The Biggest Swamp Has Been Drained: John Podesta and Hillary Clinton Are Out of a Job

One of Glenn's favorite authors and conservative commentators joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday. An intellectual giant, Michelle Malkin's latest endeavor is a new show titled Michelle Malkin Investigates which airs on CRTV. Her first four episodes go in-depth on topics she's covered her entire career.

Glenn talked with Michelle about a variety of issues, including who should be Time Magazine's Man of the Year, Trump's new pick for Secretary of Education and her relief that Hillary Clinton lost the election.

RELATED: Donald Trump Faces off Against Hillary Clinton, Beyonce, Vladmir Putin and Simone Biles for Time ‘Person of the Year’

"There are many sub-swamps in Washington, DC, but the biggest one that has been irreversibly drained, has been the swamp that's been dominated by progressives who have been running the levers of power since at least the Clinton administration . . . John Podesta, Anita Tandon and Hillary Clinton and all of her minions are out of a job," Malkin said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Michelle Malkin. New York Times best-selling author and a good friend of the program.

Michelle, how are you?

MICHELLE: Good, how are you doing, Glenn? It's been quite a year.

GLENN: That is an understatement.

MICHELLE: Which I'm not usually prone too.

GLENN: Right. We were just talking about TIME Magazine is trying to decide who the man of the year could possibly be. I don't think there's really a choice here.

MICHELLE: No.

GLENN: I think one man has changed the world, or at least has found a way to capitalize on where the world was and is -- is being viewed all over the world as the catalyst of change. Which is it?

MICHELLE: Yeah. Well, things have changed. And there are many sub-swamps in Washington, DC. But the biggest one that has been irreversibly drained, has been the swamp that's been dominated by progressives who have been running the levers of power since at least the Clinton administration.

And for those who had had reservations about Trump on whether it was character or certain policy positions or whatever he's tweeting, whenever, in the middle of the night, there is one reality that cannot be denied: John Podesta, Anita Tandon, and Hillary Clinton and all of her minions are out of a job.

And it was enough for me, when I decided after the primary and even before the primary -- because I remember the last time I talked to you and TheBlaze, last year, I had said that I had no qualms if the choice had to be between Donald Trump or Marco Rubio or Hillary Clinton. And that has given, you know, both the personal and political history that I had had with Donald Trump. Was it hard in some ways? Yes. But in many ways, it was probably one of the easiest political decisions I've ever made.

GLENN: Unbelievable. As you know, Michelle -- and I respect you and respect your opinion and everybody's right to disagree with things. But this was a hard year for me.

MICHELLE: Yes, I understand.

GLENN: Because I can't jump on the bandwagon of a $1.2 trillion stimulus package and say, "Oh, well, that's okay." Because it's not. That's crazy. That's crazy.

MICHELLE: Well, you know, I'm not a bandwagon jumper either. And I haven't been in the quarter century that I've been doing this. And so, you know, political reality is unfortunately about having to make cost-benefit calculations.

And when you look, even now, at some of the transition choices, it blows my mind, particularly because, you know, Glenn, that immigration and sovereignty issues have been something that have been near and dear to my heart for my entire career --

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I know.

MICHELLE: That we have a stalwart hero like Jeff Sessions who is now the attorney general nominee. I never in my lifetime thought that ever would be a possibility, let alone a near reality.

GLENN: So why is -- why are you so pro on this, and yet Ann Coulter, who was in my opinion, damn near unhinged on Donald Trump, is now saying we may have a traitor within our midst?

MICHELLE: You'd have to ask her. All I can do is tell you this. I was covering immigration issues back -- as far back as 1992 in Los Angeles. My first book was Invasion which came out in 2002. And there have been a lot of Johnny-come-latelies to the cause of immigration enforcement and the need to have systemic reform, that not only puts the rule of law and the immigration laws that are on the books first, but the interests of America, American workers, American citizens, and law-abiding people who lined up and did it the right way. And so I think it's up to each and every one of your listeners and your readers to make up their mind about how authentic people really are when it comes to practicing what they preach.

GLENN: Yeah. Preach.

Can I ask you a question? I've never talked to you about this before.

MICHELLE: Yeah.

STU: The one thing -- the one book that you have written, and I haven't read it in years.

MICHELLE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That I was perplexed by and thought it was very brave, but I disagree with, is the case for internment. Because we have had that conversation.

MICHELLE: Yes.

GLENN: And I don't know how anyone can think internment, especially Asian descent, could possibly think internment was a good idea.

MICHELLE: Well, maybe you should reread the book.

In defense of internment, the case for racial profiling in World War II and the War on Terror makes a very sophisticated and history-based argument that in a post-9/11 era, the kind of national security scrutiny measures that, for example, Kris Kobach, who is the secretary state of Kansas, a hero when it comes to fighting corruption, left-wing activism that has seeped into the federal government and, of course, immigration enforcement, helped design in the Bush administration.

Of course, it is now a very relevant issue with the national security entry/exit registration system, which has been falsely characterized as, quote, unquote, a Muslim registry and has been likened to, yes, the Japanese internment.

The entire thesis of the book took a look at what happened in, yeah, a very far left, liberal FDR administration and asked a question that -- that very few people asked, the people who actually had knowledge of national security issues at the time: What was the evidence for taking these extreme measures? And what actually occurred is far different than what is taught in history books.

The magic message is from the State Department, at the time, which were later decrypted, indicated that there were real serious security threats, particularly on the west coast. I also delve into the actual history of the relocations that took place and the measures that were taken not just against people of Japanese descent, but also Italians and Germans who were interned by the thousands.

The point of the book, Glenn, for those who read it -- and I'm very grateful over the years that I heard from so many high school history teachers who now teach the book in their classrooms to give a full picture to their students so they're not just getting what left-wing Alinsky and Howard Zinn historians tell them. They actually look at the original source documents that I include in the book.

The point of it is that we want to avoid the -- the absolute extremes of that kind of policy by taking sensible national security profiling measures. And that is why I'm so vocal about the need for someone like Kris Kobach to head the Department of Homeland Security. Because he's done the hard work. He's faced the slings and arrows of being called a racist and a xenophobe and a fascist because these people are actually very serious about protecting national security in an unapologetic way, as I was when I wrote this book.

GLENN: So let's go to education. Because you just talked about how education -- you know, you're getting Howard Zinn.

Tell me about Betsy DeVos.

MICHELLE: Yes. So my grassroots friends and fellow warriors against Common Core and fed Ed, know full well that Betsy DeVos has not been a friend to those who want to limit and eliminate the overreach of the federal government in our children's lives and their classrooms.

PAT: Hmm.

MICHELLE: In Michigan, Betsy DeVos was involved in a consortium called GLEP. I believe it's the Great Lakes Educational Project -- Great Lakes Education Project, which was pushing the Common Core standards adoption in Michigan.

She now says that she's against Common Core. She now says that she has adopted Donald Trump's stance, which was very clear. And not just clear, but also much more 50 than simply saying, as everyone else has now, that they oppose Common Core. And, of course, you and I were -- were -- teamed up to illuminate the dangers in the classroom with regard student data mining, the overencroachment of the testing regime, and, of course, the ways in which these so-called federal high standards were undermining local control and local classrooms in states where the standards were already much higher than what the federal government had set.

And, of course, it's the Gates Foundation and Jeb Bush which are largely behind it. So grassroots Michigan activists and parents are very worried, and rightly so, about how committed Betsy DeVos will be.

There's -- there's -- I have mixed feelings about it. And I think that leading up to the confirmation, there are many questions that she needs to answer and that informed senators in both parties need to ask.

You cannot just preach about school choice and charter schools. And expect to have people bow down to you on the right, just because school choice has long been one of those sacred cows for us.

The more sophisticated and informed parents -- many of them in your audience, Glenn, understand that choice and fed ed and Common Core are completely incompatible. And there is an explicit cognitive dissonance involved there because espousing choice doesn't mean anything if Common Core-lined textbooks and tech and testing are being forced down the throats of independent charter schools and, yeah, school choice beneficiaries. If you still have to submit to the Common Core regime that has not been dismantled yesterday, choice is illusory.

GLENN: So -- because this is kind of what -- you know, in a nutshell, this is kind of where we have been, that I think some of Trump's picks have been confusing at best. Because his policy will say one thing, and then he'll pick somebody like this. And you're like, "Wait. No, wait." Jeb Bush celebrated her appointment. That can't be a good thing.

MICHELLE: Yes. And I did point that out.

Now, having supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton does not obligate me to jump up and down like a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader at everything he does and every choice he makes.

And just as I did with every other president, whether they were Republican or Democrat, when they deserved to be praised, I will be out there praising very loudly with my big brown mouth. And when they deserve to be criticized --

GLENN: Wow. What a racist.

MICHELLE: -- I will do the same.

(laughter)

PAT: But the problem has been -- hasn't it, Michelle -- have you noticed that so many on the right are doing just that?

JEFFY: They sure are.

PAT: I mean, it's been amazing to me that nobody has said anything about Ivanka and Donald both meeting with Al Gore yesterday. Nobody is saying anything about a trillion dollar stimulus package.

GLENN: Unless it's good.

PAT: Unless it's good.

MICHELLE: Yeah. Well, I understand what you're saying. And I understand why you feel that way. But there's plenty of unhappiness about a number of things.

PAT: I'd love to hear it.

MICHELLE: You know, for me -- okay. I will tell you how I came about these decisions. Because, I mean, we've -- we've been -- I -- I appreciate that I have friends in the Never Trump camp. I have friends who are on the Trump train since day one. And there are more people who are like me, who initially struggled with this decision, but sort of stepped back and saw the bigger picture.

I was definitely -- at a certain point in this election, I was just Never Hillary, that doesn't mean I'm going to be happy that Ivanka and Donald are meeting with Al Gore.

GLENN: Right. I think you're the majority.

MICHELLE: But somehow they will defeat that machine, and that means a lot to me. It does.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Right. Does that mean -- do you think there's a chance -- because I said this yesterday.

And this is a little bit of the, "Hey, John Roberts must have a plan to really defeat Obamacare." So it's a little wishful thinking. But, I mean, do you think that he actually is buying into the global warming thing here, and Ivanka is going to run with this, or is this a way to kind of bring it into the fold and defeat it?

MICHELLE: Oh, I have no idea what they talked about. And so it might be worth asking about that.

And, you know, there were a lot of past Republican presidents who met with really shady people. You can go back and look at all the pictures of George W. Bush palling around with Al Sharpton, and Newt Gingrich palling around with Al Sharpton. And many other execrable left-wing figures. Does it mean that he's going to throw in with the climate change crowd? Well, the fact that he picked Myron Ebell from the free market environmental hard-core competitive Enterprise Institute to be the EPA nominee who is an adamant --

GLENN: You're right.

MICHELLE: -- has been an adamant opponent of the left-wing global warming crowd.

STU: We praised him for that.

GLENN: Yeah, we did.

MICHELLE: -- tells me that he means business.

Yes, I know he met with Al Gore. So it gives people a lot to fret about for a day --

PAT: Well, I will say, if it was Ted Cruz meeting with Al Gore, it would have been a nightmare. It would have been a nightmare.

GLENN: Well, but I think that's a mistake. I stand by what I said yesterday. This president -- the current president never reached out to anybody on our side. And when you shut yourself off, then you got nothing.

PAT: That's true. That's true.

GLENN: I mean, at least he is reaching out. The proof will be in the pudding on what he actually does.

I got to go. We're up against a break. Her new gig is on Mark Levin's CRTV. Does it begin tonight, Michelle?

MICHELLE: Yes. My episodes are now all available. I have four episodes that go in-depth in topics that I have covered my entire career.

GLENN: Right.

MICHELLE: And I do want to say that one of the most important stories I've ever, ever, ever covered is the subject of a first two-part series of CRTV's Michelle Malkin Investigates on a former Oklahoma City police officer who was convicted a year ago this weekend of a series of alleged sexual assaults. I dig deep into this case.

GLENN: Right.

MICHELLE: And this is the most massive miscarriage of justice I have ever experienced.

GLENN: That is saying something. And it's available now. Michelle Malkin Investigates on CRTV. Michelle, thank you so much. And we'll talk again.

Featured Image: Conservative author and commentator Michelle Malkin (Photo Credit: Jensen Sutta)

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.