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

©2023 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Michelle Malkin Interview

November 29, 2007
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

GLENN BECK PROGRAM


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

GLENN: Last night with the debate, Michelle Malkin has done her homework on who the people were that were asking the questions on the debate and it is absolutely phenomenal to me after all we heard about Tim Russert and how unfair his questions were that the outcry at CNN.

You know what, when I walk those halls, CNN better be in a full-fledged uproar of what happened on the debate last night and who they selected to ask the questions in their youtube debate. Michelle Malkin is here with us now. Hi, Michelle.

MALKIN: Hey, Glenn, congrats first on all your success.



Visit the Michelle Malkin website at michellemalkin.com

GLENN: Thank you so much. I'm a big fan of yours. I think you are one of the smartest, most focused people out there. I checked your website this morning and you have not only the youtube debate questions but then you also have their blogs and their youtube appearances before the debate where they are clearly exposed. Well, let's just tick them down one by one on who these people were last night.

MALKIN: Sure. Of course, the most prominent plant, the one that Anderson Cooper gave his mea culpa for was a military guy who earned boos from some very savvy members of the audience very early on not knowing who he was because he was so clearly grandstanding. Keith Kerr, turns out you to a dimple Google search, you don't have to do some major excavation to find, that the guy was in fact a Hillary campaign committee lesbian and gay committee member. In other words, an official of the Hillary Clinton campaign. But that's really just the tip of the iceberg. I can't even think of the analogies here, the horticulture. So basically CNN looks like it's turned into the home and garden TV network, Glenn, because there were at least three other of these plants who have been tied one way or the other to Democrat campaigns either as declared supporters or activists or sympathizers. For example, the girl that looked like a Janeane Garofalo dead wringer, the girl who asked the question about abortion and whether women would be prosecuted, turns out she wasn't just some concerned young undecided person. Turns out she was a declared John Edwards supporter and you could find this out by looking at her youtube profile, clicking through to her blog and seeing that she was an active John Edwards supporter. And Anderson's ego will be assuaged because it also turns out that she is a big slobbering Anderson Cooper fan as well.

GLENN: You know what, Michelle, I have to tell you. I am not a CNN apologist. You know I work for CNN. I'm not a CNN apologist. I work for them. We work together. I'm the only show on CNN to have an independent company, my company, produce the show. So I am technically not an employee of CNN. So I'm not going to apologize for them. I don't think there's a grand conspiracy over there, but I think there are people over there that do have agendas. But with that said, Anderson Cooper is not one of them. I think Anderson Cooper is one of the most fair people I have ever met.

MALKIN: Actually I believe his mea culpa, I believe he didn't realize who these people were but really that's part of the problem. I mean, obviously here it's either, as one other blogger in the blog here put it, a case of either constructive incompetence or convenient ineptitude. I don't buy the total grand conspiracy, either. I think there were probably smaller little conspiracies of agendas of probably individual producers, particularly with regard to the military guy. I mean, come on. To believe that they didn't realize when they had plucked this guy and brought him down to the debate, planted him in the audience and we're supposed to believe that someone didn't do a simple background search on that guy? Now that's said, I've mentioned, too, there's two others and it doesn't take some hidden journalist with an MA from the Columbia School of Journalism to find these things out.

GLENN: Well, give me the others.

MALKIN: Sure.

GLENN: We have the general, we had the abortion question but we have two others.

MALKIN: That's right. The third one was the guy who came on and asked how the candidates, Republican candidates would feel about Log Cabin Republican support. Clearly the guy left the intentional impression that he was a Log Cabin Republican. Well, it turns out that that guy, David Cercone, and once again a simple Google search would have turned this up on the very first search page. Turns out that the guy is a declared Obama '08 supporter. He had a blog on the Obama '08 campaign page. This should be disclosed. People should know that these weren't just ordinary citizens who were part of the Republican party or conservative movement who hadn't decided among the candidates. The guy's an Obama supporter, Glenn!

GLENN: Right. And the last one is the undecided mom.

MALKIN: That's right. We have a concerned mom with two kids and she looked very earnest as she talked about lead and poise and it turns out this ordinary concerned mom also happens to be a staffer for a head of the United Steel Workers and a very prominent union activist in Pittsburgh. Once again, just Google it.

GLENN: Okay. So first of all, let me start at the most innocent way all of this happened. Michelle, I don't know how many liberals you have ever worked with but when it comes to liberal journalists, I mean, next to MSNBC, belly of the beast, for the love of Pete. What I have found is many of these liberals have never even met a real conservative because they're from New York, they live in New York. They don't even know what a real conservative is and so they don't understand the questions.

When you look at these questions, first of all, a conservative would say, are you going to prosecute the moms, you know, the people who are going to have the abortion. That's not a question from a conservative. A conservative wouldn't phrase it that way in the first place. They would be talking about how pro life you are, et cetera, et cetera. Then you have the Log Cabin Republican. Most conservatives, not universally so but most conservatives do not have two questions of Log Cabin conservatives and the don't ask/don't tell policy. It is so far down on a conservative's radar right now that it's incomprehensible. And the other, on the lead paint with China, you know, that one, maybe. As long as we keep framing it in, you know, China and is China really an enemy and what's really happening there, et cetera, et cetera, you could possibly see that one coming from a conservative.

The best-case scenario is they just don't even understand how conservatives think and so they didn't even spot -- you don't have to Google. You can look at these questions and go, what is this? That's a setup question. There's not a conservative out there that's asking this question. Am I wrong? You don't even need to Google it.

MALKIN: Well, yeah, that's partly true, Glenn. And look, I've been working in print journalism for 15 years and broadcast journalism for the last seven. I worked in two major metropolitan newsrooms and have come across the kind of liberal journalists that you're talking about. But even if you grant, even if some of these questions were questions that conservatives conceivably would have formulate on their own and not raised alarms on someone's BS detector, there's still the issue that these connections were out there, they should have been disclosed, and it's not like CNN hadn't been given a heads-up that there were planting problems. They had plenty of time to vet these people. You've got extraordinary odds here, Glenn. Out of 5,000 videos and 32 that actually made it onto air, at least four involved people who were declared Democrat supporters or actual staffers or activists.

GLENN: There's absolutely -- look. Michelle, I know the standards that I'm held to. I know that standards and practices comes to me and says, you're going to go with that on the air? There's this evidence and this evidence that it's not true. And I'll say, well, there's this evidence and this evidence that it is true. Okay. Well, if you want to look stupid. I mean, they are in my face all the time to make sure that we are -- not a single thing goes on the air that, you know, is questionable. You can't tell me that -- I mean, how -- was everybody drunk that was putting these things together? I mean, how did they miss this?

MALKIN: Well, I would list names. Let's grant that Anderson Cooper was innocent in all of this, and I'm perfectly willing to do that. I've actually reflected some of his work. For example, when he went to Lebanon and pretty much called what was going on there with regard to the staging of fake Hezbollah propaganda. So I don't think of him as the enemy. I don't think of him as some --

GLENN: He's not.

MALKIN: -- totally incurable left wing idealog. He's not. But somebody is obviously using him as a tool. I think it's clear. I cannot give the same benefit of the doubt to the people who were able to pick these plants and weeds out of the 5,000 videos that were submitted.

GLENN: Let me go here. Is this the death of one of two things. Is this the death of these youtube debates because we now know it's bogus; or, does this now show the hypocrisy of the Democrats, or maybe the ability to, you know, see the future because they see the way they do things. Does this show the hypocrisy of the Democrats who will not go and face a debate on Fox News, all of the questions performed by credible journalists. They complain about the unfairness of the questions of Tim Russert and yet at the same time they will plant someone from their camp to ask questions and yet the Republicans take it. They do it. Which one of these is more open to an honest debate?

MALKIN: Well, I think the two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. I definitely think that you hit the nail on the head with the latter scenario and, you know, I'm actually very proud of all these candidates, although I'm not really juiced up about any one in particular that they agreed to do it because remember a couple of months ago Mitt Romney wasn't going to do it, a lot of the right wing bloggers, my fellow conservative bloggers including myself and others that, hey, you know, you need to get in the game and this could be an opportunity for you to expose liberal bias. You need to be in the opportunity to create it. And look, they didn't even ask, it was a theater basically for CNN to smack itself in the face over it. But -- and yeah, I mean, the Democrats have Fox derangement syndrome and I think people will see through that. I mean, I think the question is how much will this debacle penetrate to ordinary citizens. You know, it's a small amount of people who actually read the Internet. You've got a huge audience. Talk radio has a huge audience. But look, CNN's not going to want to talk about this on the giant airwaves for more than a day and the New York Times is not going to put it on the front page although, of course, if the scenario were reversed, we wouldn't hear the end of it. We would have Paul Krugman columns with the reverse scenario until the end of next year.

GLENN: Yeah.

MALKIN: So yeah.

GLENN: Michelle, you just keep beating the drum and the truth will come out and I think you said, you know, it's the right thing to stay engaged. It's the wrong thing to back away because, you know, you give people enough rope and they hang themselves if they have an agenda.

MALKIN: Yeah. And it was, I have to say, day to day for much of the conservative audience that has watched CNN get away with so much.

GLENN: Michelle, thanks a lot. Appreciate it.

MALKIN: Thanks. 

END TRANSCRIPT

Tapping the brakes on transgenderism in 2023

Hunter Martin / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Trans athletes identifying as women still carry natural physical advantages.

The WBC president went on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hulton Archive / Handout

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

1. Plato's Republic

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

2. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

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

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

3. Augustine's City of God

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

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

4. Aquinas' Summa Theologica

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

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

5. Francis Bacon's Novem Organum

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

6. Descartes' Discourse on Method

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

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

7. David Hume's Treatise on Human Nature

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

8. Kant's Contemplation on the Metaphysics of Morals

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

9. Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil

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

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

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

11. Alasdair McIntyre's After Virtue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getty Images / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

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

1. Saving the planet

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

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

2. Private jets

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

I fly commercial [...] Exclusively.

3. Global Collaboration Village

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

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

4. Climate revolution

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

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

5. Do or die

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

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

6. Colossal risks

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

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

7. Rain bombs

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

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

Courtesy of the World Economic Forum

8. Survival comes down to this

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

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

9. Complete transformation

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

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

10. Scientific necessity

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

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

11. Illegal hate speech

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

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

12. Climate first

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

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

13. The role of war

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

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

14. Blame game

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

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

15. Sacrifice for the greater good

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

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

Conclusion

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