Glenn's Predictions on Politics for 2018

Glenn came up with 40 predictions over the holiday and they were pretty wide-ranging, from medicine, tech, culture, politics, war --- you name it. Some seemed pretty optimistic, while others were downright catastrophic. But hey, they wouldn't be true Glenn Beck predictions if that wasn't the case, right?

Below are his predictions that were specifically related to "politics."

Which ones do you think will actually come about in 2018? Let Glenn know by upvoting the ones you agree with him on.

VOTE BELOW:

The Freedom Movement will experience somewhat of a renaissance, both in the US and globally.

In the US, this will mostly manifest at the local level and be primarily pushed by Millennial and Generation Z voters who will be completely disenchanted by the two major political parties. We'll see hundreds of new candidates from new political parties running in state, county and local elections.


Both Democrat and Republican parties will be forced to contend with significant weakness in recruiting and retaining younger voters, ultimately forcing them to change platform stances to accommodate Millennial and post-Millennial/Gen-Z ideas and positions.


A new understanding of a kinder and more ethical capitalism will be "rediscovered" by Millennials over socialism in the coming years. A new strain of "non hippie libertarianism" will be formed. We will see the early signs of this movement in 2018. It will be the alternative to a Bernie Sanders-style socialism. 

Churches will continue to lose power and influence.

Those who preach politics over principles and power over people in their own communities will lose more and more influence. The more "hell-fire" preached, the bigger the hit. Although, in times of strife and demagoguery, these will flourish for a short time and then collapse.


Traditional institutions that claim to be infallible or those that discourage honest questioning of doctrine will be the hardest hit. Mega-churches that are all show will lose "sheep" to flocks built on principles of quiet, humble faith and simple, charitable actions.

Hillary Clinton and Huma will be charged with crimes.

Just kidding! Bitcoin at a million is more likely.

The press will continue to be discredited by the Whitehouse and will continue to discredit themselves on both sides.

MSNBC, Breitbart and others that play to the rabid core of right or left will prosper over the short term during the run up to the midterms. It will be this same approach that will precipitate a quick downfall in the early 2020s.

The #MeToo movement will continue to grow, and 2018-19 will be the apex.

In 2018, it will be used to discredit Donald Trump and then spread to the midterms. Sadly, it will become a joke in the end.


It will not be effective against Trump. However, it will destroy what positive brand image, if any, the GOP still has with anyone under 35. It will also hurt the actual cries of victims.

In the US, gun rights advocates will finally get their long-sought Concealed Carry Reciprocity bills through Congress.

Already passed by the House in 2017, a compromise bill will get pushed by pro-liberty senators (Lee, Cruz, etc.) who are safe from midterm elections in 2018. While not perfect (certain waiting periods and state discretion on background checks will remain in place), the bill will effectively remove all state-level restrictions on firearms ownership and possession by enabling US citizens to simply get concealed carry permits in those states that are willing to license citizens from other states (e.g. AZ, TN).


The compromise bill will be voted purely along party lines in the Senate, but will represent a major step forward in securing self-defense rights to all US citizens.


Trump will happily sign the bill into law.

The US Supreme Court will finally strike down pro-labor laws that enable unions to take dues from workers involuntarily.

This will be a major blow to unions in the US because it will dramatically reduce their funding and overall power starting in 2018.

The Trump administration will finally begin construction on a true wall between the US and Mexico.

Discretionary funds will be provided from border protection and law enforcement and new infrastructure spending by the Republican-controlled Congress in early 2018.


While there will be a compromise on The Dreamers as well as an agreement to renew NAFTA as a component of securing the funding for part of the wall, we will actually see major construction begin next year. Construction sites themselves will be the sites of significant protests and even operate under the threat of violence from Antifa and other militant leftwing organizations.

The movement to impeach Trump will persist.

Antifa, coupled with OWS and others, will be funded through Soro's-based organizations to stir up the "Impeach-Trump" movement with marches and sit-ins. The movement will rise and fall in significance and will impact the 2018 midterms and 2020 election.

The Mueller-led investigation into Russia-election-hacking and any connection to the Trump administration will finally be put to rest.

No significant charges will be leveled against anyone and it will end up having basically zero impact on the Trump administration.


While the special counsel will likely issue a report that is strongly anti-Russia and broadly implies there were attempts by Russia/Russian agents to influence the election (in favor of Trump), the report itself will be very light on evidence or specifics. This sad, biased chapter of American politics will finally, mercifully be put to rest.


However, there will be continuing problems on two fronts:


1) The real trouble of Putin’s influence in the US and all Western countries will be largely ignored and will cause concern in 2018 and real trouble in 2020.


2) The Trump family's dealings with foreign banks will take the main stage in 2018.

Stay tuned as we'll be rolling out more of Glenn's predictions throughout the week.

Can't wait?

Enter your email in the form above and we'll immediately send you a PDF with the full list of Glenn's predictions for 2018.

GLENN: Today we posted at GlennBeck.com, we've broken my 2018 predictions down into four different categories, and these, I do not put these into the category -- mulch I do -- of like the caliphate. This is me looking for things that I say, okay, so what's trending? What do I think is going to happen? You know. Some of the predictions that I have made in the past, quite honestly, I don't -- I didn't have to think about those. They just -- they just hit me. So I just want to separate -- these are Glenn predictions, if you will, that I sat down and said, okay, so what are the trends doing.

So I put a few predictions down, and I think some of them are right, but we're asking you to vote and for the next couple of days, they will be broken up in chunks. Today, they're all political, and you can find them at GlennBeck.com.

STU: And the idea is to rank them as to what is the most likely to come true.

GLENN: And some of them are going to be hard. There are some of them that have several predictions in each one. You know what I mean? And so, you know, which one is going to come true? Which one do you think --

STU: You're not backing out of this? Is that what's haggle?

GLENN: No. 40 of them and there's going to be 39 that you're going to be able to beat me with a stick on next year.

Okay.

So here's prediction #1. The freedom movement will experience a bit of a renaissance. Both in the US and globally. In the US, this will mostly manifest at the local level of and be primarily pushed by millennial and Generation Z voters, who will be completely disenchanted by the two major political parties. We'll see hundreds of new candidates from new political parties running in state, county, and local elections, both Democrat and Republican parties will be forced to contend with significant weakness in recruiting and retaining younger voters, ultimately forcing them to change their platform stances to accommodate millennial and postmillennial/Generation Z ideas and positions.

Also, a new understanding of a kinder and more ethical capitalism will be rediscovered by millennials over socialism in the coming years. A new strain of, quote, nonhippie Libertarianism will be formed. We'll see the early signs of this movement in 2018. It will be the alternative to a Bernie Sanders-style socialism. What do you think?

[Buzz].

STU: I'm going with disagree on that one.

GLENN: Really?

STU: Yeah, that's not happening.

GLENN: Really?

STU: Yeah. The American people don't care about that stuff anymore. I honestly do think that, like, there is --

GLENN: This is driven by millennials, though. I think they do care.

STU: I don't care --

GLENN: They don't care about the parties and they don't believe in any of that. But they actually --

STU: I disagree! They're super passionate about the parties. If anything has been taught to us over the past couple of years, I think, is that people really freakin' care about that red versus blue battle. It is the most important thing in politics that they care about. It's that. And look, that summarizes a lot of things. A lot of things that are really material. Real policy differences. There's a lot of in there. I just don't think that's the primary concern of people who are -- the average person who's not listening to 15, 30 hours of talk radio every week. The average person cares only about that red versus blue battle. So the idea that they're going to lock into some third party or out of the system thing, I disagree with that.

GLENN: I just think that millennials, generally speaking, are going to -- they're so disgusted by all of it, they don't believe either side. They believe one side or the other more, but they don't -- they're disgusted by it, and it's going to get worse and worse and worse. And they're just a new -- I think there is a new attitude coming with the leaders of millennials.

Remember, it takes 10% to really change things. 18% is the tipping point. I'm not talking about 18% of millennials doing this.

STU: I think 4 of them doing anything would be a --

GLENN: Don't count those guys out.

STU: I'm not counting them out, but I do think that we're seeing now, in my opinion, is more of an association of, yeah, you're right. They're sick of it. They're sick of the way things are going. But what that -- how they crystallize that in their own lives is, attacking the other side. They're sick of that -- those people. Not themselves.

GLENN: So in this, both Republican and Democratic parties will be forced to contend with significant weaknesses in recruiting and retaining younger voters.

What that includes in there is the Democrats are going to move to more socialist ideas. They are going to -- the Bernie Sanders thing, and I don't know if it will be with Bernie Sanders, but the Bernie Sanders thing, socialism is going to become very, very popular. But at the same time, a new understanding of freedom, one that actually -- one that is -- that actually believes in diversity, that actually says, yeah, I don't care if you get married or not. The government shouldn't be involved. I don't care what you -- if you go to church or you don't go to church. The government shouldn't be involved. Are you a decent person? Are you hurting people? Are you, like, stealing money? Are you trying to take people's stuff? Are you trying to kill people? It's going to be boiled down to a much simpler, more Constitutional Bill of Rights kind of freedom on the other side.

STU: I feel like we're both looking outside and seeing really dark clouds, and I'm predicting rain, and you're predicting suntan time. You're predicting laying out by the pool. And it's 40 degrees, and for some reason, you're thinking it's all going to clear and go to 80 later on in the search if we get your bathing suits on.

GLENN: I cannot believe how much we've flipped places.

STU: You are way more optimistic on this. I have no hope on these things.

GLENN: You used to be the guy saying the exact opposite to me.

STU: Yeah, that's true. And I've been proven wrong! Clearly.

(Laughter.)

GLENN: Okay. Next prediction. Churches will continue to lose power and influence through 2018. Those who preach politics over principles and power over people in their own communities will lose more and more influence. The more hell fire that is preached, the bigger the hit. Although in times of strife and demagoguery, these flourish for a short time. But they will collapse.

Traditional institutions that claim to be infallible and that discourage thought and honest questions on their own doctrine will be hardest hit.

At the same time, megachurches that are more show will suffer and shed sheep to flocks who embody through quiet and humble action a simple, happy, and charitable life.

STU: That's interesting. I mean, because you were talking about millennials. What is it, now, a third of millennials think that church does more damage to society than good for society.

I mean, I think you're right. The one place you should be able to chase principle with no pragmatism at all is church. You should never make a church-based decision, when you're talking about faith-based things that's related to pragmatism. I want to go into church and then to tell me the thing that seems most obvious is the thing you shouldn't do, because of this guiding principle from this book that's really old, and we've been talking about for a long time.

GLENN: Right.

STU: And I think a lot of churches have gone -- and we've certainly seen on the left, and I think increasingly on the right, that have looked at the world and have formed their message based on the world and how it's moved, rather than a -- you know, a stone tablet, right? The place where it lives all the time and never changes.

GLENN: Yes, but it's also -- I think there's a difference now coming on -- on action. I do not want to just go sit in a church. I want to -- I want something that changes my life. I want something that goes out and does good. I want to be involved in doing things and helping people, and show it to me. Don't talk to me about it. Let's do it.

STU: And feel it, right?

GLENN: Yeah. I think that's what's coming. I think the pomp and circumstance, the traditional ways that we have connected religiously are falling away, and the churches that figure out that a church is just a place, it's a building. Real church, you should be in all the time. And it's everywhere. It's everywhere you go. And it's how you live your life I think those will prosper. We'll see. More in a second.

STU: GlennBeck.com is the place to go and see all of his predictions on politics. You can also sign up for the newsletter and get them all at once.

GLENN: And vote for them.

STU: And vote to see which one you think is most likely to happen and which one you think has no freakin' chance, you're going to have lots of opportunities on that.

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.