Election by Numbers: Stu's Final Count

Most polls and pundits are predicting a Hillary win tonight. What about Stu Burguiere, co-host of The Glenn Beck Program and poll aficionado?

"Stu's final board for the electoral college is being put together right now," Glenn said Tuesday on his radio program.

Making a few last-minute calculations, Stu revealed his final predictions for the Electoral College vote count.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these nail-biting questions:

• Which state is Stu hedging on?

• Did Hillary make it into the Douche Hall of Fame?

• Does Glenn predict a blowout or razor-thin win?

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

GLENN: Stu, you want to give us one more look at the -- I know they're making all new maps for us tonight and everything. We have our coverage beginning at 7 o'clock Eastern. We are going to be looking at some of it as we go on. We'll be looking at some of the -- the -- the funnier or the crazier moments of this election. Because this election has been crazy from the beginning. And so we're looking for you on the feed. I know Jeffy is asking people on the feed. You probably tweet them to Stu show. Is that right? Stu show?

STU: Oh. @worldofStu.

GLENN: @worldofStu. And you can tweet @worldofStu for the craziest moments that you would like us to cover tonight and play clips from, as we watch this thing unfold.

I'm going to be on with NBC tonight and Tom Brokaw at -- on NBC, not MSNBC, but NBC, tonight at 10:00 something or other. I begin with them. But I'm also going to be covering it here on TheBlaze. And it's going to be radically different coverage here. But Stu is going to be looking at all of the exit polling and everything else, as he does for us every year. And he was very, very right last year. He was the only one in this -- on this show. We called him the little black rain cloud. He was the only one on this show that got it right. We wanted so desperately to believe.

STU: You know, it's a weird situation. And there's some -- if you are a Trump fan, you can look at some positives, as opposed to what happened to Romney. Because Romney was very close. Closer to Trump in the national polls. But the idea that Hillary could actually lose with -- in a close election is possible still.

If you go through -- someone went through and put the -- all the RealClearPolitics Averages into an electoral map, and it was like one state away, 272-266 or something, with Hillary.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: So it could be that close. There are states that Trump is winning by .2 percent that he's getting credit for in there. Of course, that's the way the system works. So he would get credit for those.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: But they're just very unsure.

GLENN: It depends on who shows up today.

STU: It really does. You know, there's a -- there's a -- one of the arguments for Trump is, basically we've seen the story of two different groups: Hispanic voters, very activated, going out to vote in record numbers. Black voters, not as excited about this one. They were excited about Barack Obama, not as excited here. So their vote has fallen off a little bit.

The issue with that is Hispanic voters are very -- about half of Hispanic voters are located in two states. And neither of those two states are swing states, at least usually, California and Texas.

So the fact that they're very active may not do anything for either of them. And that's half of the population, roughly. So that's a big deal. However, a couple of states, something like Nevada could really easily be swung. We talked about some of the early voting data there. And it's not promising if you are a Trump supporter in -- in Nevada.

GLENN: Could I give you first what I heard today from internal polling? Put it up on the board and show me.

Let's give North Carolina -- they say it's too close to call in internal polling. Let's give North Carolina to Trump

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Let's give Maine to Trump.

STU: Okay. That's Maine, by the way, just the one district.

GLENN: Yeah, one district. Let's give Florida to Clinton.

STU: Florida, Clinton.

GLENN: Ohio to Trump.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Nevada, I don't have any information on, so I'm going to give it to Clinton. And let's give Michigan to Trump, out of the Clinton pile.

STU: Wow. That's an interesting map.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Well, let's see. You would have -- the only thing we really changed here --

GLENN: Michigan and Florida.

STU: Yeah. I mean, problem is -- so you're gaining 29 for Hillary. You're pulling out 16 and you're pulling -- you're only losing 17 -- that would be worse for --

GLENN: Let me give New Hampshire too, to Trump.

STU: Again, I don't think that gets you there because new Hampshire is only four electoral votes. So you're pulling over 200 --

GLENN: Okay. That's being as generous -- okay. Now give Florida.

STU: Yeah, if he gets Florida with this, he definitely wins.

GLENN: He definitely wins.

STU: The issue is, he cannot lose Florida. To me -- realistically, he can't lose Florida or North Carolina. Either one of those states, he loses. It's over. Because --

GLENN: How about Ohio?

STU: Ohio, he -- I'm kind of counting that for him. While it's still pretty much

technically a swing state --

GLENN: Okay. They're counting.

STU: -- you can't get anywhere Trump winning without Ohio. And he's actually winning the polls there. So I expect him to win Ohio tonight, which is usually the biggest swing state. Ohio and Florida bounces back and forth.

North Carolina is not usually the biggest swing state. But it does seem to be this time. And North Carolina, I think the early voting actually looks fairly good for him. You can't predict states by early voting.

GLENN: Yeah. Today -- today, as of this morning, the Republicans are counting on North Carolina. They're counting on a win for the Senate. That will be the last Senate seat that will put them in charge of the Senate. They are not counting on Florida. They are counting on Michigan.

When I say counting, I should say, they think that it's in play and they could win it.

Maine. Ohio, they are counting on. Michigan, they believe they could win today. New Hampshire, they believe they're going to win. So it's only Florida that they think they're not going to win. And Nevada looks horrible, doesn't it?

STU: Nevada looks really bad. I mean, to give you a sense on Nevada, the early vote, the Democrats led by a large margin. Going into Election Day, all the assumptions that are pretty rational and probably pretty favorable for Trump -- if you take favorable assumptions, he needs to win today by about ten points.

Now, that is -- you know, Romney lost on Election Day in Nevada last time. Trump does not have the ground game that Hillary has. This is -- we've talked about this yesterday in that, in a way, Nevada has turned into one of the -- sort of like the new Michigan, in that like it's all -- it's all unions there now. The Reid machine in Nevada is still very powerful, and they think that they've been able to put that one away.

If you do that, it gets very difficult. Because then you're looking at picking off -- you know, probably the easiest map for him to get there was to win Nevada and then also win New Hampshire out of our leaning Democrat column because New Hampshire he actually had some really good polls. New Hampshire is difficult to poll. It's not a -- it's a very crazy sort of state with polling.

And, you know, maybe he's -- he would be able to pull that one out. There's a good Senate race there. So you would think a lot of Republicans would be activated to get out for that as well, even if they're not maybe huge Trump fans. So if he could pull that out and then get Maine's second district, he can get right to 270. But without Nevada, that's not possible. You know, assuming he doesn't pick off some other more unlikely state.

So right now, he's in a position where it is -- there is no room for error. And he needs to really go beyond that.

GLENN: What are the states -- what are the absolute firewall states that we're going to be seeing first tonight? That if he loses -- like, we won't know Florida until at least 9 o'clock.

STU: Right. It's going to take a long time -- they called it -- it took four days for them to call it last time.

GLENN: God help --

STU: So that's -- it's going to -- you're not going to get any Florida calls, really. I mean, that takes a long time.

GLENN: Really?

STU: But that's the thing, if you get a call of one of those two states early, it will basically be over. They will not make the mistake of 2000 and call that thing super early without knowing for sure.

GLENN: Right.

STU: At least you would expect they wouldn't.

GLENN: But if it's called early for Trump, that's good.

STU: Oh, yeah. If it's called early for Trump, he's in it. But it's not enough for him.

GLENN: No, I know that. But if it's called early, it might mean that he has such a groundswell that, you know, the people are showing up and -- I mean, right now, he is, in internal polling, behind in Florida by two. And so if they call it early, it means that there was a real groundswell, that that thing might have been four or five points off.

STU: And right when we get on with Blaze coverage tonight, we will go into this. Because what you're getting out of early closings on the east coast is not how the election -- you're not going to get a sense of, "It's over." You get a sense of what the environment is. The environment tends to set up basically the same way around the country. If Donald Trump is going to win this, he's going to be activating a lot of voters that aren't showing up in polling for some reason.

GLENN: Right.

STU: If that happens, you'll see it right away in these states.

GLENN: What should we look for in exit polls today, early? Because, remember, by 4 o'clock in last -- in 2012 -- now, we didn't say this, but by 4 o'clock in the afternoon in 2012, we know -- we knew who was going to win. Pretty sure.

We didn't want to believe it. But we were pretty sure because of the exit polling.

STU: Exit polls -- some exit polls leaked. However, exit polls leaked for Kerry in 2004, which showed him winning. So, I mean --

GLENN: No, it wasn't the leaked stuff that we saw. It was, we saw internal stuff. Remember? We were -- we were tipped off.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And we were like, "What?" But we didn't believe it.

STU: Right. Right. Right.

But, you know, what I'm saying, those exit polls that were leaked were legitimate, just wrong. Exit polling is difficult to do. You're polling before polls are even closed. There's a lot of, you know, messiness when it comes to that stuff. Of course, I'm going to sit here and obsess about it all day, obviously. I can sit here and stare at every one of them, but you have to take all of that with a big grain of salt.

So I think if you see early on indications that Trump is doing a good job, bringing out white voters from -- from outside of the normal sort of Republican base, voters who are, you know, blue color Democrats.

GLENN: I think you'll see that in Ohio.

STU: In Michigan, there's one county where everyone points to, which is the Reagan Democrat county: Macomb, I guess I think it is. And they always say that's the Reagan Democrat -- every analyst says the same thing: That's the Reagan Democrat county.

If you see that coming out and that swinging towards Trump heavily, you'll get an indication that he's actually activating those voters.

And if he does that, he has a chance to win. Again, this early voting data just says, if there are Republicans or Democrats that have come out, not if they're winning the vote. If every Democrat came out and voted for Trump, it would look the same way.

So they're assuming that all the Democrats are coming out and voting for Clinton. Maybe they won't.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. I have Blake in Missouri who just voted. He wants to tell us his vote. Go ahead, Blake.

CALLER: Yeah, Glenn. I know you guys are focusing on the election between Clinton and Trump. And that's all important, I guess. But I think we really need to talk about what happened yesterday on the Pat & Stu show, when I had the honorable pleasure of partaking in the vote to put Hillary Clinton in the Douche Hall of Fame.

PAT: Thank you. That's incredibly important.

STU: Wow.

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: So you did vote for Hillary Clinton. I want all your friends to know that.

CALLER: I absolutely did vote for Hillary Clinton.

PAT: Yeah. And she made it. She made it into the Douche Hall of Fame. To her credit, she got a surprisingly low 98 percent.

GLENN: Wow.

PAT: Surprising.

STU: Yeah.

CALLER: Yeah, I was -- I was disappointed. I was hoping for that 100 percent, but it just didn't happen.

STU: Our models all showed 99.2 percent, and it just didn't happen.

PAT: It just didn't happen.

[break]

GLENN: Stu's final board for the electoral college is being put together right now.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And it is final, 308 for Hillary Clinton and for Donald Trump --

STU: 230.

PAT: Why do you want Hillary to win!

JEFFY: Why?

PAT: Why do you want Hillary to win! Why! I knew it. I knew it. I knew you wanted Hillary to win! Why?

GLENN: 230?

PAT: Hillary! Win! Why!

STU: Florida, I'm really hedging on, but it doesn't make a difference in the outcome. I -- I had Florida on one column. I just moved it over right before we came back.

PAT: It's just a matter of, is it a bigger win?

STU: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: 230-278.

STU: Right. It wouldn't make a difference for Hillary.

GLENN: For Hillary, it won't make a difference.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: We'll see you tonight.

STU: I wouldn't be --

GLENN: I wouldn't be surprised if it was a blowout or if it was razor thin sharp.

PAT: Either way, get out and vote.

Featured Image:

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.