Palin v. Glenn?



Going Rogue: An American Life


by Sarah Palin


GLENN: From high above Times Square in Midtown Manhattan, this is the third most listened to show in all of America. I can't believe I have to put her on. She's going to take my 5:00 time slot. I just know it. Okay, pretend I didn't say that. Sarah Palin, are you there?

SARAH PALIN: Hey, Glenn, how are you?

GLENN: Well, I'd be good if you weren't going to steal my 5:00 time slot.

SARAH PALIN: Oh, darn, the cat's out of the bag. You found out my ploy, yeah.

GLENN: Can you believe. You know, I sent you a message yesterday that this was on the front page of AOL yesterday that I was all upset that you were going to steal my 5:00 time slot. Well, first of all, are you?

SARAH PALIN: That wasn't in the plan.

GLENN: I knew it! Today it is, oh, that was of course that was ridiculous. Beck is going to steal the 8:00 time slot with Bill O'Reilly. Yes, now they

SARAH PALIN: We'll pull a Leno/O'Brien with all that stuff going on, yeah. No.

GLENN: You are back in Alaska?

SARAH PALIN: I am in Alaska this morning, yes.

GLENN: Have you seen a polar bear, tracked a polar bear, killed a wolf, anything like that in the last 24 hours?

SARAH PALIN: Haven't killed anything. Seen a few moose cross the road in front of me, though.

GLENN: Okay. I mean, I guess that counts, doesn't that? That counts. Sarah, I wanted to get you on the phone and I wanted to talk to you about a couple of things. First of all, what do you think of Scott Brown winning? What do you think the message was?

SARAH PALIN: I think the message was people in Massachusetts, really representing the rest of the nation, up in arms and anti-leftist sentiment that they expressed via that Massachusetts vote. It's very, very good. I think Michelle Malkin hit the nail on the head, though, in writing recently that nobody better become complacent and cocky about this victory of Brown's because Obama I think is going to be more geared up than ever to ram some things down our throat because I believe that the left now understands that they could have some limited time to usher in their agenda. So we need to be very wary, very aware of the lip service that we're going to receive from the White House and be ever vigilant in keeping track of what they're doing and holding them accountable.

GLENN: Have you had a chance to watch the show the last couple of days?

SARAH PALIN: I sure have.

GLENN: Okay.

SARAH PALIN: Pretty amazing.

GLENN: Yesterday the opening 20 minutes, I mean, I think I make a pretty good compelling case but I'm getting all kinds of heat for it that I think the president is in danger from the left because the left is the only one with the real history of violence. And I think this guy, I think he's trapped. I don't think he can go moderate because he has surrounded himself with extraordinarily dangerous people that actually do believe that power comes from the barrel of a gun. And if they they believe he is going to usher in the, you know, the Venezuelan Democratic revolution here in America. And if he is seen as not doing that, I think he's in big, big trouble from the left.

SARAH PALIN: Well, I think he did put himself in a box. And I think you are right, that moderation will be absent from his administration because he does have selected around him those so far out on that leftist fringe as to be out of touch with what Americans expect from their government. So putting himself in that box, he is not going to be able, I believe he's moved towards more of that center. Otherwise he moves his entire base. He, of course, doesn't have the independent and rightist base right now. He's going to lose a leftist, too. I think you hit the nail on head there.

GLENN: Hang on. Sarah, I want to introduce you to my best friend Pat Gray who is also on the show, and he's got audio from Barack Obama last night.

PAT: Sarah, last night the president said that it was the fact that he had lost direct contact with the American people that was the problem. They didn't see him enough last night. Here's part of what he said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And, you know, if there's one, one thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of, you know, speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are. And I think that, you know, the thing I'm seeing is remoteness and attachment and I think that I can do a better job at that and partly because I believe that.

GLENN: We need the Obama channel.

PAT: I mean, there is one. Do you believe there's any other place, venue, media where he could possibly show up any more than he already has?

SARAH PALIN: I think we're kind of saturated with that communication from the White House. So his thinking on this is, okay, no policy shift, no changes there in what he's doing to America but instead they will communicate more to us more about what it is that they are doing. That's not the answer. Go back again to the Scott Brown race. Coakley was the epitome of an Obama candidate, quite arrogant, quite disconnected from the electorate in a very, very blue state and yet Massachusetts said, no, we want transparency, accountability, we want a true representative form of government. And we see this in this candidate, Scott Brown, we're going to elect him. For Obama to be in denial of what took place two days ago is very baffling, it's confusing to a lot of Americans who were saying, wait a minute, you are smarter than this Obama, surely he sees what truly is going on.

GLENN: Sarah, when you were you became governor, I mean, one of the things I have really admired in you and I think that nobody pays attention to this, and they should because it is the secret to you. When you first went in, they tried to buy you off. You know, they tried to put you on councils and cozy up to you and get you into the system, and you ratted out your own party and said, excuse me? This is corrupt, this is what's going on, and you changed the system and broke the back of the big oil graft that was going up in Alaska. Do I have that story right?

SARAH PALIN: Yeah, I did have to part ways with my party leadership. I've been doing that, though, ever since I was a city council member in Wasilla in 1992 that all began. So, yeah, I've never been kind of part of that team, if you will.

GLENN: So there's two questions. One is can an individual you've now seen, you know, Alaska and you've done it, you know, pretty much by yourself in Alaska, or at least you were the leader of it there. But Alaska's a lot different than the United States government, and this is just a nightmare cesspool down here in Washington. Can one person break the back or do you need a coalition of politicians? And B, you are known for bucking the system, but one of the biggest progressives out there is John McCain. And you are still supporting him and you are campaigning for him. I don't understand it.

SARAH PALIN: I am. I'm supporting him. I keep my word. John McCain is on fire to kill Obama's government takeover of healthcare and that's what I want to see. And his commitment and his leadership on national security to win the war on terror, that's what we need. And I'm going to support him. And he is a statesman, and I don't hesitate at all to say, no, we do need his leadership, especially on those two fronts: Government takeover of healthcare, he wants to kill it; national security, he gets it. He understands how to win.

GLENN: He is for I mean, he's a progressive. He will I mean, he is the kind of guy that he wants to kill this healthcare, but he'll come up with another, you know, Romney like healthcare program that is involving the government. I mean, he was for, you know, a lot of the things that Barack Obama is for.

SARAH PALIN: I dare say a whole lot of politicians in D.C. are starting to see the light. And I'm not saying that John McCain ever was in the dark, but I think these messages sent via Virginia, New Jersey, Scott Brown's race in Massachusetts, politicians in D.C., in the GOP and those independents are saying, okay, we're not alone in this anyway, look at this rising up of the Tea Party movement, of activists saying, no, this anti-leftist agenda is what we're going to be standing for it. We want a shrinkage of government, not a growth of government. We want less intrusion in our lives from our government. McCain and others are I believe jumping on board, being more adamant than ever about that type of an agenda.

GLENN: And can one, can one person go in, can a president go in without the party? Because I just don't trust the Republicans. I'm not going to trust anybody. You know, I'm going to I'll vote the best I can but I'm going to watch you like a hawk every step of the way once, you know, Scott Brown, great, great. Now, what are you doing today? And if he goes awry, I pull my support. I mean, I'll support you while I can until you decide to, you know, become part of the system and you are assimilated into the Borg. Can we

SARAH PALIN: Yeah, don't put your faith in a politician, no. A politician is going to disappoint you. They will make decisions that you can't agree with. And too often then that leads to that disenchantment, disenfranchisement from that politician and from their agenda. No, it takes more than one person, and I appreciate that Scott Brown seems to be absent of a political machine around him. I want him to stay pure. I don't want him to be caught up in

GLENN: Can they? Can they?

SARAH PALIN: He has to. We beg him to. Stay pure, stay committed and convicted on those things that got you to where you are today.

GLENN: Because honestly, Sarah, that's the thing that scares me about you is you've been independent. But the more you are I mean, I like you when you're in Alaska because you are away from all of those dirtbags. And the more you get involved with, and I just wonder because I don't know if I could. You know, you lose your soul. We've talked about this before. You know, can you and can people like Scott Brown stay out of the system because they're constantly asking you, no, no, no, you've got to, you've got to cut the corner on this one. And I know it's just this one, but this one's important. And before you know it, you've compromised yourself into oblivion.

SARAH PALIN: If you want to be able to sleep well at night and if you are in an elected office, you stay committed to what it is that got you to where you are. That's what I thought about that every day, Glenn. It would be, because a friend had told me this years ago. He said in politics you are either eating well or sleeping well. I decided I wanted to sleep well and that's why I've made a lot of the decisions that I have that, yeah, really booted me outside of any kind of machine or any kind of I guess comfort and security that you would have knowing that a political machine has your back and they'll come bail you out and they will come defend you and they will get on the air and they'll tell you, oh, what a great decision. I haven't had that luxury at all. But I sleep well at night because I know that I'm doing what is in my heart, my soul, my gut. I believe that I am connected to a whole lot of Americans who think the way that I think, common sense, conservative ideals and principles. I'm sleeping well and I want Scott Brown and other politicians to be in that same position.

GLENN: Last question. You know, what was it, two weeks ago when we met, you met my son Raphe. He was very interested, you know, when we were leaving. I talked about, you know, that you used to be the governor of Alaska, and he didn't really care. And then we started talking about Alaska and he really didn't care. And then I said, you know, that's up by the North Pole, and he wanted to know, he wanted to know if you were the governor of the North Pole and you had ever met Santa.

SARAH PALIN: I have met Santa, yes.

GLENN: Yes, you have.

SARAH PALIN: I have met Santa and you tell him, yes, that I was the governor of the North Pole and I

GLENN: And because you're

SARAH PALIN: I'm in a position where I can keep a good eye on Raphe and make sure that all is well in your household.

GLENN: All right, good. And I just want to make sure. Because I told him yes, you were, and it was because you were a conservative that you made sure that Santa paid no taxes so the toys remain free. All right. Thanks a lot.

SARAH PALIN: And I'm sure he rolled his eyes.

GLENN: Yeah, he lost interest right away. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it, Sarah, we'll talk to you again.

SARAH PALIN: Talk to you, too, bye.

GLENN: Sarah Palin who, she's going to take my 5:00 slot. And I hate her for it!

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.