Shock Pentagon Memo: 'Trans' Soldiers Can Indefinitely Skip Deployments!
Investigative reporter Jordan Schachtel has uncovered a shocking DoD memo from earlier this year detailing the special treatment for "transgender" service members, including free "voice feminization surgery" and a de facto permanent waiver from actual military deployment! And they want to go to war with Russia and China at the same time? Also today... mega make-up brand and Country Music Television go "woke" and...you know the rest. Finally, US Senate rejects Rand Paul's amendment affirming the US Constitution!
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
Doing well.
Doing well.
All right.
Well, I was in the military once.
I didn't choose to go, but I didn't fight it either.
But there were certain disciplines that were known up there, and some of them I just accepted because that's the military, you know.
But it'd be much better if the military was always voluntary.
And of course, we've expressed our concern that it's going to become mandatory.
So maybe they're getting prepared for mandatory services and all, and they have to be woke.
So we want to talk about some of this crazy stuff that's going on.
And when we do this, and when I've read this article and what was happening, my first question is, why?
Why?
But we've asked Adam about just every crazy thing that they do.
And I always come up with an answer that's very similar.
And I might mention that again on why they do these things that seem to be insane.
But let's talk about what they have started to do.
On an article in Zero Hedge, it says Biden DOD lets transgender service members skip deployments to say it will receive indefinite physical fitness waivers.
Well, if they don't want to go to war today, we'll do it tomorrow.
But that'd be a good idea.
Yeah, really.
And many other things, and we'll probably even go over the list of crazy stuff to go on.
So it will go back to the question, why, why, why do they do these kind of things?
Can this benefit the military?
Can it benefit society?
Can it promote liberty?
And all these kind of things.
So a memo came out just recently, and it's the reason that has come up.
It's been around for a while, but nobody saw it.
But it wasn't classified, but they sort of kept it secret.
But the Dausier has acquired a new Department of Defense DOD memo that goes into great detail.
It's a memo, 34 pages on these details on what kind of social conditioning you have to do and you have to change.
And I guess they have the muscle to enforce it.
You know, I was thinking, you know, maybe if you're thinking about going in, you might not join.
And there's a few less people not joining.
But what if you've been in for 23 years and you were going for 25?
Boy, I tell you what, it's just like in the corporate industry, why they don't take chances and be annoyed because they can lose benefits, lose their job, be canceled, and all that kind of stuff.
So there's always this intimidation and force.
And this is what's going on here now.
I don't, you know, the military is in trouble.
Recruitment is in trouble.
Our foreign policy is in shambles.
And yet they come along here and it looks like they want to put the nail in the coffin.
And the end is near as far as I'm concerned, just to sanity.
If you don't come up with a reasonable explanation why do they do this?
And that will not have an absolute answer, but it might help people try to understand.
But I think the question is that all the time.
But certainly we're getting a reaction to this craziness.
And that's good.
You know, and that's the boycott and a few other things.
But so this is part of the environment that we're living with today, and I think it's an example of extremism at its worst.
Yeah, and if we can put up that first clip, now this is from our friend Jordan Schachtel, who spoke at our Houston conference.
We followed him for a number of years, and people ask who we read.
Well, read Jordan.
Subscribe to his sub-stack.
He's a great guy.
But he came out with this.
He dug this up.
Confidential Biden DOD memo, as you point out, Dr. Paul, reveals that transgender service members can skip deployments and receive indefinite physical fitness standards waivers.
Sounds okay.
Well, here's the actual memo.
February 2023, the Defense Health Agency care of service members who identify as transgender.
Now, remember, it was President Trump who put the kibosh on transgender people serving in the military.
Well, not only are they welcomed in, but they have a whole new set of rules to apply to their unique circumstances.
Now, I remember when we were talking about women in combat many years ago, and the idea was, you know, as long as they can meet the same standards that men do, you know, they should be able to do it if they want to join the Marine Corps.
And that seemed fine.
Then it was, well, we've got to lower the standards a little bit because obviously there are some differences between men and women.
You know, and that was basically removed standards altogether.
There's no standards.
If you want to get in, get in.
And here are some of the things that Jordan, and I tried to read the 35-page memo.
It was very long, written in kind of legislative language.
But thankfully, Jordan did the heavy lifting for us.
And here's what he found out in his analysis of this 35-page memo.
If we can put the next one on, Jordan writes, and here are some of the highlights found within the document.
Taxpayer-funded care, that means free for them, and you pay, for transgender service members, includes, here's what they get for free, speech and voice therapy, cross-sex hormones, laser hair removal, voice feminization surgery, facial contouring, body contouring, breast and chest surgery, genital mutilation surgery, psychological counseling.
Well, I understand that one.
And let's go to the next one because there's more.
But wait, there's more.
And this is the part that's actually even more important.
I think service members who identify as transgender may receive a waiver for grooming and uniform standards.
Okay.
Service members who identify as transgender may receive an indefinite waiver for physical fitness standards.
This waiver often becomes a de facto permanent situation, and the transgender identifying service member just has to renew the exemption every six months.
And here's one that really got me, Dr. Paul.
Number four, service members who identify as transgender will be considered non-deployable for up to 300 days while taking hormones for their transition period.
Again, given that these hormones are often required for life, this may render the transgender identifying service member as permanently unable to deploy.
So we're going to have a military filled up with people who are permanently exempt from going to fight.
That doesn't sound like such a great idea to me.
It sounds to me like we've about eliminated the purpose of the military if you're going to have one.
But you know, we did it with the borders.
We started with about getting rid of national security is the borders are open and we have that horrible mess there.
But if they can't go on proper things, I mean, we would still argue the case that we shouldn't be doing a lot of that, but that's not the issue here.
This is the issue of wokeism and indoctrination.
And yet I think what is happening is they've literally gutted the whole purpose of having a military.
And the principle of a military in defense of a country originated with the founders.
They did believe in that because that's how they became free from the British.
So this is something that I think it's really major.
And I think you said that this is one of the big ones of all this mess that you read.
And boy, I'd have to agree with that.
This is big.
This might be the nail in the coffin of the purpose of the military.
And I don't know.
It's a struggle to find anything good about it because this is an extension of a philosophy that's encroaching.
It's sort of secondary to all this wokeism at home and post-genderism and all this stuff.
So this is a mess that I think is not going to go away until the people decide they've had enough.
And maybe it's existing already.
Maybe the fact that nobody wants to go anymore.
Maybe it's already started.
And that's great.
But what we did the other day is express, well, what would the consequence be?
Huh, how do these people think?
Well, we have a draft.
And slavery has never been really banned in this country.
If you happen to be 18 years old and they need you to become a cannon fodder someplace around the world.
So no, they enslave people.
And that to me is a bad situation.
I don't think that the founders intended a military like this.
Yeah.
Well, you know, in the Soviet times, they had in all industry, you know, because it was all state-owned industry, there were the actual workers, but there was also a class of people who represented the party.
And they are the ones who made sure that they maintained the party ideology at the workplace.
And they were immune from so many different aspects.
We're sort of creating this two-tiered society, whereas if you are deemed as ideologically correct, you're exempt from anything else.
You're set, you're made.
It seems to be that we're getting to that point.
But the thing that gets me, Dr. Paul, is this kind of disconnect.
And it's almost Orwellian because it's almost like when they said, hey, there's no such thing as natural immunity.
They expect you to believe something that you've known to be false at the same time.
And all the other things they said about COVID, we bring it up.
You know, you have to wear a mask.
That's never been true in history.
So all of these things they brought up that you're supposed to accept that you know are wrong.
And in fact, that they told you the day before were wrong.
You know, Fauci said, no masks, the next day, masks.
I've always said masks.
And now they're basically telling you that, yes, we are going to fight China and Russia at the same time.
But at the same time, they tell you that they say everyone in the military doesn't have to fight if they identify as transgender.
And in a way, it insults your intelligence so much, but I wonder, as you say, if that's not the point, to insult your intelligence so much that you simply become a nihilist and don't believe anything.
Financial Reasons Behind Shifts00:04:40
Yeah.
You know, this change in language, I just can't quite visualize how it's going to be when a few people have been there for 5, 10, 15, 20 years, and they have been conditioned and say, yes, sir.
What are they going to say?
Well, they'll have to say something else because there'll be social justice warriors out there.
And they'll put a lot of pressure on them because some of them are there for financial reasons.
They're willing to gamble with this.
What if they're 10-year, 20-year people?
Like I said, they're put in a terrible position for that.
And they can't even say anymore.
There used to be a lot of rationalization.
People would join the National Guard because we were supposed to protect our homeland.
But now, immediately just last week, what was it, 3,000 of them taken up and sent someplace else?
Our Coast Guard's all around the world.
Of course, our empire's all the way around the world.
So I guess that's our coast.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, as you said earlier, I mean, maybe it's not a bad thing if we fill the military full of this.
Maybe we'll stop picking fights everywhere.
So anyway, I mean, we kind of have a theme today.
If you want, we can move on because this is something that caught our attention.
And it really is.
I mean, I guess this would be under the heading of the attack of the wokists and also the war on women.
If we can put the next one on, our friends from the Epoch Times, big makeup brand faces boycott calls for using Bearded Man in lipstick ads.
So this was the Amazon Prime days.
And they used an influencer to sell, if you can put the next one on, Maybelline.
They brought him on board to sell their lipstick and lip gloss and all kinds of other stuff that ladies put usually on their face.
And this is from the Daily Callers right up on it.
Maybelline taps Bearded Man to sell lip gloss is how they put it.
And the whole thing is that now there's calls for boycott as if they hadn't learned from Bud Light, from Disney, from Target.
They just keep doing it.
See, I wasn't smart enough to figure out that they were selling lipstick to women.
I thought they were selling lipsticks to this 1% transgender people.
But anyway, it's back to what I said on our previous issue.
And that the end is near.
When you see this stuff, something is crazy is going on.
And it's values.
It has to do with a higher law.
It has to do with decency.
And what is the goal?
And I have the only thing that I have been able to get into my brain that sounds logical is they have stated in the past about cultural Marxism and Marxism that they can't fix, they can't become Marxists now because there's too many people know the secret of incentives and merit.
You know, the idea of merit has come up and they're talking more about they can't stand that.
So they can't repair that or systematically remove it.
They got to just destroy it.
And then when the chaos comes, they're going to move in.
But that is something, that isn't a conspiracy theory.
That's actually written there.
Marx talks about it.
And they were always looking to destroy the society and they would rebuild it.
And that's how they could get rid of all these people who have incentives to making profits and taking care of themselves.
Yeah.
But I think this is where your optimism is probably warranted, which is what you often say, which is what people are waking up.
Because we talked about it a little bit yesterday on a different topic.
But when these outrages come forward, people are no longer just kind of taking it on the chin and lying down.
They're saying, you know what?
I'll boycott that.
And I'm going to boycott that.
I'm not going to drink Bud Light and Bud Light goes.
I'm not going to go to Target.
I'm not going to eat Ben and Jerry's.
I'm not going to go to Disneyland over and over again.
But, you know, there's been a change, and maybe it was Lochdown that made the change.
But there's been a little bit of this all along.
And somebody would have, they'd be upset about something a company did, and they would announce, oh, let's boycott them.
And they'd try to start up.
It never really worked.
But boy, I'll tell you now, some of these companies that still think they should make profits.
See, once again, who's going to finally get them to quit?
It's the stockholder.
You know, the stockholder is going to, and they won't all be woke people.
They were in there for financial reasons.
They're saving for their retirement.
They're going to finally say, you know, that enough is enough.
We don't want all this thing.
We want to protect our investments.
We want to protect our retirement funds.
Stockholders and Silence00:14:54
Sorry.
But this won't do it.
Yeah, leave your politics at home.
It's like the great story you told about your father.
Know, let's don't tell our customers what our policy is.
It was sort of it wasn't a big deal, but it was sort of an education thing.
You know it's not, it's not good to talk about Republicans and Democrats and all these positions and all transgender cows or something, but he understood it, you know, in a more sensible era well, this is on the same line.
Now this is probably the one of biggest stories of the year.
Right now, I have to say okay, and I'm not a huge, I'm not a huge fan of modern country music.
I like classic country music.
You know Johnny Cash and you know Texas swing, but anyway, this is a big star.
Put this up.
This is now.
This isn't the same thing.
It you know, basically the subtitle of go woke, go broke.
Put this next one on.
This is really.
I read about this yesterday.
I was.
It's really big on Twitter right now and yesterday.
This fellow's name is Jason Aldean.
He's a country music star.
Modern country quote, most contemptible song of the decade.
Country music TV bands Jason Aldean's.
Try that in a small town video and they did it after huge pressure from the usual media elites.
Put the next one on.
Here's what happened.
Here's how his music was reviewed, varieties.
Chris Wallman exclaims in a story titled, Jason Aldean already had the most contemptible country song of the decade.
This video is worse.
He said Aldine's try that in a small town is close to being the most cynical song ever written, and the Daily Beast published one of its most high profile criticisms of the song with the title, Jason Aldeen catches heat for racist, pro-gun lyrics.
A modern lynching song is what they called it, and so let's skip the next one.
Let's go to the next one, because I read that and I thought, wow, this is pretty heavy duty.
What's this guy going on about?
This has got to be some really heavy stuff.
Go to the next one, if you can.
Here's the lyrics, and I'm not going to read them all on it, just but basically, sucker, punch somebody on a sidewalk, carjack an old lady at a red light, pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store.
You think it's cool?
Well, act a fool if you like.
Cuss out a cop, spit in his face, stomp on the flag and light it up.
Yeah, you think you're tough?
Well, try that in a small town.
See how far you make it down the road.
And I thought okay, that reminds me of Lake Jackson and basically every town in Brazoria County.
You know, and I can see it's got a little bit of that redneck feel to it and people here are proud of that.
The other lyric that I didn't put on because it was too long, because it's it's it's.
It basically said, they say they want to come for our guns.
Well, that might fly in the big city but it won't fly down here, that sort of thing.
So when I read all the hype about it being a lynching song, I expected a little bit more than something I would hear literally at any at any coffee shop here in the area.
See, we should be encouraged, no matter what subject it is has nothing to do with peace or freedom and And prosperity and all.
But it doesn't seem to work that way.
But for these people who have the loudest speaker right now, they have the bully popa, and they call this the most contemptible song of the decade.
Now, I don't follow any of this, but I am really interested in it now.
You know, I might even like the music.
I don't know.
I'll go look at it.
But, you know, it's over the top again.
It's too far gone.
And I think they hurt themselves.
I think what they do is they destroy their credibility.
And they no longer will be viable.
You know, pretty soon they'll say, well, we got a good one now.
This will do it because we hate a couple people.
And we just found out there's going to be two indictments today against Trump.
And we're going to go after him.
You know, this sort of thing, just over and over.
They lose all credibility.
And not only do they lose the credibility, sometimes what they're saying backfires.
Like I was kidding, maybe this will increase people.
Hmm, that is, that's, I've got to go get it, get it, get that song.
But it's really, you know, it's easy for me to look at some of this stuff and divide it into two categories, good and evil, you know, and all variations of both sides.
Well, as someone pointed out in the comments that you talk about lyrics being coarse, basically your average rap song, whether it's a white or a black star, they do talk about some things that are very aggressive, and we won't go into those.
So compared to a lot of those songs, and I've listened to some of those, I have to say, this is pretty tame.
But here's what the artist himself said, if we can put that next one up.
Here's how he explained his song, and that's just kind of how I took it.
He said, Try That in a Small Town, according to Aldean, is rooted in nostalgia for the tight-knit community he grew up in, where people cared for their neighbors regardless of their background or beliefs.
That's just kind of how it sounded to me as well.
But the crazy thing is, and actually the reason why this is a good news story, is that they tried to cancel him.
They took him off country music television, and he's still number one on the country charts.
Number one.
So you helped him.
That caught my attention when he was talking about in the community he grew up in.
Of course, I think about where I grew up.
A lot of the conversation by the adults had to do with the depression.
I was very young, but they talked about it for a long time.
But it was also, you know, the war issue.
So those kind of things generally brought back then, they brought communities together.
That's not it because they were more justifiable or something.
But the atmosphere, the moral atmosphere was so different.
It tended to bring communities together.
But now it doesn't do that.
Oh, this is another opportunity for the blast.
But the results are what really count.
So if he's still selling records and still don't want to listen to them, that sounds good to me.
And I did listen to it a couple times yesterday, and it was actually pretty good.
I mean, I think it was, again, I'm not a huge fan of that, but it's pretty good.
And it had a very catchy tune.
But here's our friend Jonathan Turley.
And I didn't realize when we thought we were going to talk about this today, I didn't realize that Turley wrote about it.
And I'm really happy he did because he puts his unique spin on.
He says, you know, I don't love every one of those lyrics.
But, and let's put this next one up.
Here's his main point.
He says, advocacy groups are now taking credit for country music television canceling Jason Aldine's song.
These critics are tone deaf to the implications of such censorship, given our long history of protest songs, as I discuss in today's column.
And if you go to the next one, this is from his column, he says, country music singer Jason Aldean's hit single, Try That in a Small Town, secured two distinctions this week.
It hit number one in the country charts, and it was pulled by country music television.
And he goes on, putting aside CMT's effort to become the bud light of music networks, the decision to yield to the intense cancel campaign is an abandonment of the principles of artistic freedom and free speech.
Great turtle there.
Not complicated either.
I mean, it isn't anything like they describe it because, you know, the end of times are here because they're in charge of the children from day one.
You know, this whole thing that people can't take care of themselves morally, independently.
They can't care for their retirements.
It just looks the government has rescued a lot of people.
There's a couple of side effects.
Sometimes the people don't quite make it and they end up on the street.
And there's a few people living on the street these days.
So that's why that baffles me sometimes is I think we in the freedom movement have such an astounding philosophy on what it is like to have individual liberty and have rules of nonviolence, no aggression, and how successful it's been.
There's no evidence to show that this authoritarian stuff, this stuff that you're hearing in Washington, you do this, you do this, and we have to take care of people.
And if you don't, you're the immoral person.
So if you don't go along with this, you know, if you don't go along with this idea that 2% of the people can dictate what they want by taking away some liberties of the 98%, and that you're the bigot.
And they've been able to handle, you know, being able to handle that and convince people that.
And of course, that involves social media and a lot of other things.
But it really boils down to individuals deciding which side of this they're on, whether they even think of what is this higher law?
You mean people are supposed to know what's right and wrong?
Oh, no, that's stupid.
We gave up on that, just like we gave up on the Constitution a long time ago.
You don't want to have a Constitution.
That might invite you to think what right and wrong is.
Well, I get double Texas points because I was listening to the song while I was driving through Waterburger.
So I get double Texas credit, I think, for that one.
I don't usually go there, but I did.
Anyway, speaking of the Constitution, here's the uncancelable, cancelable senator from Kentucky put the next one up.
Senate votes down measure to rein in NATO war-making authority.
Go to the next one for the explanation.
Senator Paul put in an amendment stating, it is the sense of Congress.
Now, that's interesting because that brings a lot of bells with us.
It's the sense of Congress that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does not supersede the constitutional requirements that Congress declare war before the U.S. engages in a war.
That seems like a statement that on its face is objectively true.
Congress didn't believe that.
Right, and there's two things.
One, the treaty and the position of the treaty and how you change it, how you get out.
But the other one is the principle that he's talking about there, that you can't go to war without a declaration.
And I've often cited the fact that the first thing after World War II was the United Nations.
What was their first act?
To go to war without a declaration of war.
And we're still in a battle there that was never settled.
It didn't settle by our surrender and leaving Vietnam.
They became unified more after we left, and there was a lot more peace and prosperity after we left.
But people don't see that, and they don't understand that.
And they keep thinking, no, you have to have authoritarians telling us what to do.
But for what they're talking about is that what they did was, if that goes all the way through, they amended the Constitution.
They canceled that out.
Of course, having the treaty, you could probably say, you know, even going as far as they did, but they did protect it.
And I think in most of our treaties, that is in there.
That we still maintain the right that we can veto it and have a vote in our legislature.
But now, by this, this is a statement which sort of is going in the opposite direction, as far as I'm concerned.
Well, I mean, there are a couple of things about it, too, is that if you read Article 5, it is very explicit.
It does not obligate any NATO member to go to war if another member is attacked.
The language is absolutely unequivocal.
It says other nations, other members of the treaty, can take actions as they deem appropriate.
So up to it, including the use of violence, you could just simply send them a wish, I wish you well.
Sorry, the Russians came in, Poland.
Wish you well.
Good luck, guys.
There is absolutely no obligation.
But by rejecting what Senator Paul, and I'm sure, I'm not in his brain right now.
I suspect that he was doing this to give them a lesson.
Listen, guys, this is what Article 5 is about.
It doesn't obligate us to do this.
So, you know, stop huffing that copium and start thinking in real terms.
And they rejected it 16 to 83.
That's a bad vote.
Over the years, this subject has come up.
But the statements made by many, whether they're academicians or military people or the average person, it's been said in the papers and on TV all the time, oh yeah, an attack on this country means an attack against us all.
They say it all the time, and it's been glossed over.
So just getting this out in the open, maybe some people will think about it, but it was sort of an automatic, no matter what it said.
Most people accepted the idea, but people did make a joke about it.
They said, how many people are going to come to the rescue of the United States if we have an invasion by Mexico?
Do you think anybody's going to really help us out?
But then you have to introduce the factor of our empire, and that makes it a little more confusing, too.
Yeah.
And for all their grand standing in Congress, literally nobody believes who has any clear vision of anything that the United States is going to risk nuclear annihilation for Latvia or Estonia.
It's just not going to happen.
Yeah, that's right.
So I'm going to close out if you think we've done enough damage here with our last clip.
And if you want to thank our live chatters like I did yesterday, I was checking out you guys.
You're chatting away there.
But I want to remind you all on September 2nd, 2023, that you must, absolutely must come to Dulles, Virginia, and join us for Which Way America.
Our old friend Jeff Dice is going to be there.
Ron Paul is going to be there.
Doug McGregor is going to be there.
Everyone who's cool is going to be there.
That's why you've got to get your tickets.
I will put a link when we're done to the website where you can get your tickets and come join us.
Have a great lunch, hear great speakers, and meet great people.
What more can you ask for?
So back to you, Dr. Good.
I'm going to close with a quote dealing with the first subject we talked about, the changes in the rules and being more tolerant of people who think that they deserve special privileges.
And the list that Daniel read, that's special privileges.
Defense Department's Odd Celebration00:01:59
It has nothing to do with rights.
It has nothing to do with national defense.
It has nothing to do with common sense.
But Part of the statement from the Defense Department said at the beginning of his tenure, President Biden ended President Trump's ban, and we mentioned that earlier, on people who identify as transgender serving in the military.
Since then, the Biden administration has granted more and more benefits to this cohort, leading to dudes like this being celebrated by the Defense Department.
And that was the example that we were using.
That should wake up people as bad as this seems, and we complain once again: well, who maybe just have heard about this?
It's only been around a week.
How many people will, how is this going to spread?
Where's the next boycott?
Will there be a boycott?
Already we suggest that the boycott against the military is beginning, and that is a double-edged sword because what we fear is they'll never say, Well, we don't need a draft.
The principle of the draft's been around for a thousand years, you know, when they need when they need people to fight.
Because my argument is the 18-year-olds of two different countries don't get together and say, Oh, you know, it's a good idea.
Why don't we fight each other and see how many we can kill?
It's always done by the promoters of authoritarianism and money and behind the scenes that they take the advantage and turn it into a political thing and saying, If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops and you don't support peace.
And the opposite is true.
With principles of a republic, it means that war is very rare and it's used for the defense of a country after having been attacked.
And that would make a big difference, and that's what was intended by the founders.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.