This is the quality that all leaders should have

Authenticity. It's something that certainly seems to be in short supply in America today, especially when it comes to our leaders. Do you feel like you know what any of the politicians in Washington really believe? Or even why they believe it? With few exceptions, you probably don't. And that's a big, big problem - because America has changed and the people demand authenticity and character from our leaders.

On the radio show today, Glenn explained exactly what he wants out of leaders - and it's a lesson every poltician needs to learn.

Below is an edited transcript of Glenn's monologue on authenticity:

We live today in a society of misfits and underdogs and tramps. Everybody today is weird. The days of sitting in an office wearing a suit and tie or a skirt and a blouse while taking orders from a boss or taking dictation rapidly coming to an end. We feel more free to dress casually. We feel more free to question leaders. We feel more free to shave every third day, at most.

Walk into a Starbucks at peak hours, you see it. This is America. Some are in line, some are in a hurry, some are seated alone, some are sitting there with their computer or tablet, some are seated together having personal or business discussions, but I will tell you it is not the coffee shop of 1958. And that's a good thing.

But now look at the Republican Party. Let's look at Mitt Romney during his campaign, George W. Bush in the White House, or his father. Look at Ronald Reagan as president, Ford or Nixon. White shirts, neatly pressed suits, neatly parted hair, fathers who were king of their castle, fathers know best, 'my way or the highway' kind of dads. And there's nothing wrong with this.

When Reagan, however, was on his ranch, that was a different thing because it bucked that image that the Hollywood crowd and the progressive left liked to create for Ronald Reagan. It changed who you knew he was. When he was in jeans and a flannel shirt and he was on the back of his horse, you knew who he was, the true Ronald Reagan. He should have spent more time there.

I don't know about you, but as a voter I'm not looking for a dad. I don't need another dad. I got one. And when I was under his roof and he was paying the bills, I followed his rules.

What I do want is a politician that has strong morals, strong beliefs, convictions, somebody who will actually stand up for what they believe and know what they believe.

When I did my interview with FOX, it was the strangest interview I've ever had in my life. Roger Ailes had invited me for dinner, and I sat down for dinner, and he asked me some of the strangest questions I've ever been asked. I mean, it was a genius interview, it really was. I sat down and he said to me, "What'd you think of the Korean War," something like that. And I happened to be reading something at the time about that time period. So I skated.

The third question was, "What did you think of the China summit in 1972?" And I looked at him and I said: "You know what, Mr. Ailes? I could bluff right now, I could bluff and I could tell you a bunch of stuff that I'm pulling out of the air but I have a feeling you're smart enough to know that I'm completely bluffing. So I'm going to do something that could blow this whole interview, but that's okay. Uh... I have no idea about that treaty and the summit. I have no idea, and I'd completely be bluffing if I said otherwise."

He said, Hmmm. And then sat in silence for about five minutes and said nothing. And neither did I. And I was like, "Well, that was a short interview. That was good."

He just kept throwing me up against the wall. I think I lost about 8 pounds sitting at a meal with that guy. It was brilliant. I don't know if he does this to other people, but it was absolutely brilliant.

At the end, he got up from the table and I thought, "I'll never see this guy again." He got up from the table and he said, "Young man, it's good to be with people who actually know what they believe, but more importantly, know why they believe it. We'll talk again."

And that was it.

That's really what I want from a candidate. I want somebody who not only knows what they believe, but I want to know why they believe it. I want to know that they know why they believe it.

In fact, forget about politics. I want that in life. If I have a boss, that's what I want from a boss. That's what I want from coworkers. It's what I want from employees. Why do you believe that? Why'd you do that?

I want somebody who I could actually sit down with at a Starbucks and have a real conversation. I'm not looking for an authoritarian figure. I want somebody who understands what it's like to be out in the real world.

Do you know when they -- when they put this healthcare thing together, they didn't have anybody who had actually started a business before. What a surprise. They're not surrounded by anybody who runs a business or has ever run a business. They don't know. And that's why it's running so poorly: Because they don't put any stock. You didn't build this. The government did. They just really believe that running a business just happens: You open up the door, you sell stuff, you rip people off, you go home at night and count your money. That's what they really believe business is and so when they had to do something that revolved around business, it didn't work.

You know, authoritarian figures, we talk about dictators being bad, but Father Knows Best I get. I get. It's not a dictator that's setting boundaries and raising responsible kids. Dictators don't do that. Dictators set rules and treat you like a child, but we're equals, aren't we? Aren't we equals? If I elect you to a job, aren't you an equal? Do you feel that anybody in Washington, Republican or Democrat, are treating you like an equal? That's the image they try to give to everybody.

I'm not looking for an authoritarian leader. I'm looking for a leader of individuals and one who understands the individual, a leader who speaks from the heart, a leader who knows who he is, authentically knows who he is, isn't afraid to show it, a leader who isn't all about himself but is about the individual. They may not know the individuals by name or anything else but knows that that's really what it's all about.

Put aside the ideological differences that we might have. Those are important, but not the purpose here. What the conservatives need, what libertarians need, what TEA Party people need is Reagan on his ranch, Harry Truman in his Buick. When Harry Truman went home from the president, he didn't take a helicopter to a plane. He said, "Pull the Buick up." They said, "Mr. President, you haven't driven for a long time." He said, "I know. I want to drive home." In fact, he drove home. He said, "I've never been on the new highway system. I want to drive home." So he drove home. Cops stopped him halfway home. Bess slid over on those big bench seats and said, "Officer, would you tell him he's driving too slow?" He said, "Mrs. Truman? Mr. President?".

We want a leader who just wants to be a normal guy, a leader who listens, a leader who cares, a leader who will sit down and have a real conversation, and it's not about what's after the presidency. Not somebody who comes across as a guy like that, but somebody who is a guy like that.

So many politicians, including TEA Party politicians say, "What America deserves...the American people deserve better...Our Constitution clearly states that all men are created equal." Every time I hear one of these guys say something like that, I feel like they're talking to the room. They're talking to this big collective thing. You see it in the Senate, you see it in the House, you see it in the White House, you see it on the campaign trail. It's like you're watching C-Span all the time.

Tell me who you are. Tell me a story about what America is, but actually believe that story. Say "you" when you talk. Talk to me one on one. Reach down. Take a sip of coffee and have a real conversation. Tell me that you hear what I'm saying but "You know, I think I disagree with you." Even if you know I'm going to dislike it. I'd much rather have an authentic leader, an authentic human than anything we're seeing prop up.

Tomorrow is election day and there's more choices in front of America, and we will indeed make those choices one way or another. But we will make the choice of more authoritarian rule, and that comes from the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans are just as bad, gang. Boy, did I used to get yelled at for that. "Stop saying the Republicans are just as bad." They are. In fact, they may be worse. Because at least with the Democrats, they're not saying that they're against authoritarian rule. They're not saying "I'm so against big government" and then give it to you.

Tomorrow we make some more decisions, but every day we make decisions. Every day we decide who we're going to be.

I will tell you that in many ways I'm really optimistic. In many ways I know that what's coming will be good. Might be painful along the way, but it will be good. And my imagination, as big as my imagination is, I can't imagine what God has in store. I can't imagine what you're doing in your life. I can't imagine all of the things that are happening all around the world that are good right now. But I know they'll happen. The question is will we be brave enough to be ourselves? Will we be brave enough and wise enough to choose somebody who really is real? Will we be brave enough to say they don't all have to be that way? They don't all have to be on the take.

Did you see Mike Lee had a ten minute ovation? I think people came out to the park, so they had to stand. But a ten-minute ovation for Mike Lee on Saturday. Do you know that Ted Cruz's popularity rating is at 80% here in the state? You're not hearing that, are you? And by the way, it's not 80% Republican in Texas. I don't know if you know that. That tells you something. That tells you something: That people want somebody just to say "This is who I am and this is what I'm going to do.".

What's more disturbing is that we don't seem to care about it. What's more disturbing perhaps is that The New York Times, in an editorial, said that he didn't lie, he didn't really lie. When he said you can keep your doctor and you can keep your health insurance and that they had the studies that showed that up to 80 million people would lose their health insurance, now we find out, this week we find out that that number is actually 125 million, half of the population of the United States? They knew half of the population of the United States would lose their doctor and their health insurance and yet, he went on the road over and over and over and over and over again and said "You'll be able to keep your doctor if you like them, you'll be able to keep your health insurance" when they knew half of the population of the United States would lose their health insurance. And the New York Times said he misspoke. Boy. I think we all need a new dictionary because you know what? We've created the Tower of Babel because it's like babbling to me.

I have no idea what anybody's even talking about anymore.

I speak a different language. That language is common sense. Things that you don't have to teach people. They just find them to be self-evident.

Tapping the brakes on transgenderism in 2023

Hunter Martin / Contributor | Getty Images

2022 was the year of the emperor’s new clothes—where we were supposed to pretend that someone like Lia Thomas is a woman, legitimately beating actual women in swimming competitions. This carpet-bombing of common sense won’t be letting up anytime soon. Just before the New Year, the World Boxing Council announced that it’s going to create a separate category for transgender boxers. The WBC president said:

we are doing this because of safety and inclusion. We have been the leaders in rules for women’s boxing—so the dangers of a man fighting a woman will never happen because of what we are going to put in place.

After all the insanity you’ve been told to accept about transgender athletes in recent years, his statement is remarkable. He’s admitting what common sense people have been saying all along—that trans athletes identifying as women still carry natural physical advantages (from the fact that they’re actually male), and that those natural advantages could endanger biological women.

Trans athletes identifying as women still carry natural physical advantages.

The WBC president went on to say:

In boxing, a man fighting a woman must never be accepted regardless of gender change. There should be no gray area around this, and we want to go into it with transparency and the correct decisions. Woman to man or man to woman transgender change will never be allowed to fight a different gender by birth.

Maybe the WBC is on to something here. Maybe the only way to solve the stupidity of letting biological males play female sports is to create a separate transgender category in every sport. That would make competition fair again. However, the trans agenda will never accept this because it doesn’t validate their transition—in fact, it admits that these are not authentically female athletes.

There is some rare, good news on this front. In late December, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold a Florida school-board policy that requires transgender students to use the bathroom of their biological sex. Of course, the Left won’t accept this, so this case will probably go to the Supreme Court sooner than later. You’re supposed to always believe the science, except when it comes to your own body parts.

You’re supposed to always believe the science, except when it comes to your own body parts.

And by the way, if the Left truly cared about unbiased science as it pertains to transgenderism, they’d listen to their favorite European country, Sweden. Sweden’s national board of health recently updated its guidelines on treating children with gender dysphoria. Unlike the Biden administration and the U.S. medical establishment right now, Sweden’s new emphasis is caution:

the scientific data is INSUFFICIENT to assess the effects of puberty-inhibiting and gender-sensitive hormone therapy of children and young people.

The Swedish guidelines also mention the prevalence of de-transition cases as another reason for tapping the brakes on sex-change surgeries for children.

Common sense apparently does still exist, even in places like Sweden. If only America would listen.

Glenn wants to dive deep into different philosophical topics this year. As CRT and woke curricula are demonizing the "western tradition," it is vitally important that we preserve the tradition that gave birth our nation and gives context to the culture we live in today. Here are the top 11 books to give you a crash course in the western philosophic tradition. If you don't have the time to read them, you can find an overview to each of the books below!

1. Plato's Republic

The first titan of Greek philosophy, Plato articulated the set of questions that would drive the future western philosophical tradition. The pre-eminent question among Greek philosophers was "what is the thing that explains everything." In philosophical lingo, this question is framed as "what is the logos or the good." Plato argued that reality could be explained in terms of the "forms." For example, when you see multiple examples of a "courageous" act, then, Plato would argue, there is such a thing as "courage." The form of "the good" is the form that gives meaning to all of reality. Humans use their rational minds to contemplate what is good and then align their desires to "the good" in order to pursue it.

2. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

The second titan of Greek philosophy was none other than Aristotle, who was a student of Plato. Aristotle deviated from his teacher's claims about "forms" and instead argued that every single thing has a purpose, a telos. For example, the telos of a chair is to provide a place for someone to sit. In the same way that a chair's purpose is to provide a place for someone to sit, Aristotle argues that the telos of human beings is to pursue happiness.

In the first page of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims that every action is done for the sake of pursuing happiness, although, all too often, our actions are misplaced. We often pursue things we believe will make us happy when, in reality, they are fleeting, momentary pleasures that result in despair, heartbreak, or pain. Rather than conforming the world around us to fit our momentary desires, Aristotle argues that we achieve happiness by understanding the nature of the world around us and how we fit into it by actively cultivating virtues in order to make our soul "fit to be happy." Work and action, therefore, are not mere moral "to-do lists," but rather bring us fulfillment.

3. Augustine's City of God

If Plato is the first titan of ancient philosophy, then Augustine is the first titan of medieval philosophy. Medieval philosophy begins with the re-discovery of ancient philosophical texts that had been lost throughout the Roman Empire. As Christianity had taken root and spread across the western world, medieval philosophy integrated these newly-discovered texts into Christian theology. Augustine is the pre-eminent medieval Neo-platonic philosopher, incorporating Plato's philosophy into Christian theology.

Augustine claimed that God himself is the ultimate "form" or "the good" from which all of reality derives its meaning and existence. A thing is "good" insofar as it coalesces with the way God intended it to be. When a thing stays away from God's intention, it is "not good." From this, we get the Augustinian definition of "evil" as a "privation" or "absence of goodness," which ultimately corresponds to God's nature and character.

4. Aquinas' Summa Theologica

Just as Augustine incorporated Plato's philosophy into Christian theology, the second medieval titan, Thomas Aquinas, incorporated Aristotelian philosophy into Christian theology. Building from Aristotle, Aquinas argues that Christ is our happiness, the longing of every human heart and the object of every human action. Though we may think we are pursuing happiness outside of Christ, our this pursuit is misplaced and will result in fleeting pleasure and pain. True happiness and fulfillment, Aquinas argues, is found in Christ himself and the pursuit of his nature.

**Note: Aquinas' Summa is one of the largest works ever written and contains arguments about many different subjects--there are concise versions that will save you a lot of time!

5. Francis Bacon's Novem Organum

If medieval philosophy is defined by the incorporation of ancient philosophy into orthodox Christian theology, then the Enlightenment is defined as the rejection of both. English philosopher Francis Bacon kicked off the Enlightenment with a total rejection of the Aristotelian view of reality. The title of his book, the Novum Organum, or "the new order," is a deliberate tease of Aristotle's Organon, or "the order of things." Bacon's "new order" purports that, contrary to Aristotle, there is no inherent "nature" or "purpose" in reality. Rather, reality is something that we can conquer by means of knowledge and force, dissecting nature to its fundamental parts and reconstructing it into what we want. Bacon is considered the father of the scientific method, creating a testable means through which we can understand, break down and re-construct nature.

6. Descartes' Discourse on Method

Descartes is best known for his famous assertion, cogito ergo sum, or "I think, therefore, I am." In Discourse on Method, Descartes embarks on a rigorous endeavor to doubt anything that can be doubted. He postulates that all of reality can be doubted; however, the one thing that cannot be doubted, he concludes, is that there must be someonewho is doubting. Though we may think that we are in the matrix, we are thinking, therefore, we must exist.

Descartes's rigorous skepticism introduced a brand-new burden of truth. In order for something to be true, it must be beyond all reasonable doubt. Many continue to use Descartes' skepticism as a way to challenge religious belief. According to these modern-day skeptics, unless you can prove that God exists beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no way to actually know whether he exists. The severing of knowledge and faith is often attributed to Descartes.

7. David Hume's Treatise on Human Nature

Scottish philosopher David Hume took aim at both Plato and Aristotle. One of his most famous and consequential claims about human nature is, "reason is and always ought to be slave of the passions." This took direct aim at Plato's view of human nature. Plato argued that our reason or "rationality" should always rule our passions so that we will desire what is good. Hume flips this on its head, claiming that our reason is helplessly enslaved to our passions and will inevitably justify what we will already want. From this, Hume introduced a new articulation of moral relativism, claiming that humans are not able to choose between what is good and what is evil, but rather will choose what they want over what they don't.

8. Kant's Contemplation on the Metaphysics of Morals

Hume's moral relativism sparked panic within German philosopher Immanuel Kant. If we will inevitably do what we desire, how can we ever choose to do something good and moral for its own sake? We must, according to Kant, separate morality completely from the passions if it's to be saved. Kant, therefore, argues that duty is the highest good that man can aspire to. We do the right thing, not because we want to--on the contrary, we do the "right thing" because it's our duty to do so, especially when we don't want to. This breaks away from the Aristotelian notion that our happiness is inextricably intertwined with the pursuit of "the good."

9. Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil

Nietzsche wasn't convinced by either Hume or Kant's efforts to retain some semblance of civility or relativistic moral standard. According to Nietzsche, if there is no such thing as transcendent morality, then "moral maxims" are reduced to meaningless words purported by the people in power. Morality, therefore, becomes a game of persuasion at best, coercion and force at worst. People are reduced to winners and losers, opressors and victims, and whoever comes out on top gets to impose their desired view of the world on the losers. Therefore, the goal of the individual is to cultivate the "will to power," to become the powerful "ubermensch" or "superhuman," or else you will be reduced to a victim susceptible to other people's coercion and oppression.

10. C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man

After the Enlightenment ends in a grand, destructive finale with Nietzsche, Christian philosophers in the 20th century attempt to pick up the pieces and resurrect the ancient and medieval philosophies that had been cast to the side. In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis famously laments that mankind has become "men without chests." This is a direct reference to Plato's view of human nature--there is nothing linking our mind to our heart. Intellectually, we have dissected all of reality into its individual bits, stripping it of its holistic beauty, while also succumbing to our whims and passions with no notion of a transcendent moral law. Lewis calls for the re-marriage of our minds and our hearts, so that we will not only pursue what is good, but moreover, we will desire to do so.

11. Alasdair McIntyre's After Virtue

The latter part of the 20th century saw the resurgence of Aristotelian ethics after being largely dismissed over the past 400 years during the Enlightenment. Scottish Catholic philosopher Alasdair McIntyre was and continues to be one of the foremost leaders of this movement. In his magnum opus, After Virtue, McIntyre takes aim at the entire Enlightenment project itself and shows how it ultimately fails by its own standards. If reality is a mere power dynamic, as Nietzsche argues, and if morality is an act of persuasion and passion, as Hume purports, then we have no reason to take their views seriously. If all of reality is relative, then the statement "reality is relative" is itself relative. It becomes victim of the self-refutation of its own standards. Transcendent morality, he argues, must exist, because there must be some standard by which we judge reality and can say with determination, "this is good" and "this is evil."

The Biden Admin EXPANDED abortion access because they DON'T believe in the Constitution

Joshua Lott / Stringer, JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

This month has already produced an extreme example of why we need a functional and more conservative Congress in order for America to have a chance at moving forward—because the Left does not believe in the Constitution.

Sure, if you confronted a Democrat in Congress, they would probably claim some sort of allegiance to the Constitution—but as a practical matter, they do not believe in it.

Instead, the Left has put all of their eggs in the basket of the executive branch. Why? Because it has the furthest reach through all the various departments, and it can move the fastest—in short, because it’s the most dictatorial. It only takes a department head to write a new memo, or even better, the President to sign a new executive order to carry the force of law.

The Left has put all of their eggs in the basket of the executive branch.

Do you recall any of the Left’s favorite Supreme Court decisions over the years—something like gay marriage for example—and how Republicans immediately tried to subvert it, using the executive branch to try to nullify the decision? Yeah, that never happened. But that is exactly what Democrats have done in recent weeks to expand abortion access.

Democrats only consider the Supreme Court legitimate when they approve of the decisions. When the miraculous overturning of Roe v. Wade happened last summer, President Biden called it “a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court.”

Democrats only consider the Supreme Court legitimate when they approve of the decisions.

Recently the FDA approved local pharmacies to issue abortion pills. For the first 20 years after these pills were developed, they were not treated like typical prescription drugs. They had to be dispensed in-person by a doctor. That in-person requirement is now gone.

Keep in mind that the Left’s go-to line is that abortion is always about the health and safety of women, yet a 2021 peer-reviewed study found that chemical abortions have a complication rate four times greater than surgical abortions. Between 2002 and 2015, the rate of abortion-related ER visits following use of the abortion pills increased by 507 percent.

Chemical abortions have a complication rate four times greater than surgical abortions.

And now the Biden administration is making these less-safe abortions much more accessible. Thanks to the FDA’s rule change, Walgreens and CVS have already agreed to dispense abortion pills in states where abortion is legal—effectively turning these stores into new abortion clinics.

As for states that have abortion bans, "Team Biden" announced a new way around those too. Three weeks ago, the Justice Department issued a legal opinion that the U.S. Postal Service is allowed to deliver abortion pills anywhere, even in places where abortion is illegal. What’s their rationale? That the sender cannot know for sure whether the recipient will use the pills illegally or not. So it’s totally okay.

The U.S. Postal Service is allowed to deliver abortion pills anywhere, even in places where abortion is illegal.

Georgetown Law professor Lawrence Gostin told the Washington Post that this Justice Department opinion is “a major expansion of abortion access in the United States.”

So, to recap—the Biden administration has used the FDA, the Justice Department, and the Post Office, which all fall under the executive branch, to provide an end-run around the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision.

Expanding abortion was easy—simple policy tweaks and declarations that carry the force of law without an ounce of input from actual lawmakers in Congress—all because it comes from the grotesque, bloated, apparently pro-death executive branch.

Glenn is one of the most outspoken critics of the World Economic Forum and their vision to use crises to reconstruct the world order known as The Great Reset. The recent WEF summit in Davos confirms what Glenn has long warned about: globalist elites seek to upend our democracy, freedoms, and way of life to achieve their utopian climate goals. Here are 15 quotes from the 2023 Davos Summit, revealing their true intentions in their own words:

1. Saving the planet

When you hear the word, "Davos," the first thought that should pop into your mind is an elite group getting together to save the world from imminent climate disaster... at least they think of themselves that way. According to John Kerry:

I mean, it's so almost extraterrestrial to think about saving the planet.

2. Private jets

What most people think when they hear the word "Davos" is a group of global elites flying in on private jets to talk about climate change... and yes, John Kerry does own a private jet, no matter how many times he denies it:

I fly commercial [...] Exclusively.

3. Global Collaboration Village

You always hear some weird, dystopian projects coming out of WEF, like "The Global Collaboration Village," a new metaverse community aimed at strengthening "global cooperation." It sounds like the next installment of Brave New World. According to Klaus Schwab, Founder and President of the WEF:

The Global Collaboration Village is the pioneering effort to use the metaverse for public good, to create global cooperation and to strengthen global cooperation in the metaverse or using metaverse technologies. For me, it's a dream coming true because the village allows the Forum to create a more larger and open platform where everybody can participate.

4. Climate revolution

However, the core theme throughout WEF summits is the immediate need for a climate revolution and how businesses are selfishly blocking the revolution because they want to make an extra buck. Here's how John Kerry summed up the sentiment:

How do we get there? The lesson I have learned in the last years [...] is money, money, money, money, money, money, money.

5. Do or die

This often turns into alarmist language, like having to choose between wealth and our planet's survival... Joyeeta Gupta, Professor of Environment and Development in the Global South at University of Amsterdam, said it eloquently:

If we do the minimum at this pivotable moment in our history, then we and our children – even if we are rich – will live in the danger zone. But if we – business people, governments, citizens, cities – take action today, then we and our children will have a future worth looking forward to.

6. Colossal risks

Potsdam Institute's director Johan Rockström, used similar language, claiming we are "taking colossal risks with the future of civilization":

We are taking colossal risks with the future of civilization on Earth, we are degrading the life support systems that we all depend on, we are actually pushing the entire Earth system to a point of destabilization, pushing Earth outside of the state that has supported civilization since we left the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago.

7. Rain bombs

"Colossal risks" like... rain bombs? We didn't make that up. Ask Al Gore:

That’s what’s boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers, and the rain bombs.

Courtesy of the World Economic Forum

8. Survival comes down to this

How do we secure our survival? According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, we have to "end our addiction to fossil fuels." This entails wiping out our entire energy industry, displacing millions of workers, and relying on global governments to usher in a new green industry. In his words:

So, we need to act together to close the emissions gap, and that means to phase out progressively coal and supercharge the renewable revolution, to end the addiction to fossil fuels, and to stop our self-defeating war on nature.

9. Complete transformation

It isn't hyperbolic to argue that the globalist climate goals will completely transform the world economy. Even EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen admitted:

The net-zero transformation is already causing huge industrial, economic and geopolitical shifts – by far the quickest and the most pronounced in our lifetime. It is changing the nature of work and the shape of our industry.

10. Scientific necessity

Of course, to bring about this "net-zero" transformation, we will have to override small, "political expediencies" like democracy to do what is "scientifically necessary." According to Zurich Insurance Group’s head of sustainability risk John Scott:

We’re living in a world right now where what’s scientifically necessary, and what is politically expedient don’t match.

11. Illegal hate speech

Doing away with "political expediencies" would also require the censorship of dissent, which would likely manifest in hate-speech laws. When asked by Brian Stelter how the discussion of disinformation relates to everything else happening today in Davos, European Commission VP Věra Jourová shared this prediction:

Illegal hate speech, which you will have soon also in the U.S. I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law.

12. Climate first

We will also have to forego national interests on the international stage. America won't be able to advocate for policies and interests that benefit Americans. Instead, we will sacrifice national interests for the sake of global climate interests. French economy minister Bruno Le Maire said:

The key question is not China First, US First, Europe First. The key question for all of us is Climate First.

13. The role of war

We can also expect globalist leaders to use crises, like the war in Ukraine, to expedite the "net-zero transformation." Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz said:

Ultimately, our goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 has been given an additional boost by Putin’s war. Now we have even more cause to move away from fossil fuels.

14. Blame game

Globalist leaders will continue to blame ALL of the crises in our society on climate change to justify the "net-zero transition," from the energy shortage to "mistrust, selfishness [and] xenophobia." Prime Minister of Spain Pedro Sanchez said:

Our present struggle is not only against Putin or the energy shortage. It is also against fear, mistrust, selfishness, xenophobia, and environmental disaster. And its outcome will define life in the West and beyond for decades to come.

15. Sacrifice for the greater good

While we sacrifice our national interests for the sake of the "greater global good," we can expect our foreign enemies, like China, to benefit. Suisse Chairman Axel Lehmann said:

The growth forecasts now for China is 4.5%. I would not personally be surprised when that would be topped.

Conclusion

Glenn has been clear about the distinction between wanting to transition to green practices on your own accord and being forced into that transition by globalist, unelected elites. Leaders at Davos will continue to use alarmist language to justify their crackdown on democracy and freedom to bring about their leftist utopia. We have to cut through the alarmist language and in order to protect our freedoms.