You Have No Right to Protest American Laws If You're Here Illegally

A ruckus broke out at the Texas State Capitol building after protestors --- many of whom claimed to be illegal --- filled the rotunda on what is typically a calm and ceremonial last day of the legislative session. The protestors took exception to Senate Bill 4, legislation already signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, which requires local cities and counties to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and uphold federal law.

RELATED: Republican Lawmaker: I Called Immigration Authorities on Capitol Protesters

"If you're on American soil illegally, you're not an American. You have no right to protest American laws. Period. I don't care if what you're protesting is moral, you have no legal right to do so. This is so infuriating to me," Doc Thompson said Tuesday, filling in for Glenn on radio.

State Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R-Irving) notified ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) of the hundreds of illegal protestors at the Capitol, enraging Hispanic legislators which led to an altercation that included threats and violence.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

DOC: You have no right to protest American laws on American soil if you are not here legally. If you're on American soil illegally, you're not an American. You have no right to protest American laws. Period. I don't care if what you're protesting is moral, you have no legal right to do so. This is so infuriating to me.

BRAD: But they keep getting away with it.

DOC: There was a ruckus at this Texas statehouse over the weekend. It was their final day of their session, and they passed a piece of legislation that would ban sanctuary cities in Texas and then punish any local communities who acted as a sanctuary city. And that is not only a good thing, it's -- it shouldn't even have to get to that. There should be no sanctuary cities. I don't care what you're sanctuarying against, wrong. It's not the law. If you don't agree with the law, then work to change the law. So if you want to say "Well, I don't agree with antimurder laws, you ought to be able to murder people. You don't harbor murderers. You're in violation of the law. What you do is work to make murder legal, if that's what you support.

BRANDON: Right.

DOC: So what happened was a bunch of illegals pile in, and they're in the rotunda and protesting. Some of them having signs and shirts saying I am illegal and here to stay. Admitting that they're in the country illegally. Maybe some of them were wearing the shirts and that in solidarity. But I would venture with that many people piled in there, some of them were being honest.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: Hell, we had President Obama bring one into the capitol during one of his state of the union addresses.

BRANDON: Yes.

DOC: This has happened. Admitted illegals being sheltered by people. They're harboring people who are violating the law, and it's not a one-violation their very existence continues to violate the law every second. If I go out and shoot somebody and somebody harbors me, they're harboring me as an illegal being on the run.

BRANDON: Right.

DOC: If -- but it was only based on one crime being on the run. They're continuing to violate the law every second that they're here.

BRANDON: Uh-huh.

DOC: Every day saying I'm here, and I know I'm doing wrong. So they have the shirts, they're wearing them, they're protesting. So what should have happened is they should have come in and rounded them all up and taken them away. Show me your papers. Prove that you're here illegally. You're admitting. You're telling law enforcement and everybody else by your shirts and signs you're legally.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: This is like saying to a cop as he walks by, I have pot on me. That's probable cause. I just beat the hell out of some dude in that alley. I just raped a woman. Whatever. That's probable cause. Cops didn't do that. So a Republican representative Matt Renaldi put on Facebook and then said to one of his Democrat colleagues that he called ICE on them.

BRANDON: Okay. Yeah, okay.

DOC: You guys aren't upset about this?

BRAD: Nope.

BRANDON: No.

DOC: Okay. Neither am I. That's what I should have done. In fact, Matt, the sad thing is that nobody else called ice.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: All of your other colleagues should have. Everybody else in the statehouse, they should have done it. Even the Democrats. This should what should happen. They're in violation of the law. Instead, he claims two Democrat colleagues, one of them physically assaulted him and the other verbally assaulted

him.

BRANDON: Really?

DOC: That one of them -- and he didn't go into detail of what the physical assault was that I know. But this is what he claimed happened, which caused a ruckus amongst the legislatures as well. So you have all of the illegals back and forth and the protesters and everything else that actually ends up causing because of this dispute between the two guys or three guys more ruckus on the floor of the house. So they get into it as well.

So then, Matt posts kind of an explanation on Facebook. He said representative Pancho Nev·rez threatened my life on the floor after I called ice on several illegal immigrants who held signs in the gallery. When I told Democrats I called ice, representative Raymond Romero physically assaulted me and other Democrats were held by colleagues.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: During the time Pancho told me he would "Get me" on the way to my car. He later approached me and reiterated that I had to leave at some point, and he would"Get me."

BRANDON: Wow. Okay.

BRAD: Welcome to Texas.

DOC: Right. In addition to the guys who assaulted him that he named, he's saying that other ones -- they had to be held back. What did he do, leftists? What did he do, Democrats? He called police.

BRANDON: He had the law enforced.

BRAD: On the dreamers. That's the problem.

DOC: How is he wrong? Even if you think that the cops strangely should not enforce the law, why was he wrong?

BRAD: Because these people are just here because they have a dream. They want to live the American dream. Why are you such a hater?

DOC: But I get the argument with that. But why did he do wrong by calling the police? If you see something, say something.

BRAD: It's mean to do that.

BRANDON: Yeah, and that's what it boils down to right there. We're dealing with the marginalized community. How dare he act against them. How dare he. It doesn't matter that what they're doing is illegal. It doesn't matter that many of the -- let's be honest, many of these people who come over here are committing crimes. They're not put back all right? They're here to stay. All right? It doesn't matter if that's who they're defending. All right? No, don't get me wrong, I don't want to say this is all who they are. But at the same time, you have to -- these people are causing major problems.

DOC: And the percentage, even if lower of illegals that come, that commit crimes versus regular populous, which there's no way to determine that. First of all, people on the left will be the first ones to tell you these people live in the shadows, and they don't like to report crimes. Well, they're not going to report crimes that happened in their community if it's committed by people like them, illegal, you would never know. But even if you can prove a tenth of the amount of crime committed by the people already here, that crime still would not exist if they were not here.

BRANDON: Enforcing the law.

DOC: And it's still irrelevant. It's a violation of the law.

BRANDON: Exactly.

DOC: So your argument is we don't like the law, so the law should not be enforced.

BRANDON: Uh-huh.

DOC: That's wrong. You should enforce the law. But even if your argument is it's so important what these people are going through to get them help that it trumps the law or whatever, let's talk about that for a moment. The argument constantly is these people just want a better way of life.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: Well, first of all, there's the hypocrisy of many of the people that support them because they lock their doors. They won't let me come in for a better way of life. How many millionaires and billionaires support illegal immigration? They don't let me take into their house. Their house is going to be a hell of a lot better than my life. I want a better life, don't you?

BRANDON: Oh, yeah.

DOC: Hey, Zuckerberg has actually built a wall around his property. It might be the property -- it's either Hawaii or the Hamptons. I can't remember which. He was in a dispute with neighbors because he wanted to build a higher, more complete wall. And he's one of the biggest supporters of illegals.

BRANDON: Steven king, beating this drum. Illegals need to be welcomed. But have you ever seen his property? It's massive. It has a huge wall around it. He doesn't let anybody in.

DOC: Right. So give away your money and tear down your wall and let me flop at your house and give free stuff and redistribute your wealth, or you're hypocrites. But that aside, what is the best way to deal with the people around the world that are poverty stricken? Can we -- would we be able to simply open our borders and say come on in. We have to help all of your people. No. America would no longer exist. It would overwhelm us. It's the drowning man thing. If somebody is drowning, you can't just jump in and drown him? Now, I'm a Christian, I believe in helping people. There's a right way and a wrong way. The right way is not support people violating the law, support us not knowing who people are, open borders we would never be able to protect America and help people in the future. Or condone illegal bad behavior. The way to help people is allow people to legally emigrate here every year, which we do a million people alone. And to help as best we can people to make their country and local communities better.

BRANDON: Which is where we should start.

DOC: Which we do.

BRANDON: I forget who said this. But it used to be easier to emigrate here. People would get off a ship. What's your name? We have to make it easier. We didn't have entitlements back then. And that's the crux of everything here. We cannot have all of these people who are primarily poor come in, get on the government goal because that's just going to skyrocket taxpayer like what we have to pay into entitlements way beyond anything that we can possibly imagine, and our economy would crumble. This is why we can't have open borders. Look, this is just -- I get the sentiment. I do. I feel bad for those people. They're living in hell holes where their lives are ruled by drug lords, you know? They live in these poverty-stricken neighborhoods, they want to come here for a better life. I understand that. And I feel for them. I really do. But if they all come here like they want to, they're going to wind up in the same exact place that they left.

BRAD: And the cynical side of me says it's not about helping them. It's another voting block. It's each -- and Democrats and Republicans, they both do it. You get this big lump of votes.

DOC: George W. Bush even did it.

BRAD: Exactly.

DOC: So you think they're disingenuous in helping people.

BRAD: Yeah, I think in a lot of cases.

DOC: But even those who truly want to help people, you can't tear apart their families, and you're willing to forget that I didn't can a us their problems. I didn't cause the possibility of their families being split up. They did when they came here illegally and brought their families or had kids, knowing that they could be split at some time. That was a choice they made. But even if you're saying we need to care for them and that matters most, then let's take this piece by piece. I have somebody who I am staunchly against illegal immigration and powerfully in favor of legal immigration, as many as we can bring to America without hurting America. If it's 10 million a year, 500 a year, whatever it is. Powerfully in favor of legal immigration, controlled. Let's stop with comprehensive immigration are he form where we throw everything together. There's three main phases. Border security, legal immigration reform, and what to do with the illegals that are here. Fix the border first. All separate bills. The only reason you want comprehensive plans is because you want to tack on the illegals being legalized somehow.

So let's take them apart. We can solve a lot of this right off. Let's fix the border. Great. Done. Let's reform the legal immigration system and what it should be is controlled so we know who people are. But the big problem with legal immigration is the expense. For about $20,000 in total is what it takes to legally emigrate here by the time you navigate the legal system. So you have people who are likely poor coming in paying $20,000 they don't have. I think I just checked recently and to file the form for your citizenship once you meet every other standard is about 1,000 bucks. That's a lot of cash for me, let alone someone coming here poor. So make that cheaper. Make it easier to understand. Not necessarily easier but easier to understand. I'm fine with all of that. Great, we can do that. If you want to fix the visas, fine. Boom, done. So we've just solved most of the issues we have with immigration, as long as we separate them. And then what do you have left? The illegals that are here, and you have two. Two types. Those that are here illegally and those who were brought here illegally. I reluctantly am willing to say the kids didn't violate the law. They didn't bring them here. Who violated the law? Although they're illegal, they didn't do it. Their parents or guardians brought them here. Okay. I'll reluctantly meet you halfway and say we can come up with something -- stop calling them dreamers. Knock that crap off.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: And I'll meet you and say fine. But I can't -- I cannot abide by legalizing pathway to citizenship people who broke the law when so many other people didn't. And if you're saying Doc or whatever, I told you I'm willing to be compassionate. But the people who came here legally who are out $20,000 like my mother-in-law and my wife, are they going to reimburse the $40,000? I could use 40 grand right now, guys, just so you know. Are you going to give that money back to us?

BRANDON: No. And they know how to gain the system. 62 percent of households headed by an illegal immigrant receive some form of welfare.

DOC: Right. They know how to game it because legally the Federal Government is not allowed to give people here legally free stuff. But they find a way to give free system and if you're a child in America, regardless of all else, you are entitled to a free education.

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.