Tim Kaine Executed His Assignment: Get Sound Bites for New Hillary Campaign Ad

Leon Wolf, new Managing Editor for TheBlaze, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Wednesday for a post-VP debate analysis. Having watched Kaine for some time, Wolf said the Democratic vice presidential nominee didn't seem like himself, diplomatically calling him "grumpier" that usual and "very negative."

"He was a jerk," Glenn added, skipping the niceties.

More importantly, Wolf vocalized what he believed to be Kaine's primary objective during the debate --- and it wasn't to win.

RELATED: Did Kaine’s Debate Plan Include Being the Most Obnoxious Man on Earth?

"I think he was assigned a job going into the debate, right? It's not to win the debate because nobody cares who wins the VP debate. He was assigned the job to get commercial material to cut," Wolf proposed.

In fact, the day following the debate, the Clinton campaign released a new ad showing Pence making contradictory statements.

"So this is the ad that they just released and dumped online . . . you see Mike Pence just shaking his head and denying each one of those charges. And I think, Leon, that was his job, to get a good viral commercial out of it, period," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these soundbite-worthy questions:

• Was Tim Kaine playing a role?

• Who is winning the Bernie or bust people?

• Does Leon think Hillary or Trump will win?

• What does Jeffy do in cold, dark, lonely places?

• Are Republicans doomed?

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

GLENN: Leon Wolf is with us. He's joining us from RedState, where you helped build that thing along with Erick Erickson, for what? For the last 11 years in.

LEON: Eleven years.

GLENN: And he is now our editor and chief at TheBlaze. And we're excited to have you join us. What did you think of the debate last night?

LEON: Thank you, Glenn.

You know, it's interesting. I think a lot of people's impressions pretty much universally were -- that watched the debate -- were that Mike Pence won. I think he came off better during the course of the debate, just because Kaine -- and I've watched Tim Kaine for a long time -- didn't really seem like himself. He was much grumpier, seems like than he usually -- he was very negative.

GLENN: He was a jerk.

LEON: Yeah.

GLENN: He was a jerk. I mean, I've never seen him -- yeah, I've always heard that he was a nice guy and a gentle guy. You know, a quiet -- he was -- he was a jerk.

STU: He seems to be playing a character.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

STU: The same thing at the convention speech, which was weird, he was trying to be goofy and make all these jokes. And here, there was a lot of prepared lines. I don't know if that's just his role in the campaign or what. It's strange.

LEON: Well, I think -- yeah, I think he was assigned a job going into the debate. Right? It's not to win the debate. Because nobody cares who wins the VP debate. He was assigned the job -- was to get commercial material to cut. And that's what we talked about just before the show.

GLENN: So he walked in with a new commercial. And do we have this?

Hillary Clinton is the first on the air with a commercial from last night's debate. Listen. Here it says, Mike Pence realized he was running with Donald Trump last night.

TIM: Let's start with not praising Vladimir Putin as a great leader. Donald Trump and Mike Pence have said he's a great leader. And Donald Trump has --

MIKE: No, we haven't.

DONALD: Putin's been a very strong leader for Russia.

VOICE: Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country.

TIM: Donald Trump, on the other hand, didn't know that Russia had invaded the Crimea.

MIKE: Oh, that's nonsense.

DONALD: He's not going to go into Ukraine. You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it any way you want.

VOICE: Well, he's already there, isn't he?

VOICE: Donald Trump has said it?

TIM: A deportation force -- they want to go house to house, school to school, business to business, and kick out 16 million people. And I cannot believe --

MIKE: It's nonsense.

DONALD: You're going to have a deportation force.

MIKE: Donald Trump and I would never support legislation that would punish women.

VOICE: Should the woman be punished?

PAT: Oh, man.

DONALD: There should be some form of punishment.

TIM: More nations should get nuclear weapons. Try to defend that.

MIKE: Well, he never said that.

DONALD: Wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons --

VOICE: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?

DONALD: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

TIM: Donald Trump said, keep them out if they're Muslim. Mike Pence put a program in place to --

DONALD: Total and complete shutdown of Muslims --

TIM: He is asking everybody to vote for somebody that he cannot defend.

GLENN: Okay. So this is the ad that they just released and dumped online, and it's much more effective with the visuals because you see Mike Pence just shaking his head and denying each one of those charges. And I think, Leon, that was his job is get a good viral commercial out of it, period.

LEON: Right. I mean, I think every year, the VP sideshow is much more insignificant than the presidential sideshow. But I think this year, it's doubly so.

Because I think the central question of this election is, can you see Donald Trump sitting behind the desk at the Oval Office after something like 9/11 happens? Is that something you can even possibly conceive of in your mind?

I think that's what the gut check America is being asked to do right now, is. And I think that Tim Kaine, for however he came off in the debate and probably didn't do himself any favors, I think his job was to drive that point home. And he may have scored some effective points along that line.

GLENN: I don't think he changed anybody's mind. I think he hardened people in their own -- I mean, if you were a Trump supporter, you had no problem with Pence saying, "He never said any of those things."

LEON: Well, that's what Pence has to say, right? Because he's a reasonable person. He can't say, "I agree with all the crazy things that Donald Trump has said." His only recourse is to say, "No, he never said those things."

I think that was his only possible --

GLENN: It's our job as human beings to say, "Yeah, Mike. Yes, he did."

LEON: Right.

GLENN: That's the hard thing. These politicians are putting us in a no-win situation because they're in a so-called no-win situation. So they're putting us in that no-win situation. Where we're having to go, hmm, well, he's lying, and he's lying.

I mean, this whole thing about -- I mean, you could make another commercial for Donald Trump where he's saying, you know, the Israelis loved this idea, this deal with Iran, and they've completely stopped.

No, they didn't. No, they didn't. And the Israelis don't love that idea. You know, you could make the same kind of commercial. They're both liars.

LEON: Yeah. In order to win the debate last night, Mike Pence had to prepare to lose the post debate fact-check. That was the position he was in.

GLENN: Yes.

LEON: That's probably the best-case scenario. I think he accomplished that.

GLENN: Yeah. I agree. You know, the blue tie said it all: He had to look stable. And like somebody you could go, I could see him -- as long as he's in the room with him, I would be okay with that.

STU: It's sort of a central thing that's been raised from this election too, is what do you want with people? People you interact with politically. People you interact with in the media. Do you want someone who is going to say that a candidate has lied even if you want that candidate to win? Do you want to go to someone and have a conversation and then they say, "Well, no, actually, let me give you a justification, or I will deny that he said those things," do you want that? Or do you want someone who is going to say, "Look, I want that guy to win, however, he's lying here." That --

GLENN: I want that.

STU: I want that. 100 percent, I want that. That is -- we may be in the minority on that particular point.

PAT: We may be? We absolutely are.

GLENN: We absolutely are.

PAT: We absolutely are.

GLENN: I think there's about 10 percent of the country that wants that.

PAT: They don't care. They don't care how much he lies. And neither do Hillary Clinton supporters.

STU: It's both sides, I think.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: Oh, it is.

STU: Do you think Democrats want to go turn on a media source and hear actually Donald Trump is way worse and Hillary Clinton is telling the truth about her emails, or do they want somebody saying, "Look, Donald Trump is crazy, but, you know what, Hillary Clinton is really bad on these emails. She's handling herself terribly and she's corrupt." I as a Democrat would love that.

GLENN: Right. And it's amazing because we for the last ten years have been saying, is there no one -- is there no one on the left who will say the emperor has no clothes? Is there not one honest journalist? One honest person who says, look, I'm part -- I'm not going to vote for your side, but our side is despicable here.

The answer has been no. No. We've gotten a few journalists who are at least asking some tough questions during the Obama administration, but not really. Not really taking them to task.

There hasn't been anybody on that side. And yet, when you find them -- you worked with Erick Erickson.

STU: Right.

GLENN: RedState's pretty Never Trump. I mean, Erick is taking a bludgeoning for it. A bludgeoning for it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Our side at least has had a few stand up and go, "I can't play this game. I want my side to win. I think my side is right, but not on this. Because they're lying."

LEON: Yeah, you know, I definitely haven't seen -- and we were told that this was going to be the year that we have all the Bernie or bust people, right? They were like, we're going to stand by these principles, and we'll go vote for, you know, Jill Stein or whoever it is.

I think those people have much more assimilated into the Hillary Clinton machine than a lot of the Never Trump people have --

GLENN: It's interesting.

LEON: Despite what the media would have you believe. Because a lot of them say, well, this movement is dead. It's totally insignificant. And it's not true. A lot of the polls that you show -- that you see, show that one of the fundamental differences in this race is that Hillary Clinton is pulling over 90 percent of registered Democrats, which you would expect. But Donald Trump is pulling between 80 and 85 registered Republicans, and that's a major difference.

GLENN: Yeah. I saw in North Carolina because she is pulling -- she's pulling every black. She's pulling every black in North Carolina. And he is pulling, what? 60 percent, or somewhere in that area of whites.

He's -- they say, it's -- unless he picks up eight points of whites or eight points of blacks or eight points of Hispanics or a little of each, he's not going to make it. That's the analysis I saw last night.

LEON: And he's -- I saw the New York Times -- Sienna did a poll a couple weeks ago. Mitt Romney kind of eked out North Carolina because he won Mecklenburg County and suburban Charlotte white voters by over 21 points. And Hillary Clinton is running even with those voters, with the suburban, kind of wealthy Charlotte area voters.

GLENN: Wow.

LEON: They want nothing to do with Trump. And I live in a very wealthy county myself in Tennessee. And back in 2012, I saw Romney/Ryan signs everywhere. I see maybe two in my entire area --

GLENN: Okay. So but what -- how much -- Jeffy and I were having this conversation earlier today.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: How many people are actually secretly for Trump?

JEFFY: In the cold, dark, lonely place of that voting booth. When it comes down to --

LEON: Right.

GLENN: You know what, I'll never tell a friend that I did it, but I'm voting for Trump because I can't take her.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: They'll never put a sign up, but they can vote for him.

LEON: Oh, I have no doubt, he'll win Tennessee, he'll win my county. But the enthusiasm is definitely way down between kind of your core Republican voters, you know.

GLENN: How do you see this? You see her winning or him winning at this point if it was held today?

LEON: I see her winning.

GLENN: You see her winning?

LEON: I see her winning probably by more than what the polls are predicting.

GLENN: And anything that could happen that would change that?

LEON: I think it's difficult. So all the polls basically work on assumptions, right? It's supposedly science. But it's basically an assumption by every pollster on what the electorate will look like. And one of the things that I don't think anybody knows is to what extent kind of Trump's rhetoric about Hispanics is going to affect the makeup of the electorate.

Whites and blacks in this country vote at a rate of 62-63 percent. Hispanics who are legally vote at a rate of about 51 percent. So they are drastic undervoters in this country.

GLENN: Yeah.

LEON: If -- so even though they represent -- Hispanics who are here legally represent about 17 percent of the United States population right now. They tend to pull in nine to 11 percent of the electorate. If they actually become 17 percent of the electorate, this could be a ten or 11-point whitewashing by Hillary Clinton that nobody --

GLENN: I will tell you this, if that turns out like that, the Republicans are doomed from here on out. Because that is the election that has made them Democrat for the rest of their -- for the rest of their life. The rest of their life.

Featured Image: Screenshot from Hillary's new, post-VP debate campaign ad.

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.