Former GM Executive: People Have 5 Years to Get Their Cars off the Road

An auto industry veterans says that car owners need to “kiss the good times goodbye” because self-driving cars are speedily taking us to the end of an era.

“Everyone will have five years to get their car off the road or sell it for scrap or trade it on a module,” former General Motors vice chairman Bob Lutz recently declared.

What’s the rush? Lutz believes that autonomous vehicles will take over transportation, starting with ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft. He joined the show last week to talk about the self-driving future with Glenn, who wanted to know: What makes this prediction different from when people thought we would have flying cars?

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I have been -- I have been really trying to bone up on the future and reading a lot of science lately. And I'll share some of that with you in the -- in the coming weeks.

But I firmly believe that as -- when I told you in 2005 that America -- you're going to wake up and you're not even going to recognize your country. That seemed crazy. And I think we're there. I think people are like, I don't even understand this world that I'm living in.

You take that feeling, and, you know, you double that, triple that. That's how you're going to feel. By 2030, life will be completely different on planet earth. Not just the country. But all life. The way we interact with each other. The way we move. Everything. Medicine.

I think we are 15 years away from -- from curing cancer and music dystrophy. There's some bright days on the horizon. But it is going to cause a lot of turmoil, especially if you're not prepared for it.

So I was reading an article from Auto News, and it came from Bob Lutz. It's called, Kiss the Good Times Goodbye.

Bob is quite a credible guy. Retired as vice chairman of General Motors, 47-year career in the global automotive industry, senior leadership positions for four of the world's leading automakers. He was the former vice chairman and head of development at General Motors. His resume is quite long and extensive. But I would rather have you just listen to him. Bob Lutz is joining us now to talk about the future of the auto industry and the automobile.

Bob, how are you, sir?

BOB: Why, thank you, Glenn. You?

GLENN: Great. I'm honored that you would come on the program.

You wrote an amazing story called Kiss the Good Times Goodbye. Where you're talking about how everything is going to change. And you say the automobile is a thing of the past.

BOB: Yeah. And I said, you know, in that article, I said in 20 years, if some people are taking issue with that piece, nobody is taking issue with the future as I outline it. Everybody says, yeah, we accept that. That's the way it's going to be.

I think a lot of people have trouble with my statement, saying it's going to be in 20 years. And, you know, as I look at it, in retrospect, I think, yeah, maybe that is a little overly pessimistic, because, first of all, what I didn't say in the article is that the move to fully autonomous modules that are not controlled by humans, will occur in stages. And that's what one or two of the critics of the article had pointed out. They're quite right.

It will begin first in the urban centers, where human-driven cars will be banned. But in the outlying areas, in the rural countryside, et cetera, et cetera, it will take longer. And the whole thing may take -- instead of 20 years, it may take 30.

GLENN: So, Bob, that is the one thing that I found in your article. Because I thought everything was spot-on. Except you were -- you were talking about fully autonomous vehicles.

BOB: Right.

GLENN: And the problem we have now is the middle of the country is unmapped. And the middle of the country changes so often because we're building and growing, et cetera, et cetera. That it is going to -- it is going to take a long time just to be able to just to map the entire country. Is that the -- is that the problem you're seeing as well?

BOB: No, I don't think the mapping is going to be a problem, because, for instance, one of the -- one of the big mapping companies is a company called Usher. I have to disclose that I'm a board member.

But they have ways now of putting mapping devices on fleet vehicles. You know, big fleets like FedEx, UPS, so forth. So that mapping will be a continuously thing.

Yeah. That's another thing why -- why it will probably go in stages. But I'll tell you what the metro areas are thoroughly mapped. That's where the problem is, with human-driven vehicles, in places like LA and Chicago and so forth. There's so much national productivity lost, sitting in traffic. Not to mention, accidents due to distracted driving, texting, intoxication, and so forth.

GLENN: So, Bob, can you take us -- take us back to the beginning of this. Because there are -- there are several things that are going to change life dramatically. And coming from, you know, a former chair of -- of General Motors, it -- it really carries a lot of weight.

Because you say these are not cars, as we know it. In fact, performance will be a thing of the past. You think that it could wipe out BMW. And, you know, Ferrari, et cetera. Et cetera. As we know it.

Is General Motors -- are they going to be making these pods, or do you see them made by Google?

BOB: Well, I don't think Google knows how to manufacture. They're good at software. But somebody else will -- they'll be the transportation -- the enablers, the transportation providers. But the so-called modules will be made by companies that know how to do that, at low cost. And that will be the global automobile companies. Except, what's going to be gone is the whole brand value of automobiles.

You know, mine is more expensive. Mine is more prestigious. Mine comes from Germany. That's all going to be gone because these -- these driverless or control-less, autonomous modules, which of necessity have to be all pretty much the same shape, they are -- they're going to be manufactured to -- to the low bidder. And the bids are going to be placed by the big transportation companies. And I fully expect that Uber and Lyft and so forth, and other companies, maven will be among the big fleets who are the value providers.

But General Motors gets it because General Motors has -- owns a piece of Lyft. Owns Maven. And so forth. So General Motors is a company that understands that capturing the value is no longer going to be in the sale of the car. Capturing the value is going to be providing the down -- the downstream transportation service.

GLENN: So I've always been impressed, Bob, by the history of General Motors. You know, they -- they've -- you know, Ford gets -- Ford gets all the credit for the assembly line. But it was actually the former chairman of Chevy that was working for Henry Ford that actually put it together in a workable way. They also were -- were Fisher Carriage originally. And when they saw the assembly line finally work. They said, okay. We got to get out of the horse and buggy business. And we're going to make automobiles. So they've already transformed once. You see them on the cutting edge of transforming a second time?

BOB: I do. I think General Motors has a bigger reservoir of highly skilled people than any other automobile company on the planet. Sometimes, you know, the -- with the so-called bean counters, as I like to call them, tend to inhibit creativity in the interest of short-term profitability. So every company goes through those faces. But I will tell you, when it comes to technological capability and just basic smarts, I don't think there's any match for General Motors out there. They're really good.

GLENN: So, Bob, what does -- because right now, people are trying to get their arms around Tesla.

BOB: Yeah.

GLENN: Which can drive itself, et cetera. Et cetera. But you're still looking at a Tesla that looks like a car and everything else. What does the car of the future look like?

BOB: Well, first of all, just a word on the Tesla system. The Tesla system relies on sensors. It's not very autonomous. It requires the drivers hand to be on the wheel at times, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Whereas, Cadillac SuperCruise will now take you from Chicago to New York or LA to San Francisco, without you ever touching the wheel.

So on vehicle autonomy, General Motors is ahead too.

GLENN: Didn't know that.

BOB: Yeah, no. A lot of people don't. And -- and also, what most of the -- the reason why some companies seem to be a little slower is that they understand the value of embedded digital super pre-sizing. That means down to four inches, max. And Tesla up to now does not use that.

They're using a lot of eyes and ears in the car. Whereas, the GM approach is to put in -- is to do this super precise mapping, to where if there were no obstacles, the car could actually get from Detroit to Chicago, without any sensors. Because the car knows so precisely, down to 4 inches, where it is at all times. The only thing you need the sensors for is other objects.

So you go from the Tesla sensing system. It's got to see everything. It's got to see curb stones. It's got to see potholes. It's got to see trees in addition to objects that are in the road.

If you have a sufficiently accurately embedded map, all you need is sensors to tell you -- like for a blind person, he's got to know that the dog is lying in its path.

GLENN: So the Tesla will see a pothole. But the GM will not see a pothole?

BOB: No, no. It will see it also because it will be in the map.

GLENN: You're mapping potholes?

BOB: Well, it's down to 4 inches. When they do freeway, they do every lane separately on a freeway.

GLENN: Wow. Holy cow.

Okay. So, Bob, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface. I need to take a quick break, and then we'll come back with Bob Lutz, author of Icons and Idiots. Straight talk on leadership. In just a second. A guy you really need to listen to.

GLENN: Former vice chairman and head of development at General Motors, Bob Lutz wrote an article, kiss the good times goodbye. He says, the end state will be a fully autonomous module with no capability for the driver to exercise command. You'll call for it. It will arrive at your location. You get in, input your destination, and go on the freeway. On the freeway, it will merge seamlessly into a stream of other modules, traveling at 120 to 150 miles an hour.

Bob, why is the average person hearing this kind of stuff, and they're not keeping up with technology? What makes this different than the prediction of flying cars?

BOB: Well, flying cars, you wind up either with a lousy airplane, or a lousy automobile. But it's very hard to ever get flying cars right.

And, by the way, as I never tire of saying and I remind my automotive friends of this, vehicle autonomy is actually easier -- full vehicle autonomy is easier to obtain in the 3D space than it is on two-dimensional surfaces. If you have like an autonomous helicopter/taxi service that connects the inner city to the airport, just shuttles back and forth, that from a technological and software-control standpoint to solve is far easier, far easier than doing it on a surface roadway.

So, yeah, there will be -- there will be a lot of flying modules that operate in three-dimensional space, probably from ground level up to about 1,000 feet so that they don't interfere with regular air traffic and can stay at the FAA system.

So, no, your comment was a very -- a very astute one. It will be both.

GLENN: I -- I -- there are people that I think -- the vast majority of Americans can't get their arms around how different life will be, by 2030, including their jobs.

BOB: Yeah.

GLENN: Can you go into that at all?

BOB: Well, a friend of mine was -- with IBM advanced systems development system in the '60s. And they forecasted that by the year 2000, you know, they were off in their timing, we would have a largely cybernated society, with machines producing machines, machines designing machines, machines maintaining machines. And a lot of -- and a lot of the wealth in the world being created basically fully -- fully automatically, without human intervention. And what do we do then?

And even IBM in the mid-60s postulated that what we were going to have to do is so much wealth is being produced by so little human input, that we would evolve a system where people essentially get a guaranteed annual salary, just to do nothing. Which would enable them to open a little cobbler store --

GLENN: Right.

BOB: Or start making violins again. All things that have disappeared. So I do believe that's going to happen. I mean, medicine can largely be replaced by technology. And --

GLENN: So, Bob, hold on just a second. I want to pick it up right there. And how life is changing. And what it means to the average person.

GLENN: We are lucky enough to have Bob Lutz on. He is the former vice chairman and head of development at General Motors, who wrote an awesome article that you really need to read, Kiss The Good Times Goodbye. Everyone will have five years to get their car off the road or sell it for scrap in the future. He says that we are -- we are not going to be driving our cars. And our cars are not going to look anything like they look now. In fact, they'll all pretty much be the same. And -- and you won't own one.

And, Bob, talk to me a little bit about what time of day to change in the mindset of Americans. You know, Americans have always loved their car. It's personal to them.

BOB: Yep.

GLENN: And we also -- you know, we're a performance generation. The new Dodge Demon, zero to 60 in 3.2 second, 850-horsepower, we like that stuff.

BOB: Well, I like it too. But it's unfortunately increasingly incompatible with the prime reason we have cars. The others are just sociopsychological reasons. They're kind of side benefits of vehicle ownership.

The primary purpose of cars, of course, is surface efficient -- safe surface transportation. And sad to say, the automobile as we know it today is increasingly failing in those areas, because we have so much congestion. And because people -- they're not all enthusiastic drivers. A lot of them like to text, take drugs, drink, watch -- watch TV on their smartphones, or engage in other risky behavior that has nothing to do with the safe --

GLENN: So I can see -- I can see us regulate it out. That in 20 years, you can't drive. You know, I don't believe my kids, who are young, you know, 11 and 13, are going to be driving very long in their life, just because of Uber, et cetera, et cetera. But this is coming. We'll regulate it out.

But what I can't get around is how the average American says I don't want a car anymore. But I see that happening with millennials. But a bigger stumbling block is people like General Motors. You guys make a ton of money on lending.

BOB: Yeah, well, that could continue. And there's nothing to be said that the automobile companies cannot lend to the big fleets like Uber and Lyft, just like GMC does now. You know, so I fully expect to see smart car companies survive. But they'll -- they'll just survive in a different form. And --

GLENN: Who do you think is -- who do you think survives, and who doesn't survive in?

BOB: Well, I would say the big companies that can produce efficiently and produce high quality at low costs. And basically produce an unbranded product that will be branded. Lyft or Uber or maven or whatever. They'll survive.

It will be tougher for the small specialty companies that have sold on image. You know --

GLENN: Give me an example. Because when you're talking about General Motors. I don't know what you mean by a small company.

BOB: Well, specialty manufacturers like Maserati. Maybe even BMW or Mercedes. Which you have to ask yourself, do those companies add any value in the basic transportation function, or do they fail because of a whole series of social beliefs and aura that's attached -- attached to the brand, an aura of superiority that's attached to German origin and so forth? Well, when all these things are branded, Uber and Lyft and whatever, a brand is not going to matter.

GLENN: But there is a difference -- there is a difference between getting into -- you know, getting into a Dodge and getting into a Mercedes. It does -- even if you strip it of all of its symbols, there is a difference in the quality of the vehicle. Is there not?

BOB: Well, in terms of -- yeah, maybe the materials are a little nicer. And the seat fabric is a little nicer. But at the end of the day, in terms of performing the transportation function, that's basically the primal reason we have automobiles for it, is human -- efficient rapid safe human surface transportation, in two dimensions.

You know, in major urban areas, the automobile as we have it today, not so much the car, but the people that are operating it -- and it's an integral part of the equation, increasingly failing in that task. And autonomous modules that are short. Not driver controlled. Do not depend on human reaction, where the person in front of you at a traffic light takes four seconds to wake up that the light has turned green. None of that's going to happen anymore, and we'll save enormous amounts of productive time for the whole economy.

GLENN: So you say that just like horses aren't used anymore, but rich people have racehorses, you say that the Ferraris, et cetera, et cetera, will be -- will be had by the uber rich. Will that be used on a race track?

BOB: Well, no. First of all, I didn't say racehorses in general. I said you have to use the analogy of horses, in general, so that there will be off-road dude ranches for four-by-fours. There will be privately owned tracks where you can drive any car. Some of these might be public, like public golf courses, where you have to demonstrate that you can drive. And if you can drive, you can buy an hour or two on the track.

So the car hobby will continue to exist. It's just not going to continue to exist on public roads. And I don't think -- these -- these places are cropping up all over the United States already. There's one in Michigan, in Pontiac, called M1 Concourse. There's one in Illinois. Autobahn. One in New York called Monticello. And so forth. And you buy -- you basically buy -- it's like a country club.

GLENN: Yeah.

BOB: You pay an initiation fee, and then you pay your dues membership. You can actually leave your cars out there.

And there will be manufacturers that continue to cater to that market. The nice thing about those cars, is they'll be totally regulation free. You can make them any way you want, because since they're not on the highways, the feds in the local states have no jurisdiction over it.

GLENN: So, Bob, as I look into basically what IBM said would happen by the year 2000 -- they were off by probably 30 years, but we are moving in that direction. And as I -- I see the rate of change that is coming, the best thing we can teach our children is that change is constant. And to -- and to not cement their thinking into anything. To always be looking for new things and experiencing new things.

I don't know how to teach that even.

BOB: Oh, it's not being taught. In fact, the liberal establishment is teaching exactly the opposite. I mean, every time some species happens to fade away out of the ocean or the rivers, it's considered a major tragedy, because these people behave like, okay. So the world is millions of years old, but now it's finished. And, you know, the world is never finished. It's in constant state of flux and mutation. And the same thing is true for society and technological progress.

You know, I've been asked to describe automotive transportation 150 years from now -- you know what I tell them? I said, we won't even travel anymore. It will all be virtual.

GLENN: So, Bob, what -- if you are somebody who is working in anything that involves an automobile now, what should you be working on? What should you be thinking?

How can you prepare, if that is your livelihood? And, second, how can we prepare our kids?

What should we be teaching our kids now, to prepare them for a different America?

BOB: Well, I think you put it right. You've got to teach people that change is a constant, other than death and taxes. The third thing that's for certain is change. We have to make people comfortable with it. As far as if you're working in the automotive or automotive related industry, keep your -- keep your nose to the grindstone. Learn as much as you can about autonomy. Be prepared for a change.

But, you know, this is going to be a gradual transition. So most of the people working in the industry today will live out their -- they'll live out their careers in the automotive industry. It's not like it's all going to happen in five years. But as we were saying earlier, happen at will. And again, I think you said it right, when it comes to teaching our kids what's important, you have to teach them about the inevitably of change.

GLENN: Bob Lutz, it is an honor to talk to you. And thank you so much for all of the work that you do with Marines and our service men and women. We're -- we're appreciative to -- for what you've done.

BOB: Thank you, Glenn. I'm surprised you know about my Marine Corps service.

GLENN: We do our homework. We do our homework. So thank you, sir. God bless you. Bob Lutz.

Former vice chairman of General Motors and had of development at General Motors.

STU: Incredible. I mean, the vision of that future. You think of all the things that would need to change. You know, we've been talking about a trillion dollar stimulus bill, over the past year or so, in Washington.

How differently should that money be spent, if it were to be spent, when thinking about

GLENN: No, you talk to people. Because I have. You talk to people in Washington now. They wouldn't even understand what he's saying. And I believe he's too pessimistic on the time line.

STU: You think 20 years is not too far out?

GLENN: I think -- no, I think 15 years is right on the money. And it may be changing -- he might be -- I might be wrong on the banning of cars. But we will, by 2030, we will be talking about that seriously. And I don't know when the technology really cements itself. But by 2030, you won't recognize -- you will not recognize your life. You will not recognize the country.

STU: Well, you think how fast this stuff happens. The i Phone was released ten years ago, ten. I mean, think of how different the world is because of that invention and others like it. And I think a lot of people look at that stuff and they think, eh, it's so far in the future. And, you know what, people aren't going to accept those changes.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: And Bob outlines it really well in his article. You don't have to. You know who is going to do it for you? Amazon. Google. Lyft. Apple. All these things are going to buy these things in the hundreds of thousands. And they have so much power and so much influence, that over time, it's going to change not only the market -- why are companies going to keep building these things for individuals when they can sell hundreds of thousands to large companies? But also through regulation. These companies are already huge donors, huge lobbyists. They're already moving policy like crazy. And as this stuff happens, and they're the ones manufacturing those cars, it's going to move fast.

GLENN: And you also see -- if you look at any of the trends of millennials, they're not buying cars. They're just not buying cars like we used to. When I was a kid and I turned 16, I was dreaming about my first car. That's not happening now. It's just not the same. And they're looking at cars and saying, why would I carry that load? Why would I want one? Especially in bigger cities, when I could Uber. And it will happen in the cities first.

But it will eventually -- it will eventually hit everywhere. And it's going to come faster than you think.

​YOU made Target​ choose between profit and 'progress'

SOPA Images / Contributor, OZAN KOSE / Contributor | Getty Images

Have you seen Target's newest pride month collection? Don't worry, you don't have to break your hard-won boycott streak to satisfy your morbid curiosity. Glenn took a look during a recent radio show. If you remember last year's display, you might be expecting horrors such as tuck-friendly bathing suits, chest binders for girls, and apparel made by a transgender Satan apologist. Fortunately, that's not what Glenn found. Instead, the collection was very tame, with one item being a charcuterie board with the phrase, "It's giving charcuterie" printed on it. So what happened? Did Target have a come-to-Jesus moment over the last year?

You. You are what happened.

The Target boycotts did exactly what they were supposed to do, they punched Target right in the wallet. According to the New York Post, Target lost a whopping TEN BILLION dollars in just ten days. You stood up for what you believed and Target had no choice but to listen. And this year's pride collection is proof that they heard you loud and clear.

"The inmates are now in charge of the asylum."

Now, this doesn't represent some change in the ethos of the company, but rather a desperate step back to protect their financial interests. The problem Target is now facing is that they don't have a whole lot of room to step back, as they have spent years cultivating a left-wing, progressive culture that really wants Target to take two steps forward instead. As Glenn said, "The inmates are now in charge of the asylum." These progressive activists within their company that they have pandered to for years don't take being told "no" very well. So when Target rolled back its pride collection, the internal backlash was immense.

Glenn's team was given access to leaked internal messaging within Target's Slack channel. The messages show the outcry of Target employees after Target announced they would be reducing the pride collection. Based on their reactions you would think they had just witnessed a national tragedy unfold. Some employees questioned if they could still work for Target after what had happened (remember, Target is still a VERY progressive company), and other employees discussed submitting ethics complaints. About a month after the internal firestorm, Target employees sent the following list of demands to leadership so that Target could atone:

  • An acknowledgment in writing, of the harm Target caused to the LGBTQ+ community.
  • A sincere apology.
  • To partner with prominent LGBTQ advocacy groups.
  • To immediately reinstate the Pride collection in full.
  • To donate to LGBTQ causes.
  • To implement sensitivity training for employees.
  • To cease all contributions to politicians and organizations that do not support the LGBTQ community.

Target has made a mistake.

By cultivating such a radical progressive community, they have placed themselves in a precarious position. On one side, there's the progressive monster they cultivated, with its ever-growing, ever-changing list of demands. On the other side, there are people like you—people who just want to shop without having to walk by transgender children's underwear. The more Target gives to the woke monster, the more they alienate their customers. Now Target is trapped—if they give in further to the woke mob, they'll lose billions of dollars, but if they don't, they'll be attacked from the inside.

So let Target serve as an example to other companies. Customers have a voice too, and when you stand up and use it, a great many things can happen.

Whatever happened to "do no harm?"

Last month, Glenn hosted a powerful Glenn TV special exposing malpractice and fudged consent standards among members in WPATH, the world's largest transgender health organization. Now that it's pride month, LGBTQ+ activists around the world are continuing their attempt to normalize life-altering transgender surgeries and hormone therapy as a legitimate option for minors experiencing gender confusion. However, as Glenn exposed in The Reckoning: Gender-Affirming Care, WPATH members are not only ideologically motivated to forego medical standards like "informed consent" to push transgender surgeries and hormone therapy on minors; they are financially incentivized to do so.

These "gender experts" are willing to bend the rules to do their dark work, and hospitals are turning a blind eye and rake in the cash. Here are 10 children's hospitals across the U.S. currently performing transgender procedures on minors:

1. Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago

We provide services including pubertal suppression, menstrual suppression, hormone therapy, and referrals for gender-affirming surgery.

Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago Gender Development Clinical Services page

2. Children’s Wisconsin

The most common care plans include ongoing psychological, emotional or social support. In some cases, our services may include reversible puberty-suppressing hormone therapy, gender-affirming hormone therapy and speech/voice training

Children's Wisconsin Gender Health Clinic page

3. Connecticut Children’s Hospital

The Division of Plastic Surgery at Connecticut Children’s offers surgical options for gender affirmation to individuals who have documented and persistent gender dysphoria. Gender incongruence occurs when a person’s sex assigned at birth does not correspond to the gender with which they identify. Gender affirmation operations are a group of surgical procedures that may be appropriate for transgender and gender diverse people to help affirm their gender identity.

Connecticut Children’s Hospital Gender Affirmation Surgery page

4. Doernbecher Children’s Hospital: Oregon Health and Science University

Our clinic accepts new patients through age 18. Our pediatricians, pediatric endocrinologists, adolescent medicine doctors and psychologists specialize in providing team-based care for children and teens.

Doernbecher Children’s Hospital: Doernbecher Gender Services

5. Golisano Children’s Hospital; associated with the University of Rochester Medicine

Gender Health Services coordinates with other divisions and departments to provide personal comprehensive care for our youth and young adults through age 26.
-Cross-gender Hormone Therapy: Gender Health Services provides cross-gender hormone therapy. We consult as needed with Pediatric or Adult Endocrinology
-Pubertal Blockade
-Mental Health Assessment: Referrals and coordinated care
-Surgical Services: Referrals and coordination of care (as medically necessary)Gender-affirming Top -Surgery: Plastic Surgery or Breast Surgery
-Vocal Therapy: Speech Pathology

Golisano Children’s Hospital: Gender Health Services

6. NYU Langone’s Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital

We help children and their families understand and explore their identity, with the goal of helping them achieving a true and nuanced sense of self. We want children to understand and value themselves, so that they can develop the confidence to talk with others about their sexual orientation and gender identity.

NYU Langone’s Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital Gender & Sexuality Service page

7. Seattle Children’s Hospital

We accept new patients ages 9 to 17.75 at the time of referral who have already started puberty. Patients ages 17.75 and older and patients who have not yet started puberty will be directed to community resources. Our clinic primarily provides gender-affirming medical care (such as puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones).

Seattle Children’s Hospital Gender Clinic page

8. Stanford Medicine Children’s Health

This multidisciplinary clinic provides medical services for gender nonconforming youths and their families in one central location. The expert members of the Gender Clinic team consists of providers from pediatric endocrinology, adolescent medicine, pediatric urology and social services, supporting each child’s or adolescent’s gender identity. All our providers are members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Stanford Medicine Children’s Health Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Clinic page

9. St. Luke’s Children’s Hospital

DSD (Differences in sexual development) encompasses conditions in which a person is born with sexual and/or reproductive anatomy that is not consistent with typical definitions of male or female anatomy. This may include atypical or ambiguous genitalia, unusual chromosome patterns, or differences in internal reproductive or urinary organ development. Our team provides hormonal therapy, mental health evaluation, and surgical consultations for patients with DSD.

St. Luke's Children's Essence Clinic page

10. University of Illinois Hospital

We are here to work with you to determine how to best meet your goals of external gender presentation. We want you to feel and be as prepared as possible while you take these important steps towards surgery.

University of Illinois Hospital Gender Affirming Surgery page

Why is my name on this deep state-backed Ukraine 'disinformation watch list'?

Chris Williamson / Contributor, Janos Kummer / Stringer | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

On Thursday, Texty.org, a so-called independent media outlet with an editor-in-chief who has ties to the U.S. State Department, placed dozens of American politicians, activists, and media outlets — including Blaze Media and myself — on a list of those who have allegedly shared Russian disinformation and anti-Ukrainian statements. The outlet published an article titled, "Roller Coaster: From Trumpists to Communists. The forces in the U.S. impeding aid to Ukraine and how they do it."

We have a color revolution happening within our own country.

There are 75 individuals on the list with the nearly 400 entities that have opposed sending aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Blaze Media and I were mentioned on page 34 of a 47-page list.

The group admits it couldn’t establish direct, proven ties between most of the entities on the list and the Russian government or known Russian propagandists. Instead, it gathered “evidence” that these people and outlets have spread Russian disinformation by echoing key messages of Russian propaganda in their arguments for ending further aid to Ukraine.

Who exactly are the people behind Texty.org? Its cofounder Anatoly Bondarenko was involved in the "tech camp," a public diplomacy program established by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the State Department. The tech camp is very much part of the State Department’s efforts to foment “color revolutions” in other countries. They find “tech-savvy people” and show them how to build movements against their governments. That's what our State Department is doing. What a coincidence that the editor-in-chief and cofounder was trained by the State Department and has ties to USAID.

I did a "Glenn TV" special a few weeks ago about regime change. It's been the United States' policy for a very long time. We use covert CIA operations to go into foreign counties and influence policy, manipulate the foreign media, meddle with and topple governments. We never admit that we do these things. When asked, we say, "We didn't do that. What are you talking about?"

It begins with those in the government who want to overthrow a regime.

This strategy started with the Cold War, but nothing the CIA has pulled off comes even close to what its successor began doing: the United States government, including the CIA, NGOs, trade unions, and people like George Soros. They coordinate together to bring about color revolutions. The first one that was really successful was in the Middle East: the Arab Spring. I told my audience years ago that the Arab Spring had its roots in 20th-century communist revolutions. After the “Communist Manifesto” was written, there was the European spring, which was the communists’ attempt to overthrow all of Europe.

We've carried out color revolutions in the Middle East, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Ukraine is one of them. Here’s how they do it. The United States keeps its distance from the “dirty work” by going through NGOs and trade unions. They train and mobilize street movement — like the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots or the current pro-Palestinian protests. These movements are funded by the same people and seem to pop up every four years.

Their money and actions usually come at a time of massive civil unrest right before an election. There's some kind of government element at the top — whether it be the CIA, the State Department, or USAID — but ultimately the office of the president calls the shots.

It begins with those in the government who want to overthrow a regime, and then the operation is privatized to give it distance from those in the government who are in charge.

This is where NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy come in. The National Endowment for Democracy is composed of four different entities: the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, and the Center for International Private Enterprise. Do you see what's happening here? It appears that the National Endowment for Democracy is composed of organizations from both sides of the aisle so it looks fair: Republican and Democrat, labor and private enterprise. But this is a bipartisan “cover story.”

Next on the food chain are the multibillion-dollar financiers and their organizations that partner in the entire operation. This is where George Soros comes in along with his organizations, the Open Society Foundations, and the Tides Foundation, which spread the message coming from the top: “Demonstrate in the streets!” They influence the media to report what the government wants to communicate to the masses.

This is the color revolution blueprint. We've done it many times, and I make the case that these same people are doing it here in America.

So, why am I on this list? I believe I'm on this list because I’m telling you exactly what’s happening.

We have a color revolution happening within our own country. Our government, NGOs, George Soros, and all the same actors used to initiate color revolutions abroad are now initiating a color revolution within the U.S.

This is what they've practiced in foreign nations, tested in 2020, and are doing right now ahead of the November presidential election. They might succeed this time because they can't have Donald Trump as president again. If he wins, you will have the government, the media, and the masses in street movements all saying that the election was illegitimate. This is how we've brought about regime change in foreign nations, and now it is being attempted on our own soil.

Top FIVE public figures calling out woke mob

Patrick McDermott / Stringer, Matt Winkelmeyer / Staff, Cooper Neill / Contributor | Getty Images

As Glenn says, there is balance in all things. The further the pendulum swings one way, the stronger the counter-force grows.

For the past decade, the pendulum has been swinging left so fast that it has been hard to keep up with. What's considered progressive and woke one day is suddenly old-fashioned and intolerant the next. Fortunately, many people (such as yourself) have seen the writing on the wall and have taken a stand against the woke mob that drags us closer and closer to tyranny, despite personal risk.

Some of these people have taken a stand despite being in the public eye, at the height of their careers, and having everything to lose. For these people, it would have been easier (not to mention more profitable) to stay quiet, keep their heads down, and do what they're told. But they didn't. Instead, they risked it all to make a stand against wokism. This is where we see the tide turning, the pendulum slowing, and perhaps starting to swing the other way. This is where we begin to take America back.

These are the top five public figures who have recently made a stand against the woke mob:

Harrison Butker

In his now famous commencement address to the graduating class of 2024 at Benedictine College, Kansas City Chief Kicker, Harrison Butker stood up for his religious values (and assumingly, the values of the students at this Catholic College). Butker criticized the president and media for perpetuating "degenerate values" and promoted traditional family values. For this, he was vilified by the media.

Jerry Seinfeld

Comedian Jerry Seinfeld has come under fire for defending his values several times over the last several months. During his commencement speech at Duke University that made the rounds on the internet a few weeks ago, Seinfeld was met with protests and walkouts by the pro-Palestine crowd due to his public support of Israel. Seinfeld has also received criticism for an interview with the New Yorker during which he blamed "the extreme left and P.C. crap" for the absence of quality comedy on television.

Joe Mazzulla

The NBA finals between the Dallas Mavericks and the Boston Celtics are the hot sporting event at the moment. The head coach of the Celtics, Joe Mazzulla, is an outspoken Catholic and speaks frequently about his faith. In a recent interview, Mazzulla was asked if he felt that it was significant that the head coaches for both teams were black, to which he responded "I wonder how many of those have been Christian coaches?"

Aaron Rodgers

NFL Quarterback Aaron Rodgers caught flack in 2021 for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine and going on air to defend his decision. He also criticized "woke culture" for being so easily offended. Rodgers has admitted that he lost money, friends, and media allies on a podcast with Joe Rogan since becoming outspoken about his beliefs. Rogers has continued to be vocal over issues concerning the vaccine and has championed other athletes who have spoken against vaccination.

Russell Brand

UK actor and comedian Russell Brand has faced recent criticism from the mainstream media for speaking his mind on several controversial issues. Brand started during the pandemic when he began posting videos on his YouTube channel that were critical of the way governments across the world were handling the crisis. Since then, Brand has defended his stance on COVID-19, called out woke corporations, and even converted to Christianity.