Sharia law in Texas? Don't miss this incredible interview

On tonight's Glenn Beck Program, Glenn was joined by Dr. Taher El-Badawi and Imam Moujahed Bakhach to discuss the Islamic Tribunal in Texas. Believed to be the first such body operating in the United States, the tribunal operates as a legal non-profit and follows Sharia law. In the interview, Glenn let the two men speak at length about the role of the Islamic Tribunal in their community and why people shouldn't be afraid of Sharia law.

While both guests said that they don't have the authority to enforce the Islamic Tribunal's rulings and those involved have to decide for themselves if they will adhere, they also didn't shy away from some of the harsher punishments in Sharia law.

This is one interview you need to watch and decide for yourself how you feel about the story:

Below is the transcript of the interview. 

Glenn: Well, hello, America, and welcome to The Glenn Beck Program and to TheBlaze. This is the network that you are building. North Texas is the last place in the world I would expect to hear about sharia law in the local news, but that’s exactly what is happening. Texas, you’d better wake up. It’s now catching the eye of the nation, but the gentlemen you’re about to hear tonight are ones…they are the principals involved, and they have not been on the national news yet.

Let me quickly get you up to speed on the story. A group of Muslims have created what is believed to be the very first official sharia law system in the United States of America in the form of an Islamic tribunal. The leaders of the tribunal call it a “nonbinding arbitration firm that adheres to Islamic principles.” Leaders also claim that it would only make decisions on noncriminal cases and defer to state and local laws and courts on criminal cases.

Now, many people are concerned that this is the beginning of what has already happened in the UK, where they now have 85 sharia courts. The BBC investigated and found extensive abuse among women, among other human rights violations. Can we expect the same pattern to follow here in the United States?

I want to make it really clear. All of our churches, our synagogues, we have our own tribunals, if you will. You can be excommunicated from your church. You have councils that tell you and help counsel you on how to live your life in your own personal life. If that’s what this is, then we can’t expect anybody to be any different.

I spoke earlier today with the leaders of the Islamic tribunal. They are at the center of all of this. I want you to watch carefully and listen carefully, and you decide what this tribunal is really all about.

Interview:

When people hear sharia law, they tend to get a little nervous. Can you understand that?

Imam Bakhach: Yes, I understand that, but I want them to understand what is sharia law, why we didn’t speak about sharia law the way that they think about. Sharia law is not what they are talking about and they are protesting, because we protest the same way if that would be sharia law. Sharia law, the word sharia first as an Arabic term refers to a set of rules and regulations, principles, guidelines for the Muslim to live with, and this includes family issues, includes manners, behavior characters, including marriage divorces, including inheritance law, including a lot of aspects of the family and the social things.

Also, if there is true state, to say, to claim that I am Islamic, which we don’t have today, long time ago, even Saudi Arabia is not practicing sharia law the way that it should be, there’s no need to talk about it, because it does not exist. But we have here as we are dealing with the Islamic tribunal that we are trying to help those who came from different backgrounds, culture packages, and Muslim from different nationalities in this society just really being here, and they have issues.

When they have disputes, in a family dispute, to say, they appoint one or panel to arbitrate or to mediate and to tell them what they should do from Islamic point of view.

Glenn: So, if a woman goes to the tribunal, or she doesn’t go to the tribunal, she goes to a U.S. court to get a divorce, is she divorced?

Imam Bakhach: That’s the very great misconception. Both of them parallel with each other, because the Islamic divorce will not be sufficient without the American civil divorce. At the same time, if she went to the court that we have many times on most of the cases are true to say that go to the court first, being granted decree from the judge that being divorced in the court would not be sufficient for the Muslim individual, he or she, that to be enough. He still is in need or she is in need to have the Islamic divorce, because the marriage being established through the word of God—

Glenn: But will she get the divorce? If the U.S. gives her a divorce, will she get the divorce through the Islamic court as well?

Imam Bakhach: That’s what I’m saying, because here there’s no need for that maybe, but when she go back home to travel to go like…on a very common, the most and the strongest our ally in the Middle East, Jordan, will not accept the only American divorce. They ask the embassy from here and go back to the country. Go back, we need the Islamic divorce. So, where to go? She will come to our tribunal to be granted that way. As a mediator, I mediate. We mediate the issue first, and then there is no solution, you got the American divorce? Yes, so we can discuss that and have meeting for the process.

Glenn: Is a woman’s testimony as valuable as a man’s testimony?

Imam Bakhach: Absolutely. Most of the cases that woman applying, not for men. Actually, we see the men object. I have a case yesterday, today is Monday, yesterday in Fort Worth, a lady from Djibouti. They married tribal system way. I’m not familiar with that. I’m from Lebanon. What they do, the chief of the tribe, he performed the marriage, and it was verbal. There is no document to sign. There is no paper, nothing. She came here as a refugee, been here now two years. Her husband was not granted the refugee status, so he still in Djibouti.

Now she wants to finish the relationship. What to do? She doesn’t have the money to go to the court or to give the lawyers or something, but she need only Islamic divorce. What to do? When I asked give me the address, there’s no address. “Why there’s no address?” to me, I wondered. She said because he has three cows and one donkey in that village. There is no way to reach. So, how to reach him to contact him to tell him that your wife applying for divorce? I didn’t accept the case yet to say, but this case happened yesterday, is the most recent situation we have.

Muslim community, wherever they are, they came from different background, different culture packages, and different traditions, you know, so different understanding. Misunderstandings really common among the men to understand that wife have no right to apply for divorce. We say no, it’s not true. Fourteen hundred years ago, God gave her the right to apply for divorce, but what we as Islamic tribunal do, advise to go first to the court and then to be granted that way, whatever now, especially when they have children and custody and all the child support and the visitation rights and no traveling, documents, international law, all this stuff that we cannot ourself handle it.

Glenn: So help me out, because, you know, I look at sharia law as it is being used around the world, and it allows for abuse. It allows for slavery. It allows for the stoning of homosexuals. I mean, it pretty much makes lawful everything that most Americans despise.

Imam Bakhach: That’s what the mistake misconception. I’m very thankful to all of you to help us to come here to clarify this position. As you know, there is a criminal court, and there is civil court. We cannot, no way to discuss the criminal court because all the time scary tactics here, sharia, no sharia, in a way that cutting the hand off or chopping the head, this is not sharia. It is not sharia. What we see and overseas now with ISIS, ISIL, the whole Muslim world condemned that and rejected it, unacceptable.

Glenn: Not true.

Imam Bakhach: At least from our side to say we condemn that.

Glenn: Where’s the reformation come from then? You’re saying that you don’t practice that kind of sharia law. Who is the reformer that you look to that says—

Imam Bakhach: For every Muslim actually that’s a student of knowledge or a scholar to start, first of all, the sharia law does not refer to the government, not refer to the civil…it was in the hand of scholars, religious scholars, to translate the text that mentioned in the Qur’an, and that’s called the first resource of the law. With the Jews, they have their law. The Christians, they have law. So the law based on any, as we say to any Muslim, wherever you are living, if you have a problem, first to say what God says in the book. Then you go to the next.

Glenn: But Jews and Christians don’t believe that man making laws is an abomination, where it’s my understanding that in the Islamic culture, man doesn’t make laws, God makes laws, and that’s sharia law.

Imam Bakhach: Who is beyond the sharia? The sharia means a holy text mentioned, whether general or specific. For example, Muslims, we do not drink alcohol. Why? Because God says in the Qur’an don’t drink alcohol.

Glenn: Right.

Imam Bakhach: Why we don’t eat swine, for example, prohibited, so the law prohibition, that permissibility is mentioned in the Qur’an even when we pray and when we respect our parents, respect the elders, all of this in the law. My point really I want to make clear here is not the issue of cutting the hands and even the criminal law. It’s not just because somebody steal and then cut the hand. It’s not that way. There is a system of investigation, a system of hearing, and a system of finding out if it’s criminal. We have execution. Just recently somebody executed in the jail because confessed and proven beyond doubt.

Glenn: There is a separation here. I’m assuming you both would say the Constitution is great, but God willing, you would rather live under sharia law, under Islamic rule.

Imam Bakhach: If you understand what the intents and the objectives and the principles of the Islamic law from Islamic perspective to say what the goal achieved, what the desire of God intended from these laws. We have five major departments—to preserve the faith for the individual, regardless what his faith is or the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, doesn’t matter in the society, to protect the soul that nobody to attack without any right.

I mean any right if not violated by a human being that he did not commit a crime to be deserving the punishment, then will be Islam very sure and very clear and very strict that nobody has a right to violate and attack this innocent person as we see today done by many so-called ISIS, ISIL, or others. That’s not Islamic sharia, by the way or to protect the mind or to preserve the mind or preserve the offspring, the children and the wealth, the fifth one.

So, all the objectives of the sharia are of Islamic law, to say, that’s called sharia in Arabic to preserve all this point. It’s not just cutting or chopping. That’s not the issue. We have nothing to do…let’s go back to the point. We are here today. We are here. We’re dealing with the issue of family disputes, and we mediate, and we arbitrate. They ask us we need help, what Islam say, because a lot of ignorance among the Muslims themselves.

So, what we should do? What should I do as a wife? Where to go? What do you advise me to do? Do I have the right or not have right? We have somebody an Islamic point of view, when a husband marry his wife, he must, not an optional, must give his wife gift and to be mentioned in the contract, and this gift can be paid during their life together or at divorce or after death if not paid during the lifetime. That’s her right, because from Islamic law that the wife is not requested to spend any penny on the house. If she want to volunteer chair, that’s okay but not requested.

The husband, there’s the commitment from the beginning of the marriage, I’m willing to commit myself to take care of you and the family. There’s talking of commitment but must be given. Why must be given? Because God says in the Qur’an the husband must give his wife. So here now come a time of dispute, he would run away from that. He will try. Fifty thousand dollars, $100,000, he doesn’t want to pay it, so what to do? The wife will ask the help.

The system, with my respect to all the judges, they have no idea what we’re talking about, so I was invited to different courts in Tyler Texas, in Dallas in family court that explain to us what we have, what you do, and how we perform and what does it mean, these things, because through the lawyers, they present the issue, Your Honor, that the husband commit himself to pay on this and this and that, so we need you to approve that and order him to get it through that court, not our court.

Glenn: I think where a lot of people come from is we can all live side by side, and we can all have different faiths. You know, every church has their own kind of little tribunal where, you know, you can be excommunicated, etc., etc., and if that’s what’s happening with the sharia court, then every religion has that, but I think where people come from is there has been no reformation.

I mean, our president just accused Christians of slaughtering people, you know, during the Crusades, but there’s been a reformation. There’s no reformation in Islam. I mean, for instance, the Qur’an says that the trees and the rocks will cry out there is a Jew hiding behind.

Imam Bakhach: It’s not true.

Glenn: It’s not true?

Imam Bakhach: No, I challenge you to bring me that. What’s her name, Barbara Walters, she challenged the minister of education in Saudi Arabia in his palace. I remember that years back.

Glenn: It is in the charter of Hamas.

Imam Bakhach: I don’t know about Hamas. I’ve nothing to do with that issue, but here we are here as Muslim too. You are referring to me that the Qur’an as in the God mentioned in this book, what you are saying about, the cry, that’s not true.

Glenn: Is it in the hadith?

Imam Bakhach: I’m sorry?

Glenn Is it in the hadith?

Imam Bakhach: This is fabricated.

Glenn: It’s fabricated? There is no place in any Islamic scripture that says that?

Imam Bakhach: No. You know, when you have every, let’s say the hadith sciences, I’m talking about, they have the sound hadith. They have weak hadith. They have a preferable hadith, so the ranking, more than 23 ranks and levels of hadith sciences that the scholars worked very hard on this to verify how many people added to what is not from. That’s the point.

Glenn: Okay, so well then, an easy way to solve this is you reject Hamas?

Imam Bakhach: Absolutely.

Glenn: One hundred percent reject?

Imam Bakhach: Not reject, condemned.

Glenn: Condemn Hamas?

Imam Bakhach: Absolutely.

Taher El-badawi: I am here, I am sorry to say it, back to the first point, I am here to discuss issue with Islamic tribunal, so please don’t get up ask us to another situation. We are ready for any discussion. It is open.

Glenn: No, I know that.

Taher : We are ready for any point to discuss with, but the main point here, the reason we are here to discuss this issue what kind of cases Islamic tribunal handle, and you start with the sharia. Why the people afraid from sharia? I’m sorry to say it, one point related to this, cut head is not just in sharia law, just in Islamic law. It’s everywhere. Who said that just in Islamic law? That’s even another sharia, in Jewish sharia, in Christian sharia, in American here, we cut we cut head for some reason.

So, I’m asking you an easy question, if anyone kill another, he should get killed by law, by Islamic law, by government. He should get killed. What is wrong with that? If a thief jump, I’m sorry, to your house, scare your wife, scare your children, scare your neighbor, and they did that with our stores, this is the law, the law to cut his hand because if he feels my hands were cut because of that, he will think about this 100 times. He will never do it. If he do that one time, he will never do it again.

Look how many millions of dollars American here or other states or other states outside spend to keep the criminal in jail, a lot of millions of dollars. We can save that, just let him go, and that’s it, because he did something wrong in the whole community and this kill the whole community. Why not? So, back please to the point. Islamic tribunal, yes, we never deal with anything of that. We don’t have authority for that. We don’t have power for that. We just have two cases.

Glenn: You seem to be okay with that if you had the power for that, but you don’t have the power.

Taher: Absolutely not. As Imam said, we have system. We are very organized people. If, last time, sorry for this example, somebody killed my dad, I shouldn’t kill him. I have to take this case to the judge, and judge have to consult the governor. There’s a system, procedure, I have to follow, so it is not like this one killed this, let’s get him killed—no.

I give you just an easy example for leader, [indiscernible]. This is after Prophet Muhammad [indiscernible]. He sent one to Yemen, and he told him, before he leaves, he ask him always as a habit, “What did you do if the people bring a thief for you?” He said I will cut his hand. Okay, he said, you do that, okay? [indiscernible] said, after [indiscernible], he said, okay, if one person came with me without work, unemployed, I will cut your head because he has no job.

If you rob something from the store or grab something from here to eat, nothing happen to you, but if you have your job and enough income to care about your children, and you have house, and you have car, and you rob from any store or thief from here or there, you have…so this is the law, but please, the point with sharia I ask people, we are not here to do that at all. It is not our authority. It is not our power. It is not our job.

We have specific people to do that stuff, and those people have full of power and full of authority, full of knowledge too. So, we are not dealing with these cases at all. It is not our job, and our cases is family cases, just religious part, that’s it.

Imam Bakhach: Even the point that you mentioned, I mean, there is a procedure that there is a judge, hearing sessions to investigate and find out to bring the proof and the evidences beyond doubt that this man, he committed the crime, whether to confess or other evidences or witnesses that saw, the same with the system we see in the civil world today. Then, after all this procedure now found out that there is no doubt that this man, he committed this crime, not toward the hunger, not for the unemployment or whatever the reason, excuses, you know, there is an excuse and doubtful, you know, what’s the reason of doubt of what a crime committed for.

I think at that time the judge would say your case would be, if that any doubt, even the sharia article that you mention about that even a single doubt that this man did not with the intention ahead of time and planning of this, then it would be excused, lesser punishment will be then to be maybe in prison, maybe to pay lien, whatever. But beyond doubt, beyond all this, so there are a lot of procedures to wait until finally he is the one. Then what is the code? And the code, yes, we have a verse in the Qur’an that says—I will say it in Arab—

Taher: Absolutely right.

Imam Bakhach: We in Texas here, we used to have in cowboy time that to hang the people in the public square, downtown maybe to say. Why it was in public, not behind the walls in the jail? Because let the people to see the crime committed like this will be the same punishment and preserve, as we said, one of the principles and objectives that the sharia are to see what to accomplish that to observe and protect the rest of the society from such crime or such, you know, person to be evil that way.

Glenn: What do you think? We let them say their piece, and you have to decide. By the way, I’m not an Islamic scholar, but it is in the hadith what I referred to. Let me quote. “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, ’O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!’” That’s in the second-highest or most accepted volume of the hadith.

The most accepted volume of the hadith uses it, saying, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘You Muslims will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ’O ’Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’”

If we can’t trust an Imam, a scholar that knows the hadith, the two most respected volumes of the hadith, and he denies that he has ever even heard that, how do we trust the rest of what he said? Back in a minute.

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.