Bernie's Brand of Socialism Too Revolutionary for Chris Matthews

The Context

Bernie's brand of socialism has MSNBC's Chris Matthews worried. The socialist senator's calls for revolution and promises of free stuff is a bit too much, too soon for Matthews' slower-paced progressivism. In a recent interview with Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, the Hardball host asked the former secretary of state how she can compete with a revolution.

Hardball or Softball

In the interview, Matthews set up the former secretary of state as the more sane option to Sanders' left-wing radicalism.

“The only person --- and I want to say this bluntly --- the only person between a confirmed socialist, who is calling for political revolution in this country, winning the nomination of the Democratic Party, which has always been more moderate than that, is you,” Matthews said.

Matthews went on to express his dismay over young people attending a Sanders rally responding enthusiastically to a call for revolution. Most importantly, he asked Hillary how she could win against someone promising everything --- free tuition, free healthcare, more social security benefits without a tax increase.

Oh, the Irony

Isn't that the same question the right has been asking for decades?

“The … question that is being asked here is so damn ironic,” Glenn said on The Glenn Beck Program. “That’s the question the right has been asking for the last 90 years. How do you possibly win when somebody says, ‘I’ll give you everything’?”

Glenn's answer: You don’t.

The Liberal Spectrum

What's in a name? A lot. As Glenn has taught over the years, paying attention to labels and words are important --- and telling.

"There is a Democrat. That's like a Harry Truman Democrat, that just believes in, you know, things that typical [Americans believe] --- my grandfather was a Harry Truman Democrat. Then you have the progressive, which is actually a slowed-down socialist, somebody who believes we have to take it step-by-step, but we're heading towards socialism. Then you have a full-out socialist, and after that, a communist. That's the real spectrum on the left."

What's Really at Stake

Hillary believes "we have an obligation to keep people focused on what's at stake in this election."

Thankfully, so does Glenn.

"Clearly the Constitution of the United States is at stake," Glenn said. "Will you truly have a First Amendment, a Second Amendment, a Fourth Amendment? Do you have those --- the Tenth Amendment --- at the end of the next presidential term? Those could be gone.

Glenn went on to explain the Supreme Court is also at stake, with likely four justices being appointed by the next president of the United States.

"If the Supreme Court is given to progressives that do not believe . . . the Constitution [is] no longer a valid document."

Common Sense Bottom Line

While Chris Matthews may find a revolution distasteful, progressivism is equally so. Both have the goal of controlling citizens lives through the government --- one more slowly and slyly, the other more aggressively and violently.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Welcome to the program. So Chris Matthews has been having this conversation. He is fighting hard for Secretary Clinton. And he is at least open about it. He is not a fan of Bernie Sanders. He is a progressive, not a revolutionary. And there is a difference.

There is a Democrat. That's like a Harry Truman Democrat, that just believes in, you know, things that typical -- my grandfather was a Harry Truman Democrat. Then you have the progressive, which is actually a slowed-down socialist, somebody who believes we have to take it step by step, but we're heading towards socialism. Then you have a full-out socialist, and after that, a communist. That's the real spectrum on the left.

Well, we've been warning for a while that you can't put revolutions back into a bottle. Once you open up the bottle of revolution, you can't just take it back out and say, "Okay. Everybody sit down." So Occupy Wall Street and everything else, they've been asking for a revolution. They have been looking at, you know, let's take to the streets and let's have a revolution. This is why the progressives came into existence in the first place.

Socialism and a nonconstitutional and a non-US-constitutional-style government was the goal of the progressives and the communists. Woodrow Wilson is clear. He talks about how he loves communism and how communism was the future. This totalitarian regime is the future, with a strong man. But -- this is a quote -- nobody wants to see blood on the streets. And so you take it one piece at a time so we avoid revolution.

Chris Matthews is not a revolutionary and neither is Hillary Clinton. She's a progressive, so is he. So they talk about this on Hardball. And I want you to listen to what he said. I think we should start -- don't you think we should start with "revolution is not how it begins." Cut 641. Here it is.

CHRIS: -- Democratic Party, your party. Not Bernie Sanders. He's not a Democratic Party member. Your party has produced the New Deal. It produced the progressive income tax, came from the Democrats, from Wilson. Social Security, the greatest antipoverty program ever came from Roosevelt. And Harry Truman started the fight for health care and civil rights and all these good things that led to the Affordable Care Act.

But in every case, you had to battle Republicans who voted against it to the last person. And it's always been a tough fight. And you need 60 votes in the Senate; you need -- what is it -- 218 in the House. And if you don't have them, nothing gets done.

HILLARY: Right. Right. That's right.

CHRIS: Then the Bernie people need to be -- not him. He won't be taught. Can the kids behind him -- need to be told, "This is how it works in our system." You can call for revolution, but it ain't going to happen. There ain't going to be a revolution. There's going to be an election, an inauguration, and then there's going to be a Congress sitting with you, you got to do business with, no matter who gets elected.

HILLARY: Well, also --

CHRIS: Like -- you don't have to worry about logic anymore, just I'm going to have a revolution and pay for everything.

(laughter)

GLENN: He's just -- he's in there swinging. Okay. Again, you can't put the revolutionaries back into a bottle. You can't stoke the fires, which the Democrats did, stoke the fires of revolution and expect them to go back and go back to their home and expect, "Oh, well, it's nothing to worry about. We don't need revolution. We have Secretary Clinton." That's not what they're looking for. That's not what they've been promised.

PAT: Yeah, what was the book we talked about from France a couple years ago?

GLENN: It was the Coming Insurrection.

PAT: Coming Insurrection kind of outlines all that. They're not happy with that. They're not happy with the slow progress.

GLENN: Yeah. They're tired of being told that we're going to have this revolution when they know -- and this is the problem with Secretary Clinton, when they know the people at the top, the ones promising them this glorious revolution are just getting rich themselves. So that's why it doesn't connect with the people who are younger because they're seeing her make $675,000 from Wall Street for a speech, which they know is Wall Street -- that's the part of corruption that they're trying to get -- Occupy Wall Street. That's the part they want revolution on. He goes on. Now, listen to this question and this answer.

CHRIS: The only person -- and I want to say this bluntly, the only person between a confirmed socialist who is calling for political revolution in this country, winning the nomination of the Democratic Party, which has always been more moderate than that, is you.

So when you saw that -- that rally last night that the young people all around Senator Sanders -- when he yelled revolution out there and they all applauded like mad, how do you compete with a person who is coming along in the primaries, however, saying, I'm going to give you all the things you want: Free tuition, more Social Security benefits without an increase in your taxes, health care --

GLENN: Stop. Do you hear what he's saying. What's his question? It's two questions.

PAT: It's, how do you stop a guy who is promising these young guys everything they want? Free everything, where I'm going to give you whatever you want.

GLENN: Isn't that ironic?

PAT: Yes, it is. Yes, it is.

GLENN: He's saying two things. There's two questions. How do you stop a revolution?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Well, you don't start a revolution. This is what I've been saying since the caliphate. You don't start a revolution because they never end the way ours did in America. Never.

They -- the people who started and encourage the revolution are -- is the same Democrats that spoke highly of Occupy Wall Street. You know that Hillary Clinton spoke highly of Occupy Wall Street.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Barack Obama spoke highly of Occupy Wall Street. They all did. Those people are revolutionaries. We warned you at the time, you can't play with matches. And so these same people who were encouraging the revolution are now looking and saying, "Wait a minute. It slipped through the fingers."

What did I say about the Egyptian revolution? When they all said that this was going to be a glorious Jeffersonian revolution, I said, "It never ends with the people who start it." The people at the top that pour the gasoline and light the flames and use the masses, those people who pour the gasoline, except for the American Revolution, are never the people who control it in the end.

So now Chris Matthews who was all for the glorious revolution on the streets of Occupy Wall Street is now saying, "How do you stop it?" Because he's realizing the people like him who started it are not going to be the ones in control.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: They now want something different than his goals were. So there's your first question. And I hate to say I told you so. But I told you so. And I want to say something else. Right now, I know that there are people that literally go in and out of lockdown. They are news people who literally are going into lockdown because of the threats against their lives.

This goes back to something I've warned when I was at Fox. You people in the press better pay attention because a revolution is coming and people are going to be so angry at what's going on and so angry at the press, that they will pull you out of your seats. Do you remember me saying this?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: They will pull you out of your seats in your own studios and kill you in the streets. We are getting very close to that. There are news journalists right now that have to have massive security. I know, because I've had massive security for quite some time.

Most people cannot afford the kind of security it takes for a journalist or somebody who speaks their mind to be able to actually be secure and not have to worry about it. There are journalists that are in that situation. So you're ratcheting up revolution on both sides of the aisle.

Now, the second question that is being asked here is so damn ironic. Chris Matthews: How do you run against somebody who is promising the world, that I'll give you everything free? That's the question the right has been asking for the last 90 years. How do you possibly win when somebody says, "I'll give you everything?"

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Answer: You don't. You don't.

PAT: Interesting that they're experiencing exactly what we've experienced all this time.

GLENN: Yep.

CHRIS: To death. All the government pain. How do you compete a revolution -- a revolution of promises, really?

HILLARY: I do think that we have an obligation to keep people focused on what's at stake in this election.

GLENN: A revolution of promises. Okay. Stop. What's at stake in this Constitution, Pat?

PAT: The Constitution is at stake in this.

GLENN: Clearly the Constitution of the United States is at stake. Will you truly have a First Amendment, a Second Amendment, a Fourth Amendment?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you have those -- Tenth Amendment -- at the end of the next presidential term, those could be gone. What else is at stake? Kind of related to that. Supreme Court.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: If the Supreme Court, because there are four justices, if the Supreme Court is given to progressives that do not believe -- no matter what anybody says, look the history up yourself, do not take my word for it. Look at the history of progressives. Hillary Clinton calls herself and she makes pains to point out, "I am an early 20th-century American progressive." She says it that way almost every time.

Those early 20th-century American progressives felt that the Constitution was no longer a valid document. It -- the rights of man did not -- are not held by the creator. They are more in line with Darwin than Newton. So they are not hard, fast, gravitational laws, but they are more like -- they are more along the lines of evolution. So they evolve. That's what a 20th century believed. And that's how she identified herself.

If you put those people on the court, you will lose the Constitution. Also at stake, ISIS. Our very lives are at stake. If we continue to behave like we did in Benghazi, like we have in the Middle East for the last eight, nine years, where we betray all of our allies, where they can't trust us, we won't admit the truth of what Islam really, truly is, and we don't have somebody who really understands the full might and power of the United States military and respects it. And they respect them. You've also lost the country.

Also at stake, the culture. Yesterday, the president came out and said, "By the way, stand up down at the border. Stand down at the border." Do you know why California is red now -- I'm sorry -- is blue now instead of red?

Who was it that did -- I believe Wilson is the one that everybody gives the credit, that he's the one that turned it from Republican to Democrat. It wasn't Pete Wilson. It was a guy who had that same name in his though.

PAT: Woodrow?

GLENN: Nope. Guy named after him. Guy named after Woodrow Wilson.

Ronald Wilson Reagan. It was Ronald Reagan and his amnesty. The thing that he said was the biggest mistake of his entire presidency that changed California from red to blue.

PAT: It sure was.

GLENN: Changed it from a Democratic republic, changed it from a conservative state, to a liberal state. Because there was no -- it flooded new voters in. And it never came back.

With what this president is doing, he knows now, the amnesty thing is in trouble. I've got to flood this country with people. So now he's telling people, "Stand down." And he's flooding our nation. Our culture is at stake. But what does she say is at stake? It's not that. We'll share it with you here in just a second

Featured Image: Democratic presidential candidates former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) during their MSNBC Democratic Candidates Debate at the University of New Hampshire on February 4, 2016 in Durham, New Hampshire. This is the final debate for the Democratic candidates before the New Hampshire primaries. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

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.