Writer: Here’s Why It’s Dangerous – for Everyone – to Designate White Supremacists As ‘Terrorists’

Expanding government is dangerous for every American – and that even applies when it comes to white supremacists. Liz Wolfe, managing editor for Young Voices, joined Glenn on radio Monday to explain why labeling white supremacists as terrorists is a dangerous expansion of government.

If white nationalist groups are designated terrorists in the eyes of the law, other groups can be targeted based on ideology. More government power isn’t going to fix the problem.

“Essentially, you can make it so you give the Trump administration the power to go after white nationalist groups. … Then that power can just easily be used to target left-leaning groups; it could just as easily be used to target Second Amendment groups,” Wolfe explained.

Glenn and Stu also wanted her perspective on why millennials seem to want big government in theory but free market innovations like Uber in practice. Glenn offered a hopeful take: “I have tremendous faith in this next generation.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Time for an adult conversation. Time for -- time to get away from the -- the 144 characters for just a -- just a second and -- and actually have a conversation with some nuance.

We have Liz HEP Wolf joining us. She is the managing editor of Young Voices. She wrote an article in Playboy, or had an article in Playboy about the problem with categorizing white nationalists as terrorists.

Welcome, Liz, how are you?

LIZ: I'm doing well. Thank you so much, Glenn.

GLENN: Good.

Let's just start on a couple things. First of all, are you a white supremacist? Are you a white supremacist?

LIZ: I am definitely not.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

STU: You hesitated too long.

GLENN: Are you a nationalist?

LIZ: That's sort of hard to define. I don't think so, as a Libertarian.

GLENN: Right. So as a nationalist, as we were just talking about with Steve Bannon last night on 60 Minutes, he talked about the American system. And he specifically mentioned Henry Clay. And he said, "The American system is what made America great." I think it's the exact opposite. But here's what the Henry Clay system was: a tariff to protect and promote American industry, a national centralized bank, and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other internal improvements. Plus, an American school. So basically, a federal -- federalized public school.

LIZ: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I don't know any real conservative or small government Libertarian that is for any of those things.

LIZ: Yeah. Exactly. Totally agree.

GLENN: So you -- in your article, you write about -- you have to fight white nationalism. But be careful not to designate them as terrorists. Why?

LIZ: Well, because whenever you expand government power and whenever you sort of mince words especially with political groups, I think it's really challenging. Because, essentially, you can make it so that you give the Trump administration the power to go after white nationalist groups, which the question of whether or not they'll actually do that is a whole 'nother thing. But then that power can just as easily be used to target left-leaning groups, it could just as easily be used to target Second Amendment groups. When you expand that government power and allow them to classify all sorts of domestic and somewhat political groups as terrorists, really, really bad things can happen.

GLENN: It's amazing to me that people don't get this with what's happening with DACA right now. The government said, "Hey, give us your information." So people did.

Now what's going to happen to all of that information? Now you've self-identified. And if Trump wanted to use that information, he could. If it's not him, somebody else will have that information.

You just -- you don't -- you don't like to expand the government and give it more information and more power. Because you don't know who is going to be next.

LIZ: Well, exactly. And I think a lot of people in my generation, sort of haven't done a good job of understanding that for every Obama administration where you give them expanded power, you know, then there's the other side in charge. Or, you know, if you particularly like George W. Bush, at the end of that administration, the Obama administration comes into power. And it's worth thinking, what are the long-term consequences of these expansions of power? I think they tend to be really bad.

GLENN: So how do we -- I don't understand how your generation, who unlike a lot of people my age, don't have faith in the next generation. I have tremendous faith in this next generation. And partly because we have to. I mean, you're the ones -- you're going to fix it. You're going to fix it.

STU: Yeah, we believe you because we have no other freaking choice.

(laughter)

GLENN: Well, no. But, I mean, that was part of it. Just like my parents had to have faith in me. You have to have faith in the next generation. But I also see that you instinctively get it. For instance, I can't convince people at all that the world is going to change. And really, you need to rethink your business entirely.

Today, I come in, and there's a story about Nordstrom's, how they're getting rid of all the clothing in Nordstrom's. Well, what's left? And it's because, as Nordstrom's says, the store is changing. The experience is different.

You guys see a different world where you're able to do whatever you want, create whatever you want. You don't need these big systems and big companies and everything else.

How is it you miss the connection in your generation between that freedom and big government?

LIZ: I'm really hopeful that it's something that we'll learn over time and learn through trial and error. Right? The more we make these mistakes, the more we'll suffer the consequences and realize, there's a problem when you expand the federal government's power.

I think that is really interesting what you're talking about, about how millennials are comfortable with various industries being disrupted. By new technology. By change. My evolution. But then they very much don't see that connection between, should you give some of that power back to the government? And I'm hopeful that as they see those -- the negative results that come from that, they'll realize, you know, as they get older and older, wait a second, that's not the world we want.

GLENN: What are you -- what are you seeing on the horizon, with people your age? And tell me about your organization.

LIZ: So my organization is an organization that works with a whole bunch of young writers. And they're typically politically independent. Some of them are more conservative. Some of them are more Libertarian. And we're really trying to get those messages of limited government, of increased freedom, of personal responsibility out there.

And so we work with a whole bunch of outlets. We have people publish in Daily Beast. We have people publish in Playboy. We have people in Washington Examiner, the American Conservative.

The whole concept is that there's no limit to the number of people and organizations that can carry this pro-freedom message. So I'm an editor, and I work to get their work, you know, in tip-top shape and published.

GLENN: And what are you seeing as the -- if things would melt down -- and, I mean, we're already starting to see colleges just -- it's a nightmare, what has happened, and the cost of college in the last ten years, alone, the debt that is coming. And everybody is being strapped to this.

When the government is standing there, and somebody like Bernie Sanders says, "I'll take care of you." Or on the other side, somebody like, you know, a Steve Bannon says, "I'll take care of you."

What's to stop your generation from saying, "Thank God somebody is going to step in?"

VOICE: I don't think there's much right now. I think you see people in my generation being obsessed with Bernie Sanders or not understanding that there is -- you know, there are always long-term consequences and unintended consequences to every decision that you make, whether it's on a personal level or on a government level, right?

And I think, you know, once people in my generation become taxpayers and realize, okay. We're investigating in college, we're ramping up the price of college, and we're having to foot the bill for that? I think they'll sort of begin to realize that maybe it's not the best investment. Maybe it's not the future they want. And I think they'll start to pursue a middle ground, hopefully.

STU: I like to be the person who is always negative on the program, so let me take the opposite side here. Because -- and this is an imperfect sort of comparison. But it reminds -- you know, September 11th is today. After that, there were a bunch of musical acts that came out and actors that came out and said things that conservatives, in particular, were like, "Shut up. Just do your job. Sing your songs. Do your acting. Stop talking about politics." And I felt that way too. I remember at that time. Then you got later on, then some conservative celebrities started coming out and they started saying things. And it felt awesome. Yes! You do it. Go for it.

And all the way to the point, at the end, where you've got Kid Rock potentially running for Senate. Donald Trump is the president of the United States. Conservatives apparently really do like when celebrities say things that they agree with.

And it's interesting because I think, like, with the government, it's the same way. Every -- it feels too good when you're in power to utilize the power. And so all the conservatives now are wanting to execute the same things that we complained about liberals doing years ago, when Obama was in power.

And I -- I don't know that there's enough people who can resist that temptation when it's put in front of them. I mean, do you have any hope on that front?

LIZ: Not as much as I would like.

STU: Yes. She's on my side. She's on my side.

GLENN: Trying to find some good -- can we find something positive here?

LIZ: Well, I think there's this issue of, we see growing tribalism. Right? When people on your side do it, you're like, "Yeah, we're the winning team." When people on the other side do it, you're like -- I mean, think about the number of people that hate Lena Dunham nowadays. I asked somebody, you know, he was writing on Lena Dunham the other day. And I was like, why do you dislike her? And he was like, I don't know. Like, she's a liberal. She was campaigning for Hillary, and she lives in Brooklyn. And I was like, well, that alone isn't necessarily bad enough to hate somebody. I can think of all sorts of other reasons. But that alone is not good enough.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Her show is a good reason, for example.

GLENN: Why just hate people? Racism is so stupid. Get to know people. Know why you despise them for specific reasons.

LIZ: Like you can definitely find reasons. Like super easy ones.

GLENN: Once you get to know me, I can give you 100 reasons. Why stop at the surface? So what is the Libertarian message that is sexy?

I mean, what is the thing that -- that will sell, when you've got all kinds of problems? What's the thing that's going to make people -- the millennials say, "Yeah. That's me. I'm in?"

LIZ: Well, so far, we haven't found it. Marijuana legalization didn't seem to work.

GLENN: Yeah.

LIZ: I think in general, focusing on how expanded power can hurt people on both sides. It's not just going to come back and hurt the neo-Nazis, you know, the ones who are really easy to identify as the bad guys. I mean, we've seen the FBI target the Black Panthers in the past. We've seen them target anti-war activists. We've seen them target animal rights activists, for crying out loud.

And so appealing to people and letting them know, you know, when you expand government power, it can be used to target the obvious bad guys. It can also be used to target lots of other groups -- I mean, especially left-leaning groups would find those groups very sympathetic, right? So it's important to sort of drive that point home.

GLENN: Where is the line? Where is the line? Because, you know, you mentioned the Black Panthers or animal activist groups. I can't remember -- you might remember, Stu. About ten years ago, there was this really nasty virulent animal activist group that was engaged in terror.

STU: Named after a wonderful alien from '80s sitcoms, Alf.

GLENN: That's right. That's right. Alf. So where is the line? Where is the line of saying, "This group we do need to --

LIZ: Well, I don't know. But I think that's the precise reason why up until now, we've been so hesitant to label domestic terrorist groups as terrorist groups. We're comfortable labeling international terrorist groups as that, because we have a more clearly defined set of criteria. With domestic groups, it's really, really difficult to draw that line. It's difficult. One person's, you know, Black Panther terrorist group could be another person's political group. One person could see the NRA as terrorists for some reason, whereas others see them as exercising their Second Amendment rights, that, you know, they're given in the Constitution.

And I think that's precisely the issue, that it's so hard to draw that line. And so I err on the side of not letting anybody in any position of power draw that line, at least right now, especially when it's so politically motivated.

STU: It's interesting to me too. Because these are big issues. The article you wrote about, white supremacy, it's hard to come up with a bigger one than that. But even with just like basic economic foundations.

When we talked about -- you know, growing up -- before the internet, right? There was a lot of things to believe, that conservatism would be good for the economy. A lot of things to believe that economic freedom is a moral principled stand. But it's so much easier now to understand it. With the internet. With Uber. With all of these services that are outside of any structure, that develop on their own, and that are all the things that millennials like the best.

GLENN: Yes. How are you --

STU: And yet, they're like, we need more government control. I cannot understand it. I can't get past it.

LIZ: Yeah, I mean, my home city of Austin, they were regulating and making it horribly and it's like, wait a second. Millennials it means after a night out of drink, what's not like to like there? But it's amazing. They still feel like we should fall for increased regulation in all these areas. I don't get it.

STU: Yeah. I don't get it.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Liz. That is Liz Wolf.

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.