Glenn Beck: Surprised Massachusetts Race Is Close?





Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

All eyes are on Massachusetts for the big election Tuesday. Who's going to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat? Oh, the suspense!

Everyone in the media seems shocked that a Republican is on the verge of winning in Massachusetts. It's weird — I mean, "Republican from Massachusetts" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. But not only are they shocked, but the media is horrified at the prospects of a Republican winning there:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

AMY ROBACH, 'THE TODAY SHOW': All right, well, we want to talk about a crisis potentially looming here at home. Massachusetts, the president is making a last-minute trip to Boston tomorrow to campaign for Democrat Martha Coakley.

DAVID SHUSTER, MSNBC: Has Democratic-leaning Massachusetts lost its mind?

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, MSNBC: With just four days to go in the race for Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat, a new poll is terrible news for Democrats. The 60th vote in the Senate; maybe health care hanging in the balance. Chuck, I'm interested now. NBCs deputy political director, Mark Murray, joins us now. This is bad.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

The media may be surprised, but I'm not. Because I think the days where people just vote Democrat or Republican no matter what are seeing the beginning of the end. For so long we've bought into the Republicans and Democrats' game; identified ourselves as one or the other, and put that label ahead of a much more important one: American.

Progressives have put their agenda into hyper-drive and it's so crystal clear that their final goal is anything but American:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE BARACK OBAMA: We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Both Republican and Democratic voters have snapped out of that slumber. Because if there is one thing that can unite people of all political persuasions, it's that we do not want to be like France. Even Michael Moore agrees with that.

It's an insult to the people of Massachusetts to react with shock because they put some actual thought into their vote. Maybe they are discovering who Martha Coakley is?

Just last week, a journalist was pushed to the ground while trying to ask her a question. Whether or not it was on purpose, who knows? But Coakley's response was telling. She claimed: "I'm not sure what happened. I know something occurred, but I'm not privy to the facts."

But she apparently knew enough "facts" to say that "Republican stalkers" caused it. Unfortunately for Coakley, one of those pesky photographers caught a photo of Coakley watching the incident take place.

Oops.

When talking about Catholics, Coakley said this:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MARTHA COAKLEY, CANDIDATE FOR U.S. SENATE: You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Coakley is yet another politician who made an "honest mistake" on finances. On her financial disclosures for her senate run, she claimed to have no personal assets. Turns out she was off by over $200,000 — oops.

And then there was Coakley's involvement in the Fells Acres Day Care Center preschool trial — a case that garnered national attention. Three daycare workers were convicted on very weak accusations of child abuse. Even when judges overturned convictions and the governor's board of pardons and paroles unanimously voted to commute Gerald Amirault, Coakley stuck by the story despite the lack of evidence. She's trying to look tough on crime.

But, there's one more: Coakley is the attorney general, the head law enforcement figure in the state. And not only does she fail to get the support of the State Police Association of Massachusetts and several police unions, she fails to get the support of the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Union — her husband, is a retired Cambridge police officer. I mean, is her husband going to vote for her?

It's amazing the race is even close considering how bad of a candidate she is. Public Policy Polling has her trailing Scott Brown by a 51-46 percent margin. Suffolk has it at 50-46 percent — this is within the margin of error. With the progressives' dream of mandated health care possibly on the line, you can only imagine how ugly this thing will get if it's — God help us all — "too close to call." Coakley supporters have friends in high places.

If it's close enough for a recount, I don't want to see some idiot looking at a hanging chad trying to figure out the intent of the voter. I think that was the first time America was clued in to the fact our voting system had serious problems.

I was there in Florida during that re-count debacle in 2000 and I was in favor recounting the whole state. But Democrats thought that by cherry picking certain areas, by manipulating the system, they would have a better chance winning. Of course, that backfired and by all accounts if Democrats would have recounted the entire state, Gore would have pulled it out.

The loss was their own fault; they were so incompetent, they didn't even know how to cheat. But mention the 2000 election to someone on the left and it's still: "George W. Bush stole the election!"

Do you know who this is?

Of course you do: She was Florida's Republican secretary of state, Katherine Harris, who certified presidential theft! She committed a crime against American democracy! Even John Stewart parodied Harris:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JON STEWART, 'THE DAILY SHOW': Katherine Harris made it official by signing the certification papers. Then she passed the papers on to a second commissioner. Finally, they got the ultimate seal of approval signature from Lobster Boy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

She was on "SNL" all the time.

Now, let me ask you: Do you recognize this face?

Of course you don't. Because Democrats don't consider it a crime against democracy when they win — like Al Franken's Minnesota senate race. He's Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie; an ACORN-supported guy — handpicked by the George Soros funded SOS Project. SOS is designed specifically to have control of the power in close elections. Lesson learned, apparently.

So if it's close in Massachusetts, William Francis Galvin will "decide" the election. But don't plan on seeing him called stupid or parodied on "SNL." Even thought Galvin has said that if Scott Brown wins, it will take "a while" to certify him. That's weird, because in 2007, as the Boston Herald points out, Representative Niki Tsongas was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007 — just two days after winning a special election.

I don't believe, as an American, regular Democrats or Republicans steal elections. But progressives do. It's practically a bylaw in any of their many manifestos.

Over the weekend, Ed Schultz said this:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

ED SCHULTZ, 'THE ED SCHULTZ SHOW': I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Of course he would. His partner in crime also longed for some good old-fashioned cheating:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: You know in the old days, maybe I shouldn't be harkening back to the old days, if the Democrats faced this kind of a disaster in the works, you'd go back to your ones, the people you were sure are going to vote Democrat, and you'd make sure they got to the polling place, you'd get them lunch, you'd get them a car. You'd make sure they got there.

And in some cases you'd be buying people to get them, not officially buying them, but getting them there as block secretaries, as block captains, you'd be getting them there with street money, legitimate but it's a little bit old school.

But I hear, talking to somebody, today there aren't people up there in Massachusetts like that anymore. There aren't those automatic Democrat votes out there, those ones anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Oh, the horror! You mean they can't buy votes in Massachusetts anymore? What's next: ACORN won't allow underage prostitution?

It doesn't matter to them because they've been told it's OK by people like Saul Alinsky, a hero to the extreme left. How do I know he's a hero?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well to reach back to one of our heroes from the past, from the '60s, Saul Alinsky...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Saul Alinsky is the "ends justify the means" guy. Do what it takes, no matter what. And here's the most important thing to understand: It's not just about elections. It's about all of it:

• Steal $2.3 million from banks like Robert Creamer did? Hey, if you were spreading that wealth around to the poor then it's OK

• Health care reform: Behind closed doors, shady deals, bribing politicians, bankrupting America? Just get it done

• And remember those whale protestors who actually attacked and rammed into a Japanese whaling ship? (ADD moment, your honor: Whales? I mean, they're great and everything, but when you are risking life and limb to stop someone from catching a whale — wow. Who's daddy didn't love them?) Anyway, the boat that sunk the Japanese ship is from Paul Watson's organization.

Watson's a great guy — a progressive. He's the guy who was featured in that "Whale Wars" reality show, where he routinely resorts to physical violence against humans to save an animal. He has reportedly said that if you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then... make it up on the spot. And "there's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history."

Attacking a civilian boat, ramming a bill through, voting 10 times in Massachusetts — they can spin it in the history books. They saved the whales. They achieved health care for all. They fundamentally transformed America.

Americans are starting to wake up to it, even Democrats — even Democrats in Kennedyville. They know something isn't right. And that something is the uber-left. The Van Jones, communist-loving radicals. The Chairman Mao admirers in the White House, like the Ron Blooms of the world, who says he agrees with Mao about power coming from the barrel of a gun.

I don't believe the majority of Americans think like these people do. But they don't care. If you don't believe these radicals think they are superior to you, that they will run you over if you get in the way of their do-gooding for greater good, then you don't understand history.

— Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5 p.m. 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.