Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2023 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

TheBlaze TV host Dana Loesch reacts to her most recent death threat

September 30, 2015
Ted Tuttle

Editor

On radio Wednesday, Glenn was joined by Dana Loesh who told Glenn she's been talking to the FBI since receiving a really nasty death threat.

Here's how Dana told the story.

"It happened on my birthday, and Sunday, some dude who was really bad at graphics put up this video where he edited the NRA video that I did, the 'Moms Like Me' video, and it shows this like weird hand coming up, you know, with a Glock in the hand. And it pulls the trigger and shoots me right in the face, and blood splatters on the screen, and I fall over," Dana said.

The video was posted and subsequently shared on Twitter, until Dana eventually saw it while watching a baseball game with her family. The creepy part is that this wasn't the first time the person who posted the video had tried to contact Dana.

"This guy has been trying to get my attention for a long time. Apparently he lives in Illinois. And I've never engaged," Dana said.

She decided to take action when she realized her 14-year-old son had seen the video on Instagram.

"I just thought, 'all right, that's it. I'm done.' And so I'm trying to pursue options and see what happens. Because I'm just done dealing with this," Dana said.

Dana explained she reached out to the FBI and they are now carrying out an assessment of the situation.

"Well, if you just gave up the gun, then you would not have this problem," Glenn said jokingly.

Dana's response?

"That's exactly why I carry because guys like [him] who are bigger than me and stronger than me in a number of different ways are threatening me physically, yes, you're right, that's exactly why I have a firearm. You just proved my point, thank you," she said.

Listen to the full interview or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: You are talking to the FBI because you actually have some really nasty death threats.

DANA: Yeah, it's been fun. It happened on my birthday, and Sunday, some dude who was really bad at graphics put up this video where he edited the NRA video that I did, the Moms Like Me video, and it shows this like weird hand coming up, you know, with a Glock in the hand. And it pulls the trigger and shoots me right in the face, and blood splatters on the screen, and I fall over. And he posted that to Twitter because Twitter has video now. Put it up on Twitter, and it kind of went from there.

So I'm at the ball field. My son plays fall baseball. I'm at the ball field on Sunday, and I see all this weird stuff. You know, I made the mistake of, "Oh, well -- you know, he had a double-header. I'm like, "Okay, we have a break, let's look at Twitter." Which you shouldn't do on a Sunday.

So I open my phone. I look at Twitter, and I see all these weird mentions in my mentions column. And it's this video. And so I play it, and I'm watching it there. And the crazy thing is my oldest son is now aware of it because my oldest son is 14. And he and his friends, they're all on the Internet. He had saw it before -- we weren't even going to say anything to him, but he had already seen it.

GLENN: I remember the first spooky video death threat I ever got were from 9/11 truthers. And they made -- they took the stuff that I had done on CNN and slowed it way down and then put driving rock music behind it, and then a disembodied computer voice said, "All traitors must die." And then they put underneath my face, the word "traitor."

"All traitors must die. All traitors must die." It was the spookiest thing. Now it's kind of like, "Okay, well, it's Tuesday." But it was really spooky.

DANA: Yeah, it was creepy. And this guy has been trying to get my attention for a long time. Apparently he lives in Illinois. And I've never engaged. If it doesn't advance a message I'm trying to get out, then I don't engage.

GLENN: Oh, you are evil.

DANA: If it doesn't serve my purpose in some way, then I never engage that person. And I've ignored him. And this has been going on for a very long time. And then I saw that video.

GLENN: Like, what's he trying to contact you for?

DANA: Oh, just on Twitter, constantly writing stuff.

GLENN: Nasty stuff about you?

DANA: Oh, yeah. I mean, yeah, really ignorant. I mean, really trying to get a reaction out of me. And I ignored it. You know, I just muted him. I don't like to give them the satisfaction of seeing me block them, so God bless the mute button. So I just muted him, and that was about it. And then until this video came out.

And I don't know if it was the combination of me just being crabby, how you should have known it was my birthday. How dare you. You should have waited a day. Or it was the fact that, you know, my 14-year-old son had seen it because he's on Facebook as are a lot of kids who are 14 years old. And he's on Instagram, as are a lot of other 14-year-olds. Maybe it was that and the fact that he had seen it as well. And I just thought, "All right, that's it. I'm done." And so I'm trying to pursue options and see what happens. Because I'm just done dealing with this.

GLENN: Did the FBI reach out to you? Or did you --

DANA: Oh, I reached out to the FBI. I reached out to Cyber Crimes Division in Dallas. I also reached out to the FBI bureau here in Dallas. I heard back from them. I spoke with them today. They're assessing right now. They're in the assessment portion of, I guess, like a pre-investigation. So that's where it stands.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Well, if you just gave up the gun, then you would not have this problem.

DANA: And that's the other thing because I had a number of grown adult males who were telling me yesterday online, yesterday and Sunday, that one of them said that he wants to beat my face in. The other one says that he wants to blank me up because I hide behind my guns. And I'm like, "Yes, that's exactly why I carry because guys like you who are bigger than me and stronger than me in a number of different ways are threatening me physically, yes, you're right, that's exactly why I have a firearm. You just proved my point, thank you."

GLENN: Where do you think this goes? I think we're headed with the Democratic Convention and everything else -- I was just up in the library today, and I was looking at some old Black Panthers stuff that we have up in the vaults in the Mercury library. And they're all old newspapers from 1968 and 1969 from the Black Panthers. It is Black Lives Matter. One hundred percent Black Lives Matter. I mean, word-for-word, Black Lives Matter.

And you know what the country was like in 1968 and '69. And I think we're headed for that. I think we'll see violence in Philadelphia. I hope I'm wrong. I think we'll see violence in Philadelphia and violence next year. Really bad violence. Assassinations I think are on our horizon. Because that's the only thing that hasn't been repeated. That's what happened in the early 1900s. It happened in the 1930s. It happened in the 1960s. And it will happen again. Whenever progressives really take root, it's a pattern. And the only thing we haven't done is riots in cities. We've started it, but not really. Riots in cities and assassinations.

DANA: Right. Right. I hope that's not the case. And I hope that our side can not take the bait on that. I mean, I think that there are people who just want to bait both sides really into exactly what you're describing, unfortunately. But I just -- it's always the people who preach nonviolence and unity that are the most unhinged and they're the most violent. And everything that they accuse everyone else of is everything that they commit themselves. They do all of this stuff. The Occupy -- the Tea Party never did anything bad. It's always been the Black Lives Matter and the Occupy people. They don't know how to live peacefully.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. I'm preaching peace and unity. So...

DANA: Yeah, but you're not going out there and like committing acts of violence or using violent rhetoric, or whatever that phrase is. You're not -- I mean, you're actually living it. I mean, you're actually going to help people. And, you know, you're traveling and visiting with people. I mean, it's like a big difference from what these people are doing. They're just there to start riots.

GLENN: Well, some people believe it, and some people use it as a slogan to hide behind.

DANA: A lot of people use it as a slogan to hide behind, yeah.

GLENN: So let's switch gears here for just a second. I don't know if you saw the Carly Fiorina -- or did you meet her when she was in the studio?

DANA: I interviewed her in your office when you weren't here one day.

GLENN: What do you think of her?

DANA: I think that she -- she's impressive. I haven't made up my mind yet because I -- she's impressive. I just have some questions about her business record. You know, I had asked her the question -- it was something to the extent of, "How are you going to be able to persuade Vladimir Putin and the religious leaders in Iran if you weren't able to win over the HP board? You know, how is that going to work out?" So, I mean, I think that -- she still needs to convince people on that end.

Her answer as to how she used to support the mandate for catastrophic coverage, I mean, great, we're all about liberty evangelism, right? If she comes out and says, "Okay, well, I agree with everyone now. I was wrong." Okay. Well, I can understand that. People do. They can become persuaded, and they can come around. I'm just a little hesitant to trust that answer because it seems like she just came around now because she's in the primary. So I think that she needs to persuade people a little bit more that that was a genuine reconsideration.

GLENN: I had a great conversation with her yesterday on the TV show. And I like her a lot. I'm still -- I'm hesitant to pull the trigger as well and say, "You know what, I back you 100 percent." She hasn't said anything that turns me off.

DANA: Right.

GLENN: She said many things that I really, really like.

DANA: Right.

GLENN: I think she's honest. At least that's the feeling I got from her. I'm just not sure on her pivot point on some of those things. She claims that she hasn't had those extreme views on very many things. But she did actually -- and I was surprised she didn't play this card. But she has had a massive pivot point in her life. You know, losing her child, and breast cancer in 2009, 2010, she -- that was a pretty major pivot point. She didn't tie that to anything, which surprised me.

DANA: I've appreciated how she hasn't really played the gender card because that would have been a huge turnoff.

I do think she has a commanding presence. You can tell she's a boardroom person.

GLENN: She is good.

DANA: When you meet her and she looks at you, you can tell that she's making some judgments right when she's looking at you and she's sizing everything up.

GLENN: Do you trust her?

DANA: I don't trust any of them, really. Honestly. Can I be honest?

GLENN: Who is your candidate?

DANA: I don't have one.

GLENN: You don't have one?

DANA: I do not have one.

GLENN: Not one that you're even, eh, you really like that person --

DANA: I mean, I like some of them, and then I really don't like some of them.

GLENN: Tell me the people you like.

DANA: I like Ted Cruz. But I'm not like endorsing Ted Cruz. I mean, I like Ted Cruz. I think he has the most small government record. He doesn't have a perfect record. But, you know, I like him. There's a few of them that I -- that I kind of like. All of them --

GLENN: How about Rubio?

DANA: I don't like him on amnesty. I don't like him on amnesty. That's a big thing with me.

GLENN: Have you sat down and talked with him?

DANA: No, I have not. He and Jeb Bush, shockingly, and John Kasich. I haven't spoken with those guys.

GLENN: There's only one of those three that I have spoken to and want to speak with. I had an hour sitdown with Rubio. Just without a microphone or camera, just two men sitting there talking.

I came away really liking him. Really respecting him. He's thought things through. He just disagrees with us on a few things, like the NSA. But he's -- he's worth -- he's worth looking at. I don't know if I trust him. You know, I don't know where his --

DANA: Right.

GLENN: -- where he really is when it comes down to the Constitution. But I think he's generally okay. He bothers me with his big government solutions on the war and --

DANA: Yeah. I don't know if it's an issue of trust. Or if I'm interested to see how easily they can be persuaded. Each one of these candidates can be persuaded to do the right thing by the Constitution and limited government.

GLENN: Do you think that's what the problem was with Rand Paul? That he started --

STU: You're talking about him in past tense. This is not a good sign. He's still in the race.

DANA: I know. But what is he? He's barely at 1 percent. He's not going make it after the next debate, if he makes it to the next --

GLENN: He's not going to make it.

DANA: And that's not to say that he's a bad person. He lost that momentum.

GLENN: No, I love him.

DANA: He lost the momentum.

GLENN: I think what happened with him is he shot himself in the foot by making that deal with Mitch McConnell.

DANA: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: As soon as he made that deal with -- he was -- for instance, Ted Cruz, with an exception of that one thing that he flip-flopped on, what was it?

PAT: It was TPT -- TPP or TPA.

GLENN: Right. He flipped on that. Everything else, he's been, nope, this is where I'm at. It doesn't matter. And I'm not playing ball with anybody. And that I think goes a long way with people. Rand Paul, I think the mistake he made is he shot himself in the foot by cozying up to Mitch McConnell.

DANA: Yeah, that was the start of it.

GLENN: Yeah, the minute he did that, you're like, "I don't know if I can trust him."

DANA: Right. And I understand why he did it. Everybody wants to have that backup. Everyone wants to have their little caucus, but there's a cost.

GLENN: Yeah. So Dana, you can listen to Dana on her radio program. And, of course, she follows my program on TheBlaze TV at 6 o'clock, Eastern time. You don't want to miss it. Thanks, Dana. Appreciate it. Stay safe.

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.

Here are the TOP 11 BOOKS from the Western Philosophical Tradition that you MUST know about

Hulton Archive / Handout

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.

15 SHOCKING quotes from the World Economic Forum Davos Summit that should deeply trouble you

Getty Images / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

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.