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

©2023 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Samantha Bee Staffer Claims to Hate Woodrow Wilson More Than Glenn (LOL)

December 08, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

This is no laughing matter. There couldn't possibly be anyone on planet earth who despises Woodrow Wilson, our esteemed 28th president, more than Glenn Beck. He's made his case for hating the progressive, racist the past 10 years. Yet such a claim was made immediately following his interview with Samantha Bee, host of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee on TBS.

"I walked to the edge of the stage and her --- I think her show runner or her line producer --- came up to me and said, I want you to know, I think I hate Woodrow Wilson more than you do. And I said, What?!" Glenn described Thursday, the day following the interview. "She said, Oh, my gosh, he was the most evil SOB ever."

And get this, she wasn't alone. Another staffer came up and echoed those sentiments.

"Another guy comes up, and he says, It's so great to meet you. I'm in your club with Woodrow Wilson." Glenn said.

If this doesn't provide a glimmer of hope for finding common ground, nothing will.

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

• Why did Glenn stop his second interview with Samantha?

• What's the real reason Samantha wanted to become an American?

• What's the X-factor that makes America special?

• How are Glenn and Samantha similar?

• Could Samantha be a closet conservative?

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

GLENN: You guys have not asked me a thing about Samantha Bee.

STU: Yeah. She was on the show yesterday.

GLENN: I was with her all day. She was here all day. You guys were peeking in the windows.

STU: Oh, I was hiding in my office. I didn't peek out at all.

PAT: We were actually doing a shoot yesterday. But I think you have to know a little something about person in order to be that curious about her. I don't know very much about her.

STU: She's on The Daily Show, right?

GLENN: She's on The Daily Show. She was the main reporter on The Daily Show with Stephen Colbert. With Jon Stewart -- but Stephen Colbert, at the time that he was also a reporter.

PAT: We do know that she's very liberal.

GLENN: She's Canada. She's from Canada.

PAT: Yeah. But how did it go? Was the interview --

GLENN: I'll tell you, it was -- so you remember -- on yesterday's episode here, we didn't really say anything. I was more willing to say things because she was in my space.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And so I was willing to ask her questions, and she was like, "You know, yeah. Okay." Because she just didn't know if there was going to be a setup. Or, you know, she didn't know what she was walking into.

STU: I mean, that's how she should be, walking into those moments.

GLENN: She's smart.

And then when the show was over, I walked to the edge of the stage and her -- I think her show runner or her line producer --

JEFFY: Yeah, the show runner.

GLENN: -- came up to me and said, "I want you to know, I think I hate Woodrow Wilson more than you do." And I said, "What?"

JEFFY: No, you don't. That's not possible.

GLENN: And I said, "That's impossible in the first place. But you hate Woodrow Wilson?" She said, "Oh, my gosh, he was the most evil SOB ever." And I said, "I can't -- you're with the show?"

PAT: Did she only hate him because of his racism?

GLENN: No, no. All of it. All of it.

PAT: Really?

GLENN: She knew all of it.

PAT: Is she conservative?

GLENN: No. I don't think so. I didn't talk politics yesterday. We did talk Woodrow Wilson.

She said, "Hey, I'm not alone. Come here." Another guy comes up. And he says, "It's so great to meet you." He said, "I am in your club with Woodrow Wilson."

And I thought at first, "This is a setup. Nobody -- I mean, I said to him, "I can't get conservatives to hate Woodrow Wilson. How do you guys just higgledy-piggledy stumble in and you hate Woodrow Wilson?" And they said, "Oh, no. Worst guy ever." Turns out her show runner was an American historian in school. And she up and down, back and forth, she knows American history.

So we hit it really well. In the interview with Samantha Bee, she hates Woodrow Wilson.

Now, I don't -- I didn't go in-depth because we were on the interview. So I didn't go in-depth, but she hates him because he was a real racist. I don't know if she knows anymore about him.

But, anyway, so I went and I was starting to do her show. And we got about 20 minutes into it. And I just stopped. And I said, "This isn't going well." And she said, "Why?"

And I said, "Because you have show face on." I said, "We were talking beforehand, and the minute the cameras were rolling -- because she was facing all the camera people and all of the producers -- and the minute the cameras were rolling, I could tell when they were rolling because your face changed." She said, "I don't have show face." And I said, "You absolutely have show face. I'm not stupid. I do television. I know what show face is." And I said -- and she said, "Well, what does that mean?"

JEFFY: It's for show.

GLENN: And I said, "It's your show. And I know your style." And you are like, "So -- well, what does that mean, exactly?"

I know exactly what you're doing. You're editing it, and so you have the funny line, and I'm the butt of the joke. And this isn't what we agreed to.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: And it's not what I -- this is not helpful to me. Because what you're going to do is you're going to, A, piss off the audience of mine that like me. And then they'll be mad at your audience because they're laughing at me. And so there's more division.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And on top of it, you will also have my audience say, "What the hell, we could have told you that was happening, dummy. Why are you even talking to her?"

PAT: Yeah. And her audience hates you anyway. So...

GLENN: Right. And I said that to her. I said, "Your audience already hates me. Why don't you do something new?"

PAT: Right.

GLENN: And so she said, "I really thought this was going well." And I said, "Well, I didn't." She said, "So where do we go?"

And so we just had a conversation. And it lasted from that point about an hour. I was four hours behind schedule yesterday because of -- because of the time we had together.

And it changed when I asked her, "Why are you an American?" Because she's Canadian. And this was the first election she could vote in. And I said, "Why are you American? Why did you choose America? What's wrong with Canada? It's like the 51st state." She said, "I love my country of Canada."

STU: Didn't she also say I didn't necessarily want to say this -- so I just want to classify as you're about to say it on the air --

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: Now I can't say anything because I was going to leave out the things that she didn't want aired. But it was nothing bad. It just -- I was going to leave some of that out. But now I can't say anything -- now I'm in an awkward situation. Now what do I --

STU: I'm trying to save you from another awkward situation that you've been in many, many times.

GLENN: I know. I know.

She understands -- I sent this to her last night in my Facebook post about her love for the country. What she -- how she loves America -- and this is nothing about her country.

STU: No, no.

GLENN: She loves Canada.

PAT: Well, it's the curling capital of the world.

GLENN: Shut up.

She said, "There's something about the American spirit that you don't find anywhere else."

STU: Yeah, we've heard that from Daniel Hannan. Who loves England.

GLENN: Yes. Loves England. Everybody -- it's not a slam on their country.

STU: Right. Of course. Of course.

PAT: Right. Right.

JEFFY: Clearly we like Canada, we have one of their sports celebrities on the broadcast.

STU: Thank you, Jeffy.

PAT: That's right.

GLENN: So she said, "Americans -- there's this flame about America that you -- you help each other, and it's just -- it's different." She said, "America is -- or, she said, "Canada, I could have lived there my whole life and could have been happy, and it's great. But there's something -- an X factor in America." And when she's talking about that, I'm like, "Yes. Yes. Yes." Now, we didn't get to this part in our conversation, but hopefully we will. That's called a lack of socialism.

(laughter)

GLENN: That is called personal responsibility.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That X factor is created -- and, again, don't tell her -- let me break it to her slowly, that X factor is the personal responsibility of people saying, "I've got to do something for my neighbor."

PAT: When the government doesn't do everything, the responsibility falls to us, right? It's our responsibility to begin with.

GLENN: Now, I assume -- we didn't talk about politics -- I assume she likes all the big government socialism stuff of Canada. I'm assuming she likes all of that.

PAT: Probably.

GLENN: But what she said about America -- I said to her, "You realize you're describing de Tocqueville." I said, "What makes America great? What is it that makes America great?" Assuming she knew the phrase, well, America is good. She didn't. She's Canadian. She didn't know. She didn't know who de Tocqueville was.

And I said, "Why is America great?" Because she said, "How do we fix this problem?" And I said, "It's really simply. What made America great?" And she said, "I -- I have to say it's that the people here are really kind. And no matter where you go and no matter what they believe, they want to help each other, and they -- they hold on to each other. And nobody sits back. They see somebody in need, and they go." And I said, "In other words, America is great because America is good?"

Yeah.

Yes, Samantha Bee -- and I told her, I broke it to her, I said, "I hate to break it to you, but you're sounding like me."

And she said, "Oh, no, don't say that to me."

And I said, "Let me ask you a few questions: You know how to fix it, make America good."

Yes, that's me.

Are you suddenly afraid that maybe the president of the United could become a dictator?

Yes.

Hmm. That sounded like me. Are you suddenly worried that maybe a president could do something that could affect the economy and we could have a huge global economic crash?

Yes.

Oh, that sounds like me.

PAT: Huh.

GLENN: It's amazing how liberals have suddenly found these things, but want to stake out, "Well, you thought them about Barack Obama." Yeah, I did. And now you think about them about Donald Trump.

PAT: And, by the way, they were true about Barack Obama. It's not like he's been exonerated from all the things we were worried about. He was as bad as we feared. I mean, he did --

GLENN: No, he's not as bad as I feared. Come on --

PAT: We survived him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: We really didn't --

GLENN: Right. And we didn't believe that there would be prison camps, but some people believed --

PAT: However, he fundamentally did transform the United States of America in a bad way.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, he did. In our opinion, in a very bad way. In their opinion, in a very good way. And that's why they're so freaked out about Donald Trump. Because they think he'll reverse all of that and transform it just as much in the other direction.

STU: And before we go too far in all this talk about survival, the guy is still in office. We should remember that.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. I know. Well, I've heard -- I've read at USAToday.com.co.ca.au.

PAT: There will be no inauguration.

GLENN: There will be no inauguration.

STU: What! Oh, my gosh. And I believe it immediately.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. He's going to declare marshal law before January 1st.

Anyway, so...

PAT: I've already checked that through Snopes, by the way, and the FBI confirmed it.

GLENN: So Snopes.com.ca.eu.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So, anyway, we had a really good time not talking about politics, but finding things that we agree on that were big principles. Like -- we went through the Bill of Rights. She didn't -- I didn't specifically call out the Second Amendment. But I said, "Do you agree with the Bill of Rights?" And she said, "Yes."

And I gave her -- I said, "I'm going to give you the Second Amendment. I'm going to give you the Second Amendment, that maybe you don't agree on that one. And we can argue about that one. How about the other nine? They're all good, right?"

I was actually for the Patriot Act, and then I woke up and I'm like, "Good Lord, how stupid was I, during the Bush administration." And then I was against it. And I was against with George Bush and against it under Barack Obama.

The left was only against it under George Bush. Barack Obama expanded it. And this president -- and it would have been any president, I think, unless it were a strong constitutionalist, they're going to expand it again. Why don't we stand on that one?

She couldn't -- she -- I think she came in with a whole different attitude and left with a different one. And I have great hope that we will maybe never agree on policies or vote the same way, but we can demonstrate that America can be good doing it together with people who strongly disagree with each other. I like her.

STU: That's cool. And she's on -- that's the 19th that airs.

GLENN: December 19th.

Featured Image: Samantha Bee, host of 'Full Frontal with Samantha Bee' on TBS on 'The Glenn Beck Program', December 8, 2016.

Tapping the brakes on transgenderism in 2023

Hunter Martin / Contributor | Getty Images

2022 was the year of the emperor’s new clothes—where we were supposed to pretend that someone like Lia Thomas is a woman, legitimately beating actual women in swimming competitions. This carpet-bombing of common sense won’t be letting up anytime soon. Just before the New Year, the World Boxing Council announced that it’s going to create a separate category for transgender boxers. The WBC president said:

…we are doing this because of safety and inclusion. We have been the leaders in rules for women’s boxing—so the dangers of a man fighting a woman will never happen because of what we are going to put in place.

After all the insanity you’ve been told to accept about transgender athletes in recent years, his statement is remarkable. He’s admitting what common sense people have been saying all along—that trans athletes identifying as women still carry natural physical advantages (from the fact that they’re actually male), and that those natural advantages could endanger biological women.

Trans athletes identifying as women still carry natural physical advantages.

The WBC president went on to say:

In boxing, a man fighting a woman must never be accepted regardless of gender change. There should be no gray area around this, and we want to go into it with transparency and the correct decisions. Woman to man or man to woman transgender change will never be allowed to fight a different gender by birth.

Maybe the WBC is on to something here. Maybe the only way to solve the stupidity of letting biological males play female sports is to create a separate transgender category in every sport. That would make competition fair again. However, the trans agenda will never accept this because it doesn’t validate their transition—in fact, it admits that these are not authentically female athletes.

There is some rare, good news on this front. In late December, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold a Florida school-board policy that requires transgender students to use the bathroom of their biological sex. Of course, the Left won’t accept this, so this case will probably go to the Supreme Court sooner than later. You’re supposed to always believe the science, except when it comes to your own body parts.

You’re supposed to always believe the science, except when it comes to your own body parts.

And by the way, if the Left truly cared about unbiased science as it pertains to transgenderism, they’d listen to their favorite European country, Sweden. Sweden’s national board of health recently updated its guidelines on treating children with gender dysphoria. Unlike the Biden administration and the U.S. medical establishment right now, Sweden’s new emphasis is caution:

…the scientific data is INSUFFICIENT to assess the effects of puberty-inhibiting and gender-sensitive hormone therapy of children and young people.

The Swedish guidelines also mention the prevalence of de-transition cases as another reason for tapping the brakes on sex-change surgeries for children.

Common sense apparently does still exist, even in places like Sweden. If only America would listen.

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

Hulton Archive / Handout

Glenn wants to dive deep into different philosophical topics this year. As CRT and woke curricula are demonizing the "western tradition," it is vitally important that we preserve the tradition that gave birth our nation and gives context to the culture we live in today. Here are the top 11 books to give you a crash course in the western philosophic tradition. If you don't have the time to read them, you can find an overview to each of the books below!

1. Plato's Republic

The first titan of Greek philosophy, Plato articulated the set of questions that would drive the future western philosophical tradition. The pre-eminent question among Greek philosophers was "what is the thing that explains everything." In philosophical lingo, this question is framed as "what is the logos or the good." Plato argued that reality could be explained in terms of the "forms." For example, when you see multiple examples of a "courageous" act, then, Plato would argue, there is such a thing as "courage." The form of "the good" is the form that gives meaning to all of reality. Humans use their rational minds to contemplate what is good and then align their desires to "the good" in order to pursue it.

2. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

The second titan of Greek philosophy was none other than Aristotle, who was a student of Plato. Aristotle deviated from his teacher's claims about "forms" and instead argued that every single thing has a purpose, a telos. For example, the telos of a chair is to provide a place for someone to sit. In the same way that a chair's purpose is to provide a place for someone to sit, Aristotle argues that the telos of human beings is to pursue happiness.

In the first page of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims that every action is done for the sake of pursuing happiness, although, all too often, our actions are misplaced. We often pursue things we believe will make us happy when, in reality, they are fleeting, momentary pleasures that result in despair, heartbreak, or pain. Rather than conforming the world around us to fit our momentary desires, Aristotle argues that we achieve happiness by understanding the nature of the world around us and how we fit into it by actively cultivating virtues in order to make our soul "fit to be happy." Work and action, therefore, are not mere moral "to-do lists," but rather bring us fulfillment.

3. Augustine's City of God

If Plato is the first titan of ancient philosophy, then Augustine is the first titan of medieval philosophy. Medieval philosophy begins with the re-discovery of ancient philosophical texts that had been lost throughout the Roman Empire. As Christianity had taken root and spread across the western world, medieval philosophy integrated these newly-discovered texts into Christian theology. Augustine is the pre-eminent medieval Neo-platonic philosopher, incorporating Plato's philosophy into Christian theology.

Augustine claimed that God himself is the ultimate "form" or "the good" from which all of reality derives its meaning and existence. A thing is "good" insofar as it coalesces with the way God intended it to be. When a thing stays away from God's intention, it is "not good." From this, we get the Augustinian definition of "evil" as a "privation" or "absence of goodness," which ultimately corresponds to God's nature and character.

4. Aquinas' Summa Theologica

Just as Augustine incorporated Plato's philosophy into Christian theology, the second medieval titan, Thomas Aquinas, incorporated Aristotelian philosophy into Christian theology. Building from Aristotle, Aquinas argues that Christ is our happiness, the longing of every human heart and the object of every human action. Though we may think we are pursuing happiness outside of Christ, our this pursuit is misplaced and will result in fleeting pleasure and pain. True happiness and fulfillment, Aquinas argues, is found in Christ himself and the pursuit of his nature.

**Note: Aquinas' Summa is one of the largest works ever written and contains arguments about many different subjects--there are concise versions that will save you a lot of time!

5. Francis Bacon's Novem Organum

If medieval philosophy is defined by the incorporation of ancient philosophy into orthodox Christian theology, then the Enlightenment is defined as the rejection of both. English philosopher Francis Bacon kicked off the Enlightenment with a total rejection of the Aristotelian view of reality. The title of his book, the Novum Organum, or "the new order," is a deliberate tease of Aristotle's Organon, or "the order of things." Bacon's "new order" purports that, contrary to Aristotle, there is no inherent "nature" or "purpose" in reality. Rather, reality is something that we can conquer by means of knowledge and force, dissecting nature to its fundamental parts and reconstructing it into what we want. Bacon is considered the father of the scientific method, creating a testable means through which we can understand, break down and re-construct nature.

6. Descartes' Discourse on Method

Descartes is best known for his famous assertion, cogito ergo sum, or "I think, therefore, I am." In Discourse on Method, Descartes embarks on a rigorous endeavor to doubt anything that can be doubted. He postulates that all of reality can be doubted; however, the one thing that cannot be doubted, he concludes, is that there must be someonewho is doubting. Though we may think that we are in the matrix, we are thinking, therefore, we must exist.

Descartes's rigorous skepticism introduced a brand-new burden of truth. In order for something to be true, it must be beyond all reasonable doubt. Many continue to use Descartes' skepticism as a way to challenge religious belief. According to these modern-day skeptics, unless you can prove that God exists beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no way to actually know whether he exists. The severing of knowledge and faith is often attributed to Descartes.

7. David Hume's Treatise on Human Nature

Scottish philosopher David Hume took aim at both Plato and Aristotle. One of his most famous and consequential claims about human nature is, "reason is and always ought to be slave of the passions." This took direct aim at Plato's view of human nature. Plato argued that our reason or "rationality" should always rule our passions so that we will desire what is good. Hume flips this on its head, claiming that our reason is helplessly enslaved to our passions and will inevitably justify what we will already want. From this, Hume introduced a new articulation of moral relativism, claiming that humans are not able to choose between what is good and what is evil, but rather will choose what they want over what they don't.

8. Kant's Contemplation on the Metaphysics of Morals

Hume's moral relativism sparked panic within German philosopher Immanuel Kant. If we will inevitably do what we desire, how can we ever choose to do something good and moral for its own sake? We must, according to Kant, separate morality completely from the passions if it's to be saved. Kant, therefore, argues that duty is the highest good that man can aspire to. We do the right thing, not because we want to--on the contrary, we do the "right thing" because it's our duty to do so, especially when we don't want to. This breaks away from the Aristotelian notion that our happiness is inextricably intertwined with the pursuit of "the good."

9. Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil

Nietzsche wasn't convinced by either Hume or Kant's efforts to retain some semblance of civility or relativistic moral standard. According to Nietzsche, if there is no such thing as transcendent morality, then "moral maxims" are reduced to meaningless words purported by the people in power. Morality, therefore, becomes a game of persuasion at best, coercion and force at worst. People are reduced to winners and losers, opressors and victims, and whoever comes out on top gets to impose their desired view of the world on the losers. Therefore, the goal of the individual is to cultivate the "will to power," to become the powerful "ubermensch" or "superhuman," or else you will be reduced to a victim susceptible to other people's coercion and oppression.

10. C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man

After the Enlightenment ends in a grand, destructive finale with Nietzsche, Christian philosophers in the 20th century attempt to pick up the pieces and resurrect the ancient and medieval philosophies that had been cast to the side. In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis famously laments that mankind has become "men without chests." This is a direct reference to Plato's view of human nature--there is nothing linking our mind to our heart. Intellectually, we have dissected all of reality into its individual bits, stripping it of its holistic beauty, while also succumbing to our whims and passions with no notion of a transcendent moral law. Lewis calls for the re-marriage of our minds and our hearts, so that we will not only pursue what is good, but moreover, we will desire to do so.

11. Alasdair McIntyre's After Virtue

The latter part of the 20th century saw the resurgence of Aristotelian ethics after being largely dismissed over the past 400 years during the Enlightenment. Scottish Catholic philosopher Alasdair McIntyre was and continues to be one of the foremost leaders of this movement. In his magnum opus, After Virtue, McIntyre takes aim at the entire Enlightenment project itself and shows how it ultimately fails by its own standards. If reality is a mere power dynamic, as Nietzsche argues, and if morality is an act of persuasion and passion, as Hume purports, then we have no reason to take their views seriously. If all of reality is relative, then the statement "reality is relative" is itself relative. It becomes victim of the self-refutation of its own standards. Transcendent morality, he argues, must exist, because there must be some standard by which we judge reality and can say with determination, "this is good" and "this is evil."

The Biden Admin EXPANDED abortion access because they DON'T believe in the Constitution

Joshua Lott / Stringer, JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

This month has already produced an extreme example of why we need a functional and more conservative Congress in order for America to have a chance at moving forward—because the Left does not believe in the Constitution.

Sure, if you confronted a Democrat in Congress, they would probably claim some sort of allegiance to the Constitution—but as a practical matter, they do not believe in it.

Instead, the Left has put all of their eggs in the basket of the executive branch. Why? Because it has the furthest reach through all the various departments, and it can move the fastest—in short, because it’s the most dictatorial. It only takes a department head to write a new memo, or even better, the President to sign a new executive order to carry the force of law.

The Left has put all of their eggs in the basket of the executive branch.

Do you recall any of the Left’s favorite Supreme Court decisions over the years—something like gay marriage for example—and how Republicans immediately tried to subvert it, using the executive branch to try to nullify the decision? Yeah, that never happened. But that is exactly what Democrats have done in recent weeks to expand abortion access.

Democrats only consider the Supreme Court legitimate when they approve of the decisions. When the miraculous overturning of Roe v. Wade happened last summer, President Biden called it “a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court.”

Democrats only consider the Supreme Court legitimate when they approve of the decisions.

Recently the FDA approved local pharmacies to issue abortion pills. For the first 20 years after these pills were developed, they were not treated like typical prescription drugs. They had to be dispensed in-person by a doctor. That in-person requirement is now gone.

Keep in mind that the Left’s go-to line is that abortion is always about the health and safety of women, yet a 2021 peer-reviewed study found that chemical abortions have a complication rate four times greater than surgical abortions. Between 2002 and 2015, the rate of abortion-related ER visits following use of the abortion pills increased by 507 percent.

Chemical abortions have a complication rate four times greater than surgical abortions.

And now the Biden administration is making these less-safe abortions much more accessible. Thanks to the FDA’s rule change, Walgreens and CVS have already agreed to dispense abortion pills in states where abortion is legal—effectively turning these stores into new abortion clinics.

As for states that have abortion bans, "Team Biden" announced a new way around those too. Three weeks ago, the Justice Department issued a legal opinion that the U.S. Postal Service is allowed to deliver abortion pills anywhere, even in places where abortion is illegal. What’s their rationale? That the sender cannot know for sure whether the recipient will use the pills illegally or not. So it’s totally okay.

The U.S. Postal Service is allowed to deliver abortion pills anywhere, even in places where abortion is illegal.

Georgetown Law professor Lawrence Gostin told the Washington Post that this Justice Department opinion is “a major expansion of abortion access in the United States.”

So, to recap—the Biden administration has used the FDA, the Justice Department, and the Post Office, which all fall under the executive branch, to provide an end-run around the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision.

Expanding abortion was easy—simple policy tweaks and declarations that carry the force of law without an ounce of input from actual lawmakers in Congress—all because it comes from the grotesque, bloated, apparently pro-death executive branch.

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

Getty Images / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

Glenn is one of the most outspoken critics of the World Economic Forum and their vision to use crises to reconstruct the world order known as The Great Reset. The recent WEF summit in Davos confirms what Glenn has long warned about: globalist elites seek to upend our democracy, freedoms, and way of life to achieve their utopian climate goals. Here are 15 quotes from the 2023 Davos Summit, revealing their true intentions in their own words:

1. Saving the planet

When you hear the word, "Davos," the first thought that should pop into your mind is an elite group getting together to save the world from imminent climate disaster... at least they think of themselves that way. According to John Kerry:

I mean, it's so almost extraterrestrial to think about saving the planet.

2. Private jets

What most people think when they hear the word "Davos" is a group of global elites flying in on private jets to talk about climate change... and yes, John Kerry does own a private jet, no matter how many times he denies it:

I fly commercial [...] Exclusively.

3. Global Collaboration Village

You always hear some weird, dystopian projects coming out of WEF, like "The Global Collaboration Village," a new metaverse community aimed at strengthening "global cooperation." It sounds like the next installment of Brave New World. According to Klaus Schwab, Founder and President of the WEF:

The Global Collaboration Village is the pioneering effort to use the metaverse for public good, to create global cooperation and to strengthen global cooperation in the metaverse or using metaverse technologies. For me, it's a dream coming true because the village allows the Forum to create a more larger and open platform where everybody can participate.

4. Climate revolution

However, the core theme throughout WEF summits is the immediate need for a climate revolution and how businesses are selfishly blocking the revolution because they want to make an extra buck. Here's how John Kerry summed up the sentiment:

How do we get there? The lesson I have learned in the last years [...] is money, money, money, money, money, money, money.

5. Do or die

This often turns into alarmist language, like having to choose between wealth and our planet's survival... Joyeeta Gupta, Professor of Environment and Development in the Global South at University of Amsterdam, said it eloquently:

If we do the minimum at this pivotable moment in our history, then we and our children – even if we are rich – will live in the danger zone. But if we – business people, governments, citizens, cities – take action today, then we and our children will have a future worth looking forward to.

6. Colossal risks

Potsdam Institute's director Johan Rockström, used similar language, claiming we are "taking colossal risks with the future of civilization":

We are taking colossal risks with the future of civilization on Earth, we are degrading the life support systems that we all depend on, we are actually pushing the entire Earth system to a point of destabilization, pushing Earth outside of the state that has supported civilization since we left the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago.

7. Rain bombs

"Colossal risks" like... rain bombs? We didn't make that up. Ask Al Gore:

That’s what’s boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers, and the rain bombs.

Courtesy of the World Economic Forum

8. Survival comes down to this

How do we secure our survival? According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, we have to "end our addiction to fossil fuels." This entails wiping out our entire energy industry, displacing millions of workers, and relying on global governments to usher in a new green industry. In his words:

So, we need to act together to close the emissions gap, and that means to phase out progressively coal and supercharge the renewable revolution, to end the addiction to fossil fuels, and to stop our self-defeating war on nature.

9. Complete transformation

It isn't hyperbolic to argue that the globalist climate goals will completely transform the world economy. Even EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen admitted:

The net-zero transformation is already causing huge industrial, economic and geopolitical shifts – by far the quickest and the most pronounced in our lifetime. It is changing the nature of work and the shape of our industry.

10. Scientific necessity

Of course, to bring about this "net-zero" transformation, we will have to override small, "political expediencies" like democracy to do what is "scientifically necessary." According to Zurich Insurance Group’s head of sustainability risk John Scott:

We’re living in a world right now where what’s scientifically necessary, and what is politically expedient don’t match.

11. Illegal hate speech

Doing away with "political expediencies" would also require the censorship of dissent, which would likely manifest in hate-speech laws. When asked by Brian Stelter how the discussion of disinformation relates to everything else happening today in Davos, European Commission VP Věra Jourová shared this prediction:

Illegal hate speech, which you will have soon also in the U.S. I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law.

12. Climate first

We will also have to forego national interests on the international stage. America won't be able to advocate for policies and interests that benefit Americans. Instead, we will sacrifice national interests for the sake of global climate interests. French economy minister Bruno Le Maire said:

The key question is not China First, US First, Europe First. The key question for all of us is Climate First.

13. The role of war

We can also expect globalist leaders to use crises, like the war in Ukraine, to expedite the "net-zero transformation." Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz said:

Ultimately, our goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 has been given an additional boost by Putin’s war. Now we have even more cause to move away from fossil fuels.

14. Blame game

Globalist leaders will continue to blame ALL of the crises in our society on climate change to justify the "net-zero transition," from the energy shortage to "mistrust, selfishness [and] xenophobia." Prime Minister of Spain Pedro Sanchez said:

Our present struggle is not only against Putin or the energy shortage. It is also against fear, mistrust, selfishness, xenophobia, and environmental disaster. And its outcome will define life in the West and beyond for decades to come.

15. Sacrifice for the greater good

While we sacrifice our national interests for the sake of the "greater global good," we can expect our foreign enemies, like China, to benefit. Suisse Chairman Axel Lehmann said:

The growth forecasts now for China is 4.5%. I would not personally be surprised when that would be topped.

Conclusion

Glenn has been clear about the distinction between wanting to transition to green practices on your own accord and being forced into that transition by globalist, unelected elites. Leaders at Davos will continue to use alarmist language to justify their crackdown on democracy and freedom to bring about their leftist utopia. We have to cut through the alarmist language and in order to protect our freedoms.