Glenn talks with Andrew McCarthy




Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad


by Andrew C. McCarthy

RELATED ARTICLE:


No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen


GLENN: Andrew McCarthy is a guy I had on last night. Andrew McCarthy was the lead prosecutor for the '93 World Trade Center bombing. This guy has been -- I mean, he's been going after bad guys for quite some time and he's got an incredible article out about the company that he keeps on Barack Obama. And we started in on this conversation and I had, like, three and a half minutes with him last night. Started in on this conversation and there's just not enough time because the pieces of the puzzle on Barack Obama, you have to put them together yourself. And there are so many pieces out there that give us a very different picture. A disturbing picture on who Barack Obama really is based on the company that he keeps. Andrew, how are you?

McCARTHY: Glenn, I'm great, how are you?

GLENN: Very good. I want to get right to Barack Obama and the company he keeps. Before we get into it, tell me why it matters. Some people say, "Oh, you can't judge him by the people that are around him or that he's had contact with."

McCARTHY: Yeah, I used to hear that when I was a prosecutor, too, you know. They used to say you can't -- that's just guilt by association to which, you know, usually before people got convicted, I would say, well, you know, try proving conspiracy without association, you know. I mean, it's sort of an element that's of some importance. And obviously we don't condemn somebody simply because of who he associates with but, you know, people are drawn to each other for a reason, and I think there's a theme that runs through all of these troublesome connections that Obama has and frankly he's somewhat lucky, I think, even though you -- if that's a strange way to put it, that so much of this analysis has been infected by the racial element of right because I think the racial component is actually the least important of the things that strings this altogether.

GLENN: Well, the racial element is the first tip-off that this guy has Marxist tendencies.

McCARTHY: Yeah, that's exactly right. And the racial element, if you dig a little bit deeper into it, this liberation theology, this Black Liberation Theology is just really a sort of a parrot of the leftist liberation theology that was -- you know, that came to our attention so powerfully in the Sixties and Seventies in South and Central America.

GLENN: Well, I mean, here's -- I love this from your article, from the church's own mission statement that he goes to. "We are African people and we remain true to our native land, the mother continent and the cradle of civilization." The one that you would remain true to, your native land, I mean, most people that go to that church, I would imagine their native land is America.

McCARTHY: Yeah, you would hope that. I don't think that you can uncouple that with some of the, not only the fact that Obama stayed in that church for so long and, you know, had Wright marry him and baptize his children, but some of the things Michelle Obama has said hook up to this a little bit too uncomfortably for me. For example, this business in her thesis and, you know, I know we all don't want to be tagged with our college usings but again, you know, we're trying to put these pieces together. But she actually argues in the thesis that a separatist would understand the black community and the black experience in America better than one of these sort of benighted integrationists because only the separatist really understands the authentic experience and can touch that. And I just, when I hear that sort of stuff, I hear the very echoes of the part of the mission statement that you're talking about here.

GLENN: All right. So let me -- let's start at the beginning because I think Michelle Obama is the key to understanding Barack Obama. I think, you know, her statements that people dismiss on, oh, America is just downright mean or some of the stuff she just said in a speech last night that was absolutely incredible about how, you know, she went to Harvard and Princeton but people tried to keep her down there and she barely makes it and she's an anomaly and, gosh, now they're trying to take the presidency away from her husband. I mean, it's amazing stuff, but let's get to her through two other really important pieces and that is let's start with William Ayers.

McCARTHY: Right.

GLENN: William Ayers, you told me last night on television you need to read the September 11th article on William Ayers, member of the Weather Underground. Last night we posted it up on our website. I bet it's probably still there. America, you should read this. When I read it, Andrew -- I was amazed at this guy that he is allowed to be -- or that he's, not allowed, that he's so accepted by the people in Barack Obama's company.

McCARTHY: You know, Glenn, and the thing I asked you yesterday and I'm sure now that you've taken a look at it, it resonates even more. Common sense question for people. Ask yourself, could you talk to this guy for 30 seconds and not know where he was coming from.

GLENN: No.

McCARTHY: Then if the answer's no, then ask yourself if you're a person of Barack Obama's sophistication and education, is it conceivable that you could be around this guy -- and he spent quite a bit of time around him -- and not know precisely where he was coming from and how he wanted to quote/unquote change America?

GLENN: Well, it makes -- when you start to look into who his friends are, it makes a couple of things, like the flag lapel pin makes sense, that he won't wear a flag lapel pin. There is a very famous picture that we posted on the website a few months ago where he was on the phone at a campaign headquarters with a Che Guevara flag behind him.

McCARTHY: Right.

GLENN: And I thought to myself what candidate would sit in there and have that picture taken with a Che flag behind him. Well, I know exactly what candidate, a guy who would associate with William Ayers. Tell everybody about William Ayers. Take it a little deeper than what we know as member of the Weather Underground, bombed the Pentagon.

McCARTHY: Right, bombed the Pentagon, bombed other U.S. targets including the capitol, banks, U.S. headquarters, et cetera. Now, Obama waves at all that and says all that stuff happened 40 years ago, how can you blame me for stuff that happened 40 years ago. I don't want to quibble with dates, it doesn't quite happen more than 40 years ago. But more to the point, he has associated with this guy in the here and now, and that interview that we talked about a couple of minutes ago was actually published by the New York Times on sent 11th.

GLENN: Yeah, the article is entitled "No regrets For a Love of Explosions, in a memoir of sorts, he talks with life of the weatherman and he is not ashamed of it. In fact, in a very creepy way he talks about his love for and the beauty of explosions.

McCARTHY: Yep. It really is creepy is precisely the right word for it. But the reason I think it has very -- it's very important in the here and now is that it's a fresh statement, it's an indication by him that far from any regret over what he did, he actually says that he wishes that he had done more. And when he's challenged a little bit and, you know, this is the "New York Times," so he wasn't going to be challenged that much. But when he's challenged a bit on some of the things he's saying, he talks about, you know, how can you talk about America as a great country; it still makes me want to puke. Every ounce of his being --

GLENN: This is recent stuff.

McCARTHY: I'm sorry?

GLENN: This is recent stuff. This is not 1970. That's recent.

McCARTHY: No, and it's not only recent stuff, it's stuff that was vintage of the time that he was sitting on the Woods board, a left wing charitable organization, sitting on that board with Barack Obama and making appearances with him on, you know, college panels, one of which at least was arranged by Michelle when she was an associate dean at the University of Chicago.

GLENN: But it also doesn't go just to sitting on boards with him and college panels. His wife was also a, you know, 1970s terrorist activist and when Barack Obama first started launching campaigns, didn't he launch at the Ayers home?

McCARTHY: Well, that's exactly right. His coming out party was at the home of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, his wife that you just alluded to a second ago. You know, I have some stuff in the piece about Bernardine Dohrn as well who was quite a character in her own right.

GLENN: You can't leave it -- I mean, when Sharon Tate was killed, she came out and said, "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach, wild."

McCARTHY: Yeah, wild, that's what she said. You know, and that, again I suppose you could dismiss some of this as the youthful exuberance of a youthful terrorist but, you know, if there weren't -- if it wasn't so obvious that there was a freshness to it in the sense of their lack of remorse over it and Ayers, of course, saying that he wishes they had done more and, you know, one of the things I think you can't dismiss out of all of this is, you know, I'm a counterterrorism guy. So I guess maybe that's my prism for looking at a lot of this stuff. But, you know, with respect to jihadism we have both a hard jihad and a soft jihad, you know. We have people who blow up the buildings and then the people who engage in the extortion, you know, just like you pay the Gambino money man.

GLENN: Right.

McCARTHY: Because you know what the wages of resistance are. And what I fear with these characters, Ayers and Dohrn in particular, is they haven't changed where they're coming from. They haven't changed a bit the thing, the ideology that motivates them. What they've changed is their methodology. They are not blowing up buildings anymore. They are, you know, shaping mines.

GLENN: Yeah, they have been institutionalized.

McCARTHY: Exactly.

GLENN: Not in the way I would like them institutionalized. Then if you can tie into Rashid Khalidi.

McCARTHY: Well, when Dohrn -- I'm sorry, when Ayers and Obama were on the Woods board together, they were -- the board was in charge of deciding who got the largess from this organization. One place that got some money from them, a decent bit of money was the -- was Wright's church, Reverend Wright's church was awarded money as basically as an homage to Obama for his service on the board which again shows how identified to people who knew them, how identified Obama was with Wright and with that whole church.

GLENN: Sure.

McCARTHY: The other recipient I talk about is Rashid Khalidi who is a long time apologist for Yasser Arafat. Now, there's been some reporting that he was actually an official member of the PLO, that he was their spokesman. He denies that that was true, but certainly doesn't and I don't think could deny that he was a very pro-Arafat character and that he has been a supporter at least of terrorist attacks directed at Israel soldiers which he denies as resistance, not terrorism.

GLENN: This guy is tied in with Barack Obama and William Ayers in what way?

McCARTHY: Well, in two ways. Number one, when they were on the Woods board together, they voted to donate $75,000 to an outfit that he started in Chicago called the Arab American Action Network. It was co-founded by him, by Khalidi and Khalidi's wife. And then Khalidi moves on from Chicago to go to Columbia to actually take over the Edwards Said chair and become a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University which has become, I think notorious, and I say this as a Columbia graduate, has become notorious as a real hotbed of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic passion I would say. When he moved on, from when Khalidi moved on from Chicago and Columbia, they had a big dinner for him, a farewell dinner, and there were Obama and Ayers together again, you know, paying tribute to him on his way out the door from Chicago to Columbia.

GLENN: It is amazing to me that all of the pieces are here. Everything we need, Andrew, is here to judge who these people are and yet nobody in the media wants to tie it together. Nobody wants to tell the truth. And even when you do see all of these pieces, people are dismissing it.

McCARTHY: Well, you know, I think they dismiss it, Glenn, because it means either of two things and both of them are unpleasant, especially for this almost cult-like infatuation that people have had for Obama. I personally think Obama's candidacy has been more about us than it is about him. I think he's been almost an empty vessel where his supporters have projected their hopes and dreams on him as if that was, you know, what he was actually about and as if he didn't have a personality of his own that we needed to be concerned about.

GLENN: Right.

McCARTHY: But what this means is either of two things: Obama continues to say, you know, I didn't know this about Wright or I didn't know that about Ayers or you can't, you know, blame me for what these people say or think. If that's true, he's got no business being President. I don't think we want a President who, you know, could spend all this time around people who are five-alarm anti-Americans and say, you know, he wasn't true enough to know who they are, who they were and what they were about. The alternative is that he knew exactly what they were and what they were about and he was totally comfortable with that and I don't think, you know, that does him much good, either.

GLENN: This is -- you are hearing Andrew McCarthy. Andrew is the prosecutor responsible for leading the investigation of the blind Sheikh in the '93 World Trade Center bombing. He's got a new book out called Willful Blindness, a Memoir of the Jihad, how we're not paying attention to the 800-pound gorilla that is sitting in the room. Andrew, I'd like to have you back to talk about what you learned in that trial and in that whole process trying to put the blind sheikh behind the bars. May we have you back?

McCARTHY: Oh, I'd be delighted, Glenn, thank you.

GLENN: Thanks lot, Andrew.

McCARTHY: Thank you.


 

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.