Pat's Pleasantly Political Mother's Day

If only Glenn had shown up in his Braveheart costume with blue-painted face to save Mother's Day. Unfortunately for co-host Pat Gray, no such luck. Pat's version of Mother's Day was riddled with politically progressive pleasantries.

"My son-in-law tends to be . . . he's got a . . . I'm going to put this very . . . he's got a very gentle heart. Isn't that a nice?" Pat said.

Well, that's sweet, but there seems to be something more there.

"He's a bleeding heart liberal," Pat admitted.

What heated political topic drove Pat nuts this Mother's Day? Transgender bathrooms? Illegal Immigration? Right to life issues?

"You know what it was? Food," Pat said. "Food."

Some people, it turns out, don't realize they're making bad food choices that are harmful to their bodies.

Sounds like a case for government intervention.

"It's funny because, Pat, you say it's not about politics . . . and the issue, of course here, is that it is about politics, right?" co-host Stu said. "The answer to that might be, I will start an educational program. I will start a website that will inform people. I will try to do outreach to these communities."

Naturally, progressives think dumb people who don't know the difference between "good" and "bad" food need help from the government.

"Because progressives have not changed. They have only lowered the consequence. Back in the early Progressive Era, around the 1900s, these people were idiots. There were idiot houses," Glenn said. "They were idiots. They were degenerates. They were people that were going to spoil the race because they were too stupid."

"These are the people that Margaret Sanger talked about," Pat said.

And what did Margaret Sanger and her ilk want to do to stupid people?

"Their idea was to eliminate them, and it was not Hitler that did the gas chamber. It was, what's his name? George Bernard Shaw. He's the guy that came up with the gas chamber. So their idea was to eliminate these people. The progressives have not changed. They still believe these people are idiots. They just think that now we have to care for them," Glenn said.

"Their punishment has changed. They don't want to eliminate them. They just want to control them now," Pat said.

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

GLENN: So I just unplugged this weekend from politics entirely. Pat didn't have that opportunity.

JEFFY: Just like you.

PAT: No, I didn't.

JEFFY: Oh, no?

GLENN: Yeah. Because Pat has allowed his children to marry.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Well, my -- my -- I -- my son-in-law --

STU: I think you as well.

GLENN: Yeah, but I approve. I approve.

PAT: My son-in-law tends to be -- he's got a -- I'm going to put this very -- he's got a very gentle heart. Isn't that a nice?

JEFFY: He does?

PAT: He's a bleeding heart liberal.

And he's liberal on some things, but he's conservative enough on other things to where, you know, most of the time you can get along.

JEFFY: And that's what you talked about mostly all weekend was all the conservative stuff that you see eye to eye on.

PAT: No. No. No.

GLENN: It's not even politics that drove him nuts. It's not even politics.

PAT: You know what it was? Food. Food.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: So he starts going off on food and nutrition and all --

GLENN: What's he do? Is he a nutritionist?

PAT: He's going to school, and he's studying in -- one of his classes involves food.

GLENN: You know him really well.

PAT: So he and Jackie are talking about food. Because you know what a health nut she is in nutrition and all that stuff.

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: And so they're talking about that. And I'm fine with that. And then he starts in on how there are people in this world who just don't know the food that's good for them.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: They just don't understand what food is good for them. And I said, "What?"

(laughter)

Who are these people? Because I've never met them. I mean, you might think by looking at me that I don't know, but I do. And I disregard all that knowledge and consume the food.

(chuckling)

Who doesn't know about food?

(chuckling)

GLENN: Happy Mother's Day.

(laughter)

PAT: And he's like --

JEFFY: Can you pass me the mashed potatoes?

PAT: And he's like, "No, Pat, people just don't. They don't know. A lot of people don't know. A lot of them." I said, "In the United States of America, there are a lot of people who don't know?" And then my daughter starts in, "Well, in your area, Dad, like you guys have really nice grocery stores. There's some people who only have Walmart." Walmart? You can get fine food in Walmart!

STU: And, by the way, that's where I go to shop with the choice of all the great grocery stores.

PAT: Right. Most of us do because it's really cheap, right?

GLENN: And it's good food.

PAT: You can get good food cheaply.

JEFFY: You can get other things there.

STU: Yeah. They also have --

JEFFY: It's all in one.

GLENN: Now, can you get Duck ‡ l'orange at Walmart?

PAT: No, but you can't get it where I shop either.

GLENN: Okay. I can't where I shop either. I don't know where you buy Duck ‡ l'orange.

PAT: I think you buy the duck and then you buy the ‡ l'orange, and you can put them together at home. I think that's what happens.

GLENN: Okay. I don't know.

PAT: But you can do that at Walmart too. And so, anyway, he's -- at one point, he said there was something -- something like a Hispanic woman that he saw outside his work, and she was drinking some large cappuccino or frappuccino or something with all kinds of cream. And it was huge. And he was like, "Do you think she knew what she was doing with her body?" Yes. And I think she disregarded.

GLENN: Why is it important --

PAT: Why -- and why don't you think it's -- she knew?

GLENN: Well, that's what I was going to ask you: Why did he point out she was Hispanic?

PAT: I don't know. I don't know. Because in Hispanic community, they have less knowledge than we do? I mean, I think that's really insulting to Hispanics.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: To blacks. And liberals do this though. They -- it is the -- it is the -- it's the prejudice of low expectations.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

PAT: It's the racism of low expectations.

JEFFY: It's way of saying, all she had to do was go to this fast food store.

PAT: I'm like, are there schools? Is there television? Is there internet? Has she seen a newspaper? Is there a magazine? Is there a flier?

GLENN: Is there a nutritional guide?

PAT: Is there a nutritional guide on -- which none of us look at, but are there all those things? And aside from that, you inherently know, ice cream is not as good for me as broccoli. I know because of the taste. Everyone knows it. But for some reason, we're supposed to believe that -- that minorities don't that know.

GLENN: Because progressives have not changed. They have only lowered the consequence. Back in the early Progressive Era, around the 1900s, these people were idiots. There were idiot houses.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Crazy houses. Idiot houses. They were idiots. They were degenerates. They were people that were going to spoil the race because they were too stupid.

PAT: These are the people that Margaret Sanger talked about.

GLENN: Margaret Sanger. And so their idea was to eliminate them. And it was not Hitler that did the gas chamber. It was, what's his name? George Bernard Shaw. He's the guy that came up with the gas chamber. So their idea was to eliminate these people. The progressives have not changed. They still believe these people are idiots. They just think that now we have to care for them.

PAT: Their punishment has changed. They don't want to eliminate them. They just want to control them now.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And it's funny because, Pat, you say it's not about politics, which it was about food. And the issue, of course, here is that it is about politics, right?

PAT: It is. Because what do you do about it?

STU: Because the solution -- you have every right to think everyone else is an idiot and doesn't know what is in their frappuccino. The answer to that might be, I will start an educational program. I will start a website that will inform people. I will try to do outreach to these communities.

GLENN: I'll learn how to speak Spanish so I can say, "Lady, what are you doing, fatso?"

STU: El lardo, get out of the street. You'll do whatever you have to do.

GLENN: I don't think that's Spanish.

STU: I think it is.

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: You have to put an O on street.

GLENN: Again, I don't think adding O to words is Spanish.

STU: The problem with the approach is you're doing it through government enforcing it. It's taking these beliefs that you have and saying, "Because I'm progressive and I'm smarter than everybody else, I get to be right and enforce it on everyone else, instead of letting them make their own decision."

PAT: Right. Exactly.

GLENN: It's amazing. Because these people are the ones that believe in Darwin. Survival of the fittest.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Then let them die in their fatness.

PAT: Yes. Or us. Because we're part of that, right? We're four fat guys sitting on two different couches that we barely fit on.

GLENN: I don't know if you know this, America is the fattest country in the world.

PAT: Except it's not. Except it's not. That came up in the discussion too.

GLENN: I was going to say, it sounds almost like -- you know that --

PAT: That America is the fattest -- that's one of the things he said was America's the fattest country on earth. And my son quickly thought, "Hmm, I don't think that's true." My 18-year-old son it up quickly on Google and finds out we're number seven. We're number seven. Mexico is ahead of us. Iceland is ahead of us. There's a bunch of countries. There's six countries ahead of us.

JEFFY: Is that true?

GLENN: I had no idea.

PAT: Yeah, most people don't.

JEFFY: We're always told we're the fattest.

PAT: We're always told -- and we just accept -- and I think at one time it was true. Five, six, seven years ago, we probably did top one of those lists. But I think in 2012, Mexico passed us. And now so have others.

GLENN: You know why? They've adopted our western way of life.

PAT: And that's why our western way of life needs to stop.

STU: It does seem to be winning a lot, doesn't it?

GLENN: I'd rather have the problem of fat than starvation.

PAT: Well, yes. That's the greatest problem that has ever faced mankind. Why would you rather do? Die of a heart attack when you're 65 or die of malnutrition and starvation at 16? I'm taking 65. Thank you very much.

STU: You talk about that story from the Soviet Union many times where they showed a documentary of what was going on in the United States about poor people.

GLENN: Poverty. This happened during the Reagan administration. This is when Gorbachev knew they were losing.

60 Minutes did this horrible, horrible piece on homelessness in America and how -- how bad the poor and the homeless were living in America. And he thought, look, they're taking -- they're taking themselves down. We can't be accused of propaganda. We'll take that 60 Minutes, and we'll play it on our state television and say, "This isn't coming from us. There's no edits here." It backfired because all the people looked at the poorest among us and went, "Holy cow, look at how they're living."

STU: They're overweight.

GLENN: They're overweight. They are -- look at what they have. Oh, my gosh.

And that was the story on poverty in America.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It's a good problem to have, man.

GLENN: Great problem.

STU: It's a problem that has evaded every other country in human history in any other time. The fact that you have to worry about eating too much, not having the -- the official supply or enough supply to get through and, you know, keep yourself fed. That was always the problem.

PAT: They would say, it's only because we're eating the wrong foods.

STU: Yeah, by the way, that's not true. Study after study after study has shown the same mineral intake, the same vitamin intake, similar caloric intakes. It has nothing to do with that across the spectrum. Obviously, the food taste goes down when you can spend less on it.

GLENN: We were talking about this the other day. Imagine what food tasted like 100 years ago.

STU: Oh, it was probably horrible.

GLENN: Horrible. When everything had to be preserved with salt. So all of the meat, everything, all preserved with salt. Or smoke. Can you imagine how dark -- without sugar. How dark the food was? How salty and nasty food was?

PAT: Could not have looked appetizing.

GLENN: Oh, no.

JEFFY: But did you -- Pat, some people have to shop at Walmart.

PAT: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: I know. That's horrible.

PAT: I know. Really, it's crazy.

GLENN: Can you imagine?

PAT: Because you can't get lettuce.

STU: I love Walmart. I freaking love Walmart.

GLENN: Can you imagine taking people from any second world country --

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: -- and bringing them to Walmart. How they would just be overwhelmed. They would look at that and say, "Oh, this is disgusting."

PAT: The choices you have.

GLENN: Can you imagine? Not third world. Any second world country.

PAT: They wouldn't know what to do.

GLENN: Many places in Europe, they would come to that and go, "Oh, my gosh. Look at this." And we are rejecting it. Don't get me started. Because I'm about to go into an ugly, ugly place.

PAT: Thank you. Welcome to my Mother's Day.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you.

And now, this. Why didn't you call me? I would have gladly come and battled it out. I would have painted my face and come over there.

JEFFY: You were busy arranging.

GLENN: I would have -- I would have dressed and painted my face like Braveheart and come with a battle ax.

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.