Perverted Justice



GLENN: We also have Congressman Ted Poe. He was a prosecutor and a federal judge. So we're going to get his view of what happened in court yesterday and what it all means. But let me take the case from the beginning and spend just three minutes with Tara Setmayer here and then we'll bring Ted Poe into the conversation. Tara, give me the update on -- take this from the beginning on who this guy is in about three minutes up to the court case. Then we'll bring Ted Poe in and then you can bring is through what happened in the courtroom because you were there with Johnny Sutton yesterday. And we'll get Ted's kind of viewpoint on what you describe as we go along.

SETMAYER: Sure. And thank you for having me on again, Glenn.

GLENN: Sure.

SETMAYER: This is such an important issue and the developments are remarkable. The hearing yesterday had nothing to do with the drug smuggler Davila. Yesterday was the oral arguments in the appeals process for agents Ramos and Compean.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I'm sorry. Then this is even better. I'm sorry.

SETMAYER: That's okay.

Border Patrol Fundraiser Shirt

***All of Glenn's proceeds from the sale of this shirt will be donated to a legal defense fund for Agents Ramos and Compean.***

To quote Col. Nathan Jessep--Jack Nicholson's character from, A Few Good Men--"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns." That's true, and some of the men guarding our walls are U.S. Border Patrol Agents. Thing is…if one of those Border Agents tries to protect our walls with their guns, they might just end up in prison for the next 11 years. That's what happened to agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. You've heard me talk about the injustice done to these brave men, and you know that I'm outraged. I invite you to join me in showing both your anger and commitment to setting them free by wearing one of these t-shirts: "U.S. Border Patrol…To Protect And Serve Time." It's the least we can do for two men who have done the most…men with families who are unfairly paying the price for doing their duty, showing their bravery, and trying to keep all Americans safe.

GLENN: I was all discombobulated here.

SETMAYER: That's okay. And how we got to this point, it was everyone was concerned about being overly optimistic and because the appeals process, the judges can be very, you know, straight-faced, poker faced. But yesterday I have to say they were so animated and you could visibly see they were upset about three main issues, and these are the issues that members of congress, Mr. Rohrabacher, my boss, Congressman Poe, Hunter, Tancredo, everything everyone was concerned about was brought to fruition coming out of the mouths of judges and those issues were the application of the 924(c) gun charge.

GLENN: Okay, hang on just a second. Hang on, hang on. If we're going to jump right into it, let me go to Ted Poe and get him on because I want the two of you to be able to discuss these things as I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination.

So Congressman Poe, how are you, sir?

REPRESENTATIVE POE: Fine. Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You were a prosecutor and a federal judge if I'm not mistaken.

REPRESENTATIVE POE: State judge for 22 years.

GLENN: State judge. What I'd like to do is get your viewpoint as Tara lays each one of these points out yesterday, or in a minute, and tells us exactly what the judges said, what the testimony was. I want you to try to, if you can, tell us what you think is going through the minds of these judges, especially if it was you sitting on the panel and hearing these things.


GLENN: Tara, what was the first point?

SETMAYER: The first point was the immunity agreement. They were rather upset about the fact that the drug smuggler was given an immunity agreement that no one seemed to be able to define and the government lawyer even admitted, used the word "Hybrid immunity" which is the same term that the prosecutors used during the trial. It was a weird hybrid immune. Well, that was problematic for these judges because the type of immunity that the drug smuggler was given determined the line of questioning that they were able to ask him or not ask him and whether he was allowed to properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right. And that ultimately led into the second drug load because the judges were concerned that the jury never heard any information at all about the second drug load which took place several months before the trial and while he was under this strange immunity.

GLENN: Right. And it wasn't just a second drug -- there wasn't just a second drug load. There was also a third drug load that we've now found out about.

SETMAYER: Yes. There were multiple smuggling attempts and another load that we know about in September, but that couldn't be discussed because that wasn't discussed during the original trial. But they did ask if Davila had been indicted at this point and the Government had to admit that, yes, he had. And the judges were rather perplexed by the fact that they made such a concerted effort to hide this information and they said that, you know, don't you think that was relevant? And the Government said, well, no, we didn't think it was important. And the judge said, applied common sense for you guys to think that the credibility of this witness was absolutely at the heart of this case. He clearly wasn't a mule. He was a pretty midlevel drug smuggler which means the likelihood of him having a weapon was much greater and you guys knew that, which is why you made sure you kept this from the jury.

GLENN: Congressman Poe, tell me about, if you were a judge, what does it mean, this hybrid immunity and also the prosecution saying, well, no, we didn't think this was important. Tell me as a judge how that would sit with you.

REPRESENTATIVE POE: First of all there's no such thing under the law as hybrid immunity. Either you've got immunity or you don't have immunity and so they are trying to bootstrap a phrase into federal law that does not exist. So that was the first problem with immunity.

The federal government gave the drug dealer immunity from prosecution if he would testify. He did testify, and he told some things obviously that turned out not to be true in the case and so I would be, as a judge, concerned about the immunity agreement and here's the reason. Any time the prosecution makes a deal with a criminal to get certain system; in other words, immunity for testimony, you get the testimony you pay for. And in this case they got the testimony they wanted and they got these two individuals convicted. So immunity deals are always suspect and the jury should know all about the immunity situation and that's why the judges were concerned about first the immunity making the deal with the drug smuggler. And, of course, the second issue is the fact that he was held up to the jury, Davila, as sort of a choirboy. You know, he was just bringing a little drugs to get some money for his sick mother in Mexico. That is not true. And the jury should have known about the other drug smuggling incidences and the reason is because the whole prosecution case was based upon the credibility of their star drug dealer witness, and he was no choirboy. He was an habitual offender of bringing drugs in. So that in a way misled the jury as to who this person was that they made a deal with. So the judges were very concerned about both of those two issues, as they should have been, as any trial would be.

GLENN: Okay, Tara, what was the next thing that came out of the trial yesterday?

SETMAYER: The next thing was the 924(c) gun charge but I want to say one more thing, really important point that came out. While they were questioning the Government on the immunity agreement, one of the judges flat out asked about three times, "Did he violate the terms of his immunity agreement, was that a violation or was it an abuse of the immunity agreement," and the government lawyer, who really tripped over his words, he was being battered so much by the questioning, he finally said, quote: He told some lies. So the government attorney admitted that the drug smuggler, Davila, told some lies during the trial.

GLENN: How significant is that, Ted? Congressman, how significant?

REPRESENTATIVE POE: Any time a witness testifies and lies on the witness stand, that is highly significant. And if the lawyer putting the witness on the witness stand knows that the witness is lying on the witness stand and doesn't bring it to the attention of the Court, that is about the worst thing a lawyer can do. So --

GLENN: And it's illegal, right?

REPRESENTATIVE POE: Of course. It's called in the vernacular suborn perjury. If that witness lies and the lawyer's aware of it and doesn't do something about it, it's unethical and it is illegal. So that was a tremendous blow, I think, to the prosecution. When this lawyer for the U.S. attorney's office admitted, well, you know, the drug dealer did tell some lies, flippant, like it was not anything that was important. It's very disturbing.

GLENN: Okay. Now, we know that now the prosecution has admitted that he told some lies. We know that they knew in advance of the second drug load, which Johnny Sutton said to me, and I know he said to you guys as well, oh, we don't know that; we have no evidence of that; we're still looking into that. We know now that that was a blatant lie to us in the media and you in congress, but then after that second drug run they raised the charges. While this guy's credibility is going down and they know that he's lying, they raise the charges against Compean and Ramos. That is the second thing that they were upset about, right, yesterday, Tara?

SETMAYER: Yes, they were clearly upset about the application of the 924(c) gun charge which was the minimum sentence enhancement that was added on after the initial charges. It's called a superceding indictment. The reason why is because this has huge complications for any law enforcement officer that carries a weapon, and the questions right away, they asked them, do you think that a police officer is always subject to this statute no matter what the circumstances are. And the Government said, well, yes. And that was concerning for the judges because that means that a law enforcement officer who is lawfully permitted to carry a weapon, lawfully permitted to discharge that weapon and can in a reasonable force situation. So one of the judges asked, well, you could have -- this is exactly what he said: There are a number of charges you could have used. Why this one? And they said -- he asked, why did you stack? He used the term "Stack" charges against them. And that's when he went into his, almost a lecture about how if these guys had reported this, do you think the prosecution would have proceeded? And the Government admitted, probably not. And he said, well, you know, they were concerned about that. So basically they're being charged for not reporting, which isn't a crime. That's a procedural violation that could have been handled within the policies of the border patrol.

GLENN: Yeah.

SETMAYER: And so the implications of a 924(c) gun charge I think is what prompted the judges to say that this got out of hand and that the Government overreacted, which are quotes.

GLENN: We have Tara Setmayer from Congressman Rohrabacher's office. These are the people who have been behind this from the very beginning. Congressman Ted Poe who was a prosecutor and a state judge, who has been leading the charge in congress as well. So congress, let me go to you as a former judge. What would you be thinking if you were sitting on the bench and you heard all of this stuff start to spill out?

REPRESENTATIVE POE: The application of adding the rep charge. As the U.S. attorney said yesterday, they've never done this in a case before. In other words, no law enforcement officer has ever been prosecuted and they had the gun charge application stacked on them to give more time. He said that to the judges yesterday. So it looks like to the observer, common sense observer that there's a vindictiveness by the U.S. attorney against the border agents; and more technically, this does not apply to peace officers. The law was written to apply to a person who commits a federal crime and he uses a gun and that way the person would get more time in prison because a gun was used. Doesn't apply to police officers because the law not only allows them but requires them to carry a firearm while they're on duty and so now they're being punished for doing what they're supposed to do by law. So I think the judges had a real issue here with why the prosecution seemed to be a little vindictive in putting this application on a peace officer where it's never been applied before.

GLENN: Okay, congressman, let me ask you two questions. Then I've got to run because we've got David Botsford on who is the appeals attorney for Compean and Ramos. Let me just get your read here. A, this is as significant as I believe it is right now, yes or no; and B, does this look like this could turn into releasing of Compean and Ramos; and C, do you believe that anything else will happen? Will we go after the people in the system that did this to Compean and Ramos?

REPRESENTATIVE POE: It's highly significant and I hope the judges allow Ramos and Compean to have bail while they're pending their decision. The purpose of bail is to secure a person's appearance in court. And they are not going anywhere. They are not running away. So they should be allowed to have bail based on the hearing yesterday. And the most important thing thirdly, yes, we're going to follow up with the Justice Department hopefully to have aggressive investigations on this whole relentless attitude by the U.S. attorney's office on prosecuting the border agents. So we're not through with this issue yet.

GLENN: I'm glad to hear it. Congressman Ted Poe from Texas, thank you for being with us. Tara Setmayer from Congressman Rohrabacher's office, as always it's good to have you on and we'll follow this in the coming days.


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.


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.