Glenn Beck: Ramos & Compean - The Whole Story




Border Patrol Fundraiser Shirt


 ***All of Glenn's proceeds from the sale of this shirt will be donated to a legal defense fund for Agents Ramos and Compean.***

GLENN: We've added a lot of new stations and, you know, a lot of new people that, you know, are just, they stumbled in, they might have been drunk and the radio stuck on this station and then they're like, I can't turn it off now; I don't know what happened. And so now they're forced to listen. So there's a lot of people in the audience that doesn't -- they're not really even aware of some of the things that we have discovered on the Compean and Ramos case. These are the two border agents that were thrown in jail for what it looked like shooting somebody in the back or in the butt as they were running away, just this poor helpless victim and then trying to cover it up. That's what it looks like. That's what the government would like to have you believe. That is not the case.

We go to Tara Setmayer who has been on this case now for how long, Tara? Two years?

SETMAYER: Almost two years, yeah.

GLENN: And you and your illustrious boss in Washington have been on this case trying to set this right and so far you're beating your head against the wall. Let's start with the story, and if we could tell the story here in a five minute period here as much as you can, tell everybody the history of this case.

SETMAYER: Well, in February 2005 Ramos and Compean were on routine patrol down in Fabens, Texas along the border. A drug smuggler was detected -- well, they didn't know he was smuggling drugs yet. A border breach was detected by Compean, he radioed it in. They gave chase to a van, started to speed back toward the border. The individual, which is Aldrete Davila, he abandoned the van and decided to head for the border on foot. At the time other border patrol agents joined the pursuit and the drug smuggler confronted Compean on the other side of a drainage ditch on his way back to Mexico. At the time Compean tried to arrest him, he tried to apprehend him, they got into a scuffle and shots were fired. In the meantime Ramos is climbing down this drainage ditch to assist his fellow border agent. He hears shots fired. As he emerges, he sees Compean on the ground, he sees a drug smuggler running away. He shoots at him. He thinks he has a gun. He doesn't know what's happening. He shoots at him. He hits him, but he doesn't know he hit him because the guy kept running and escapes back to Mexico, where on the other side of the border there were other people waiting to pick him up and take him away.

As they walk back, they noticed that inside this van is a million dollars worth of marijuana, about 750 pounds. So other agents are on scene including two supervisors. The mistake they made, they did not orally report the shooting.

GLENN: But it's important at this point of the story to know that supervisors were on the scene.

SETMAYER: Yes.

GLENN: Others were there. It is almost a loophole there that they nailed them on and said, well, they didn't report the shooting. The idea was they didn't need to report the shooting. People were on the scene.

SETMAYER: That's right. And border patrol regulations state that they're only supposed to orally report it. That supervisor is supposed to file a written report. So this is a policy violation. It's not criminal. Well, three weeks go by. They catalog the drugs. You know, the guy absconded, he escaped to New Mexico. You know, routine day on the border so one would think. Anyone who knows or is familiar with what's going on in the southern border, it's a war zone there. So the fact that they weren't shot is actually a good thing.

A few weeks go by and we find out that the Department of Homeland Security has opened up an internal affairs investigation because the drug smuggler that they shot grew up with a border patrol agent in Arizona. The incident happened in Texas. Their families talk and they find out that Aldrete Davila has been shot by a border agent. So this agent in Arizona takes it upon himself to research what's going on, look for the shooting report.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. This is an important thing for people to really focus on for just 10 seconds. A border agent who grew up with a drug smuggler in Mexico. Their families still talk. The drug smuggler called -- the drug smuggler's mother called the border agent and said, "My son's just been shot on the border," et cetera, et cetera. So you've got the connections now between the U.S. border agents and a drug smuggler. Now, it's never been -- nobody's ever accused this guy of being a dirty border agent, if I'm not mistaken, Tara, right?



SETMAYER: Oh, that's correct. No one questioned or investigated the nature of this relationship.

GLENN: Correct.

SETMAYER: I mean, he was best friends with the drug smuggler's brother. He accompanied the drug smuggler's sister on her 15th birthday. They have close ties.

So we move forward. No one seems to think anything's wrong with that. They move forward and Homeland Security opens up this investigation. They send Christopher Sanchez, who is the investigator, down to Fabens, Texas and they send him over into Mexico to find the drug smuggler. They offer him immunity, free border crossing cards and free healthcare to come back across the border and testify against Ramos and Compean.

Now, at this point Ramos and Compean are arrested, and I have to tell you that when they interviewed the other agents who were on scene, those other agents' stories changed dramatically from their initial version of events to what they testified to at trial. Basically they were all given proffer letters, which is some sort of an immunity deal after --

GLENN: We won't come after you.

SETMAYER: That's right, we won't come after you if you tell us the "Real" story.

GLENN: Right.

SETMAYER: Which was that Ramos and Compean shot an innocent guy as he was running away. Now, anyone who knows Ramos and Compean or just looks at the basic facts of this case, it's reasonable for them to believe this gentleman was armed. Sara Carter, who is a reporter who broke this story nationally, she interviewed Davila's family and they said that he's been running drugs since he was 14 years old and he was never seen without a gun.

Now, during the trial that image of Mr. Davila was completely changed. He was a poor innocent waif who was just smuggling drugs one time to pay for money for his sick mother's medicine -- to get money for his sick mother's medicine. We all know that that's not true. As a matter of fact, while he was under immunity waiting to testify against the agent, he smuggled another load of drugs four months before the trial. The government knew it and they went before the judge and asked all of that evidence to be sealed so the jury would never hear about it.

GLENN: Which is highly unusual when somebody is convicted -- or when somebody else is arrested again. During a trial usually that person is thrown out.

SETMAYER: Well, the interesting thing about this, Glenn, is that he actually was not arrested. According to the -- this is --

GLENN: I know.

SETMAYER: This is where it gets interesting. According to the DEA report which we were able to obtain, about six months after all hell broke loose, they had already been convicted and Johnny Sutton was denying that the October load ever happened and he was, you know, speaking in lawyer, lawyerly terms to try to deny that that had ever happened because it was all under seal. One day the DEA documents show up at my door and it was proof and it was a full account of what happened in October of 2005 before the trial. And what happened is that Davila was identified as dropping off a load of 800 pounds of drugs at a stash house in Texas. When the DEA and border patrol raided that stash house, they were told by the U.S. attorney's office that no one was to be taken into custody at that time. That came from Johnny Sutton's office. So it's very curious why they didn't pursue arresting anyone at the stash house even though they fully identified -- the occupants of that stash house fully identified Aldrete Davila as being the individual who dropped off that load of drugs. So no, technically he wasn't arrested. Why the hell not.

GLENN: Now, Johnny Sutton at the time said there weren't any of these cards that helped people go across the border and if he knew where he was, he would make sure that he was arrested and all of these things, which have all turned out to be false. Johnny Sutton I believe is a dirty official and I believe the dirt and the grime go all the way to the President of the United States. I think this is a -- my spider senses, everything in me tells me something isn't right. But to try to get anybody to talk is impossible. I've talked to several people who have been instrumental in this case and other cases like it, who have been -- who are instrumental at the highest levels that are now starting to say, "Wait a minute, you know what, I was part of, you know, X, Y and Z and now I see I've been lied to and being used and we're in real trouble because there's something else going on. But they won't go on the air because some of these people are still sitting in those positions and they are trying to figure out what it is. But they are looking.

SETMAYER: Glenn, let me tell you. When we first start -- when members of congress first started to raise the profile of this case a year and a half ago, right before the agents had to report for it to begin their prison terms in January, there were a lot of very strange things going on, including the fact that Department of Homeland Security officials lied to four Texas members of congress.

GLENN: This is where I got involved.

SETMAYER: Yes. This is in September of 2006 when members of congress first started to investigate, they asked for a briefing from Homeland Security to say, okay, what's really going on here. Well, those Homeland Security officials told those members of congress that, one, Ramos and Compean confessed; two, they knew the guy was unarmed; and three, that they said they wanted to shoot some Mexicans that day. Well, that didn't sit too well with those members of congress. So they asked for proof of these allegations. And guess what, that proof never happened. And for four and a half months after that, the official report of investigation that was used to prosecute these gentlemen was not released. It hadn't even been finished yet, which is highly unusual. And it took members of congress complaining and going public about it for the Homeland Security department to finally release the report of investigation which they did under classified -- it was classified first. And then we said, that's not acceptable. So they released a redacted version. And guess what. None of what they claimed was in that report.

GLENN: Didn't the -- didn't the head of Homeland Security or one of the head guys of Homeland Security actually say in testimony in congress that you had been -- congressman, I'm sorry, you have been misled?

SETMAYER: Yes. He said misinformed. It was the inspector general Richard Skinner. He was being questioned by congressman John Culberson and that was his response: Well, I'm sorry, but you were misinformed. Well, you know, where I come from, that's called a lie.

GLENN: Yeah. Now, Tara Setmayer is with Congressman Rohrabacher and she and the congressman has been on this nonstop. Congressman is going to join us tone. In a few minutes I'm going to play some audio. Dan, is this the first time this audio has been heard? Okay. You probably have not heard this audio most likely. It is audio from the jurors saying, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. If I would have known these things about the drug smuggler, things would have been wildly different." And it shows how -- because remember, "The jurors have spoken. Don't you believe in the rule of law?" No, not when the rule of law has been so turned upside down on its head. Justice is justice. You've got to make sure that it is equally applied and there's not something else going on. There is something else going on. We're going to give you that audio which has not been heard and has not been played on this program until today. We will give you this audio here in just a second. And also somebody who has been very, very close to this case with some more insight coming up in just a minute. But also when -- Tara, when we come back, Tara actually had to speak to Compean and Ramos yesterday. It was just Ramos yesterday that you spoke to?

SETMAYER: Yes, just Ramos.

GLENN: And she broke the news to him. Remember, he's in solitary confinement, quote, for his own protection. We will get that story from her coming up in just a second. Don't miss a second of the next few minutes on the Glenn Beck program.

(Goldline)

GLENN: Tara, yesterday -- we've got about two minutes. Tell me what happened yesterday afternoon when you had to deliver the news yesterday afternoon that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had denied the appeal for Compean and Ramos?

SETMAYER: Now, I had my normal status call scheduled already yesterday and we got the decision about 30 minutes before I had to speak to Nacio and so, I being sure that his lawyer was on the phone, because I honestly couldn't bring myself to break the news to him but I was on the call and it was devastating. It was one of the most difficult conversations I've ever had to endure. Nacio was crushed. You know, he was obviously upset and his biggest concern was, Tara, what can you do to get me out of solitary confinement. These gentlemen are enduring conditions worse than prisoners of Guantanamo Bay. He is in a cell 23 hours of 24 hours a day. He is not allowed on weekends. He is not allowed to watch television. He is not allowed to socialize with anyone. He is in the hole.

GLENN: He does, he does listen to the radio, right?

SETMAYER: He does.

GLENN: He does listen to this program?

SETMAYER: He does. He's listening to this program. And Nacio, we're fighting for you. We're going to do what we can to get you out of there and keep your head up because the American people are behind you and members of congress are behind you and we're going to do whatever we can to get you out of there.

GLENN: You know, Nacio, I know you're listening. It is -- I, last week, what is it, two weeks ago I actually spent some time with your wife and it was -- I didn't take it lightly when I looked her in the eye and said, there's a lot of us fighting. There's a lot of us that believe in this cause and we are not going to give up. And it was something that you don't say lightly to somebody who has somebody in prison for something that you believe is an unjust verdict but I tell you it is a sentiment that runs through a large sector of our society that is aware of this case.

SETMAYER: Well, Glenn, I agree with you and it's amazing to me how the President and Johnny Sutton can sleep at night if they looked into the eyes of the wives and the children of these agents, I can't imagine they would feel the same way. I can't believe, was it really worth it for them.

GLENN: Tara, we will talk to you again and thank you so much for your hard work. And we'll also give you an opportunity to speak directly to Nacio Ramos coming up on the program here.

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.