Google's Shadow Operation to Kill Gendered Language with Allum Bokhari
In an explosive new article, Senior Technology Correspondent at Breitbart News, Allum Bokhari exposes how Google is using "Woke Coding" to stealth edit Google Docs by replacing so-called gendered language like "Motherhood" or "Cowboy" with incomprehensible, un-gendered, and linguistically neutered versions of common english words. He joins The Charlie Kirk Show to discuss this exclusive scoop and the details will shock you. Also in this episode, an update on the Supreme Court from longtime friend of the show, President and CEO of First Liberty, Kelly Shackelford, a Constitutional Attorney with two cases before the Supreme Court himself that will have enormous bearing on every Americans' First Amendment right to freely exercise their faith. He and Charlie also discuss Roe v. Wade, the Second Amendment, and much, much more. Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Supreme Court Roe Update00:15:04
Hello, everybody.
Today in the Charlie Kirk Show, we dive into Google.
What is Google doing with Google documents?
Google is more powerful than our government.
We dive into it with Alam Bakari and also a Supreme Court update from the great Kelly Shackelford from firstliberty.org.
When will the Roe versus Wade ruling come down?
What will it be?
That and so much more.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
And make sure you come to SAS, our Student Action Summit.
People of all ages, welcome.
It is a student-focused event, tpusa.com slash S-A-S.
That is tpusa.com slash S-A-S.
Be there.
We have DeSantis, we have Trump, we have Kayleigh McEnany, Cruz, Josh Hawley, Greg Gutfeld, we have Kat Temp, we have Jesse Waters, Pete Hegseth, and more.
tpusa.com slash s-as that is tpusa.com slash s-as.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit is love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
For personalized loan services, you can count on.
Go to andrewandtodd.com, the wonderfulandrewandtodd.com.
I have been keeping an eye on SCODUSBlog.com.
I actually think SCOTUS blog is pretty fair.
I'd love to hear our guests' opinion on SCOTUS blog in just a second.
But SCOTUS blog is where we would find the rulings as they happen.
June is always the month where the Supreme Court justices issue their opinions.
It looks like there's been a lot of delays, but there is no better person to help us navigate all of the Supreme Court drama than someone who's actually argued in front of the Supreme Court.
In fact, I believe has a case in front of the Supreme Court right now.
He runs one of the most important organizations in America, First Liberty, and he's with us right now, Kelly Shackelford, great American patriot.
Kelly, welcome back to the program.
Great to be with you.
So what is the latest with the Supreme Court?
It seems like they're delaying the Roe ruling.
When do you think we'll hear about that?
You know, what's been going on has been really different, Charlie.
I mean, if people don't realize, they get about 9,000 requests a year, 8,000 requests, and they took 65 cases this year.
And those were all argued starting in October.
And just, I guess, two weeks ago, I think we still had like 30 cases out of the 65 that hadn't been handed down.
And that was a record.
It was like back to 1950 that you had that much of a backlog.
So they've been sort of whittling that down some.
We're now down to 18 cases left, but all the big cases, the controversial cases, the ones that you'd be talking about, are still left.
Obviously, the Dobbs case, the Second Amendment case.
You mentioned Religious Liberty.
I actually have, we have two cases right now at the Supreme Court.
The two Religious Liberty cases left.
One's the school choice case.
One's the Coach Kennedy are both.
We're waiting for those.
Additionally, there's the Remain in Mexico, the border case.
All these really hot button cases.
We're down to two weeks and those decisions aren't down yet.
So it's coming to the crunch into the very end.
What is the Second Amendment case that's in front of the court?
It's a case out of New York about whether you can restrict people's gun rights.
I mean, I think it's going to be a ruling.
My guess is in favor of the Second Amendment.
And I think all these cases, if you look at them, you know, the Dobbs case and what leaked out, the Second Amendment case, the Coach Kennedy case, which will be a huge case on religion in our schools, the school choice case, really big case, the border.
I think they're all going to be massive losses for the left.
And so I've been predicting for a while now that since these are all coming here at the end, as soon as we get through the end of this month, we're going to see the biggest force and energy we've ever seen from really the Marxists for court packing, which would destroy our courts.
So this is why I've been saying that, because they're not going to like the fact that we're moving back to the Constitution and they're going to react to it.
And this is the one thing they don't control right now is our courts.
And so the Constitution is still in place.
And I think they're going to try to destroy our courts by adding four justices.
They've got bills on this.
They've been pushing it already, but I think they're really going to come with everything they've got after these decisions are handed down the next couple of weeks.
I mean, 10 years ago, Kelly, honestly, do you think Roe was ever even in the like in the cards?
I mean, this is something that we were told was impossible.
Am I right?
Well, it would have been absent Donald Trump.
I mean, you know, the three justices that were appointed.
You know, and I'll say it's obviously a little broader than that, but he was the key.
For years, Republicans always had this approach sort of since Bork of let's pick a justice who's really conservative, but who, you know, has doesn't have a paper trail.
Well, you know, when you're 50 years old and you're so-called conservative and you don't have a paper trail, maybe you're not really that conservative.
And so it didn't work very well.
And they kept picking people and they ended up disappointing.
And I think Alito is the turning point.
I agree.
I think Alito is the great winner on the court that no one talks about.
It's the best thing.
The best thing Bush gave us was Alito.
I believe that.
And that wasn't his first pick, right?
I mean, he picked, he was going to pick his friend Harriet Myers.
And finally, the base said, no more of this.
No, we refuse.
And there was somewhat a revolt.
And so he kind of said, okay, I'm going to pick a guy with the most extensive record of conservatism that you've seen.
You know, spoke out against Roe v. Wade when he was in the Justice Department, has all these rulings.
And you know what?
He got through.
And I think that was the change.
And all of a sudden it became, okay, let's pick real, real judges who have a real originalist approach.
And that sort of led to then Trump following on that with doing the best he could in his situation with a 5149 Senate and all the situations he was dealing with.
And we now, and we're going to find out.
I mean, you can't really be an originalist, which is look to the original text and the original meaning and believe in Roe v. Wade.
It's just not in the Constitution.
You can read it as much as you want.
It's not there.
So this should be a really easy case for the originals to say, you know, this is a political issue because it's not covered in the Constitution.
And so it's up to you, the people.
Yeah, I mean, I'm very pro-life.
I know a lot of our listeners are.
We have some listeners that aren't very passionate about the topic.
It's actually not about abortion.
It's about whether or not the federal government has jurisdiction of creating a new right and whether or not the states should be involved in that.
Can you just kind of elaborate on that a little bit, Kelly?
Yeah, no, that's, I mean, people think, you know, this is the weird thing.
When you ask people, do you want Roe v. Wade overturned?
And they answer, it's, you get these skewed answers because of what they think Roe v. Wade means.
If you overturn Roe, they think it means every state is pro-life.
And they just don't understand.
What Roe did is it overturned about two-thirds of the state's laws, which said that they disagreed with abortion and they made abortion something that wasn't allowed in their states.
So if you overturn Roe, all this means is that it's up to the people and the states.
The way the Constitution is work, it's enumerated rights.
So the Constitution is there to cover specific things, specific rights, specific issues.
But if it's not in the Constitution, those are your rights.
Those are taken in your state.
So they're leaving those moral decisions to the people at the local level where you can make your own decisions and where you don't have five justices in some back room, you know, making all the big moral decisions of the day.
They're supposed to simply interpret the constitutional provisions that are there.
So free speech, absolutely.
Free exercise of religion, yes.
There's no right to an abortion there.
So that means this will go back if they do what is expected with the opinion that was leaked.
If they do that, it will go back to the people.
And every state will be battling this out about whether you want to protect life or not.
And of course, a number of these states have trigger laws already in place that as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned, whatever law they had goes back into place.
That's both good and bad.
You have some states where it's very pro-life, and then you have places like New York and others that it's very much not pro-life.
But a lot of states will be in play, and it'll be up to people to argue this out, which is the way it should have been.
Self-in-local government.
What's so funny, though, is that I remember for years, pro-life groups would say, Charlie, these politicians, they passed these laws where they say if Roe v. Wade gets repealed, then all of a sudden, the trigger law.
And these pro-life groups were so angry because they said that will never happen.
So it's kind of hilarious that those laws actually were really important when they passed them.
And because a lot of the pro-life groups thought they were just kind of meaningless kind of show votes.
You know what I mean?
It's kind of a way to show you're pro-life without it.
And now they're actually going to have very serious significance.
Firstliberty.org is such a phenomenal organization.
I have spoken at their events.
I see the work that they do.
There's a lot of nonprofits out there, but First Liberty is at the top of the list.
Kelly, tell us about the Coach Kennedy case and the sports illustrated drama that is surrounding that.
You know, Charlie, I've been doing this kind of work for 33 years, and this is the first.
I'm going to have cases at the Supreme Court, high-profile cases.
Never have I seen the media do a story that is so biased and so ridiculous that the general public reacted with such an explosion that that became a media story for the next three days.
And that's what happened with Sports Illustrated.
They did a story on Coach Kennedy, over 7,000 words.
But the headlines tell you everything.
What they say in the headlines is that if Coach Kennedy were to win and get a 20-second silent prayer after the game by himself, it could be the beginning of the end of democracy.
And so that, I don't know, that cracked me up on a lot of levels when I first saw it.
Number one, we're not a democracy.
Yeah, I was going to say, we're a constitutional republic.
And, you know, free speech and free exercise of religion are kind of important in a constitutional republic.
But just unbelievable that they did this.
And boy, the general public was not having any part of this.
They took them to task pretty quickly.
And now you see, if you look, you see stories just across the media.
I mean, Fox, the Brightwide, you know, all across talking about what the heck is Sports Illustrated doing.
It was really embarrassing, I think, for them and showed that maybe they should stick to sports because they're not very good at the Constitution or religious freedom or certainly Supreme Court cases.
So I don't remember the exact term.
I think it's the Lemon case, if I'm not mistaken.
That's right.
Can you talk, can you tell our audience, remind them how significant this Coach Kennedy case could be to kind of chart a new positive path forward for religious liberty in America?
Yeah, let me, in fact, let me mention that if they want to see the facts of the case and if they want to listen to the oral argument at the Supreme Court, we actually have that.
If you just go to firstliberty.org and click on the Coach Kennedy case, you can read the facts.
I mean, laid out.
You can go back to the record sites if you want everything, but you can actually listen to the Supreme Court argument.
I mean, fascinating if you haven't done that.
It's a very aggressive thing.
So you'll find out very quickly.
It's not a bad mitten match.
So basically, what happened is the Lemon case, we have the free exercise clause, but we also have what's called the establishment clause.
The establishment clause says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
What that means is our founders didn't want there to be a nationally established church that we were all forced to support because they knew that would take away from their religious freedom.
But 50 years ago, a liberal Supreme Court at the time issued a decision called Lemon.
It's perfectly named because it is a lemon, in which they said, no, no, the establishment clause means more than that.
It means separation of church and state.
It means if you're offended, you can bring lawsuits.
You can't bring lawsuits because you're offended in the United States.
So, but only if you're offended by religion.
So, our whole lives, we've seen attacks on nativity scenes or menorahs, you know, a Ten Commandments monument, you name it.
Why?
Because the founders had any problem with these things?
No, because of this Lemon case.
And so, two years ago, we had a case at the Supreme Court, Charlie, which you'll remember the Bladensburg Cross, which was a cross that was put up almost 100 years ago by mothers who lost their sons in World War I.
And a lawsuit was brought to tear it down by the American Humanist Association.
And at the Court of Appeals, one of the judges, the Obama appointee, said, why don't we just cut the arms off the cross?
That way nobody will be offended.
We won't have to tear it down.
And we went to the Supreme Court.
They declared this unconstitutional after 100 years.
And instead of just saying, let's protect this memorial, this veterans memorial, we said, you know, maybe we've got enough votes now with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on the court to get rid of Lemon.
And we argued for that.
And we won the case 7-2, but more importantly, 5-4, they refused to follow Lemon for the first time.
And that was a huge sea change.
We sort of moved from this hostility to religion, but it was only in the context of like public displays.
Google Language Changes00:12:56
So I literally sat down with my staff and I said, look, this is great, but we've got to expand this into the schools.
And that's going to take 15 years.
After the oral argument in the Coach Kennedy case, I think they might be willing to do it in this case, which would be a sea change.
And it's thanks to the great work that you guys have done at firstliberty.org.
And we're going to keep our eyes peeled.
Kelly, I want to have you back on the program as these decisions start to come down because our audience is on the edge of their seat.
Thank you so much, Kelly.
We deeply appreciate it.
Thank you, Charlie.
Hey, everybody.
As you know, our friend Mike Lindell has an amazing passion to help everyone get the best sleep of your life.
He didn't stop by simply creating the best pillow.
Nope.
You know, Mike, he's got lots of energy.
He's done it again by introducing his MySlippers.
For a limited time, you'll only save $90 on a pair of MySlippers.
This blowout sale of the year won't last, so order now.
Mike has taken over two years to develop it.
The MySlippers are designed to wear indoor and out all day long.
Made with MyPillow, foam, and impact gel to help protect fatigue, made with quality leather suede.
I love Mike Lindell.
I know you do too.
Support him and get something comfortable in return.
Call 800-875-0425.
Use promo code Kirk or just go to mypillow.com and click on the radio listener square and use promo code Kirk.
This offer will not last long.
So order now with promo code Kirk at mypillow.com.
Mypillow.com, promo code Kirk.
Google has too much power.
We as conservatives do not like centralized power.
We believe in checks and balances and separation of powers.
There's a moral argument to believe that human beings deserve a right to consent to how they are ruled.
Unfortunately, we do not have consent to how we are ruled by the tech tyrants.
We've talked at great length about Google and Facebook and Twitter.
We haven't touched on Google in quite some time, though.
They seem to have been hiding in the shadows.
Well, someone who has done some of the most incredible research when it comes to Google's tyranny of the masses is Alam Bakari from Breitbart, and he joins us right now.
Alam, welcome back to the program.
Hi, Charlie.
Good to be on.
Tell us about this story that you're going to break with us today about the code behind Google's woke autocorrect.
Tell us about it.
Yeah, so we got this massive story at Breitbart from a very brave whistleblower inside Google, who remains anonymous to protect his career and his reputation, everything like that.
It's just gone live on Breitbart.com.
If you search the site for it, it's called Exclusive: the Code Behind Google's Woke Autocorrect.
And what this leak shows is how Google is trying to get its users who use Google Documents to change the way they're writing, to change the words they use as they're writing documents.
So the way this code works is while you're typing into Google Documents, if you type a word that Google considers to be non-exclusive, non-inclusive, then Google is going to suggest a woke alternative.
And some of the examples of this are quite amusing.
So, you know, it will suggest replacing the word manhole with maintenance hole.
It'll suggest replacing the word white paper with reports.
And in other cases, they're sort of struggling to find alternatives.
They're trying to replace the word motherhood, for example, with the experience of being a parent or guardian, because I suppose motherhood has no gender now.
And you can read the report.
There are numerous examples like this.
And the focus seems to be to get rid of any notion of gender and to get rid of any mention of the word white.
So I just want, I want to make sure our audience understands this because I think some people don't know what a Google Doc is, right?
And it just kind of might be a little bit above them.
So a Google document was a pretty amazing innovation, quite honestly, by Google, the company, which was an ability to be able to have a Microsoft Word equivalent on the cloud.
That you could have it on the internet.
You could have people in real time collaborate and put their thoughts in multiple participants.
I started using Google Docs in high school.
And in fact, it was the standard operating procedure to do so.
We use Google Docs still at Turning Point USA.
We haven't found a competitor even close that has a platform as good as them.
But we always consider to be Google Docs to kind of be non-political.
I mean, how could you possibly make a Google document political?
But what you're telling me, though, is that when you are writing actively in the Google document, that there is an algorithm or a code behind the Google document itself that is watching what you are writing and potentially going to be recommending or suggesting autocorrects to your language if it's not appropriately woke to the regime.
Did I get that right?
That is correct.
And on the one hand, it's kind of ridiculous and amusing.
You see things like the word cowboy being replaced with the word animal herd because you can't use the word boy, apparently.
But on the other hand, it's very insidious.
Because if you think about how an autocorrect feature works, you know, everyone who uses an iPhone, you know, it's probably been auto-corrected at some point.
It's meant to replace grammatical errors and you're not supposed to think about it.
So it's supposed to happen automatically.
And a lot of people today, when they're texting, you know, the iPhone will auto-correct them and they won't even think about it.
It'll just accept the autocorrect.
And that's the danger with this as well, that people are going to be, people are going to be typing out their documents, their emails or whatever.
And Google is going to just replace their words with woke alternatives and they're not even going to notice.
Now, I will say, this feature was only rolled out to certain enterprise versions of Google Docs.
So it's an optional feature.
It's not going to be rolled out to every user just yet.
And they've actually, because this was such a disaster, it got terrible reviews even from left-wing journalists.
Google is now considering pulling it back.
But you can see the direction of travel of Silicon Valley, where they're going.
They're trying to change the way we use language.
And by doing that, they're trying to change the way we think.
So that's just, I mean, but you think they're going to stop here, right?
If this continues?
Okay, like maintenance whole manhole, that's insane and awful.
But I mean, it could get to the place where you say, you know, I plan to vote for Trump autocorrect Biden.
I mean, you're talking about this is as close to mind manipulation that I've seen in quite some like interactive real-time mind manipulation.
Am I wrong?
I think so.
I think that's what they're aiming at.
And if you, I've covered this before.
Google has a, and many other tech companies as well as Google, they have this focus now on what they call machine learning fairness, which is kind of a blend of critical race theory and computer science.
They want to, you know, have algorithms that correct out what they believe to be our biases, our racial biases, our gender biases.
And this autocorrect program is clearly a result of those efforts.
It's just remarkable.
So let's just kind of talk more broadly about Google right now.
And this is a phenomenal story.
You guys could check it out at thegreatbreitbart.com.
We love Breitbart.com.
By the way, a story right next to your story, Alam, I just have to say this.
We'll talk about it.
Miss Universe insists not all people who menstruate are women.
This is where we're at.
This is a Breitbart.com story.
Go ahead, Alam.
Well, yeah, that's exactly the kind of thinking that's driving this Google, this happenings at Google.
You know, there are no men and women.
If you even use the word men or women or mother or boy, then you're somehow being non-inclusive.
That's the way they want us to do it.
It's one of the great, and Elon Musk pointed this out.
I've said this for a while, but the fact Elon is saying it is hilarious, which is in the same sentence, they'll say, there's no such thing as a woman, but trans women are women.
Oh, really?
So which is it?
Are trans women women?
What is that word woman?
And I just, I just want to, I've plugged it so many times.
Matt Walsh's just precise focus on this question of what is a woman is one of the most brilliant approaches to the trans calamity that I've seen in quite some time.
But let's talk about kind of Google as a whole.
Do you think that they've been kind of quiet in the last couple of months?
At least this is not my beat.
I know you're a reporter on this stuff.
What have they been up to?
What do we have to keep our eyes on when it comes to Google?
They're still manipulating search results.
Are they woker than ever?
Are you seeing any sort of kind of back to reality movement at Google?
What's going on there?
I actually don't see any back to reality inside Google.
And I've always considered Google to be the worst of Silicon Valley tech giants.
Twitter arguably has a more woke culture, but they have less, because Twitter is a smaller company with a smaller user base, they have less impact on the information we receive.
Whereas with Google, everyone uses Google.
And Facebook, you know, they sometimes try and throw a bone to the right.
They don't always do what the left says.
They're still extremely left-wing.
But Google suppressed Bright.news completely during the 2020 election.
They took our visibility on certain search results to almost zero.
You could even type in Bright.news headlines and they wouldn't show up in Google, even when you're typing in the exact headline.
So they clearly intervened in the 2020 election.
And we even got a tape of their executives discussing doing that after the 2016 election.
So they are there openly and brazenly incurring an election.
We've seen them manipulating search results related to referendums around the world.
And nothing is stopping them from doing that again.
So I think Google is definitely one we should continue watching.
We should look for discrepancies in search results, discrepancies in traffic from Google to the mainstream media as opposed to Google to conservative media.
That's all things we should keep an eye on.
You're an expert in this.
What is a realistic public policy prescription look to start to solve some of these problems?
Well, with Google, it's very difficult because you can't just solve it with Section 230.
With the social media censorship, you can kind of look at Section 230 reform to give users a right of action to challenge censorship.
That's what Texas is trying to do.
That bill is now being contested through the courts.
With Google, it's a lot trickier because you're dealing with a set of search results.
So in that case, you really need to be looking at really opening up the algorithms and giving users choice of what algorithms they use.
Because right now, everyone has to use the algorithm that Google gives you.
There have been some proposals to make that more transparent and more optional to users.
So you can turn off Google's filtering if you like, or even have an open marketplace of filters.
This is my ideal solution, that anyone can write a program to filter the search results of Google depending on various criteria.
And then you'll be able to choose from them in a kind of app store-like marketplace.
That would be ideal.
That would really break Google's power.
But how to do that at a policy level, you know, it's a massive, massive challenge.
Phenomenal reporting.
Alam, thank you so much for joining us, Breitbart.com.
This is something we want to have you back on just to talk about this more as it continues to develop.
I believe Google is more powerful than our government.
The scary thing is our government is too often in bed with Google.
They're not at odds with one another.
It'd be one thing if they hated one another and Google wanted to use their power to what do no evil, that stupid little thing they used to say.
Now it's do good.
Actually, I liked the don't do evil things better than the do good.
There's a moral argument for that.
That's it for another time.
Alam, thank you so much for joining us.
Thanks, Charlie.
Great to be on.
Yes, thank you.
Look, did you get hit with a big tax spill you were not expecting?
With rates still being very low and home equity being high, it's the perfect time to refinance and get some cash out of your home.
Look, you could go to one of these woke banks, Citibank, Chase, where they hate you, they hate the country, and they hate Christianity.
Or you could refinance right now all of your mortgage needs with my friends.
Guess what?
It's so easy to remember the website, andrewandTodd.com.
Just write it down.
AndrewandTodd.com.
They're with Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
They're people I know and trust and work with them, and you should too.
Just go to andrewandtodd.com.
It takes 30 seconds to answer a couple of questions.
This gives them the information they need to give you valuable information often on the first call.
Andrew and Todd, they are not brokers.
They are bankers, which means they handle your loan from start to finish.
So you always have someone in your corner.
Take that first step towards getting that cash you need today.
AndrewandTodd.com.
Monkeypox Racism Debate00:05:22
That's AndrewandTodd.com or called 888-888-1172, 888-888-1172.
Do not use the banks that hate you.
Use Andrew and Todd.
They will do a great job for you, everybody.
AndrewandTodd.com.
That's AndrewandTodd.com.
I'm going to be pretty precise in how I talk about this and careful in how I talk about this, but it's just an unbelievable story.
It's just remarkable.
Imagine how racist you must be if you hear monkeypox and you think of something racist.
You must be a sick and demented individual if you think of monkeypox and you immediately associate that with racism.
The WHO will rename monkeypox virus to combat racism and stigma, Axios reports.
The World Health Organization said Tuesday it will rename the monkeypox virus after concern that it could stoke racism and stigma.
Really?
Who what concern about racism and stigma?
What are you thinking about, World Health Organization?
The current name for the virus, which has infected over 1,600 people in 39 countries, was first reported in Africa.
It does not adhere to WHO guidelines that discourage the use of geographic regions or animals.
Like chickenpox or the swine flu.
WHO Director General Tedros Adamama Jeba Baroussis said at a briefing that the WHO, quote, is working with partners and experts from around the world on changing the name of the monkeypox virus, its clades and disease it causes.
A group of over 30 international scientists called for a name change last week, writing in a letter that, quote, continued reference to and nomenclature of this virus being African is not only inaccurate, but it's also discriminatory and stigmatizing.
The most obvious manifestation of this is the use of photos of African patients to depict the pox lesions in mainstream media in the global north.
As any other diseases, it can occur in any region in the world and afflict anyone regardless of race or ethnicity.
Hey, 30 scientists signing this letter, why don't you go look into childhood vaccination schedules and worry less about whether or not monkeypox might be racist, even though you're the ones that are being incredibly, like, dementedly racist if you think that people think racist things just because you say monkeys.
You're sick.
The article continues.
The letter writes, as any other disease, it can concur in any region of the world and afflict anyone regardless of race or ethnicity.
As such, we believe that there is no race or skin complexion should be the face of this disease.
Who is the face of this disease exactly?
What are you trying to say?
World Health Organization?
As if the public health authorities around the world have already lost all credibility.
They're not focusing on the suicide epidemic, the alcohol issue, alcoholism, drug addiction, self-harm, obesity, diabetes.
No, you can rest assured that your public health officials are moving at an urgent and rapid and breakneck pace to say that if we call something a monkeypox, you might be trying, you might think racist things.
Lyme disease came from a river in Connecticut.
How about the swine flu?
Or how about Ebola?
What do you think Ebola is?
It's a river in Africa.
We called it the China virus for a reason.
One of our great contributions to Western civilization here on the Charlie Kirk show is when we tweeted out China virus and President Trump, he just picked it up and we could have a direct line back there because it came from China.
The World Health Organization.
They are too busy trying to kick people off of scientific board reviews, a certification.
They don't care about vaccine injuries or any of these other things.
No, instead, Axios reports the WHO will rename monkeypox virus to combat racism and stigma.
How about the West Nile virus?
Remember that?
This is not even...
The doctors do realize there are monkeys on every continent except Antarctica.
Monkeys are not contained to one part of the world.
No, no, no.
A racist white liberal scientist who has nothing better to do but tell people how to live their life, who's smug and arrogant and super miserable, that's who stats the World Health Organization.
Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.