Glenn Beck: Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth






Watch



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

As the private jet-flying, limousine-riding hypocrites address the world's catastrophic warming in Copenhagen, let me share with you what Canada's national newspaper, The Financial Post, had to say about it:

"The 'inconvenient truth' overhanging the U.N.'s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.... A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days."

This isn't some conspiracy notion. Look it up, it's right there in print. It also happens to be law in the most populace nation on Earth. And we're being bombarded with this climate change catastrophe hysteria every day.

Now, they're talking about the real solution: Stop having children. Well, OK, the global elite will be generous enough to allow us one — one child.

Let's put aside for now any religious overtones. Sure, for those of us who believe the Bible to be the word of God, this may seem to be a direct contradiction to the "multiply and replenish" commandment. But, maybe you're not religious and you're not concerned about any of that.

Fine, but the where are the women screaming at the top of their lungs about their reproductive rights? Do those rights only extend to eliminating children through abortion or would you like to hang on to your right to have children as well? Can a government tell you what to do with your body? Where's their favorite chant: "Get the government out of my uterus"? Well, not mine — but, theirs.

And, just for good measure, how about our freedom? Freedom for women, men, mothers, fathers, families.

There is, of course no provision in the Constitution for this kind of intrusion into our lives. So, you may be thinking, this could never happen? Really? Look at the "global" steps being considered on a nearly daily basis: global taxes; global currency; global economic rules; global solutions to climate change:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change, and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global government and global agreements...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

We were laughed at and mocked when we pointed out that newly confirmed science "czar" John Holdren advocated population control in the 1977 book he co-authored, titled "Ecoscience." Among the techniques he considered were sterilants in drinking water and forced abortions, as China has employed. Has he ever denounced those methods? No, he has just stated that the much worried about, population explosion never happened, so they weren't necessary.

Well, here we are again, worried about population.

The climate cultists are also pushing their "less meat, less heat" mantra. But, if we have to become vegetarians to save the planet, so be it, right? After all, that's all these nations are trying to do in Copenhagen: Save the planet.

Well, I wasn't totally convinced of their good intentions, until I saw that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe all plan to address negotiators at international climate talks in Copenhagen this week.

Ahmadinejad — with his track record of threatening to drive Israel into the sea, denying that there are any homosexuals in his country when asked at Columbia about reported executions of homosexuals; prosecuting Iranians who speak out for freedom and causing even the United Nations to voice its concerns about the increasingly grave human rights violations in his country — now there's a guy I truly believe wants to save the planet.

Or Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe: Look at the shape Zimbabwe's in; we need to listen to this man!

And don't even get me started on the credibility of Hugo Chavez.

So, are you as convinced as I am that these fine men, with their track records, really do want to save the planet and not just hurt the West with some ridiculous climate agreement?

And we're being pummeled with all of this, in the name of a discredited global warming scam. "The Goreacle" and his minions are throwing out even lies more to cover up their initial inconvenient lies.

When asked a question about the Climate-gate scandal, Al Gore piled more lies on top of the ones he'd been peddling for years:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORE: The north polar ice cap is melting before our very eyes. It's been the size of the continental United States for most of the last 3 million years. And now suddenly 40 percent of it's gone and the rest of it is expected to disappear within five, 10, 15 years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Forty percent of the polar ice caps are not gone and it's preposterous to believe that they will totally disappear within 10 years. In September of 2007, there was a 25 percent reduction to the usual minimum ice cover. In the two years since, nearly all of the ice has returned.

We are not supposed to be asking these questions. We're not sticking to their script. Here's what happens when we don't follow their rules or agree that the debate is over:

Professor Stephen Schneider is asked an uncomfortable question at a U.N. climate conference — watch U.N. personnel and security shut it down:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Sir, I am a member of the press.

UNIDENTIFIED GUARD: If you don't shut that off I am going to take it away from you.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Sorry sir, we are the press.

UNIDENTIFIED GUARD: I don't care.

I asked you to shut it off. If it happens again I am taking it away from you and you're going out. Is that understood?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

In real science, the debate is never over. The climate cultists keep saying that we are flat-Earthers. Will the media ever notice? They noticed the horrible, scary signs held up by tea party protesters — the ones that warned we were headed in the wrong direction, toward fascism. The media excoriated them over those signs:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you think there's legitimate grassroots opposition going on here?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI: I think they're Astroturf, you be the judge. They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

But they didn't even notice the signs held up by the Climate Change supporting protesters — the ones that glorified socialism and communism! These people openly want communism, but the media are silent.

It's also interesting to me that we are the ones being compared to "flat-Earth" believers. Yet, when Galileo fought against the power structure of his time to enlighten mankind that the Earth wasn't flat and that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system, it was those who held power that tried to shut him down then — just as those in power try to shut up all those who disagree now.

Well, Galileo is in the tower again. The climate cult is just as much a state sponsored religion now, as the actual state sponsored religion was back in the Dark Ages, punishing Galileo for his opinions. And they're again locking away the dissenters in a tower of fear, harassment and atmosphere of discrediting some 30,000-plus scientists.

Look, these people have been trying to replace God.

It used to be God, government and you. For centuries, that was the accepted line. Our Founders said, wait a minute, that's out of order: It should be God, you then government.

Well, to make their new system work — which, coincidentally, is a lot like the old system — climate cultists have to get rid of God. Then they can ask, well who are you to tell me? But if they take God out of the equation, they're going to need to replace it with something and they have the planet.

Ah, now it works: Earth, government and you. You must serve the planet — the planet replaces God; it's fixed.

It all comes down to this: The climate cult wants more than just your recycling bin. If that was all this was about, I'd gladly join in. We recycle here at work, I recycle at home. I believe that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of this planet. But what they want is total submission.

It will start with legislation to limit your energy use. It will involve huge taxes — national at first, then global. They will, through the smart grid, control your home thermostat. They will limit the amount you can travel by car. But ultimately, it won't be enough, as the article in Canada's Financial Post points out.

The only way to really stop their imagined disaster is to limit the number of human beings on this planet. One child per family is negative population growth. I am against that and I think the science is settled that I'm not alone.

Who are these people that think they can tell us when we can procreate? Where are the people who've shouted: government out of my uterus; government out of my choice; government out of my bedroom?

Was it all a lie for you?

Ah, but in the end, their uterus sacrifice will be worth it because the cave-dwelling Piute trout and the salt marsh harvest mouse will finally be able to really thrive. Polar bears could number in the millions — maybe even billions. That will be the ultimate Utopia.

As we approach Christmas, the climate cult is looking more and more like Scrooge to me. And I think Charles Dickens said it best: If we are all going to die anyway, perhaps we had "better do it and decrease the surplus population."

— 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.