Glenn's latest economy theory




Crash-Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse


GLENN: Putting the radio back into Radio City, from Rockefeller Plaza in Midtown Manhattan, this is the third most listened to show in all of America. Let me go right to Peter Schiff here because I want to talk to him about -- well, you know what? Let me start with this. I have to tell you something. I told you now for a while, I've told you since August specifically that nobody's telling you the truth on the economy and I told you that we had a very, very delegate financial system and that nobody really knew the extent of the problem because everything has changed. The rules have changed. And I said if we have any significant downward pressure on this, this whole thing could collapse. Well, I think you can see how delicate our financial system is and how close we came to collapse and, you know, collapse may still happen. It may not. We may be past it. I don't think we are. I just think there's just too many things, there are too many things going on. But there's a lot of stuff in the news that I don't even begin to understand and there are several questions, and I thought Peter Schiff could come on and kind of answer some of these questions for me.

Hi, Peter, how are you?

SCHIFF: I'm well, how are you, Glenn?

GLENN: I'm good. I hate to just hit you out of the blue with some things that, you know, you don't have any idea what I'm going to ask you and, you know, it's not a quiz but I thought you might be able to be the guy who could help me on this. There's a story today in The Wall Street Journal, Fed weighs its options in easing crunch. Did you see this?

SCHIFF: I listened to that, I think it was -- yeah, I did read the article, as a matter of fact. I have it on my desk right now. Greg Ip's piece?

GLENN: I don't even know what some of these things are. I can't even figure out what their options are.

SCHIFF: It's really easy. It boils down to one word. Inflation. That's what they are contemplating, printing money and buying up mortgages. You know, we talk about, you know, the economic collapse. Our economy has to collapse because it was phony. At one time we had all these Internet companies that were in business but they were losing money. Eventually they all collapsed because they weren't viable. The same thing goes with our economy. It's not that there was a problem in sub prime. We had a bubble and subprime was the pin that predicted it but the problem is that our economy is phony because it's based on consumption. It's based on borrowing. It's based on Americans borrowing trillions of dollars from abroad and doing nothing with the money but spending it on consumer goods. And now we're up to our eyeballs in debt. We can't pay it back. We have these phony asset prices, home prices that people used for collateral for these loans. They are collapsing in value and there's nothing the Government can do to stop it and they should stop trying. They have to let it happen.

GLENN: So let me just go -- it's always like a day of sunshine and a walk on the beach when we talk. Go over a couple of these things. The Fed and treasury have discussed that the most likely option is for the treasury -- this one kills me if I understand it right. The treasury will issue more debt than it needs to fund government operations and the extra cash would be left undeposited at the Fed. So basically what we're saying is we'll go over to China, borrow more money than we need for the national debt and then leave it with a private entity, the Fed?

SCHIFF: We're not going to leave that money. We're going to spend that money in circulation. The Fed's going to buy up mortgages. That's what they are trying to do. They are trying to prevent money on people who used real estate collateral from going broke. Why? We used to criticize the Chinese with phony capitalism. We used to say the duty of our economy is we let free markets work, we let people work, we let people pay for their mistakes. What happened to that? Why does the Government have to bail everybody out? Why can't we let people who make bad loans lose money?

GLENN: Okay. So the argument would be on that, "Well, you can't do that because if these, if these groups collapse -- I mean, here, I've got a couple of stories right here. Citigroup Wells Fargo may loan less after downgrades. I've got another one that the IMF now is saying -- the IMF says financial losses may swell to almost $1 trillion. It was $200 billion. Then it was $400, then it was $600. Now they are saying $1 trillion in losses.

SCHIFF: But those are real losses. The Government can't prevent them. All the Government can do is turn them into inflation. So they can say, look, we won't let you lose money. We'll let you get your money back but when you get it back, it's going to lose value. The Government can't do anything. Yes, it's going to be terrible. We're in for one hell of a recession. But you know what? That's the price we have to pay. We're in this mess because in 2001 and 2002 the government tried to help. They didn't want to allow the recession that would normally result in the bursting of the NASDAQ bubble which the Fed also created. So in terms of trying to save us, in trying to prevent us to live through a recession, we blew up this housing bubble. We encouraged trillions of dollars of reckless lending and now we have to pay the price for that. We can't afford to pay the price of another government bailout. It's just too expensive.

GLENN: Okay. But the other idea is that it's too expensive not to do it. That's the argument I always hear.

SCHIFF: No.

GLENN: It's too expensive. You can't let these giant groups fail because then the whole system goes into failure.

SCHIFF: So the result -- so the alternative is we kill the value of our money? I mean, if the Fed does what they are contemplating, we're going to have hyperinflation in this country. The dollar is not going to lose just some value. It's going to lose most of its value and it might even lose all of its value. And believe me, the type of chaos that that's going to unleash, much worse than allowing some people on Wall Street to go broke. And you know what? If it means that Americans can't borrow money anymore to buy television sets or to buy cars, fine. They shouldn't be borrowing money to do that in the first place. We should not be lending people money to consume. People should -- businesses should borrow money to invest, to produce. If you want to consume something, you can save up until you can afford it.

GLENN: So Peter, why is the price of gold then kind of just going up and down but pretty much hanging out around where it is if --

SCHIFF: Well, I don't know. I mean, gold's up 10 bucks today, silver's up 60 cents. Gold's at $920 an ounce. Of course, gold prices have already tripled, at a time when stocks have actually gone flat and the NASDAQ has gone up in value. So we've already seen a pretty big move in gold but this is just the beginning. I don't know when gold goes (inaudible), it will go through $2,000, it will go through $3,000. I don't know exactly the dates that it's going to happen but, you know, markets don't move all at once. But believe me one of these days gold's just going to explode. I think it might happen in conjunction with a big drop in the value of the dollar when Asian countries and China and other gulf region countries really depeg from the dollars. Read the stories. Inflation is going throughout the world. You have the highest rates of inflation. People are rioting in the streets and the reason there's so much inflation us because he have been is printing money to prevent the dollar from going down. The supply is going the most rapid pace in history. Everybody is printing and it's all because of the Fed. Everybody's looking at the dollar as reserve current is I and it is wreaking monetary havoc around the world. Eventually the world is going to revolt, they are going to debunk the dollar, they are going to stop the inflation and the dollar's going to fall through the floor.

GLENN: This is so frustrating because your phone keeps cutting out. Let me go over that again. Wait a minute. Why do people -- why are other countries printing more currency? How does that help the dollar?

SCHIFF: Well, here's what happens. We won these huge trade deficits, about $60 billion a month. So Americans pay $60 billion and spend them abroad to buy products. When the companies that make those products get those dollars, you know, there's nothing to do with them. We don't have any products that they want to buy. So they end up, the central banks buy all those dollars from exporters and they buy those dollars by printing their own currency. So because we send all these unneeded dollars out, you know, abroad, foreign governments have to print them up. And they are doing that. Otherwise the dollar would sink. And what they're trying to do is protect the export market into the United States. Nobody wants their currency to be too strong against the dollar. So they keep intervening and buying up all these dollars. That's where all these funds have come from. The reason these countries have trillions is because of all the currency intervention and now these dollars, they are trying to think of something to do with these dollars other than recycle them back to us by buying our treasuries and buying our mortgage-backed securities. But they're going to stop doing that. They have to. They can't keep, you know, causing their own people to suffer. They can't keep transferring purchasing power to America and asking their own citizens to suffer. Because the rest of the world is actually being productive. They are producing things. You know, why shouldn't they get to consume what they produce. Why should Americans be extended that privilege at the expense of everybody else? So I think it's coming to a point where the world's going to pull the plug. And then we're going to be in serious trouble because when we can't borrow from the Chinese and the Saudis, who are we going to borrow from? Americans don't have any money. And we have to --

GLENN: Go ahead.

SCHIFF: If we have to buy products that we're going to produce, what are we going to buy? What's going to be on the shelves at Wal-Mart if it's not product coming in from China?

GLENN: What is the thing that you think will be the catalyst? What are the precursors of unpegging from the dollar? I know yesterday Iran said to the gulf region, unpeg from the dollar. Right now unpeg from the dollar. And there's real pressure from Iran to try to get everybody else to unpeg from the dollar. But I don't think that's going to happen. What are the precursors that you will see in the market that will say --

SCHIFF: I think we're already seeing them. I mean, I think that's already happening. You've got former Fed chief Paul Volcker quoted we're already in a dollar crisis. So I think the crisis has already begun and the fact that inflation is running so high and countries like China are imposing wage to price controls which we know won't work. You know, it already has reached a tipping point and the more, you know, the Fed continues to monetize this whole mess, and basically what the government is trying to say is we need to have like a resolution trust for this problem but we don't want to raise taxes. We want to finance this through inflation. We want to debase the value of the dollar. And so when people around the world realize that they are going to be the scapegoats, they are going to be the ones left holding the dog and asked to suffer trillions of dollars of loss of purchasing power because the government's trying to socialize these losses in the dollar, they are going to have to run from it. They are going to have to realize we no longer have a real viable economy with a sound currency. You know, we're running the same type of monetary policy as Zimbabwe and now it takes 50 million Zimbabwe dollars to buy one dollar. The world's figuring this out.

GLENN: Peter, I read something and you'll have to excuse my ignorance on this because, you know, I'm not like you. You know this stuff. I'm just trying to figure it out as a regular Schmo. And I read something. It was like 2:00 in the morning last week and I haven't had a chance to do more research on it but it's our -- to me it is the explanation of, I've been wondering. You know, I talk to smart people and I say action wait a minute, if I can figure this out and I'm a recovering alcoholic deejay, I mean, certainly these guys can. So what is it? You know, is it intentional? Are they just stupid? What is it? And I believe it's arrogance. Explain, if I'm right, the policy that the Government has is something that, what is it, the WS2 or something like that policy which is -- what is it, Stu? BW2, which is Bretton Woods 2 which is basically the world needs us; we can borrow; it doesn't matter how much we'll borrow because the world will never disconnect from the world's consumers.

SCHIFF: Yeah. I mean, that is the height of arrogance and basic misunderstanding of economics thinking that the world needs us because we consume and we borrow. We've got it backwards. We need the world because they produce and save. You know, we're not doing the world a favor. They're supporting us. You know, they can succeed very well without Americans. They can consume their own goods. I mean, consumption is the fun part. The hard part is to actually make stuff and produce and to sacrifice and save. That's what the rest of the world is doing. They are buying it for free. The sooner they realize that, I use the analogy Tom Sawyer. We convince the world to paint their fence. Meanwhile their own fences are running out because they are using all their energy to paint ours. But eventually they are going to look around and realize that, you know, they have got their own fences to paint and we're going to be stuck. It's going to happen but, you know, Washington politicians have a vested interest in sunny news. This he want to pretend that they can help out. I mean, that's what all these new hearings are. They want to prevent the problems on Wall Street from spilling over into Main Street. Well, that's impossible. That's the very reason that Wall Street has problems is because it's Main Street that can't afford to make their mortgage payment. They are the ones that are leveraged up over their hilt for years and years of reckless borrowing and consumption. The bills have come due and can't afford to pay it. But politicians don't want to tell the public they are going to have to suffer. They want to pretend they can make all the problem go away and they can't. Now, why Wall Street can't figure it out, I mean, sure, they have got a vested interest and they sell more stocks and bonds when people are optimistic than when they're pessimistic but it's the simple stuff. I mean, a lot of people can figure it out. I mean, my book, people have read my book. It's basic. All this stuff that people are saying came out of left field, I mean, I laid it out, you know, in "Crash Proof" two years ago and it's happening exactly the way I said. Yet, you know, they are having hearings right now in congress about what the Government should or should not do. Do you think they would invite me? No.

GLENN: No. Peter, one last thing. I just need -- this just doesn't seem right to me but maybe it is just what it is on the surface. The IMF has approved eventual sale of more than 400 tons of gold. They are trying to sell -- that's about $11 billion worth of gold and they are saying, well, they are just doing it because now gold is at such a high, et cetera, et cetera. I got a couple of questions. A, do you believe that, that that's why they're selling all this gold. B, if what you say is true, why would they sell the gold; it will be worth more. And C, why does the IMF even have 400 tons of gold?

SCHIFF: Well, I think they have the gold, you know, they get involved in various economies that are in trouble and they want to be able to extend aid and they need gold to be able to do that and I think it backs -- they have these special (inaudible) that are backed by gold.

GLENN: But they use your money or other countries' money. It's not like their own money needs to be backed.

SCHIFF: No, they issue what are called special drawing rights which is like currency and they have to have some backing behind it and it's gold. I mean, all central banks, central banks have gold. Gold is real money. Paper is just a money substitute. But, you know, they are doing the exact wrong thing. I mean, the IMF just stated now that we've got a trillion dollar losses coming and there's a serious recession. When six months ago the IMF was saying that the sub prime was contained and it wasn't even a big deal. But given that, no, they should be buying gold. In fact, I'm sure the Chinese are licking their chops waiting to get their hands on this IMF gold. They are going to buy it up as soon as it hits the market. Central banks sold half their gold under $300 an ounce. I bet they wish they had that gold back.

GLENN: Right. Best thing we can do is buy the gold, right?

SCHIFF: Well, good. I mean, anybody should buy it. It's going up. It holds its value. In an inflationary time period, when the Fed has basically told you they are going to plug the dollar into oblivion, Ben Bernanke already testified that he doesn't think American citizens lose when the dollar goes down. He says it's no big deal what the dollar is worth. This is crazy. This guy's a lunatic.

GLENN: All right.

SCHIFF: So people have to realize that money's going to lose value and gold won't, or paper money, and gold will retain its value and people are going to buy, foreign central banks are going to buy it.

GLENN: The name of the book is Crash Proof.

SCHIFF: You bet. Bye-bye.

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.