Time to Pass the Baton to the Next Hero Generation: The Millennials

It's time to take the plastic off the furniture and turn off the TV set. Millennials are the next hero generation queued up to save the republic. They're depending on older generations to show them the way. They don't care about political parties, they don't care about Ronald Reagan. They care about making a difference. So let's show them how to do it --- the American way.

RELATED: Will Millennials Turn to Capitalism or Socialism on Their Quest for Truth?

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these questions:

• Do millennials watch television?

• What unrealistic expectations did parents set for millennials?

• Do millennials think older generations are like old grumpy neighbors?

• Why don't more millennials know about Mao Tse-tung?

• Do millennials want your house?

• Does Glenn surf the Kondratiev wave?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN:  So if -- imagine that you are a -- imagine that you're a millennial, and you're 20-something years old, and you're seeing the world as it is today.  And you're watching people on television -- on television, which is no longer a part of your world.  You go over to your mom and dad's house, and they're sitting on their couch, watching television, which you don't do.  You don't do it.  You don't sit and watch an hour of commercials in a television program.  And so it's already kind of cute and quaint.  It's kind of like going over to your grandparents when they had the plastic on the furniture.  You're like, "They're just old.  Don't -- you know, just go along with it."  Okay?

PAT:  I don't know if it's quite that bad.

GLENN:  It's pretty close.  It's pretty close.  Millennials do not watch television.

JEFFY:  No.  No, they do not.

PAT:  I mean, they watch it less.  But they do watch it.

GLENN:  Not cable news.  Not cable news.

PAT:  Nobody watches cable news anymore.

JEFFY:  No cable.

GLENN:  Yes, they do.  

So the ones who are connected to politics, they're watching cable news.  So they come over from their world into yours, and you're watching cable news.  And you're seeing usually two old white guys and a young person, a millennial, a girl, a hot girl, who isn't talking at all like any of your millennial friends.  Is like old people speak.

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  And you're rolling your eyes at her.  Because you're like, "Total sellout."  And the other one -- because you're like, "This is so obvious.  They're saying the same basic thing.  They're arguing over things that -- oh, my gosh, I don't know why my dad does this."  Okay?

That's the world they're coming from.  Then they go to their world where they're listening to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and everybody else saying that jobs are good.  Hey, we're on the road to recovery.  They're massively in debt.  They have -- they are -- they've gone to college.  All their friends have gone to college.  Their friends aren't getting jobs.

JEFFY:  If they are, they're underemployed.

GLENN:  Yes, they're underemployed.  They can't pay for their --

PAT:  And let's not forget, they've been told that which drives me out of my mind.  That their debt is not their fault, they believe.  Which pisses me off.

GLENN:  Well, hang on just a second, they have now -- they see this crushing debt that they have --

PAT:  That they accrued.

GLENN:  Hang on just a second.

PAT:  All right.

GLENN:  That the old world, as they see it --

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  -- has been encouraged since they were little, "You got to go to college.  When are going to go to college?  Where are you going to go to college?  Got to go to college.  Got to go to college.  Everybody goes to college.  Got to go to college.  Got to get into a good college."  

Everyone in their life who they're now seeing represented on dad's/grandpa's TV set yelling at each other about a solution that they know won't work, and they think to themselves, "I -- I mean, this doesn't work, and I'm screwed with this debt."  

Meanwhile, while everybody has been saying, "Got to go to college, got to go to college, got to go to college," they went to college.  And where everybody -- where mom and dad said, "This is the best college.  This is a great college."  Those people that mom and dad endorsed taught them that you didn't really incur this debt and this whole system doesn't work.  And so maybe I do know a little bit more than mom and dad.

Even if they don't go that far, they know this system doesn't work, and they don't want to become like mom and dad, who are now in debt.  Dad is still having to work.  Maybe their retirement isn't coming through the way it was.  They haven't really been happy.  Mom or dad have just been kind of tolerating each other for a while, maybe till the kids -- they've drifted apart.  Or maybe they're really happy, but they're -- they are under such pressure with debt because of the house and the lifestyle, that the millennial looks at and says, "Why not just buy a smaller house?  Why -- we didn't need all this stuff, mom and dad.  Why did you do that?"

STU:  It would be great if that's the way they were -- that's the way they were thinking about these things.  It doesn't seem like that's the way they're thinking about it.

JEFFY:  No, it is not.

STU:  Good example of your generational thing.

GLENN:  Some.  Some.  I'm telling you --

STU:  Of course, some --

GLENN:  -- they're being indoctrinated to think the other way.

STU:  Right.  But let's think about --

PAT:  Some believe they're entitled to the house that mom and dad are living in.

JEFFY:  Exactly right.

GLENN:  I agree with you.

PAT:  Move out of that house.

GLENN:  I agree with you.

STU:  Why would you bring that up?  That's a weird thing to bring up.

PAT:  I don't have any examples, no.

(laughter)

STU:  Okay.

PAT:  I just know that exists.

GLENN:  You have five examples.  You have five examples.

(chuckling)

STU:  The generational thing you've talked about many times -- and this is an interesting -- potentially an interesting example of it, the situation -- the old system is faulty.  Right?  We spend all of this money.  We get in lots of debt to get college.  And they agree that that's faulty.  You know what, I agree also that that's faulty.  My, let's call it, generation would look at that issue and say, "Let's execute a cost-benefit analysis.  Is it wise for us to enter into this agreement that everyone is telling me I have to do and acquire all this debt?  Should I consider being educated in a way that is less expensive?  Should I chase a different way of approaching this problem?"

PAT:  Should I have gotten a job in high school and earned money?

GLENN:  Hang on.  Hang on.

STU:  Hold on.  Let me just finish the point.  

They seem to be looking at this as, it's not the idea that college should be required, that's the problem.  The issue is, I just shouldn't have to pay for it.  I completely accept without questioning --

JEFFY:  Yes.

STU:  -- the idea that I must go to college and must do all these things, despite the fact that I'm going to spend 80 percent of my time now doing schoolwork, as has been shown in study after study.  That, I shouldn't question at all.  I should only question the cost I acquire for it.  And that's why we continually complain about them -- millennials looking at socialist solutions.

A real -- a real questioning the status quo, really, is to say, do I need this?  Do I need to do it in a different way?  Do I do it in a way that maybe doesn't --

PAT:  Can I go to trade school?  Can I go to a community college?  

Can I go to a State University where it's going to be cheaper than Harvard?  

JEFFY:  Not without getting a job though.

PAT:  You know.  Right.

STU:  I stopped talking already.  Glenn is giving me that look of how dare you.  How dare you.

GLENN:  No, no.  No, no, no.  

I agree with your point -- I agree with your point of view.  I absolutely agree with your point of view.  Here's where we differ, I think.

STU:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  Do you know how hard it is to cut your own way anyway?  Everybody likes to think, I'm different.  I'm special.  I'm cutting my own way.

JEFFY:  Right.

GLENN:  Well, first of all, that wasn't true for most of us when it was cool to think that you were different, but this generation, it's not cool to necessarily think differently.  It's to think collectively because of their generation.  Okay?  To make things better collectively.

So they're coming to it from a different place than we are.  It's why -- it's why grandparents usually understand -- have such a great bond with the grandchild.  I've always thought that it's because, "I don't have the responsibility.  So it's kind of fun."  No, it's because it's an 80-year cycle.  Your experiences are closer than the experiences of your children.  It skips a generation because it's an 80-year we/me cycle.  Okay?

So the grandchildren are looking at things much differently.  Our children are looking at things much differently than we are.  We were more independent-minded.

Also, at the time -- at our time, there were more people like Ronald Reagan, who were living this and saying, "Be this.  Do this."  All of society was, "You -- you can do it."  All of society now is, "No, you can't do it, nor should you want to do it.  No man is an island.  You all have to work together for the common good."  Everything is teaching them the opposite.  And on top of it, who the hell do we have on our side that they can -- that they even relate to?

Because everybody that is on our side looks like me, sounds like me, does talk radio, or a stupid talk show on television, that come at that only their dads are watching.  And they think their dad doesn't understand them.

There's nobody positioning themselves on our side that's speaking their language or even doing anything, but, "These crazy kids.  Get off my lawn."  That's who we're turning into, to them.

(chuckling)

GLENN:  Where their professors are all --

PAT:  Well, I don't want them on my lawn.

GLENN:  All the professors are really super cool and telling them all the super cool things they can do collectively.

JEFFY:  That's right.

GLENN:  We're not.  We're not.

We are never going to make an impact trying to speak the language of Ronald Reagan to a group of people who don't -- nor do they care.  And in most cases, have been taught he's a bad guy.  Nobody is going to listen to, "We got to be more like Ronald Reagan.  We need another Ronald Reagan."  They don't even know who the hell that is.  

STU:  I mean, I think that's the point I was making.  In that, that's the generational gap.  Right?  That's the difference.

PAT:  Yeah.

STU:  And it's not just even bringing up Ronald Reagan.  They don't even know who freaking Ronald Reagan is.

JEFFY:  Right.

STU:  I mean, you know, we talked about them not knowing who killed more people, Mao or Bush.  Forty-two percent of people were unfamiliar with Mao.  Almost half of them have never even heard of the guy.  So I'm not -- you're right on language, I think.  What I was trying to define is more of like what their approach is.  And I think you've tried to do this with guest after guest after guest, and Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave after pendulum -- all of those things are pointing to the same general conclusion, that these -- that younger voters think completely differently about this stuff.  And, you know, I find it to be problematic.  I think -- I think you're looking at it as, well, how do we win them over, which I think is appropriate and is necessary.  But, I mean, I do think it's problematic.

GLENN:  But there's no -- the question I keep asking -- Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave -- and I go back and do my history and look -- you do not beat -- it's like standing in front of the ocean expecting to change the tide.  You're not.

Now, how can you get into the water and work with that tide and that force and perhaps change the direction?  Because that happens every time.  It's why we have the French Revolution and the American Revolution.  Very different things, all the same piece:  We, the people.  We, the people.

That's really important to understand, just that one thing.  That was a generation that understood -- that looked at things as a collective.  

Now, you can push back and say, "Yeah, well, we had the Bill of Rights.  That was all about individual liberties."  

Yes, because they know that the eternal truth was that no one is over you.  But that's why they started it with, "We, the people."  Not, I, the individual:  We, the people.  We'll establish this to protect these things, to protect the individual.  We're going to get together as a collective.  

Now, unless you have somebody who is teaching, "Hey, as a collective, we have to protect the individual."  Because that's all they want to do.  "We want to help the downtrodden.  We want to help."  Great.  Well, there's ways to do that.  And the two times before this wave was the Founders' wave.  

And they said, "We, the people, need to protect the individual and what the individual -- because that is supreme."  Where all of the other generational we thinkers at that time went Robespierre and said, "We are the collective, and we'll crush the individual that stands in our way."  And that's already happening.

You disagree with global warming, they will crush you.  You disagree with Donald Trump, and they will crush you.

We are in that scenario, that always leads to witch hunts and to blacklists, unless somebody on our side is appealing to the youth and knows who they can be.  They've just not had anybody on our side actually reaching out to them and saying, "I know who you are.  You're not who everybody says who you are.  I know who you are.  You are the hero generation.  And people are going to try to misguide you.  We, collectively -- you can change the world and chart the course, away from the death you never learned about."

When somebody teaches you something and you realize that somebody intentionally has kept a very important detail away from you, you don't run into their arms and say, "Hey, thank you for that."  You look at them and say, "What the hell were you thinking?  You didn't tell me about this part?  You didn't tell me about Mao and 100 million people that he killed.  You let me believe that George W. Bush was a bigger killer.  I can't trust you at all."  We have a massive win.  But it's slipping through our fingers every time we betray our values by living something differently than what we say is important.

Featured Image: USA's Gil Roberts (L) grabs the baton from USA's Tony McQuay as they compete in the Men's 4x400m Relay Final during the athletics event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games at the Olympic Stadium in Rio de Janeiro on August 20, 2016. / AFP / PEDRO UGARTE (Photo credit should read PEDRO UGARTE/AFP/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.