Glenn talks with Bob Barr


Bob Bar 2008

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America. Bob Barr used to be a Republican. Now he's a libertarian and he's running for President of the United States with the libertarian party. But the convention is happening this weekend, right, Bob?

BARR: That's correct, Glenn. We'll have our nominee decided on by Sunday.

GLENN: What are the odds that you're going to be the --

BARR: Very good. We don't take it for granted. The libertarian party is very diverse, it's very active. There are other candidates, but we've got a great team here and we're very confident that we'll get the nomination come Sunday.

GLENN: Okay. Now, Bob, I spent about a half hour with you on television and I'd like to have you back for an hour on television at some point if you do get the nomination because you seem like a fairly reasonable guy, but you have some things that I just, I just don't understand and I'd like to get into some of those here today because I think Americans are just so disenfranchised, they are so done with the Republicans, they are so done with the Democrats that they would like somebody to deal with issues. So let's deal with some of the issues right off the top of the bat. What's the problem with oil right now? Congress asked the oil executives yesterday, why are we paying so much for gas. If you're President of the United States, why are we paying so much for gas and what are we going to do about it?

BARR: Well, we'll paying for gas primarily because it's a very precious limited resource. It's very difficult with the logistics of getting it out of the ground, refining it, shipping it halfway around the world and then distributing it in a way that is cheap. It's not going to happen. It is a very expensive commodity. What we need to be doing, and there's no short-term solution to this. There have been -- you know, we've had decades of government regulation that have gotten us to this point where we have a failing refining capacity, diminishing refining capacity. We're not developing new sources. What we need to do is we need to free up businesses, free up free enterprise so they can get out there and start tapping into the huge offshore reserves that we know are there. The reserves in Alaska, the reserves in the western mountain states with shale oil, and we have to start removing the impediments to oil companies increasing refining capacity.

GLENN: The governor of Alaska is saying that she's going to fight the designation of the polar bear as threatened on the endangered species list. Would you back that fight?

BARR: Absolutely. I mean, this is perhaps the most recent example of government nonsense. It's like they're operating in a Alice in Wonderland world. Every piece of evidence indicates that the polar bears have made a remarkable recovery over the last two decades. Their numbers are way up and yet what is the federal government do in the light of that? They say, well, gee, maybe they are an endangered species; we're going to completely ignore the scientific evidence, we're going to completely ignore common sense and put it on the endangered species list. And what that does, of course, that opens the door to more government restrictions to make it even more difficult to get at the oil in those areas where somebody thinks that there might be a polar bear lurking around.

GLENN: Do you believe in manmade global warming and to what extent will you try to correct it, if you do believe in manmade global warming?

BARR: Mankind has done a lot of good in the world. They have done a lot of bad as well, but change in the climate is not one of them. I've seen no legitimate scientific evidence that indicates that the cyclical -- and they are very much cyclical -- you know, increases and drops in global temperatures over the decades and over the centuries is the result of, you know, mankind.

GLENN: So how would you explain? Why the big push for global warming and cap and trade and everything else with both parties?

BARR: Two things. Because much public policy in America these days and even in the Western world generally is based on notions that sound good. It sounds good to people that there's something wrong out there and we can do something about it. It becomes a rallying cry and you have the Hollywood elites that have bought into this, you have the political elites like Al Gore that make money in this. You have it being pushed and rammed down our throats by the United Nations, you know, which, they may make really nice Christmas cards but that's about all the good they do in the world. But they're pushing this, forcing this down our throats. And I tell you, Glenn, the cleverest people in all this are the Chinese. They exempt themselves from things like the Kyoto protocol which would saddle U.S. and European governments and businesses with trillions of dollars of costs and drive down the ability of the Western world to increase and change its economy. Meanwhile the Chinese are surging and they are not bound by these same regulations that the international bodies are trying to force on us.

GLENN: Tell me about the role of the Fed and the depreciation of the dollar and what you would do about all of this.

BARR: If I could wave a magic wand and the Federal Reserve Bank would disappear tomorrow, I would do so. It's a group of unelected governors that are not answerable to or accountable to the people of this country and yet they wield considerable influence over the economy by basically setting rates at which banks and other financial institutions can loan money. And they have built up, you know, huge reserves themselves that they can then dole out as they're doing -- as they did recently with Bear Stearns to prop up as failing, what they see as failing investment houses, for example.

What we're on the verge of right now, Glenn, through this federal government monkeying around with the mortgage business, both directly and indirectly, is to have the federal government now set a "One size fits all" mortgage criteria for the country. That would be disastrous. It would stifle risk-taking, it would stifle the independence of small mortgage houses and mortgage banks and would simply create further problems down the road. What we need to be doing is tackling government spending. That is the root of all evil, so to speak. We need to get a handle on federal spending, we need to start reducing the economic footprint and, you know, all the other footprints of the federal government if we want to talk about them, and get the federal government out of running our economy. It was never intended to be the job of the federal government to run the economy.

GLENN: Speaking of evil, will you call the philosophy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad evil and can you explain the role that the theology of the 12th Imam plays in his foreign policy and his kind of thinking?

BARR: Anybody, whether it's Ahmadinejad or other leaders who call for the extinction of any country or any people or who call, as he very clearly has done for the murder of many thousands, if not millions of law-abiding citizens of other countries clearly is evil. No doubt about it. That does not mean that we go and invade the country, though. There is a lot more to it than that. But any movement that has, as its avowed goal, the destruction of the United States or attacks on the United States is certainly one that ought to be very, very high on our radar list. We ought to be prepared to defend ourselves as aggressively as we need to against steps that they might take against us.

BARR: Bob, you were the guy -- and I was cheering for you in congress when you said -- when we got on the PATRIOT Act, it's got to have sunsets. I don't want my government to have any power without a sunset on it, especially the kinds of things that we're talking about the PATRIOT Act, and you're the guy who got the sunsets attached to it, which to me makes the PATRIOT Act okay. If it didn't have a sunset, I would have a real problem with it.

BARR: The problem that I have with it, Glenn, and thanks for remembering that and recalling that for your listeners. The real problem in the PATRIOT Act was -- well, there were several problems. But along the line of sunset, the problem was that we weren't able to secure an overall sunset. There were only about a dozen and a half specific provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act that we were able to get sunsetted. That at least, though, did give us an opportunity in 2005 and 2006 to have a real national debate in which I engaged with groups from across the etiological spectrum, from the American conservative union to the ACLU to the NRA, the eagle forum and so forth. That at least gave us that opportunity. At the close of the day in early 2006 unfortunately, those provisions that were sunsetted were re-upped. But at least we opened the eyes of the American people and continue to do so with other information that's come out and to the abuses in the PATRIOT Act that's being used far more aggressively than congress intended or that it should be to go after -- to conduct investigations and prosecutions of matters that have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

GLENN: Tell me the places in the PATRIOT Act, because every time it comes up for review, we look for it. Tell me the cases where people's rights have been trampled.

BARR: It's very difficult to point to specific cases because it's done in secret. There have been court cases, Glenn, where institutions and individuals have tried to bring cases and the courts won't allow it because they won't allow them to get the information to prove their case. There have been some. We had the case, for example, of Brandon Mayfield, the attorney out in, I think it was Portland, Oregon, who was arrested and detained incommunicado for weeks in, I think it was either 2004 or 2005 because he was completely erroneously linked to some suspects in the Madrid train bombing. Taking somebody, a U.S. citizen and holding them incommunicado without charges being brought against them on the flimsiest of evidence, evidence that in that particular case was told to the FBI by the Spanish authorities was wrong is in itself a very clear abuse of not just the PATRIOT Act but the fundamental constitutional liberties in this country.

GLENN: Wasn't it corrected?

BARR: Well, it was corrected later on, but --

GLENN: Okay, not --

BARR: But I dare say -- and the federal government wound up having to pay him a couple of million dollars because they abused his rights.

GLENN: Here's what I'm asking. There's no -- there is absolutely no institution, there's nothing that is perfect that will never make a mistake. And are you telling me that -- I mean, the mistake that you just -- I asked you for an example. The one you just gave me was corrected and he received damages. That doesn't make it right by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not an abuse that just was swept under the rug and nothing ever happened and he died in prison. What I'm asking you is, if it makes us safer, isn't there some -- isn't there some way to make the PATRIOT Act have the sunsets that we need, make sure there are some checks and balances? There is no system -- people who are against the PATRIOT Act to me, it always makes me feel like, well, okay, there are people on death row that shouldn't be on death row. "Well, then we should just stop the court system." No, we should refine it. We should do everything we can to make sure it works the best it can knowing that it will never be perfect. But make it the best we can.

BARR: And that's certainly my goal, also. I start, however, Glenn, from the premise that when you look at the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we had on the books at that time already over 4,000 federal criminal laws, to say nothing of all of our state laws. We had opportunity to have stopped those terrorists at every step of the way.

GLENN: Yes.

BARR: Everything they did was already illegal. We didn't need more laws, more invasive laws. I have no problem at all with the government taking legitimate evidence that somebody is committing or might commit or is about to commit a terrorist act and investigating them to the full extent possible. But when you have, as we now have in the USA PATRIOT Act enshrined now in U.S. law the power of the federal government to initiate an investigation and gain private records on any person in this country without any evidence whatsoever that they have done anything wrong, that to me is going too far. And that's the problem that we see in a number of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act.

GLENN: But wait a minute. I believe that's a mischaracterization. They can do that, but they have to then go back to a judge to be able to show their cause after the fact. They were trying to speed it up. So they have to go to the judge. And if the judge says, what the hell are you doing, then they're in trouble.

BARR: No, a lot of this is done, Glenn, through what are called national security letters which, many of which never find their way to a judge. These are documents that are signed off on by an FBI field agent or a supervisor at an FBI field office and don't go before a judge.

GLENN: After you left -- well, first of all, why did you leave the Republican party?

BARR: I left the Republican party for the same reason that President Reagan decades before me left the Democrat party. It left him. The Republican party has veered, Glenn, so sharply from its individual liberty roots and government policies that there's no relation to the party that I proudly served with for so many years.

GLENN: And I agree with you. The Republicans have left the Republicans and the Democratic party have left the Democrats. And that's why I would consider you. But there's a couple of things that interest me. After you left congress, you went to work for the ACLU which I think is the biggest leftist affront organization I've ever seen. I mean, the only thing that has done more damage to the United States of America than the ACLU is the McCain/Feingold bill.

BARR: You hit that nail on the head, that's for sure. The ACLU and I had many disagreements. I was in battle with them when I went to congress, before I went to congress and I continue to have serious disagreements with them but look at just one issue that we were just talking about and that is the USA PATRIOT Act. They have been out there arguing the exact same things that you and I are supportive of here with regard to the PATRIOT Act since it was enacted and if it weren't for their work really leading the effort along with a number of other conservative organizations to bring to bear the light of, you know, public awareness on the abuses of the PATRIOT Act, it wouldn't have happened.

GLENN: So why not go to work for one of those conservative organizations as opposed to one that will --

BARR: I do -- I do.

GLENN: Wait a minute, one that will fight for footbaths for Muslim prayer rituals in public buildings but will fight against anything to do with Christianity in a public building? Why not, why not -- why go to work for them at all?

BARR: Well, first of all, I didn't work for them. I wasn't a member of it. I mean, I did consulting work for them, but I did work for the American conservative union at the same time. Basically what I was doing, and I would do it again today, is to work with any of these legitimate organizations that have an interest in protecting our fundamental right to privacy in this instance. We'll disagree on all sorts of other things but if we don't pull together all of these different groups from the right, the left and the middle to work with those fundamental constitutional liberties that we agree with, then the government is simply going to be able to continue to divide and conquer and we won't get anywhere.

GLENN: We're talking to Bob Barr. He is the libertarian candidate. Their convention is happening this weekend, for President of the United States. Bob, if you don't mind holding on for just a few minutes. We'll come back. I want to talk about the borders, I want to talk about Jack Bauer, I want to talk a little bit about the war on terror, I want to talk about income tax. We'll do those with Bob Barr coming up in just a second.


 

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.