OSU Student: 'Terrorist' Attack (If You Can Call It That) Was a Misunderstanding

The very reasonable and affable Doc Thompson filled in for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program to set a few things straight today, Wednesday, December 21.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 2 for answers to these questions:

• How is Doc like Oliver Twist?

• What is RINO Season tweeting?

• How did Obama rig wait times at the VA?

• Are you racist if you don't like Thai food?

• Do Italian and Irish lives matter?

• Is it a misunderstanding if someone purposefully tries to hit you with a car or stab you?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

DOC: Hi, there. I'm Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck. Thanks so much for joining me today. We're taking your tweets @DocThompsonshow, as we do during my regular morning radio broadcast on TheBlaze Radio Network.

More about me, go to TheBlaze.com, click on channels. And if you would, please follow my channel at TheBlaze.com. Just again, right at the top, you'll see channels and scroll down. And please pay no attention to the picture of me.

Somehow, some way of all the press shots that they've taken over the years, they said, "Let's see if we can find the worst possible picture." Now, I'm not saying any of them are really good. I realize you're starting with this. I get that. That's cool.

Kal, have you seen the picture that they have up there on this?

KAL: I did. You look a little -- what's the word?

DOC: I look like I'm begging for gruel, like I'm Oliver Twist.

Please can I have more? Hello. Hello. Can I have some?

KAL: And the smirk on your face, I got to say, it's kind of douchey. You got a bit of a douchey smirk.

DOC: It's a very douchey smirk. It looks like I'm in pain or passing gas, like I didn't hear the question.

What? What?

KAL: Do you get final approval on the photos they use?

DOC: No. They just put it up there. It's horrible. Look at this. It's horrible.

But of all of that, somebody said -- either this was the first one in the whole series of photos, and they just said, "There's the one. Found one of Doc. Good." Or they're like, "Let's go through and find one, and somebody thinks that looks good."

If that somebody is a female around here, I really question your taste. I really -- I'm starting to think that there's somebody working against me in the company. I think somebody is like, "Let's take him down. Do everything bad. All right. First, we'll start with a really bad photo." So, please, pay no attention to the photo. And, instead, just follow the page.

The tweets coming in. It's RINO Season tweeting: And when Obama says the police acted stupidly, he was doing race relations a solid? Is that right?

Yeah, see, that's the point. He has done so many things wrong when it comes to race relations, and now he's suddenly above it, as he's leaving office, that he's done everything right.

One of the comments he made in the interview he just presented was -- and I'm paraphrasing here, but it was something to the effect of: By every measure, everything is much better now in America.

By every measure or metric, any way you could judge America, everything is better now compared to when he took office.

I could come up with a whole lot of things that are not better, a whole lot of things that are worse. In fact, I saw today, the VA -- look at the VA alone.

If he said, "Wow, we put McDonald in, and everything is great. They got those wait times."

First of all, the wait times that they're reporting are not accurate wait times. All they did -- instead of actually lower the amount of times that veterans have to wait, all they did was change the system or way that they measure them, the way they calculate it. So it seems like they're better." The people aren't actually getting in sooner. They just started measuring or counting different.

It's just a different formula that makes them look better. In fact, they rate -- there's a service that rates veterans hospitals. And they rate them one to five stars. Five being the best, one star being the worst. And there are multiple hospitals, veterans hospitals around the country that went from a certain amount of stars to lesser stars.

I know it was, off the top of my head, Albuquerque, and one in Colorado, went from two stars to one star. But by every metric, things are better in America today. Race relations. The economy.

Relations, in general, are they better today? We all getting along much better than we did in 2008? Health care, is that better? More money? By virtually no metric is it better.

I know one metric it's better in America today. It's better for Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. It's better for them. Because they are loaded. Lots of power and lots of money.

All right. Another tweet, @DocThompsonshow from Ken Putt: I'm completely with you, but maybe it's time to switch to APR coffee, decaf.

@APRCoffee is American Pride Roasters. It's the official coffee of TheBlaze. AmericanPrideRoasters.com, they have the gift packets. It's the best coffee in America. Try it.

But he's saying maybe I switched to their decaf. And I'm sorry, it's only American Pride Roasters, and it's the Doc Thompson's Bacon Blast Coffee today. Mmm. That's good stuff.

Okay. Before the break, we had a lady challenge and say, "Okay. What's the solution?" I offered one. We need to stop paying attention to this stuff, start treating people well. And the people that don't treat you well, move on. Stop thinking that they have some ulterior racist motive. Sometimes it's a misunderstanding. But there's another way forward.

Race relations in America -- and I have expressed this on my morning radio broadcast from time to time, could be centered around food.

Who doesn't like food, and who doesn't like ethnic foods? You may not like all ethnic foods. But you're going to probably like some ethnic foods.

Kal, is there any ethnic food that you like that has nothing to do with your ethnicity or ethnic background? Anything at all?

KAL: Of course. My favorite food. Mexican. I love Mexican food.

DOC: You're not Mexican.

KAL: I'm nowhere near Mexican.

DOC: So imagine somebody said, "You know, Kal, you have to accept Mexicans along with Mexican foods. I mean, that's a package deal." Even if you were racist, wouldn't you be like? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and take the food. I'll just go ahead and accept them.

KAL: Why wouldn't I accept them?

DOC: Well, I'm saying if you were a racist.

KAL: Oh, okay. So you're telling me, if I'm a racist, I could eat my favorite kind of food, Mexican food, if I accept Mexicans.

DOC: I'm just saying, you start calling the racists out. And you're like, "Okay. So you don't like certain races, whatever, but you certainly love some of their food, don't you?"

I'm saying, we don't know each other, and we start breaking bread with people -- you don't like Asian people. So you don't like that Japanese cuisine? You don't like Thai food? Really, seriously? You're racist?

See, what I'm saying? Then we get together. We start learning about it. Because food is also culture. So they start learning about people and understanding them. So I'm thinking that's part of the key. Food solves so many other problems.

KAL: Food knows no boundaries.

DOC: Right. Exactly. It solves so many other problems. I think you do, you have the food summits. That's how you need to start leading. And actually that has been the case in some ways throughout history in America.

For example, for many years, most of the immigrants to America were primarily from Europe. They were from places like Italy and Germany and Ireland. Places like this.

And the Irish are always going to fail here because Irish food basically sucks. I mean, by comparison, it's just not good. So maybe it's not going to work so good for the Irish. But -- is there a whole lot of racism against Irish people right now?

I mean, the gingers there are, but that's not exclusively Irish. Right? Okay.

But for years, there was racism against people like from Italy and people from Germany, for example.

After World War II, when you had American soldiers that were traipsing all over Europe as part of their efforts in Europe, they come back to America, and they're like, "Hey, so I have this stuff. It's called pizza, right? You got to try this stuff."

People in America didn't know what pizza was. And then they would go into areas of New York where there were -- or other major cities, where there were Italian communities, seeking out such cuisines, and they got to know about it. And how many real -- real claims of and accurate claims of racism against Italians are there in America today?

Oh, come on. Italian lives matter. You don't have that. What do you have? You have Hispanic and black primarily are the claims of racism in America. At one time, a lot of Italians claimed racism. And maybe there was.

The food helped bring us together.

My father, when he was -- grew up in the hills of West Virginia. And he was probably 15, 14, something like this. Shortly after World War II, his sister took a trip to New York. His older sister. And she came back, and she told him about this wonderful food called pizza. He had no concept of it. And she described it to him. And he said at the time, he goes, "I thought it sounded horrible. It's bread with sauce on it. I don't -- what is -- it sounds horrible." He couldn't -- he like couldn't even put it together in his head.

And, of course, pizza is one of the biggest cuisines in America. We even recognize it as pretty much an American cuisine.

So, Kal, I think that food could be one of those ways forward. Think about all the foods around the world you love. All the ethnic cuisines. That's part of the solution to it.

KAL: Totally. I think we can bring all people together with the food.

DOC: That's it.

I love food from all over the place. If I thought for a moment that it wasn't a package deal, I even learn about the cultures, or you just use food to say, "Hey -- think about all the stuff you learn about China from the fortune cookies when you're eating.

KAL: Before you even start a conversation, just, "Here, try this."

Automatically, they're going to be put in a good mood. Wow, this is really good.

DOC: This is really good. That's right. And you know whose that is? Let me tell you about these people.

So Ireland is at a disadvantage there, I admit it. Ethiopia probably at a disadvantage too.

KAL: What's wrong with potatoes? You can have fried potatoes, baked potato, mashed potatoes?

DOC: Yeah, and some of that is okay. But you got to understand, western European food, they don't cook with a lot of spices and stuff. A little bit bland. There are some exceptions. Not horrible. But, I mean, by comparison -- and, by the way, I'm of Irish and German descent or whatever, so -- but by comparison, they lose when it comes to Italian food. Am I wrong?

KAL: I mean, if you're going on full-on meals, I guess they're not as exciting.

DOC: Kal, let's go out for Irish food tonight. Kal, let's go out for Italian tonight.

KAL: I can go for some corned beef and hash and mashed potatoes. That's good stuff.

DOC: Yes, you can go for it. But, Kal, here's your choice: We go Mexican, we go Italian, we go Thai, we go Irish food. Rate those for me.

KAL: Yeah, okay. You're right. Irish is not going to be the top on the list.

DOC: All right. That's it.

All right. Students at the Ohio State University were asked recently by my friend, Faith Goldy, some questions about the terrorists. Well, of course, we had the terrorist attack in Berlin, which is still continuing to unfold this morning. Quick update on that, before I get to the Ohio State story.

Now it looks like there was two drivers or two people in the vehicle. The gentleman that was killed, likely, possibly, probably was hijacked. He was carjacked. They believe the truck, based on their tracking equipment and computers, that somebody tried to start it a couple of times and failed. Maybe without a key or whatever. Tried to get it started. And then at some point, it ended up starting.

It drove toward Berlin for an hour or so, stopped for a couple of hours, and then eventually plowed through the crowd. And then the Polish gentleman, who was likely carjacked or something, was found dead. We don't know how he ended up -- they haven't confirmed if it was self-inflicted, if the guy who carjacked him or the guy who was with him shot him, if a police officer did. They haven't told us that yet. The other guy is still on the lam. He's still out there. They say he's armed and dangerous. The gentleman that they picked up to begin with turned out to not be the guy.

So this is what's going on. A couple of weeks ago, a few ago -- I guess it's probably close to a month ago now, at the Ohio State University, right around Thanksgiving, a guy in a car tried to pull off a -- well, I guess it was a terrorist attack. He wasn't as successful as some.

And in the car, plows into some people. Gets out of the car. Jumps out and starts stabbing people.

Faith Goldy goes there and says, "In light of what's happened there and some of these other automobile attacks, people using their car as a weapon or vehicle as a weapon, let's go talk to the people and find out what they think about this guy who, based on his rants on social media, what we know about him, and ISIS claiming responsibility for, was likely motivated by extremist beliefs. Extremist Islamic beliefs." Not that all Muslims believe this. Not that all Muslims are a part of this nonsense. They are not.

By percentage, very few are. But it's wrong to ignore the motivations to this stuff.

So she went and said, "Hey, what do you think about this? Tell me about this guy. Do you think this was terrorism?" Ask them all kinds of questions. Here's what some of the students at the Ohio State University had to say when she asked.

VOICE: I'm here at Ohio State University, which has just become the setting of ISIS's most recent terrorist attack on --

DOC: Scroll in just a little bit. Scroll in about 30 seconds or so to this.

VOICE: Multiculturalism.

VOICE: Do you feel safe on campus after the attack this week?

VOICE: Yep.

VOICE: You do?

Would you call it a terrorist attack?

VOICE: Depends on what your definition of terrorism is.

VOICE: According to your definition.

VOICE: No.

DOC: Okay. Wait. Wait. Wait. Would you call it a terrorist attack?

It depends on what your definition of terrorism is.

What -- is there another definition of terrorism I don't know? I mean, is it because he wasn't more successful?

It depends on what your definition of terrorism is.

I assume that there was really only one standard. So you mean my definition, like -- Kal, help me out here.

KAL: I'm guessing, you know, attacking, hurting, killing.

DOC: Yes, he did those things. He did all of those things. Yeah, he was responsible for that. It was based on extremist ideology.

KAL: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Not going to say like tickling falls under terrorism.

DOC: Oh. Is there some way this wouldn't be called terrorism? If he, what? If he wasn't motivated by extremist ideology?

KAL: Perhaps.

DOC: No, it could still be likely terrorism. Okay. A little bit more from the Ohio State University students.

VOICE: No.

VOICE: Would you call what happened terrorism?

VOICE: I don't see -- I don't know what happened. I don't know what it's about. And I think we still have a lot to learn about the incident.

VOICE: ISIS has claimed responsibility.

VOICE: I do realize that. But that doesn't always mean that's what necessarily happened.

VOICE: Would you call this terrorism?

VOICE: I'm not sure.

DOC: Okay. Hold on a second. This guy, he wants to get all the answers. I don't know. I haven't read everything yet. I just want to make sure that I don't say something that's inaccurate. Get all of the facts.

Which I agree with. That's great. I wonder how he feels about Russian hacking during the election. Did he say that as well? Did he also say, "Well, we don't know for sure. Let's wait till all the information comes out?" I would guess probably not. Here's a bit more.

VOICE: I'm not sure. I've been just kind of like keeping updated with the news. I'm not sure like if they've confirmed that --

DOC: Okay. Hold on a second. So she doesn't know because she's been keeping up with the news. Didn't she just say she has been keeping up with the news, but she doesn't know?

So is that a criticism of the news? They haven't given her enough information? Okay. A little bit more.

VOICE: Yeah, so I don't know.

VOICE: Would you call what happened terrorism?

VOICE: No, I wouldn't.

VOICE: No.

VOICE: I would say it was a misunderstanding.

DOC: Okay. There's the one. It wasn't terrorism. It was a misunderstanding. That's all it was.

You know all the times that I have run people over and stabbed them, it was just a misunderstanding. That's all it was. It certainly wasn't terrorism. It was just confusion. I thought it was perfectly acceptable to run people over and stab them.

I mean, Kal, all the times you've killed people, misunderstanding?

KAL: Luckily, I haven't killed people recently.

DOC: Oh.

KAL: But I wouldn't think that that could be something that could be misunderstood though.

DOC: I'm trying to think, what type of misunderstanding could there have been?

KAL: You know, if your wife says, "Hey, pick up some lemons," and I bring home limes. Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

DOC: Right. That seems a little lighter. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

KAL: Although, I'd be in a lot of trouble. But I can't see how running people over and then getting out of the car and stabbing them --

DOC: Maybe. Maybe your wife said, "Hey, can you go to the store for lemons," and you thought she said, "Hey, can you hit somebody with your car and then jump out and stab them?" Lemons. Hit somebody with your car, jump out, and stab them. Very similar. Something like that, you know.

KAL: No. Not really similar at all, actually.

DOC: Hmm. Maybe it was like this --

KAL: I mean, I know there's lost in translation, but this is a bit much.

DOC: Could be. But I'm thinking, maybe it was something like, hey, you know, if you run into Steve today, tell him I said hi. If you run into Janice --

KAL: Oh, I could see what you're saying -- if you translate or misunderstand, you actually literally run into them.

DOC: Right. Literally ran into Paul or Steve.

Can you do me a favor? You know, if you run into Steve, give him this information.

I don't know how the stabbing comes in. Maybe it's, hey, if you run into Steve, jump out of the car and stab him a couple of times. Maybe it's something like that. Hmm. So it's a misunderstanding.

KAL: I don't think this guy knows what the definition of misunderstanding is.

DOC: I don't know how you would ever misunderstand such things.

Okay. I'm going to get a break in. We'll come back with more of what the students of the Ohio State University believe about this terrorist on this the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DOC: Students at the Ohio State University asked by Faith Goldy a bunch of questions about the guy who jumped -- ran people over with his car around Thanksgiving. Jumped out of the car and started stabbing people. Whether or not it's racist. And the last gentleman said, "No, it was just a misunderstanding."

They had this -- as I touched on at the beginning of the show, they had a -- a memorial service for all people of color that have been killed recently, within months or whatever, by police officers. And they said, just because somebody has done something wrong, it doesn't mean that police officers should execute them. Paraphrasing. But that was the point of it. That police shouldn't just try them. But what they're missing about this case was, police weren't just trying him they were stopping him from killing other people. It didn't matter. I'll share that story with you in just a minute. It's Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck at the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DOC: Doc Thompson in for Glenn today. Thank you so much for joining me. Coming up on my radio broadcast in the morning on TheBlaze Radio Network, Friday morning, I'm going to let the cat out of the bag and tell a bunch of company secrets.

Until they stop me. So coming up Friday morning -- there's been a lot of questions about what's going on with the radio network. A lot of good stuff. But I'll tell you, some of the stuff going on, cat out of the bag, Friday morning. So please make an appointment now. Friday morning, Blaze Radio Network. 6:00 to 9:00 Eastern time. Just go to TheBlaze.com. Click on radio.

So the Ohio State University Coalition for Black Liberation, whatever that is, headed this memorial for people of color that were killed by police officers recently. And a young lady stood up and read this: She said, in some cases, the deceased may have committed acts of violence against others before they were killed. Perhaps they were domestic abusers. Perhaps they were threatened or killed other people. She said, this possibility is not something to shy away from. The protest against police brutality extends to the innocent and the guilty alike, because we know no matter the crime, justice and due process do not come from a cop's bullet. Which is true. That's the reason that police do not just go out and execute people.

And they didn't execute this guy. The guy who drove his car into a group of people and started stabbing people was stopped by a police officer.

Did she miss that piece of the story? So it would have been better for the police officer to allow him to go on stabbing people, or does she believe they should have subdued him a different way? I love when they say, well, you didn't have to shoot him. You know, like deadly force. Can you just shoot him in the leg? Can you shoot him in the arm or something to stop him? No, you can't.

That's not how it works, folks. Police officers are trained. If you pull your gun and you shoot somebody, you shoot to kill and that's it. There's no wound them. This isn't Hollywood. You watch too many movies.

And if your loved one or you were being stabbed, would you really concern -- now, hang on, police officer. Oh, I'm being stabbed -- hang on. Don't. No, don't shoot him. No, no, no. Try -- just wing him. Hold on. No, no. Use your Taser.

No! You're going to say, "Stop this guy." And that's what they did, and that's what they were supposed to do.

There is an associate professor of English. Her name is (sound effect). She said --

KAL: I'm sorry. What was that?

DOC: (sound effect). That's her name.

KAL: Is that the professional pronunciation?

DOC: Yeah, it's a foreign name, so it's not going to make sense to you. (Sound effect). She said, you can understand where an act of violence comes from without condoning it.

I was like, "Okay. I guess you can understand that. You know, right. Nobody wants to be a criminal. And you could say, hey, this guy (inaudible)."

But that doesn't mean you lead with, hey, this guy had a rough life, don't shoot him. He's stabbing people, so let's think about it before we shoot him.

No, stop him from hurting people. And then you don't lead with, okay. Now let's talk about how rough this guy had it. You talk about what was wrong. What he did wrong. The fact that it was terrorism. The motivation for the terrorism. The victims.

You talk about all these things before you go, "Wow, this guy probably sucked." Right?

Then she called what he did a tragic, tragic mistake. He drove into the people and it was just a tragic mistake.

Stephanie Clemance Thompson -- cousin Stephanie who is an associate director of residency there said that the gentleman in question, the terrorist (sound effect), was a Buckeye. This was --

KAL: Sorry, one more time?

DOC: (sound effect). Again, a foreign name, Kal. You're not going to understand it.

She posted on social media: He's a Buckeye, a member of our family. If you think it's okay to celebrate his death and/or share pictures of his dead body -- if I see it in my time line, I will unfriend you. Because he's a Buckeye. #Buckeyestrong, #BlackLivesMatter.

So that's her concern? That you're posting pictures -- you're mocking him. You know why people are posting pictures and mocking him? Because they're upset, they're frustrated, they're scared, they're angry. All of these things, based on his actions. Not on his race. His ideas. His religion. None of this stuff.

She said, "I pray you will find compassion for his life, as troubled as it clearly was. Think of the pain he must have been under to feel his actions were the only solution."

Now, I mentioned the Brock Turner thing. Do they say the same thing when it comes to Brock Turner or rapists? Do they ever say, "Wait a minute, let's give the racist some credit here. I'm sure they don't want to be racist. What are they going through in their life? They must have really been jonesing for some strange in order to go out and rape somebody, right? They were just looking for a hookup." No, they don't say that. They say, "No, it's wrong. No means no." They never say nice things about it, "Let's take their past into consideration." They never say any of that stuff. They say simply, "It's wrong." Why the double standard? Because it doesn't fit the agenda.

These people say they need safe spaces from perception. Their perceptions of you and me and things you say. Perceived slights. Perceived insults. No, I mean, sometimes they actually are insults. But their safe spaces have not been strictly limited to that. And many times, in many cases, they'll say, "Well, I think he meant this, or I believe that, or I thought I heard."

So they need safe spaces from the perceived harsh words that you or somebody else present. But terrorists, they don't need safe spaces from that. He needs to be understood. Don't shoot him because that's just executing him.

So their safe spaces are for words. Meanwhile, when they are actually in danger and in jeopardy, they don't need a safe space, it's good.

What kind of twisted logic is that? What kind of nonsense is that?

I cannot wrap my head around it. So I was taught sticks and stones break my bones, words won't hurt me. Theirs is completely flipped around. It is: Words will hurt me, and a knife and a car will not. Vehicular assault, that's good. That actually won't hurt me. Come on, kids.

You were just run over and stabbed. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off. What do I tell you? Words and names may cause you pain, but cars and knives, they won't hurt you. So just suck it up.

It's just bizarre.

Hey, did you see the Oscars have a possibility, for the first time in history, of having somebody win both the male and female best acting categories?

(laughter)

Somebody has been nominated for both the male and female best acting category. Kelly Mantle was born a male, but plays a transgender prostitute in Confessions of a Womanizer. Whatever that is. And Mantle calls himself an actor on Instagram, but also appeared in RuPaul's Drag Race. Whatever that is. And has also said that he -- she is gender fluid. Not just transitioning. Because transitioning would say, "I was born a man, but I've always known I'm a woman." So he would only be by their progressive Hollywood logical a female and, therefore, eligible for the female category.

But he's gender fluid. So at any given moment, he could be male or female. He just vacillates back and forth. So I imagine if they nominate him for both categories, at any moment, he may not fit that category. But he may again in a minute, a day later. So I imagine it would go like this.

He -- this person is in the audience. Right? Okay. The best actress award goes to -- and at that moment, he's probably female, making him eligible to win. And then he would win it. And, yes, I won. But then as they get ready to read the male winner, probably gender fluid over to the male category. He's gender fluid.

Producers say they weren't sure what category to put him in because when they years ago split the reminder list -- this is a list that they send out to all the people that vote in the Academy, this little controlled group, into male and female categories. And he fits both since he's gender fluid.

So they said, "Just put him in both. Just easier. Just put him in both since he's gender fluid. We don't know what he is today. Throw him in both. And who knows, he may fit that."

You know, I don't agree with or fully understand people that say they are transgender. I try to, and I say, "Wow, that must be really horrible, if you feel this -- you know, you've always been trapped in somebody else's body." I can empathize -- sympathize with them and say, "That sucks. I don't wish you any ill will. You have a right to live your life. I don't want to keep you down. Go forth with personal freedoms and personal responsibility and live your life. And if you grant me the same respect, we'll have a fine relationship."

I can -- it must suck if you want to go into a certain restroom. I get all that. The simple solution to restrooms are you just make them all unisex. One person. One bathroom. And there you go. Move on. So we can move on.

But gender fluid, I got to call foul on. That one I'm calling foul on. That's BS. That is definitely BS. If you're gender -- let me help you out, if you're gender fluid or believe you're gender fluid, you're female. No, no, if you cannot make up your mind, you're female. Guys can make up their mind. No guy is saying, "You know, today, I'm just feeling kind of effeminate. Today, I just need help. Today, I just need some understanding and chocolate, okay? I just need that. I'm not looking for you to solve my problems. I just want to you listen." No guy is saying that.

Guys know -- males know, even women who say they've been transitioning to a male always felt like they were trapped in a female body, but they identify as male, they know. They know they're male. Women don't know. Women are the ones who, "Today I just need to be held." The other, "You know, if you think you can keep me down, what do you think I need a male? I need a man like a fish needs a bicycle." You're the one vacillating. Right? That's what I'm saying.

If you believe you're gender fluid, help me out, you're female. You're gender female. That's just how it is.

Kal, based on your experiences as a married man, do you dispute what I say?

KAL: No. No, not at all. Pretty much -- you nailed it down right there.

(laughter)

No misunderstanding.

DOC: No misunderstandings.

Does your wife ever not fully have an answer, or is she ever undecided, Kal?

KAL: No.

DOC: Does she ever change her mind? Is she ever fluid about where you're going to go to dinner, where the couch in the living room should go, what you're buying for Christmas, where you're vacationing, how to rear the child?

KAL: If she's asking that question, no, she always knows. If you're asking that question, eh, sometimes there's some variations. There's some questions.

DOC: Uh-huh. So today she knows exactly how she wants the living room setup, right? The couch goes in a certain corner.

KAL: Yes, she does. Uh-huh.

DOC: Is that static? Will she have that same idea six months from now?

KAL: No. She will --

DOC: So she is feng shui fluid?

KAL: Yes. Very feng shui fluid.

DOC: Okay.

KAL: Feng fluid.

DOC: She is interior design fluid?

KAL: Yes.

DOC: And what about what you should be consuming and what she is going to consume, what you're going to have for dinner tonight? Is she ever -- is she always static about her decisions?

KAL: No.

DOC: Okay. See, same thing. Hence, women don't make up their mind. They're fluid about many things. If you believe you're gender fluid, you are simply gender female. Quick break. Back with more on this. The Glenn Beck Program.

(OUT AT 9:50AM)

DOC: Hey, if you would, please follow me on Twitter, it's @DocThompsonshow. I'm pretty active on Twitter, so I'll engage with you, even after the program. @DocThompsonshow. Please follow me. Mickey Dunn tweeting, @DocThompsonshow and @Kal79. That's K-A-L79 for Kal, who is the producer today in New York.

Clearly, the students at Ohio State misunderstand what terrorism is. Yeah, they've had a misunderstanding -- which is more likely, they misunderstand what terrorism is, or the terrorists misunderstood? Yeah.

@DocThompsonshow from inseparable on Twitter. Women have the ability to ask what you want for dinner and inform you that you are wrong at the same time.

Yeah, that's true. How many times have you had this conversation, Kal? What do you want for dinner? I don't care. I don't care. So you're like, "Okay. I'll make a decision. How about we just go get that?" No, I don't want that.

KAL: That's every night.

DOC: I know. It's like -- I will -- I just tell her, "Whatever you want. Whatever you want." And finally, if she keeps saying -- I finally go, "Okay. Do you want me to make a decision or not? I'll make a decision."

KAL: I get this. She'll pick something, and then we'll go. And maybe it's not the greatest. And she's like, "This is why I don't pick. See. Because every time I pick, it's something bad."

DOC: Okay. But does she always automatically go along with what you say?

KAL: No. No.

DOC: Exactly. That's what I said. They're fluid when it comes to that.

MacAvoy tweeting: RuPaul's Drag Race has nothing to do with fast cars.

Can you imagine how confusing that would be? If I was RuPaul, I would actually invite friends to a drag race, to a NASCAR -- no, NASCAR is not drag, I guess. But to a car race.

KAL: A literal drag race.

DOC: A literal drag race between race cars and say, "Meet me down -- I had no idea this is what you meant."

KAL: They show up dressed up, it might be --

DOC: They look fabulous though. By that, I mean fabulous!

Micky Dunn @DocThompsonShow @Kal79, I feel like I'm a rock, but I'm trapped in the wrong body. I blame Krispy Kreme.

Yes, I have the same trouble. The same trouble.

All right. Calls coming up. We got a bunch of people that want to chime in. We'll get to your calls next. It's 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK. And also, a way that you can help out the little snowflakes who have been so upset since Donald Trump got elected. The ones who need those safe spaces. A way that you can help them out. You are going to love this.

Featured Image: 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.