Pelosi wants to investigate Ground Zero mosque opponents


Learn more about the Restoring Honor Rally, 8/28 in Washington DC...

GLENN: I want you to hear the words of your representative. What is the meaning of that word, your representative? Somebody that represents you.

PAT: That means there are masters, right? A representative, that means they control every aspect of our lives and they rule over us?

GLENN: A representative generally is not defined as someone who knows better than you and so they will tell you to sit down and shut up.

PAT: What, really?

GLENN: If you have a representative go and do business for you, they represent your values, your ideas and they are in charge, they are empowered by you to make decisions for you but in a way that reflects your values, your ideas, your thought process.

PAT: So like, if you were to send a representative let's say to a meeting on 8/28 or whatever and they came back, then they would tell you exactly from that meeting, they would come back and they would tell you exactly what they're going to do and what you're going to do now with the information.

GLENN: No, that's not the way it works. But apparently in Washington this is your representative, Nancy Pelosi and what she now says about those who question the 9/11 mosque.

PELOSI: But there is no question that there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some, and I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded. How is this being ginned up that we are talking about Treasure Island, something we've been working on for a decade, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.

PAT: So she has joined with those who are calling for an investigation.

GLENN: For an investigation on those who question the mosque.

PAT: She's not calling for an investigation or joining with those who wonder where the money's coming from for the mosque.



Glenn Beck is seen here on GlennBeck.TV, a feature available exclusively to Glenn Beck Insider Extreme members. Learn more...


GLENN: No.

PAT: And there's plenty of questions about that.

GLENN: Stu, do you want to give just a preview of something I shared with you last night.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: And Stu is looking into this. This is for next week, I'm doing a special on Fox on Sharia law and the role that Sharia law is playing in the rest of the world and the role that it is about to play here, I am convinced.

PAT: We just had that ruling in New Jersey.

GLENN: Exactly right. Is there any role with this mosque and Sharia law? Listen to what we found.

STU: Well --

GLENN: You don't have to outline it all because we're not prepared to outline all of it. Just give a general look at what one of the things that this mosque is intrigued with.

STU: There is something called the Sharia index project that they are working with and have actually created. It's sort of a way to look at what government is the most Islamic and how would you create or implement that sort of government.

GLENN: Their words, create or implement Sharia law or, no, they say --

STU: Concept of the Islamic state.

GLENN: Islamic state.

PAT: And that's the Cordoba project?

GLENN: That's one of the things the Cordoba project appears to be involved with at this point.

STU: And so, talking about a perfectly Islamic state and

GLENN: And let's let's just do this. Pat, give me the history of Cordoba.

PAT: Cordoba is a city in Spain that became the Muslim capital basically of the Western world when Islam conquered it and then it became a symbol of Islam's victory over Christianity.

GLENN: They took a church, a giant cathedral.

PAT: And built the third largest mosque in the world there in Cordoba.

GLENN: Is it reasonable to ask to see if the terrorist, the Muslims that are extreme and extreme American haters, is it unreasonable to ask the question, do they believe that we are a wildly decadent society, that we are a society that is corrupting the world. They call us the Great Satan for a reason. Is it possible that that is it? And that it is possible that the World Trade Center was looked at in the Muslim world by some as our temple to our god, money and power. Is it possible that it is viewed by some in the Muslim world as that temple. Just like, or our cathedral, just like in Cordoba they take the cathedral of Christianity, conquer Christianity and then take that cathedral and make it into a mosque, the third largest mosque in the world. And that was a statement to the rest of the world that we have conquered their god and we are now leading. We have conquered them. Now, why would this mosque be called the Cordoba project? Well, as somebody who names things in organizations, as somebody who has named a project the 9/12 project, why did I call it the 9/12 project? Because I wanted to make sure that we understood what we were like at that time, understood that day. Not 9/11. Don't focus on 9/11. Don't focus on the bad. Focus on the good. We came together. We had values and principles, and we had things in order on 9/12. So the 9/12 project is to try to teach us how we can be like that as we were without the fear on 9/12 every day of our lives because if we're like that, we will cure our country. What project is Cordoba project trying to do? What is the project? What is it they are trying to say? What is it they are trying to remember? What is it they are trying to teach with the Cordoba project? Is that unreasonable to ask? Does that sound like something that should, should be a federal investigation? Not on what the Cordoba project is and who's involved and is Sharia law involved at all. None of that, no, no, no. Me asking the question. Now our government is saying Nancy Pelosi, there should be an investigation on the critics of this mosque.

PAT: And who's funding them? What sinister method of funding do you think they are getting? And what are they spending it on? I haven't seen any ads.

GLENN: Have you noticed, though, that they are starting to go after people and saying, who's funding this

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: vast rightwing? Who's doing that? You don't need to fund this! This is grassroots. It's common sense!

PAT: That's all you should understand.

GLENN: You don't need to fund an outrage over a mosque that was going to be dedicated on the anniversary, the tenth anniversary of 9/11. You don't need a dime to have that spread, not a dime.

PAT: No. But that's all Nancy Pelosi understands is funding for Astroturf projects.

GLENN: The Tides Foundation.

PAT: That's all she gets.

GLENN: And by the way, what does the Tides Foundation mean? Why the Tides Foundation? Because it was founded during the time of Ronald Reagan and they knew, progressives knew. This is why they named it that. They had to change the tide. That's the Tides Foundation. Why ACORN, from something small grows a mighty oak. ACORN. Why do they call it the Apollo Alliance, the Apollo Alliance that wrote the stimulus package? Because it had to be big, bold and brash and once it launched, you couldn't stop it. There are reasons behind every name. Let's ask the reason behind the Cordoba project. Could we possibly do that?

PAT: Who's funding you now ? Ask that question.

GLENN: Americans For Prosperity. But who funds Americans For Prosperity? Can you play that clip? Americans For Prosperity. Now, I don't really know anything except these guys have always been, at least in my head, good guys. Good guys. Listen to what the president said about these guys.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right now all around this country, there are groups with harmless sounding names like Americans For Prosperity who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates, all across the country. And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans For Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign controlled, you don't know if it's a big oil company.

GLENN: Okay.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Or a big bank.

GLENN: Okay, stop. Why is it that Jim Wallis, isn't anybody looking into who funds Jim Wallis?

PAT: Oh, he is really denying that any money is coming from George Soros.

GLENN: I'm sure enough money is coming from George Soros directly, I'm sure. George Soros has made it a tangled web that he weaves.

Let me ask you this: Who is funding the counter Glenn Beck Martin Luther King thing right now? Who's funding that? Do you know? Do you know who's the other 98%? Do you know anything about this?

STU: What a conspiracy theorist! Glenn Beck baselessly thinks someone's funding these organizations. What a crazy person! Americans For Prosperity, we've got to look into that. But jeez, Glenn's nuts!

GLENN: Isn't it weird, isn't it weird that the other 98%, have you seen who's I don't even remember the name of this Jewish rabbi or something that was so dead set against me on social justice? Remember, he came out and he caused a whole bunch of stink, and I don't remember what it is. He's involved. Isn't that weird. Isn't that weird. This organization seems to just come out of nowhere all of a sudden. Has all this funding. Well, that's weird. That's weird, I think you could safely say on the left, you don't know how much is federally funded. You don't know how much is funded from foreign entities or foreign governments. But mark my words. If you don't think Iran through Hamas is being funded here in the United States, if you don't think that there is foreign money trying to tear this country apart and trying to tear this country down and trying to pit us against each other, you are out of your mind. You are out of your mind. You look for things that are uniting, and I'm sorry, but the Cordoba project is not uniting. If you wanted to unite people, you don't spit in their face. You don't spit in their face. You on a tenth anniversary of after you've killed 3,000 people, you're going to now build your mosque? On -- Really? If you were a clean organization where there was no doubt in anybody's mind that you were the moderate Muslim, there wouldn't be a problem. But there's too many questions here. You are the Cordoba project. Hmmm. Too many questions. And Nancy Pelosi, investigate this. I’d love to testify. I'd love to. I don't fear you. You work for us.

[NOTE: Transcript may have been edited to enhance readability - audio archive includes full segment as it was originally aired]

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.