The War On Kids: Spain To OK Gender Change Without Parent Consent
Despite strong opposition even among feminists and many in the Left, Spain is to approve children of 16 years to change their gender without parental notification. Younger children are also to be approved but with parental notice. Also today: as Covid falls apart, who benefits? Big Pharma. And - surprise! - quad-jabbed Pfizer Exec catches the 'rona!
Despite strong opposition even among feminists and many in the Left, Spain is to approve children of 16 years to change their gender without parental notification. Younger children are also to be approved but with parental notice. Also today: as Covid falls apart, who benefits? Big Pharma. And - surprise! - quad-jabbed Pfizer Exec catches the 'rona!
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning into the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel Mick Adams with our co-host Daniel.
Good to see you today.
Another Monday, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
I'm doing fine, thank you.
Doing good, good, good.
And I'm going to have to mow my lawn pretty soon.
The drought is over.
I hope.
Who knows?
Yeah.
But we can always call somebody in Washington and say, send us a little more water.
Yeah, please.
August 15th today, by the way.
Yes, you know.
Special day.
That day is, I wouldn't use that term about living in, you know, but it was a special day for me.
But it's not a special day for very many people, but more people now than maybe five years ago.
Because when it happened, I had anticipated it happening soon.
We're thinking back to 1971 because we were having inflation back there and the bad economy.
And we had outprinted our dollar.
And we had already taken the gold alternative away from American citizens.
So you couldn't really decide the real value of the dollar because you couldn't buy and sell gold in the market.
Roosevelt did that way back in 34.
But all of a sudden, the anticipation was because de Gaulle and a few French economists said, hey, they're ripping us off.
They're just printing money in.
And they claim it is worth $35 an ounce.
But they called the bluff and they started turning in dollars.
And that was his story.
That was the announcement, really, that we were bankrupt.
Not that everything would crash and burn and be over with, but we were bankrupt in that.
That dollar, it would be definitely unsound and big things would happen immediately and afterwards, and they continue to happen.
It was a big event.
And of course, it ushered in a decade of very, very bad economy and gold going from $35 to $800.
That's a big, that's a big jump.
If we did that much ratio today, it would be in many, many thousands.
But it also unleashed the ability of our government.
As long as we could maintain the deception that we were powerful enough militarily and economically, that we could get away with just printing money, be the counterfeiter.
And in many ways, we have gotten away with a lot.
But I think our current crisis is a reflection of not getting away with it so easily, and they're not going to get away with it much more.
So it's a big day.
August 15th, that was a big day in monetary history.
It was a big day for Nixon.
That was still when they weren't quite talking about getting rid of him.
But he issued the wage and price controls, the confiscation of gold, no buying of gold by foreigners.
And it upset the apple cotton is still there.
And I think all that activity is going to get much worse.
Well, it's also another anniversary.
We celebrated the 50th anniversary of Nixon closing the gold window last August the 15th with an event appropriately at a brewery.
And I know you weren't too happy about being in a brewery on Sunday, and I'll take that point.
Loud Point on Parental Responsibility00:15:09
But let's just review, refresh ourselves on what happened.
It was such a fun event.
Here's you and Jim, the great Jim Grant just before the event.
And let's do the next one.
A little slideshow here.
Here I am introducing, it was packed.
The brewery is packed.
We had a special room there.
Do the last one, just a quickie.
Here's Dr. Paul giving his talk.
That was a lot of fun.
Maybe I can talk you into doing it again.
Maybe some of our audience know a great brewery by them with a private room that we can have a little event there.
You know what my rule is?
Sometimes you want to be sad and sometimes you don't want to be too excitable.
I think if you don't, there's something wrong with a person because nobody knows what the future will bring, so you might as well enjoy the present.
And it's difficult at times for all of us.
But still, at our conventions and our meetings and conferences, I think generally there's like-minded people there that like to talk about esoteric things like August 15th.
August 15th, who cares about that?
Well, the reason why it sticks with me is that it was that period of time that I decided probably subconsciously more than anything, you know, I need to speak out on the issue of money.
And it's still there.
I still need to talk about it, but I can't talk about the dollar because the dollar's gone.
There's no definition to it.
But anyway, I want to talk a little bit today about the nonsense going on with genderism and changing sexes.
It's not just in the United States.
It's a worldwide phenomenon.
This whole thing is revolutionary stuff.
Zero Hedge carried an article that caught my attention.
It says, in Spain, 16-year-olds will soon be able to change their gender without their parents' consent.
So there's a couple issues there.
Is it a good idea for a young kid?
And some of them are not even 10 years old, that they have professionals brainwashing them why they have to have all this surgery.
And now it's without the parents.
But it's already that way now because, you know, I got annoyed way back when they started asking, they wouldn't ask parents about kids getting abortions.
And that was controversial, but a big issue.
And now, you know, when I started in medicine back in the 60s, the rules were still, you don't mess with kids.
The kids have protectors and the people who speak for them whenever available, and most of the time they are, are the parents.
So you didn't, if a kid came in, probably under 16 or that close.
Matter of fact, even at 16, you usually, you know, if you didn't have the parents right there and you needed to stop some bleeding and sew up somebody, you would get them on the phone.
I mean, the hospitals were meticulous and all of us, you know, thought about it.
But they don't even think about it now.
They think about how to get around it.
Don't let the parents get involved in this.
They'll just annoy us.
What do they know?
Do they think they have control and own their children?
Well, they're supposed to have the responsibility of their children.
So this to me is bad.
It's another step.
We've already taken many steps in this direction of abuse to children in this sense.
But I think this type of stuff will continue to spread and be worldwide.
I guess Soros had a lot of money.
He probably influenced the judicial system all around the world.
But this is not a good sign for us as a society.
Yeah, let's put up that next clip just if our audience wants to look back at this story.
It's a reprint from a publication called Remix, but we saw it on Zero Hedge.
In Spain, 16-year-olds will soon be able to change their gender without their parents' consent.
And it's very interesting, Dr. Paul, for a number of reasons.
First of all, it's the alignment of political forces because many on the left are very upset with this new trans law in Spain.
And as the article points out, Carmen Calvo, she is a radical left feminist, but she's against this because they also view this trans movement as a war on women because you can't define women.
Men are competing as women in sports and destroying female sports.
So it's interesting.
So this passed in their parliament in June, and it's now, I guess, about to take effect.
But as you say, it undermines, of course, parental consent for 16-year-olds and over.
Of course, in the U.S., you can't even go drink a beer if you're 16, but you can do God knows what, changing all sorts of things in your body.
It's pretty terrible.
It's pretty upsetting.
But it reminds me of one thing.
For many years, you've been talking about cultural Marxism.
And I confess at first I wasn't sure what was happening with this, what it meant.
But I realized, you know, shortly afterward, after reading a lot of the things that you wrote, and I wrote a little bit about this as an update this weekend, but you nailed it because the whole purpose of this is to undermine the family.
And I think that's what this does, undermine the structure, the hierarchy of a family as parents versus children.
And so I don't even think it's about trans so much.
I think that's just an excuse for a different, is that conspiratorial?
Yeah, that's a good one.
But you make it mention that even the left will start saying they agree with it on something from their point of view.
But I often wonder why it never comes up with conservatives and liberals debating or giving speeches about abortion.
So I wonder how the left, I've never heard anybody ask, you know, far leftists who think that abortion is a sacred right and that sort of thing.
And ask them, well, would you have a hesitation about people who decide that they will do a sex check on the fetus?
Oh, yeah.
Maybe.
And they decide that society has too many women.
And you can get permission and paid to abort the female and not the male.
You don't hear them talking about that.
You know, that was, I thought my question was pretty good when I was on the view when I said, I described what a baby looks like in nine months.
And their only answer to my scenario there was, that's not what we're talking about.
And that's probably what they'd have to resort to.
Oh, that's not what we're talking about.
Yeah, but if you want it, that's exactly what will happen.
But the big thing is, is the responsibility.
I mean, it's, you know, whether it's sex changes or doing abortions or getting a laceration.
So it defies what you just made the point of.
It defies the principle of parental responsibility to children.
Matter of fact, that's why Doris Gordon, an avowed atheist, libertarian, became right to life because she said that the responsibility, she believed in parental responsibility as a libertarian, which would be one way of handling a lot of problems.
But not too many people use that as an argument.
But I think it's sort of, this stuff is really sad.
And it is.
You made that point.
It's just that it is very destructive.
And then because we live in a society now where we have a lot of unmarried women and girls being pregnant, we have people who are pregnant and there's a divorce in the middle and who has the control.
It gets very, very complicated.
And sometimes, like I think now, the child is being lost.
But, you know, for me, for somebody paid by the government to preach and try to influence a child by itself, that has to be an act of violence, as far as I'm concerned.
You know, to mutilate a child.
Oh, mutilate or cancel.
Cancel that.
I just wonder if there's going to be a backlash.
You have a socialist government in Spain, socialist communist government in Spain and elsewhere you have this.
You have the EU pushing a very left.
You have a country like Hungary, for example, which passed a law outlawing propagandizing children in favor of LGBT and gender issues.
And their punishment was they had the EU fund suspended, whereas this law in Spain is approved by all the EU authorities as up to EU standards.
So I just wonder at some point if there's going to be, can you even vote these people out of office is a real question.
But I think we see why they hate Hungary so much because they have taken a different task.
But that's a point.
Vote them out of office.
And some of that's going to happen this year.
But also, it's sometimes, you know, they can achieve something when the people just start to demonstrate to get together what we saw with COVID.
I still think that was a big issue on why the opinion shifted.
People started speaking out.
And even now, I see some of them.
Why did they do that?
You know, they're starting to, sometimes even an article will slip through the censors and talk about the complications of COVID and lockdown and all that.
Oh my goodness, they're getting to know what the truth is.
So we have to cancel that.
So they're still pretty much worried about that.
Yeah.
Well, let's move on to a piece that you noticed on Lou Rockwell's side a few days ago on August 8th.
It was a piece written by Lou, which is always great to read Lou's writing, but it was entitled, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Exposes Big Pharma's COVID Plot to Destroy Us.
Very strong article, but very praising of RFK Jr., who we both admire greatly as well.
Yeah, and Lou makes the point, you know, about the importance of the Kennedy name.
And I have to admit, in the 60s, you know, I was much more a Republican, and I would have certainly supported Isaiah or a Democratic candidate.
But attitudes have changed.
That does not make JFK a hero or the Kennedy name a heroic name at all.
But Lou points it out, you know, that Robert Kennedy is a sincere person, has beliefs, believes that compassion is applied to the government, which doesn't work very well, but that you should be involved in these social issues.
But he's, I know, has felt comfortable, and we welcomed him to our conferences and where he would come because he's a man of honesty.
He is a man of compassion, and that doesn't mean that you can't get along with him and work together here.
He's a civil libertarian.
He's anti-war.
What more?
And that was the category at Dennis Kucinich.
I work with him very much.
He's anti-war.
So the article was interesting because it does talk, and this sort of goes, I guess, with the last one.
It talks about a lot of the opposition that RFK, as you point out, generally identified in the more left-leaning category politically, but what kind of attacks he's had to sustain over the last few years by challenging some of what's been said on the left, by challenging their obedience to the big pharma, to the national security state.
And Lou mentions the great book by Kennedy.
And I have to say, I think the book, The Real Anthony Fauci, started to turn the tide.
I think it had a huge effect.
It was a best-selling book, despite the fact that it was completely blacklisted by all the newspapers, New York Times, what have you, still sold tons and tons of copies.
It just seems to me that that's when it started to shift all of the evidence that RFK Jr. put out about Fauci and his past and his incompetence.
He did a great service to humanity.
In a way, I think of what Robert Kennedy has done.
He's become a unifier, bringing some libertarians and conservatives and liberals together.
Although the far left can't stand him because he's successful in having a position, the important position like this, we shouldn't even call that the far left because this is the authoritarian system.
The fascist type of system.
These are the people who want to make money.
And he's good on corporatism and all the profits.
There's so many who are such hypocrites, you know, from the far left and Republican because they talk conservative, but there's very little resistance because they don't resist the war.
So whether it's pharma or weapons manufacturers, in a way it's very similar.
You have to support them.
And usually that goes together.
I think Robert sees the difference on that.
Yeah, and we'll encourage our readers to go back to August 8th and find that on Lou Rockwell's website because he goes into a lot of detail about what RFK says about the so-called vaccine and a lot of things that are being discovered.
We're not talking about it today.
Maybe we will sometime this week.
There have been some mainstream studies in The Lancet and elsewhere that are showing serious issues of myocarditis and other things.
So that is in the article that Lou has about RFK Jr.
Especially the teenagers now coming down myocarditis and it's way excessive compared to what we've seen.
You've seen that then, yeah.
Okay, I was going to send that over to you.
Yeah, I couldn't believe that.
So let's move on a little bit more.
It's the same kind of topic.
And if we can actually move ahead to that cover with Jeff Tucker's picture on it.
Yeah, there we go.
Thank you.
Yeah, we noticed this.
We reprinted it in RPI, ronpaultinstitute.org today.
But this is Jeffrey Tucker, who again has done a stellar job over these two years.
Very, very fearless.
But he makes a great article about the radical reversal from the CDC after two years.
They've essentially reversed themselves on all of the major COVID issues, including vaccinated and unvaccinated being treated alike, no more six feet apart, no more social distancing, no more trace and tracks.
So it was this one in Brownstone there that we had noticed.
And I think it's pretty amazing that they just, you know, on a dime, Dr. Paul, they just go ahead and flip over and say, okay, well, you don't have to do that stuff anymore.
Radical CDC Reversal00:04:36
Well, why?
Well, we said so.
But I think the facts have forced them to do this because they were on the losing end of this.
So they've changed their position.
And I think it's a couple things.
It may be just that there's an election coming up and it's a negative for a lot of people.
So they had to change that.
And it also represents a concept of people power when the people start speaking out against it and organizing and not doing any violence at all, but just saying, look, enough is enough.
What are you doing to our kids?
This is all very good.
But in the article, there was also, they'd say, yes, it's easier now, no quarantine, but, but, but.
The one thing, the one big but is, why is it okay for us to travel and they don't care the percentage-wise, probably people marching across our southern borders are more likely to be spreading diseases than anybody else.
And I can, I can recall the stories of my grandfather, who came from Germany many, many years ago, and I believe he was in Ellis Island, that the main purpose of that was, you know, a few days of observation for diseases and all.
And that didn't seem to hurt anybody, and it seemed to be permissible.
But I'll tell you what, now they're still not allowed to come in if they're not vaccinated, I guess it is what they require.
They still won't let him in.
So we think about Novak Djokovic, probably one of the greatest tennis players of all time.
They're still not going to let him in to play the U.S. Open just because he refuses to get a shot that everyone knows doesn't prevent transmission nor infection.
It's basically useless as a vaccine as such.
Whatever other uses it might have, that's for a different debate.
They still won't let him in and compete.
I just wonder if they want to keep him from getting that 23rd Grand Slim title to make him the greatest of all time, just to get back at him for defying them.
Yes, and it seems so insane because for him to come in and thousands and thousands of letters come in and they're statistically they're much more vulnerable having brought all kinds of diseases and you can't touch it or you're or you really will be canceled.
So that's okay.
That is so arbitrary.
But I think people eventually absorb some of that.
But it's a shame how many people, if they make him suffer all the way through, that's really criminal.
Here's a couple of great quotes from Tucker's, Jeff Tucker's piece.
If we can put up the next one, because they shouldn't be allowed to forget this.
He said, remember when 40% of the members of the black community in New York City who refused a jab were not allowed into restaurants, bars, libraries, museums, or theaters?
Now no one wants to talk about that.
Think about that.
That's a new Jim Crow forbidding them from participating in society because they didn't want to take a shot.
Just because they don't have a basic understanding about what personal liberty means and personal property too, you know, this whole thing.
And the politics of it is sickening, what they have done.
And I think one of the worst things coming out of the COVID episode was, you know, science and medicine has been undermined, you know, about what you can do or can't do because of the pharmaceutical industry, how they promote one and deny other.
But I think this whole thing, especially at the height of the lockdowns, was how insane and stupid the declarations of medical issues were.
But the big thing to me was not so much who is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, but how do you get to the truth by having one dictator and you put the other ones in jail?
Yeah, that's a great way to find out what the truth of the matter is.
And I think that and really a deep cut into the doctor-patient relationship.
Many years ago, and I was just barely thinking about this.
I was probably still in medical school or resident.
One of the people involved in the economics of all this, and he was, I think, very objective.
Albert Borla's Insight00:02:37
But he told me, he says, look, he says, I know your position, but that's not going to happen.
Corporations are going to run your medical practice, and there'll be a time when doctors will be joining unions.
And I keep saying, well, no, not doctors are independent-minded, but so many of them just go along with it, and they don't know who the boss is.
And it's a doctor-patient relationship, which means the market will handle that pretty well.
Because usually people find out just whether or not they want to try a new doctor pretty easily.
And it's not from the government who is always punishing doctors for fictitious things.
I want to do a little segment here.
There's kind of a famous meme of orientation where it's how it started and how it's going.
And I want to just kind of play that with this next little clip.
Let's skip that clip and go straight to that first tweet if we can.
This is Albert Borla, the CEO of Pfizer, Dr. Paul, CEO of Pfizer, back on April 1st of 2021, way back then.
Here's what he tweeted.
Albert Borla, excited to share that updated analysis from our Phase 3 study with BioNTech, also showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 cases in South Africa.
100%.
That's how it started.
Now let's look at how it's going.
This is from him today, Albert Borla, CEO of Pfizer.
I would like to let you know that I've tested positive for COVID-19.
I'm thankful to have received four doses of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine, and I'm feeling well while experiencing very mild symptoms.
I'm isolating and have started a course of PaxLavid.
How it started and how it's going.
So then I thought, for a guy that's messed up this bad, I wonder how much he makes a year.
Let's put this up.
I just simply Googled it.
How much does Albert Borla earn?
What is the salary of Albert Borla as chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Pfizer?
The total compensation of Albert Borla at Pfizer is $17,929,000.
And without the type of system that we have with government running medicine and running the drug industry, he might make a million dollars or something.
But that is so criminal.
You know, you said he was 100% sure of this, and then he had to back down a little bit.
But you have to always remember, what is their goal?
Remember Ron Paul's Warning00:04:27
So when it's 100%, he might be bragging that, you know, it's going our way.
You know, what do we pay?
What is the cost?
Oh, we have to tell people what to do to make sure they're safe and taken care of and they get their medical care.
So that's what our job is.
But if they're looking for chaos in the streets, they're 100% successful because we sure have it.
And even though right now we don't see as many pictures on television, but that doesn't mean it's not all happening.
Because I bet you you can still go get some pretty ugly pictures out of San Francisco and out of LA and the various cities on how we have deteriorated, you know, in a medical sense, in the educational sense, and certainly in the social sense of what's happening on our streets.
Yeah.
Well, I want to remind our viewers, thank you for joining us live on Rumble.
I see our live chat is going well.
So all you live chatters out there, thanks for moving over to Rumble where our live show now resides.
If we can put on the last clip to remind our people, this is among, this is the last, there's like less than two weeks left before Anatomy of a Police State, our September 3rd, 2022 conference in Washington, D.C.
We added some speakers over the weekend, which I will mention tomorrow.
It's going to be a great lineup, a great group of people.
I'm super excited.
I do want to thank our viewers, our audience.
I'm going to remind everyone that the Ron Paul Liberty Report is a project of the Ron Paul Institute, which survives as an educational charity through the generosity of people like you.
We happily take Bitcoin.
I was happy over the weekend to see it pumping up a little bit because we're holding a little bit of that in case of a rainy day.
So if you've got some Bitcoin floating around, it's gained a little bit in value relative to the dollar.
We'd love to have that as a donation as well.
So thank you very much, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
And I would say the things that we talked about today, there is one strong hint that there are some positive things happening, and that is that they no longer need to quarantine people.
And they feel like, well, success, all those vaccinations and our treatments and lockdowns, all these things have been very successful.
They didn't talk about the complications now from people taking too many shots and the possibility that there's a lot of people dying from the fact that they took too many booster shots and nobody knows what the future will bring.
So why have they backed off if they aren't sold on?
Because they're not sold on.
They're not doing this because they're accepting the principles that we advocate.
They're doing it, I think, for political reasons.
I think they want to not have to be, I guess they're on the defense anymore anyway, because they have support in the Congresses and they have to get their pharma money.
So the people will do it for political reasons, but it also means that there's enough people waking up and sick and tired of it.
And that's why you see some crowds just defying it.
And they have defied it.
One article I really said, maybe they're doing it because they realize nobody's following their rules anymore anyway.
But they have the power and the authority and they establish it.
Their goals may not even become close to ours.
They might like the idea of the chaos there.
And there will be a residual.
It will always be that they did show what they can do with the authority.
Would they try it again?
Yes, they would try it again.
It's sort of like the military draft.
When the draft was ended in the early 70s, I said, get rid of the registration of draft.
But they didn't want to have any positive.
We might need it someday, so it's always there.
It isn't on the principle that we don't have a right to enslave people to fight wars that are illegal.
So they keep it around.
And I think this is the problem that we have.
The rules are there.
The people are more awake now, which is very, very good.
But the whole principle is the problems we have dealt with in the last several years could all have been either avoided or more easily taken care of if we would have just followed the rules of peace and prosperity.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.