Glenn talks with Scott Rasmussen




For First Time, McCain Edges Ahead Of Obama In Tracking Poll


GLENN: About an hour ago Scott Rasmussen put out a new -- results of a new poll that show that for the first time John McCain is ahead. You know, I hate looking at these polls now because, you know, "If the election were held today," well, if the election were held today, we would all be surprised what happened in September, October, we would all be shocked. I mean, it's ridiculous to look at these things now, but it is quite interesting to look at this poll because I can't believe that with everything that Barack Obama has going for him, he's not 30 points ahead. But he's not.

Scott Rasmussen, welcome to the program, sir.

RASMUSSEN: It's great to be with you, Glenn. By the way, if the election were held today, there's an awful lot of people that will be relieved it's over.

GLENN: (Laughing). What is the fatigue? Have you done anything on this? What is the fatigue of the American people on this thing?

RASMUSSEN: I don't know, but it's been a long process and what is interesting is that for most of the process, Republicans are really discouraged. They didn't want anything to do with it, but they are starting to get a little more interest now and that's partly because their guy isn't doing as bad as they expected.

GLENN: Yeah, and it's not -- but you know what? He's also come to the table now on offshore drilling. You know what? I think what's going to -- have you seen anything on this? I think what's going to hurt McCain is the seeming flip-flopping back and forth, unclear answer on taxes.

RASMUSSEN: Yeah. Taxes are a critical issue for any Republican candidate to be clear on and that has not been his strong suit. The reason that John McCain is doing well right now is because a couple of things. Number win is because it's all about Obama and right now people are starting to say, we're not quite as sure. We want to vote for a Democrat; we're not sure about this Democrat. 46% say Obama looks at American society and sees a society that is unfair and discriminatory and that's not the way the American people look at it.

On the energy issue, people now trust John McCain more than Obama and that's specifically related to the offshore drilling initiative that he began. So those things have helped, but taxes is an issue that if John McCain isn't clear on that at the end of the day, Barack Obama will steal it from him.

GLENN: Do you believe if the election were held today that John McCain would win?

RASMUSSEN: If the election were held today, we would be up very late at night watching the results in a couple of critical states and --

GLENN: Do you believe that -- do you believe that people say to you, as a pollster, things that they don't really believe?

RASMUSSEN: Sometimes some people absolutely do. But the overwhelming majority of people are so thrilled to really have a chance to voice their opinion because nobody really listens to them that the results overall tend to work out very well. And we know that because of other election history, but... we're talking still three months before the election. And Glenn, one thing that this poll does indicate and it's details that nobody goes into. One out of three voters still say they might change their mind. I mean, they are not locked in, they aren't in love with either of these candidates.

GLENN: And is that equal on both sides?

RASMUSSEN: It's equal on both sides.

GLENN: The idea that you've got, what is it, 2% of Democrats changing party affiliation now, is that possibly at all anything with what Rush calls Operation Chaos where he said go register as a Republican and then get out, or do you have any reason to see why people are leaving the Democratic party by 2 percentage points?

RASMUSSEN: Well, I'm sure it has nothing to do with Operation Chaos because our polling measures what people consider themselves. If you were a Republican and you went to register as a Democrat, you would still consider yourself a Republican for when you were talking to all your buddies. But I think what has happened is the Democrats got a huge bump early in the year because people were excited by the competition between Clinton and Obama. And they went, they opened up a 10-point lead over Republicans in terms of partisan ID and now a little bit of that's fading. The show isn't quite as good without Hillary in it. Some of her supporters are less enthralled and so there's just a little bit of a decline. It's going to be interesting. At this time two years ago, the Democrats, the number of the party ID was starting to surge and that's what helped push Democrats over the top in their race for control of the Senate. We'll watch how these trends go in the next few months.

GLENN: Is there any chance that 1% of the U.S. population that is actually going to go out and vote is -- because I don't believe we're a racist nation. I don't believe -- you know, but I'm a white guy and I don't see it and, you know, yada, yada, yada. I believe there's probably 1% of this nation that might say in public or to a pollster, I'll vote for Barack Obama, you bet, nothing wrong -- but when they get into the voting booth that they would close the curtain and say, I'm not voting for a black man. Do you think there's 1% that would do that?

RASMUSSEN: I think there is some percentage that would do that. None of us know how big it is. I know it is a smaller percentage than we saw a decade ago.

GLENN: What's your --

RASMUSSEN: I know that two years ago when we did Harold Ford's race, it was virtually nonexistent. The polls were very good at Harold Ford's Senate race but there is a difference between voting for U.S. senator and a President. 8%, by the way, 8% of voters tell us they would never vote for an African-American.

GLENN: The idea that Barack Obama is arrogant with, like, things like O Force One, you know, and arugula and, you know, his wife saying $600 earrings, you know, what are you going to do with your tax rebate. I mean, sure you go out and buy $600 earrings. My wife doesn't have $600 earrings unless I bought them for her.

RASMUSSEN: She needs to work on that.

GLENN: No, she's working on it quite a bit. Let me rephrase it. My wife won't go out and buy $600 earrings but she will make sure and go that I go out and buy $600 earrings for her. But is there anything you're seeing where it's starting to connect with people that they really are not like the average person, that they are arrogant?

RASMUSSEN: Well, you know, it's hard to get a precise read on that. We said is somebody arrogant. All the McCain supporters would say yes, Obama's arrogant and all the Obama supporters would say no. But what we do see happening is Obama's favorability ratings have begun to sleep. A number of people that have a favorable opinion of him is now down to 51%. That's the lowest it's been since he got the nomination. And it's coming at a time when his support among Democrats is rising. It's the unaffiliated voters that are beginning to have more doubts. So I would say that maybe partly because of a perception of arrogance. It may be partly because of energy issues. There's a whole variety of things that could play into it, but -- and it may just be, by the way, that in the Internet era, Barack Obama is not a fresh face anymore.

GLENN: Hmmm.

RASMUSSEN: By the way, at the end of the day we talk about all of these things on the margin. Barack Obama is going to have a couple of opportunities to refrain our image of him with his convention and with the debates and with his vice presidential pick. John McCain will do the same. And this is a year, the first year in a long time that what the Kennedys will do in the fall will determine the next President.

GLENN: Is there anybody that either of them should or shouldn't pick for vice president that you have seen?

RASMUSSEN: Well, if you make the assumption that they get through all the vetting procedures, I think Tim Kaine is a very good choice for Barack Obama because Virginia's demographics are changing, it is competitive and no Democrat has won Virginia since 1964. So if Tim Kaine could help put a little pressure on in that state. It's the only southern state that Obama really has a shot in.

GLENN: That's saying something, isn't that, Scott, that that's saying something? That the first African-American can't really win anything in the south?

RASMUSSEN: That's correct.

GLENN: Why is that?

RASMUSSEN: I guess if everything implodes, there's other possible states it could happen but it's just not showing up anywhere. Georgia is a state where John McCain is consistently ahead. North Carolina is closer than it's been in recent years but it is still looking like McCain territory.

GLENN: Why --

RASMUSSEN: Virginia.

GLENN: Why is that, Scott?

RASMUSSEN: Several reasons. Number one, because over the years the states with very large African-American populations in the South have -- the Democratic party has become almost exclusively African-American. White voters have become Republicans and they are simply not going to turn out. And this year I expect African-American turnout will be higher in those states and I believe white turnout will be higher as well. And it's not all because of racism. It's because the races will be a little more competitive and it's just not heading in Obama's direction. But Virginia is different. Virginia is a very competitive state right now. And I tell you what, if Barack Obama could win that state, it creates a huge challenge for John McCain.

GLENN: Anybody that John McCain could select?

RASMUSSEN: You know, I've been going over this and nobody, there's no silver bullets. I think the reason that I've finally come to that conclusion is most Republicans who have been saying this is the person that John McCain has to pick are people who didn't really want John McCain to be the nominee and they are saying we need somebody who can win despite of the fact that John McCain is the nominee. There is -- you know, you can make a case that Sarah Palin, the Alaskan governor who is very strong on the energy issue.

GLENN: I love her. Can I tell you something? I think she would be a brilliant pick because she's a total fresh face. She is -- she would be, you know, the first woman vice president. She is plain spoken. She is strong on energy. She speaks the language of the American people. I mean, I just think she would be off the charts.

RASMUSSEN: That's right. And she's a former beauty queen and captain of her state champion basketball team. What more do you want?

GLENN: Not that that doesn't hurt. I'm not saying that she's a hottie but I'm not not saying that, either.

RASMUSSEN: Well, the fact is, Glenn, she is a choice that could be very good. We don't know how she would perform in that national spotlight but, yeah, she is -- especially if Barack Obama does not pick a woman as his vice presidential nominee, that would be a very good pick. The people that I have said consistently should not be picked, and I apologize in advance, the first one on the list is Mitt Romney.

GLENN: I don't want him to be the vice president quite honestly.

RASMUSSEN: Okay, Mike Huckabee and Condoleezza Rice. They each have reasons why they would be a drag.

GLENN: Hang on. The Mitt Romney thing, is that just the religion again?

RASMUSSEN: Yeah. And it's also, John McCain needs to look a little less traditional Republican. Newt Gingrich's line is, you know, another boring white guy.

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

RASMUSSEN: And I don't think that would necessarily hurt because at the end of the day there's two things that we know are true about this race. It's more about Barack Obama than John McCain, and it's more about the presidential candidates than whoever they pick for vice president. So if it's not a Sarah Palin, the biggest thing that McCain could do is pick somebody who doesn't hurt his chances.

GLENN: If there's a story today in the, oh, I don't know, Washington Post maybe -- I can't remember where I read it -- that the Republicans are going to go for a shutdown of the government just like this happened with Bill Clinton and the Republican congress, that they're going to go for a shutdown of the congress, if Harry Reid doesn't strip out of the operating budget the ban on offshore drilling, how would that play?

RASMUSSEN: Well, you know, it's impossible to know how it would play because we don't know what the performers would do. The last time this was tried, the very first wave of polling in 1995 showed it was good for the Republicans and that's how crazy we are remembering that. But that's because the general public reaction was, well action wait a minute, if these are all nonessential employees, why don't we just get rid of them entirely. And so the first bit of polling was okay. But then Bill Clinton shifted. You want to talk about how long it was for government employees to leave them in limbo and Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich began talking presidential politics. They had a press conference where they said we're not going to concede until the White House agrees to use CBO numbers for scoring of the budget. And nobody even knew what they were talking about. Nobody --

GLENN: But this is different. If you are talking about, if the Republicans come out and say we're talking about oil.

RASMUSSEN: Right.

GLENN: And 65% say we want to drill oil and become as energy independent as we possibly can, I can't imagine how that couldn't be argued in an effective way.

RASMUSSEN: Yeah, you just said -- I absolutely agree with you. It could be a winning position. But they have to make the argument in terms, how you mentioned how Sarah Phelan talked about, it's got to be in terms that people would understand far beyond the Washington beltway. And if they do that, it can be a big plus. Anything they can do to focus on the fact that they are looking for aggressive ways to get more energy and Democrats are reluctant, that's a good positioning for the Republican party.

GLENN: Scott Rasmussen from the Rasmussen Reports. Have you seen anything on race? You know, last week the John McCain ad came out, and I said last week, this is, this is ridiculous. The guy who's playing the race card is Barack Obama. He is saying, "Oh, they're going to make you afraid of me." And I challenged him then: Tell me who is saying these things and I will stand with you against them. But you're just making these charges up and saying something that I haven't heard anybody say.

RASMUSSEN: Well, we didn't poll, you know, who --

GLENN: No, no, no, no.

RASMUSSEN: You poll the -- among people who heard of the ad that the McCain campaign ran with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, only 22% believe that ad was racist. 53% believe that Barack Obama's comment about they're going to try to scare you because I don't look like the other Presidents on the dollar bill, 53% believe that comment was racist.

GLENN: Wow, wow. Okay. Scott, thank you very much. I appreciate it, man.

RASMUSSEN: Thank you, Glenn.

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.