Daniel Webster wants to be the next Speaker of the House

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.

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.