Daniel Webster wants to be the next Speaker of the House

October 01, 2015

Editor

Daniel Webster of Florida joined Glenn on radio Thursday to us discuss his bid to become the next Speaker of the House. Not knowing Webster very well, Glenn was very frank that it might not be the most friendly environment for him.

"I don't ever like to set somebody up," Glenn said. "I don't know Daniel Webster at all. I know his voting record. And I know who he's endorsed as president. So it's not somebody I would run home and say, 'Hey, this is our guy.' But I wanted to alert him that he was walking into a tough room. Not an ugly room. But a tough room. And he has been brave enough to join us for the program anyway."

Glenn came away from the interview liking the guy, even recommending him to his audience.

"A lot of our friends in Washington say, 'This is the guy that we should be backing,'" Glenn said. "I'm going to take it under advisement myself. And pray on it. And give the audience my recommendation, but I think everybody can do the same themselves."

After Webster hung up, Glenn listed some of the reasons he came away liking him.

"I didn't feel pandered to. I felt he did understand his faith. And I felt he was a faith-driven guy. And I saw that in Florida with Terri Schiavo," Glenn said.

Listen to the exchange or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: Daniel Webster of -- of Florida joins us now, and I don't ever like to set somebody up. And we tried to alert his staff prior to. I don't know Daniel Webster at all. I know his voting record. And I know who he's endorsed as president. So it's not somebody I would run home and say, "Hey, this is our guy." But I wanted to alert him that he was walking into a tough room. Not an ugly room. But a tough room. And he has been brave enough to join us for the program anyway.

And I appreciate that. How are you doing, Daniel?

DANIEL: I'm doing great. Thanks for having me on. We do know each other.

GLENN: Good. How do we know each other?

DANIEL: Well, I sponsored the first bill that actually saved Terri Schiavo's month for about ten months. And it went all the way to the Supreme Court. And then it was -- it was ruled unconstitutional. Then we came back. Did another -- tried another time. It ended up that bill lost by one vote on the floor. Then we went to the federal court, tried to go to the Supreme Court, and we ended up losing. And then you came down and actually did her memorial service. And I was there at that. I'm good friends with all the people that were involved.

GLENN: Yeah.

DANIEL: Anyway, so --

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, one huge point for you. Because I do remember you now. And that took profound bravery.

DANIEL: Even a lot of conservatives left us on that issue. They did.

GLENN: Yes, they did.

DANIEL: And when she passed away a few weeks later, that was the saddest day of my whole political career. It was.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. So, Kevin (sic), now you've softened me up a little bit. I want to ask you some questions here.

DANIEL: Yeah.

GLENN: You are being pushed by a lot of people in the Liberty Caucus even, some friend of mine from the Liberty Caucus, Massie called and said, "No, you're the guy that we need to have." And my instinct is to say shame on them, this is the best we can do. Your voting record is worse than Kevin McCarthy. You have -- you have endorsed Jeb Bush, who is a progressive at heart. Your votes -- you voted against limiting warrantless surveillance on Americans. You voted for the Farm Bill. You voted for debt limit suspension. The Omnibus Budget Bill to continue student loan subsidies. Voted for more tariffs. Voted against cutting 3.1 from the Energy and Water Appropriation -- I mean, it goes on and on and on. We have an opportunity to get rid of John Boehner who is nothing, but a progressive nightmare. And to actually stand for things that mean something. Why should we go to you?

DANIEL: Well, because I was Speaker of the House in Florida, first Republican speaker in 120 years. And I totally dismantled the way this House worked and turned it around to what I believe is right. The problem is not necessarily that. The problem is that we have a power-based system. And a power-based system is different from principle-based. And so I created their principle-based system. We took up the most important issues first, not like we're doing kind of this week in Congress. We wait till the last minute, and the government is shutting down or whatever. And so we do something to keep it going. Those issues should have been resolved months ago, when the president had no leverage. He has leverage two or three days before the vote or one day before the vote or the day of the vote. You know, all of that is wrong.

And so I believe that a power-based system, a few people at the top of the pyramid of power make all the decisions. What I want to do, and what I did in Florida was push down the pyramid of power, spread out the base so all the people that have amendments that get shut down, not because of anything other than the process, and so they pass a rule. No amendments. They passed a rule. No alternatives. They passed a rule. We're not even taking up your bill.

And instead of having an open process, a process where every member gets to participate. And when that takes place, then many of these things that don't even happen -- or happen right at the end when there's really no other choice is -- is done away with it. We get rid of it. And I did that in Florida. And received some -- most people said that -- you know, the conservatives took over.

GLENN: Tell me where you stand on the continuing resolutions.

DANIEL: Continuing resolutions. That's the problem. And I voted against those. Here's the problem with continuing resolution. It's a picture of what I just described.

The year before I became Speaker of the House, the first bill we took up was the naming of the state pie. And after midnight on the last date, we passed the appropriation bill. We dismantled Department of Commerce. Created a new Department of Health and rewrote the welfare laws. Thousands of pages of bills. And we did it in 15 minutes. I say "we," the Democrats who were controlling the House at the time. And I just said, "We're not going to do that. We're getting rid of that. We're not going to have any meetings after 6 o'clock. We'll do everything in the daylight." And we're not going to do CRs. We take up the bill first so that we can finish our work and so that we can negotiate way before we get to these deadlines, where in a sense, many members look at it and say, "Well, I guess we don't have any other option."

GLENN: So will you put an end to the continuing resolution?

DANIEL: Absolutely. Because we're going to take them up early, and then you start telling the Senate and the President, "No, CRs. No CRs." You tell them every week, every day, whatever. And I'm talking about back in April or whenever.

GLENN: Okay. So, Daniel, how are you going to do this -- how are you going to get this done when you have progressives on the left -- on the right that love it as much as the progressives on the left? This is the way to dismantle our government is through the continuing resolution. How are you going to get the power structure to change -- and, quite honestly, why should I believe that you -- a guy with your voting record is the guy who says, "You know what, I'm going to return us to the Constitution."

DANIEL: Because I did it in Florida. I'm the only person that has ever run a principle-based legislative body. Every one of them -- in every legislative body, the default is power. So a few people are making the decisions you're talking about.

GLENN: Okay. So then let me rephrase --

DANIEL: Then you're actually getting the work done. And you're getting the work done. And then you lead the other body. Not be subservient to them.

GLENN: So, Daniel, I guess the question I have to ask you -- and it might be impossible for you to do is, "Why should I trust you?" I don't trust anybody, quite honestly. I don't trust some of the guys who are supposedly on my side, I don't trust them. They get into Washington. You could say you did this in Florida. But I don't know you in Florida. Except what you did with Terri Schiavo, which was remarkable and took a lot of bravery. But then you -- and it turned out to be unconstitutional, by the way. Then you come up here to Washington. Usually when people go to Washington, they lose their soul. So convince me that I should trust you. That's what you're asking for the American people. Is our trust. To go fight for you to be the guy.

DANIEL: Well, it's because I -- I'll give you a couple of things. And that is this, if you remember at the -- at the last supper, Jesus had his disciples together. And they got into an argument about who was going to be the greatest. And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercised Lordship over them. And those that exercise authority over them are called benefactors." That's the power-based system I'm talking about. And so -- and so what happens, you're in power, and you offer up these -- you're in authority, and they are subservient to you. Members of Congress. And then you offer them subcommittee chairs or other things. And then they become -- you become their benefactor.

That's -- and Jesus said -- and you know what he said, "Ye shall not be so. You can't be that way. That's not the way. The way to lead is to serve." And I've proven, whether it's my (inaudible) or whatever, that I've been a servant leader. And that when I've had positions of authority, I've taken that position and made the membership successful. And not me. Not me passing out favors and buying votes or whatever. And so when you get rid of that, then you have now the opportunity to work on principles. And that to me is what I'm all about. And that's why a lot of conservatives are saying, "Yes, this is right." They were there. Many of them that were supporting me were in the Florida legislature at the time. And so I don't know why I can tell you shouldn't trust me, except for the fact of Schiavo like you said. But I will say this, I've had more pro-life bills, I believe, I ruled unconstitutional -- but I tried -- then the entire total membership of Congress together. And so --

GLENN: Daniel, I will tell you this, you've answered all of the questions at least right enough for me to bring it to God and to pray on it. And I -- we have to trust somebody. And --

STU: By the way, Daniel is the only one who has stepped up.

GLENN: Yeah, these other weasels --

STU: None of them have done anything.

GLENN: Yeah. And this is not going to be an easy thing.

DANIEL: No. I did before -- and I'm down to one committee --

GLENN: So let me ask you this. I usually ask people how their soul is. You're about to go into the -- you're about to step into the darkest place you probably have ever been. You know this to be true. The power that you are going to have at your disposal and the darkness that is surrounding that position, how are you -- how are you going to hold on to your soul?

DANIEL: Well, the key is -- I'll say the key -- number one, I pray every day. But what I found is that the way to give up power is to not grab it to begin with. In that, you begin serving people, not have them serve you. That's number one. And then number two, I think the most important thing is you adopt -- there is an unwritten rule that's a bad rule. And that is, it says the leader can never lose. The Speaker can never lose. The guy in charge can never lose. And I don't believe that. And as long as I can hang on to that, I won't have this pressure to guide things the way I think they're supposed to be as opposed to allowing the free exercise of the votes of the membership of this House of Representatives. And so -- and I also have this philosophy.

America is not broken. Washington is. That's the problem.

GLENN: Grade Boehner for me. Can you grade, Boehner for me?

DANIEL: I felt like John Boehner created -- he didn't create, maybe he just fell into. But he had a system based on power. And I just -- I along with -- I -- I counseled him and others that it doesn't have to be this way. They didn't take my counsel. They decided to go that way. So I believe that in a way, he created much of the problems that we have today.

As far as grading, I'm not a judge. I don't judge people. My religion would tell me judge not and be not judged. But I will say this, I think that we could have -- we could have had the golden opportunity to rebuild the party image if we had only shown ourselves to be leaders -- a different kind of leader. A leader that says, "We're going to listen to the people. We're going to listen to the membership. We're going to give power to the membership, and we're going to get away from this power-based system."

GLENN: Who are the people of the Tea Party? Who are they?

DANIEL: The people of the Tea Party are people. They're citizens of this country. You know, there's just a lot of them that I know that are just citizens that actually probably didn't even want to get engaged. Would rather be home working and doing things and trusting that the government would perform correctly. And it just -- it's almost like that -- the acronym of what it means. It's just enough. They've had enough. And they got engaged. Nothing wrong with that. And so I think that's who they are. They're just regular people who've had enough, and they got themselves engaged in trying to transform government.

GLENN: Representative Daniel Webster. He is running for the -- the Speaker of the House seat. Lot of our friends in Washington say, "This is the guy that we should be backing." Daniel, I appreciate your phone call. I'm going to take it under advisement myself. And pray on it. And give the audience my recommendation, but I think everybody can do the same themselves. I've enjoyed our conversation. You had a lot of right things to say. I appreciate it.

DANIEL: Thank you for letting me be on. I really appreciate it.

GLENN: You bet. Thank you, Daniel.

I like him. I like him. I mean, I don't know what --

PAT: You know, I think it was all fair. But he came into something that wasn't a super loving --

STU: Environment.

PAT: -- environment. And he handled it --

GLENN: No, but I thought it was fair.

PAT: No, I just I thought it was fair.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I think the thing to hit too, the people that have talked to us about Daniel Webster being the guy -- first of all, there's not another choice, besides McCarthy. Second of all, the point was not that he had the best FreedomWorks voting record.

GLENN: No, they all said -- this is where he won me is, I believed his servant's heart idea. I believe when he said I want to reverse the pyramid.

STU: And that's what they said.

GLENN: Yeah, they said structure -- forget about his votes. Structure, he'll do the right thing.

STU: The idea is that conservatives that you might think are even more conservative than Daniel Webster are going to be able to present things, where now they're being squashed. You'll have a chance to get those voices heard, which is important.

GLENN: Right.

STU: The Speaker has so much power, if we can reverse that a little bit even, it would be a step in the right direction. Certainly, the same thing is going to continue with McCarthy.

GLENN: I will tell you, what I liked about him is I liked the fact that he said the right things on that. It was consistent with the guys who I trust in Congress are saying about it.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I also like the fact, I didn't -- I didn't feel pandered to. I felt he did understand his faith. And I felt he was a faith-driven guy. And I saw that in Florida with Terri Schiavo.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And that could hold his feet right to the right place.

Woke ideology trumps medicine in America's top 5 medical schools

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Progressive ideology has infected our most prestigious medical schools and is seeping into our medical system.

As Glenn covered in his latest TV special, "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI), and leftist rhetoric have overtaken science and medicine as the focus of medical schools across the nation. The next generation of doctors and nurses is being force-fed DEI and "anti-racist" nonsense at the expense of slipping standards. This has led to a decline in people's trust in the medical industry and for good reason. Woke ideology has already been the driving force behind at least one medical malpractice case, and more are undoubtedly on the way.

All of this is being spearheaded by universities, which have integrated DEI practices into the fabric of their programs. Our top medical schools now require students and staff to participate in mandatory DEI and "anti-racist" classes and training and are adjusting the standards to reflect this new shift in focus. Here are 5 statements from the top American medical schools that show that medicine is no longer their primary focus:

Harvard Medical School

Boston Globe / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Harvard University "Unconscious bias" resource page:

“As members of HMS, we each have a responsibility to create an inclusive community that values all individuals. Barriers to inclusion may include assumptions we make about others that guide our interactions. Recognizing our Unconscious Bias is a critical step in developing a culture of equity and inclusion within HMS and in our partnerships with other communities.”

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Rob Carr / Staff | Getty Images

Pulled from the JHM Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity blog:

“One-hour live, virtual unconscious bias training ... [w]ill be required at all Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) entities for managers and above; hospital nurse leaders; credentialed providers (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners); and for school of medicine faculty and trainees (including residents, fellows, medical and graduate students, and research postdocs), as well as those at a manager level or above.”

Stanford University School of Medicine

Philip Pacheco / Stringer | Getty Images

Found on the Stanford Medicine Commission on Justice and Equity page:

“The Commission on Justice and Equity—composed of external and internal leaders, experts, and advocates—represents an institution-wide, collaborative effort to dismantle systemic racism and discrimination within our own community and beyond.”

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Penn Medicine Commitment to Inclusion, Equity, and Antiracism site:

“We openly acknowledge the role of structural forces of oppression as primary drivers of the disparate health outcomes. We believe that working to reverse the underrepresentation of historically excluded groups is critical in achieving equitable health outcomes. While this is an ongoing journey for our program, here are some of the tangible steps we have taken to achieve an inclusive culture”

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

Jeenah Moon / Stringer | Getty Images

Pulled from the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, Justice, and Anti-Racism page:

"Courses are being revised to be more inclusive and informed by the key principle of race as a social construct and a social determinant of health. We are training faculty that Anti-Racism is not an add-on to a course. Anti-Racism is a pedagogy - a manner of teaching, designing courses, and measuring learning outcomes. We make sure that the classroom environment is inclusive by holding space for respectful conversation and ensuring that we address any “classroom ruptures”– a disorienting dilemma or situation when a bias or microaggression that may occur, providing real time opportunities for professional development, learning, and growth. Racist actions and remarks are never tolerated at Columbia University and will be dealt with following established protocols."

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.

Top 5 MOST EVIL taxes the government extorts from you

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

"In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." -Ben Franklin

The injustice of taxation has been a core issue for Americans since the very beginning of our country, and it's a problem we have yet to resolve. This belief was recently reignited in many Americans earlier this month on tax day when the numbers were crunched and it was discovered that the government was somehow owed even more hard-earned money. As Glenn recently discussed on his show, it's getting to be impossible for most Americans to afford to live comfortably, inflation is rising, and our politicians keep getting richer.

The taxpayer's burden is heavier than ever.

The government is not above some real low blows either. While taxes are a necessary evil, some taxes stretch the definition of "necessary" and emphasize the "evil." Here are the top five most despicable taxes that are designed to line the IRS coffers at your expense:

Income Tax

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income." -Ben Franklin

On February 24th, 2024 we hit a very unfortunate milestone, the 101st anniversary of the 16th Amendment, which authorized federal income tax. Where does the government get the right to steal directly out of your paycheck?

Death Taxes

Dan Mullan / Staff | Getty Images

"Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes" -George Harrison

Not even in death can you escape the cold pursuit of the tax collector. It's not good enough that you have to pay taxes on everything you buy and every penny you make your entire life. Now the feds want a nice slice, based on the entire value of your estate, that can be as much as 40 percent. Then the state government gets to stick their slimy fingers all over whatever remains before your family is left with the crumbs. It's practically grave-robbery.

Payroll

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -John Marshall

What's that? The nice chunk of your paycheck the government nabs before you can even get it to the bank wasn't enough? What if the government taxed your employer just for paying you? In essence, you make less than what your agreed pay rate is and it costs your employer more! Absolutely abominable.

Social Security

VALERIE MACON / Contributor | Getty Images

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -Ronald Reagan

Everyone knows the collapse of Social Security is imminent. It has limped along for years, only sustained by a torrent of tax dollars and the desperate actions of politicians. For decades, people have unwillingly forked over money into the system they will never see again.

FICA

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." -Thomas Paine

FICA is the payroll equivalent of Social Security. Your employer has to match however much you pay. It means it costs your employer even more to pay you—again, you'll NEVER see that money. At this point, are you even working for yourself, or are you just here to generate money for the government to frivolously throw away?

5 DISTURBING ways World War III will be different from previous wars

Oleg Nikishin / Stringer | Getty Images

Has World War III begun?

Over the weekend, Iran launched an unprecedented attack against Israel involving over 300 missiles and drones. This marked the first direct attack on Israel originating from Iranian territory. Fortunately, according to an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, 99 percent of missiles and drones were successfully neutralized by Israeli defense systems. Iran claimed that the operation against Israel had concluded and that no further offensive was planned, although the possibility of another attack is still present.

This has left many people, including Glenn, wondering the same thing: did we just witness the start of World War III?

Glenn recently had a World War II Air Force Veteran as a guest on his TV special, who told stories of the horrors he and his brothers-in-arms faced in the skies over war-torn Europe. This was a timely reminder of the terrors of war and a warning that our future, if it leads to another world war, is a dark one.

But, if Glenn's coverage of the Iranian attack revealed one thing, it's that World War III will look nothing like the world wars of the twentieth century. Long gone are the days of John "Lucky" Luckadoo and his "Bloody Hundredth" bravely flying their B-17s into battle. Over the weekend, we saw hundreds of autonomous drones and missiles clashing with extreme speed and precision over several different fronts (including space) simultaneously. This ain't your grandfather's war.

From EMP strikes to cyber attacks, here are FIVE ways the face of war has changed:

EMP attacks

New York Daily News Archive / Contributor | Getty Images

The entire modern world, on every level, is completely dependent on electricity. From your home refrigerator to international trade, the world would come to a grinding halt without power. And as Glenn has pointed out, it wouldn't even be that hard to pull off. All it would take is 3 strategically placed, high-altitude nuclear detonations and the entire continental U.S. would be without power for months if not years. This would cause mass panic across the country, which would be devastating enough on its own, but the chaos could be a perfect opportunity for a U.S. land invasion.

Nuclear strikes

Galerie Bilderwelt / Contributor | Getty Images

Nuclear war is nothing new. Many of us grew up during the Cold War, built fallout shelters, and learned to duck and cover. But times have changed. The Berlin Wall fell and so did the preparedness of the average American to weather a nuclear attack. As technology has advanced, more of our adversaries than ever have U.S. cities within their crosshairs, and as Glenn has pointed out, these adversaries are not exactly shy about that fact. Unfortunately, the possibility of an atomic apocalypse is as real as ever.

Immigration warfare

Nick Ut / Contributor | Getty Images

The strategy of strangling an opposing nation's economy to gain the upper hand is a wartime tactic as old as time. That's why the Border Crisis is so alarming. What better way to damage an opponent's economy than by overburdening it with millions of undocumented immigrants? As Glenn has covered, these immigrants are not making the trek unaided. There is a wide selection of organizations that facilitate this growing disaster. These organizations are receiving backing from around the globe, such as the WEF, the UN, and U.S. Democrats! Americans are already feeling the effects of the border crisis. Imagine how this tactic could be exploited in war.

Cyber shutdowns

Bill Hinton / Contributor | Getty Images

Cyber attacks will be a major tactic in future wars. We've already experienced relatively minor cyber strikes from Russia, China, and North Korea, and it is a very real possibility that one of our adversaries inflicts a larger attack with devastating consequences on the United States. In fact, the WEF has already predicted a "catastrophic" cyber attack is imminent, and Glenn suggests that it is time to start preparing ourselves. A cyber attack could be every bit as devastating as an EMP, and in a world run by computers, nothing is safe.

Biological assault

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Don't trust the "experts." That was the takeaway many of us had from the pandemic, but something less talked about is the revelation that China has manufactured viruses that are capable of spreading across the globe. We now know that the lab leak hypothesis is true and that the Wuhan lab manufactured the virus that infected the entire world. That was only ONE virus from ONE lab. Imagine what else the enemies of America might be cooking up.