Fatty for President

GLENN: Have you seen the latest poll? This is from, what is it, Zogby? This poll, I don't know, it's one of these stupid polls. Gallup. This is a Gallup poll. If you could have any President from our past run today, who would it be? I would also like to, before I have you answer that question, I would also like to have you answer this question: Do you have nothing going on in your life that you feel a question this unbelievably irrelevant, is worth your time to answer? "Oh, if I could have any President?" Any President from all time run today. What is this even supposed to prove besides how dumb people are? If you could have any President, bring them back to life in some Dr. Frankenstein sort of way, who would you bring back? Living or dead, next President of the United States, who would it be? Dan, who would it be for you?

DAN: I'll just take the first one, George Washington. He got things going. He got the ball rolling.

GLENN: George Washington?

DAN: Yep.

GLENN: With the wooden teeth and all?

DAN: Yep.

GLENN: I would like to know -- this would be fun. We'll be able to be in this Gallup poll and say, well, do they update their style or anything? I mean, does he have to have the wooden teeth and the wig because he probably wouldn't be really effective. I just want to know the parameters here. The stovepipe hat? He's pretty ugly. Can we just have him on radio? Can FDR walk?

Can you imagine FDR now? Can you imagine hiding your disability? Well, let me ask you that question. Wow, do you think we would elect FDR today? Because nobody would hide his disability. Do you think we would elect him, a guy in a wheelchair? Stu just looked at me through the window and just said, yeah, I don't think so. I wonder. You think so Stu?

STU: Yeah. I don't think that that -- I think that this would be the time. I think back in the day they tried to hide that because, you know, it was something at that point, you know, people weren't ready for it or whatever. Now, I mean, I think --

GLENN: I don't think so.

STU: I do. I think we think about how the person -- I mean --

GLENN: We would see him as weak.

STU: I disagree with that. What are you talking about?

GLENN: I'm not saying this is my belief.

STU: No, I know. But really?

GLENN: You know what? I think it's an abomination that we hide the wheelchair in the FDR Memorial. Have you ever seen that? Yeah, they have a cape and all you see is just a little bit of the wheel.

STU: But that's how he wanted to be remembered.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, whatever.

STU: Sorry.

GLENN: I mean, we've had our first handicapped President. I mean, that's a huge milestone. And we hid it. It would be like finding out that, you know, Woodrow Wilson was an African-American that wore makeup and we would be like, yeah, yeah, yeah, let a statue have the makeup on. What are you talking about? This is a big accomplishment. This is a big deal.

STU: History should be history on this, should be told. I mean, we don't do that in any of our textbooks. I don't know why we would start with memorials.

GLENN: I'm sure Nixon wanted to be remembered as a good President.

STU: Sure.

GLENN: Okay?

STU: Yeah, but I don't think that that would be a problem at this point. I disagree with you.

GLENN: Think we would elect -- I think we would elect a woman President, African-American President. Don't think at this time in our life we would elect a Jewish President because I think too many people would say it will be seen in the Middle East as we are totally biased. It wouldn't be an anti-Semite thing. It would be a strategy thing, I believe.

STU: I don't under -- the wheelchair thing, though, doesn't make any sense to me. Why would we care about -- think they're weak, that's silly.

GLENN: That's what people would do. As he would walk up for his speech, I would think of the strength. But too many people -- I mean, people do it in their own life. They see their weakness. He did it. They see their weakness as weakness instead of a strength. You know this guy used to rehearse how many steps it would take to go from the backstage to the podium? He would rehearse it. They would say, Mr. President, you're going to have 18 steps this Saturday. And he would say, I want no cane, I want nothing. Bill, you come by. You just hold onto my elbow. And he would rehearse all week for 18 steps.

STU: Yeah, but we see -- if we were to see someone leading the free world with a major disability, we would see it as overcoming something.

GLENN: Absolutely we would. But I don't think you would get that opportunity. I don't think you would get the opportunity today to serve.

STU: We're not, you know, recruiting a guy to lead on the front lines of battle or to do a high jump. We're talking about a guy who's in his office because of his mind and his ability to communicate. If it affected his ability to communicate, it would be something that you'd need to consider.

GLENN: I'm not talking about Stephen Hawking.

STU: Right. But if that happened, you would have to consider that.

GLENN: But why not have Stephen Hawking? He's so bright.

STU: Because your ability to communicate is part of your job as we've seen over the past seven years.

GLENN: I think Stephen Hawking would be a better communicator than George W. Bush.

STU: That's not true.

GLENN: I think that's a possibility. I would like to see a debate between Stephen Hawking and George W. Bush and I bet Stephen Hawking wins. And it takes him 20 minutes to answer a question. I think he wins.

STU: It's hard to stumble when you're picking up words from --

GLENN: It's hard to win a debate when you're typing with your eye.

STU: That's what I'm saying. I mean, it's also hard to stumble, though. You are not going to type this same half of the word twice. You're typing.

GLENN: I'm just sayin'. I'm just sayin'. Here's the thing. I think people would see, in the campaign, they would see that as a weakness.

STU: I don't. I totally disagree with that.

GLENN: As he's -- do you know how many -- do you know how much time is spent on making sure that there's a little box for the short ones to stand on, to make sure that there's no height difference between the two? You've got --

STU: That's totally different. That is not overcoming a disability, being short. Unless again you're in the NBA.

GLENN: You've got to overcome stuff if you're short, come on.

STU: Yeah, if you're a member of the Sacramento Kings, then yes. But I don't think that that's what we're talking about. We're talking about a job that's based on your ability to communicate and your intellect.

GLENN: Yeah. And so why is it that short people feel like they have to have steps on the podium, so they look like the same height?

STU: Because I think, I think that that has something to do with presentation and stuff.

GLENN: It has everything to do with psychological, people look at them and say, look at the other guy, he towers over them, that's a position of strength. The guy wheels himself in, people would see that -- I wouldn't. I would see that as a strength. Other people would see that as --

STU: No, but people who see -- the instant thing that you feel when you see someone who's trying to overcome a physical disability --

GLENN: Try this.

STU: -- is that it's -- you feel bad for them. You want to say --

GLENN: Would Taft be elected today?

STU: William Howard Taft?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: That was my answer for who I would bring back because that guy, he rocked.

GLENN: Would Taft be elected today? He was the guy who was so fat, they had to replace the bathtub in the White House. When I was at the White House, I asked to see the Taft bathtub. No longer exists. I think that should be in a museum.

STU: I totally agree with that.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I think, agree, I think a fatty could get into the White House.

GLENN: You are out of your mind. You are out of your mind. You are out of your mind.

STU: It depends on the circumstances.

GLENN: On what circumstances? That we all are honest with ourselves and we all look at each other and go, jeez, I mean, look at us. There's no way a fat man is going to become President of the United States.

STU: Bill Clinton wasn't exactly svelte.

GLENN: I'm not saying that. Are you comparing Bill Clinton with Taft?

STU: Well, yes. Overweight Presidents? There's not too many in the category.

GLENN: There's a difference between overweight -- that's like saying I like big cars. You know, I like big cars. I like the new Cutlass, or I like the new, you know, Abrams tank. There's a slight difference in size.

STU: Perhaps I don't remember my Taft history.

GLENN: Taft was so big they had to replace the bathtub in the White House for him! People would -- a fatty fat fatso come up to the -- he could be the smartest guy, he could be the best communicator but he would walk up to the podium and people automatically think here's a guy who's out of control, he can't control his weight, blah, blah, blah. What happens if there's a disability? There are a lot of people who try and try and try and cannot lose weight. He would never be elected to be President of the United States because he's a fatty fat fatso.

STU: I think that's much more legitimate than your stupid wheelchair one. That makes no sense. The wheelchair one makes no sense.

GLENN: You are telling me you've never met a fat person who has tried and struggled and done everything they can and they cannot lose weight?

STU: Have I ever met one?

GLENN: Yeah. Oh, come on. You're kidding me.

STU: Met one? Not in a theoretical, it's a glandular sense, which we've heard a hundred million times. Have I ever actually met someone with a glandular thing? Is that what you're asking me?

GLENN: I don't know if it's a glandular thing. I've met people who -- and don't ask me for the names but call Tania and she'll tell you. I met people who have exercised, who eat right and they just can't lose weight. They can't do it.

STU: Well, I would say --

GLENN: Look at the fat bias.

STU: What do you mean fat bias? I'm fat. I'm just saying --

GLENN: You're not fat. You're fat like I'm fat. I'm talking Taft fat!

STU: What I'm saying is that I will admit to you that I believe that people like that exist. I will also admit to you that most of the people who say they are those people are snacking on Double Quarter Pounders behind your back.

GLENN: I agree with you. I'm saying the one who can't lose weight, who works out, who can't lose weight.

STU: In theory I believe those people exist.

GLENN: So in theory that's the person that waddles up to the podium next to a svelte anybody.

STU: That would be much more difficult in today's world.

GLENN: Do you think that John McCain would have an easy time with -- the guy can't lift his arms up. Let's say he was just in a car accident, whatever. Can't lift his arms up. Do you think that -- it's the exact opposite. A guy who was in a car accident, can't lift his arms up. Every time he lifts his arms up, if it was a car accident people think, don't keep the button very high. It would be jokes like that, et cetera, et cetera.

STU: Like Dole. Remember Dole with the --

GLENN: Exactly right. With John McCain, however, it came as a war hero. So every time he tries to lift his arms, you remember the bamboo cage and you are like, man, that guy is amazing. You remember the bamboo cage. It's the same thing except in reverse. You see the fatty fat fatso and you're like, guy's out of control. Even if he says, no, look, here's a note from my doctor; I can't lose weight. Guy's out of control. It automatically says that. If you look at any study on anybody, the reason why people don't succeed -- and this isn't universally true, but generally speaking according to studies, the reason why fat people don't climb the corporate ladder is because -- not because the rungs can't hold them. It's because people in higher positions look down and say, this person is out of control.

STU: Right, that you don't have it together.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: But I think this is a legitimate -- I think you are right on this one. This is what I've been trying to say. It's the other one. It's looked at completely the opposite.

GLENN: People are not -- tell me why Obama has people crying and passing out at his -- nobody's listening to his policies. It's all about the image.

STU: Image, I know.

GLENN: If you can -- and I don't think you'd get this opportunity. If you could take somebody in a wheelchair and make sure that that story of them conquering everything and they've climbed Mt. Everest and whatever, if they were somebody that was in Sports Illustrated for their prowess in sports, then maybe we.

STU: I think that's exactly how people would embrace that.

GLENN: It's the only way people would embrace that.

STU: Look at the number one President on this list, it's JFK. I mean, with reason why JFK is the number one on this list is because he's dead. Let's be honest about it.

GLENN: You are taking my point.

STU: No, I'm not. I'm saying that when people see horrible things happen to someone, they tend to embrace that, not reject it. So if you're in a wheelchair, people would embrace the fact that you're overcoming something difficult.

GLENN: People are uncomfortable with wheelchairs. If anybody in a wheel -- if you are in a wheelchair, call me right now. If you are in a wheelchair, you tell me whether or not people relate to you like they do other people. Too many people are immediately uncomfortable with a wheelchair because just the exact opposite is true. They see something horrible and they don't even want to think about it.

STU: All you people with a wheelchair that have run for President, you call and tell us all your experience about running for President in your wheelchair.

GLENN: That's not what I -- what do you mean by running for President in your wheelchair? What kind of -- why hate the fat people and the people in wheelchairs today, Stu? Why all the hate?

STU: Can we just hear the history of William Howard Taft? Do you think we can hear that or not?

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.