We all know Hollywood loves a sequel. So, how about Spotlight 2 — a sequel to the 2015 Best Picture Oscar-winner, Spotlight?

Spotlight was about the Boston Globe's investigation that uncovered horrific child abuse in the Catholic Church. The sequel would also be about a recently completed real-life investigation by the Boston Globe.

Granted, it may not be as earth-shattering in its discovery. But it's still about good old-fashioned, hardcore journalism getting to the bottom of one of the great mysteries of our time... Is Presidential Dreamer/Senator Elizabeth Warren a Native American? And did she become a tenured professor at Harvard Law School only because of her Native Americanness and Harvard's desire to diversify its faculty?

RELATED: THIS is a prime example of anti-logic, postmodernist spin

According to the Boston Globe's crack reporting, the answer to the second question is a clear no, which flies in the face of her "conservative critics."

The Globe report says:

In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren's professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.

As for the first question — is Warren actually Native American? That one is yet to be answered.

It's weird, though. The Globe report seems to be defending Warren, but then it actually shows a document where she changed her ethnicity from "White" to "Native American" after she'd been teaching at the University of Pennsylvania Law School for three years.

When she later moved to Harvard she was White again, then waited two and a half years before once again self-identifying as Native American.

In the postmodern world, it couldn't be more honest.

Why the discrepancies? Well, it may seem dishonest, but in the postmodern world, it couldn't be more honest. It just means that Warren was reporting her identity at those moments in time. One year it was white, another it was Native American. Next week, it might be Vietnamese.

One day you're a man, the next day you're a woman and tomorrow you're a tomato plant. Postmodern truth is like painting "with all the colors of the wind..."

Judges in California have ordered Sherwin-Williams, the paint company, to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for dangerous advertising. Some of their advertisements were for products that included lead paint. Lead paint was banned in 1977, and for good reason. So it's fair to say that a company shouldn't be advertising a product that's dangerous to the public.

That's not what's happening here, though.

RELATED: How to burn a society to the ground in 12 easy steps

Sherwin-Williams stopped making lead paint in 1943. That's 34 years before it was banned. The judges are basing charges against Sherwin-Williams on ads that ran in the Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union... in 1904. That's over a century ago.

It's good that companies be held accountable for dangerous or misleading advertising, but this feels like reaching. The scientific proof didn't exist yet. If the science didn't exist, there certainly weren't any laws regarding lead in paint. Remember when kids used to put plastic bags over their heads and play astronaut? We didn't know any better. So it would be a little ridiculous to start fining plastic companies now for something so retroactive.

Should we go back and sue car companies for advertising cars without seat belts?

A better example is seat belts. Cars had been around for a while before empirical evidence came out in favor of using the seat belts. Seat belts weren't even mandatory in cars until 1968. People weren't required to use them until even later. Should we go back and sue car companies for advertising cars without seat belts?

Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of government relations for the Association of National Advertisers, a trade group of marketers that filed a brief in support of Sherwin-Williams, said, "You can't demand companies to have clairvoyance. It's the precedent we're concerned about. We believe that what they're doing in regard to Sherwin-Williams certainly would apply to many other categories."

This boils down to the balance between Justice and Mercy, a concept I go over in my new book, Addicted to Outrage:

Justice meaning if you break the law or cut in line, you are punished, corrected… Justice is essential in society. Without it, civilizations break down. But it also must be balanced by mercy or the state devolves into a communistic, Stalinist state.

The country has been pushed to the limit.

Our political bonds have been torn apart.

We need a true leader who can save us from uncertain doom.

Unfortunately, we could only find this guy...

In celebration of the release of his next book, Addicted to Outrage, Glenn is about to embark on a national book tour to engage audiences in intimate and frank conversations on the hilarity of the level of outrage on both ends of the political spectrum.

Tickets go on sale starting Tuesday, September 4 at 2 p.m. local time—but only to audience members who have the "super-secret" access code: THEBLAZE

This code will be valid through Thursday, September 6 at 10 p.m. local time, whereupon tickets will be released to the general public.

If you want exclusive access to locking down your chance to see Glenn in person, simply enter THEBLAZE on the ticketing page for the tour stop(s) you'd like to attend. More information here.

Here are the tour dates and locations that have been solidified so far:

OCT 25

• SAN ANTONIO, TX
• TOBIN CENTER FOR PERFORMING ARTS

OCT 26

• HOUSTON, TX
• REVENTION MUSIC CENTER

OCT 27

• DALLAS, TX
• MAJESTIC THEATRE

NOV 1

• RICHMOND, VA
• THE NATIONAL

NOV 2

• HERSHEY, PA
• HERSHEY THEATRE

NOV 3

• PITTSBURGH, PA
• CARNEGIE HOMESTEAD MUSIC HALL

NOV 4

• CLEVELAND, OH
• AGORA THEATRE

NOV 13

• KANSAS CITY, MO
• ARVEST BANK THEATER AT THE MIDLAND

NOV 14

• EVANSVILLE, IN
• OLD NATIONAL EVENTS PLAZA

NOV 15

• TULSA, OK
• BRADY THEATER

NOV 30

• TAMPA, FL
• STRAZ CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

DEC 1

• ORLANDO, FL
• PLAZA LIVE

This list is subject to change. To find out if Glenn is headed to a city near you, visit GlennBeck.com/tour for the latest tour information.

Buy the book here.

Want a free copy of Addicted to Outrage? Enter here for a chance to win one of 10 autographed book bundles.

The Associated Press has been on a downward slide. The media haven't talked about it because the downward slide takes the Leftist bent of most mainstream media news sources. But it's not healthy. And, at the very least, we need to be aware of it. Don't get me wrong, the AP is still an incredible source for good journalism, but, increasingly, it is polluted with subtle partisanship cloaked as news. Take their coverage of Antifa, most recently an article from yesterday.

The title:

Oregon police chief orders review of use of force at protest.

From the headline, it's clear that the AP plans to frame Antifa as the victims.

Police ordered the counter-protesters to disperse, then moved in behind a volley of stun grenades. One of the rounds reportedly hit a counter-protester in the head, becoming embedded in his helmet and injuring him.

RELATED: Chalkboard Lesson: Who Is Antifa and What Do They Want?

I love that last one. Of course the guy had a helmet on. He was wearing a helmet and still somehow got hurt. Antifa aren't exactly known for their bravery or honor. They reminded us of that fact this weekend. Video footage emerged of Antifa members chasing a man as he tried to get away from them, then sucker-punching him, and, finally, spraying him with bear mace as he writhed on the ground. Antifa has a habit of sucker-punching and assaulting people, there are hours of this on YouTube documenting this fact. They pride themselves for their organized anarchy. They vehemently hate police. So, from the first line of the AP article, it's clear that the journalist has sided with Antifa:

Portland police were accused Sunday of being heavy-handed against people protesting a rally by extreme-right demonstrators, reportedly injuring some counter-protesters and prompting the city's new police chief to order a review of officers' use of force.

So this is a story about police using excessive force on "counter-protestors" who are "protesting" "extreme-right demonstrators"? In other words, the police are the problem here, and Antifa is the victim, despite standing up for a just cause. For some reason, the article quotes the Oregon chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Portland chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, who said that police "targeted Portland residents peacefully counter-protesting against racist far-right groups, including white supremacists, white nationalists, and neo-Nazi gangs." This quote comes near the top of the article. It's the first quotation in the article. The next quote comes from the Portland branch of the ACLU, which called the police's response to Antifa "completely unacceptable in a free society."

Oddly, the article does not include a statement from the police themselves, only noting that Police Chief Danielle Outlaw "assumed command less than a year ago as Portland's first African-American female police chief." Why is that relevant? Isn't it more important to know what she has to say? In her words? The article only says that Police Chief Outlaw "said in a statement that she takes all use-of-force cases seriously."

Any respectable news outlet would call Antifa what it is: A radical hate group.

Any respectable news outlet would call Antifa what it is: A radical hate group. Instead, the Associated Press goes after the police and the right-leaning Proud Boys, citing the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source: "The Proud Boys has been characterized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is "dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society."

The SPLC is itself guilty of many of these puzzling leaps of logic, and has been asked about ANTIFA so many times that they finally included an answer in the FAQ:

The SPLC condemns violence in all its forms, including the violent acts of far-left street movements like Antifa (short for anti-fascist). But the propensity for violence, though present in many hate groups, is not among the criteria for listing. Also, Antifa groups do not promote hatred based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Associated Press is even nicer:

The counter-protesters were made up of a coalition of labor unions, immigrant rights advocates, democratic socialists and other groups.

This heroic band of rebels held "banners and signs with messages such as 'Alt right scum not welcome in Portland.' Some chanted 'Nazis go home.'"

Their goal, according to the Anti-Defamation League, is "to intimidate and dissuade racists, but the use of violent measures by some Antifa against their adversaries can create a vicious, self-defeating cycle of attacks, counter-attacks and blame. This is why most established civil rights organizations criticize Antifa tactics as dangerous and counterproductive."

Yet the Associated Press publishes a glowing review of them and their cause.

Yet the Associated Press publishes a glowing review of them and their cause. The only space in the article allotted to the "extreme-right demonstrators" comes literally at the end of the article, with mention of Joey Gibson, who organized the rally, noting that he disputed that the right-leaning crowd is part of a hate group.

He said:

We're here to promote freedom and God. That's it. Our country is getting soft.