The Real Reason Behind the War on Cash and Why Banks Want to Go Digital

According to financial expert Chris Martenson with PeakProsperity.com, the war on cash is really rooted in central banks wanting to push customers into a negative interest rate, meaning they would lose money sitting in the bank over time.

"They feel constrained by the idea that you could take your cash out of the bank and no longer be subject to their policies," Martenson said.

RELATED: Lower Interest Rates Shored Up Big Banks But Killed People on Fixed Incomes

While governments and bank executives advocate for negative interest rates and a cashless society by gallantly saying they want to protect consumers from theft and nefarious players, it's really about controlling people's money.

What does Martenson recommend the average person do?

"Well, the average person, I think, needs to get into two things . . . which are assets that are outside of this crazy system. So, listen, you know, if you're on a ship called the Titanic and you see your captain playing slalom with icebergs, get near the lifeboats. And in this story, real assets are the lifeboats," he said.

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

• What is nonproductive debt?

• What's the one thing a government or policy official dreams of?

• Why should we think of a bank as a company?

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

GLENN: A guy I believe I've been looking for, for at least ten years. Chris Martenson. I've been looking for a guy that sees the world in the way that I do, that doesn't buy into the, quite honestly, Harvard Business School or the Wharton School of Business lies that the bankers are telling themselves right now about what's coming in the economy and how do we get out of this mess.

He's from peakprosperity.com. We're proud to have him as a Glenn Beck contributor now. Last time we talked about the collapse of pensions and getting out of your pensions and taking that lump sum if you have that ability. Today, I want to talk to him a little bit about digitizing currency. Because this is not being heard in the media anywhere. They're not talking about it.

And, you know, two weeks ago, when India, all of a sudden, you can't into anything in cash over the equivalent of $7 in India, with cash. When Australia's Citibank, our Citibank says they're now going to be introducing branches completely cashless, something is coming our way. And we want to get Chris on the phone with us now. Hey, Chris, how are you?

CHRIS: Oh, I'm doing very well, Glenn. Good to be back with you and all your listeners.

GLENN: Okay. So, Chris, tell me -- first of all, for anybody who hasn't heard this, it sounds conspiratorial and it sounds crazy, that we're going to live in a cashless society.

Can you give us any evidence that is -- that shows, no, the world is changing rapidly?

CHRIS: Well, you know, this war on cash actually began a while ago with seeing somebody like Andrew Haldane, who is an official at the Bank of England or Larry Summers here in the United States. They started with this war, talking about how the high denomination bills are being used by criminals, terrorists, tax cheats.

GLENN: Right.

CHRIS: That's what it was wrapped in. But your listeners need to understand that the war on cash is really rooted in the idea that central banks would love to be able to push you into negative interest rate territory. They feel constrained by the idea that you could take your cash out of the bank and no longer be subject to their policies.

And they've been pretty open about it. They've been saying that, but they also use this criminal angle. So that's the same angle that was just used in India, by Prime Minister Modi to say, "Hey, we've got to get rid of these bills because criminals." Right? So that's the argument being used. But it's really to control the money of the people. That's really what it's about here.

GLENN: May I say, Chris, that it appears to me to be almost the angle of being able to steal our money as well.

They'll do it legally by a bail-in, as opposed to a bailout and negative interest rates. Can you explain negative interest rates and what that means to the average person that has any money in the bank at all?

CHRIS: Absolutely. I'd be glad to. It should be an easy concept, but it's hard to really understand. But a negative interest rate means, if I put a thousand dollars in the bank and there was a negative interest rate of 10 percent, in a year, I would have $900 left when we looked at it. So what happens with a negative interest rate is that you hand your money over to some institution or some entity, and you get less of it back in the future. That's the idea. And the reason they want to have a negative interest rate is if they put interest rates down at zero -- the idea is you want everybody spending. Borrowing and spending. But some people prefer to save. And those people aren't doing their job of cranking the economy up. So how do you force people to spend who don't want to spend?

Well, you punish them. And the way you punish them is with something called a negative interest rate.

GLENN: So you could -- because this is what I would do. I find out that the banks have changed their rules where they can have a bail-in, where we are now the -- the investor of last in line. Can you explain that? Do you understand what I'm talking about? If the banks go out instead of going to the federal government, they come to the people who put money in the deposits.

CHRIS: Well, sure. It's easy to understand if you think of a bank, not as a bank, but it's a company. And when a company goes into receivership, it's entered bankruptcy, it no longer -- its assets are vastly exceeded by its liabilities, well, you have to break that company up for whatever's left.

And there's a chain of -- a hierarchy of people who are in line to divvy up the spoils of what's left at this broken company. So what you're referring to is that most people have this wrong. They think that when they put money in a bank, they have money in a bank account. That's not true. What you've done is given an unsecured loan to the bank. And your asset is the bank's liability.

So in a bankruptcy or if a bank goes into what's called technically a receivership, you're actually at the -- almost at the very bottom of the list of people who are in line to receive the spoils of whatever is left of that company because you are an unsecured creditor of the bank.

GLENN: So it is a way for the bank to gamble, really, with your money, and make these crazy investments that we all know are dangerous. And they get away with it because they say, "Well, the government is going to pay -- the FDIC will pay everybody back." So they'll get their money through the government. And then we can take that money and pay off any of our debts or whatever. So when I heard about that, my first instinct is, "Well, I don't want my money in those risky banks. So I'm going to take my money out."

Well, if you do that, then the economy really collapses. So you have to trap the money in the bank. And how do you do that? Especially if they want to have negative interest rates and make sure that you're spending all of your cash.

CHRIS: Well, absolutely. For a government official or a policy official, the thing they dream about most is to have you completely trapped and contained so they can do whatever policies makes sense to them at the time. So cash gives you, as a private citizen, an outlet, a way of not being in the banking system.

But, Glenn, you've characterized it just right. So they're saying, "First of all, you have to be in the banking system. We're going to move to a cashless society. So you have to have all of your funds within this system. And then we're going to set the rules of the system," which basically comes down to, heads we win, tails you lose. Banks take big risks. The risks pay off. They pay themselves massive bonuses.

Risks don't work out. They don't get paid off. Then they come after your funds. And we've seen this happen already. That's what happened in Cyprus. That's what happened in some of the Greek banks. We're soon to see it in the Italian banks. It's spreading. It's a concept. It's coming here.

GLENN: All right. It's already happening in Australia. It's already happening in India. It is already happening in Sweden. They're talking about doing it now. Seriously moving in that direction.

Is this just a fluke that these things are happening, or is this wheel now in motion rolling down a hill and it's not going to stop?

CHRIS: Well, it really just started actually probably 15 or 20 years ago. So what's happened is that instead of allowing normal business cycles to happen -- under the Greenspan fed -- remember that name from way back -- decided, hey, we're going to defeat the business cycle. But what they really did was they blew bubbles. One bubble. Then another. Then another.

And the whole world kind of got addicted to it.

And I think the policymakers -- they feel trapped, Glenn. They're looking at this, saying, how do we possibly deal with all this money we've printed. What do we do? It's binary. It either expands, or it collapses at this point. That's, I think their fear.

And 2008 really scared them. Got a lot of people in very high places, very worried that they were looking at the proverbial light in the tunnel, coming at them.

So I think this is a reaction. I would also almost call it a normal reaction. But people need to be aware that at the same time these people, I think, were legitimately concerned, wouldn't you know it, by the time all the rules got written, they were really written in favor of the elites, the very powerful, the well-connected, and really at the disadvantage of everybody else. And that's just classic sausage-making in Washington, I think.

PAT: So, Chris -- we're speaking from Chris Martenson from peakprosperity.com. Chris, this is Pat Gray. You've said it's taken 15, 20 years to get to this point. Does that mean we still have time, or what would you consider the time line?

GLENN: May I suggest that we are one 2008 away from this happening.

PAT: Yeah. Is it something that can just start cascading now due to some -- we talk about it all the time. Some sort of event. Terrorism or whatever. Or will this draw out for a while longer?

CHRIS: Well, Pat, it's really hard to make that prediction. Because what we're talking about here is a complex system. And here's what we know about complex systems: You can't predict what's going to happen or when.

It's like a fault line is a complex system. Scientists study them like crazy. Because we'd love to know, when is the next earthquake? How big is it going to be?

We can't know that. But we can know is that the earthquake hasn't let go in a while, and it's supposed to. That the chance of the next earthquake happening sooner is higher. And it being larger is also higher. So what's happened since 2008 is we've just piled up the risks. We've just made them larger.

PAT: Because what you're saying, what the government counts on then is that, yeah, we can draw this out a lot longer. And that's what they're hoping for, right? They're just hoping to continue the policies that we've had which have led us here. But they're just going to keep going until we're --

GLENN: Right. We're already 18 months past a point where a natural recession should have happened.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: So now we never really got out of the problem that we had in 2008. We made it much worse. And going into a natural recession is going to cause all -- wreak all kinds of havoc and will -- they will try to solve it with things that will just make this bubble even more dangerous down the road.

Chris, what do we do? What does the average person do?

Like, for instance, when I saw Australia and India both go within two weeks to basically a cashless society in India, my first thought was, "Okay. I want to get gold. And I also want to get crazy things like possibly bitcoin."

What do you recommend? What does the average person do?

CHRIS: Well, the average person I think needs to get into two things you've just identified, which are assets that are outside of this crazy system. So, listen, you know, if you're on a ship called the Titanic and you see your captain playing slalom with icebergs, get near the lifeboats.

And in this story, real assets are the lifeboats. So I'm counseling people, get out of debt, stay out of debt if it's nonproductive debt. Don't do it.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. What's nonproductive debt? Like your house?

CHRIS: You know, buying a $40,000 car if you can still get to work in a $20,000 car and be happy as you can be. But anything that you're going to take on what's basically for consumption. Right?

GLENN: Right. Okay.

CHRIS: So rack up the credit card and take that nice trip. That's not going to be helpful here.

For many people, unfortunately, Glenn, it includes student loans. If you're getting a degree that doesn't really have a job attached to it, that may also be nonproductive.

GLENN: Okay.

CHRIS: So lots of things to think about. Because what we've learned in the 1930s was that when -- not if, but when these bubbles blow up, debt is a stone-cold killer. Being out from under that, very helpful if people can get there.

GLENN: And what do you do? Like assets, that's gold, that's silver, is that land? Is that, what?

CHRIS: It is. It's land. I particularly love productive land. It's either got timber on it. It's farmland. It's good commercial properties that happen to have excellent rental histories. Things like that can make a lot of sense. And this is because, what's going to happen when these currencies finally give way is there's going to be a big scramble for the exits. There's trillions and trillions of dollars floating around that are going to go out and look for real things.

And we've been down this path before in history. We've seen it a bunch of times. And it's happening -- I've seen you mention it before. It's happening right now in Venezuela.

GLENN: Chris, I would love to have you on next time. I want to talk to you a little bit about -- because I'd like to build the case on the -- you know, Donald Trump is talking about saying to China that they are currency manipulators. Well, I don't know how we have the balls to say that to China. We're the biggest currency manipulator on the planet right now. And it always leads to the same kind of thing. Trade barriers. Trade wars. Currency wars. And if you could explain that a little bit. Because what I would like to do over the next few episodes with you is get to the point to where people can understand that this currency -- what -- at least what I'm feeling, Chris -- and I'd like you to think about this and then we could talk maybe off the air -- but what I think we're headed towards is what we went through in the 19 teens, '20s, '30s, and into the '40s, where currencies were devalued, destroyed, hyperinflation happened, the gold standard. Then that was manipulated. And the whole world shifted during a war, that nobody really understood, "Wait a minute. The real power shifted with the currencies." And I think that's happening again. Would you agree with that?

CHRIS: I absolutely agree with that. And it takes a little while to go through the parts.

GLENN: Explain. Yeah.

CHRIS: But people need to understand what those big pieces are so they can decide for themselves what to do about it.

GLENN: Right. Okay. So could you -- let's -- why don't you and I talk off the air here, and maybe next week, we could have you and do one other segment and start to lay those segments out so people really understand what you and I just said and how that's going to work.

CHRIS: Fantastic. I'd love to.

GLENN: Okay. Chris Martenson. He's with peakprosperity.com. Peakprosperity.com. Chris Martenson. He'll join us again, hopefully next week.

Featured Image: People walk past Bank of America branch in Washington, DC on October 19, 2016. (Photo Credit: ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/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.