Glenn talks with actor Jon Voight

Related Story


Voight ignites a blog storm in Hollywood


GLENN: Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the career of academy award winning actor Jon Voight died suddenly last week. It's sad. Lab results aren't all available yet, but most experts believe that his career's death was caused by a column that he wrote in which he argued that Barack Obama and the Democrats were using Marxist propaganda to usher in a new socialist era. No. Ended soon after when later he called general Wesley Clark. I didn't think I would ever agree with somebody in Hollywood as much as I agree with Jon Voight. God speed Jon Voight's career, Jon Voight's career, dead at 62. Jon Voight, the actor, currently on the phone with us now. Hey, Jon, how are you? Jon, are you there? Jon?


VOIGHT: Yeah.

GLENN: How are you?

VOIGHT: I'm good. Can you hear me?

GLENN: Can you hear me?

VOIGHT: Yeah.

GLENN: Well, there you go. How's your career doing now?

VOIGHT: I think just fine, Glenn.

GLENN: You know, Jon, I have to tell you.

VOIGHT: I always wait for your introductions. A couple of things. Your introductions are fantastic to me. You know, and the other thing is you are such a visual person, you know, that I actually even on radio, I see you. I see the way, you know

GLENN: I apologize for that.

VOIGHT: I'm telling you, you're fantastic.

GLENN: So Jon, I saw this story, what, about a week ago, week and a half ago and, A, I mean, I don't know what would make you say that

VOIGHT: Well, you read my op ed piece.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, sure did. I can't imagine what would make you say that there's a Marxist or socialist era that they are ushering in with universal healthcare, free college tuition, universal national service, universal 401(k), free job training, wage insurance, free child care, universal preschool, more subsidized private housing, fatter earned income tax credit for the working poor and a Global Poverty Act. I don't know why you would say that they are bringing in some sort of a socialist era. But you know what I find interesting, Jon, is, and I'd like you to talk about this.

VOIGHT: Yeah.

GLENN: The way that the new Hollywood blacklist or the McCarthy era is alive and well in the one town where they should know this is evil to do this kind of stuff.

VOIGHT: Yeah, absolutely, Glenn. As heinous a thing as you can imagine to intimidate people, to try to squelch any kind of, you know, any kind of opposition to this fellow with this kind of intimidation.

GLENN: You had one of the big entertainment writers, I guess, Jeffrey Wells said and I'm just amazed at this statement. He said, quote: You'd think an arch conservative which I don't think, are you you don't think you are an arch conservative, do you?

VOIGHT: No.

GLENN: You lean to the right but you're generally center.

VOIGHT: I would you know, it's very hard. These kinds of, you know

GLENN: Labels.

VOIGHT: Labels that people put on people, I don't go for that anyway. I just think that I'm a person who's trying to find the truth and express it as I, you know, get the opportunity.

GLENN: So this guy said, think an arch conservative, working in an overwhelmingly liberal town, would think about restraining himself for expedience sake if nothing else. They are basically saying you can't have an opinion in your town if you want to have a job.

VOIGHT: Yeah, that's what they're saying.

GLENN: What do you

VOIGHT: Expedient say. Interesting, huh? That's held up as an interested of some sort.

GLENN: How do you how did you react to this? What have you done since the column?

VOIGHT: You know something, I've been kind of I haven't been as aggressive perhaps as I should have been in regard to this, you know, intimidation because it is a very pernicious act and it seems like one of the reasons why I wrote the article was because nobody knows about Michelle Obama. The people who are supporting him and cheering him, you know. If you ask them why they are voting for him, you don't get very, you know, very substantive answers.

GLENN: Yeah.

VOIGHT: You get, well, he's a nice looking fellow, I like the way he talks, he's I like change, I want change. They have no idea what the change is that this fellow is going to usher in.

GLENN: Right.

VOIGHT: And he helps them. Obama helps these people by saying very vague things. Nothing that they can put their finger on. He says things like, he said during one of his speeches he said I don't want you to just believe in me. I want you to believe in your own dreams. Well, what does that mean? It means, of course, that I'm anything you want me to be. But on the other side there's an agenda that he has that is very clear and it's and if you look into his background, you can see very clearly the agenda. And as you mentioned, when I say socialism, all those things you mentioned are part of the package, of course, if Obama becomes President. So they are trying to keep away from any understanding of what he's going to do. And the way they do it is by cutting any kind of inquiry off with this kind of intimidation. So it's a real you know, it's a really very disturbing package that we're looking at here.

GLENN: Jon, you were if I'm not mistaken, weren't you an antiwar activist back in the Sixties?

VOIGHT: I was. I was caught up in that movement as most people were.

GLENN: Sure.

VOIGHT: And probably because of that, I see a little bit more clearly now what's going on.

GLENN: What happened to you? Because you were, along with the Jane Fondas of the world and you went down that path and then what happened? Where did you change? What

VOIGHT: Well, a couple of things changed. First of all, I spent a lot of time with the Vets. I was always considerate of the Vets, thank God for that. And then I saw what happened at the end of the war which I allude to in my article. I heard from the left. And, of course, this leftist movement, it was filled with slogans and propaganda and we just went along with the crowd. It was a very popular thing. And the left was saying that the Vietnam situation was our problem, that we were the problem, that once we pulled out, everybody was going to come together and hug and it was going to be fine. And then, of course, we saw after the Paris peace accords and we pulled out, we saw what happened. The communists came in and there were, you know, two and a half million people slaughtered in Cambodia and South Vietnam. And the peace movement, looking at that carnage just turned away and walked away and never looked back. And it was very disturbing to me, and it didn't the dime didn't drop for a little while but that was the beginning of it.

GLENN: How do they because they're still doing they are still doing this and in many ways the people on the extreme left, for instance, I mean, you can even take it to oil. They don't want us to drill for oil but yet they will buy it from Saudi Arabia, a country that is so oppressive, they will buy it from Russia. They don't have a problem with what Russia is doing. And Putin is an evil guy.

VOIGHT: Pardon?

GLENN: And pow continue is such an evil guy. Where is that disconnect? Why is it just, do you think it's just a is it just a hatred for America or what is it?

VOIGHT: Well, I guess it's many things but it really is a blindness, isn't it? They don't seem to see what they're doing. Of course we would be more environmentally clean than anybody. If anybody was going to raise the environmental question, we would be the best people to be distributing oil and delivering the oil to folks throughout the world because we'll do it in a much cleaner way than anybody else. And besides the economic consequences that we're suffering now and the enemies around the world that are being benefitted by our money. All of that stuff, you know, it just seems like it seems like a no brainer that you would say, well, yes, we should be drilling for oil and we should be developing all those other alternative methods of energy as well at the same time. And then you see this phenomenon that we're looking at with Nancy Pelosi closing down the shop when people obviously want this vote to happen. And

GLENN: And, you know, I was talking about this today, Jon. There's not a single, there's not do you remember when George Bush went on vacation like two years ago and everybody was like, where is George Bush, why is he on vacation. I have not heard that from the media. Where is, where's Nancy Pelosi? Where are the Democrats when America needs a vote on oil?

VOIGHT: Exactly right. And you wonder where you know, obviously it's not it doesn't take very much to know that everybody's pretty upset. And what is the what are the senators and congressmen doing with that anger? I really, I can't, I don't get it. But, of course, the media is in the pocket of the Democratic party and no one's really reporting this.

GLENN: I have to send you some pictures of some pictures that a friend went down, I think it was in Peru, went down to Peru and there were Support Obama posters in the subways and on the highways.

VOIGHT: Amazing.

GLENN: In Peru. And you're like, what? And it was those very socialist iconic kind of images. You know what I'm talking about?

VOIGHT: Yeah.

GLENN: And he goes, I thought of you when I saw them. I have to send them to you. I saw them and I thought, this is exactly what you were talking about, that they're using the propaganda. But it is so odd. Have you ever, have you ever seen a presidential campaign that is global in its nature?

VOIGHT: Yeah. Well, you know, this is there's a strange thing going on, this alliance between the far left and the Islamists. This is a very pernicious and dangerous phenomenon we're looking at.

GLENN: What do you mean?

VOIGHT: Well, somehow the left, you know, look at the crowds that he gathers in Europe. They're lefties. And these lefties are the remains of the communist movement.

GLENN: Right.

VOIGHT: You know? And I saw I had a front row seat at that when I was in the antiwar movement. That was all manipulated by Marxists.

GLENN: And you didn't know it at the time or you just ignored it?

VOIGHT: I put it together later. And then, you know, of course there have been very good books coming out about it. David Horowitz's book was very clear.

GLENN: You remind me a lot of him.

VOIGHT: He was really on the inside of that. I saw little, you know, sprinklings of it but I really wasn't on the inside of that movement. But, of course, SDS took meetings with the communists and it was a communist victory, the antiwar movement shutting down that war.

GLENN: The reaction in Hollywood, I know they went after I love this. The editor in chief of Variety, Peter Bart, went after your quote, intellectual equipment, made fun of your relationship with your family, just went personal on you.

VOIGHT: Uh huh.

GLENN: Really just a hatchet job all around.

VOIGHT: Yeah.

GLENN: What is the reaction for the from the conservatives that you know that are afraid to come out, Jon, that don't have an Oscar?

VOIGHT: Well, you know, obviously there is I don't feel so much listen, I care so much about this country, Glenn.

GLENN: I know you do.

VOIGHT: I'm very concerned about the country, much more concerned about the country than I am about my work but, of course, I'm an older fellow.

GLENN: Yeah.

VOIGHT: You know, people know who I am. I have less ability to be intimidated in a sense than others coming up. You are absolutely right. And with these kind of attacks, they are meant to silence people. And I say that to Peter, jeez, this is as bad as it can be, fellas.

GLENN: But talk to them, did you

VOIGHT: No, I didn't. But, you know, I probably should. I've been running around doing a bunch of things, but I should talk to Peter and let him have it about this. This is really as bad as it can be. This is stuff that we've seen in the past, you know, in Nazi Germany they squelched criticism that was coming up. In every regime and throughout the history since that time, this has been in evidence. And when we've seen it, we've, you know, come out against it. But that is happening in our own country, in our own in this political campaign is quite disturbing.

GLENN: Jon, if you don't mind, I just want to share something. The first time I met you, we had dinner with some friends. And I was really impressed by you for a couple of things. You tried to set the record straight between the two of us right away, and it took a lot of courage to approach me and say the things that you did that we don't need to go into. But you were a courageous man. I looked at my wife when you walked away and I said, wow, there's a man of integrity. And then I watched you the rest of the night, and in the conversation with some very smart people, you were taking notes and what I got from that is you are a man that is still learning. You are a man that still cares enough about this country

VOIGHT: You bet, uh huh.

GLENN: that when you hear viewpoints that you may or may not agree with but you want to find out more about, you were taking notes to be able to research it more. And I have to tell you, very few people are still actively engaged in the learning process, and the learning process of the history of our country and the current history of our country in the future, and I am very impressed with you.

VOIGHT: Oh, thank you so much, Glenn. You know, in terms of learning, I might say, and I probably should say this every time I'm asked to speak, is that there are there's a hidden agenda in this, in this election. People are keeping Obama a mysterious object. But there's some books coming out and everybody should get those books.

GLENN: Yeah.

VOIGHT: There's the Corsi book, Jerome Corsi book, the Obama Nation.

GLENN: What's the other one, Stu? I'm trying to remember.

VOIGHT: The case against Barack Obama, the unlikely rise and unexamined agenda of the media's favorite candidate. These are good books for us to anybody who doesn't know what he's done, who has who every time they are asked a question, what has he done, what are his qualifications and they have no answers, they should read these books.

GLENN: Yeah.

VOIGHT: Something's happening here and we should be aware of it.

GLENN: Jon Voight, we'll talk to you again.

VOIGHT: Thank you, sir.

GLENN: You bet. Bye bye.

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.