Glenn hates poor people




Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Extreme, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insider Extremists. Learn more...


GLENN: Let me give you the organ of the Obama administration, the New York Times by Laurie Goodstein. She says, "Last week the conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck called on Christians to leave their churches if they hear preaching about social or economic justice, saying they are code words for communism and Naziism." Well, yeah, the communists and the Nazis, and I presented that evidence last night on the TV show. It's pretty hard when I take their own words and play it coming out of their own mouth and then show their own magazines, their own newspapers using those, that language for this exact purpose, for Naziism and communism, progressivism in America. But why get down to the facts.

"This week the remarks prompted outrage from several Christian bloggers." Now, let me ask you a question. The New York Times says they're above all, they the news that's fit to print. They found this to be a, how many paragraph? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve paragraph story from several, quote, Christian bloggers. Oh.

PAT: Unnamed?

GLENN: No, no, they've named one.

PAT: Oh, they have named them?

GLENN: Yes. The Reverend Jim Wallis.

PAT: Oh, that Christian blogger. And by the way, did they mention that he's an advisor, a spiritual advisor to the president of the United States, Barack Obama?

GLENN: No, they haven't mentioned that.

PAT: They haven't mentioned that?

GLENN: No, they don't mention that here.

PAT: He's a disinterested party? He's just a Christian.

STU: Random Christian typist, okay.

GLENN: Who leads the liberal Christian antipoverty group.

PAT: Oh, is that what it is?

GLENN: It's a Christian antipoverty group.

PAT: Oh, okay.

STU: At least they said liberal. That's more than they normally do.

GLENN: Right. He called on Christians to leave Glenn Beck. That sounds like a boycott. I wonder if one will follow.

STU: Wait, wait. An advisor to the president being tied to a boycott? That doesn't sound possible.

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait, wait.

STU: It doesn't sound possible.

GLENN: Wait. One who studied Marxism?

STU: No, it doesn't seem. I won't listen to it.

GLENN: Okay. So "what he has said attacks the very heart of Christian faith. Christians should no longer watch his show," Mr. Wallis wrote on his blog. His name of his blog? God's Politics.

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: Now, I wasn't aware that God had politics. I would like to again join all of the liberals in suggesting we have a separation of church and state, that maybe there's a problem when your preacher stands up and starts telling you who to vote for, how to vote, and what the government should look like.

Now, I know there are churches that do that. I don't attend them. I don't like them. You can do that if you want, but if you want to make sure that God's politics aren't America's politics, you know, that would probably be a good thing to check into those words of those churches. Because I don't think God has politics. I think he has the truth.

"His show should be in the same category as Howard Stern." That sounds like Saul Alinsky.

STU: Successful? Is that what he's trying to say?

GLENN: "In attacking churches that espouse social justice," the Times writes, "Mr. Beck is taking on most mainline protestant, Roman Catholic, black and Hispanic congregations in the country." Not I wonder if, I wonder if we're going to get the churches like Jeremiah Wright's now to say that I'm a racist. I mean, it's not hard for Jeremiah Wright to call people racist and then, of course, there would be a campaign against my sponsors because I'm against a race I'm again a racist because I'm antipoverty, I'm antipoor.

PAT: No, because yeah, let's get that position straight because you are pro poverty, right?

GLENN: I am pro poverty, antipoor.

PAT: Antipoor.

STU: What is your decision making process then when you're doing this tour and the main three parts of it are faith, hope and charity?

GLENN: Hope and charity? I know.

STU: Why would you include faith and charity?

GLENN: I have no idea.

STU: I don't understand it, weird.

GLENN: No idea. "Mr. Beck said on his radio show March 2nd, I beg you look for the word social justice or economic justice on your church website. If you can find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice are code words." Quoting me. Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes, if I'm going, if I'm going to Jeremiah Wright's church, he said, referring to President Obama's former pastor in Chicago. If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Notice, notice, leave your parish, not your church.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Go find another parish. Go alert your bishop.

STU: Do you have a are there dot dot dots that you are skipping over here?

GLENN: No, uh huh.

STU: Because I'm looking at our transcript and, you know, maybe we transcribed it wrong, but you you said social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, the idea hang on, Stu is saying that I'm advising people to leave their church? Yes! If I'm going to Jeremiah Wright's church. In other words, when you said something, I asked you in your ear to clarify it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Which you did immediately afterwards by saying you referred to Jeremiah right's type church, a Black Liberation Theology or Marxism or church that's turned into a political arm.

GLENN: Yeah. Religion scholars say the term social justice now listen. This is a defense if you know history, this is their defense? Religious scholars say the term social justice was coined in the 1800s, codified by successive popes and adopted widely by protestant churches in the 1900s.

PAT: After the progressive movement had kicked in. Jeez.

GLENN: For the love of Pete. Marx started in 19 1848. All of this stuff started percolating, all of Nietzsche comes along, everything, it's redistribution of wealth. I've told you this, the progressive movement started with people like Woodrow Wilson whose father was a preacher! They perverted Christianity! "The concept is that Christians should not merely give to the poor but also work to correct unjust conditions that keep people poor." Yes! You're exactly right. We should as Christians do that. But then there's that added little step of having the government do it, not you. "Many Christians consider it a reoccurring theme in scripture. Mr. Beck himself is a convert to Mormonism, a faith that identifies itself as part of the Christian family but nevertheless rejected by many Christians. Philip Barlow, Arrington professor of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University said one way to read the book of Mormon is a fast track on social justice." Yes, that is one way to read it.

PAT: I've never heard it described that way.

GLENN: A lot of latter day saints would think that Beck was asking them to leave their own church." Yeah, sure, uh huh. Mr. Barlow said that "Just this year the church's highest authority, the quorum of the twelve apostles, issued a new handbook of instructions." I love this. "Which they revise the church three fold mission and added a fourth mission statement: Care for the poor."

PAT: People! People! Individuals!

GLENN: That's you.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Caring for the poor.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: I have no problem. Faith, hope and charity. Yes! That's what Jesus said! But when Jesus came down, you know what it who were the Pharisees? Who were the Pharisees?

PAT: A group of intellectuals?

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait. The intellectual elite of the time?

PAT: Uh huh, uh huh.

GLENN: Wait a minute. Did they have any power?

PAT: Uh huh.

GLENN: Did they? Did they have any power in government?

PAT: Uh huh. Yeah.

GLENN: Did they have any power in the church at the time?

PAT: Uh huh.

GLENN: That's weird!

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So they were the elite, intellectual elites, they were the political elites of their time and they were the religious elites of their time, and they were all the same thing?

PAT: Uh huh.

GLENN: All three of those in one?

PAT: Weird, huh?

GLENN: It's weird.

PAT: Weird.

GLENN: And so what did Jesus say? Get away from the Pharisees! Because they had perverted the mission of Christ into what? Political power. Hello!

STU: (Laughing). Yeah, what you I mean, the easiest way to boil down what you're talking about is don't let your church turn into a political arm.

GLENN: Yes!

STU: That's really controversial.

GLENN: Your church is there and that's why I said I don't care what church you go to. I don't care. As long as that church is telling you and helping you be a better person, be more honorable, be more honest, be more giving. But once that church starts to preach social and economic justice, especially through the structure of a giant government, well, now that's something totally different. Now, now you are talking about a church that is getting involved in government itself. We don't do that. We don't do that.

STU: Yeah. I mean, and the easiest way to understand what you were talking about is if you were talking about the poor, your own church obviously, they pointed out there that they do care about caring for the poor. So were you advising people to leave your own church? Were you advising your other parishioners to walk out of your church because you can't take it? Did you leave your church this week, Glenn?

GLENN: No, I didn't.

STU: Did you leave it?

GLENN: No, I didn't.

STU: Why not? Clearly the New York Times says you were calling for yourself to leave your own church.

GLENN: Because everyone, everyone can follow the dictates spirit and worship any way that they want. The idea is separation of church and state when it comes to, it is not a political arm. The your churches are not political arms. Now, that doesn't mean you don't stand up for what you believe in, especially if it is an attack on what you believe. You stand up for what you believe. If you think that you can get in I know we have to wrap it up. If you think you can get into bed with these socialist, Marxist, social justice and economic justice people and retain your right to worship in the way the spirit dictates to you, you're out of your mind. Because they'll be your friend today but they are going to turn on you and rip your heart of your church out.

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.