'Probably Entirely False': John Ziegler Disputes Viral Story About Boy Dying in Santa's Arms

In what might be the biggest letdown of the Christmas season, a viral story of kindness was recently labeled "fake news." The story about a kindly man dressed as Santa Claus who visited a hospital in response to a 5-year-old boy's dying wish might not have happened at all.

RELATED: Santa Shows His ‘Number One Elf’ What Love Looks Like

Glenn introduced his guest, John Ziegler, who wrote a column on Mediaite questioning the tale, by calling him "Mr. Grinch."

Listen to the clip or read the transcript below for more.

TRANSCRIPT

GLENN: John Ziegler, you're a mean one, Mr. Grinch.

(laughter)

JOHN: Glenn, your description of me there sounds like what my wife would say if she's describing my entire career. That's pretty close.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

So, John, I mean, I read this story this week, and even Jeffy said -- after I did the story on the air, so I've got a few questions. And I said, "Shut up."

JOHN: Right. Right.

GLENN: But you -- you have to go and somehow or another prove Santa is a liar.

PAT: Well, that may be a good thing if a little kid didn't die, though. Right? That's awesome.

STU: Yeah, that's great.

JOHN: Well, that's one of the things that confuses me about this story is, you know, I'm taking a lot of flak for a column I wrote on Mediaite questioning this story.

I'm pretty well convinced at this point that the story is false. Probably entirely false. And I'm happy to explain why.

But you're exactly right. This is good news.

PAT: Yeah.

JOHN: I don't think any 5-year-old boy died in Santa's arms.

PAT: Good.

GLENN: Okay. Explain it here, John. Because the Santa looks like such a great Santa's helper. I can't believe this guy would intentionally -- I mean, I -- I mean, we've seen some horrible things. But for this guy to --

JOHN: Right. Right.

PAT: If you missed the story. He says that he got a call from the hospital, right? From the nurse or whatever.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

PAT: And you don't even have time to put on your full Santa gear, just get here. Little boy is dying. His last wish is to see Santa Claus. And so he races there. He asks the parents to wait outside in the hallway. He goes in.

JEFFY: Family already miraculously has a present for Santa to give him.

PAT: Right. Right. So what have you found out, John?

JOHN: Well, you know, I think what Glenn has inadvertently done is put his finger on why the news media bought this story and why the original columnist, not a reporter, a columnist for a small newspaper in Knoxville, Tennessee, bought into this hook, line, and sinker.

Because I believe this guy, this Santa was imbued with all of our projections of Santa Claus. It's not possible that a guy who looks like Santa Claus could do this.

And in his defense, he's a tremendous -- if he's acting, a tremendous actor because he did put on the waterworks. And it was very compelling in the story that he told. Except there's some very important facts missing, like the name of the nurse that called him. How about the name of the hospital? How about the date on which this happened? The reporter, in an interview after this thing went super viral, says he has no idea when this actually happened. He thinks it happened about a month ago. How about the name of the boy? We don't need a last name. How about a first name? How about any other witness to what happened --

GLENN: All right. Jimmy. The name is Jimmy. How is that? Does it make you happy, Mr. Grinch?

JOHN: Well, what I would then do, Glenn, which is what I've done, is I would spend a ridiculous amount of time searching the obituaries for Knoxville, Tennessee, for the entire month of November for any 5-year-old boy, and guess what we found?

JEFFY: That sounds like fun.

PAT: And then there was none? Zero.

JOHN: There was not even close to one.

PAT: Wow, that's great. Good.

JOHN: And the reality -- look, here's the classic story. And, Glenn, I have seen this happen in other cases. Ask Stu and Pat about my experience on the Penn State, quote, unquote, scandal.

JEFFY: Right.

JOHN: Where the media buys into a narrative. And there should be massive amounts of evidence, and there's none. But it doesn't matter to the news media because they love the narrative. They don't care.

PAT: They don't care.

JOHN: And so once they have the narrative and once it goes viral and it's a tremendous story and a great headline, look out. There should be massive evidence here. And there's none. And the fact that Santa at this point is still sticking by his story, without anybody backing him up, not the mom, not the nurse, nothing -- no dates that should be there, to me indicates the whole story is a hoax.

PAT: It's fishy. It's fishy.

JOHN: Because if it was just an exaggeration, he would be able to say, "Well, here is the mom. Can't you come over and -- you know, help me out here. Or here's the nurse." Instead --

GLENN: So you don't even think there was a kid at all?

JOHN: Well, I mean, could there possibly have been a germ of truth somewhere? Yeah. But I have a -- and this is purely speculation on my part, but I think one of the weirdest elements of this story is that he says that his wife went to Nashville from Knoxville immediately after this happened. And he stayed in Knoxville because he was so emotionally upset.

Now, being married, that immediately says to me, well, wait a minute. Is this a cover story for some reason why he needed to be in Knoxville and not go with his wife to Nashville and this thing got blown out of proportion when a reporter asked him about it?

Interestingly, the reporter said that he was mystified by this. Boy, this Santa really didn't want to tell his story. And as a matter of fact, at one point, he almost backed out of doing the story with me.

And I'm thinking, "Duh! Of course, he's almost backing out. Because it's not true, and he's afraid that this might come end up coming back to bite him," never realizing --

GLENN: Hang on, Mr. -- hang on, Mr. Ziegler. By the way, Ziegler -- is that a Christian name?

JOHN: Actually it is. You know, the Trumpsters like to call me a Jew boy. But I'm actually quite Christian. I'm a baptized --

GLENN: Well, I'll believe it when I see your baptismal certificate.

JOHN: I have to speak to you, Glenn, from outside of my daughter's Christmas recital.

GLENN: Right. I'm sure. I'm sure. What, are you going to expose that as a fraud too?

Now, let me ask you this: So, John, are you -- now, I know this is your speculation. You don't have verification. But did you just speculate that Santa was cheating on Mrs. Claus and this was a cover story?

JOHN: Well, I didn't say that. You said that, Glenn. I'm saying consistent with there needing to be someone for him to stay behind in Knoxville while he was wife --

JEFFY: America heard you say it, John. America heard you say it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh --

PAT: John, is it possible at all that this happened in October, or have you checked October records too?

JOHN: Well, I've not checked October records. But the reporter is positive that this thing happened in November, although he doesn't have a date.

PAT: Oh.

JOHN: By the way, the date is -- now, lack of date is important because it doesn't have verification and there should be a date easily. But think about it logically: In October, what 5-year-old boy is thinking about Santa Claus as he's dying?

PAT: Right. Yeah.

JOHN: It's too early. It's too early. The story makes no sense. What mom leaves their dying son alone with a total stranger?

PAT: That -- that's the most preposterous --

STU: That's the one that got me. You picture your kids. They're a minute away from death, you're just like, "I'll hang out in the hall while you're with Santa Claus." It doesn't feel like something you would do as a parent. You would stay in the room no matter what.

GLENN: You might have been hungry. You hadn't been eating very much. The cafeteria is about to close. Somebody is there to sit with the kid. I'm going to go to the lunchroom for a minute. I'm going to grab a sandwich.

PAT: Yeah, as he's dying within the next five minutes. I doubt that. I doubt that.

JEFFY: Eh.

JOHN: And, by the way, his parents already have a gift ready to in early November for a Santa --

PAT: Right.

JOHN: Who, by the way, interestingly, part of his story, Glenn, which is suspicious to me, he doesn't have his full Santa garb on because he was rushing out of the house to go --

JEFFY: Well, the nurse told him not to.

JOHN: Well, doesn't that give him the ultimate out here? Plausible deniability for why no one remembers a Santa Claus in the hospital and why no hospital right now is verifying this story in the Knoxville area? To me, it makes --

GLENN: Have you called the hospitals? Have you called the hospitals?

JOHN: I did not, but Snopes did. And they have not -- in fact, that's what really started the ball rolling this morning, that the newspaper had to back off the story. Because they -- get this. This is journalism in 2016. The newspaper said that their investigation began after they originally reported the story to not verify any of the facts.

STU: Yeah.

JOHN: How about before the story?

STU: Yeah, here's the quote: Since publication, the News Sentinel has additional investigation in an attempt to independently verify the account. This has proven unsuccessful. Although facts about his background have checked out, his story of bringing a gift to a dying child remains unverified. The News Sentinel cannot establish that the account is inaccurate, but more importantly, ongoing reporting cannot establish that it is accurate. Therefore, because the story does not meet the newspaper's standards of verification, we are no longer standing by the veracity of the account.

GLENN: I will tell you, John, the guys said -- the guys said earlier today that, you know, Glenn, he's just trying to do this, get his name out, pump up Santa business because he's a great Santa.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: I got to tell you, this wrecks this -- shave your beard, man. You are going to be the pariah of Santas if you made this up.

JOHN: But, Glenn, I think it's possible that this thing snowballed out of control and he never intended it to go this far. I think it's -- one of the many things that got my antenna up was this coming from a small market in Knoxville, Tennessee. I don't think anybody involved in this story had any expectation it ever gets beyond Knoxville. Because of the world we're now living in, things can explode overnight.

JEFFY: Right.

JOHN: And how about a little bit of focus on the news media? We're talking about major news media outlets that picked this story up, hook, line, and sinker. With zero scrutiny, zero follow-up, and zero corroboration of any of these facts that don't exist. That to me is the real part of this story that matters. Because it exposes how broken the news media is in 2016. By the way, that's partially how we got Donald Trump as our president.

STU: Do you think there's any chance that he's just going over and above to protect the family's identity and keep their privacy? And he's maybe manufactured some of the details to throw people off the trail?

JOHN: This morning -- I wrote my story for Mediaite last night. We decided to wait another 12 hours or so before we went with it because we were waiting, "Okay. Is it possible that somebody will come forward?" At this point, this story has gotten so big, there's no way that the nurse doesn't come forward. The mom doesn't come forward on background. Somebody to back up this guy's story.

There's just no way. So it's theoretically possible, yes, but there would be evidence of that by now, given the nature of the story. And the fact that it doesn't exist -- the absence of evidence, in my view is evidence of absence.

GLENN: John, one last question.

JOHN: Yes, Glenn.

GLENN: The jolly old elf hears what's being said about him, hears that he's -- his affair on Mrs. Claus while she was baking Christmas cookies has been exposed --

JOHN: Yeah.

GLENN: He takes a leap without the flying reindeer. Then how do you feel, John? You killed Santa.

JEFFY: Oh, boy.

JOHN: Well, my 4-year-old daughter is not going to be happy with me, I can assure you that. I will be in the doghouse for sure.

GLENN: Wow.

JOHN: I'm one of these weird guys, Glenn, who the truth still matters in a post-truth world.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. I appreciate you doing this. I bought into it too. And I wanted to believe. Because we questioned it. And I'm like, "Just leave it alone. Just leave it alone." I wanted to believe.

JOHN: But that's why it went viral, Glenn, and that's why it's important we expose this because this happens on more important stories than just this.

GLENN: Yes, I know. Yes. Yes. You're exactly right. And, John, I appreciate you coming on the show. And appreciating your -- your incredible -- seemingly incredible amount of time to investigate something as silly as this. And yet, it is the story of our days. This is what we're going through now on everything. Geo.

JOHN: Thanks so much, Glenn.

Hey, one of these days, let's talk about that Penn State story. It's so similar, it's unbelievable. But I appreciate your support. Thanks.

GLENN: You got it. Thanks, John. John Ziegler. I really like him.

PAT: He's great. He's great.

GLENN: He's really brilliant.

PAT: And he's right about the Penn State story. We should revisit that. The whole Joe Paterno thing. He's really passionate about --

JEFFY: That Penn State story is fascinating.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

PAT: Oh, you don't know about that?

STU: This is a wormhole.

JEFFY: It is a wormhole.

PAT: Not only is Joe Paterno not guilty of anything. It didn't even happen.

GLENN: What?

PAT: Neither is what's-his-face, the guy who's in jail for it --

STU: Sandusky.

PAT: Yeah, Sandusky didn't do it either. That's John's case.

GLENN: What?

PAT: And he says there's a mountain --

JEFFY: And he makes a good case.

PAT: -- a mountain of evidence.

JEFFY: He makes a good case.

PAT: He makes a really -- yeah.

GLENN: Oh, let's -- when we get back in January --

PAT: He's fired up about it.

GLENN: When we get back in January, I have to hear about that. Because if that's true, we need to -- that's injustice.

PAT: Me too.

Oh, definitely.

GLENN: That's injustice.

PAT: Huge injustice.

GLENN: We need to help --

PAT: According to John, a humongous injustice has been done, and part of it was because Joe Paterno is conservative, or was.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: Was.

PAT: And he probably still is.

STU: Well, we don't know.

GLENN: Probably even more so now.

PAT: Probably more so.

STU: Probably hasn't changed his political opinion.

PAT: No, probably not.

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.