New intel on the San Bernardino killers

Filling in on The Glenn Beck Program today, Doc Thompson and Skip LaCombe outlined new details that have emerged about the San Bernardino terrorists, including their ties to a local mosque and the real plan they were hoping to execute in California.

The FBI has questioned Roshan Zamir Abbassi, the cleric acting as spokesman for the San Bernardino mosque where terrorist Syed Farook worshipped, and his claims that he barely knew Farook and didn’t know his terrorist wife at all. However, the evidence casts doubt on this story.

Phone records show a flurry of communication with Farook, including at least 38 text messages over a two-week span in June, coinciding with the deadly Muslim terrorist attack on two military sites in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Abbassi, a Pakistani, insists he had nothing to do with the shooting at a San Bernardino County government building five miles from the mosque. While he confirms the text messages with Farook, he claims they were merely discussing food donations for his Dar-al-Uloom al-Islamiya of America mosque.

"Thirty-eight messages on food donation over the course of two weeks?" questioned Skip. "I mean, if that's the case . . . I would think that wouldn't take anymore more than four messages tops."

Doc was more generous, thinking six messages would do the trick.

"You did say Tuesday here at the mosque at 4 o'clock, right?" Doc posed. "Okay, just to confirm one more time how many do you need, right? Okay. I may try to get some other people to donate. Is that cool, too? Okay. That's like six messages."

More troubling, though, was a plan revealed by Farook's former neighbor who has since been arrested for purchasing weapons used in the deadly San Bernardino attack.

"Their plan---at least one of their plans---was to use explosive devices on a stretch of highway . . . that had very few exits in Southern California to trap people on the highway," Doc explained. "Then they would use explosive devices to blow up a car or cars that would block people on the highway."

The plan also included Farook walking among the cars and shooting people. The neighbor was going to be positioned in the hills near the highway as a sniper to take out law enforcement, security or emergency crews.

This type of plan is shocking and very different from a 9/11 style attack. It's personal and up close, and should be a wake up call for every American.

Listen to the exchange below beginning around 48:28:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

DOC: By the way, new information on the San Bernardino terrorists. Apparently, the spokesman/cleric for the San Bernardino mosque where Farook, the husband would worship, do you remember when he was supposedly married there and there was some question about that. And he worshiped there. And right after this happened, the mosque was like, "Whoa whoa, we don't know if he was married here." And then they distanced themselves. "We don't know. He could have come here. But we're not part of that." And I get that.

Hey, if you're Muslim in America and you're not causing any problems, you're an American, you just want to live your life and be left alone, yeah, this stuff is pretty annoying when everybody wants to prented or cast you in the light that you're a terrorist as well. So I understand if a mosque is going, hey, that's not us. We don't want any trouble.

I get that. The problem is, the feds have uncovered some things that seem like the mosque knew him pretty well. It seems like -- you know what, I'm going to let you be the judge. I'm going to present you some information and you tell me if, you know, maybe you think they kind of knew each other.

SKIP: All right.

DOC: Because the spokesman said he barely knew Farook. In fact, when he was talking to reporters, he didn't know them better than a lot of the reporters in the room.

So the feds say that the mosque is just 5 miles from the attack site. So it's pretty close and he used to go there.

SKIP: That in itself is probably not too much.

DOC: They have a record of them being married there.

SKIP: Okay.

DOC: That's a little bit more.

SKIP: But I'm sure there's a lot of weddings there.

DOC: You don't necessarily know everybody. Farook was supposedly there all the time. He had been going to pray there at least three to four times a week for two years.

SKIP: Okay. Now you're starting to get a little more familiarity with him.

DOC: Hey, that's that guy that's always here praying. But there's probably a lot of other people praying. Still though, you're adding this up, it's looking kind of rough for them. But still --

SKIP: No like smoking gun yet though.

DOC: This cleric exchanged at least 38 messages over a two-week span in June.

SKIP: Okay. See, that right there, that piece right there, that's going to be damning.

DOC: Skip, it's only 38 messages in two weeks.

SKIP: No, see, any person I've exchanged 30-some-odd messages with over --

DOC: That's not even 20 messages a week. I mean, what is that? Three messages a day if you average it out.

SKIP: Yeah, that's going to be at least a little more familiarity.

DOC: You're telling me that with anybody you've exchanged 38 messages over a two-week span -- text messages with, you know them pretty well?

SKIP: A little more familiarity, I'm going to go ahead and say. I know them pretty well.

DOC: By the way, during this span, this was during the same time period that the attack happened in Chattanooga. The terrorist attack. What's the matter?

SKIP: Those types of attacks. You'll probably be uber aware of correspondence and people you're corresponding with. Particularly in a mosque situation. Because they deal with these types of fears of profiling or being associated with -- yeah, you'll probably have a little extra guard.

DOC: You're thinking that looks bad for him. So during a two-week period in June that was during the time of the attack, the terrorist attack in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which was a Muslim extremist, this spokesperson from the mosque exchanged at least 38 text messages with Farook.

SKIP: Now, what were the texts? OMG. LOL. You see this? WTF. Or what?

DOC: They have not released. I don't know if the feds have the information yet. Theoretically, they would be able to see what the texts were. I have not seen them yet.

SKIP: Of course they would.

DOC: But the cleric claims they were merely discussing food donations for the mosque.

SKIP: Thirty-eight messages on food donation over the course of two weeks? I mean, if that's the case you truly are just trying to get information on, hey, where can I drop off the canned goods? I would think that wouldn't take anymore more than --

DOC: Tuesday at 4:00 here at the mosque. Right?

SKIP: I'll give you four messages tops on that.

DOC: You did say Tuesday here at the mosque at 4 o'clock, right, that's what you said? Okay. Just to confirm one more time -- how many do you need, right? Okay. I may try to get some other people to donate. Is that cool too? Okay. That's like six messages.

SKIP: Hey, listen, I know you said canned goods, but can I bring some of those pouched goods? Pouched tuna. I know they're not canned though. Is that okay?

DOC: Something like that. Okay. That's like eight messages. What about the other 30?

Now, here's the thing, they're not claiming these messages were part of the terrorist attack at this moment. In other words, they're not pointing the finger at the cleric going, a-ha! You were in on the terrorist attack. They aren't doing that yet.

SKIP: I think they're just trying to prove that they did in fact have more of a relationship than he's trying to --

DOC: That's what I'm saying. So 38 messages, even if it's about food donations, you had a relationship with this person. I mean, if you were the cleric and this guy is like -- I'm getting another message from him about the food donations. This is like 14. Hey, Farook is texting me again, Skip. Just look at this. I would be going to Skip. Look at this. How many times do I have to tell him it's canned goods? This is the eighteenth message. Look at this. I would be bitching to you. Right?

SKIP: Yeah. But then again, you would remember that and hold that as well. I mean, yeah, we exchanged blah, blah. You wouldn't have to come out and say, yeah, we were best friends.

DOC: Right.

SKIP: I would be like, yeah, I knew the guy. He was a nut.

DOC: He wouldn't leave me the hell alone. I told him about the canned goods.

SKIP: If anything, that could work in your favor. Yeah, I know him. He was a jackass.

DOC: There's a little more information. This cleric said he didn't know Farook's wife at all. He said he barely knew Farook. Didn't know his wife at all.

There's a long-time member of the mosque.

SKIP: I'm sorry, what's that name again?

DOC: (foreign language). I don't know if that's a man or a woman. Claimed that they prayed shoulder to shoulder with Farook and his wife. And went to the couple's wedding last year at the mosque.

So that would indicate that this cleric knew Farook's wife. Didn't know her at all.

SKIP: At least some familiarity.

DOC: Right? So then you have to ask yourself: Why are you denying this?

I understand that you know people -- I understand being a little paranoid if you think everyone is looking at you even if you're not a terrorist and you happen to be Muslim. I understand that you're -- okay. They all think I'm a terrorist here. So I don't want to do anything. So let me just say I didn't know the guy.

But aren't you smart enough to realize that looks even worse for you instead of being honest and saying, listen. It's one thing to downplay it. But if you exchanged messages like that, there's no downplaying it. People are going to know.

SKIP: No, it just makes you look guilty.

DOC: That's what I'm saying. So let's say the cleric in this mosque had some sort of a relationship with Farook, but not much of one. He could have said, yeah, he worshiped here. I knew him a little bit. They had their wedding here. You know, we had exchanged messages. He tried to come up with some food donations. Whatever. I didn't know him well. I mean, there are many people that come to this mosque that I have a similar relationship with. You know, we didn't see each other outside of the mosque or anything like that. Then I would go, okay. That makes sense. But when you start going, nope. I didn't know his wife at all.

SKIP: Who? Farook.

DOC: Oh, the guy with the canned goods. Right? I mean, at some point it just makes you look guilty.

SKIP: It makes you look guilty, yeah.

DOC: That's not going to be good for him there. You have to wonder, was anybody else a part of this? You know just before we were off for break, so prior to last week, the neighbor -- they finally arrested the neighbor, the one who bought the two long guns and then gave them to Farook, who was planning a terrorist attack with him in 2011 and '12.

SKIP: I would have a hard time believing that. I mean, because of that, because of this neighbor, they were planning HEP an attack on a highway. I mean, that clearly proves to me, I think, that Farook spoke about this stuff with some regularity. So I would have to think, I would be surprised to find out that nobody else in that mosque, that not a single other person knew that they had something planned.

DOC: Interesting thing about this friend, the former neighbor who has been arrested now. He claimed that they had this terrorist plan. The plan they were working on is shocking. And this is the thing that should really frighten all Americans. I'm not somebody that is given into hysterics. I think we have to live our lives or the terrorists win. But it should be shocking when you hear what they were planning.

Their plan, at least one of their plans, was to use explosive devices on a stretch of highway. Now, I don't know if it was a particular stretch that they had already planned out for. But they were looking for at least a stretch of highway that had very few exits in Southern California to trap people on the highway. Then they would use explosive devices to blow up a car or cars that would block people on the highway. And, again, you wouldn't be able to get off once traffic started backing up.

At that point, Farook was going to walk among the cars and start shooting people in their cars or if they fled. The crazy neighbor was going to be positioned in the hills near the highway and began -- begin sniping law enforcement or security or safety or emergency crews as they tried to help people.

This was their plan. Now, why that should be shocking, of course, that's a terrorist attack, so it should be shocking in itself. But when you look and realize that these are the new terrorists many America. Many people, I think including even the president and maybe even George W. Bush before he left office, and many people that are advising them, still believe that terrorism in America is going to come in the form of a plane flying into a building or something similar.

Remember, prior to 9/11, the only fear you had of somebody taking an aircraft or blowing up or terrorism on an aircraft was it being hijacked because nobody would kill themselves. Or planting a bomb on a plane, but they wouldn't get on because no one would kill themselves. That was our thinking.

They would check and as long as everybody got on that planted luggage on the plane, you were good. And then we were like, oh, okay. Now I see that people will actually kill themselves too. Got it. Okay. We were behind.

SKIP: Totally changed the game.

DOC: Changed the game. Well, now we've got a new plan here. Look at the multiple terrorist attacks in France. Look at the Boston bombing. Look at San Bernardino. What do these attacks have in common? They plan a terrorist attack, using explosives, guns, whatever they can find, they don't stick around to be shot or killed. Even if they're willing to die for their cause and will likely die for their cause. They want to cause as much havoc and terror as possible. As much death and destruction. So what do they do? They flee causing more death and destruction. This is the new plan, and we have to wise up. They're willing to die for their cause, but it looks more like this than planes into buildings.

Featured Image: Dar-Al-Uloom Al-Islamia of America mosque in Muscoy, a suburb of San Bernardino.

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.