Glenn talks with Andrew McCarthy




Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad


by Andrew C. McCarthy

RELATED ARTICLE:


No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen

GLENN: Andrew McCarthy is a guy I had on last night. Andrew McCarthy was the lead prosecutor for the '93 World Trade Center bombing. This guy has been -- I mean, he's been going after bad guys for quite some time and he's got an incredible article out about the company that he keeps on Barack Obama. And we started in on this conversation and I had, like, three and a half minutes with him last night. Started in on this conversation and there's just not enough time because the pieces of the puzzle on Barack Obama, you have to put them together yourself. And there are so many pieces out there that give us a very different picture. A disturbing picture on who Barack Obama really is based on the company that he keeps. Andrew, how are you?

McCARTHY: Glenn, I'm great, how are you?

GLENN: Very good. I want to get right to Barack Obama and the company he keeps. Before we get into it, tell me why it matters. Some people say, "Oh, you can't judge him by the people that are around him or that he's had contact with."

McCARTHY: Yeah, I used to hear that when I was a prosecutor, too, you know. They used to say you can't -- that's just guilt by association to which, you know, usually before people got convicted, I would say, well, you know, try proving conspiracy without association, you know. I mean, it's sort of an element that's of some importance. And obviously we don't condemn somebody simply because of who he associates with but, you know, people are drawn to each other for a reason, and I think there's a theme that runs through all of these troublesome connections that Obama has and frankly he's somewhat lucky, I think, even though you -- if that's a strange way to put it, that so much of this analysis has been infected by the racial element of right because I think the racial component is actually the least important of the things that strings this altogether.

GLENN: Well, the racial element is the first tip-off that this guy has Marxist tendencies.

McCARTHY: Yeah, that's exactly right. And the racial element, if you dig a little bit deeper into it, this liberation theology, this Black Liberation Theology is just really a sort of a parrot of the leftist liberation theology that was -- you know, that came to our attention so powerfully in the Sixties and Seventies in South and Central America.

GLENN: Well, I mean, here's -- I love this from your article, from the church's own mission statement that he goes to. "We are African people and we remain true to our native land, the mother continent and the cradle of civilization." The one that you would remain true to, your native land, I mean, most people that go to that church, I would imagine their native land is America.

McCARTHY: Yeah, you would hope that. I don't think that you can uncouple that with some of the, not only the fact that Obama stayed in that church for so long and, you know, had Wright marry him and baptize his children, but some of the things Michelle Obama has said hook up to this a little bit too uncomfortably for me. For example, this business in her thesis and, you know, I know we all don't want to be tagged with our college usings but again, you know, we're trying to put these pieces together. But she actually argues in the thesis that a separatist would understand the black community and the black experience in America better than one of these sort of benighted integrationists because only the separatist really understands the authentic experience and can touch that. And I just, when I hear that sort of stuff, I hear the very echoes of the part of the mission statement that you're talking about here.

GLENN: All right. So let me -- let's start at the beginning because I think Michelle Obama is the key to understanding Barack Obama. I think, you know, her statements that people dismiss on, oh, America is just downright mean or some of the stuff she just said in a speech last night that was absolutely incredible about how, you know, she went to Harvard and Princeton but people tried to keep her down there and she barely makes it and she's an anomaly and, gosh, now they're trying to take the presidency away from her husband. I mean, it's amazing stuff, but let's get to her through two other really important pieces and that is let's start with William Ayers.

McCARTHY: Right.

GLENN: William Ayers, you told me last night on television you need to read the September 11th article on William Ayers, member of the Weather Underground. Last night we posted it up on our website. I bet it's probably still there. America, you should read this. When I read it, Andrew -- I was amazed at this guy that he is allowed to be -- or that he's, not allowed, that he's so accepted by the people in Barack Obama's company.

McCARTHY: You know, Glenn, and the thing I asked you yesterday and I'm sure now that you've taken a look at it, it resonates even more. Common sense question for people. Ask yourself, could you talk to this guy for 30 seconds and not know where he was coming from.

GLENN: No.

McCARTHY: Then if the answer's no, then ask yourself if you're a person of Barack Obama's sophistication and education, is it conceivable that you could be around this guy -- and he spent quite a bit of time around him -- and not know precisely where he was coming from and how he wanted to quote/unquote change America?

GLENN: Well, it makes -- when you start to look into who his friends are, it makes a couple of things, like the flag lapel pin makes sense, that he won't wear a flag lapel pin. There is a very famous picture that we posted on the website a few months ago where he was on the phone at a campaign headquarters with a Che Guevara flag behind him.

McCARTHY: Right.

GLENN: And I thought to myself what candidate would sit in there and have that picture taken with a Che flag behind him. Well, I know exactly what candidate, a guy who would associate with William Ayers. Tell everybody about William Ayers. Take it a little deeper than what we know as member of the Weather Underground, bombed the Pentagon.

McCARTHY: Right, bombed the Pentagon, bombed other U.S. targets including the capitol, banks, U.S. headquarters, et cetera. Now, Obama waves at all that and says all that stuff happened 40 years ago, how can you blame me for stuff that happened 40 years ago. I don't want to quibble with dates, it doesn't quite happen more than 40 years ago. But more to the point, he has associated with this guy in the here and now, and that interview that we talked about a couple of minutes ago was actually published by the New York Times on sent 11th.

GLENN: Yeah, the article is entitled "No regrets For a Love of Explosions, in a memoir of sorts, he talks with life of the weatherman and he is not ashamed of it. In fact, in a very creepy way he talks about his love for and the beauty of explosions.

McCARTHY: Yep. It really is creepy is precisely the right word for it. But the reason I think it has very -- it's very important in the here and now is that it's a fresh statement, it's an indication by him that far from any regret over what he did, he actually says that he wishes that he had done more. And when he's challenged a little bit and, you know, this is the "New York Times," so he wasn't going to be challenged that much. But when he's challenged a bit on some of the things he's saying, he talks about, you know, how can you talk about America as a great country; it still makes me want to puke. Every ounce of his being --

GLENN: This is recent stuff.

McCARTHY: I'm sorry?

GLENN: This is recent stuff. This is not 1970. That's recent.

McCARTHY: No, and it's not only recent stuff, it's stuff that was vintage of the time that he was sitting on the Woods board, a left wing charitable organization, sitting on that board with Barack Obama and making appearances with him on, you know, college panels, one of which at least was arranged by Michelle when she was an associate dean at the University of Chicago.

GLENN: But it also doesn't go just to sitting on boards with him and college panels. His wife was also a, you know, 1970s terrorist activist and when Barack Obama first started launching campaigns, didn't he launch at the Ayers home?

McCARTHY: Well, that's exactly right. His coming out party was at the home of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, his wife that you just alluded to a second ago. You know, I have some stuff in the piece about Bernardine Dohrn as well who was quite a character in her own right.

GLENN: You can't leave it -- I mean, when Sharon Tate was killed, she came out and said, "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach, wild."

McCARTHY: Yeah, wild, that's what she said. You know, and that, again I suppose you could dismiss some of this as the youthful exuberance of a youthful terrorist but, you know, if there weren't -- if it wasn't so obvious that there was a freshness to it in the sense of their lack of remorse over it and Ayers, of course, saying that he wishes they had done more and, you know, one of the things I think you can't dismiss out of all of this is, you know, I'm a counterterrorism guy. So I guess maybe that's my prism for looking at a lot of this stuff. But, you know, with respect to jihadism we have both a hard jihad and a soft jihad, you know. We have people who blow up the buildings and then the people who engage in the extortion, you know, just like you pay the Gambino money man.

GLENN: Right.

McCARTHY: Because you know what the wages of resistance are. And what I fear with these characters, Ayers and Dohrn in particular, is they haven't changed where they're coming from. They haven't changed a bit the thing, the ideology that motivates them. What they've changed is their methodology. They are not blowing up buildings anymore. They are, you know, shaping mines.

GLENN: Yeah, they have been institutionalized.

McCARTHY: Exactly.

GLENN: Not in the way I would like them institutionalized. Then if you can tie into Rashid Khalidi.

McCARTHY: Well, when Dohrn -- I'm sorry, when Ayers and Obama were on the Woods board together, they were -- the board was in charge of deciding who got the largess from this organization. One place that got some money from them, a decent bit of money was the -- was Wright's church, Reverend Wright's church was awarded money as basically as an homage to Obama for his service on the board which again shows how identified to people who knew them, how identified Obama was with Wright and with that whole church.

GLENN: Sure.

McCARTHY: The other recipient I talk about is Rashid Khalidi who is a long time apologist for Yasser Arafat. Now, there's been some reporting that he was actually an official member of the PLO, that he was their spokesman. He denies that that was true, but certainly doesn't and I don't think could deny that he was a very pro-Arafat character and that he has been a supporter at least of terrorist attacks directed at Israel soldiers which he denies as resistance, not terrorism.

GLENN: This guy is tied in with Barack Obama and William Ayers in what way?

McCARTHY: Well, in two ways. Number one, when they were on the Woods board together, they voted to donate $75,000 to an outfit that he started in Chicago called the Arab American Action Network. It was co-founded by him, by Khalidi and Khalidi's wife. And then Khalidi moves on from Chicago to go to Columbia to actually take over the Edwards Said chair and become a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University which has become, I think notorious, and I say this as a Columbia graduate, has become notorious as a real hotbed of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic passion I would say. When he moved on, from when Khalidi moved on from Chicago and Columbia, they had a big dinner for him, a farewell dinner, and there were Obama and Ayers together again, you know, paying tribute to him on his way out the door from Chicago to Columbia.

GLENN: It is amazing to me that all of the pieces are here. Everything we need, Andrew, is here to judge who these people are and yet nobody in the media wants to tie it together. Nobody wants to tell the truth. And even when you do see all of these pieces, people are dismissing it.

McCARTHY: Well, you know, I think they dismiss it, Glenn, because it means either of two things and both of them are unpleasant, especially for this almost cult-like infatuation that people have had for Obama. I personally think Obama's candidacy has been more about us than it is about him. I think he's been almost an empty vessel where his supporters have projected their hopes and dreams on him as if that was, you know, what he was actually about and as if he didn't have a personality of his own that we needed to be concerned about.

GLENN: Right.

McCARTHY: But what this means is either of two things: Obama continues to say, you know, I didn't know this about Wright or I didn't know that about Ayers or you can't, you know, blame me for what these people say or think. If that's true, he's got no business being President. I don't think we want a President who, you know, could spend all this time around people who are five-alarm anti-Americans and say, you know, he wasn't true enough to know who they are, who they were and what they were about. The alternative is that he knew exactly what they were and what they were about and he was totally comfortable with that and I don't think, you know, that does him much good, either.

GLENN: This is -- you are hearing Andrew McCarthy. Andrew is the prosecutor responsible for leading the investigation of the blind Sheikh in the '93 World Trade Center bombing. He's got a new book out called Willful Blindness, a Memoir of the Jihad, how we're not paying attention to the 800-pound gorilla that is sitting in the room. Andrew, I'd like to have you back to talk about what you learned in that trial and in that whole process trying to put the blind sheikh behind the bars. May we have you back?

McCARTHY: Oh, I'd be delighted, Glenn, thank you.

GLENN: Thanks lot, Andrew.

McCARTHY: Thank you.


 

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.