Stewart gets owned, hits Glenn



Jon Stewart reverted back to his old bread and butter last night: making fun of cable news hosts.

GLENN: Jon Stewart last night making fun of me, calling me -- connecting me to Hannibal Lecter and Clarice is Sarah Palin. Nobody can figure out why I had -- you know, why I put us there at the Statue of Liberty.

Pat: (Laughter.) No. I think Stewart did. I think he --

Glenn: Can you play that back?

Pat: I can play some of it.

Glenn: Play some of it, before it gets dicey.

Pat: It gets dicey pretty quickly.

Glenn: Yeah. It's cable news. So --

Pat: Here we go.

(Audio:)

Stewart: -- Fox News. The first day there she sat down with Bill O'Reilly, went very well. The next day was a visit to perhaps Fox's next biggest star, Glenn Beck. I wonder if Glenn Beck has lost any perspective on the relative importance of this moment.

Glenn: We have a full hour with former Governor Alaska Sarah Palin. She's now a Fox contributor and this is the first time that we have actually sat in the same room and looked eyeball to eyeball with each other and I picked this spot because of that statue and what it means.

Stewart: She's from Alaska. She's not an immigrant. I get it. The only appropriate spot for an meeting of this import is in the shadow of Lady Liberty. I guess they would have done the interview on the lap of the Lincoln Memorial.

(Audio concluded.)

Pat: I think that's about as far as we can go.

Glenn: That's as far as we can go there.

Pat: It's funny, because they show the two of you on the lap of Lincoln.

Glenn: Right. Is that available? Can you rent that?

Pat: Well, Stewart goes on to say --

Glenn: I know. I know. I know. I know. It wasn't about the interview. It was about trying to find trust. Do you trust her? Do you trust anybody anymore? What do you trust? The only thing that really Americans look at anymore is Abe Lincoln and the Statue of Liberty and they're, like, I trust that.

Pat: Uh-huh.

Glenn: They don't trust any of our other symbols.

Stu: It's good to see him falling back on just bashing cable news personalities after he got schooled by John Yoo a couple of days ago. Did you guys see that?

Glenn: No, huh-uh.



John Yoo vs John Stewart

Stu: Yeah. You know, the guy who basically wrote the, you know, the legal justifications for the water boarding of terrorists which saved, you know, how many lives. Of course, that's crazy talk to Jon Stewart and he had John Yoo on. Well, I think it would be -- I would love to hear you talk to him about it. He has got a book out and it's -- I don't know if he's doing the rounds or whatever, but, you know, talking to him about that and Jon, a tad out of his league in that conversation.

Glenn: Do you have any of it ready?

Stu: Just a tad. I don't know any of it ready, but I can get for the next break.

Glenn: Yeah. See if you can get it for the break. I would love to hear that.

Stu: Because it's the typical, like, How can you justify terror? And then he gives you 75 different ways that it's happened, you know, whether it's torture or not and where you draw those lines and he goes through the entire thing.

Glenn: See if you can find the audio for me. See if you can find the audio. We'll play it at the -- after the next break.

Pat: You know, we've been talking all week, we've been following this British list of the 100 most influential conservatives all week from

Glenn: And it doesn't make any sense because a lot of them are not even conservatives.

Pat: Most of them, probably, aren't conservatives.

Glenn: David Brooks is on this list.

Pat: But we were thinking -- yeah. And Lindsey Graham. I mean, you've got a whole bunch of pseudo conservatives who really don't belong together. You've got a bunch of progressives.

Glenn: You have -- if you take out the idea of progressive and you don't think that that is a problem, then you have a lot of these Republicans that claim they're conservative but they're not. They're progressives.

Pat: So, today -- I mean, all week long we thought, okay, maybe you would be 180, somewhere in there, because they've released 20 a day.

Glenn: Yeah, yeah.

Pat: All week long.

Glenn: Yeah.

Pat: You weren't there. You weren't in --

Glenn: Just give the number.

Pat: 60. All right. You just want the number? No. 6.

Glenn: Give me the --

Pat: No. 6.

Glenn: Who was in the top 10?

Pat: No. 1, of course, you would think Rush. They didn't. They chose Dick Cheney. No. 2 was Rush.

Glenn: Hang on a second. Is that the deal, most influential?

Pat: Yeah. Top conservatives. Yeah. Most influential conservatives.

Glenn: I don't think he is.

Stu: He's been out a lot, though, this past year and he's --

Glenn: He is one that --

Pat: He was in the top 10.

Glenn: He's one of them and he's one that I get to listen to and I'm, like, Okay. Where were you? Where were you?

Pat: Yeah.

Stu: He's been speaking a lot of truth over the past year, I would say.

Pat: But No. 1 over Rush? Would you put him there? I wouldn't.

Stu: No. Maybe not, but he also was the vice-president of the United States. You get some stature for that.

Glenn: There is a lot of -- I read a couple of days ago -- and I'm trying to figure out this list on how they -- because I saw -- I don't remember. It must have been Lindsey Graham I saw on this list and I thought, How do they get on the list? It is -- also part of it is influence and years of influence. So, if you're --

Pat: Okay. Well, he fits those criteria.

Glenn: He fits that because he's been around forever.

Pat: No. 2, Rush. No. 3, Matt Drudge who has a lot of influence.

Glenn: At lot of influence.

Pat: No. 4, Sarah Palin, who clearly has --

Glenn: A lot of influence.

Pat: A lot of influence. No. 5, Robert Gates, just the Defense Secretary of the United States of America. No. 6, Glenn Beck, Fox News presenter.

Glenn: How stupid is that?

Stu: One of these things just doesn't belong.

Glenn: What do they write?

Pat: Let's see. The fastest-rising star of cable television, Beck delivers monologs that veer from doom-saying to tears, jokes, and rapid-fire analysis of Obama Land, suspect connections, hidden beliefs, and dark plots. His subjects include the threat of fascism, communism, terrorism, Wall Street fat cats, Mexico's collapse. How often have we talked about Mexico's collapse?

Glenn: I talked about it early on.

Pat: The decline of religion and power of the liberal media. All this is united by the theme of impending doom and the fear that the ordinary American is being forgotten. Well, that's accurate.

Glenn: I think all of that is accurate.

Pat: It's working spectacularly. Since switching from CNN's Headline News to Fox, Beck has soared up the ratings chart with his 5:00 p.m. show, capturing an average 2 million viewers -- I think it's much higher than that now, isn't it? --

Glenn: Yeah.

Pat: -- an unprecedented number at that hour. His talk show rates third in the country. There have been five best-selling books. A recovering alcoholic, drug addict, he has also cried more than any other presenter in memory. What is that presenter thing?

Glenn: I hate that.

Pat: Often welling up at the thought of what will happen to the United States. I'm sorry. I just love my country, and I fear for it, he once wept. His opposition to big government and Obama has seen him adopted by many of the tea party movement as their figurehead. There has been talk of a presidential bid, which will do his ratings no harm. "I consider myself a libertarian. I'm a conservative but every day that goes by, I'm fighting for individual rights," explained Beck who describes his show as a fusion of entertainment and enlightenment. That's it. No. 7, this is interesting. Roger Ailes. He placed ahead of his British -- Roger Ailes.

Glenn: I think that would be a misunderstanding.

Pat: Yeah.

Glenn: Seeing that Roger is the guy who hired me and keeps me on the air.

Pat: Yeah.

Glenn: So --

Pat: Yeah.

Glenn: Really, he's probably more influential.

Pat: No. 8, just the head of U.S. central command, David Petraeus. No. 9, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. That seems a little high for Paul Ryan. I mean --

Glenn: Tell me about Paul Ryan. Wisconsin?

Pat: Yes. He has it all, according to this article, including time on his side. He entered Congress at the tender age of 28. Doesn't turn 40 until next year. Just because he's -- none of these guys -- none of these Republicans --

Glenn: I don't want a guy who got in at 28 and is now 40 and is still in Congress.

Pat: Where do you want him to be?

Glenn: Maybe running a business.

Pat: Okay. Well, that's -- yes. Term limits would be a good thing at this point.

Glenn: Doing his own gig.

Pat: Sure, sure. And then No. 10 I wholeheartedly disagree with because, again, it's not a conservative, Tim Pawlenty. No. 11, Mitt Romney. No. 12, George W. Bush, only former President of the United States. John Roberts was 13th. Haley Barbour, Mississippi, was 14th, followed by Eric Cantor, McCain, Mike Pence, Bob McDonald.

Glenn: If you look at this list of conservatives and you count the number of progressives on this list you see -- progressives or people who ignored the progressives, for instance, Dick Cheney ignored the progressives, you know, and just went along with them, if you look at that list, there are a lot of enemies within the gates of the conservative movement. I can't -- I started writing the speech for CPAC last night. I sent a little bit to you guys. Did you read it? Did you see it?

Pat: I saw it. I haven't read it.

Glenn: Did you read it or see it?

Stu: I did see the e-mail, but I have not read it yet.

Glenn: Thanks, guys. That's big.

Stu: Nothing else to do. I was so bored. I was, like, What can I do today, and then I saw your e-mail and I was, like, Oh, this is 40 pages of a speech a month from now. Let me read it now.

Glenn: Don't do that.

Pat: Right, right.

Glenn: I think that it's time to clean house. I think it's time to clean house and I think it's -- I'm tired of playing, not the ugly stepchild. I mean, we're not even the stepchild. We're the enemy that's outside of the house. Conservatives are the majority, the vast majority, and somehow or the other, we've allowed yourselves to be painted as something different than that and we've been painted that with the help of the progressives in the Republican party. Look at -- what do you think Lindsey Graham is doing? Look what he's doing. He is painting within the framework of the party, he is framing people with real values and belief of the of Constitution and the founders. He's in the party, painting those people as an extremists.

Graham: I'm clueless. I'm clueless.

Glenn: There may be more to that statement, but we'll just agree with it and move on, because --

Graham: I'm clueless.

Glenn: Yes, Lindsey --

Graham: I'm clueless.

Glenn: -- you are.

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.