All Episodes
Previous Next
March 4, 2021 - Epoch Times
20:25
House Passes ‘Equality Act’ to End Legal Recognition of Biological Sex; Churches Fear | Facts Matter
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening.
It was just confirmed by the U.S. State Department that Chinese Communist authorities tested American diplomats for COVID using anal swab tests.
However, they say that it was done in error.
Meanwhile, over at the U.S. House, the Equality Act has just been passed, and now it's making its way to the Senate.
This act would, among other things, eliminate the legal definition of biological sex in our nation's laws.
Now, over in Texas, a federal judge there has ruled that the federal moratorium on evictions is actually unconstitutional, meaning that evictions around this country might soon resume.
And lastly, several House Democrats have signed a letter urging Joe Biden to relinquish his exclusive ability to launch nuclear weapons.
Let's go through these stories together.
This is your daily Facts Matter update, and I'm your host, Roman, from the Epoch Times.
Now let's start today's discussion by talking a bit about China.
Imagine for a moment that you are an American diplomat who is stationed over in China.
One day, the local Chinese Communist Party authorities come by, and they say that they need to test you for COVID. You say, okay, no problem.
However, they then have you take off your pants, bend over, and then they conduct an anal swab test to make sure that you don't have the virus.
Well, that is exactly what happened to U.S. diplomats in China, according to the State Department.
However, they also state that it was actually done in error, and they never agreed to such a thing.
In fact, we asked them for a statement.
We asked the State Department for a statement, and here's what they emailed to us.
The State Department never agreed to this kind of testing and protested directly to the MFA when we learned that some staff were subject to it.
And furthermore, they, meaning the State Department, said that the Chinese Foreign Ministry has assured the U.S. that the procedure was done in error and that diplomatic personnel are exempt from this testing requirement, adding that the State Department is committed to guaranteeing the safety and security of American diplomats and their families while preserving their dignity.
We have instructed staff to decline this test if it is asked of them, as it was done in the past.
And by the way, at this moment it's unclear the number of American diplomats who were subject to these sorts of tests.
And actually, while we're on the topic of China, let's talk about another story.
New emails, which were just recently leaked, prove that, contrary to the denials of the United Nations, UN human rights officials gave the names of Chinese dissidents to the Chinese regime.
And they exposed these dissidents prior to them testifying in Geneva against the Chinese Communist Party's abuses.
In fact, it appears from these leaked documents that the practice of handing over names of Chinese dissidents to the Chinese Communist Party was viewed as just par for the course.
It was viewed as a usual practice by everyone involved.
In fact, the whistleblower who actually leaked these emails, she told the Epoch Times that this practice continues to this very day, despite the fact that the United Nations denies it.
And so what does the Chinese Communist Party actually do with this information once they receive it?
Well, the Chinese Communist authorities use the names that were received from the UN to prevent those dissidents from leaving China.
And in fact, tragically, at least one dissident who was identified by the UN and then later detained by the Chinese Communist Party before leaving for Geneva died while he was in a detention center.
And according to this whistleblower, if the dissident already went abroad, the Chinese Communist Party would frequently either threaten or kidnap and torture the person's family so that they would not testify in Geneva about the Chinese Communist Party's abuses.
And there are a lot of documented cases of this happening.
If you'd like to read them for yourself, the link to that article will be in the description box below this video for you to check out, and I hope they should do because there's a lot of concrete, solid evidence of this happening in that article.
And by the way, that article is going to be in the description box below this video, which is right below that like button that I hope you take a moment to smash.
You already know that videos that are like this, talking honestly about what's happening in this world, are routinely censored by big tech.
However, when you smash that like button that's below this video, you are forcing the YouTube algorithm to share this video out to potentially thousands of more people, letting the truth be known far and wide.
And now, let's talk a bit about the Equality Act.
Yesterday, the House of Representatives at the federal level passed something known as the Equality Act, also known as H.R. 5.
What is it?
Well, it is an act that would do a number of things.
First of all, it would rewrite the civil rights law to include sexual orientation as well as gender identity as being protected classes.
It would eliminate the legal definition of biological sex, and furthermore, it would designate protection for the unborn, meaning the pro-life stance on abortion, as being pregnancy discrimination.
Yesterday, this bill passed the House with all Democrats as well as three Republicans voting in favor.
It's now being sent over to the Senate, where they will review and vote on it as well.
The three Republicans who voted in favor of this bill, by the way, for your reference, are John Katko and Tom Reed of New York, as well as Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
And just for your reference, this is not the first time that this type of bill has passed the House.
Back in 2019, so two years ago, a similar version of this bill was approved by the House, but at that time it failed to pass the Republican-controlled Senate.
This time, however, it's more up in the air as to whether this bill will actually be passing the Senate, because it's currently, as you might know, split evenly between the two parties, between the Democrats and the Republicans, and Kamala Harris, who would cast the tie-breaking vote, actually supports the proposal.
So what that basically means is that if in the Senate everyone votes based purely on party lines, this new Equality Act will become law.
So what would this act actually change in America?
Well, as we mentioned earlier, it would rewrite the civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity as being protected classes, and this bill would end the federal legal recognition of male and female sex in favor of something called gender identity.
And in so saying, the bill would actually criminalize the denial of access to shared facilities based on gender identity.
Now, what does that actually mean?
Well, here's how the bill says it: "An individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity." Now, the way that this law is written indicates that it would be possible, for instance, for boys who identify as girls to use the woman's bathroom and the woman's locker rooms in schools.
And furthermore, likely, the parents who object would be viewed as being discriminatory against children who identify as being another gender.
Furthermore, this bill redefines public accommodation in the Civil Rights Act to include any establishment that provides a service, including churches, homeless shelters operated by religious groups, adoption agencies, and educational institutions associated with faith-based denominations and associations.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now, even though it's written in legalese, this point here is very important and we should really highlight it.
What it basically means here is that since the Equality Act exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, places like religious schools, religious hospitals, and faith-based adoption agencies could face federal sanctions for upholding their religious teachings with regards to life, sexuality, and marriage.
In fact, Congressman Jim Jordan pointed out that this provision explicitly casts aside a provision which protects the right of religious groups to conduct their activities and manage their affairs according to their beliefs.
In fact, prior to the House debate on this bill, we here at the Epoch Times, we actually interviewed religious freedom advocates who told us that this bill, if it becomes law, will put religious institutions at a serious disadvantage in both federal as well as state courts when facing discrimination allegations.
In fact, here is what the general counsel for the First Liberty Institute told us.
The Equality Act would eviscerate the protection offered by federal law for those Americans who seek to live out their faith in their schools, businesses, and communities, relegating people of faith to lower class status.
Now, furthermore, an analysis of this bill from the Liberty Council said that religious and nonprofit schools that violate the bill could lose their tax-exempt status and schools could lose accreditation, which means they could not accept student loans and many graduates would not be able to be accepted into graduate schools.
The expanse of the bill includes church and college overnight stays with youth and or students, dorms, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers.
Furthermore, the Liberty Council said that this new bill presents a serious blow to women's sports, as protected by Title IX.
They said, Title IX was created in order to ensure that women had access to equal opportunities as men, including in sports.
Now that it's threatened as HR5, which is just another name for the Equality Act, ignores the biological differences between male and female and erases the unique talents and achievements of girls and women, allowing biological males who self-identify as women to compete against biological females, puts women at a disadvantage allowing biological males who self-identify as women to compete against biological females, puts women at a disadvantage and can cost female athletes the titles, records, and scholarships that are rightfully theirs, and
Now, if you'd like to read more about this bill, perhaps if you'd like to even read through it yourself, that link will be in the description box below this video for you to check out.
And before we move on to talk about the nuclear missile strike codes, I would like to take a moment to introduce our sponsor for today's episode, and I'll do so from the sound booth.
That's right.
We actually have a new sponsor for today's episode, and it is an interesting company if you are the type of person who likes to prepare for a potential disaster.
It is called the Satellite Phone Store.
And as we saw with what happened over in Texas a week and a half ago, when a natural disaster comes, one of the things that really becomes critical is your ability to communicate with the outside world.
And that's where Satellite Phone comes in.
They claim that the Satellite Phone is one of the most secure and reliable ways to communicate.
And so if you live in an area with bad cell service or if you're worried about a power outage or the possibility of a natural disaster, you should check out the Satellite Phone Store as a way to have a reliable method of communicating with the outside world.
So what you can do is you can go on over to the link that's in the description box below this video or just type in www.satellitephonestore.com and check out their plans.
They're not that expensive.
They start at $40 a month.
And they give you these phones that will basically make phone calls almost no matter what.
So go on over to their website.
Again, the link will be in the description box below.
And you can use promo code Roman, like my name, Roman, to get a discount.
So again, Satellite Phone Store, thank you so much for sponsoring our episode.
And now Roman in the studio, back to you.
And now, let's talk about the nuclear codes.
And before we get into the story itself, I just want to give you a bit of context, a bit of background, in case you don't know.
Ever since World War II, back when President Harry Truman ordered atomic bombs to be dropped on Japan, the power of the atomic of the nuclear arsenal has been in the hands of the White House, specifically of the President.
Typically, the way that it reportedly works is that a military aide shadows the president around holding a black briefcase, also known as the nuclear football.
And the president can use this briefcase by punching in his code and order a nuclear attack.
And as it currently stands, he is legally able to order a nuclear attack if he believes that it is the correct course of action, and of course if it's legal under the laws of war.
However, some lawmakers are looking to change that.
Several dozen House Democrats signed a letter asking Joe Biden to give up his soul, meaning his exclusive authority, to launch nuclear weapons.
Instead, they want him to consider modifying the command and control of America's nuclear arsenal.
Here's what part of this letter said.
And by the way, this letter is from Jimmy Panetta, a Democrat from California.
Vesting one person with this authority entails real risks.
Past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that caused other officials to express concern about the president's judgment.
While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering a nuclear attack, there is no requirement to do so.
The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war.
Under the current posture of US nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.
The letter also posited requiring certifications from the Secretary of Defense that the launch order is valid, and from the Attorney General that it is legal, and it would require a Congressional Declaration of War or another specific authorization effort from Congress, which would naturally slow down the response time of an American nuclear strike by many times, probably from minutes to maybe upwards to half an hour to an hour.
Now, all of this comes on the heels of what happened last month.
If you remember, back in January, Nancy Pelosi claimed that she spoke with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about protecting the nuclear codes from President Trump.
Well, he was still in office, by the way.
In her own words, Nancy Pelosi said that she spoke to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike.
Now, by the way, that conversation that she had was criticized by many analysts, including this well-read article here in the Wall Street Journal, to be highly, highly inappropriate because she was discussing with the military about taking away legal military powers from a sitting commander-in-chief.
Now, thus far, no change has been made in the nuclear procedures and will keep you abreast of any developments as they come about.
If you'd like to read the full letter from the Democrat lawmakers to Joe Biden, that link will be in the description box below this video for you to check out.
Actually, before we move on to the next story, I wanted to talk about two stories that we did not get a chance to discuss in the in-studio filming of today's episode.
The first one came out of the Justice Department, and it was just revealed that U.S. Attorney John Durham, who was working with William Barr back in the day on the Durham report, basically an investigation into the FBI probe of the Trump campaign in 2016, he just announced his departure from his post.
Basically, he says that he is no longer going to be a U.S. attorney.
He says that the office will be in the extraordinarily capable hands of Len and our superb supervisory team.
Now, it's not clear exactly who Len is, who he's referring to here.
It's not stated anywhere else.
But it looks like John Durham is out.
It doesn't say in this letter what is going to be happening with his report.
However, it was revealed a few months back, I believe less than a year ago, that William Barr actually made John Durham a special prosecutor.
So we'll have to see.
It doesn't say here that he is no longer a special prosecutor.
We'll have to wait for clarification on that.
However, I mean, if you know what I've been talking about over in terms of the Russia probe, we have been waiting for the Durham report now for going on maybe a year and a half.
So we'll see what comes of it.
Maybe over the weekend more details will be revealed.
However, this other story I really wanted to discuss here.
The U.S. has actually launched a drone strike against Iran-backed militias over in Syria.
And according to a report from the Pentagon, basically the Biden administration authorized drone strikes on some militias that were based in Syria, basically on the Syria side of the Syria-Iraq border.
And they were Iran-backed.
And this was in a retaliation for about a month ago when there was a rocket strike on some U.S. positions over in Iraq.
And there was at least one person who was killed.
I believe he was not an American, but he was a contractor, a non-American U.S. contractor.
So according to U.S. officials, here's what they said.
Quote, the attacks which took place early on Friday in Middle Eastern time were deliberately limited in scope and designed to show that the Biden administration will act tough but wants to avoid a major regional escalation.
So while we actually couldn't independently confirm the death toll, there was an Iraqi military official who went on record.
He also claims he's close to Iran.
And he said that the airstrikes killed at least one fighter and wounded four more over in Syria.
However, local sources who were interviewed by Reuters, they said that at least 17 people have been killed, but gave no further details.
And again, those death tolls we could not independently verify.
So we'll be keeping our eyes on what's going on over in Syria.
And if you want to know more, this article will be in the description box below this video.
And now, Roman in the studio, back to you.
And now let's talk a little bit about evictions.
Yesterday, a federal judge out in Texas ruled that the federal government does not have the authority to issue a nationwide eviction moratorium, meaning that the nationwide ban on evictions is unconstitutional.
So the case which was before this judge came from a group of property managers as well as landlords who were challenging a federal order that prevented them from kicking out tenants when they weren't paying their rent.
The rationale behind that order, by the way, according to the CDC, which is the Center for Disease Control, was that by stopping evictions, they would help to slow the spread of the virus.
Because their rationale, their thinking, was that if people were evicted, they would pack themselves in together into tighter living arrangements or they would go to unsheltered homeless areas.
And in so doing, the CDC released an order which made it a crime for a landlord or a property manager to evict people from their residences.
Any landlord who violated this order could face up to one year of imprisonment and a fine of up to a quarter of a million dollars.
And so these landlords, they sued the government and asked the judge to determine whether the U.S. Constitution allows the federal government to order a nationwide moratorium on evicting specific tenants.
And the judge, the federal judge down in Texas, decided that it's not.
And here's how he said it in his ruling.
After analyzing the relevant precedents, the court concludes that the federal government's Article I power to regulate interstate commerce and enact laws necessary and proper to that end does not include the power to impose the challenged eviction moratorium.
Now, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, welcomed this decision.
Here's what they said in a statement.
The court's order today holding the CDC's interference with private property rights under the veil of COVID-19 serves as notice to the Biden administration that the Constitution limits government power.
The federal courts will continue to be a primary bulwark against unconstitutional overreach by federal and state governments.
As our record shows, we have fought and won cases like this for decades, and the current administration has shown no restraint.
We are preparing cases across the constitutional spectrum to defend against unrestrained government action.
Now, we here at the Epoch Times, we reached out to the Justice Department for comment on this case...
But I've yet to hear back.
If you would like to read the full decision from this court, that link will be in the description box below this video for you to check out.
And now lastly, as we already discussed in previous episodes, on the very same day that Joe Biden was sworn into office, YouTube made the unilateral decision to demonetize our channel, to demonetize Facts Matter.
We can now no longer run any ads before, during, or after our program, and the Super Chat feature has just been disabled.
Basically, they cut off our ability to monetize this program.
I mean, luckily we have sponsors, but when you stop a publisher, when you stop an independent publisher like the Epoch Times from monetizing our program with ads like pre-roll and mid-roll ads, you're basically trying to stifle out and snuff out our independent reporting.
In my opinion, it's an attack against the freedom of the press.
However, if you would like to support the Epoch Times, I'll throw a link into the description box below this video to a page where you can subscribe to the Epoch Times.
It only costs a few dollars every month, but by subscribing, you will have access to all of our articles, all of our deep analysis, all of our investigations, all of our infographics, by the way, and our opinion pieces, which in my opinion are awesome, they're thought-provoking, and they really changed, over the years, have changed my syntax on the world in ways that I couldn't even imagine.
And if anything ever happens here on YouTube, you will continue to have access to all of our video programs like Facts Matter, Crossroads, American Thought Leaders, and all the rest.
Again, that link will be in the description box below this video.
I hope you click on it, I hope you go there, and I hope that you subscribe.
Now lastly, if you haven't already, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm, subscribe to this YouTube channel to get honest news delivered directly into your YouTube feed while you still can.
And until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epoch Times.
▲
Export Selection