Joel Rosenberg Special Report Recap

Special Report: Jimmy Carter and The End Times


Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Jimmy Carter and The End Times


By Joel Rosenberg

President Jimmy Carter's visits to Hamas have raised some eyebrows in the religious community. Do his visits have any Biblically prophetic significance? Here are my thoughts.

First, Hamas's offer of a 10 year peace deal with Israel is a new and startling development. I personally don't believe Hamas really wants peace with Israel. What's more, the founding Hamas Charter explicitly rejects all comprehensive peace treaties with the Jews. This is simply a ruse to get Israel to stop assassinating Hamas terrorist leaders and lure Israel into a false sense of security. But that's not the point. The point is that this the first time in history that one of Israel's primary enemies has suggested forging not a comprehensive peace deal in perpetuity, but a peace treaty of a short and specific time frame. Israel's treaty with Egypt signed in 1979 was not a time-limited agreement. Neither was Israel's treaty with Jordan in 1994. The Oslo Agreements were never time-limited. Nor is President Bush's "Road Map" for Middle East peace. This is a new development. And I suspect the Hamas offer will eventually be taken seriously by the leaders of Israel, the U.N. and the E.U. (perhaps the U.S., too.)

Second, this time-limited peace offer by Hamas is fascinating in that it is completely consistent with Bible prophecy about the last days. In Daniel 9:27, the ancient Hebrew prophet tells us that in the End of Days, an evil leader will make a comprehensive peace deal or covenant with Israel and her many neighbors and enemies. That deal will seem "firm," says Daniel, but it will not be forever. It will be for 7 years. According to the Book of Daniel and Revelation, Israel will accept the deal (fatally flawed though it is), but the evil leader will break the deal after 3 1/2 years, invade Israel, set up a global empire, and eventually trigger the War of Armageddon. Let me be clear: while Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al is without question an evil leader who seeks nothing less that the liberation of Jerusalem for radical Islam and the liquidation of all Jews and Christians in the Holy Land, I am not saying he is the evil leader of which Daniel writes. But Mash'al's proposal has now injected something new and Biblically significant into the Middle East peace process equation -- the element of a time-limited deal. Very interesting.

Third, in my new political thriller, Dead Heat, I write about this exact scenario of a time-limited peace deal between Israel and her enemies. On page 167, my fictional U.N. Secretary General says: "We need to win the Israelis' confidence. We need them to lower their guard. Their Zionist ideology is exhausted. Their political leaders are feckless. Their diplomatic leaders are so desperate to be loved, to be accepted by the rest of the world, they're willing to give away almost anything. But we must not make the ridiculous mistakes of the past. We must not threaten Israel with war. We must invite them to make peace. We must not turn our backs to them. We must offer them an open hand. We must not boycott them....We must shock them. We must offer them a comprehensive peace treaty, the likes of which the world has never seen before. We must lure them into feeling safe and secure. We must lull them into trusting us, into trusting me...And then, when all this has been accomplished, when the time is right, you and I will make our move. We will seize Jerusalem. We will raze the Temple....But not now. We're not ready -- yet." Then, on p. 371 of Dead Heat, my fictional Israeli Prime Minister says: "The world is suddenly very unstable and Israel, I'm afraid, is suddenly very vulnerable. [The U.N. Secretary General] is suggesting we go from Rome to Babylon and have some time alone with [the leader of Iraq]. He wants us to hammer out some kind of fast regional peace treaty -- even a temporary one, something that might last five or ten years, or so....To be honest, given all that's happening, I'm inclined to say yes."

Fourth, watch carefully to see if this concept of a time-limited Arab-Israeli peace deal gains traction. I wrote about a fictional deal like this in Dead Heat because it seemed like a plausible geopolitical scenario to get us to the Biblical prophecy of a 7-year Middle East peace deal. But until this week, no one in real life had ever talked seriously about a limited time frame for a peace deal with Israel. Now Israel's most dangerous immediate neighbor has, assisted by the architect of the Camp David Peace Accords. What's more, President Bush says he is optimistic that an Israeli-Palestinian deal can be struck by the end of 2008. Perhaps prophetic events are moving faster than most Americans think.

Joel Rosenberg is author of a new book, Dead Heat available now where ever books are sold.



Special Report: What Senator Clinton doesn't get about Iran


Thursday, April 24, 2008




What Senator Clinton doesn't get about Iran


By Joel C. Rosenberg

Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday won a decisive victory in Pennsylvania, keeping alive her chances of securing the Democratic nomination for president, though Barack Obama still seems to have the upper hand for now. But barely noticed by the mainstream media was a serious foreign policy error she made Tuesday morning on ABC's Good Morning America. I suspect, however, that should Sen. Clinton be so fortunate as to be the Democratic nominee -- much less President of the United States -- this error will come back to haunt her, and all of us.

"The question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be?" Clinton told interviewer Chris Cuomo. "And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran, and I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully, uh, at their society. Because at whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's like a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic."

It sounded tough at the time -- threatening to annihilate the Islamic Republic of Iran if they were to launch nuclear attacks against Israel. But there were two serious flaws in what she said.

First, by offering a reactive rather than a proactive military strategy vis-a-vis Iran, Sen. Clinton is allowing for the possibility of another Holocaust. If Iranian leaders get nuclear warheads, and can attach them to the high speed ballistic missiles they already have, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could do in about six minutes what it took Adolf Hitler six years to do: kill six million Jews (the number of Jews in Israel today). What good is it really to say that the U.S. would nuke Iran after Ahmadinejad accomplishes another Holocaust?

Second, Sen. Clinton believes her tough talk will "deter" Iran's leaders from launching a nuclear attack against Israel, but it won't. Sen. Clinton revealed in those comments her fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and threat of Ahmadinejad and his regime.

No one who truly understands Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's eschatology -- or end times theology -- could honestly believe that Ahmadinejad can be deterred. Ahmadinejad believes it is his God-given mission to annihilate the U.S., Israel and Judeo-Christian civilization as we know. To what end? To create the conditions that will bring the Islamic Messiah known as the Mahdi or the "12th Imam" to earth. As I point out in detail in my non-fiction book, Epicenter, that Glenn and I have discussed numerous times on his radio and TV shows, Ahmadinejad is not just another power-hungry dictator in the mold of the Soviet or Chinese leaders of yore. He is a Shia Islamic fascist. He believes his life destiny is to kill millions of Jews and Christians and usher in an Islamic caliphate. He believes he is a John-the-Baptist, a forerunner, of the Islamic Messiah. If he dies, he believes he will spend eternity in paradise with 72 virgins. But he doesn't really believe he's going to die. He believes he has been chosen for a divine appointment, and that nothing can stop him. That is what makes him so dangerous.

Unfortunately, too many Washington politicians -- Sens. Clinton and Obama included -- do not understand this. But understand this we must. For to misunderstand the nature and threat of Ahmadinejad's genocidal ambitions is to risk allowing the U.S. or our allies -- Israel, the EU or others -- to be blindsided by them. Ahmadinejad is not a terrorist in the classic sense. He doesn't simply want to frighten Jews and Christians. He wants to annihilate us. He cannot be deterred. He must be stopped BEFORE he and his regime is able to build, buy or steal nuclear weapons. If we wait too long, millions will die in an apocalyptic nightmare that will change the course of human history forever.

Joel C. Rosenberg is the author of five political thrillers. His latest, Dead Heat, has spent the last four weeks on the New York Times hardcover fiction best-seller list. He is also the best-selling author of the non-fiction book, Epicenter: Why Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Change Your Future. You can learn more about him at www.joelrosenberg.com, or at www.joshuafund.net.



Special Report: Russia, Iran and Bible Prophecy


Friday, April 25, 2008




Russia, Iran and Bible Prophecy


By Joel C. Rosenberg

Does the Bible really predict the rise of a dictator in Russia? Does it really foretell the emergence of a Russian-Iranian alliance against Israel in the End of Days? And if so, is the military, political and economic alliance being formed in recent years by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad evidence that such prophecies are actually coming true in our lifetime? Glenn and I have been discussing these questions all week. But let me lay them out in more detail here for those interested in going a bit deeper.

One of the most fascinating sets of End Times prophecies in the Bible are found in the Book of Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39. Remarkably, the Hebrew Prophet Ezekiel, writing more than 2,500 years ago, was able to look down the corridors of time and see nations not yet born, and alliances not yet formed. In doing so, he actually did foretell the rise of a Russian military alliance with Iran and other Middle Eastern countries to annihilate Israel during the earth's "last days." This is known by many Bible scholars as the "War of Gog and Magog."

In a moment, I will walk you through the prophecies step-by-step. But first, let me note that the predictions found in Ezekiel chapters 36 & 37 have already come true. These are the famous chapters that foretell:

·  The rebirth of the State of Israel in the end times (both chapters)

·  The return of the Jews to the Holy Land after centuries in exile (Ezekiel 36:10-11, 36:24, 36:37-38, 37:12, 37:21)

·  The rebuilding of the ancient ruins in Israel (Ezekiel 36:36)

·  The re-blossoming of desolate, desert lands to produce abundant food, fruit and foliage (Ezekiel 36:8-9 and 36:30-35)

·  The creation of an "exceedingly great army" (Ezekiel 37:11)

Such prophecies began to be fulfilled in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, accelerated in 1948 and 1967, and continue to come to pass to this day. This, of course, raises an intriguing question: If Ezekiel 36 and 37 have largely come true in our lifetime, isn't it possible that Ezekiel 38 and 39 will soon come true as well?

WHO?


That said, let's examine Ezekiel 38 and 39 more carefully. In Ezekiel 38:1-6, the Hebrew prophet gives a list of obscure names that will form a united coalition. In my non-fiction book, Epicenter: Why The Current Rumblings In The Middle East Will Change Your Future, I carefully walk readers through these prophecies and document the historical detective work necessary to determine what modern nations are referred to by the ancient text. But here's an executive summary of the major points.

·  "Gog" is described as being "of the land of Magog" and as the "prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal." Most Bible scholars believe Gog is not a name but a title, like Pharoah or Czar. He is a dictator who will hatch an "evil plan" (Ezekiel 38:10).

·  "Magog" - Leading Bible scholars say this is Russia and republics of the former Soviet Union. The first century Roman historian Josephus said the "Magogites" were the peoples whom the Greeks called "Scythians." Scythians were a fierce, blood-thirsty civilization that settled north of the Baltic Sea in what is now Russia and the European republics of the former USSR.

·  "Rosh, Meshech and Tubal" - Many, though not all, Bible scholars believe "Rosh" refers directly to Russia. Meshech is believed by many scholars to be Moscow (though some believe it refers to an ancient people group in Turkey). Some Bible scholars believe Tubal refers to the city/region of Tobolsk in Russia along the Tobol River. Others say it refers to a section of modern-day Turkey. (Interestingly, in 1964, massive reserves of oil and gas were discovered in the Tobolsk region of Siberia and people now refer to the region as the "energy center of Russia.")

·  "Persia" - This was the official name of Iran until 1935.

·  "Cush" - Based in significant part on the writings of the Roman historian Flavius Josephus, Bible scholars today believe "Cush" refers to Sudan and Ethiopia.

·  "Put" - Bible scholars are confident that this refers to the modern day country of Libya, though it may also refer to parts of Algeria and Tunisia, based on the writings of Josephus, among others.

·  "Gomer" - This is modern day Turkey, though some scholars also believe it could refer to Germany and Austria.

·  "Beth-togarmah" - This refers to Armenia and the Turkic-speaking peoples of Central Asia, including the Islamic former republics of the Soviet Union.

·  "Many peoples with you" who will attack along "the mountains of Israel" - Other countries will be involved in the coalition as well, notably countries that border the mountains of Israel. This includes Lebanon, Syria and possibly Jordan.

It should be noted that conspicuously absent from the list is Egypt and Iraq (typically referred to in Scripture as Babylon or Mesapotamia). This is noteworthy since Ezekiel was writing the prophecy in the City of Babylon, in the heart of Iraq. We would have to expect, then, that neither Egypt nor Iraq will participate. Egypt, of course, signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Iraq is now so engrossed in its own internal struggles that it would be unlikely to join a coalition to destroy Israel in the next few years. We are, therefore, living in the first window in human history in which neither of these historic enemies of the Jewish people are likely to be involved in the next major Middle East war.

WHAT?


Ezekiel 38-39 explains that the Russian dictator known as "Gog" will develop an "evil plan" to attack and destroy Israel and seize her wealth. He will begin to build an enormous military coalition, comprised of the countries described above. He will make extensive preparations to strike. When the time is right, Ezekiel says Russia will then deploy this coalition against Israel in a show of overwhelming force, coming against the Jewish State "like a storm."

The Bible makes it clear that when this "War of Gog and Magog" begins, no country will come to Israel's defense. Not the United Nations. Not the European Union. Not even the United States. Israel will feel utterly alone, and her enemies will be convinced that they are on the verge of an historic victory in which the Jews will be wiped off the map once and for all. But Ezekiel then says some supernatural will occur. The God of Israel - the God of the Bible - will bring judgment upon the enemies of Israel, beginning with Gog, the dictator of Russia. The Lord will trigger a massive earthquake in which "all the men who are on the face of the earth will shake at My presence." Gog's forces will turn against one another, and then they will be subject to pestilence, torrential rains, hailstones, and even fire from heaven. Israel will then capture her enemies weapons and burn them for seven years and it will take seven full months to bury all the bodies of Israel's slain enemies, so great will be the devastation.

WHEN?


When will all this happen? We don't know for certain. But Ezekiel gives us several important clues. First, Israel will be a country again and Jews will be regathered to the Holy Land. Second, Israelis will be "living securely" before the "War of Gog and Magog," though the Scriptures do not go so far as to say that they will have comprehensive peace treaties with their neighbors. Third, Israel will have a measure of economic prosperity, according to the text. And fourth, Ezekiel 38:16 says explicitly that all these events "will come about in the last days" (that is, before the Battle of Armageddon).

In closing, let me be clear. Yes, Israel has been reborn as a country for the first time in 2,000 years. Yes, a dictator is rising to power in Russia that seems "Gog-esque." Yes, Russia and Iran are building an alliance today for the first time in 2,500 years. Yes, Russia and Libya are now building a new alliance. Yes, Iran is threatening to wipe Israel "off the map." Is all this conclusive proof that the "War of Gog and Magog" will happen soon, much less in our lifetime? No, I don't think we can make that assessment. Not yet, at least. Much more will have to happen to be sure. But can we rule out the possibility that this prophetic war could happen in the not-too-distant future? No, I don't think we can.

As for me, I don't want it to happen at all. But no man can stop what Bible prophecy says will come to pass. The most we can do is to be ready when it happens, and find ways to care for those in the Middle East and Russia who will be victims of this terrible war.

Joel C. Rosenberg is the New York Times best-selling author of political thrillers like Dead Heat, his latest novel. He is also the founder of The Joshua Fund, which provides humanitarian relief to Israel and her neighbors. For more information on this topic, you may wish to read Joel's non-fiction book, Epicenter: Why Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Change Your Future.

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.