news and everyone would see it in bright lights: "White House puts Glenn Beck in his place!"

I want that call.

— Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel

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.