Minimum Wage to Increase in 18 States – Here’s How a Rise Could Hurt Workers

What’s going on?

The minimum wage is set to increase in 18 states and around 20 cities and counties for the new year, CNNMoney reported.

Does a mandated minimum wage help workers?

That’s up for debate. On today’s show, Doc talked about how increasing minimum wage ends up hitting workers in the long term when employers have to reduce their hours, work them harder in less time or turn to automation instead of human employees.

“You think randomly you can just mandate $15 without knowing any of these individual companies’ profit margins and what the books are?” Doc asked. “You think they’re making enough to cover that? What if they’re not?”

Companies can’t just magically pay more, and they’re dealing with profit margin expectations and stockholders.

“This is a failure across the board,” Doc said.

Which states are raising hourly minimum wage?

  • Alaska: $9.84
  • Arizona: $10.50
  • California: $10.50 or $11, depending on if the business has more than 25 employees
  • Colorado: $10.20
  • Florida: $8.25
  • Hawaii: $10.10
  • Maine: $10
  • Michigan: $9.25
  • Minnesota: $7.87, rising to $9.65 for businesses passing a threshold of an annual gross revenue of $500,000 or more
  • Missouri: $7.85
  • Montana: $8.30
  • New Jersey: $8.60
  • New York: varies depending on location and company size; learn more here
  • Ohio: $8.30
  • Rhode Island: $10.10
  • South Dakota: $8.85
  • Vermont: $10.50
  • Washington state: $11.50

Do you think an increased minimum wage will help or hurt workers? Let us know in the comment section below

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: New law going into effect across the country as of Monday. Lots of states have new minimum wage laws going into effect. Federal minimum wage, 7.25 right now. A bunch of states have said we want to hire minimum wage.

Minimum wages are a scam. It's a bad idea. They do not have their intended effect.

But to the extent that we are going to have minimum wages, of course, states should be able to pass a minimum wage. In fact, the federal government should leave it on states. Make it whatever you want, states. The federal government doesn't need involved in this.

Eighteen states are going to have a new minimum wage beginning Monday. Eight states are inflation-adjusted, where they're going up because of previous laws that tie into inflation.

New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Missouri. All inflation adjusted. Other states are seeing an increase because of specific legislation.

Colorado and Hawaii, New York and Vermont, all had higher -- or will have higher minimum wages because of the legislature.

Rhode Island, Arizona, California, Washington, and Michigan, all going up.

Minimum wages are a bad idea. The idea is, a minimum wage to, what? What's the point of a minimum wage? You're not taken advantage of? Well, here's the thing, if you feel like you're being taken advantage of, don't work for the company.

But, Doc, without it, they could pay nothing. Great. Then don't work for them. If enough people said, I'm not going to work for them because it's too low, they would be forced to, if they wanted to hire people, raise the salary. Races the hourly wage. That's how it works.

History has proven that. As evident by the fact that, does everybody on the planet -- let's just go to America. Does everybody in America only make the minimum wage?

KAL: Obviously not.

DOC: No. They make more than that. So if companies were just out to screw people, they only pay them the minimum, they pay them more.

For example, after they passed the new tax bill, multiple companies came out, Wells Fargo, AT&T, somebody else -- I think Fifth-Third Bank. Multiple companies came out and said, we are raising our in-house minimum wage to I think $15 an hour. Significantly higher than whatever their state or federal minimum wage is.

Why would they do that? We're talking for hourly employees at the lower end who would be the ones most likely to have a minimum wage-type salary, income.

They're willing to do that. Walmart, who gets a bum rap for, you know, such I low wages and so on and so forth. Walmart, for years, has had less than one or 2 percent of all of their employees making minimum wage. And they made a commitment a year or two ago, that by right about now probably, that no employee would make minimum wage, they would all be over minimum wage.

That's pretty good. Why don't they just pay a minimum wage, how much they would save?

KAL: Legally, they don't have to.

DOC: Exactly. So there's the fallacy number one, that it wouldn't happen without the law. But, again, minimum wage for, what? So people make more.

Is that a livable wage? Because the fight for 15 people say, we need a livable wage. Fifteen dollars an hour. Minimum wage. Fifteen dollars -- so $15 an hour is a livable wage?

KAL: No.

DOC: I don't know where you're living. Lots of these people that say that are living in places like New York City. Fifteen dollars an hour. Even if you're working 40 hours a week, that's $600 a week.

KAL: That's before taxes.

DOC: Right.

That's before taxes. You're making $31,000 a year. That's what that would be?

Fifteen dollars an hour, times 40 hours a week, times 52 weeks out of the year. Thirty-one thousand, that's a livable wage?

KAL: I don't know if you noticed, the average rent in New York is probably about 2,000, maybe 2500 a month.

DOC: Right. Really, really high. So obviously -- and remember, 15, they were saying was the livable wage.

At the minimum wage, at the federal level, it's, what is that? $14,000 a year, if you work 40 hours a week. So it's obviously not a livable wage.

What is a minimum wage then? It's not livable. It's not needed. What is it?

It's just a way for progressives to say, you've got to pay more. And then every day, they constantly say, it's not enough. We got to amp that up. Amp that up. Make it higher. Make it higher. Make it higher.

And if minimum wage was such a good idea, where it finally helps people because they cannot live making less than this -- it's an insult. Then why don't we just make the minimum wage $1,000 an hour?

KAL: Because now you're just being unrealistic, Doc.

DOC: Ah, that's what I heard from others when I suggest this. Okay. How about $100 an hour?

KAL: Still, just unrealistic.

DOC: Well, why?

KAL: Who is going to pay $100 an hour for a burger flipper?

DOC: So you realize at some point the company can't afford that.

KAL: Yeah.

DOC: But you think randomly, you can just mandate 15 without knowing any of these individual company's profit margins, what the books are? You can just go in and say, you must pay 15, because you think they're making enough to pay for that. What if they're not? So they just go out of business and you don't care? Here's what happens, companies don't just pay more and say, well, we're going to make less. They have bills they have to pay. And stockholders to answer to and profit margins, and all kinds of things. So they have to try to maintain that same profit margin. They simply say, you the employees are going to work fewer hours. And the work that we need done, that won't get done because you're working fewer hours. We're now going to say, Kal must do double the work.

We expect more from you in the same amount of time. They cut hours. They cut full-time employees --

KAL: Or they find automation solutions.

DOC: Or they find automation they have to cut. So this is a failure across-the-board. If it's a good idea at 7.25 an hour, based on their logic, then why not pay everybody a million dollars an hour? And guess what, just after a few weeks, everybody is rich, and all of our problems are solved.

KAL: No.

DOC: They know it won't work that way. But somehow they believe they can do it a little bit on the other end.

I have an example from an obvious progressive how this is a failure.

Over the week, last week, a bunch of people reporting on the new minimum wage. And somebody sent me a story from Yahoo finance. Ah, the great financial brain trust that is Yahoo.

Okay. So they have their little reporters there. And the story is reported. Then they're all talking about it. And they have a couple of chicks there. And some dude. And they're talking about this.

And the main reporter, the reporter, she's giving a bunch of the facts and the figures. And this is like, a 30, 40-second clip I want you to hear. Then they go to Rick Newman. He is also a reporter, writer there. Whatever. Yahoo finance.

He starts defending the idea of a minimum wage and challenges the woman on her suggestion that AT&T and these other companies said they're going to pay more and give bonuses now because of the new tax law.

But I think you'll realize that he talks squarely out of his backside and contradicts himself multiple times.

Listen to his arguments based on minimum wage, and then you'll realize, wait. But wait a minute. Then your other argument doesn't necessarily make sense or mean anything.

This is Rick Newman from Yahoo Finance.

VOICE: The states are taking control of this issue, which used to be kind of a federal issue.

VOICE: Yes, exactly.

VOICE: There used to be a federal minimum wage. But it's so low. It's $7.25. Right?

VOICE: Yep.

VOICE: And that hasn't gone up years.

VOICE: Since 2009.

VOICE: President Obama wanted to raise it up to 9 or 9.50. He couldn't get that. And Republicans don't seem likely to raise it at all. So states and cities are kind of saying what --

DOC: So hang on. Pause right there for a second. So to the states' rights points, he sounds like he's glad. States are going to -- local communities.

Because cities -- some cities have higher minimum wages too. That he's happy they're doing this. Hey, they didn't get it done at the federal level.

Republicans aren't going to do it. Obama wanted it, and they wouldn't let him. So good, they're taking it on their own.

Do you say the same thing about states' rights when it comes to other issues? Probably not.

KAL: No.

DOC: But okay. He's happy they're doing it.

VOICE: Kind of saying, well, we'll just take care of it in our own states. And that's what's happening.

VOICE: And do you think that's right? Do you think it should be a state issue? I mean, we know that depending on where you live, the cost of living could be astronomically higher if you're in the northeast compared to say, someone somewhere in the Midwest.

DOC: I mean, I think the shift here is that the federal government is becoming a backstop in -- and if there's enough political motivation in the states to do it, and in cities -- cities can do this too. Let's keep in mind.

Then they're doing it. Of course, the way you want people to get ahead is not by earning minimum wage.

The way you want people to get ahead is to have more skills so they actually demand --

DOC: Hold it. Hold it. Hold it right there.

So you want people -- minimum wage is not going to get them ahead. So why are you advocating this?

You want them to have more than that? Okay. Got you. All right.

VOICE: By earning minimum wage. The way you want people to get ahead is to have more skills so they can actually demand -- get out of the minimum wage. That's kind of an problem, which is a different problem.

But this is a backstop.

VOICE: Yeah. And it's interesting to see the corporations that are now taking a stand as well. So it's getting more and more micro.

Wells Fargo just announced that it will be raising its minimum wage to $15 for its employees. So companies are taking it into their own hands. And many of them are crediting the tax bill, saying that because we are saving money, we're going to be giving it back to their employees, which is a big question that we are wondering.

VOICE: Yeah, I don't buy that.

DOC: Hold it right there.

So the companies have announced that. Right? Back that up about 10 seconds, Kal. The companies have announced, that's why they're doing it.

And he questions, no, they're not.

Okay. They've told you this is what they're doing. But you don't believe it still. Okay. Listen.

VOICE: That are now taking a stand as well. So it's getting more and more micro. Wells Fargo just announced that it will be raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour for its employees. So companies are taking it into their own hands. And many of them are crediting the tax bill, saying, because we're saving money, we will be giving it back to the employees. Which is a big question that we're wondering --

VOICE: I don't buy that, sorry.

VOICE: I'm not sure I translate --

VOICE: Yeah

VOICE: The reason they're doing it is for the right reason economically, which is they have to raise pay to get the workers they need. That's what you want to happen.

DOC: Wait. Wait. What?

They're doing it to get better workers. They're raising it. He doesn't -- won't give any credit to the Republicans and the tax bill. They didn't do it for that.

No, it's not that.

KAL: No.

DOC: No.

They're doing it because that's how you get better workers.

So they're doing it to get -- they're just taking it on their own to get better workers. Doesn't that then show you that you don't need a minimum wage?

KAL: Kind of proves a point.

DOC: Right. He just talked himself around and goes exactly against why we need a minimum wage.

From his perspective, I mean. Okay. A little more.

VOICE: I'm not sure if it will translate.

VOICE: The reason they're doing it is for the right reason economically, which is, they have to raise pay to get the workers they need. That's what you want to happen. And, you know, we're basically getting into a labor shortage in some parts of the country. That's great news. Because then workers get raises for the right reason, because the economy is really humming.

VOICE: Yep.

VOICE: But there will still be some people left out.

DOC: Did you catch it at the end?

KAL: There will still be some people left.

DOC: He talked himself into a corner and realized he was being an outright hypocrite. And was going to be called because -- like, but there will still be some people left behind.

Why would they be left behind? You just said --

KAL: The economy is humming.

DOC: It's humming. We got a labor shortage. And this is going to get it done. They're doing it for the right reasons.

Some people will be left behind.

And what? You believe 7.25 is enough for them? Right?

Oh, it's not. Is 15 enough? Okay. Well, if 15 is good, isn't a million better?

Dude, it doesn't work. It absolutely doesn't work.

You're just an overemotional, illogical, hand-wringing progressive that will not let free markets go because you're ultimately about control.

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.