Glenn Beck: The Progressive Takeover of America




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


I don't know if I've ever told you how I began my journey to believe the things I do. It's funny to be called a conspiracy theorist because I've always made fun of conspiracy people. But there's a point when conspiracy is not a conspiracy; it's just true.

We've been closing the case this week on all of the things we talked about last year, because more and more Americans are finding themselves where I am: They don't want to believe this stuff, but if you want to be honest with yourself and seek the truth — no matter how many times you think about it or what it means to you and your future or the future of your children — if it makes me a pariah, so be it; it is the truth. But everything is in jeopardy and our children's future is at stake.

And, quite honestly, almost every president has said it. Our Founders said it: America is the world's last and greatest hope. You don't really have a choice but to deal with the facts as you find them and if you don't like it, oh well.

My daughter came to me about two years ago. And you know I've always been a "rah-rah USA" kind of guy. And she told me she wanted to take ancient history; she wanted to be Indiana Jones without the scary spiders and whips.

So I said, what about majoring in American history? Well, she looked at me and said, Dad, I don't think you really know American history, because every time I get into it, it seems like a bad guy shows up and he wins.

I was heartbroken. My daughter believed the lies she had been taught.

I told her I was going to prove her wrong, that she had been indoctrinated. A couple years and many books and papers and conversations with professors later, I discovered that she was more right than I cared to believe. The founding of this country was miraculous, the Industrial Age got a little dicey and the progressive era totally changed everything.

What really opened my eyes was this book: "The Roots of Modern Liberalism."

I learned things about our nation and the progressive era that I prayed were not true. The more I read, the more sad I became because I saw their influence and the 100-year time bomb they planted in the early 1900s and only the real elite recognized it.

Now, I showed you earlier this week that the progressives, mainly led by FDR and Woodrow Wilson, learned how to use the media, centers of higher education and law schools to transform America slowly because they tried to do it quickly under Wilson, but that failed.

You see, progressives were very popular under Teddy Roosevelt, until their policies really began to unveil themselves: The Fed, the income tax, the idea that they could decide what was best for you, like Prohibition.

The final straw was when Wilson decided after World War I that war could be ended through a giant global power. He wanted a League of Nations, something that Americans rejected, but only after a lot of debate.

So how did President Wilson add to the debate? Well, he took a train across the county to drum up support. While in Colorado, he collapsed from exhaustion, but he continued his speech. For a long time no one in Congress even saw him because he was so debilitated. His wife would hold the pen while he "signed" bills. Before the stroke, he was on a tirade. He thought the American people were too stupid to understand; he didn't want what he perceived as God's will thwarted, so he pushed against the American will.

He swore in the end that God's will would be done and there would be a League of Nations. The seeds that he planted grew in the '20s and '30s and grew into the New Deal and a huge disconnect from the America that our Founders understood and established.

Finally, after World War II, the United Nations appeared.

What's interesting is that the progressives applied the hard lessons they learned from the League of Nations to their efforts to bring about the United Nations. It was the same group of progressives, but this time there was no debate. That's what they learned: They couldn't win the debate with the American people, so there simply wasn't one.

Instead, they just started a massive PR campaign involving celebrities and politicians. They would indoctrinate or destroy their opponents — anything and everything but debate their opponents.

Does this sound familiar to you? It should.

Let me play what Hillary Clinton said:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, JULY 23, 2007: I prefer the word progressive, which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th Century. I consider myself a modern progressive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

There was actually nothing American about progressivism; its roots are from Europe. Which is weird, because Europeans were actually looking to America. The Statute of Liberty was built as a motivation to those in France, not as a tribute to us. And that famous painting of George Washington crossing the Delaware was painted by an American-born German as an inspiration to encourage Germans to be more like the Americans.

But while that was happening in Europe, the elites in America, the progressives, were studying the European way. And the elites were teaching their philosophies in our universities — the philosophies of Nietzsche and Marx — and the progressives flourished in it.

I get a lot of heat for bringing up fascism but the reason I bring up Hitler is because many of the things that he did had their roots here in America. The biggest example: Eugenics, which led to the extermination camps, was actually a progressive idea. You see, they always thought they were superior and it was the stupid people who were slowing us down.

The progressive tactics haven't changed much since then either: Build a structure; make it so complex that the people don't understand it; avoid debate and most importantly, silence dissent. And, if that doesn't work, bribe them, indoctrinate them. But if that still doesn't work: Destroy them.

We see this at work in the tactics of Saul Alinksy, who said: "The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work."

But you don't have to go all the way back to the sixties. Robert Creamer, a convicted felon who, according to David Axelrod, wrote a blueprint for the health care bill, said this about me: "It is 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 kinds of reckless charges."

They know they can't bribe me, silence me or indoctrinate me, so they know they have to destroy me. You see them doing this in Congress to their own people; what amazes me about health care is that this hasn't been a debate:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS, D-MT., DEC. 24, 2009: We stand here at the finish line, though as we stand here, we're not standing alone. We stand stand with those who blazed a trail ahead of us, tireless champions of health care reform, all the way from President Theodore Roosevelt to our good friend, who is with us in spirit, Ted Kennedy.

This is why we came here. This is why we were hired out for these jobs: To pass something very historic and important like this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Notice, he wasn't referring to the GOP. They haven't been invited. They can't stop it. The struggle has been within the Democratic Party: The traditional Democrats and the uber-radical progressives.

How did they bring these two factions of Democrats together? Easy: First, there were the bribes:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, DEC. 5, 2009)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ.: I don't know what deal has been cut in Senator Reid's office as the deal was cut with the pharmaceutical companies and the deal was cut with the AMA and the deal was cut with the hospital association ...

MCCAIN: I don't know what the deal was, but we'll find out what the deal was just like the deals were cut with all these other organizations ...

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: I can't walk through the hallway here without bumping into one of their lobbyists.

BAUCUS: Does the senator want to hear the deal?

MCCAIN: If the senator keeps interrupting, he is violating the rules of the Senate. I would thought he would have learned them by now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Then there was the sugar for SEIU, the doctors and the deal Obama made with the supposedly evil pharmaceutical companies.

Then there was the indoctrination — we broke the story about the National Endowment for the Arts. They were called by the White House to use federal dollars through the arts endowment to create art for health care; something they denied — until we played the tape:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, AUGUST 10, 2009)

YOSI SERGANT, NEA: This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand-new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government,. What that looks like legally, we're still trying to figure out the laws of putting government Web sites on Facebook and the use of Twitter. This is all being sorted out. We are participating in history as it's being made. So bear with us we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Then the White house said it was just one guy — until we played the tape:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, AUGUST 10, 2009)

BUFFY WICKS, WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT: I'm at the Office of Public Engagement here at the White House. Our office does a lot of outreach to communities all across the country, either by constituency group or by issue. We have about 20 folks and we work under Valerie Jarrett. She's one of our fantastic leaders and Tina Chen. And so we're really here at your disposal and we want to be helpful to you.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Buffy Wicks works for Valerie Jarret, whom President Obama calls family.

No matter how many times they claim I'm crazy and making things up, it's really hard and you hear the words coming out of their mouths.

They say they're not engaged in indoctrination. Really? From the Huffington Post: "Beck attacked Sergant and the NEA on his Fox News talk show, accusing the agency of propaganda efforts similar to those used by Nazi Germany. And now Sergant has been tossed overboard, making him Beck's second victim in his campaign to rid the administration of perceived radicals, socialists, communists, fascists, anarchists and all other manner of nefarious influences."

They say they haven't done it, but the proof is in the product.

— 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.