Glenn Beck: Stopping the libs


U.S. Senator John E. Sununu

GLENN: Wouldn't that be a dream come true. There's got to be a roadblock on these crazy, crazy policies and honestly, America, is Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and Barack Obama, is that the face of America? Is that a representation of what you believe in? People ask me all the time, "Glenn, what can I do?" I'll tell you what you can do. You can start concentrating on some of the races that are happening in states to be able to have somebody at least be a speed bump on the way to a socialist state and somebody who has a spine. So we thought we would start connecting out and looking for some of these senators that are in close races and get a feel tore them and see if they will actually have a spine, if it comes time to stand up against all these things, will they do it.

Senator John Sununu is with us now. Hello, Senator, how are you, sir?

SENATOR SUNUNU: Good afternoon. I'm going to be more than a speed bump, Glenn.

GLENN: I hope so.

SENATOR SUNUNU: I will stand strong, believe me.

GLENN: Okay, let me ask you a couple of questions. First of all, when it comes to guns, I know you have an excellent record on guns. I'm very concerned about the possibility of civil unrest in this country. I am very concerned about Barack Obama and Joe Biden and their record on guns. Can you see any scenario to where you would say, you know what, we need to suspend the Second Amendment, we need to reach out and take away guns?

SENATOR SUNUNU: No, no, of course not. Of course not. You know, the operative language there is it's an amendment. This isn't a suggestion. It's a constitutional right. And the thing to be concerned about is really the way in which we lose a right like that. It's not all at once.

GLENN: Yes.

SENATOR SUNUNU: No one will talk about suspending the Second Amendment but they will talk about a new rule on registration, a new rule on licensing, a new restriction on who can own a handgun, a new restriction on where you can. I mean, we saw the D.C. gun ban and so, you know, someone like Barack Obama in the heat of a campaign uses carefully scripted language to suggest one thing but, of course, his record isn't just a little bit different than what he says. Go back to his record as a state senator in Chicago. I mean, it was about confiscation.

GLENN: Senator, what is the Second Amendment? If I hear one more person say it's about hunters rights, what is the Second Amendment there for?

SENATOR SUNUNU: It's the right of an individual to keep and bear arms.



GLENN: For what purpose? Why did they put that in there?

SENATOR SUNUNU: Well, two things. One, personal protection. Protection of your family and your property. And two is because it ultimately does provide a check, as the founders knew. We needed a lot of checks and balances on the potential, the tyranny of the states.

GLENN: Got it, okay.

SENATOR SUNUNU: You know, state power can be exercised in many, many different ways. And we give the state power. We give law enforcement power. But that always has to be checked.

GLENN: Good.

SENATOR SUNUNU: By protections for personal freedom, civil liberties, right to bear arms and the like.

GLENN: Okay. I could vote for you now on the gun issue. Now talk to me about the -- 

SENATOR SUNUNU: You were pretty tough.

GLENN: Talk to me about the economy now.

SENATOR SUNUNU: Well, you know, this is the biggest financial crisis we've seen in 70 years. It's frustrating because we're in uncharted territory and we don't -- and we should never use a crisis like this as an excuse to take power away from individuals, power away from investors or small businesses and so I certainly won't support any effort to do that and I think ultimately we need to recognize, you know, where we have regulation. The reason for regulation is to protect the individual, protect the consumer. You know one thing I did five years ago is I saw the taxpayers were exposed to what Fannie and Freddie were doing. So Chuck Hagel and I wrote a bill in the Senate five years ago to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are government-sponsored companies. They shouldn't have had trillion dollar investment portfolios. I think you did a couple of programs on this.

GLENN: Yes, I did.

SENATOR SUNUNU: Every Democrat voted against our bill in the Senate banking committee in 2005. They were protecting Fannie and Freddie. You know politicians pressured Fannie and Freddie to lend to people that weren't creditworthy. They didn't like our bill because it was too tough and now unfortunately taxpayers were put on the hook.

Now, moving forward we've got to make sure that these companies are taken off the government backstop, they should compete privately. Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing their business.

GLENN: Why wouldn't we -- because I know that you voted for the bailout bill. Why, A, why did you do that; and B, why, if we did a bailout bill, why wouldn't we say just like we do with the FDIC, if we have to come in and bail you out, we're closing you down, we're going to sell you off and close you down.

SENATOR SUNUNU: Well, sure. That's a fair question. What we did say is if you participate in the program, you've got -- you know, we can take a warrant for the upside, you've got to -- it's a temporary program, it's available to everyone, we've got limits on the golden parachutes obviously, you shouldn't be paying golden parachutes if you are receiving some government support. To be clear, you know, I said no action, I didn't think we should have taken any action on AIG, on Bear Stearns, on Lehman, I said so at the time, because we shouldn't be picking individual companies. The reason I think to take some steps to give Treasury an ability to step in here is the credit markets. You know, our credit markets were absolutely frozen.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR SUNUNU: And that prevents access to credit for a family, a student loan, a home loan at risk. That's the only reason to act.

GLENN: Tell me about taxes. We have out-of-control spending, we have a debt that is about to crush us, we've racked up another -- we're about to approach, I bet you, the first trillion dollar deficit.

SENATOR SUNUNU: First and foremost, the way to balance a budget is by cutting spending. You don't balance a budget by raising taxes. I don't know anyone that's ever balanced a budget by raising taxes. In '97 the balanced budget agreement we put together cut taxes and controlled spending. That's the key. I'm one of only 15 senators in the Senate that voted against the Bridge to Nowhere, I'm sorry to say, but I am pleased to say I was one of them. I voted against -- I mean, the farm bill we had was a disgrace. Terrible for taxpayers in New Hampshire, terrible for taxpayers nationwide. My opponent came out and said she would have supported it. It had subsidies for farmers earning $750,000 a year. Now, I suppose a few people in the Midwest may think that's great but it's not a good deal for New Hampshire. Look, we need to control spending. We haven't done it.

GLENN: Will you stand firm on cutting spending and firm on raising taxes, no matter what you would hear? Can you make a case, can you foresee a case -- 

SENATOR SUNUNU: Here's what I'm pleased to say. I don't have to convince you. I just need to get you to go and look a little bit at my background and record. Now, you know, I'm sure there are a couple of votes someone could find in six years in the Senate that they thought, well, you could have been tougher on this program, but I've never voted to increase taxes. I voted consistently against pork barrel spending on the Bridge to Nowhere, farm bill, I opposed the transportation bill that had thousands of earmarks in it. I even took a stand against the 2003 energy bill. It was a Republican bill. It didn't allow drilling in ANWR, it didn't lift the ban on offshore drilling but it spent a ton of money and had a lot of subsidies in it.

GLENN: I'm going to go -- if you don't mind holding on, Senator, I want to hold you over to the next break because I want to talk to you a little bit about energy.

SENATOR SUNUNU: You bet.

GLENN: What can you do? Get involved locally if you hear somebody that you agree with. More with John Sununu coming up.

(OUT 11:42)

GLENN: >From New Hampshire, an election where it is close, Senator John Sununu. He is a Republican and a guy who said he won't be a speed bump in congress, that he will actually have a spine and stand up. Senator, the problem with Republicans right now, for people like me, I voted Republican my whole life, I have a really difficult time voting for the GOP or really supporting them because I don't think they've learned their lesson since 2004 and 6. What is the lesson that you think the Republicans should have learned? What is their base telling them that they don't get?

SENATOR SUNUNU: It's hard. I can't answer for every Republican activist or supporter in the country that was, you know, frustrated and angry in 2006, but I do think first and foremost, stand up for what you believe in and, you know, the core Republican values, limited government, low taxes, local control, controlling spending. And I think on some of the big spending bills that we just mentioned before the break, we had a budget-busting transportation bill that I opposed. It was pushed forward by the Republicans. In 2001 we had a budget-busting farm bill which I opposed but it was pushed forward by Republicans. You know, that's the problem.

GLENN: You are exactly right.

SENATOR SUNUNU: We had that prescription drug benefit which I opposed because it just didn't have enough long-term checks on the growth in the program and didn't do enough to encourage competition and choices for seniors' healthcare. So I think that's first and foremost the thing that we got away from and it hurt in 2006.

GLENN: All right. Talk to me a little bit about oil. Are you a global warming guy?

SENATOR SUNUNU: Drill here, drill now.

GLENN: Okay.

SENATOR SUNUNU: You know, the problem with the left on energy is their energy policy for 20 years -- you know, I have to give them credit for consistency. 20 years, 30 years maybe, it starts with a list of the things they won't do. They won't drill offshore, they won't drill in northern Alaska, they won't explore oil shale, they won't encourage nuclear power, and it ends with a dream where everyone is driving an electric car driven off a grid powered with solar energy and there's nothing in between. There's no middle. There's no -- there's not, "Well, how do we even get from here to there," let alone they don't think about the cost effect. Look, in New Hampshire, I'd like to see us use more alternative energy but in New Hampshire five years from now most people will still be using oil to heat their home.

GLENN: Yeah.

SENATOR SUNUNU: So I want to keep the price of that oil down. How do you do it? Lift the ban on offshore drilling, produce in northern Alaska, use oil shale, and we also have a great power plant, a nuclear power plant. Seabrook here in New Hampshire. It's the last one that was commissioned in the U.S. and it's one of the best performing and one of the ones with the best safety record. That's what we need more of in America.

GLENN: The difference between you and your opponent in New Hampshire.

SENATOR SUNUNU: Well, she's against lifting the ban on offshore drilling. She spent 30 years trying to destroy the nuclear power industry in America. She supports oil windfall taxes which Jimmy Carter tried in 1980 and it increased our dependence on imports. You know, she supported the farm bill that had subsidies in it for farmers making $750,000 a year. She tried to get New Hampshire a sales tax. Glenn, you might know, New Hampshire is the only state in the country with no sales tax, no income tax.

GLENN: I love you.

SENATOR SUNUNU: You put a sales tax on people in New Hampshire, you hurt them but you also destroy all of our small businesses and our border towns, the city of Nashua, town of Salem, they do well because people come to New Hampshire from Massachusetts and Maine and Vermont to shop. So it would destroy our economy. So big difference on leadership, on energy, on tax policy. She's a creature of the far left and I obviously have a good record. Standing up for what I think is right for New Hampshire, sometimes that's put me at odds with the party but I really believe that I do what's in the interest of the state and the country every time.

GLENN: Senator, I can't vote for you but I have been thinking recently about contacting somebody in ACORN to register me there in New Hampshire.

SENATOR SUNUNU: Don't even go there. Don't even go there.

GLENN: But I think if I'm technically dead, I could vote for you if they could get me registered. If I were dead or a cartoon character.

SENATOR SUNUNU: I can't give you any advice there. I hope you will encourage your listeners, and I will say certainly for your listeners in the New Hampshire area, we have a debate that's going to be played on New Hampshire public television. I'm sorry. That's the only viewing choice. But at 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, New Hampshire public television and, hey, I would love for everyone in New Hampshire just to watch that debate and make a good informed choice for themselves. They can also go on our website and we've got to a connect there for the downloading and live streaming for the debate on the Internet as well.

GLENN: One last question. Any way you find yourself supporting any choice that would cause you to support the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR SUNUNU: No.

GLENN: You stopped my heart there for a second.

SENATOR SUNUNU: No, no.

GLENN: Okay, good. Thank you, senator. I appreciate it.

SENATOR SUNUNU: Great to be with you, Glenn. All the best.

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.