What Kids Learn in School Today Will Be Irrelevant in 20 to 30 Years

In part one of his conversation with Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, author of the critically-acclaimed New York Times bestseller Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and his latest book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, Glenn dove into democracy and the free market.

"You say [democracy and the free market] will collapse once Google and Facebook show us a better way to know ourselves, and authority will shift from individual humans to network algorithms. You just kind of mentioned it there, but tell me what that means exactly," Glenn asked.

Essentially, Dr. Harari contends that our capability as humans will lessen as we depend more and more on technology for answers.

"It means that as they gather more and more information about us and have the computing power to analyze all that information, they can make more and more decisions on our behalf. And people will increasingly just rely on these systems to make the most important decisions of their lives," Dr. Harari said.

Everything will change over the next 20 to 30 years --- and in ways we haven't even begun to understand.

"Yuval, what do we do with our kids right now? Can you give any hint as to, you know, college, no college, debt, what they should study. What should we be doing?" Glenn asked.

Dr. Harari believes most of what kids learn today in school will be irrelevant by the time they are 40, and won't help them much in the job market.

"The one thing they will definitely need --- I mean, nobody knows what the job market will be like and precisely because of that --- the one thing they will need is the ability to keep learning and to keep reinventing themselves throughout their life," Dr. Harari said.

Because of that need to stay nimble, flexible and relevant to the future job market, Dr. Harari named two things that will be more important than any lesson in history, mathematics or chemistry: emotional intelligence and mental balance.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: So one of my communist progressive friends just wrote to me this morning. He said, "This is crazy what's going on. Last night, after the firing of Donald Trump (sic), the thing that seemed so crazy was moments after the firing, everyone on both sides was expected to switch sides and have a perfectly reasoned and thoughtful statement for doing so." How true. Mike Lee will be joining us here in just a moment at the top of the hour to talk about that and the firing. He has an interesting perspective.

We're talking to Yuval Harari. He's the author of Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow.

I want you to talk a little bit about democracy and the free market. And you say it will collapse once Google and Facebook show us a better way to know ourselves, and authority will shift from individual humans to network algorithms. You just kind of mentioned it there, but tell me what that means exactly.

YUVAL: It means that they -- as they gather more and more information about us and have the computing power to analyze all that information, they can make more and more decisions on our behalf. And people will increasingly just rely on -- on -- on these systems to make the most important decisions of their lives.

It starts to happen today, with very simple things. Like, you -- you want to find your way around the city, so you increasingly trust Google Maps and not your own instincts. You reach an intersection, your gut feeling says, "Turn right," but Google says, "No, no, I have better information. Turn left." And you learn from experience to trust Google.

And then very soon, you lose the ability to find your own way around the city because it's a use it or lose it situation. You lose the ability.

GLENN: Man. Ray Kurzweil and I talked about this. I said, "Ray, if you can upgrade yourself, you're going to lose just remembering things." We've already done this. We can Google anything. We lose the ability to reason. We lose the ability to think. He said, "No, you'll just use that space for other things." I don't think so.

You, for instance, I have security -- I have 24-hour security. When my security is not with me, it is almost impossible for me to function outside because I've lost the sense of normal situational awareness.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: You know what I mean?

YUVAL: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And you lose -- you lose that, and you don't realize how important just that simple situational awareness is.

JEFFY: Big time.

GLENN: But it goes away.

YUVAL: Yeah. And the same thing will increasingly happen with more important decisions, like you need to choose what we study at college. So previously, you rely on your own feelings and on the influence of your family, friends, and so forth. But increasingly, people will just ask Google or Facebook, hey, you know me much better than my mother. And you know the university and the job market much better than my friend.

So what do you say? What should I study? And it's an empirical question. If people will receive good answers, they will increasingly trust these systems, until they will reach a point that they can't make any important decision by themself because they lost the ability.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. And that's when we turn into pets.

The -- you tell a story about Gorbachev coming over to London. And he notices that there's no bread lines. And he asks, can you put me in charge of -- who is in charge of bread? Because we can't really get this working in the Soviet Union.

And this is an example of the old way of doing things and the really old think of the Soviet Union. And this is kind of what you're talking about, how the information in the Soviet Union, they couldn't process all of that in a central bank.

Now we can.

YUVAL: Yeah. I mean, in a way you can think about it as kind of perfect communism. There is a theory that communism in the end failed because they couldn't process all the information fast enough and efficiently enough. And in order to plan, say, the bread supply for the Soviet Union, just so much information about hundreds of millions of people, that they just couldn't do it. And the free market worked much better because it decentralized, it distributed the -- the process of -- of gathering information and making decisions, basically everybody makes their own mind.

But theoretically, if you reach a point when you have enough information and enough computing power, you can create a central system of decision-making, which will actually work better than individual choices.

GLENN: Okay. So now this is where we -- this is where the rubber meets the road. I believe that, and I believe that is almost the free market system, almost. I mean, it is predictive in its nature. It's putting the resources where the resources need to go because it's predicting the human behavior. But at some point, where is the dog, and where is the tail? And the other part is -- and this is critical -- you talked about that -- that worthless class. You -- part of the reason why the Soviet Union failed is because you no longer had a drive to seek, to learn, to expand. And communism really took that human spark and in many cases, snuffed it. How do we not snuff that spark?

YUVAL: That's a big question. And, again, part of the problem is that you could preserve a creative elite. I mean, the problem is not with the elite. The problem is with the masses. The real danger -- I mean, if you talk about, say, medicine -- so you will always or at least for the foreseeable future, you will need extremely creative researchers to discover new medications (inaudible), or whatever. But you won't need the average general practitioner, the average doctor in the front line, because you would have a much better doctor on your smartphone. And this is likely to happen in more and more fields. So creativity will be preserved, but it will be the monopoly of a very small elite.

GLENN: How do ... Go ahead. Go ahead.

YUVAL: The big problem is what will happen to the masses. Now, in the 20th century, even in the most brutal dictatorships, the elite still cared about the masses because it needed them. Even if you look at Nazi Germany. So Hitler and the Nazis, they cared a lot about the education and health and welfare of the average German worker because they knew, they will not have a strong army and they will not have a strong economy unless they have millions of poor Germans who serve as soldiers and as factory workers. But in 50 years, you won't need that because you will have all the robots and AI and so forth to fuel your factories and armies.

GLENN: So then how does one avoid the George Bernard Shaws of the world that say, "Sir or madam, line up in front of us. Justify your existence because we can't afford to take care of you anymore?" How does the person -- how does the worthless class have access to any kind of real health care, when they're not needed by anyone?

YUVAL: Well, some people say the answer will come from universal basic income, that the government will just provide them with a basic income to cover health services and basic education and food and so forth, even though they don't work. And they're not needed by the economy.

GLENN: That's crazy.

YUVAL: This may work in a place like, I don't know, Sweden or Denmark, or Switzerland. But in most of the world -- especially if I think about developing countries, like Nigeria or India or Brazil or Mexico, it won't work there. And, frankly, we have no idea how to solve this problem. And I think neither on the left nor on the right, there is today any real political vision of where humankind will be in 30 years.

GLENN: Zero. Zero.

YUVAL: You know, what will -- where will humankind will be in 2050? I don't hear a vision about that from anybody.

GLENN: I will tell you, I've talked to people in Silicon Valley, I've talked to people on Capitol Hill, and then I've talked to people in the middle of the country. Silicon Valley is -- is in a world of its own. It is so far ahead. And the rest of the world is -- the rest of the country from the political leaders to the -- the baker on Main Street, they're all talking about things like the firing of Comey. Well, that might be important today, in today's news cycle. But in ten years, that's nothing. We have to be preparing for what is coming and have this real conversation. And talk to the media elites, their eyes glaze over. They don't have any concept of what you're talking about in your book.

YUVAL: Yeah. I agree. The only place you hear people talking seriously about the future of humankind is Silicon Valley and places like that. And that's very dangerous. Because, yeah, they're very creative and intelligent. And most of them are also, you know, good people, good-hearted. But they don't represent anybody. And it's very dangerous to entrust the future of the entire human species in the hands of a few -- of you a small technological elite. And, you know, it's not a problem we can think about in 20 or 30 years. If you look, for example, at education, then this is a problem we need to think about today because the question is, if I have a son or daughter who begins school today and they are six years old, what should I teach them today so they will have a job in 30 years?

GLENN: So let me --

YUVAL: And nobody knows the answer.

GLENN: Let me give you a break. And come back. And see if you can come up with at least somewhat of an answer: What do we do with our kids? We'll do this here in a second.

[break]

GLENN: We're talking to Yuval Harari. Homo Deus. A book that I think every single person in this audience should read. A Brief History of Tomorrow. It will explain what's coming. It is not a science fiction book. But, boy, I'll tell you, you will read it and begin to understand why I have been talking about technology, technology, technology. Everything's about to change. And change in ways that you don't even begin to understand. It's why, even though I disagree with the -- with the minimum income, it's why we've talked about it on this show and have said, "We have to consider it." Until you understand what's coming, you won't know why we have to look at things and start to turn every stone over before our politicians -- looking to blame a loss of jobs on somebody -- say, "You know, it's this group, that group, or it's those evil people in Silicon Valley." Because they will look evil at some point.

Yuval, what do we do with our kids right now? Can you give any hint as, you know, college, no college, debt, what they should study, what -- what should we be doing?

YUVAL: Well, I guess most of what kids learn today in school will be irrelevant by the time they are 40 and won't help them much in the job market. The one thing they will definitely need -- I mean, nobody knows what the job market will be like. And precisely because of that, the one thing they will need is the ability to keep learning and to keep reinventing themselves throughout their life.

I mean, previously, life was divided into two main parts: The young person, you mostly learned. And then as an older person, you mostly made use of what you learned as a teenager or something.

GLENN: Right.

YUVAL: But in the future, you won't have this division. If you want to stay in the game, you have to keep learning and changing throughout your life. And for that -- for that, I think the most important thing will be emotional intelligence and mental balance. It will be much more important than anything you can learn in a history lesson or mathematics lesson or chemistry lesson.

GLENN: So, Yuval, I'm really gravely concerned about this move of safe spaces and everything else. Because our universities are now beginning to teach the exact opposite. They're beginning to teach conformity. Conformity of thought. And it's the worst thing you could be teaching to this generation right now. Agree or disagree?

YUVAL: I completely agree. Because, again, it -- they will need to change more than any previous generation in history. And to adapt to change. And generally, people don't like that. Beyond a certain age -- when you're 15, you like change. But when you're 40, you don't like it. And in the future, you won't have much of a choice about it. And if people don't learn how to stay flexible -- and stay flexible, not just in the body, above all, in their minds, they're going to be in a very, very difficult situation. And, again, talking about the job market, we don't know what new jobs will appear, but they will most likely require creativity. Anything which is routine, a computer will be able to do better than humans.

GLENN: Yuval, I would love to -- if you're ever in the United States, I would love to have you come here personally. I'd love to spend some real time with you. And we'd love to have you back and delve some more into this. Your two books, Homo Sapiens and this one, Homo Deus, are remarkable, remarkable books. And I thank you for what you're doing. Thank you so much, Yuval.

YUVAL: Thank you for having me here. And if when I'm in the states, I'll be happy to -- to meet.

GLENN: Great. Thank you. Yuval Harari. The name of the book is Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow.

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.