Glenn Beck: Time to act



Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

GLENN: Good friend of the program, Jonah Goldberg. Hello, Jonah.

GOLDBERG: Hello, sir, how are you?

GLENN: Well, I'm pretty good. I'm pretty good. I'm -- as we talked yesterday or last night, I'm a little, I guess shocked how many people are trapped in this place of, "Okay, well, I guess I'll go down the socialist route just a little bit because I don't want something really, really bad to happen." And you are a guy who is -- I mean, you wrote one of my favorite books, Liberal Fascism, that somebody asked me just the other day, Glenn, I want to read about socialism, where do I start. And I said, only one place to start, Liberal Fascism.

GOLDBERG: See, now you are guilting me.

GLENN: I'm just playing the role of the administration or Nancy Pelosi. Just trying to guilt you into it. Yet you know that this is really bad for us. If this bill would have come through, you know this was really bad.

GOLDBERG: I agree the bill is really bad, I agree. I think there are all sorts of saner things that could be done. I'm not saying that we wouldn't need to spend some large amount of money in some way down the road, but this doesn't strike me as the way to do it. I guess my problem is I am just so frustrated with this entire mess. The rank hypocrisy and corruption all over the place that, you know -- and while my heart is entirely with the Mike Pences and free market guys and the House Republicans, you know, Republicans ran the congress for most of the last eight years and they let Barney Frank, they get Chris Dodd play the games that they played that got us into this mess. They didn't fight Bush on prescription drugs, they didn't fight Bush on all sorts of things and now with the place burning down around them, they've become purists about enforcing the fire codes and --

GLENN: Here's what I -- I mean, Jonah, here's -- I'm with you that I can't take the hypocrisy. I can't look at Barney Frank anymore. I can't, I can't take it.

GOLDBERG: I almost think the guy should be in jail.

GLENN: Oh, I do, too. I absolutely do. Honestly I think we should have at least, bare minimum we should have stockades in front of the capitol building. Some of these people are out and out criminal on what they have done. I had -- who was it yesterday -- Senator DeMint that said this -- this is a quote from a U.S. senator: This government has betrayed the American people. And nobody's going down that road. But here's my problem, Jonah, and how do you say, how do you give the same exact people $770 billion? They say they can fix it. They created it and they won't even admit to it.

GOLDBERG: They made this problem when they created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those things have our implied -- I mean us taxpayers, the few of us who are left, we're going to be paying those taxes in chickens any day now. We gave our implied support for these things when we created those institutions. And in the 1990s and the early 2000s, those institutions went off the rails. And so the taxpayers are legitimately on the hook for it. I don't mind -- I mean, of course I mind, but I can stomach the spending of the money if I think it's going to work because essentially it was -- you know, the government created this problem. The taxpayers are on the hook for what the government does and the government has to honor its obligations.

GLENN: Right.

GOLDBERG: The government made these obligations. I agree with you it's annoying to empower the same class that created these problems but the next class that's about to come in is even worse. I mean, the Pelosi, Reid, Obama guys are poised to take over and those guys are going to -- as we've talked about it a million times, they really do want a new New Deal. So when I agree with you, look, it's just -- you know, John Boehner said this bill was a crap sandwich but he was going to eat it. As far as I'm concerned, it's crap sandwiches for as far as the eye can see.

GLENN: It really, truly is crap sandwiches for as far as the eye can see. Let me ask you this: When was the last time you saw the President of the United States make this kind of effort, with a speech last Thursday, then a speech to Wall Street Friday morning, one yesterday morning, another one today with these dire, dire warnings and yet they're still saying, well, it would be a recession. How many recessions have we gone through, Jonah? We keep going through recessions. We don't have this.

GOLDBERG: Look, I think, you know, John McCain got a bad rap a couple of weeks ago when he said the fundamentals of this economy were strong. He probably shouldn't have said it politically, it was probably a dumb idea but once he said it, he should not have let Obama beat him up on it. Because in the middle of a panic, you are not supposed to spread panic. FDR, one of the few things he really did, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and all that kind of thing. And Obama took the juvenile position that the thing to do in the middle of a panic is to scream fire. So I don't fault Bush for, you know, trying to sort of skirt the line.

GLENN: I agree.

GOLDBERG: Between stability and scare mongering but it's a difficult line to cross.

GLENN: Right, and I'm not asking you, I'm not asking you about that because I don't think the President has a choice. But this is the fundamental problem that we have in the United States of America and no bailout of any size is going to correct this. When John McCain was talking about the fundamentals of the economy are strong, I believe what he means is the average person, the average person is the engine of the economy and I know that's -- I think that's what he said a couple of days later. But it's true, the entrepreneur is fine if you just get out of his way.

GOLDBERG: Yeah, productivity, the worker productivity which really is the fundamental engine of all prosperity is actually doing pretty good.

GLENN: Right. But the problem is, the fundamental problem is trust.

GOLDBERG: Yeah.

GLENN: The President no longer can say -- he can't say how bad it really is because he's the President. You can't scare the market. You can't scare people in that. But nobody believes anybody in congress. Nobody believes anybody in the White House. Nobody believes anybody in Wall Street. Nobody believes anything because we have been lied to over and over again. So Jonah, how do you get the word out when -- and this is a problem I've been facing now for two years. How do you get the problem out and really vocalize when no one is trustworthy?

GOLDBERG: Look, I agree it's an enormous problem. Look at John McCain, right? He suspends his campaign and comes to Washington because the Democratic leadership said we need John McCain here to get a deal worked out. John McCain suspends his campaign, comes to Washington and they ride him out on a rail, they ridicule it as a stunt and the press openly and without reservation flies into the bald Democratic lie that there was a deal already nailed down just so they can make it look like John McCain blew up the deal. Now, you disagree with the deal, but there was no deal and you disagree with McCain's position on this.

GLENN: Right.

GOLDBERG: But McCain is the only guy in his entire political class, in the top tier political class that wants to treat this crisis like a crisis and the media and the Democrats joined forces to ridicule and belittle him as some sort of fool. It is an incredibly poisonous situation. You know, in the middle ages Harry Reid would have his stomach cut open and a half starved weasel thrown in for the kind of things he's doing.

GLENN: Got to blame it on living in the Dark Ages now. Okay, so help me out. Because I was watching TV early this morning. I turned on the TV and I'm getting ready for work and I see Nancy Pelosi give that speech and then I see Harry Reid say something and then Barney Frank said something and they are all blaming this on, "There was absolutely no standards here. They were trying to stop regulation." Well, there's no regulation on the hedge funds and nobody seems to have a problem with that one and that thing's going to come apart anytime. It was not a Republican stop regulation thing. It started as a Democrat, "We're going to call you a racist if you don't make these loans to people," and continued on with a Republican administration that did the same damn thing. How can you get that down to the average person so they can understand when the media is not reporting this at all.

GOLDBERG: No, look, I agree entirely on it. It is outrageous that Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank have been going around saying this is the failure of the free market. You know, Christopher Dodd said, "Oh, we didn't have enough oversight." He is the chairman of the banking committee! His job is to run oversight of the banking industry! It is amazing that these guys can say this stuff with a straight face. You would think the press pool would just dive for cover for fear of God's lightning bolts coming down to smite fees people for their effrontery. And yet it is par for the course. Everyone's talking about, you know, you tell a lot about people by how they sort of interpret facts that bolster their own ideological, you know, preconceptions, and that happens on the right and the left. But it is amazing that after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac came up with all of these bizarre ways of slicing and dicing mortgages into ever more complicated schemes in order to personally enrich Franklin Raines nearly to the tune of $100 million that people are saying, oh, this has something to do with the inherent failures of the free enterprise system. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stuff that Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd and these guys champion, distorted the market. And yes, there were bad actors on Wall Street who did bad things who, you know, who took the lead of government and personally enriched themselves, and shame on them. But the market was screwed up by these guys who want to sort of rate banks not on the soundness of their loans but on their social conscience in terms of giving out money to groups like ACORN and historically, you know, aggrieved and disadvantaged groups, which is not the way proper business runs. And now we're living with this enormous mess and these guys want to use it as an excuse to turn the entire financial system into the Fannie Mae of their dreams. And it is a really scary situation.

GLENN: Jonah Goldberg, in your book Liberal Fascism, you talk about the -- you know, you talk about how all of this started, that the New Deal was started way before, just a different mindset and how America changed its mindset. There are two kinds of Americas now. There are the Americans that are the traditional Americans that are like, get the heck out of my way and I don't want a handout and I never ask you for a handout. And then there are those Americans who are saying, well, they're bailing them out; how come they won't bail me out. Now, I would say that as a, you know, to make a point, they are not coming to bail me out but I would never want them to bail me out. But a growing number of Americans want that bailout. A, do you think this is a slam dunk now for Barack Obama because the tide is moving towards, I want somebody to hold my hand and, you know, scratch my back and prop my feet up on a pillow and big government's the one to do it; and B, what do you think about the new New Deal? What is coming our way?

GOLDBERG: Well, I think you are right. History quickly. Woodrow Wilson creates more during World War I. FDR says we were onto something with socialism during World War I, let's do that to fight the Great Depression. The New Deal prolongs the Great Depression rather than fight the Great Depression. It extends the shelf life of the Depression by years. Europe's Depressions weren't great in the 1930s. Only America's was. What FDR's revolutionary tactic in American politics was to change citizens who had rights and freedoms that were independent of government, to clients of a government that would give them everything that they need. And now we've got a sizable number of Americans who think that the government is their mommy or daddy and that they should be the government's trust fund babies and get all sorts of stuff from the government. And I think that Obama fits entirely within that tradition, the way he talks about, you know, unity and how we all have to sort of, you know, be on the same page and if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem and, you know, how his wife talks about he is going to fix our broken souls and all these sorts of things. He comes explicitly from that same perspective and says that we're going to turn all Americans basically into clients of the state. Doesn't necessarily mean we're going to live in a Nazi dictatorship or anything like that but he no longer views -- you know, in his speech at the Democratic convention he very straightforwardly ridiculed the idea of the American dream -- or replaced the idea of the American dream with what he calls the idea of the American promise, and the American promise is a collectivist vision where everybody gets their payday from the government rather than the American dream where every individual gets to pursue happiness as they see fit.

GLENN: I'm sure you know this, Jonah, but he's going to be the first -- this is part of his deal. He is going to be the first person ever to, when you get -- if you didn't pay taxes, you're going to get a rebate check from the IRS, but you're going to have a letter that comes from President Obama that says, this is your check, this is your money, this is the American promise. He's going to be the first one that is actually issuing checks for those who, on a regular basis, that did not pay taxes.

GOLDBERG: No, that's right. I mean, Obama has half a point when he says the people do pay sales taxes and all the rest. But when he calls these things a tax cut, you know, it's an incredibly simplistic but brilliant marketing because basically what he's doing is just giving these people cash and saying, here, I've cut your taxes. I think the best single fundamental reform for our country would simply be no more paycheck withholding, no more sales tax. If you want to keep the income tax, fine, but once a year you write out your check to the federal government so it really distinction and on the back you'll vote for who you want for President in congress. And if people have to pay their taxes in one lump sum and vote on the same day, we would have limited government in this country.

GLENN: You ain't kidding. You are not kidding. Jonah, thanks very much. I appreciate it. We'll talk to you again.

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.