Ron Paul: 'We're going to destroy the dollar'


Congressman Ron Paul

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America. My name is Glenn Beck, and I have -- everybody now is coming to the bandwagon and they are all saying, "Oh, yeah, look at the problems. Boy, we got problems." And they are talking about the bailout. The bailout is an abomination. Now, I'm a guy who last week said you've got to stop the plane from flying into the side of the mountain, but this bailout, there's no way I would have my -- I can't get through to my senator and congressman. I can't even get an e-mail to them. Everything is full. Keep trying. You have to decide whether it's right or wrong. This is the moment, and I do not say this lightly. I don't think I've ever said this except on September 11th. This is the moment that we must become the greatest American generation. I do not say that I can't -- I don't want my name anywhere attached to this bailout. I don't say that lightly because what I know is coming on the other side is collapse and quite possibly -- everybody now is saying 1929. I think it may be bigger than 1929. Our very survival may be at stake. So I don't say it lightly because if it doesn't pass, it's coming and it's coming like a load of bricks, but it's coming anyway. And what do you have left after it is what matters at this point. Everybody is talking about the bailout. I think what everybody wants to know is, wait a minute, wait a minute, what does this mean? I've got a kid going into college. What does that mean for my job? What does this mean, how do I afford food? What do I do? I don't have a broker. I've got a 401(k). I've got a few thousand dollars maybe in the bank, most likely I've got a few hundred dollars in the bank. What does all of this mean to me? I'm going to speak directly to you on that coming up at the top of next hour. I want you to know that you're not alone. I want you to know that that's where most people are, and the media and everybody else is talking macro, and you're at micro, and is anybody paying attention to micro or is it all macro? We're not living in a history book. There are real people that are affected. What is it going to mean to you and what's the best way to protect yourself? I will help you through some of those answers coming up at the top of next hour.

But first, I do want to talk macro and I do want to talk about what's in this bill because if you are going to be the greatest American generation, if you are going to be one of those Americans that finally stands up and says, wait a minute, and you take charge of your own life, you need to know the facts. A guy who has been there and who has been there this weekend, heard all of the inside dealings, knows about this bill and quite frankly I may disagree with him on a lot of things, but the economy is not one of them. He has called it right every step of the way. Ron Paul is with us now. Ron, this is your cup of tea. This is your ocean. How are you navigating? Where should we be going?

RON PAUL: Well, we're going in the wrong direction. We're in a problem for the precise reason, we spent too much, we borrowed too much and we inflated the currency too much and now we're in trouble and the market is saying you have to make the corrections of all the mistakes. People, you know, have to liquidate bad debt and get rid of the bad investments. So everything we're doing right now is to perpetuate all the mistakes.

GLENN: Right.

RON PAUL: Instead of admitting it and allowing us to get rid of the bad stuff and start all over again. So this just prolongs the agony and actually makes the long-term problems worse because everything that we do is done through more inflation of the money supply, which means that we will have runaway inflation if we continue to do this along with recession or depression and I think these scare tactics are going to backfire on everybody who ends up voting for this.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. What do you mean scare tactics? You told me last week or two weeks ago that you felt we could be headed for a 1989 Soviet style collapse.

RON PAUL: But the people who want us to vote for this are saying, you know, that if you don't, you're going to cause it. It is true that if we don't vote for this, the markets are going to be, you know, in bad shape. There's going to be a downturn. And if we do vote for it, the same thing is going to happen. The only thing is the choice is which one you want, the one that's going to last 10 years or the one that's going to last one year, and it's a terrible choice. Politicians don't like those kind of choices. So they are going to opt out by pretending that they can salvage things for one year and then a miracle's going to come along and these worthless assets that the taxpayers are stuck with are all of a sudden going to have value, and there's not much chance of that happening.



GLENN: What's happening behind the scenes in Washington this weekend?

RON PAUL: Well, it's really interesting. I think those of us who don't get into the discussion and the negotiations, you know, we don't know exactly what's happening. But what I hear -- 

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait. Why are you not in the -- this is, this is your issue. How are you not involved in this? How are you not inserting yourself?

RON PAUL: Well, for a long time there was one Republican or two Republicans that participated, especially from the House side and then later on when the Republicans were getting ready to rebel and not vote for it, then they incorporated them. But it would be just, you know, Bainer and Blount and a few others that would go in. I'm, you know, I'm not considered important enough to, you know, be involved in that. But I do talk to other members and quite frankly they might have bitten off more than they can chew because I sense that I don't know where those votes are coming from. There's so many Democrats opposed to it and so many Republicans. But usually they know how to count. I mean, they're terrible with the math dealing with the people's finance, but they usually can count these votes. But quite frankly I wouldn't bet that this deal is locked up. But then again most of the time they get these things passed and the taxpayers suffer.

GLENN: What's the worst part of this bill?

RON PAUL: Money, the money involved and the principle, the propping up of the same economic principles that brought us down, at the same time coming up with unlimited funds. They talk, we talk about 700 or 350 plus 1 and the congress has recourse and all that nonsense. This is a $700 billion commitment and if that doesn't work, they will come back for more. They have already spent $700 billion, or at least used $700 billion of credit. So it's open-ended. All of this has to make a difference on the dollar. The dollar value has to go down.

GLENN: Okay. Tell me -- because I have had real -- I mean, I've had people who have been in the room with Paulson and the people that are talking to me are all saying the same thing: The days of spending are over. There is no way to spend any more. Any politician that tells you that they can spend, they're lying. Because it's just not going to hold. The center will not hold any more spending and yet all of them -- and the debates over the weekend, they were still going on and one was talking about a spending freeze and the other was still saying, "Well, we've got to help out." You know that promises are going to be made. We are going to be seduced that we can -- "if you vote for me, I will reduce your pain because the government can help out." Can you explain it all to America what's around the corner?

RON PAUL: It's a system that we have. They've never had to be responsible. They figure if we spend and buy votes, that's good; we'll tax them. We can't tax them anymore, we'll keep borrowing and the Chinese will provide all these funds that we need. And we run out of steam there and they resort to the Federal Reserve to monetize that and just create the money out of thin air. So this is what's going to happen. I don't -- I guess I disagree with you. I don't think they are going to quit spending. Not that the middle class or Americans are going to say, hey, quit the spending. What makes them quit spending is the market. The market, you know -- 

GLENN: That's what I'm saying.

RON PAUL: Oh, yeah, the marketplace finally objects and then that's when they freeze up and dump securities and they want real value and they demand sound financing. But the politicians aren't likely to do the right things.

GLENN: Can I be real frank with you? I've always been frank with you and it causes problems sometimes but let me be real frank with you. I honestly when I booked you, I honestly thought you would come out and you would be much more -- you'd be much more passionate about what's going on. I can't tell honestly, I don't think you're voting for this, right?

RON PAUL: Oh, my goodness.

GLENN: And you have been much more frank with me before on what's coming, and the reason why I bring this up is because I don't think anybody in America would accept surgery from a doctor that said, "You need surgery, you need surgery, you've got to have surgery right now" without saying, "Well, wait a minute, what are my odds of survival? Am I dying?" No one will assess.

RON PAUL: Okay.

GLENN:  -- how bad things are and if this thing has a chance of working. And if it doesn't work, if you don't vote for it, what happens. If you do vote for it, what happens. And what does life look like a year from now.

RON PAUL: I think what you're sensing is that the hysteria here is if we don't vote for this, the end of the world's going to come tomorrow and therefore you have to vote for this $700 billion. I don't believe that's true. I don't believe tomorrow that's going to happen. But I believe we have embarked on a course that I have been preaching about for 35 years that we're going to destroy the dollar. The dollar system, the reserve currency of the world, I mean, when I get into that, it gets too pessimistic because really nobody wants to hear it because I don't think it's just going to be a collapse of Wall Street. I think it's going to be the collapse of Western civilization. I think, Glenn, you might not want to hear this. Our empire has to end, too, and our empire has to come home because that's what we do to ourselves. We destroy our ability to even promote ourselves overseas. We spend too much overseas. Our troops will be coming home. There will be a change, and the welfare state is going to end. But not tomorrow if we don't pass this bill. That's what I'm trying to say is -- 

GLENN: I want you to know -- 

RON PAUL: We don't need to panic into voting for this.

GLENN: I want you to know, Ron, that I am against you on the empire thing but I don't think we are that far apart actually. I have always gotten the impression that you're just like, "I'm bringing them all home." Well, you can't reverse 200 and some years of moving in one direction overnight. You can't do that. You've got to slowly bring it up. That's why I'm for, get our own energy, start to slowly pull ourselves back in, and you can't just leave a vacuum. However, I do think I agree with you that our empire is going to end because we're not going to be able to afford anything.

RON PAUL: Right.

GLENN: Right?

RON PAUL: And it will end quickly, too.

GLENN: Yes.

RON PAUL: When the dollar goes, that will go quickly. I mean, the Soviet system ended rather quickly, you know. And that was an economic event. It wasn't a political event or an invasion by the United States.

GLENN: Right.

RON PAUL: It ended for economic reasons.

GLENN: The banks around the world, I mean, I love how this is the failed Bush policies. I don't believe it's the failed Bush policies. I mean, I think he was part of it. I think Chris Dodd was part of it. I think Barney Frank is an abomination when it comes to what's been going on. But it's more than that because it's happened all over the world. The Netherlands, what did they nationalize 49% of their banks over the weekend? Another bank bombed in England over the weekend. This is not us necessarily spreading it overseas. These kinds of things have been happening, the same kind of behavior here has been happening globally. True or false?

RON PAUL: Well, that's true. But we have to understand why. This has been building since 1971 when we gave up on the last link to the gold standard under Bretton Woods, we devised a dollar standard. We were the most powerful economic group as well as a military power and therefore they accepted the dollar and they had more trust in the dollar than it deserved. So we were privileged to print the gold and spend the money and the people accepted it around the world. So we are responsible in the sense that we had license to spend and borrow and inflate and we lived beyond our means and that is why it's worldwide because essentially all central banks hold a lot of dollars and that's why they inflated in their economy as well. So there's a lot of malinvestment and debt worldwide. But it's the dollar phenomenon. It is the international monetary system. Already there's an article out. They accept this whole idea that I'm talking about and they say, well, we need a worldwide central bank that will take over. And, of course, that would be the worst thing in the world because we would have one single bank issuing and try to substitute, you know, substitute the dollar for something under the IMF or whomever. So we do need a new currency but it can't be another worldwide currency run by the bank.

GLENN: We're talking again. I mean, the calls for global control of the financial system and global control of the currency is drop dead frightening. And the way we are weeding out the small, and they're all too -- these are too big to fail, but all you small guys, you can go out of business. All you mom and pop and everything else, you can go out of business, but these ones are too big to fail. And what's happening is the big are getting even bigger. How do you stop, how do you stop global control of financing at this point?

RON PAUL: Well, it's getting tougher all the time. I mean, that's something that I try to alert the people to but, you know, a few years back we had a President say that this was a new world order. It used to be said in private and it was said to be a conspiracy, but our President seemed to talk about a new world order, and they talk about globalism and they talk about international government and that's -- we're marching on in that direction, and I just disapprove of it all. I want local sovereignty, as local as possible, back to the individual, community, the state or at least our own country. But this international stuff is doomed to destroy the individual and we're all going to suffer. We could move into a dark age if we don't wake up to what is really happening.

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.