10 Questions to Help You Identify Fake News

Fake news has become a problem. People unwilling to do their homework share news that is misleading or outright untrue --- and it's causing real problems.

"You get 100,000 people to retweet --- or even read --- you're more read than a published author, many published authors," Glenn said Monday on radio. "So . . . the responsibility is now on you."

RELATED: Beware--Fake News Is Propaganda and Must Be Vetted Before Sharing

Glenn shared ten questions that will help gauge whether a news story is real --- or fake. If you can't confirm its authenticity, don't share it, tweet it or post it.

10 Questions to Help You Identify Fake News

1 | Gauge your emotional reaction. Is it strong? Are you angry? Are you intensely hoping that the information turns out to be true or false?

2 | Reflect on how you encountered this. Was it promoted on a website? Did it show up in a social media feed? Was it sent to you by someone you know?

3 | Does it use excessive punctuation? Does it use all caps for emphasis?

4 | Does it claim to contain a secret or tell you something the media doesn't want you to know? Is anyone else reporting on this story?

5 | Is there a byline or an author's name attached to the piece?

6 | Does the About section of the website describe itself as fantasy news or satirical news?

7 | Does a person or an organization that produced the information have any editorial standards?

8 | Does the Contact Us section include an email address that matches the domain, not a gmail or Yahoo email?

9 | Does a quick search for the website name raise any suspicions?

10 | Does the example you're evaluating have a current date on it?

Let's exercise our personal responsibility before sharing news on social media.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: All right. Welcome back to the program. So now -- there are ten questions that you need to ask yourself to be able to get -- to be able to detect fake news.

Now, imagine --

PAT: How many questions?

GLENN: Ten.

PAT: That's too many. Nobody will do that. They might ask themselves one question. But that's about it.

STU: This is a rough description of what I think every person who is in the media does when they see --

GLENN: This is what we do.

PAT: It is what we do. But will the average person do ten questions?

STU: Right.

GLENN: If you want to be free and you want to be a publisher -- this is the thing, I think Facebook should change the word "post" to "publish." You know, I've talked about that for a while. You need to understand that you are a publisher now. You are Simon & Schuster.

PAT: Would anybody care about that? I'm a publisher now. I'm going to be more careful.

(laughter)

GLENN: We have to -- we have to show people. You could post or tweet something that is read by many more people --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- than most books that are published today.

PAT: That's for sure.

GLENN: Okay? You get 100,000 people to retweet -- or, to even read, you've -- you're more read than a published author, many published authors.

PAT: Most.

STU: Not even close.

GLENN: Yeah. The days of 2 million sellers. Those are over. Those are long gone.

PAT: Except for a select few.

GLENN: Yeah. So it is -- the responsibility is now on you. And so the author has a responsibility -- I can't turn in tripe to Simon & Schuster. I can't turn stuff in that is just -- neither can the New York Times, turn stuff in that is absolute tripe because you have the fact-checkers. And they are hired by the publisher to go through every word and -- can you -- can you prove that? Can you footnote that? Can you give me some evidence of that?

That's why we have -- well, I can't say we trust anybody anymore. But we used to trust the media. And I've -- I've got a reason -- I've got a long list of reasons why I think we don't trust the media and whose fault this is. And it includes us.

Number one on the list is us. We have to be responsible. But there's many reasons why this fake news thing is working. And there's also many reasons why this fake news thing is happening. And not -- and a lot of it is for anarchy purposes. I don't think this is against the Democrats. I think this is somebody who is a burn the whole system down, that started this. I could be wrong.

STU: No, I think you're right. Certainly several of the names in there are people that believe that type of thing.

GLENN: Right. So burn the system down. So they're going to make you smear and make you doubt everyone on all sides and box you into a corner where you have no hope. There's nothing I can do. It's too big. It's too persuasive. It's everywhere. I'm the only one. It's me and you that know the truth.

That's the problem. So here's the thing that my Aunt Joanne is supposed to do before she sends me something: One, gauge your emotional reaction. Is it strong? Are you angry? Are you intensely hoping that the information turns out to be true or false? That's the first thing

STU: Just think about just step one, how difficult that is for most people to do. Like the reason emotion can be an issue in areas like this is because it overwhelms your sense to detect how you feel.

GLENN: And what happens? We know when the human brain is angry or scared, what's the -- what is the natural human response? What happens to the human brain?

Reason shuts down.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The -- the animal man -- the -- what do they call it?

PAT: The lizard brain.

GLENN: The lizard brain.

That takes over.

STU: That's why we constantly complain about every -- if there's a tragedy guns, that's not the most appropriate time for new gun legislation.

GLENN: Correct. It's why we have the constitutional balance of power that we have.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Everybody says, "Nothing ever gets done in Washington." That was the point. To slow it down -- to slow the process down so the people can never act irrationally.

STU: Right. When you feel passionately about something one day, you don't make the law the next day.

GLENN: Yes. Two, reflect on how you encountered this. Was it promoted on a website? Did it show up in a social media feed? Was it sent to you by someone you know?

Three -- I love this. Does it use excessive punctuation?

PAT: That's a good key.

GLENN: It is. Does it use all caps for emphasis?

I immediately dismiss it if it's a news source that's using all caps or punctuation, like excessive exclamation points.

PAT: Yeah. You know what else you can almost discount immediately, is if it starts out, the FBI has already confirmed this! It's almost always untrue. That's just not true.

(laughter)

GLENN: Does it claim -- does it make a claim about a secret, or is it telling you something that the media doesn't want you to know?

STU: That doesn't mean every -- you know, we complain about media bias. I think the left complains about media bias as well. And just because a story isn't getting a proper attention that you believe it should, that's different than, "You know what, I know a guy at the FBI who is telling me this story is true, and no one will talk about it."

GLENN: This is actually on my list of how this is happening. We don't believe the news. Okay? Nobody really believes the news anymore. It's -- we respect serial killers as much as we respect news people.

STU: Right.

PAT: So we don't believe the news. That's the most -- and then we say, "The media is not covering it." As somebody -- I told you. As somebody who didn't read the stereotypical news from the right, I went and got all new sources and was like, "You know what, I'm going to read -- my main source of news was the Huffington Post. I'm going to read the Huffington Post for a month and not read the other side.

Two things happened: One, there was a lot of news that was not covered in the Huffington Post. That the other side covered. But there's also an equal number of stories that were covered in the Huffington Post that the -- that the right didn't cover.

And then on top of it, there was another thing. I heard people say, "Media is not covering it." I know I've said that. "And you're not seeing it in the media anywhere." You know why you're not seeing it in the media? Because you're not watching the media anymore.

You've made your decision of, "I can't trust them, and so I know they're not covering this." Well, yeah, actually they are. You're just not watching those sources. And the sources you are watching are saying -- reinforcing what you already believe. They're not covering this. They don't want you to know that.

STU: And that's the circle that happens with social media because social media recognizes the stories that you like and read. So it gives you more of those. And then you really never see anything --

GLENN: Correct. So social media -- we've self-selected out. If you're on the right, you say, "CNN, that's not a credible source." So you never watch CNN anymore.

So they could be covering everything, you just don't know it. And you'll continue to say they're not covering it, because you don't ever watch them.

The Facebook thing is even worse because it's an algorithm. And the more you like a story, it notices the trends. And so it leaves out all of the stuff -- it's why it is -- it's critical that you follow people you don't agree with. You follow CNN. You follow Fox News, if you're on the other side. You follow the Huffington Post.

You read the stories, and you follow those people. Otherwise, they're going to be weeded out. And your viewpoint is going to get more and more narrow. And depending on what you're liking. If you're liking this stuff, all of a sudden your news is going to be all coming from Alex Jones. Really dangerous. Alex Jones. Daily cost (phonetic), really dangerous. Don't do it.

PAT: Where else are you going to find out about gay frogs?

GLENN: I know. Fluoride in the drinking water.

STU: Did CNN actually cover that story?

PAT: No. No, they didn't. What about the suicidal shrimp? We only found that out from Alex.

JEFFY: Thank you. Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: I know. I know. There is this: They claim to make they're containing a secret or telling you something the media doesn't want you to know. Is anyone reporting on this story? Is anyone else reporting on this story? I would like to add the question: Is there perhaps another reason besides a conspiracy for others not reporting on this story?

Is there a byline or an author's name attached to this piece? You might want to click on that too.

PAT: That's good.

GLENN: Go to the website's About section. Does the site describe itself as fantasy news or satirical news?

Does a person or an organization that produced the information have any editorial standards?

Does the Contact Us section include an email address that matches the domain, not a Gmail or Yahoo email? Does a quick search for the name of the website raise any suspicions? Does the example you're evaluating have a current date on it? Does the example -- how many times have we seen that?

STU: Oh, yeah. That's a big one.

GLENN: Where there's a story that's like five or ten years old.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And they'll just --

PAT: Happens all the time.

STU: Happens all the time.

GLENN: All the time.

STU: They'll just repost it or just reshare it, and all of a sudden, everyone thinks it's new again.

PAT: If you actually went this deep in your investigation, you could almost eliminate fake news.

STU: Right. The problem is there's no incentive for the average person to do this.

GLENN: Right.

STU: We go through this sort of process. Not all of those steps and some that aren't on this -- when there's a story that looks interesting that may or may not be fake.

At this point, we've done it so many times, you can tell by the headline usually or go a little bit into it, you can confirm whether it's real or fake. But the average person -- if we were not in this industry, I would probably look at the headline and judge for myself. And hopefully, overtime, I would come up with judgment that would weed out some of the bad things.

But I would not be taking ten individual steps to -- before I shared a story on Facebook because it's not that big of a deal. I would just do it.

PAT: But if it sounds too fantastical, it probably is.

STU: It probably is.

GLENN: But the problem is also -- again, I go back to the publish button. None of us feel -- some of us share things and go, "Hey, have you heard about this?" Expecting that somebody is going to say, "Oh, yeah, I heard about this. No, that's not true." You know what I mean? I get stuff in my email all the time from people that is really easy to say, "No. This is not true." I get it all the time. People say, "Glenn, can you have your staff look into this?"

No. But you could go to Snopes.com and see not true.

STU: And, of course, Snopes. That's also fake news. That's what they did with the gunman in this pizza shop.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Immediately, the people who were pushing the Pizzagate story said that the gunman going to the pizza shop was just a cover-up.

GLENN: That is the problem -- when somebody says -- how many times have I said -- this has been a mantra. I don't ask you for your trust. I don't want your trust. Don't trust me. And anybody who says, "Trust me," don't trust them. I ask you to listen, engage your brain, and then do your own homework. You have to do your own homework.

Somebody who says, "Oh, believe me, this is absolutely true. No, believe me."

PAT: Believe me.

GLENN: Believe me.

PAT: Nobody would actually just keep saying that though over and over.

JEFFY: No. Because then they would realize -- they would realize that was the point.

GLENN: When they do, do your own homework.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That is the -- that is the -- Ben Franklin. What have you given us, Mr. Franklin?" What did he say? A republic, if you can keep it.

PAT: If you can keep it.

GLENN: It requires us to do our own homework. Don't listen to us and say, "Well, I heard it on the Glenn Beck Program." Yeah, you know what, we get it wrong sometimes. If it sounds --

PAT: Rarely.

GLENN: If it sounds like it's not right, go check it out. Even if it's from a credible source. You've been wrong. You're expecting everybody else to be absolutely right every time? No.

STU: I can believe the guy that sold me that '84 Dodson though, right? I mean, 612 horsepower in a Dodson. Who -- I mean, that's incredible.

GLENN: Yeah. Who knew? Who knew? Yeah, yeah.

JEFFY: How is that working out?

STU: You know, at the time -- little -- some issue.

PAT: It doesn't work?

STU: It doesn't have an engine.

Featured Image: A woman looks at a mobile phone as she stands on a path. (Photo Credit: ED JONES/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.