S5149 - Democrats Vote To Force Women To Be Drafted Into The Military, Refusal To Sign Up Is A Felony
Democrats Vote To Force Women To Be Drafted Into The Military, Refusal To Sign Up Is A Felony.
While some some republicans have vowed to fight this it seems incredible unlikely to be stopped
The National Defense Authorization act has passed every year for 60 years. And though many, like Rand Paul, have attempted to filibuster the NDAA it still passes.
Feminists who voted in Democrats will now have to celebrate their victory and the chance at true equality or recognize that with the good comes the bad.
#Democrats
#Republicans
#Draft
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Senate Democrats approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which would require women to sign up for the military draft.
Naturally, many conservatives and Republicans are upset by this saying women should not be in the military draft, let alone combat roles.
In our next story, Joe Biden essentially accuses Republicans of believing that Democrats are sucking the blood of children in an extremely odd exchange where he refuses to answer a question of a reporter about defunding the police.
And in our last story, a Republican governor in Alabama says it is the fault of the unvaccinated that COVID is spreading.
Republicans are just Democrats going the speed limit.
And before we get started, if you like this show, give us a good review and leave 5 stars.
And if you really like this show, please share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
There hasn't been a military draft since Vietnam, but still, the U.S.
requires young men 18-25 to sign up for the Selective Service, which is effectively the military draft.
Well, feminists have their great victory, and I mean this.
There are many feminists who legitimately wanted this.
Democrats have voted to amend a draft of the National Defense Authorization Act to include language forcing women to register for the military draft.
Failure to register for the Selective Service is a felony.
It means you can't get federal jobs, you wouldn't be able to get a student loans, and if for some reason they actually do convict you, I don't think there's very many prosecutions for failure to register, But then you'd be a felon.
No more traveling.
Can't own guns.
I'm sure that's not a big deal for many on the left, but this is it.
Now, the Democrats have introduced this change, but Republicans are pushing back.
Particularly Josh Hawley saying we shouldn't be forcing women into combat roles.
And one of the biggest challenges we face is the effectiveness of our military, and if even having women in combat is the right thing.
For a long time now, there's been a debate over whether or not women should serve in combat roles.
And there are interesting arguments to be made.
Ultimately, however, I think if the wealthy elites, who often don't have to face the consequences for their corruption, if they want cannon fodder, they gonna get cannon fodder.
And I had an interesting conversation on the Tim Cast IRL podcast recently.
When talking about the potential for war or conflict, I can't remember who told me this, but they said, there's not enough young men right now.
We don't have enough children.
And you know, we have to use young men to fight these wars, so we may not see hot conflict without it.
Ah, but what about the pool of young women?
What about 17-year-old women right now?
Guess what?
The NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, will likely be signed into law sometime this year.
It passes every time, without question, over the past 60 years.
It's never failed, no matter how many times they filibustered, no matter how many arguments they have, it passes.
That means, all these young women, y'all gotta sign up for the draft.
What does that really mean?
Well, here's what I think will happen.
I think ultimately, nothing.
Women who are, you know, 17 right now, maybe 18, 19, I mean, it's up to 25, so they probably are going to make 24-year-olds have to sign, you know, sign up for the draft.
I don't think you're going to see anything.
I mean, look, I, as well as many others, we all signed up for the Selective Service.
None of us get drafted.
Now, in the event of war with China, however, which seems like it's becoming increasingly likely, You might actually get called upon to serve and serve in combat.
Now, outside of the argument of whether or not women should be drafted, you do have the controversy over lowering standards.
And we've got this story from a couple years ago.
The Wall Street Journal argued women shouldn't be in combat, noting that the Marines were lowering their standards because women couldn't pass the test.
And now here we are.
A couple years later, we learn that 53 women have passed the test.
But if you look at the news, under the assumption that the test today is the same as it was 10 years ago, you might think these women are on the same physical footing as the men of previous generations.
But that's not necessarily true.
I can't say for sure.
But they changed the standards.
Will this mean our military is more or less effective?
And I gotta be honest.
I'm not a fan of throwing young people into combat as cannon fodder.
But even if you lower the standard and you get less qualified people in combat, you get a lot more people in combat.
And as we learned from the Soviets in World War II, they simply sent wave after wave of their own men at the Nazis, them getting crushed and blown up and wiped out.
But hey, mass-produced crap was better than high quality, but In short, supply weapons.
I wouldn't call it crap.
Basically, the idea was, the Soviets produced a whole bunch of really cheap garbage, but they had so much of it.
They had so many cheap tanks that even if the Nazis were able to blow one up, they had too many more.
Instead of focusing on these really high quality and great tanks that could be taken out with one hit, they said wave after wave of our own men, just like Zap Brannigan.
So maybe, ultimately, if you're a warmonger, you're thinking, look, we may see a 20% reduction in effectiveness from, you know, a co-ed military, but we get a 40% increase in cannon fodder.
Well, let's see exactly what's going on, and we'll talk about some of the arguments about women in combat.
Before we get started, however, go to TimCast.com, where we have this beautiful article already published.
Become a member to get access to exclusive members-only episodes of the TimCast IRL podcast, as well as you will support our fierce and independent journalism, which we are working hard to improve and do better every day.
We just launched this past week with the new newsroom, so, you know, give us time to get things better.
We got fact-checkers joining on board.
We're gonna be launching a new show soon, the next week or so, plus a new D&D show.
We're gonna be building a whole bunch of cultural shows with your support as a member.
But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, and share this video if you think this news and these arguments and these ideas are very, very important.
Ultimately, I'll give you the information to the best of my abilities, but I want you to decide what you think is right for you and your family.
Should women be in combat roles in the military?
Well, let's start with the big breaking news.
Senate Armed Services Panel votes to make women register for the draft.
Democrats introduced the change to be added to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2022.
Now, Republicans said no to this.
Unfortunately, the Republicans don't control the Senate, and this passed.
They say, the Senate Armed Services Committee has voted to amend language in their annual guidelines and require women to register for the draft for the first time in American history.
The NDAA Act approved by the committee on Wednesday amends the Military Selective Service
Act to require the registration of women for selective service, according to a summary
released on the closed-door vote.
There has been no draft in the U.S. since the Vietnam War, when millions were required
to serve without volunteering.
Despite the hiatus, all American men between the ages of 18 and 25 must register with the
selective service system should a national emergency arise.
Pentagon officials have repeatedly claimed that they intend to keep service volunteer-based.
Now they can claim that all they want, my friends, but...
It's entirely possible.
China invades Taiwan.
China has threatened Japan.
And not even China, I mean Russia.
We've got a real potential for war.
We often do, don't get me wrong.
And many have said we're in the war.
That may be true, too.
In fact, we may be in a cyber war.
Actually, I would say, in my opinion, we're in a cyber war with China.
No joke.
And we could talk about Russia and Iran and all that stuff, and yes, there are probably belligerents in this conflict as well, but the principal actors are the US and China, in my opinion.
China's got powerful hackers.
They've got powerful interests who are likely seeding propaganda, misinformation, hacking our critical infrastructure.
They want Taiwan.
And I think they might try and take it.
And what does that mean?
It's interesting that this language is being introduced at a time when we've talked about Thucydides' Trap and the Fourth Turning.
If you're not familiar, Thucydides' Trap suggests that when a rising economic power is about to displace the dominant economic power, a war breaks out.
Wouldn't that be ever so convenient for the U.S.
that we are attempting to double our active military pool?
Now, I shouldn't say double, but double the availability of wartime cannon fodder.
You know, I don't really like to call young people cannon fodder, but I'm making a point about the callousness of the elites who would send us off to these foreign wars.
They say.
Those who do not sign up for the Selective Service face the possibility of being ineligible for federal financial aid to go to college.
The Supreme Court refused to hear a similar case on gender-based registration last June, saying it remains to be seen, of course, whether Congress will end gender-based registration under the Military Selective Service Act, wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in an opinion.
Joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh.
But at least for now, the Court's long-standing deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue.
That, I actually think was a fair ruling.
The reason was, four years ago, Congress said they were going to review this.
They were going to have a panel or committee and determine whether or not it made sense.
So, as they're actively doing their due diligence to determine whether or not they want to make this change, the Supreme Court said, we can't weigh in on this right now.
And sure enough, Well, technically the lawsuit wins, right?
They didn't win in the lawsuit, but it was this men's group arguing that it was unconstitutional to force only men to be in the draft.
They're going to say Republicans and Democrats have been debating the issue of including women in the draft since 2017, shortly after the military changed its regulations and allowed females to serve in forward-facing combat missions.
The House Armed Service Subcommittees will take up the NDAA on July 28th and 29th, and their full panel will consider the bill on September 1st, according to a report from Roll Call.
Unlike the Senate, their markups are typically open to the public.
Roll Call noted that the NDAA has been signed into law for 60 consecutive years.
Could this be, my friends, the poison pill the Democrats have injected To make sure this bill cannot pass?
No.
The Democrats control the Senate and the House.
They're gonna pass this.
Joe Biden's gonna rubber stamp it.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
Rand Paul tries to fill a buzzer, but the Democrats want it, they gon' get it.
Politico reported this.
Senate Democrats propose requiring women to register for the military draft.
It's the Democrats who wanted it, so congratulations to each and every one of the Democrats who are now shocked to find out.
Oh man, I just gotta say, how many 18 to 24-year-old women were like, we're gonna go vote for the Democrats, woohoo, and high-fived each other, and they voted their mail-in ballots?
If you know any of such people, please share with them this video.
I am not saying this because I want to rub their faces in it, because I would then be assuming They don't want to serve.
But we've all seen that army ad of that young woman who was talking about being at Pride and her two moms.
Well, she was a young woman and she signed up.
And you know what?
I think women can and should serve in the armed forces if they so choose.
Now, as for combat roles, it's a bigger question that I'm not qualified to answer to.
There's a lot of arguments I've seen about the lowering of standards versus the change in team dynamics when it's co-ed.
Perhaps there are some arguments we can talk about in that regard, but ultimately, changes happen.
A lot of things have changed over the past hundred years.
I can't... I'm not an expert on combat, so by all means, I defer to The experts, I suppose?
As for women serving in the military, they can certainly move boxes, sign paperwork, and a lot of other things.
And I'm not saying that's what they should be doing.
I'm saying there are things in the armed forces women can do.
So why shouldn't they be drafted?
Now, I'll stress this point, too.
And then we'll read what the Republicans had to say when they said no to this.
Because they're going to fight, they claim.
We'll see.
You know, there are a lot of people who think women shouldn't be in the armed forces, and there was the argument with Tucker Carlson about maternity flight suits, and as I stated, I think, you know, if there's a job that can be done, and it's a support role, and even if it's here in the United States, that makes sense.
But as for the draft itself, I'm actually in favor of the concept of a draft.
I'm just not in favor of a draft for a corrupt country, which brings me back around to saying the draft can be dangerous.
I know, I know, you're like, wait a minute, Tim, you said, no, no, no, here's what I mean.
The general idea of a draft, let's say I live in a small town, and someone says, Antifa and Black Lives Matter are coming, they're gonna riot.
You, they said, come here now, we're taking all able-bodied individuals to defend our town.
Well, okay.
What am I gonna do, sit back and hide like a coward?
No, I'm gonna stay and I'm gonna defend my home from extremists.
If China was coming and invading the United States, and we saw, you know, attacks and airstrikes, yeah, I'd say, let me know what I can do.
Now, to be completely honest, I think I would be most effective at a local level, and there is a big challenge and a hard question of, Let's say right now in the United States, China invaded the West Coast.
They're attacking Seattle, California.
They've occupied San Francisco.
We're trying to move in.
And they say anyone able must... This is it.
It's World War III.
Everyone.
You know what?
I'm gonna be honest.
Begrudgingly, that's hard, but I'd say, tell me what you need me to do.
I will not let someone come to this country in America, United States, and force anyone in this country, even people in San Francisco, the oligarchs and all the awful things that happen.
What I'm not okay with, and I'll stress this point, the line is somewhere between local and national, because there's an argument about being forced to even be conscripted to defend your own country, but I think we gotta defend our own country.
But then you get to the international conflict stuff.
And this is where I draw the line.
The problem with the draft is that it's used by the corrupt establishment to send people to die in foreign wars for no reason.
So nah.
That's why I'm not okay with that.
But at principle, I'll put it this way too.
I don't like unions.
Why?
Because unions did err corrupt.
But I do like collective bargaining.
And I do like the idea of going on strike and the essential functions of what unions were supposed to be.
I like the idea of telling people, guys, I'm sorry, but we all had to fight to defend our homes and our country.
I don't like the idea of them saying, you're fighting for your country by going and dying in Vietnam!
And thus, the draft was bad news.
But here's what we get from Republicans.
Burgess Everett, he is a Politico reporter, says, five Senate Republicans opposed expanding registering for
the Selective Service potential draft to women, Hawley and Cotton, among the no
votes yesterday per sources.
It was approved in Armed Services Committee onto NDAA as amendment 21 to 5 per committee rally.
So were there, there are actually Republicans who are like, let's do it. Okay.
Well, Josh Hawley has issued a statement.
He says, I voted against forcing women to enter the draft, and here's why.
American women have heroically served in and alongside our fighting forces since our nation's founding.
It's one thing to allow American women to choose this service, but it's quite another to force it upon our daughters, sisters, and wives.
Missourians feel strongly that compelling women to fight our wars is wrong, and so do I. I don't agree with that at all.
I do not agree with that at all.
I fighting our wars. Okay, maybe actually I shouldn't take that. I'll walk it back a little bit
Women in combat. Okay, maybe that's not the right thing, but women can serve
And and if and if we need a draft to defend this nation from a threat then why not women that makes no sense
The real question I think josh holly should be asking is about combat roles
That's a different argument Well, therein lies the problem.
They changed the combat roles thing first.
Women can serve combat, starting back, I think, a few years ago.
Now, with the draft, that will put women in combat, and therein lies the problem.
They could have done it the other way around, but ultimately we end up in the same position.
Tom Cotton says, Our military has welcomed women for decades and are stronger for it.
But America's daughters shouldn't be drafted against their will.
I opposed this amendment in committee and I'll work to remove it before the defense bill passes.
Maybe what really ends up happening, because it's not set in stone, maybe what ends up happening is a whole bunch of feminists call their democratic politicians and say, you better remove this because there's no way I'm signing up for this for this stuff.
If you don't sign up, it's a felony.
Yeah, keep that in mind.
Maybe they get it removed.
I'm not entirely sure.
One response to Tom Cotton said, if a draft becomes necessary, all should be prepared to fight.
Sending our sons to carry these burdens alone is unreasonable.
If we haven't the stomach for battle, we shouldn't enter a war.
I'm a third generation veteran and woman.
It's a fair point.
We need everybody to defend this country in the event we actually have to defend it.
But again, my concern is, are we going to be sending people off to foreign wars for dumb reasons to die?
Now, in the end, if women aren't going to be in the draft, then I don't think you can force men to be in the draft.
I just don't see it.
We have this tweet from Chip Roy.
Chip Roy is a congressman from the great state of Texas who writes,
it should be our political mission to defeat any member of Congress, Senate, or House in either
party who forces this garbage on our daughters. This is a non-starter and is all out political war.
The Republicans may push back harder than we realize, but I am not convinced they'll be able to stop the NDAA.
60 years!
60 years.
Now, ladies!
Let me just remind you, something you are not familiar with because this country does not have equality, that for which you are correct.
Equality would mean you would know about what happens if you fail to register.
So, all of you young men out there, please share this with young women you know who are wondering what's happening.
The Selective Service, SSS.gov, says, if required to register with the Selective Service, failure to register is a felony.
Punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and or five years imprisonment.
Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the registration requirement is subject to the same penalties.
Unless a man provides proof that he is exempt from the registration requirement, his failure to register will result in referral to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution.
Now, truth be told, there are many states where it's basically automatic.
You know, when you're signing up, you just check a box and then you're done.
Some states don't do this.
So you need to register.
And now, should this pass in September?
Young ladies, herein lies the problem.
There may be many young women who don't know the bill passes.
Why?
Because they don't pay attention to politics.
So what happens?
Well, if you are a young woman who lives in a state, and let's say you're 23 or 24, they pass this bill, and now you are between the ages of 18 and 25 and required to register for the draft, and you don't, You've committed a felony.
And you might not even know about it.
That's why it's important people know this is happening.
Because if they pass this, what are they gonna do?
How are they gonna make sure everybody reasonably knows they have to do this?
It's one thing when you're a young man, and, you know, for me, growing up, and I'm coming close to 18, and they're like, okay, you make sure you go sign up for the Selective Service for the draft, and I'm like, really?
You have to do that?
You have to do it!
And culturally, we know we have to tell young men to do this, and when I go to the DMV or whatever, they're like, also, you realize now that you're this age?
I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah, so we fill out the stuff, we fill out the card, we send it in, we're done, right?
There's no culture built around telling young women to do this.
We can't just build it overnight.
Now, I don't think necessarily we're going to see a lot of prosecutions in this regard.
I don't think they're going to go round up women and arrest them.
However, you can't get student loans.
You won't be able to, in some circumstances, get jobs in the federal government.
So what happens if this young woman now is 26, a couple years from now, and they're like, oh, we see that you never signed up for the Selective Service.
You didn't register for the draft.
Sorry, we can't hire you.
Sorry, we can't give you student loans.
Sorry, you committed a felony.
When MTV actually plead guilty to a felony.
They say, in addition to potential criminal repercussions, failure to register may make a man permanently ineligible for certain benefits.
But let's just change a man to anyone.
That could be you, ladies.
Now, if you don't agree with this, well, I don't have to tell you.
Because I certainly think this is equality.
Which brings me to this story from the Wall Street Journal opinion section.
January 16th, 2019.
So this is two and a half years ago.
Heather McDonald writes, Women don't belong in combat units.
The military is watering down fitness standards because most female recruits can't meet them.
The Obama-era policy of integrating women into ground combat units is a misguided social experiment that threatens military readiness and wastes resources in the service of a political agenda.
The next Defense Secretary should end it.
Well, they didn't.
In September 2015, the Marine Corps released a study comparing the performance of gender-integrated and male-only infantry units in simulated combat.
The all-male teams greatly outperformed the integrated teams, whether on shooting, surmounting obstacles, or evacuating casualties.
Female Marines were injured at more than six times the rate of men during preliminary training.
Unsurprising, since men's higher testosterone levels produce stronger bones and muscles, even the fittest women, which the study participants were, must work at maximal physical capacity when carrying a hundred-pound pack or repeatedly loading heavy shells into a cannon.
Ignoring the Marine study, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter opened all combat roles to women in December 2015.
Rather than requiring new female combat recruits to meet the same physical standards as men, the military began crafting gender-neutral standards in the hope that more women would qualify.
Previously, women had been admitted to non-combat specialties under lower strength and endurance requirements.
Only two women have passed the Marine Corps' fabled infantry officer training course out of the three dozen who have tried most washout in the Combat Endurance Test administered on day one.
Participants hike miles while carrying combat loads of 80 pounds or more, climb 20-foot ropes multiple times, and scale an 8-foot barrier.
The purpose of the test is to ensure that officers can hump their own equipment and still arrive at a battleground mentally and physically capable of leading troops.
Most female aspirants could not pass the test, so the Marines changed it from a pass-fail requirement to an unscored exercise with no bearing on the candidate's ultimate evaluation.
The weapons company hike during the IOC is now gender neutral, meaning that officers can hand their pack to a buddy if they get tired, rather than carrying it for the course's full 10 miles.
Who was the president in 2019 who could have made these changes, and pay attention to this, it was Donald J. Trump.
And he didn't do it.
Where are we at now?
Military.com says 53 women officially become Marines at formerly all-male boot camp, they say.
53 women in the first-ever co-ed company to train at the Marine Corps West Coast Training Base completed the crucible Thursday morning.
The demanding three-day event is the culminating exercise at boot camp, and the recruits were presented with the coveted Eagle, Globe, and Anchor pins afterward and called Marines for the first time.
The female platoon, which is part of Lima Company, 3rd Recruit Training Battalion, won the final drill competition, said Captain Martin Harris, a spokesman at the Recruit Depot.
During the competition, drill instructors are given a list of tasks at random that their recruits must perform on the parade deck.
Each platoon is evaluated individually by drillmasters.
Winning the competition, Harris said, requires good teamwork, efficiency, and discipline.
Well, good for them.
You know, bravo.
Congratulations on completing the task.
But are they only completed because standards were reduced?
That may be the case.
Well, times change.
Gender-neutral might not make sense to a lot of people, but like I said, man, the Soviet strategy was to send wave after wave of their own men into... It's a joke, by the way, because that's from Futurama, but the idea is quantity over quality.
When you take a look at the history of warfare, You go way back in time, you'll see something interesting.
Early on, people needed to be trained with swords.
With, you know, trained in that combat where they clash into each other and they're hitting each other.
Trained to a certain degree.
Untrained individuals.
It was bad.
Well, you can see in, like, East Asia, where they developed specialized weapons and specialized production of swords and things like that, they had great technique and martial arts.
Skill dominated it all.
The samurai of Japan.
Skilled.
Disciplined.
Honorable.
But something changed.
You see, it was the invention of, or I should say, the mass production of armaments.
Of ordnance, of guns and rifles.
And all of a sudden now, you could hand a gun to some random young person and say, you know, fight this person.
They still needed some training.
A little bit.
Here's how you reload.
Here's how you do this.
Substantially less, however.
They could point, and the destructive capability of those firearms made them substantially more effective than well-trained samurai who didn't have guns.
And maybe I'm wrong about the whole samurai thing.
That's my general understanding.
They became obsolete.
Didn't need that warrior class anymore.
Just take a young person, here's your rifle, and have at it.
That changed everything.
Now they were like, we can conscript anybody.
Not need to worry about training because these weapons hold the power.
Where do you think we're headed now?
Does it really matter if we have men or women when you can put them into like a mech suit or something?
I'm kidding, by the way.
But if we're replacing physical combat and ground combat with a lot of, like, drone strikes and tanks, space force... Not that we've completely moved into that space right now, but that we're moving in that direction?
Wouldn't it make sense that a woman could press a button the same as a guy could?
The faster technology grows in terms of weapons development, the more it will be opened up to people who don't require as much training.
But don't get me wrong, they definitely need training.
Case in point, they're involved in these, you know, boot camps.
I want to put a tweet, however.
This is probably having something to do with what's going on with the draft, but these tweets aren't necessarily related.
This one woman, Vanessa Santos, says, I think we could make it work just fine in response to Jeremy Boring's statement about, you know, the society wants to ban men, it won't go well for women.
She said, I think we could make it work.
Jeremy said, I know you do.
You've grown up in a civilization largely built by men to protect women.
So you haven't had to face the reality you're so glib about.
There was an interesting response.
Bunny on Twitter, just some random account, said, BS, it's a society built by men to keep women subjugated.
It's like saying a fox built a hen house to keep chickens safe when the fox is the problem.
The only one not seeing reality is you, Toots.
No surprise you work with Ben Shapiro.
Amazing.
I thought that was funny when I saw that because I have chickens.
I had chickens a long time ago in Miami, but I have more chickens now.
And we have a rooster.
We didn't intend to get a rooster, but turns out one of the babies was misgendered.
They said it was female.
Turns out to have been a rooster, so now we got a rooster.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
And it even goes down about a foot into the ground.
Why?
To protect them.
Not to subjugate them.
They live a glorious, safe life.
And in fact, my chickens, we're not even gonna eat!
We've long said that these chickens are going to live a long and healthy life and die of old age.
Because the goal of having these chickens isn't to just chicken farm.
We got them because we want to have chickens and have fun.
They'll lay eggs, but they only lay eggs for a few years.
After that, they don't lay eggs anymore, and they just consume.
A lot of people just usually eat them at that point, but we're not.
We're gonna, you know, have them on our YouTube channel, and people can watch chickens do chicken stuff.
The reality is, here's what I said.
It's like saying the roosters built the hen house to keep the hens safe from the fox.
The fox is the problem.
Take away the rooster, and the hens die one by one.
Now, I understand humans are not chickens.
But what these people don't understand, they genuinely believe the dangers of the world are literally the men who are trying to stop the dangers of the world.
It's not so simple.
You know, someone asked, what's the fox in this analogy?
And it's a predator.
That's it.
So, you take a look at the history and biological evolution and why we ended up with patriarchy and gender norms, and it's quite simple.
It really is.
Basic math.
As I've long stated.
Actually, don't credit me with this, I'm just some guy who reads stuff on the internet.
If you have a tribe of people with 100 men and 100 women and 99 men die, that one man, he can have kids with all of those women and within 9 months there can be 99 children.
Women can pick up the slack and take on a lot of these roles.
It's a weakened society.
I mean, you lost almost half of your people.
But one man can bring it all back.
Now, if you have the same tribe, but 99 women die, you're doomed.
Women make humans.
Men do not.
I mean, okay, I don't get it wrong.
Men and women together will make a human, but the woman is who actually—whose physical body produces the new person.
That's why men typically would go out and do the more dangerous things, and women would stay protected.
Because women were substantially more valuable in terms of biology and evolution.
Now that's still true to this day, except because there's this mass population, because people don't want to have kids anymore, we don't need those same gender roles, and so naturally, things start to break down.
Traditional gender roles naturally start falling away, whether you like it or not, and some people still live in rural areas and dangerous areas where women need to be kept safe, and some don't.
But let me make a point about the chickens.
The rooster may be brutal.
He may jump on the back of those chickens and they squawk and they scream and all that stuff.
He may be tough and he pushes them around.
He's the top of the pecking order.
But it is a well-known fact.
If a predator comes, the rooster will warn the hens and they'll run and hide.
And the rooster would even run full speed to the predator and fight, sacrificing his own life to keep those hens alive.
Man.
So, Pros and Cons, you tell me about your perspective.
Should women be in combat, there is something absolutely magical about the fact that a man will run full speed towards a grizzly bear to keep his wife and his children safe and he will be mauled to death for it.
There is something truly magic about the noble rooster who will run full speed towards a coyote knowing he will die because he wants his hens to escape.
It's bravery.
Now, perhaps, if you have twelve hens and one fox, they could all attack and gang up on the fox and maybe even fight back.
And I've heard stories about stuff like that.
But the hens are smaller.
Softer.
They're more tender.
You know, people say, you don't want to eat a rooster.
They're gamey and tough.
It's hard to eat.
Chickens!
Moist and delicious.
We love chicken.
We don't eat rooster.
We go to the chicken, we buy chicken.
We don't eat rooster.
I mean, I guess some people do.
You can eat whatever, right?
Men will run to war, will die, will watch their best friends die because they're hoping to keep everyone safe.
Not just women and children, but men too.
The ones who aren't at war.
If women want to do that, I also believe that is noble and honorable.
But I also recognize men, on average, can carry more weight, can jump higher, can run faster, have more bone density, have more muscle mass, have more collagen.
That isn't to say women can't do it.
I just think there needs to be a standard.
If they lower that standard, they're gonna make it a lot easier for a lot of guys, I suppose, which could be a good thing.
Maybe that'll whip some guys into shape better.
But also, you just think about it.
As they stated in the Wall Street Journal article, women are operating at maximum capacity.
Men aren't.
So that means with the lower standards, there are going to be a lot of guys who are actually a bit more doughy because they don't need to work as hard.
The women, on the other hand, are going to be pushing themselves to the limit while the guys are relaxing.
You know, the path to hell is paved with good intentions, huh?
Well, ladies, welcome to The Draft.
I hope you enjoy it.
We'll see how it plays out.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
Speaking to a reporter, Joe Biden was asked if there are people in the Democratic Party who want to defund the police, which is a stupid question because you can look at what Ocasio-Cortez and the squad have said and just know that, yes, there are many who want to defund the police.
There are many prominent activists associated with the Democratic Party, nonprofit organizations, and they all say defund the police.
And there's even an article in the New York Times that says, yes, abolish the police.
Okay, now that we've got that out of the way, Joe Biden's response was absolutely insane.
He asks in response, without answering the question, are there people in the Republican Party who think that we are sucking the blood out of kids?
The answer to that question is no.
Now, what do I mean by no?
I'm talking specifically about, like, actual members of the Republican Party in terms of prominent positions.
Perhaps.
There may be some lunatics somewhere, because, you know, nothing's absolute, I suppose.
And there are certainly people who vote Republican.
I guess you could technically say are members of the Republican Party.
Sure.
But come on.
You know, we're not entertaining these fringe, insane conspiracy theories about the Republican Party and Russia, and we're not going to entertain this stupid, psychotic garbage about the Democratic Party and people like Joe Biden.
More to the point, Joe Biden was asked a real and serious question about defunding police.
Something that is happening all over the place.
Something that has resulted in widespread crime.
And his response is to be insane and not answer it.
Now, ultimately, it's not the biggest thing in the world that Joe Biden wouldn't answer a question.
What I find interesting in this story, and what I think is important, is the fact that Joe Biden is jumping to this very extreme line of thinking.
And it says a lot about what Joe Biden says.
One thing I've been highlighting over the past week or so is that Joe Biden said the Republican agenda, the current agenda on voting legislation, is the greatest threat to our country since the Civil War.
Joe Biden is one of these extremist lunatics that he claims to be railing against.
Okay, so here's my point.
There may be Republican voters who think Joe Biden is this evil demon who eats kids or something.
Well, Joe Biden is the inverse of that, who thinks that there's a white supremacist takeover of this country, that Russia is doing all this crazy nonsense, and Trump is colluding, and all that stupid conspiracy mumbo-jumbo trash.
He does not live in reality.
Perhaps he ain't all with it.
The bigger picture here is we've got a bunch of stories that I think just shows us the bifurcation of this nation.
I don't see it as being fixable.
I think we're in an untenable situation.
That doesn't mean I'm worried.
Doesn't mean I'm feeling negative at all.
Things happen, you know what I mean?
I guess if you were hoping that the United States would remain this stable utopia golden age forever, Maybe you're upset about it.
I think the reality is that things change, and I'm not expecting, you know, mass chaos or necessarily, you know, brother-on-brother civil war in that sense.
It's fourth and fifth generational warfare.
It'll be different.
But I will point out, it could just be that I've witnessed and experienced these kinds of situations around the world, and I'm not all that worried about it, to be completely honest.
Joe Biden may be one of the most divisive presidents we've ever had.
We currently have the January 6th defendants being beaten and held in solitary.
We have our schools being taken over by cult ideology.
We have more riots in New York, and they're pounding on, trying to hold this guy's car, and he drives through another, claiming he rammed the protesters.
Right now, there is a fight for power.
And we heard it from Jose Llamas.
Do you see that on TimCast IRL?
A member of the anti-Castro underground in Cuba.
And he said, if these Black Lives Matter people get real power, they will start killing people.
And he's not wrong.
And I think we're going in that direction.
Does it mean I'm scared?
No.
Am I worried?
No.
But that could just be me.
Because there's a few things.
One, maybe it's extreme to think anything like that would happen.
Maybe.
But then there's that, you know, saying just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you.
So maybe we really are on the cusp of something truly nightmarish and dangerous.
And in any case, I think I'll be alright.
I'm not saying, you know, I'm not saying that We'll be able to maintain this company in the event of complete political destabilization, or I'll get to, you know, keep living in the middle of the woods.
Well, I guess I'll probably keep living in the middle of the woods.
But, you know, having friends and playing these games and stuff.
If things get really bad, you end up living in a tent in the woods, foraging, hunting, and then eventually farming a little bit, and you become self-sustainable.
You move away, you get away from the cities.
I think the worst case scenario is, yeah, I go back to the life that I experienced when I was younger and the things I've seen when I traveled overseas during these conflicts.
I'm not all that worried about it.
Suppose if you have a family and kids and a house and you're trying to figure out your future, this may be very worrying.
I don't know what you do other than have kids, instill your values, homeschool them, and prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Now, the story here from TimCast.com is quite simple.
Joe Biden responded to a question about Democrat efforts to defund police by asking if there are Republicans who think we're sucking the blood out of kids.
You know, to be fair to the left in a certain degree, there are people on the right who genuinely believe this insane stuff.
And they do contribute to the escalating conflict.
Same as the lunatics like Joe Biden.
There's a big difference, though.
The exception in the rule.
When the President of the United States is fanning the flames of civil war by accusing the Republicans of pushing an agenda that is a bigger threat than the Confederacy, that's kind of alarming.
And he did that.
Let me show you what's going on right now politically.
Michael Tracy tweets.
January 6th defense attorney Joseph McBride quote, numerous detainees are being held in solitary confinement.
They're being denied medical care.
They're taking beatings.
They're being denied sleep.
They're being psychologically, emotionally and physically tortured on a regular basis.
Did we ever think this was gonna be America?
Did we think that we would hear stories about this in America?
I mean, me?
Growing up?
No.
But I know America's history.
I know about the Japanese internment camps.
I know about a lot of things that America did that required long, hard fights in order to stop horrible things.
But there was this period where I think we had a golden age.
You know, maybe for us, many of us growing up, things were pretty good.
I mean, what were the big fights that we had?
There was a political battle over, you know, gay marriage, and it was mostly political, with parades and then votes.
Now we're entering violent tumult.
That, to me, is scary.
We had a year or longer of Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots burning down buildings, and they were protected and defended by Democrats.
The Democrats raised money to bail them out.
This is their revolution.
You know, when I hear the story from Jose Lamas, as I mentioned, the anti-Castro underground member, talking about what happened in Cuba and how the Castro regime came to power and how they lied, one very important question.
One of the most important questions.
Ottomus Parquet.
That's what it was.
It was guns for what?
That's what he said when he came and seized all the weapons.
When one side has guns and the other side doesn't, when the tyrannical have guns and the people do not, you get dictatorship.
Well, it's Joe Biden who came out the other day and said that he's working to ban weapons that can take multiple round magazines.
And people are like, he said 20, 30, 20? 30?
He's not talking about belt-fed, you know, crew-served machine guns or anything like that.
He's talking about an AR-15, like a fairly standard rifle.
He's talking about your standard Glock, which takes a detachable magazine and has different... you can get magazines in different sizes.
Anybody who truly believed in the freedom of the individual would not be trying to ban weapons.
Absolutely not.
They'd say, you know what?
Y'all should have weapons.
Defend yourself.
I mean, that's what I think, right?
And I don't want to be in charge of anybody.
I don't want to rule anything.
I saw this tweet from Michael Tracy.
People are calling it gulags in America.
Yes, there were many people who stormed the Capitol, rioting.
It was bad, and it was stupid.
But should this treatment befall these individuals?
Absolutely not.
100% no.
The problem?
The political faction.
That has the institutions, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, is getting dangerously close to absolute power.
You know, I know they don't have it right now.
I'm allowed to talk about it.
And I'm allowed to warn you and say we must not allow the cult to have more power.
But uh-oh!
General Mark Milley, Joint Chiefs of Staff, full woke cult member.
You know, what do I mean by cult?
They believe in an ideological dogma that makes no sense.
That's it.
And they adhere to it in almost a faith-based manner.
The only problem is it's a non-theistic religion.
It is a cult.
Case in point, they make things up.
They literally make things up.
White rage.
They're just making things up.
It doesn't make sense.
They want to judge people based on race.
They are racist authoritarians.
But they're also willing to just fall in line and do whatever is said by the collective.
And you see, here's the danger.
What ends up happening in these countries where they become authoritarian is that regular people say, whatever man, I'll just say whatever you want me to say so I can fit in.
So when the extremist psychopaths start coming in and saying things about white privilege and white rage and other nonsensical terms that many of these woke people couldn't define if their life depended on it, if their lives depended on it, they just say yes.
And that's why you end up with things like WMICs and being offensive and women being offensive and no matter what you say, it's offensive.
It's why you end up with internal conflict over Stop Asian Hate, where many members of Black Lives Matter were ragging on Asian people, and then a year later they said, you can't do that, that's Asian hate.
Because there's no rules, it's just an amorphous blob that demands power.
And usually, there's somebody who wants to climb on top.
So what are we seeing?
Joe Biden believes the most extreme and psychotic things about the culture war, and he's brought it to the presidency.
Okay.
I mean, you can blame me, you can blame any other YouTuber, a leftist YouTuber, you can blame the crazy conspiracy theorists, the Flat Earthers, whatever.
Doesn't mean the President should be fanning these flames and claiming we're facing the biggest threat since the Civil War because of the Republican establishment agenda.
Can I just stress that?
Do you guys realize what that means?
The Republicans are like, we'd like to have some voting- voter reform.
The Democrats go, we would also like voter reform.
The Republicans say, we disagree with your voter reform.
And Joe Biden says, this is worse than the Civil War.
The biggest threat since the Civil War, to be specific.
If the Democrats change the voting rules, they win.
And the Democrats say if the Republicans change the voting rules, they win.
The point is, we're not engaging in a policy fight anymore.
You must understand this.
The fight right now, it is at the gates.
The conflict is at, we are at the door.
What does that mean?
We are no longer looking to a Democratic or Republican party to tell us what the tax policy should be.
We are no longer looking at a Democrat or Republican party to talk about our trade policies.
We are not there anymore.
The Democrats are now claiming everything is infrastructure so that they can bypass the filibuster and inject policy changes into law.
They are actually trying to subvert our processes.
That allow us some checks and balances, making sure that the tyranny of the majority doesn't oppress the minority, or more specifically that a well-armed lamb contests the vote, as the saying goes.
What's happening now is the Democrats and the Republicans are arguing over the rules To who gets power and why.
And that, to me, is the most alarming thing.
Instead of saying, we agree, here's the rules, here's who gets to be in charge and who gets to have the vote, and then deciding policy issues on, like, endangered birds and stuff like that, they're screaming at each other about how they are able to gain that power.
That's what's scary about Joe Biden saying this about voting legislation.
If the Republicans back down, the Democrats' H.R.
1 will open the floodgates.
It will be an axe through the gate.
Bam!
Smashing it open.
Lowering the voting age.
Other insane policies.
Effectively nationalizing our elections.
If the Republicans win, the Democrats just claim they're suppressing the vote.
Now, I don't agree with that, and that's wrong.
The Republicans aren't even doing enough.
But right now, Democrats and Republicans are not legislating on policy.
They are arguing over who gets power.
When the argument breaks down and both sides accuse each other of stealing power and being illegitimate, what do you think happens next?
Do you think the Republicans just sit back and say, well, the illegitimate Democrats have seized power and we're just going to go along with it?
You know, to be honest, many Republicans probably would.
What about the inverse?
Yeah, we're at a point now where when you as a nation have two principal factions fighting over how power is divided, eventually it comes to, I don't know, a caning in Congress.
You ever see the thing they do when you're playing baseball to figure out which team
goes first or whatever?
And you grab the bat and then everyone puts their hands on it and then whoever can put
their hand over the top of the bat and touch all their fingers to the other hand.
You know what I'm talking about?
You ever see that?
You put your hand like this, then the other player puts their hand above it and then you
put above it and then you try to get your hand over the top and then if you can't, then
you've got to like, you know, get your hand in there.
It's a little game.
And then whoever can get their hand on top, they get the ability to play first.
That's what it feels like.
Now granted, that's a game.
You don't end by hitting anybody with a baseball bat or anything like that.
But in politics, when the worldview of both sides is so fractured, We're at this point where people are not getting a fair trial.
The Constitution is not being upheld.
One side is punishing political prisoners in violation of, you know, defying the Constitution.
And they don't care.
And they continue to do it.
They want to ban free speech.
I'm hearing reports, rumors, that people are struggling to text message each other.
Now, I don't know if this is true, but we do know it's been reported by Politico.
The Biden administration and the DNC are working with phone carriers to block, to censor, misinformation as they call it, a violation of the First Amendment.
Just because you use a private business entity to violate someone's rights doesn't mean the government is not doing it.
I want to bring you now to the grassroots here.
The Washington Times.
Teacher fired for criticizing deadly riots in Chicago files civil rights lawsuit.
This goes to the Chicagoland area, to Palatine High School in Illinois.
Now, it's not Chicago, it's a suburb of Chicago, but it's Chicagoland area for sure.
I'll tell you the simple issue here.
There's a Chicago-area teacher filing a lawsuit because she posted on her Facebook, I believe it was on Facebook, criticizing, they say, she criticized deadly Black Lives Matter riots in Chicago on her personal Facebook page.
She goes, they say, Gene Hedgepeth, who taught for roughly 20 years, Comment on the violent Black Lives Matter riots that occurred across the country after George Floyd.
One of her posts said, I don't want to go home tomorrow.
Now that the civil war has begun, I want to move.
Another post said she found the term white privilege as racist as the n-word.
She also praised figures such as Candace Owens, a black pro-Trump political activist.
When she returned from vacation, she found out the school board was holding a meeting in July considering her termination, based on her comments.
In a 5-2 vote, the board moved to fire her.
As a result of the action taken against her, she has suffered substantial damages, including a loss of income and unemployment benefits, loss of reputation and personal humiliation, and emotional distress, among other injuries, read the lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Illinois last week.
Ms.
Hedgepeth accused Township High School District 211 of violating her First Amendment rights, which they did.
They're a public entity.
They can't fire her for her speech.
A spokesman from the district said it was aware of a lawsuit.
At this point, it is a legal issue, and we as a district cannot comment on any details.
We can't confirm our board approved a resolution regarding the suspension and dismissal.
Judicial Watch is assisting her, they say.
The school district took what could have been a teachable moment about respecting diversity of viewpoints and turned it into a clear civil rights violation, said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.
Jean Hedgepeth had every right to express herself freely and openly on her personal Facebook page.
They say the Supreme Court has generally been protective of free speech rights outside of schools.
It may be that the school just loses, she gets her job back.
Does she really want to work in that environment?
I've been in situations like this.
I've filed lawsuits against employers before, and ultimately what happens is our lawyers come back and say, now, you can have your job back, or you can accept retro pay and it's over.
And I'm like, what does that mean?
And they're like, they'll pay you up until this point as if you were working and that's it.
And I'm like, but that's not me winning anything.
They put me out of work unjustly, and they're like, take it or leave it.
And I'm like, if I get my job back, then they just fire me again?
He goes, well, retaliation is illegal.
And I was like, yeah, but they'll just make up a reason to fire me.
I'll take the job back.
I'll get no money.
And then they'll say, oh, what's that?
You were late by a minute.
Bye-bye.
So what do you do?
You walk away.
Does she really want to go back to an environment full of racists and psychopaths?
Probably not.
But the reason I bring this up, this story in particular, Of the 600 or so school board battles happening across the country, how many schools are actually in this country?
So the conservatives can scream all day and night and cheer when the parents come out and say, we will not stand by idly while critical race theory is being taught in schools.
You do realize there are substantially more schools than schools that have these fights going on?
Now, we'll see.
You know, far be it for me to say that Steve Bannon is incorrect here.
Bannon is a political expert in many ways, and he said come August 15th, you know, coming up soon, when the moms start seeing what's happening with their kids and what their kids are learning, they're going to lose it.
And that may be the case.
It may be the case.
But I look at how many fights there are.
I look at how many school board battles there are, and I'm not so convinced.
But regardless of any of that, I take a look at what's happening with these schools.
They're coming for your kids.
They're coming for your children.
Now, I can add one more to this, just as a final sign-off.
CNN's half-empty town hall with Joe Biden brings in just 1.4 million viewers, more than a million fewer than Fox News's regular programming.
Fox on a regular basis gets more than that.
The President of the United States giving a town hall explaining what's going on in his views couldn't get more views than one cable channel?
And Fox News lost tons of viewers.
What does this mean?
I'm not saying this to rag on CNN and their crappy viewership.
This is Joe Biden.
I'm saying this to show you that a large portion of this country does not care about and will not listen to Joe Biden.
I don't know where we go.
Like I always say, maybe this is a calm period, everyone's tired, they're burned out, they're not willing to fight, there's no political willpower.
Come the midterms, things calm down.
Things slowly start to ease, but I don't see that with Joe Biden.
Now, to be fair, maybe Biden loses it and Kamala Harris becomes president and she's just a run-of-the-mill Democrat, but I just, I do not see, with the ideologies of this country diverging so severely, how anyone, how their worldview can jump that gap.
Now, some people change parties.
Some people are woke and then they change and they're allegedly people who were Republican and then all of a sudden now find themselves to be woke.
That I don't believe, to be completely honest.
Maybe some people, I'm sure.
You know, nothing's absolute.
But I take a look at what's happening and I don't see how you take a classically liberal or traditionally liberal parent and then have, you know, have them see what's happening to their kids and then one day they wake up and say, I can agree with the racists and their race-based ideology.
Some people sure, most people probably not.
Now, as for the Trump voters versus the Biden voters.
Most of these people set in stone.
They knew what they were voting for and why.
And normally I'd say probably a good portion of these voters are just blindly voting for whatever, not really paying attention.
But the truth is, I think that with Trump gaining a massive amount of new voters, over 10 million, it shows that there are a lot of people who are paying attention and waking up, and that's going to cause some serious changes.
But we'll see.
I think we're headed towards some really serious conflict.
I don't know if it's a 100% chance, a 51% chance, a 50.1% chance, but I'm fairly bullish and have been for some time.
The street violence, the chaos, the clashing, the going after kids, and now the President of the United States saying some of the most psychotic and extremist things we've heard in a long time.
A president coming out and accusing the Republicans of believing that they're drinking the blood of children?
Yeah, they're creepy weirdos on the internet, bro.
Get offline!
Flat Earthers have been around for a long time.
The internet didn't invent these people.
We'll see.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
She said they're choosing a lifestyle of self-inflicted pain.
Now, we've seen many Republicans reject COVID vaccine mandates and vaccine passports.
And then I understand it shouldn't be the government forcing people to do these things or businesses demanding people's medical paperwork in terms of some public accommodation.
Because I don't think we should have that level of discrimination.
We don't.
We shouldn't have that kind of discrimination, especially when people can choose to be vaccinated.
What's interesting about this whole thing?
I'm left with one question.
Why does Alabama's Republican Governor Ivey Why is she upset that unvaccinated people are not getting the vaccine?
And she wants to encourage them, that's fine.
Many on the left have been actually pushing for mandates or vaccine passports.
But if the vaccine is going to reduce your symptoms, reduce the likelihood of mortality and severe illness, you're okay, right?
So it's a question of if someone chooses not to get this when they have the opportunity to, whose fault is it really?
And are we going to sit here and constantly just demand and beg people to do what's right for them?
Ultimately, it's not a question about the vaccines.
It's a question about liberty versus authority and about individual choice.
Now, here's what I say.
I will not Come on here and advocate for any medication.
I think you should go to a medical professional, as I've said 50 billion times.
But I am absolutely shocked by where this is going.
Now, of course, the left has accused the Republicans of being anti-vax forever.
They say, I'm being anti-vax by saying, talk to your doctor.
That's where we're at.
I'm not kidding.
I responded to someone on Twitter and I said, hey, you should go talk to your doctor before you take medication because they know your medical history.
Showing up to some stranger or having a guy at your house knock on your door.
I think that's irresponsible.
And I'm not willing to sacrifice any individuals for some kind of utilitarian end goal number.
Here's what I mean to say.
Most likely, if you go to a doctor, they'll tell you to get the vaccine.
Great!
They'll know your history, they'll know of your allergies, and you'll be fine.
And thus, we will see a reduction in any potential side effects.
Not an elimination.
That's just reality.
There are side effects.
But a reduction.
Because so many people on the left are telling people just go out and do it, I actually have a friend who didn't think twice and went and got it and experienced a very, very severe nerve-related side effect.
And that story doesn't need to happen.
He could have actually gone through a list of medical questions, looked up the CDC guidelines and said, Doc, here's what it says.
What do you think?
And so I've been dealing with this now, it's been a few months, talking to my friends, seeing what's going on.
And it seems like if he had actually gone through his medical history, he likely would have been told to only wait a few months before getting the vaccine due to previously having COVID already.
And apparently that's an issue.
I'm not entirely sure.
I'm not going to pretend to be a doctor.
I can only say it seems now that he should have actually consulted a doctor based on his medical history and should have been told to wait.
But a lot of people are like, line up, get in the parking lot, just go do it.
And I'm like, yeah, that's fine, if you just make that quick phone call.
Hey doc, what do you think?
You know I came in last week, I'm on this medication, you've given me this, that, or otherwise.
But you see, I feel like the left are utilitarian.
They're basically just saying, if everyone just goes and does it, of course people will experience adverse events.
But it's for the greater good.
It's better for all of us.
Well, I'm not willing to impose my will on other people for some numerical value that we determine to be good.
I suppose I am not a utilitarian.
I believe that we must not take immoral acts against individuals and it's a tough call.
But here's the ultimate point of this.
What we see with Republican Governor Ivey is that while Republicans absolutely have been on the side of freedom to a certain degree, the whole Overton window is shifting further and further and further.
Think about this.
Here's how I think about it.
Maybe there's somebody who watched some crackpot conspiracy video about vaccines and believes that it's going to turn him into a Morlock or a Chud or something.
Well, if my advice is to not give advice and say, talk to a medical professional you trust, how many people who are scared or hesitant might actually go to a doctor, talk to them, say, here's my history, and the doctor might say something like, you should or you shouldn't.
How many people might be hesitant, who are sent to a doctor, and the doctor actually explains things, shows data, and says, look, you're gonna be okay.
The left doesn't care, and that's the weirdest thing to me.
If there are people who are skeptical, the doctor can help them overcome their skepticism.
Maybe they won't be able to, but listen, if there is someone who is adamant about not getting vaccinated, and they go to the doctor, that's only a higher likelihood they might actually get vaccinated, isn't it?
But it's also a possibility, I suppose, that some people are advised not to do it.
It is the weirdest thing to me that I have people tweeting at me saying, don't talk to your doctor.
Now look, I have people on the other side saying, you know, doctors are dumb, they don't know what they're talking about.
And I'm like, you're going to bad doctors.
Go to a good doctor you trust.
Here's what you do.
You go, you say, here's my medical history, here's my age group, and here's my understanding.
What is your recommendation?
Ask them if they're willing to prescribe you any medications, if they're willing to administer any medications.
You go to them and you say, I believe you, I trust you, you understand what you're talking about.
If you went to a plumber, And you ask them what, you know, I don't know about plumbing.
Okay, so if you went to a skateboarder, a skate shop, and you told the guy you were looking for some lightweight hollow kingpin trucks, and he says, what's a kingpin?
I'd be like, bro, are you...
Do you know what you're talking about?
Selling skateboard stuff?
You don't?
So if you go to a doctor and they can't actually explain things to you, you are entitled to a second opinion.
Anyway, I don't want to rant on that, okay?
Because I talk about that so much, it's probably boring.
The point is, Republicans are moving along with Democrats, as they always do.
They are going the speed limit.
And for now, I actually appreciate where Ron DeSantis is at.
DeSantis, of course, is saying, hey guys, go get the vaccine, please.
We don't want to see a surge in cases and, you know, we're going to see a lot of older people start losing their lives.
We don't want that to happen.
And I agree, we don't want that to happen.
But he's also like, we're not gonna force you to do it.
We're not gonna have vaccine mandates or anything like that.
All right, well, there we go.
My understanding is right now, it is less than half of this country is a minority of individuals in this country who are fully vaccinated.
So when you get K.I.V.
saying, blame the unvaccinated folks, she's talking about almost everyone.
Yeah.
There's a lot of reasons for it.
And you know what the screwed up thing is?
The reason for low vaccination might not be, you know, as the mainstream media tries to play it out, the mainstream media is trying to make it seem like there is just misinformation and people are being lied to and things like that.
Or people literally went to their doctors.
I have friends who went to their doctors.
The doctor said, you know, in one instance, recommended the vaccine.
They had flu-like symptoms and the doctor said, don't follow up.
Their doctor told them what to do.
You know, not everybody.
Some people have been told not to get it because they've had COVID or because they were pregnant.
And some people have been advised to do it.
And I've had a lot of people come through my studio who have been on the show who are totally fine.
Anyway, I digress.
I actually find myself more in line with where Ron DeSantis is at.
But let's read this story from CNN.
They say, Alabama Republican Governor Kay Ivey on Thursday called out the unvaccinated folks for the rise in COVID-19 cases in her state.
A remarkable plea at a time when many GOP leaders are refusing to urge people to get vaccinated, even as COVID-19 cases surge in many parts of the country.
That is a lie.
I suppose you can see many GOP leaders because what does that really mean?
Quote, Folks are supposed to have common sense, but it's time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks.
It's the unvaccinated folks that are letting us down, Ivy told reporters in Birmingham.
Alright, maybe they'll explain to us why, but if someone gets the vaccine and they're protected, why should we impose any will on anybody who has chosen what they think is best for them?
If you don't get vaccinated, you're putting yourself at risk.
Look, man, I know a lot of people are saying things like, you know, they don't trust it or they're skeptical, they're hesitant.
I've certainly got my criticisms with Big Pharma and a lot of the stuff, but there are a ton of stories that I see every day about some dude who was like, you know, acting all tough and big and invincible, and then they get sick and they regret it.
Now, of course, you saw that one story.
There was one story from alabama.com where this nurse is like, the last thing they say to me before I intubate them is they beg me for the vaccine and I hold their hand and I say, I'm sorry, it's too late.
And then when I write their death notes, it's like, geez, calm down.
That happened, right?
And then everybody clapped for you.
Okay, that was a little over the top.
I can imagine certain circumstances where people are coming to the hospital sick, saying, is it too late to get the vaccine?
She says, I'm sorry, it is.
And then she embellishes this absolutely ridiculous story.
Look, maybe it happened because sometimes weird things happen.
But that is just the over-the-top nonsense we don't need.
That being said, there are many people I've seen where they're like, you see the tweets where they're saying things like, ain't nobody need that.
And a week later, they're like, wow, I'm really sick.
Or like now, a week later.
That's why I'm just like, you gotta avoid being an arrogant know-it-all, right?
And that's the important thing.
I'm not gonna pretend to know half of the stuff that we need to know about whatever is going on.
I can certainly put my trust in certain institutions.
I can put my trust in myself, in my research, and you should too.
Do your research, and then make sure you're getting sound medical advice from people who know better, or who know, I shouldn't say know better, but who are experts in whatever field.
But ultimately, it's gonna be your choice.
They say Alabama is the least vaccinated state in the country, with roughly 33.9% of residents fully vaccinated, according to data from the U.S.
CDC.
Average daily COVID cases in Alabama are nearly double what they were a week ago, and more than four times higher than they were two weeks ago.
Now here, I should have mentioned this earlier, but what I want to get to in this story, when she's blaming the unvaccinated folks, I want to go ahead and say, you know what?
How about this?
How about you're right?
Okay.
There is a surge in COVID cases.
It's among those who are not getting vaccinated for the most part.
And those people have chosen this.
Okay.
Unvaccinated people.
Does that include the illegal immigrants?
COVID cases among migrants in the Rio Grande Valley sector surged 900% as border numbers continue to rise.
They say there were 135 COVID-positive migrants in the first two weeks of July.
My question is, are you testing the migrants?
And if you're not, are these individuals vaccinated?
Are you checking their vaccination cards before you open the gates and let them in?
I was talking about this yesterday.
So if Alabama wants to come out and say that it is the fault of the unvaccinated, oh, okay, sure, right, yeah.
The 188,000 unvaccinated people who came to the southern border?
Is that right?
This is one of the biggest problems we're facing in the country right now.
How are you going to convince unvaccinated people to get the vaccine if, one, you're blaming them for the problem and, two, the Democrats are not securing the border and there's a major influx of either sick or unvaccinated people?
You think that's going to be confidence building among people who already don't trust the establishment?
I find it to be absolutely incredible.
And the result of this, of course, more lockdowns, more mandates.
Philadelphia officials advise masks for fully vaccinated people in public indoor spaces again.
Delta variant is now the cause of 83% of cases in the US.
Okay, so if we're moving back to restrictions and lockdowns, whose fault is it?
You want to say it's unvaccinated, folks?
Then are you referring to the estimated two million people who will be crossing through the border?
Already a million people this year have illegally entered the United States from the southern border.
I think we're screwed because, you know what?
I'll put it this way.
We're a chicken running around with our head cut off.
YouTube's got insane rules.
They'll ban me.
Who knows if I get banned for this one?
I don't even know what's going on anymore.
You've got Republicans blaming Americans while Democrats open the borders.
It's porous.
A million people are coming in.
None of it makes sense.
And I'll tell you one thing.
Anybody who pays any amount of attention to what's happening is gonna sit there and be like, I don't know, man.
I just don't know.
Now, in the establishment circles, they say it's misinformation causing all this.
It's misinformation.
Oh, they're lies.
It's misinformation.
You know what, man?
The border stuff is not misinformation.
It's official data.
188k.
You just do simple logic.
CBP is not testing everybody, nor are they checking for vaccines.
You're getting a major influx of unvaccinated people.
A Republican now comes out and blames people who aren't vaccinated.
I can understand that.
Sure, you've got unvaccinated people crossing the border, right?
How are we supposed to fix a system and maintain it and avoid a lockdown if nothing is secure?
You know, perhaps this is their argument for despotism, for dictatorship.
If only there was a dictator who could mandate all of these things at once, but it doesn't work.
It just doesn't work, and it won't work.
And here we go.
Republican governors are urging people to get vaccinated.
Now, I can respect this, 100%.
I do think, however, they should be urging people to talk with medical professionals.
They go on to mention, this is from timcast.com, they go on to first mention Kay Ivey and her quote.
They go on to mention that she's added a bunch of things, but there's also, okay, I guess that's the point, yeah, we have Ron DeSantis.
Ivey's push for COVID-19 comes after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said the vaccines reduce the likelihood of a severe infection to effectively zero.
So here's, I think, the most important thing with the data.
If you're vaccinated, fully vaccinated, the chance of you getting seriously ill or dying from COVID is effectively zero.
If you look at the people that are being admitted to hospitals, over 95% of them are either not fully vaccinated or not vaccinated at all.
Now, one of the reasons I say you should talk to a medical professional.
The one thing you did not hear from Ron DeSantis, bless his heart, demographics, comorbidities, risk factors, these are the things you should be asking your doctor about.
What's my risk factor?
How is my age group affected?
What are the potential side effects of COVID?
You may find...
And this is a simple thing.
Of course there's this major push from the establishment for vaccination.
I think the death rate of COVID may be like, you know, 0.27% or something like that.
Yeah, I think that's right.
I could be wrong.
I could be wrong.
That's why I'm saying go talk to a doctor.
Don't take my word for it.
But the risk factor for vaccination is like less than one-tenth of that.
A lot of people don't trust the official data.
I don't know what to tell you.
A lot of people are concerned about what they're seeing in VAERS, but you get establishment media saying, you know, don't, uh, VAERS is unconfirmed and stuff like that.
So ultimately, I think you need to look at the official data.
You need to break down your risk factors and go through this.
The point is, Ron DeSantis wants everyone to get vaccinated, but he is not a doctor.
He doesn't actually know what's best for you, and I wouldn't expect him or KIV or any Democrat to.
Like I said, he mentioned severe, uh, what did he say?
Your chance of getting severely ill or dying is effectively zero.
There are many young people who have died.
I think since the start of COVID, you've got 300... I'll give you estimates.
Around 300 or so people between the ages of 0 and 17 have died.
You've got like almost 3,000 or so up to like 24.
I think like under 39 is like 6,000.
Under 40, it gets a little bit more.
It goes up to like I think 20,000 or so.
It really does start to go up the older you get.
But one thing I want to make sure people understand, you can spread it to older people.
Older people can get sick and die.
And for people who are in their, like, 40s and 50s, there is a decently higher mortality rate from COVID.
And these are not people who... These are middle-aged people.
They shouldn't be dying.
You know what I mean?
So, when we look at the COVID death rate, we can see a decent amount of people who are over 40, but still under, say, 70.
Regardless, I don't want people who are 85 to die.
I don't want people who are 70 to die, or any age to die.
The one thing that people often bring up, though, is that people who are over the age of, you know, like 70 is life expectancy and comorbidity.
Sure, but let's reduce, you know, death across the board.
Here's where we're at, though, in my opinion.
Lockdown's a bad idea.
Mask mandates, I don't think are gonna be a good idea.
I think it'll be a bad idea.
And the reason for it is, we should protect the vulnerable.
We should take reasonable precautions.
But if we're now experiencing a Delta variant, if we're now experiencing the Epsilon variant, which has been reported as well, is this not just something we're going to have to deal with?
It's gonna happen.
Are we gonna lock down again?
We very well may.
We already have Piers Morgan saying that the Tokyo Olympics should be cancelled.
I got a feeling they're gonna cancel the Tokyo Olympics.
I do.
There's like nobody there.
They're trying desperately to make this thing happen.
But we can't live in fear like this.
I'll put it this way.
If people aren't getting vaccinated, and they choose not to or are advised not to, what are we supposed to do about it?
You go door-to-door and mandate it?
People would lose their minds.
And not only that, some doctors might tell people they can't.
So we have Eric Clapton right now.
He's saying he will not perform at any venue that requires vaccination.
I think that is the right thing to do.
Why?
There are people who want to get the vaccine who can't.
There was one story, I saw this, it was hilarious.
Media matters, got all mad.
Sean Hannity had a caller call into, I think it was his radio show.
The caller said that he's a cancer survivor.
So I immediately, I Google-searched getting the vaccine and cancer survivors.
And you know what the CDC says?
I should say the various experts.
They say if you are a cancer survivor, You need to talk to your doctor before getting the vaccine.
And I'm like, shouldn't that be for everybody?
Well, they assume that it's mostly safe enough that most people will be fine, but if you're a cancer survivor especially.
So this guy goes to his doctor.
He's telling Sean Hannity this.
And the doctor says, you have a compromised immune system, so you probably should get the vaccine.
And the man said, OK, Doc, will you prescribe it, considering the risk factor?
And will you administer it?
And he said to Hannity, the doctor did not want to prescribe the vaccine or administer it himself.
And so this man said, considering the risk factors from cancer, he was going to wait until his doctor was willing to actually administer it himself.
Sean Hannity praised him, saying, make the choice that's right for you, based on your medical history.
And Media Matters was upset about it.
They put it up like it was a negative, and then these lefty journalists were like, Hannity is anti-vax and all that stuff.
And I'm like, hold on, let me ask you something.
If you go to your doctor, and the doctor recommends something, but does not actually prescribe it, and I don't mean a literal prescription, okay?
Here's what I mean.
I could recommend a lot of things.
I could be like, yeah, you know, I think going out running would be great.
You'd probably feel better.
Saying something like that as a recommendation is very different from saying, dude, I need you to go start running now, okay?
You need to do it.
So what I mean by prescribe, I don't mean the literal action of him writing a prescription for someone to go get something you don't need a prescription for.
I will say, however, I have been prescribed ibuprofen.
You can buy that over the counter at Walgreens.
I've still had doctors write prescriptions for it.
Same thing is true with the vaccine.
In this guy's instance, he looked at his medical history, he saw the risk factor for cancer survivors, and he talked to the doctor, and the doctor said that the doctor would not administer the vaccine to him.
And so he said, well then I'll wait.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
I am not going to tell this man to ignore standard practice for taking a medication as someone who's counter-indicated because of what the normal advice is.
Well, you know, it says you probably shouldn't unless the doctor, you know, advises you to and is willing to administer it or whatever, but just do it anyway if the doctor's... Think about it this way.
If you get recommended something like ibuprofen for painkillers, and then you say, okay, doc, but are you willing to prescribe me this as part of the medication?
And he says, no.
I'd be like, I can understand that recommendations are one thing from an expert, and I can respect the recommendation.
I think for most people, you don't need a prescription to get the vaccine, and if you're healthy and you're not worried about side effects, and your doctor says, look, you don't got none of that, you're fine, then you're probably fine.
But in this instance, you literally had a guy with a counter-indication, with a risk factor, and the left was mad that he wanted the doctor to sign off on it.
Let me make this clear.
If you are scared, and your doctor will not sign off considering your risk factor, find another doctor, and get more advice.
Because it may turn out, the reality is, cancer survivors, you know, some of them shouldn't get this.
I can't speak... They say it's because there's different kinds of cancer.
I don't know, man.
I'm getting burned out on all this.
I don't know if we can even get into this stuff anymore, to be completely honest.
What am I supposed to say?
Here we go again?
It's the same thing over and over again?
It's the same stupid thing I've said 50 billion times?
If people don't want to get the vaccine, then what are you going to do about it?
Shut the whole world down?
There's already photos of like airports where they're like vaccinated and unvaccinated or whatever.
I don't know, man.
My advice was that, you know, to wait due to allergies.
And I think it's personal.
You know?
I think you should make your personal decisions.
You shouldn't be getting advice from me.
I can point out logical fallacies.
I can point out circumstances that need to be considered.
But in the end, If they lock us down, the police are just going to have a smile on their face and a boot on yours.
