Comrade update - good news! (If you are a socialist)

GLENN: Comrade!

STU: Ah, yes, comrade!

GLENN: Comrade, listen to the voices of the motherland. They are singing out today, "Good news from the Western front."

STU: What is the good news, comrade?

GLENN: Our Progressive plans are almost in place

STU: You mean they're not already?

GLENN: They're damn close. There's still a little breath in this gal but we're bound and determined to stuff it out, comrade.

STU: It's almost like a snub film of Lady Liberty.

GLENN: Here we go. This is the first thing that's going to make your day. Christopher Dodd has a plan. Our good friend, our good comrade Chris Dodd has a plan to establish a government body to buy all the troubled mortgages from the banks and investors and move homeowners into loans insured by the federal government! So when the private sector says, holy crap, how are we going to afford this, comrade.

STU: Yes, comrade.

GLENN: As God has swooped in, he will finally set our people free!

STU: Ah, comrade, comrade, it's like I always say. Power to the people who work in the government!

GLENN: Soon, soon our glorious Progressive dreams of all living in gray housing complexes will be a dream come true.

STU: Oh, I love -- maybe soon everything will look like beautiful downtown Chernobyl.

GLENN: Comrade, from our -- well, of course, I think we could be heard. So we better not. From that bad, bad newspaper that we disagree with so very much, the New York Times.

STU: Yes, comrade.

GLENN: There's a story today that Hillary Rodham Clinton, when did she become Rodham again? Nevermind, comrade! Listen to the voices of the people as they sing out!

STU: I so hope Hillary Clinton wins when she runs --

GLENN: Rodham.

STU: Hillary Rodham Clinton wins when she runs for the Politburo.

GLENN: She says when she becomes President, the federal government will take a more active role in the economy. (Applause.) Oh, this is good news. This is good news. We may finally permanently collapse that evil stock market thing. She says the government will take a more active role in the economy to address what she calls the excesses of the market.

STU: What did you say, comrade? Can you just repeat that?

GLENN: I was just thinking, the excesses of the capitalist market, the excesses. Comrade, pay no attention. There is never such a thing as federal excess. Spending $9 trillion, or truth be told, $56 trillion more than you have is never in excess. That, that is setting people free so they can sing about the glories of the homeless!

STU: Oh, comrade, it's so good to hear comrade Marx being quoted on the Western front.

GLENN: No, this is Hillary Clinton.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: She said that things need to be much different than they are today, and how true it is. She puts her emphasis on issues like inequality and government rather than market forces. I mean, this is -- it's crazy.

STU: It's great news from the Western front, isn't it?

GLENN: Ahhhh! I can't take it. Let me just say this to you. Hang on just a second. Stop the music for just a second. Wait!

I just have to say, I want you to know this personally. My business will grow 100-fold if this woman becomes President of the United States. And then torn because my business will be so unbelievably huge if she becomes President. The reason I'm torn is because while it may grow 100 fold, my taxes will grow 1,000% and really, isn't that the way it should be? Comrade!

STU: Oh, comrade.

GLENN: She's gone on. She said that economic excesses in the market, including executive pay packages that she says are offensive and wrong and a tax code that has become so far out of whack in favoring the wealthy, while holding down the standard of living of the middle class. And she's right. She is right. The middle class has shrunk, shrunk by 12%. Upper class grew by 12%. The lower class stayed the same. Pay no attention to those numbers, comrade. Pay no attention. Listen to the propaganda and the voice of the people as it rings out from beautiful shore to beautiful shore! She said, "If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective vigorous government and a dynamic appropriately regulated market." They must be still writing that history book because I haven't read that anywhere in history. I'm just trying to remember that part of history, but I'm sure -- oh, comrade!

STU: Yes!

GLENN: Remember that time, we shan't speak about it now or point out actual dates or places or people or things, but remember, remember back, oh, just over a mere 70 years ago when we had regulated markets and really vigorous government? Oh, those were the days in the 1930s. She said we had a systematically diminished role and the responsibility of our government and we watched our market become imbalanced. I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market."

STU: Think of all the time people saved when they didn't have to check their bank accounts because they read zero all the time.

GLENN: She says the economy, her plan would have three main components. She would roll back the Bush tax cuts for households with incomes over $250,000, which basically are the small business owners in America, while creating more tax breaks below that threshold; impose closer scrutiny on financial markets including investments being made by foreign governments and raising spending on job-creating projects. Remember, comrade, when we built the Hoover dam? Oh, those were the days. Inequality is growing. The middle class is stalled. No, it's not. The American dream is premised on a growing economy where people are in a mediocrity -- meritocracy.

STU: That's a foreign word!

GLENN: If they are willing to work hard, they will realize the fruits of their labor. It reminds me of an old phrase, "Work shall set you free." Oh, it is so good, once again on the Western front, to hear the words that are so reminiscent of our founding fathers. So now from the former Soviet Union, I and our founding fathers say, bye-bye, America.

STU: You know, they are not using USSR. We already have U.S. We can just add on SR. We're there.

GLENN: S and an R. We are already making S's. We only need to make an R. That's it. Can't we get somebody from China to give us an R?

STU: Can we redesign -- maybe someone on the left side can do this today. Can we redo the stars and the flag to just do a sort of hammer/sickle thing?

GLENN: That would be great. That would be -- you know, I have to tell you, Stu, this is a kick-ass national anthem, too.

STU: So good.

GLENN: It's the former Soviet Union national anthem. They are not using it anymore.

STU: We could totally adopt it.

GLENN: Why don't we just use it?

STU: I mean, I would think they would say it's property of community. We wouldn't even have to buy it on the market.

GLENN: Which would you use it? It would be like Che Guevara licensing his image.

STU: He would never do that.

GLENN: He would never do that. Che is one with the people. Everything is free. They all own --

STU: They are already doing it.

GLENN: What?

STU: They are already licensing it for capitalist use.

GLENN: Listen to this music. Isn't it -- all right, stop the music here.

Here is the new T-shirt that I designed and I designed it just in advance just in case John McCain does win the primary and Hillary Clinton wins the primary and I'm going to unveil it now here on the web cam. It is vote donkaphant. And what I did is I had Paul Nunn who is our artist who's absolutely fantastic. I had him design a, well, it's a donkey and an elephant stitched together. It's a pretty ugly animal but isn't that really -- shouldn't that be the symbol of the donkaphant party, where you can't really tell them apart except it has a trunk and buck teeth, long ears and a move? That's the kind of place that we want to take America, isn't it? You know what, I don't think I could -- well, I know I can't vote for Hillary Clinton because this woman -- I mean, she admits it. She is a Progressive. And look it up, gang. Read Jonah Goldberg -- you know, I got a call from the book people today and they are all pissed off at me because Jonah Goldberg's book debuted at number 9 and then I made such a big deal out of it last week and I don't think it's because of me but they do, the book people do. It's now number 3 and it's beating our book and they were like, would you shut up about other books? And I'm like, no, it's a good book. And people should read this book. Liberal Fascism. There, I said it. Go out and buy it, after you buy "An Inconvenient Book." How is that? What, it's a capitalist thing.

Why did I bring up his book? What was I even talking about, Stu?

STU: I wasn't listening. There's another show on.

GLENN: Is it good?

STU: It's really good.

GLENN: So, you know, I've said before that I just can't vote for John McCain. I just can't do it.

STU: Have you said that, though? I don't think that you've actually made that statement.

GLENN: I can't do it. I can't do it.

STU: Under any senses?

GLENN: Here's the thing. Here's the thing. I think it would be much better to just let them -- because here's what happened. You vote for John McCain and it's going to be a Democratic congress. You vote for John McCain and John McCain will compromise and he will be the flag bearer of the conservative movement and he's not. He doesn't -- I mean, he will sign in the global warming stuff. I mean, he's a nightmare. He's only good, kind of, on the war. I don't even think that you can give him 100% on the war. But I mean, at least he's got that down. But you know what? That's just not enough for me and I'm not willing to have him, you know, bipartisan move work hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder with socialists like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton. I'm just not willing to go down that road. I won't compromise, and he will. And so then what's left of the conservative movement? Nothing. Nothing. I'd rather have Hillary Clinton in there and a Democratic congress for two years, just absolutely nightmare and then maybe America will wake up. And then they will put a Republican congress in there. And maybe that Republican congress will see that we didn't -- we just didn't go and lap up their bullcrap when they tried to spoon-feed us socialism. We said "no, we don't really want to go there. Oh, I know you've got a little bit of this and a little bit of that, but no thank you. I don't flirt with socialism. I'm not interested in it. I'll go live in Cuba, I'll go live in Canada. There are options. Let's try something different. Oh, a little quaint thing I like to call the American experiment that was working pretty well until, oh, I don't know, the New Deal."

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.