S5235 - Supreme Court Signals THE END Of Roe V. Wade, Corporate Press And Leftists Express Fear Roe Is DONE
Supreme Court Signals THE END Of Roe V. Wade, Corporate Press And Leftists Express Fear Roe Is DONE. Democrats and journalists are making hard predictions that the right to abortion will be over by June of 2022
Chief Justice John Roberts was highlighted for his arguments about the Mississippi 15 week abortion ban. Several conservatives and republicans criticized Justice Sotomayor for arguing politically that SCOTUS could lose credibility if they overturn Roe V. Wade
#roevwade
#SCOTUS
#Democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Many in the media, many leftist personalities, have stated they believe the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade come next spring, a very serious decision which could lead to major conflict in the United States.
In our next story, fully vaxxed LeBron James has COVID.
And the article's hilarious.
They say, not even the king is immune to COVID.
Well, then what was the point of the vaccines?
And in our last story, in the northern territories of Australia, several people escaped the quarantine facilities.
But the media, in Australia particularly, has been desperate to push propaganda, letting everyone know these facilities are not concentration camps.
They're voluntarily here, despite their escape attempts.
Now, if you like the show, leave us a good review, but most importantly, share the show with your friends.
It really helps.
Now, let's get into that first story.
The Supreme Court has just concluded oral arguments in a case which could see Roe v. Wade overturned.
Twelve states have what are called trigger laws that the moment Roe v. Wade is overturned, they will ban abortion.
There are many speculating that as soon as that happens, many other states will also ban abortion, and there will be a hard divide between red states and blue states as to whether or not they will allow abortion.
Now, following the oral arguments, the consensus seems to be Roe v. Wade will be overturned.
The decision may come in spring, but many personalities on the left are saying, that's it, it's over, we've lost.
One guy from Slate, a reporter, well, I don't know, a writer, actually tweeted out, Roe v. Wade will be overturned in June of 2022.
And a lot of people thought it was a statement of fact, when he was just saying, no, just based on the arguments, This is the case.
In fact, NBC News reported, based on the arguments from the conservative justices, they seem to be leaning towards overturning Roe v. Wade.
Now, there's a lot of implications here.
For one, there's culture war implications.
There's also medical privacy implications, because Roe v. Wade enshrined our right to medical privacy.
Or, I should say, the ruling protected our right to privacy on medical issues from the government.
The issue here for me is, fat load of good, that's done.
Vaccine passports, COVID passports, they've been pushing them all over the place, mandating you to reveal your private medical history to get into a public accommodation.
And this is being done through government.
So while many have made that argument, I'm not sure it's strong enough right now because it seems like, well, medical privacy isn't an issue regardless of what the Supreme Court has actually said.
But this could lead to a major moral crisis in this country.
You know, I've talked about civil war.
Many others have as well.
We have an article from Forbes.
A billionaire has warned something civil war-like is coming in the next five years and the collapse isn't just going to be financial.
And of course, I agree.
And I don't agree simply because one day I woke up and thought so.
It's because I've been reading the news and listening to experts who have made such predictions.
Now I've long thought about this.
The other day we were talking with Matt Walsh from the Daily Wire and he said he doesn't think it could happen because there's not a geographical dividing line like we had before.
But that's an American perspective.
Many civil wars have occurred throughout history that didn't have geographic dividing lines and there were different factions all over the place and they'd fight.
But the one thing we did have in the 1860s was a strong moral stance on issues.
Now, a lot of people might tell you that you'll hear a lot of arguments that the Civil War wasn't really about slavery, it was about states' rights.
I mean, that's technically true.
States' rights was a big issue, but the funny question is, a state's right to do what?
The principal catalyst, of course, was slavery.
There were a lot of other issues.
And, of course, many states seceded from the Union, which they argued their right to do, and then a war broke out.
But what you need to understand about the Civil War is that in the North, People here, they weren't fighting simply because they were like, don't you try and leave the union!
They were fighting because they were like, yo, slavery is evil.
It's evil.
We've long emerged out of that idea, emerged away from that idea.
It's archaic, it's wrong, it's a violation of rights, and Frederick Douglass made a profound statement when he challenged Americans to live up to the document they themselves created.
That all men are created equal.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So now I'll bring these ideas together, and what I mean is, if we get an end of Roe v. Wade, and all the red states ban it, and all the blue states don't, we will then have our strong moral divide.
And I'm just gonna say it.
Look, first and foremost, you guys, you know that I lean pro-choice on this issue, and I'll explain in great detail as we get into all this stuff, but I certainly don't lean in the direction of where the modern left has gone, because they're outright pro-abortion.
But I can say this definitively.
The pro-life stance is a strong moral stance.
The pro-choice stance is not.
Now, people who are pro-choice, for the most part, or pro-abortion, might just passively say, sure, why not?
But the pro-life stance is very much adamant.
Meaning, there are many people in the South who didn't care about slavery, they benefited from it.
And there are people in the North who are willing to die to end it.
People like Hans Christian Hegg.
I admittedly don't know too much about him, but my understanding is he wasn't even American.
They built a statue for him.
Leftists tore it down.
This is a guy who was an abolitionist.
Abolitionists had strong moral positions on slavery.
Not every person who fought in the war was an abolitionist, but what I'm saying is the people who oppose abortion view this as a moral imperative, something they must end.
And the people who are pro-choice and pro-abortion are kind of just like, yeah, you know, I kind of lean towards, or I believe in, but are they willing to actually die for it?
I don't think so.
But let's talk about these arguments and see what's going on.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member, and help support our work as a member.
You'll be funding our fierce and independent journalism, and we are about to hire a couple more journalists to do original reporting, social media work, and just write more breaking news, so we're expanding.
Plus, we have many more shows coming, and it's expensive.
You know, when people don't sign up, we still produce this new content, and that just costs us money.
So we're, you know, we're investing in this because we believe in it.
Because it's more important to buy journalism, to fund good journalists, as opposed to getting a fancy new car or something like that.
So, the more you guys sign up to become members at TimCast.com, the more we're just going to keep hiring people and expanding the business, building out new facilities, recording new shows, because that's what we believe in.
You also get access to our exclusive members-only segments from all of our shows, including TimCast IRL and Tales from the Inverted World, so don't miss that.
And don't forget, like this video right now, smash that subscribe button, and share this video.
I don't got the marketing budget of CNN, and YouTube puts them on the front page.
If you really want to help us out, share these videos.
Let's read from The Hill.
Supreme Court seems poised to consider new limits on rights to abortion.
They say a majority of Supreme Court justices appeared poised to consider setting new limits on the right to abortion during oral arguments Wednesday over a Mississippi law that takes direct aim at the landmark decision Roe v. Wade.
The Mississippi law at issue, which bans virtually all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, conflicts with the nearly five-decade rule that says states cannot prohibit abortion prior to when a fetus can live outside the womb, known as fetal viability, which occurs at around 24 weeks.
But on Wednesday, the court's conservatives, who constitute a six-member majority on the bench, posed sharp questions about how firmly rooted Roe's viability standard is in the Constitution.
If you think that the issue is one of choice, that women should have the choice to terminate their pregnancy, that supposes that there is a point at which they've had the fair choice, the opportunity of choice.
And why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line?
Viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice.
But if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time, Chief Justice Roberts asked, and I gotta admit, it's a really good point.
The challenge is, what's being argued could overturn Roe v. Wade, and thus that argument is pointless.
The argument, and this is the challenge of it, John Roberts makes an excellent point.
If a woman has nearly three months to figure out if she's pregnant or not, then she has the choice to do so.
And if she engages in, you know, adult behaviors, and then decides within a month to go get a test, that's only four weeks, and maybe the test comes back positive, she can go get tested again, I think it's a reasonable argument.
The issue, however, is that if the argument Is the right argument?
Well, then it actually ends up overturning Roe v. Wade and getting abortion banned outright.
So, the question doesn't become about choice.
It becomes about, look, if we lose this case and you overturn Roe v. Wade, then women won't have the choice at all in large portions of this country.
Now, I'm not saying it's right or wrong.
I'm not issuing a ruling on this.
I'll get into my opinions in a second.
I'm just pointing out this argument here, while I think is correct, may have greater implications.
They say the scene of dueling pro and anti-abortion activists outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday underscored the enormous stakes and political gravity of a case that sits at the intersection of women's health and bodily autonomy, deeply held religious belief about the sanctity of human life, and the potential cost in the court's legitimacy.
If the justices depart from past abortion rulings that have been relied upon for generations, Roberts along with fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are seen as key votes in the case.
That conservatives and anti-abortion activists see as their best chance in decades to undermine or even overrule Roe and related decisions.
Kavanaugh asked multiple times why the court is better suited than Congress or the states to referee a highly divisive fight that pits the interests of pregnant people seeking abortion against the interests of fetal life.
One interest has to prevail over the other at any given point in time, Kavanaugh said to the U.S.
Solicitor General, who argued against the law.
Why should this court be the arbiter rather than Congress, the state legislature, state supreme courts, the people, being able to resolve this?
And there will be different answers in Mississippi than New York, different answers in Alabama than California, because there are two different interests at stake, and the people in those states might value those interests somewhat differently.
Wow!
Do I agree with Kavanaugh?
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms 4 America 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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
And I think mostly on the issue of the gun question.
New York has, their view on guns makes no sense for me in West Virginia.
You know, look, if a bear, we had a bear come on the porch in the middle of the night.
What am I supposed to do if a bear breaks the door down desperate, starving, and hungry because of the lockdowns, people aren't littering as much, there's less food.
So a bear went and tried to rip open my chicken coop.
This is a true story.
What am I supposed to do if we had New York-style laws in West Virginia?
I get it.
You live in New York.
You're not worried about bears.
I am.
Your law makes no sense for me.
More importantly, any law restricting the ownership and possession of guns, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.
But in that capacity, I throw it back to this question about the Supreme Court and the Roe v. Wade.
Brett Kavanaugh makes an excellent point not about abortion, but about the right of states to decide what makes the most sense for them.
I don't believe the Constitution enshrines the right to abortion.
I think that's a silly political argument.
However, I certainly do believe that the part of Roe v. Wade that is correct is medical privacy and that The government shouldn't play a role in when you go to your doctor and make a decision.
So there are very serious challenges here when it comes to being pro-choice.
Look, I don't like the idea of babies being aborted.
I don't.
I oppose that.
The challenge, however, is that I don't believe a woman who goes to the doctor and finds out something should have to then get approval from the government to get a medical treatment.
I don't believe the government should be able to mandate medical testing.
That's... I take issue with it.
The same... It's the same with the COVID passports.
I don't think the government has a right to be like, show me your papers, please.
And then a woman goes to the doctor, and she has an ectopic pregnancy or something like that, and they say, great, well, we can deal with this, but you gotta go get approval from the government.
No dice.
In which case, pro-choice.
But when it comes to this argument about 15 weeks, then I don't have any argument against that.
I mean, to be completely honest.
Let's get into the moral questions in a second.
I want to keep reading the news before I go off on my positions.
They say the 2018 Mississippi law, which has been paused during litigation, is just one of hundreds of abortion measures that states' legislatures passed recently, many with the explicit goal of overturning Roe.
The uptick in state abortion restrictions coincided with the Supreme Court's rightward shift that now includes three nominees from President Trump.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court's more liberal members, said on Wednesday that the court's reputation would suffer great damage if the justices were to uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban.
Such a decision, she suggested, would be viewed merely as reflecting in the court's now lopsided conservative majority composition, which I think is not an argument.
The legitimacy of the court is irrelevant.
The court exists.
They issue rulings.
Their rulings are or are not, period.
If you want to play politics, run for office.
In fact, Sotomayor's statement just backs up what Kavanaugh said.
This should go before Congress.
And I think so.
This is what the federal government is for.
If you want a national ban on abortion, Congress should weigh in on it.
The House and the Senate.
Quote, Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?
She asked Mississippi Solicitor General.
I don't see how it's possible.
Well, here's from NBC News.
A majority of the court's conservative justices suggested they were prepared to discard the court's previous standard that prevented states from banning abortion.
Here we go.
Check out this one from The Guardian.
Kavanaugh signals support for curbing abortion rights.
We scroll down a little bit and let me see if this guy's tweet is still here.
We have this from Mark Joseph Stern.
He tweeted, The case is submitted.
The Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022.
Half the states will have complete or near total bans on abortion within the six months.
Wow.
You know, when I saw that, I thought it was definitive.
I thought he was saying, like, they literally said, it's done, we get it.
No, no, no, he issued a correction, but I think his sentiment stands.
I think we understand it.
He says, too many people interpreted this tweet as a statement, a fact, rather than a prediction.
Understandably so, I've deleted it.
I should have said clearly that it was my best guess, not a certainty, and that's on me.
I believe Mark is correct.
Now Mark is a writer for Slate, obviously I'm not a big fan, but I believe he is correct.
Or I should put it this way.
Based on the readings from the left and the right and the media's assessment, it seems like there is a strong possibility Now there's some serious ramifications people need to understand.
But let's take a look at some other statements.
Let's take a look at some arguments.
Lawrence Hurley said Supreme Court abortion arguments have concluded.
It seems conservative justices have the votes to uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban,
but the question is how far will they go in either gutting or completely overturning Roe v. Wade?
Now, I don't know how they can do something other than overturn it or don't. That's a challenge.
And Roberts' argument stands.
You know, I look at this and I say, I think there's a challenge in—well, let's put it this way.
We'll start getting a little bit into my politics, but then I'll get more in-depth in a second because I've got some more articles.
You have another life.
You have two lives.
You have the woman, you have the baby.
At a certain point, there could be issues.
And I don't like the idea that there are people who just use abortion as a form of contraception.
I think that's wrong.
However, I also don't like the idea of the government saying, papers please.
Oh, you want to get a medical procedure?
Get approval from the government.
That's, to me, very worrying.
But at a certain point about viability, there's an interesting point.
The rights of the fetus now are in play.
In which case, if you want to terminate a life, then perhaps there should be some consultation with the authority that prevents the killing of individuals.
In which case, it's always seemed rather reasonable to me that we have safe, legal, and rare.
That there are circumstances where we say the government shouldn't intervene, but when the fetus is viable, well, now you have a question of aborting it stops the right to life of this individual.
Granted, I understand it's a fetus, but the argument that it's not alive is insane.
In which case, if they can deliver the baby and it can survive, then why terminate it?
Why kill it?
It's a tough question.
I'm not going to pretend to be a scientist or a doctor, but I certainly think that it's reasonable to give someone three months, no questions asked, right to make, you know, these decisions for themselves without government intervention.
And then once the viability comes in play, now you are seeking a request from the government to get permission to terminate a life.
That's mostly my position on this.
And again, rather pro-choice.
So I'm not entirely convinced overturning Roe v. Wade will be good, okay?
But let's read this.
This is interesting.
From the Washington, I'm sorry, from the National Review.
Pro-abortion attorney fudges facts on international abortion.
An interesting point was made.
During the morning's oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson, Justice Roberts asked Julia Rickleman, one of the attorneys arguing against the Mississippi ban, on abortion, about U.S.
abortion policy compared to the rest of the world.
Roberts noted that the U.S.
is one of only seven countries to allow abortion after 20 weeks, and pointed out that most European countries limit abortion far earlier.
In response, Rickleman alleged this wasn't true, and claimed that Roberts was incorrect to say U.S.
abortion policy is extreme compared to the rest of the world.
She argued most of Europe allows abortion until viability.
This is untrue.
Nearly every European country that allows abortion at all limits it to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
and a handful allow it to 15 weeks. They do not, as Rickleman suggested, allow abortion after that
point for broad social reasons. Meanwhile, Roberts was correct. The US is only one of
seven countries along with North Korea, China, Vietnam, Canada, Singapore, and the Netherlands
to allow abortion for 20 weeks. It's telling that Rickleman refused to respond honestly.
To do so would have exposed how beyond the pale her side's argument really is. Well,
I don't completely agree with that last point, but I certainly believe there's challenges because
There's no middle ground here.
I don't think anybody's arguing for pro-choice.
The left has consistently argued for abortion to viability—I'm sorry, abortion to birth.
I mean, this happened in Virginia, with the governor famously saying, we would deliver the baby, it would be kept comfortable, and the mother and the doctor would make a decision.
That, to me, sounds insane.
But I think Roberts made a very, very good argument.
You see, one of the things the left has routinely brought up about 16-week abortion bans is that they've said women don't even know they're pregnant at this point.
Okay, I'm listening.
Well, Roberts brings up other countries.
The United States is not Europe.
What's your argument?
Oh, your argument is that in Europe, they allow abortion for 12 weeks in many countries, and women seem to be able to work that system feasibly and fine.
If that's the case, it's not about the country implementing it.
It's about the fact that individual women in this country will still be able to choose to get a no-strings-attached, attached to no-explanation abortion.
I don't understand.
I think, I feel like the left has actually put Roe v. Wade at risk by trying to argue something that's a losing argument.
Mississippi was saying 15 weeks.
They said we're going to challenge that in court.
Did they not expect the Supreme Court with a conservative majority may actually overturn Roe v. Wade outright if you argue this?
You could have let the law go and said, well, it's still better than Europe.
Perhaps you lose some ground, but losing Roe v. Wade, in my opinion, is actually potentially bad.
Let me show you this article and explain.
From the Des Moines Register, overturning Roe v. Wade could have unpredictable consequences for privacy rights.
They say, perhaps the co won't overturn Roe, whatever, this article is from 2019.
They say the Supreme Court decision finding a right to privacy arose in a 1965 case
involving the right of a married couple to use contraception called Griswold v. Connecticut.
But the right has become responsible for court decisions supporting adults' right to intimacy,
gay marriage, and the rights of parents to make family decisions, such as whether their
children are homeschooled or go to religious school.
The right to privacy also supports an adult's right to decide about their medical care.
This medical care also implicates the right and autonomy of the physically disabled.
We get it.
The concept of a right to privacy goes back to a Harvard Law Review article in 1890.
Now, I don't want to get into too much about this, but suffice it to say, this was very much a big part of Roe v. Wade.
They say, there are two main perspectives on how the court might overturn Roe.
Some argue the court could eventually negate the abortion right alone, but keep privacy alive in other areas.
They argue that abortion is unique because the state has a special interest in protecting the fetus, which I believe is true.
This seems like a narrow ruling.
Yet, this is not so simple, as the court would inevitably have to undermine its prior decisions extending the privacy right beyond Griswold and Roe.
Thus, one cannot presume that even this narrow reversal of Roe would guarantee the privacy rights application to the areas mentioned earlier.
Now look, I don't... I...
I like medical privacy.
I think it's very important.
I don't like the government saying papers, please.
I believe that there is a reasonable ground here that, you know, a long time ago, a couple decades ago, we all kind of begrudgingly agreed to.
Safe, legal, and rare.
Well, it turns out that wasn't true.
I believe the overwhelming majority, like 99% of abortions, are for no reason.
You know, some people go in and say medical emergency.
They'll say, you know, potential fetus viability, threat from the mother, rape, incest, etc.
Now what we're finding out is they don't give a reason.
They say, eh, just don't want it.
And that, to me, is sad.
It's very sad.
And it's an overtly negative consequence of saying people have a right to privacy between their doctor and them, and therein lies the very difficult political position of how much power you want to extend to the government.
Ben Shapiro makes a very good argument, a very compelling argument, that the government, if anything else, has a duty to protect life.
We enshrine the powers of law enforcement in murder investigations and preventing death and the military and even going out and taking life.
And if that's one thing we know they do, well, then in the issue of abortion, there should be intervention.
But my issue, then, is Mostly about medical privacy.
And I do face a very serious ethical conundrum in that there are people who have overwhelmingly exploited that system.
There's no middle ground.
There's none.
I can tell you though, the battle has been completely divided between pro-life, pro-choice, and then the absolutely absurd pro-abortion.
This is true.
We saw that comedian on Netflix.
She did that special, Michelle Wolf was her name.
Everybody gets abortions!
Woo!
We heard Lena Dunham say she wished she had an abortion.
That kind of stuff horrifies, you know, like the people, like for me and personally, but also just everyone I've known growing up.
I can't believe some people have actually adopted this view.
I believe it was Phil Labonte of All That Remains who tweeted, if there's one issue that's going to create a very severe dividing line between, you know, politically moderate leftists and the left, it's this issue.
Because Tulsi Gabbard comes out and says, you know, safe, legal, rare.
I agree.
And then the right says, pro-life.
And I say, well, we can compromise.
And we say, okay, fine, 15 weeks.
And we say, I hear the arguments, safe, legal, and rare.
We don't like the abuse, but we do think it's a private medical decision and there's very serious issues, so let's negotiate.
But now you have pro-abortion people.
You had women.
Take a look at this.
Protestors allegedly take abortion pills outside Supreme Court ahead of Blockbuster case.
I don't know if they actually took abortion pills, but the idea that they would claim to and the potential that they did, I mean, that's to me, that's insane.
So let's go to the Civil War question.
Whether or not we will actually face something.
You know, I saw this story.
It's interesting.
It's from just the other day.
Ray Dalio says America's decline will upend lives, not just portfolio.
And he's not just talking about a financial crash.
Dalio believes there's a 30% chance the U.S.
will enter into a major civil war-type conflict within the next five years.
While other countries face similar challenges, America looks especially vulnerable.
Quote, It's very important that we deal with this now.
We can have a type of civil war or international war based on how we are behaving with each other and our financial conditions.
What's more, the U.S.
is not alone in facing this dire scenario.
Dalio has built his business in net worth, which Forbes estimates at roughly $20 billion, on figuring out where the world's going and designing investment strategies to profit from it.
This guy.
He makes predictions.
He makes money off those predictions.
20 billion.
That's a heck of a lot of money.
He's saying a one-third chance that we're going to enter into some kind of civil war type conflict.
I hear.
I hear him.
I agree.
Now, here's the big question.
The moral divide.
As I was mentioning with Phil Labonte, I find myself more in agreement with conservatives and pro-lifers than I do the far left and the establishment left that have gone full pro-abortion.
When Northam in Virginia came out and said, what we would do is the baby would be delivered and kept comfortable and then the mother and the doctor would make a decision and I'm like, what does that mean?
I don't care how you want to interpret it.
Some people said it means a baby with severe mental or health defects, and I'm like, I don't care!
Are you talking about a baby with a medical condition, and you decide to kill it?
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 I don't know, man.
I don't know.
I certainly understand the challenges that these people would face, but the problem to me there is a slippery slope about who we then get to determine gets to live or die.
And so I'll make this point, you know, uh, Seamus, uh, good friend of the show.
He's been on the show multiple times.
You know, we've argued and debated pro-life versus pro-choice.
And I think, you know, we agree on a lot.
And I was trying to say, dude, I think we agree on almost, almost all of this.
And he, he doesn't want to, because he's just like, no matter what, it's wrong.
They're terminating a life.
And I'm like, I agree that it's wrong, but I don't like the government coming in.
So he actually made a, uh, a sketch on his show, Freedom Tunes, about politically pro-choice, which was critical of a lot of my positions.
I can accept that.
I have no problem accepting my positions are very difficult to maintain morally because of the challenges of navigating the space.
There's like no middle ground.
And I don't have an answer.
Other than what I've said, you know, I had a good conversation with Glenn back pro-life and we ended shaking hands saying wow, you know, we don't know we don't we disagree completely, but how do we solve don't know but that's the thing, you know, my position on this is very sympathetic and understanding of the pro-life argument and the great arguments and And then I just come into the challenge of how much authority we grant the government over our private medical decisions, and if we grant that right to the government to take away our privacy, how long until they say, hey look, you overturned Roe v. Wade, we're doing vaccine passports, we have a right to know about any medical procedure you're doing.
What if you then want to go in for anything else that's deemed morally questionable and the government's like, we're going to intervene on that surgery because it uses stem cells?
What if they say, we're going to intervene because it uses radiation and it could potentially cause harm?
I just...
I always say it.
Your medical decisions are between you and your doctor.
It's fairly consistent.
For me, I completely 100% recognize the ethical nightmare that is of people abusing the system to use abortion as contraception.
And then I'm like, that's bad.
We shouldn't tolerate that.
What do we do?
I don't know.
Because then what?
People have to submit paperwork to justify their medical procedures?
Dude, no, man.
This is tough.
Right?
It really is.
I'm not going to pretend I have the answers.
I'm not going to lie to you and pretend to be pro-life because, you know, a lot of people who watch my show are pro-life.
I'm not going to lie to you and pretend to be a conservative because I have conservatives who watch the show.
I'm going to stand by what I think is right, even if you think it's wrong.
But I'll absolutely have that conversation and I will do my best to represent your position, those who disagree with me, to the best of my abilities.
It's all we can really do.
In the end, I'll tell you this.
I get accused of bias.
I get accused of clickbait.
I get accused of all that nonsense.
Yo, The Hill, NBC, Slate reporters, all saying the Supreme Court seems poised to restrict abortion rights and maybe even overturn Roe v. Wade.
I mean, the Slate guy said it outright as a prediction.
And when I put up headlines like this, they're like Tim's bias and making clickbait.
I'm like, I'll tell you this.
I think it's fair to say that what I choose to report has that impact 100%.
But this is happening.
This is reality.
And I'll point out one other thing.
This is from Reuters.
When Reuters writes their article, that conservative signal support for abortion limits, they include a paragraph in this article that should not be here.
Reuters is supposed to be news, and they write, at the end of this article, if Roe were overturned or limited, large swaths of America could return to an era in which women who want to end a pregnancy face the choice of undergoing potentially dangerous illegal abortions, traveling long distances to a state where the procedure remains legal and available, or buying abortion pills online.
The procedure would remain legal in liberal-leaning states, with 15 having laws to protect abortion rights.
I read that and I was like, why is that in the article?
A lot of things could happen.
You could write, if Roe were overturned, or limited, large swaths of America could return to an era in which fetuses were protected and life is cherished, and that people rejoice under the rainbows.
You can write anything you want about what might happen.
Why is Reuters opining on the nightmare scenario?
Honestly, because the media is biased.
And I think we all know it.
And this is the inherent challenge.
If you don't come out overtly saying that, you know, it's a nightmare scenario and conservatives are evil, they'll call you right-wing.
I just try to say that, you know, people are people.
Some people are NPCs.
Some people are discerning.
Some people have moral opinions I don't agree with on the left and the right.
And for that, they will smear me.
And they'll smear you.
Because you're either in with their narrative or you're not.
I'm curious as to what will ultimately will happen.
But the reason I bring up the Civil War scenario, again, just to reiterate as we kind of wrap these things up, this is a strong moral question.
And the right absolutely is steadfast.
And the left isn't.
Now they go out and they'll joke and they'll say women's rights and all that stuff, but they haven't been strongly following this for the most part.
I do not believe the left will be willing to engage in conflict over this, but the right would be.
I suppose the issue then is, if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, and all the red states ban abortion, but the blue states decide to keep it legal, how long until it goes to Congress?
And the red states and the red tsunami say, we are going to federally ban abortion now, and the blue states say no, and then the blue states, once again, the Democrats, find themselves on the losing side of a moral, federal question.
That's what happened in the Civil War.
The Democrats were the ones who wanted the slaves, and the Republican Party was formed, I believe, basically around slavery.
Abraham Lincoln, the party of Lincoln, said, we're not going to allow this anymore.
It'd be really funny if there's a red tsunami in 2022, Roe v. Wade was overturned, blue states are allowing unregistered abortion, and then the House and the Senate, with the red wave, pass a federal abortion ban.
What will the Blue States do?
I don't know, man.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Come hang out live, and we'll see you all then.
This may be one of the best opening lines for a news article I have ever read.
The Daily News reports LeBron James tests positive for COVID-19 will miss several games, according to reports.
When I was getting vaccinated to travel the world, I was told that I had to get immunized.
They say you have to get immunized or inoculated or vaccinated, but they really didn't say vaccinated.
So I'm at the office.
I was at Vice, and we had this security protocol meeting, and I was told I needed to get immunized from a few different potential viruses, notably yellow fever if you're traveling to Venezuela.
That's how they said it.
Like, you know, you need to go get your yellow fever shot and get immunized, blah blah blah.
Immunized?
Was that the wrong word?
Were we just poor dumb yokels but ten years ago?
They say not even the king is immune to COVID-19, but LeBron James claims to be fully vaccinated against the virus.
So, I get it.
You know, YouTube threatens to ban people who talk about, who claim that there's low efficacy towards the vaccines.
But think about the insanity of the world that we're in.
Where YouTube says you can't claim—legit says you can't claim that the vaccines are less effective or anything like that.
And then we have a news article saying not even the king is immune to COVID-19, but he is fully vaccinated.
So they're straight up saying the vaccine does not give you immunity?
He's not—okay.
Maybe this is Fauci's Omicron or whatever, or, uh, look.
I'm not here to give anybody medical advice.
I'm just here to be bewildered.
Same as you.
And that's enough for me.
Alright, I'll put it this way.
You go talk to your doctor, you figure out what makes sense for you, but I think this is a very important point.
There's a Jimmy Carr, I think his name is.
Apparently a lot of people are mad at him because he made a joke where he insulted people who don't want to get the vaccine.
And I'm like, if people are bewildered because you see stories about not even the king is immune to COVID-19, but he is fully vaccinated, what's the issue?
The issue, I suppose, is we have new variants.
The variants have different levels of infectivity, and I guess the CEO of Moderna was saying that they're not going to have an Omicron vaccine for some time.
Pfizer was saying their vaccine should be good, but if COVID is this new kind of very potent and powerful virus, because I've had it, and it was something else.
It was powerful, man.
Don't underestimate it.
And it keeps mutating.
I mean, it's endemic, right?
So, the news here.
I'm not, you know, somebody who watches the NBA or follows that stuff for the most part, but this is fairly big news.
I mean, this is LeBron James.
James, who has said he is fully vaccinated against the virus, will miss several games, according to ESPN.
According to NBA rules, players must test negative on two separate days before they can be cleared to return.
Players who test positive must sit out 10 days.
You know what the craziest thing about this story is?
Google it.
And you know what you see?
All of the headlines are, you know, LeBron James will miss several games due to COVID protocols.
And I'm like, what does that mean?
What does that mean?
Okay.
And then I find one.
Here we go.
Daily News at least had the balls to say it.
Tests positive for COVID-19.
Instead, they're just like, oh, take a look at this.
Dan Bongino, this is from the Colorado Springs Gazette.
Dan Bongino infected with painful breakthrough case of COVID-19, one of the worst things I've ever experienced.
He says, quote, so I had COVID.
You know my vaccine history.
I've spoken about it.
It was obviously a breakthrough case.
It was not a mild case.
It was actually a pretty painful case.
So I don't know what the other cases are.
These breakthrough cases, I can't speak to them.
I can only speak for myself.
It was not a mild case.
It was a pretty awful case.
But he goes on to say, I'm not a doctor. I worked with the doctor though. I took the antibodies,
the monoclonal antibodies, and I can tell you within 36 hours I felt better. I also took
ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C.
I'm not going to correlate or make casual inferences about any of that. The breakthrough case
for me was not mild at all.
It was one of the worst things I've ever experienced.
Well, I also had COVID.
I also received... I didn't get hydroxychloroquine.
I got ivermectin.
I got azithromycin.
I got monoclonal antibodies, a vitamin drip, and NAD.
And I was better within 12 hours or so, but it was painful.
Not the most painful thing I've ever experienced.
Second most.
And I really mean it.
It's surprising, too, because I'll talk to people, and we'll have guests here on the show, we'll have their crew, and I'll say this, and they'll be like, what?
I had people commenting when I said this, saying, they were like, wow, Tim must be morbidly obese or something, and I'm like, no.
I don't know, I'm part Asian, and they say that Asians have more ACE2 receptors, maybe that was a factor.
I don't know, Dan Bongino said he had a really bad case, but let me tell you, About 10 years ago, I was overseas, and one of my wisdom teeth got infected.
I mean, this is a thing that happens, kind of gross.
And so, when I got back, it was swollen, and I went to the dentist, or the orthodontist, or whatever, and they were like, we're gonna have to pull that out, and then give you antibiotics.
And they did.
That was the most painful thing I have ever experienced.
Not the removal.
But after it was removed, I was pale, sweating profusely, and just shaking on my friend's couch.
And all the painkillers they gave me did nothing.
I was like rocking back and forth every minute, was just clicking by as slow as slow could be.
That was the most excruciating thing I've ever experienced.
I've also had a kidney stone and yeah, painful.
Yeah, it was painful.
People don't understand this.
Kidney stones are when from your kidney in your ureter or ureter or whatever you pronounce it, is when there's this blockage so it feels like appendicitis.
You know, people don't understand.
They think it comes out your urethra or whatever.
We're getting gross here.
But my point is, When I had COVID, this is now almost two months ago, or a month and a half ago, it was the second most painful thing I've gone through in my life.
And I legit, literally mean that.
That's why I'm very serious about, you gotta find a doctor that you trust, you gotta find a doctor that... You gotta talk to a doctor, you know, and take this stuff seriously.
I don't know what's going on with this Omicron, Omicron thing.
You know, they're saying that it's more infectious, it's not as bad, it may be worse, we don't know.
What's happening with these variants is that the more extreme strains of COVID are basically... What's the right word?
They're having trouble spreading because they're too extreme.
So like, whatever it is I got, and I tested positive and all that stuff, I didn't go anywhere.
I was basically locked down.
And because of that, I couldn't spread it to anybody.
But when people get these more transmissible, lighter strains, and they don't notice, or they just have the sniffles, then they might go to a party and not realize it.
Then they might go to the movies and spread it.
Maybe they have the sniffles and don't think twice.
No reason to get a test if you just sneezed a couple times.
So what happens is, new strains emerge that are much less deadly over time, because the deadly ones don't transmit properly.
But I will say, I can't speak to why fully vaccinated LeBron James is the king who is not immune from COVID.
I suppose you gotta get your booster shot, that's what they're saying, so look, don't take it from me, you know, do what you think is right for your health and talk to your doctor, but even Dan Bongino, who's fully vaccinated, also got it.
Well, let me show you the article from the Daily Beast.
We screwed up.
This is really a three-dose vaccine.
I've talked about this several times.
This may be one of the most important stories, in my opinion.
Global studies are showing that a third jab is not a booster.
It's an essential element of the vaccination, and we shouldn't have given the first two doses so close together.
Well, far be it from me to trust the word of the Daily Beast, because they're not doctors, but you can see where the narrative is going.
And now, Dr. Fauci has a new narrative for us.
Fauci says Omicron may not be a big deal, But the US should prepare for the worst.
And we are.
Because of Omicron, Joe Biden is now implementing new travel restrictions, or trying to.
The courts are striking down his vax mandates.
And the cultist Democrat establishment people are livid.
You know, I'm just going to go for it.
I'm just going to show you this.
We have this tweet from this guy, Jeff Kemp.
Actually, hold on.
We have a story from Politico.
Biden will lay down new travel restrictions as Omicron threatens.
A Titan testing window will be part of the administration's attempt to curb the spread of the virus ahead of another holiday travel period.
Okay, now we'll go to this tweet first from Anthony LaMesa, who said, this is what the Biden administration wants to demand from fully vaccinated and boosted travelers.
Are you kidding me?
It says, As part of enhanced winter COVID strategy, Biden plans to announce on Thursday U.S.
officials will require everyone entering the country to be tested one day before boarding flights, regardless of their vaccination status or country of departure.
Administration officials are also considering a requirement that all travelers get retested within three to five days of arrival.
In addition, they are debating a controversial proposal to require all travelers, including U.S.
citizens, to self-quarantine for seven days, even if their test results are negative.
Those who flap the requirements might be subject to fines and penalties.
The first time such penalties would be linked to testing and quarantine measures for travelers in the United States.
Jeff Kemp says, this is nonsense.
I decided to get vaccinated plus the booster.
I shouldn't be treated the same as the people out there depending on prayer, good luck, and dewormer.
I'm gonna raise holy hell if Biden lands here.
You're gonna cry about it?
What are you gonna do?
You're gonna cry about it?
You vote for Joe Biden?
Did you agree with everything they've been saying?
Did you get on board?
Oh no, now you're shocked to find that you're gonna be treated the same as the dewormer people?
Oh wow!
Surprise!
As if no one saw that coming.
The Daily Beast straight up says it's a three-dose vaccine.
So no, Mr. Kemp, you are not boosted.
You barely have full vaccination!
And just give it time.
Eventually, they'll say, you know what?
Turns out it's a four-dose vaccine.
Look, if you want to get the vaccine like Dan Bongino or a bunch of the guests that we've had, it's up to you.
It's up to you.
I mean, I think, I believe the data.
A lot of people, we have a problem.
When it comes to large-scale endeavors where people don't understand percentages.
So when it comes to the adverse events coming from vaccines and potential breakthrough cases, you need to understand that if you have 330 million people and we administer, you know, 170 vaccinations, double doses, that out of 170 million, if the margin of failure is, you know, 0.1%, that's going to be a lot of stories and is 0.1% tolerable.
What I'm saying is this.
I don't know or care, and I am sick of scientific arguments from people who don't know anything about it.
It really does annoy me.
Because we don't need to be having that argument at all.
It's a distraction.
You know, people coming out and saying, you know, I argued with Joe a bit about it.
Joe Rogan, when he was, you know, on his show, and he's saying, like, we should be taking into consideration natural immunity, and I'm like, why are we even having an argument the extent to which we're willing to accept government mandates on this?
It's a non-issue for me.
I'm not a scientist.
I'm not a doctor.
I don't know, man.
I can read articles.
I can choose to trust or distrust them.
Now, I'll tell you, it is bewildering when LeBron James and Dan Bongino, both fully vaccinated, get breakthrough cases, but it's also possible that breakthrough cases happen.
And maybe, like I said, if you have 170 million people who are vaccinated, you're going to get these cases.
And sometimes those cases will be high profile.
I'll put it this way.
It's irrelevant.
To me, it is irrelevant.
What matters is that we should be saying there is no circumstance by which we allow the government to mandate a medical procedure.
Have a nice day.
Sorry.
You know, look, they can say public institutions that are under local control can vote for how they want this to operate.
Private institutions within reason can decide how they want to operate.
But saying that you must undergo an irreversible medical procedure, I don't care what it is.
I literally don't care.
You can come to me and say, but we need to get everyone vaccinated, and I'll be like, it's not your decision to inject someone with something.
It's them and their doctor.
And you can say, we need to make sure that, you know, everybody, whatever, has, you know, cybernetic legs so they can jump higher.
Look, there's a really great line from Star Trek The Next Generation, and you want to understand where my views on this comes from.
This is probably a really good point.
Seriously, if you haven't watched that show, maybe you won't like it, whatever.
But Data, he's an android.
He's not human.
And he's talking to Geordie LaForge, an engineer.
Geordie is blind, and he has a cybernetic visor that allows him to see better than any human.
And I believe, I could be, the gist of the story goes like this.
He says to Geordi, you know, are your eyes superior, your prosthetic eyes superior to that of a normal human or to any other human?
And he says, well, yes, of course.
I can see, you know, infrared.
I can see x-ray.
He can see, this cybernetic allows him to see beyond the visible spectrum.
And Data says, then why is it not required that all humans get their eyes replaced with this?
And it's a really good point.
You know, in the show, there's points where, like, Geordie gets his vision back, or, like, they talk about potential treatment, and he's like, this is who I am.
Think about where we go today if we say the government can mandate medical procedures.
Yeah.
They'll come out with new prosthetic eyes that see better, and they'll say, look, driving is a privilege.
Too many people have bad human eyes and human natural eyes are too weak and we don't want the risk.
So undergo your eye cyberization.
Otherwise, you don't get to drive.
I mean seriously, that's where we could be headed.
I know it's farfetched, it's a science fiction idea, but where we're at right now is them literally saying you cannot enter a restaurant unless you get an injection to stimulate your immune system against a particular virus.
Keeps mutating!
You know, and they blame the people who aren't getting the vaccine, but most people who aren't getting the vaccine don't live in big cities anyway.
So, I don't know.
Look, it's simple.
I'm a scientist or a doctor.
I can't give that advice.
I can tell you, if we come to a world where they invent amazing cybernetic prosthetics, Where we've already seen some really amazing stuff.
Robot hands!
And now they're talking about these devices that can act as a bridge between the brain and the broken spinal cord.
So if you're paralyzed from like the waist down, they can attach this device that sends a signal over and you can walk again!
And once they build something like that, and they say, we've discovered that the cyber spine has a, you know, 81% increased efficacy in neurotransmission, then they'll say, a lot of people trip and fall, a lot of people fall downstairs, people should be mandated to get this treatment, and it's no big deal, why not?
Everyone has some kind of cybernetic, every- no.
Uh-uh.
You can't do it.
You can't do it.
The courts have agreed.
Take a look at this.
Courts block two Biden administration COVID vaccine mandates.
This is from just the other day.
The Biden administration was blocked on Tuesday from enforcing two mandates requiring millions of American workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
U.S.
District Judge Terry Doty in Monroe, Louisiana temporarily blocked the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services from enforcing its vaccine mandate on healthcare workers until the court can resolve legal challenges.
The ruling applies to 10 states where CMS was already prevented from enforcing the rule due to a prior order from a federal judge in St.
Louis.
Doty said the CMS lacked the authority to issue a vaccine mandate that would require more than 2 million unvaccinated healthcare workers to get a coronavirus shot in Sweden.
There's already a video of them injecting RFID chips into people's hands so that they can have their identification, their COVID passport.
Let's put it this way.
You know, there's a great episode of, um, what show is it?
It's not Black Mirror.
Maybe it's Tales from the Loop.
Have you ever watched that show?
I can't remember.
Maybe you guys know.
Comment below if you know this one.
It's, uh, uh, there's people who live in isolated, like, lower technology areas where they've escaped the big cities, and the cities are all under this, you know, a system where you have to have this device you wear on your wrist that tracks you at all times.
You can't get food without it.
They have to make you wear an armband if you don't have it and stuff like that.
Alex Jones.
I remember him talking about, you know, 15 years ago.
Very chip.
And there were a lot of people that thought it would be cool to get a small RFID chip implanted in their hand, like right here between the thumb.
And what they were doing with it was it had your employee identification on it, and it allowed you to open doors.
It was effectively a key fob.
I don't understand the point of injecting a chip into my hand when I can literally get a little tiny piece of plastic, RFID, and put it in my pocket instead.
And if you don't have it, the door don't open!
Is it that complicated?
And then they can just clone a fob and hand it to you.
There's no reason to inject it.
A video came out of Sweden where people were really excited, you know, being trendy, and they pull up the skin and then they take this very thick needle and stick it in and inject a chip that has your vaccine passport information.
Under the pretext of crime.
Under the pretext of, you know, underage drinking or identity theft.
They say, look, we are dealing with a pandemic of cybercrime and criminal behavior.
And these criminals who commit these crimes, it's hard to track.
We need to be able to know for sure if people are lying to us.
Because when we arrested that guy, he said his name was John Smith, but his name was actually John Doe.
If you want to enter the business, you gotta get your chip.
I don't believe that will happen.
I think the problem with the RFID thing is it's too invasive and hard to do.
But it's not out of the realm of possibility if we allow the government to mandate medical procedures.
Eventually, it'll be normal.
You know, I was talking to my mom recently.
Actually, I've talked about this with my grandpa.
I remember him telling me that when they introduced social security numbers, you know, him and his friends were freaking out.
Like, the government wants to give us numbers?
Like, we're gonna have a registered number with the government?
What's that all about?
And then he was like, you were born with it.
You don't even care.
You never talk about it.
You don't protest it.
It's a normal part of your life.
And I was like, yep.
I don't care.
I don't even think about it, to be honest.
But he was like, this is not good.
And now here we are.
So what'll happen?
With these mandates, medical mandates, eventually, or I'll go back, sorry, real quick.
My mom was telling me that in the 80s, I guess, you wouldn't get your social security number until you were trying to get your job.
You're 16, you'd go and fill out the form, get your number, and then you can go get a job.
And now it's basically when you're born, you get it.
You have your registration number with the government.
That's reality.
Nobody protests that.
Kids are going to grow up and they're not going to care.
Like, I don't think about it.
You probably don't think about it.
Right?
So what happens next?
Chips.
I mean, you're going to be born and they're going to say, we're going to put a chip in the hand for tracking his personal medical history.
It'll keep him safe.
It'll allow us to identify him.
He'll never have to go to the DMV ever again.
Think about that.
No more waiting in long lines.
But it's important for your safety.
And the parents are going to be like, I want to do it.
I want to do it.
And then the kids will grow up with their chip in their hand and they'll not think twice.
I'm not entirely convinced it'll happen with chips.
I think chips are kind of an old-school idea.
We used to be like, in the future they'll microchip you.
No, I don't think so.
We already carry around our cell phones, which has everything on it.
In reality, I think what'll happen is they'll put your app on your phone.
Nobody wants to be without their phone.
Nobody needs to get microchipped or anything weird like that.
People willfully carry around their device that tracks them everywhere they go.
I do it, you do it, we all do it, and we love it!
It's great, isn't it?
The cyberization is happening.
So I can't tell you about vaccines or whatever.
I can only tell you about your rights.
I can't tell you about any medical procedures you should take because I'm not a doctor.
I can only tell you about your rights.
And what bothers me about the whole, you know, vaccine debate is that my position is squarely coming from a principle liberty point of view.
It is not the government's right, nor do they have the ability to bar you from public accommodation unless you undergo a medical procedure they think you should get.
Well, you're not my doctor.
Government.
And you have people who can't get it because they have underlying conditions.
Too bad, that's a reality.
And thus, we don't discriminate against them.
At least, we're not supposed to.
They are.
So the issue I take is, You read these stories, I don't know, it's up to you to figure out what you want to believe.
But my issue is, just let people choose.
And I think too many people on the liberty side are having an argument about science, and it's so easy to debunk.
Some libertarian will come out and be like, we gotta talk about natural immunity and the vaccine passports, and then someone will be like, did you read the new study from so-and-so and which-and-which?
And they're gonna go, no, and be like, aha!
And I'm just gonna be like, I didn't read that study and I don't need to to tell you the government should be mandating medical procedures next.
You know, this reminds me of the Jack Dorsey thing when I was on with Jack and Joe on Twitter, on Joe Rogan's show talking about Twitter, and everyone, I guess, assumed that I was gonna be this typical guy who'd show up and be like, why'd you be on Alex Jones?
We did talk about them banning Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos and things like that, and Carl Benjamin, and we talked about those issues.
But what they did not expect was for me to get into the core principle of the issue.
Your rules are biased.
Your perspective on what misgendering is does not apply to more than half the country, probably 80% of the country.
So when you say you can't misgender, you're confusing most people.
They weren't ready for that.
They just went, oh, uh... I mean, it's true.
Conservatives don't agree with their definition.
I don't care for this stupid, cliche, whatever mainstream argument about, you know, Rand Paul is like, natural immunity, and I'm like, I don't care!
I don't care if you have natural immunity because I think it's dumb to be like, I'm gonna get COVID to prevent COVID.
That's stupid.
If you don't want to get COVID, talk to a doctor and maybe you want to get vaccinated several times.
Okay?
It's up to you.
I don't know.
I'll tell you this.
Ain't nobody gonna come to me and be like, inject this.
Not gonna happen.
In fact, if you come to me and say that, I'm more likely to say no.
So I went to a cafe the other day and they had a big old sign on the door saying, please wear a mask upon entry.
And I was like, looked behind me, there's a Starbucks.
And I said, nope, no, it's Starbucks.
Walked up and there it was on the door, nothing.
It was a Christmas advertisement or something, I don't know.
25% off, I don't know what it said, I don't even remember.
And I walked in, nobody was wearing masks.
The workers were, but they didn't care what I did.
And I was like, well, there you go.
Look, if you want to have these things on your business, I'm free to go somewhere else.
A private business, I think, has, you know, a certain amount of rights.
But I do believe in public accommodation.
That's where the government should not be discriminating against people.
By all means, have all the scientific arguments you want.
Explain away why did you think the king is not immune from COVID when he's got two vaccines.
I don't know.
All I know is I think the government should mandate it.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The police in the Northern Territory in Australia have arrested three people who escaped from Howard Springs COVID quarantine facility.
Now, of course, the police were not armed when they made the arrest.
Hold on, hold on.
Arrest?
I don't know if that's the right word.
Guardian?
Kate Kelly of The Guardian is pushing conspiracy theories here.
Nobody escaped from the Howard Springs quarantine facility.
They've all gone there voluntarily.
Nobody's forcing them.
Nobody's armed.
Nobody's being harmed.
These are just poor people who don't have access to hospitals.
And so when they were here for their own safety, they must have been confused.
and wandered over a chain-link fence, and then wandered away from the facility where some nice, fine police
officers walked over to them and politely escorted them back inside.
Okay, I think you get it. It's a bit. When you are being detained at a quarantine camp,
I'm not gonna play games.
People are being forcefully brought to camps in Australia, and it's getting worse.
And boy, does the propaganda manipulation machine not like me right now.
But it's true.
This is the story.
Last night, we saw something quite... I mean, it's tragicomedy.
I mean, what's happening with these camps and what's happening with the authoritarianism in Australia is horrifying.
But it's also funny in the sense about how they're responding to it.
Claire Lehman, of course, has been, you know, for Quillette, claiming, well, actually, I'll say Josh Zapps of Quillette said, international arrival bungalows.
That's all they are, people land in Australia and they get to stay there for two weeks.
At gunpoint.
By force.
With many stories of people being screamed at and yelled at and forced back into their little bungalows.
But then they started taking indigenous people from their communities, driving them here, 300 kilometers away, and I don't know what the narrative is supposed to be, that they're doing it voluntarily, that people are in their homes walking outside saying, howdy there mate, I could use a stay at that quarantine camp, and they say, oh, hop on in!
It's the most insane narrative ever.
But it's persistent.
The other night, we saw the story where they said several people, I believe it was nine people, were being suspected of absconding from the quarantine facility.
And it was funny because a lot of people were saying, why aren't they just saying escape?
Because the narrative that they've been trying to maintain is that people have voluntarily come to the quarantine facility.
And the word abscond is more about it means leaving stealthily, you know, without letting without letting anyone know.
So when you say people abscond, what the media is trying to do is avoid any narrative about this being involuntary detention.
There was a video a while ago of a guy at the camp wearing a mask, and he said they come out with food carts and everyone runs outside like dogs, like the bell ringing, time to eat, and he was critical of it.
And he pointed out a woman had taken her mask off for a sip of tea, and one of the guards started screaming at her to put it back on.
Now, of course, the official narrative that we're getting is that people go to this facility for two weeks just in case.
But I was assured by many of these Australian propagandists that they would never, never take an American, I'm sorry, an Australian citizen from their home to this facility, that they were international arrival bungalows.
Well, now we've got this great article from intrepid journalist Jesse Singal, So this one will be a little bit personal because, you know, I don't normally care to address overt lies, but when independent voices that are supposed to be challenging the narrative blindly just put out garbage, and it backs up the lies about what's happening in Australia, I think it's important to call it out.
Now, truth be told, the article's about me.
And so I want to absolutely push back.
Not something I normally do.
I try to keep everything above board, mostly focus on the news.
But because there's a decent overlap here, I get an emotional outlet.
I'm going to take it.
That being said, Jesse Singel has produced a completely false narrative, which essentially backs up lies from the mainstream media in an attempt to effectively discredit the work that I do.
Notably that I've claimed there was fraud in widespread fraud in the 2020 election, which anyone who watches my podcast or these videos knows that's literally not true.
He also claimed that I've put up conspiracy theories about what's going on in Australia.
I've got the Guardian pulled up.
I only use NewsGuard certified sources.
And you all know that as well.
And mostly he just complained that I had Jack Posobiec on my podcast.
Don't see him complaining about any of the leftists I've had on my podcast.
Admittedly, not that many.
Or the Libertarians.
Substantially more, for the most part.
No, it seems like this is just lazy regurgitation of lies that help back up horrifying activities in Australia.
Let me first show you this story from The Guardian.
Northern Territory police arrest three people who escaped from Howard Springs COVID quarantine facility.
Trio allegedly jumped the fence at the open-air center near Darwin early on Wednesday.
Well, at least the Guardian is actually saying it as it is.
I'm sorry, is this a conspiracy theory?
Because I gotta be honest, my opinion literally is just based off of mainstream news reporting that's got the Bill Gates checkmark on it.
What's that?
The Guardian's 100 out of 100.
Northern Territory Police have arrested all three.
They say all three tested negative for COVID on Tuesday and have now been taken into custody.
See, here's the issue.
You've got people who don't want to be there, very obviously, testing negative, obviously, and you want them to be quarantined with people who've tested positive.
Don't be surprised when they say, I don't want to get COVID.
I had COVID.
It was very bad.
Second worst pain I've ever had in my life.
I mean, it impacted... I brought it up in the previous segment, but it was bad.
No joke, bad.
Nine out of ten.
None have had a kidney stone before.
And that was not a nine out of ten.
It was bad.
And, you know, I'll put it this way.
Maybe it's not fair to say it was the worst pain or second worst, but it was all over my entire body.
I was struggling to breathe.
I had it bad.
Don't ask me why.
I don't know.
It just happened.
So I say don't underestimate it.
It's serious.
But if you got some teenagers that are being told they gotta be in this camp and they can't leave, that's not voluntary.
And when they're negative, they're probably talking to each other like, dude, if we stay here, we will get it.
So they escaped, and the police arrested them.
For what crime?
Escaping the concentration camp.
You see, they really got mad at me when I said concentration camp.
Notably, and obviously, hyperbole.
I'm not in any way insinuating that what's going on at the quarantine facility at Howard Springs is like gas chambers or anything like that.
No, I'm using hyperbole as a political and rhetorical tool To express what may happen when you don't push back against the government building large camps and then using military deployments to bring people there.
Wait till you see the propaganda they've put out to try and dispute this and I'll gladly break that down.
Earlier, police said the trio jumped the fence at the Center for National Resilience.
Oh, is that what they're calling it now?
They're not... Are you kidding me?
Police and staff at the Center for National Resilience are currently confirming the absconders' identities prior to releasing further information.
I'm sorry.
It's not a quarantine facility anymore.
Howard Springs is now the National Center for Resilience.
You kidding me?
I'm not making that up!
That's literally The Guardian.
Howard Springs is a large open-air facility that is being used to quarantine Australians returning from overseas.
It is also housing a number of residents from Catherine and surrounding areas where an outbreak of COVID-19 erupted last month.
The alleged escape comes a day after a returned traveler tested positive for the Omicron variant, and the facility in the territory continues to fight COVID outbreaks in remote communities.
The NT Health Minister, Natasha Files, confirmed on Tuesday that a man in his 30s had been diagnosed with the new variant.
I can confirm today.
You get it, you get it, you get it.
All right.
Let's, uh, here's the story from the Australian source, because I back everything up.
Now, abc.net.au is not, unfortunately, it unfortunately is not verified, uh, certified by Bill Gates's Microsoft-funded news guard.
Which I use for all my sources.
Now, it's an Australian official corporate press news source, so I have no problem using it if I know what it is.
But this is just basically the same information coming from The Guardian.
That is to say, I now have two different sources that are mainstream corporate press telling us the same thing.
Teenagers from remote NT community arrested after escape from Howard Springs COVID quarantine facility.
Now, who are these people and why were they quarantined, they say?
At a COVID update press conference, Northern Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner confirmed teenagers aged 15, 16, and 17 tested negative for the virus.
He said all three were from the Binjari community near Katherine and had been sent into quarantine as close contacts of positive cases.
So these are people who don't have COVID, who simply had close contact with someone with a positive case.
They were not brought there voluntarily.
Oh, I mean, let me just show you.
You know, here we go.
Northern Territory communities of Binjari and Rockall placed in hard lockdown over COVID cases.
Okay.
They say, this is the best part, under the lockdown, this traditional lockdown, residents could only leave home for five reasons, including essential shopping, essential work, providing or receiving care, exercise, and obtaining medical treatment.
Gunnar has announced Benjari and Raqqa residents now cannot leave their homes unless for a medical emergency.
Yes, these are strong measures, but the threat to lives is extreme.
As I said yesterday in my segment talking about this, it means you can't leave your home.
The Atlantic questioned whether or not Australia is even a liberal democracy anymore.
You can't leave your home to eat.
That's what they said.
Essential shopping is out.
So, the ADF.
Here we go, from Grabian.
Grabian, of course, News Guard certified.
You know it, you'll love it.
Chief Minister Gunnar, the Army is now transferring positive COVID cases and contacts in Northern Territory, Australia, to quarantine camps by Army trucks.
Okay.
If there's a conspiracy theory here, let me just say it comes from Grabian.
I didn't make this up.
I just read what they said.
But here's a quote.
He said, you know, 38 close contacts are being transported.
Those 38 are being transferred now.
I contacted the Prime Minister last night.
We are grateful for the support of about 20 ADF personnel, as well as many Army trucks, to assist with the transfer of positive cases and close contacts.
So all that's true?
Here we go.
I love it.
I love it.
From The Guardian.
Tinfoil hat-wearing tossers.
Northern Territory Chief Minister and Aboriginal elders hit back at COVID false information.
Gunner criticizes ridiculous, untrue rumors on social media about Defense Force involvement in Katherine outbreak.
Oh, I love it!
This is from November 25th, The Guardian.
Michael Gunner says... Criticizing untrue rumors about the Australian Defence Force involvement in the Catherine outbreak.
What is true?
He thanked the Prime Minister for 20 ADF personnel as well as trucks to assist with it.
Can I play the video?
Let's see if the video plays.
I don't wanna play if it's too long.
unidentified
It's been a long and difficult night for 130 residents.
Only medical treatment in an emergency will go up.
So what's the conspiracy theory that he's supposedly talking about?
You see, here's the game they play.
What he has gone on to say, there are ridiculous, untrue rumors about the ADF's involvement.
As we all know, they aren't carrying weapons, they're carrying fresh food for people.
99.99% of the BS that is flying around in the territories coming from America, Canada, blah blah blah blah blah.
I never said they were armed.
I never said armed military pointing guns at people.
I just said that they were now relocating indigenous people to camps.
Because that's quite literally what they're doing.
And the narrative popped up that certainly this must mean that it was voluntary, right?
Tim?
Do you have any evidence they're being taken by force?
I mean, it might be that, you know, consistently throughout the past year, people have been trying to escape the quarantine facility, and that implies you're being held there by force, and when you do escape, they arrest you and fine you and bring you back.
Sounds to me like that's not voluntary.
Which brings me now to our good old American propagandist, Jesse Singel.
I think he's American, I don't know, maybe he's not, but I'm pretty sure he is.
He wrote one of the... I have to address this because, for one, it is about me.
He wrote an article on Tim Pool and ideological capture and online cruelty, and I love just countering this.
Because it shows that, Jesse, wow, Jesse, you've done absolutely no research into anything going on in Australia.
I only use certified mainstream press, The Guardian, NewsGuard Certified, and videos to back up my claims, and I'll give it to you if Concentration Camp was a little too hyperbolic.
But as anybody who researches knows, I've routinely said, I am hyperbolic on Twitter on purpose, and don't take it all that seriously.
But that being said, if it's my fault for simply being hyperbolic to make a rhetorical point, that I can accept.
But to then go on and write a big BS article defending what's going on in Australia, defending Claire Lehman when she posts these photos of hot babes in the quarantine camp.
And then claim, this is his claim, that I am a victim of ideological capture.
That I make a video and then everybody love bombs me and I say, I'm gonna make another video just like this.
You may recall, you know, a perfect example of this just a couple weeks ago.
When I defended Bill Gates.
When Luke Rudkowski on TimCast IRL was coming down on Bill Gates, and I said, I'm sick of hearing this, there's a lot of billionaires, everyone's complaining about Bill Gates, for all we know he's a guy who reads the news, and boy did the chat light up saying, Tim Gates, stop defending Bill Gates, I'm unsubscribing, unfollowed, and I went, yeah, well, too bad, I stand by my opinion.
As I often say, and most of you know this, If you're expecting me to just pander, it's not going to happen.
I don't do that, and I don't care to do it.
I just talk about what I think is worth talking about, what I think is important.
But this is what he writes, and I do want to try and focus as much as possible on Australia in this capacity, but it's important because this is how the machine churns.
He writes for paying subscribers.
A free preview I wrote about how if you write about heterodox issues, you will hear from a very particular type of person, and how this can drag you into a dank ideological swamp if you aren't careful.
And this is what he writes.
It's literally called, On Tim Pool and Ideological Capture Online.
Now, his article is paywalled, so I could only read the first portion of what he provided, but it's laughably wrong.
Completely wrong.
And let me read.
Here's his argument.
He says, so you produce the episode and some people get mad at you on Twitter.
Others unfollow you because they're quietly disgusted.
You would even look into the subject.
And a larger group follows you because you took on that subject and they will mostly be a certain type.
And they'll be very nice to you, really appreciative.
And if you take too seriously or read too deeply into the fact that this group is being nice to you during this moment, and another group is screaming deranged overreaction at you on Twitter during this moment, and this same sequence happens two or three more times, you might start to feel your allegiance is shifting a little bit.
You also may start to get more and more skeptical of your old friends and your old ties.
This can, again, get pretty bad.
And I think he name drops me a couple times.
What I really think is, I think Jesse's using my name because he knows the show is popular.
He's just using this because he has an idea, but he needed to attach buzzwords to it in order to get clicks to pander to his audience.
He goes on to say, you know, this new way of knowing would presumably put me closer in proximity to Tim Pool and Jack Posobiec.
He's mad that I had Jack Posobiec on my show.
Jack's been on the show I think maybe like six times out of what we've done 400 some odd episodes and we've had leftists and libertarians.
He goes on to bring up Matt Iglesias and Lacey Green and he says, you know, they reacted and avoided the BS by going the Tim Pool route.
I just want to highlight exactly what he's saying because he's implying Specifically having to do uh, let me actually do I have this pulled up?
Let me pull this up The reason I bring this up is because I I know I don't want to get too much involved in in talking about myself Is that he's specifically highlighting my tweets on Australia, which is why I'm including this and I want to highlight and then Okay, there's absolutely a personal emotional response in me calling out the BS of the media lies about me.
But he highlights specifically me showing a news article from ABC.net saying, authorities identified 38 close contacts who were transported to Howard Springs.
They were transported, at least according to Gunner, who is, I believe, the Minister of the Northern Territory, with thanks to the ADF and their trucks, the army trucks that were being brought in.
Claire Lehman said, they're transferring people from remote indigenous communities who live hundreds of kilometers from any hospital.
You clearly know nothing about Australia, blah, blah, blah.
When did I say they weren't doing that?
That's it.
I said they were relo... So, I responded to this tweet saying, so, oh god, so the Australian military is forcing indigenous people not to leave their homes and relocating many to camps?
Claire really is a Nazi.
Those are facts.
The Australian military is on the ground.
According to Michael Gunner himself, they're there to assist.
Let me show you this in the tinfoil hat.
To alleviate checkpoints.
Let me make sure I get this.
There we go.
The army isn't going into communities with soldiers and guns.
The Air Force is helping out with trucks, drivers, and freeing up the police in checkpoints.
So, yes.
Okay, maybe a little hyperbolic.
But the Australian military is there.
They are providing lockdown assistance.
And I guess, okay, let me be more specific.
It's freeing up the police to not allow people to leave their homes.
I mean, if the minister is, or if Gunnar is coming out, I'm assuming, I believe he's the minister, is coming out and saying you can't leave your home even for food, Then, um, certainly someone has to enforce that.
And if people abscond from your facility, certainly it's someone who has to come and arrest you.
And if the military is providing assistance in that capacity, what did I say was wrong?
I think they just don't like the fact that I'm calling them out.
Which brings me to the crux of what he's trying to argue in his fake news piece.
One person responded, I don't know if this guy's who responded it, but a lot of people, they latch on to the lies and the manipulation in the media, notably from Jesse, who didn't do any research, admittedly, I mean, or I shouldn't say admittedly, I mean the dude kind of just stopped responding to me when I asked him.
They're arguing that I don't differentiate between leftists.
When, if you guys watch Tim Cast IRL, you know I always do.
I say leftists are pro-gun, pro-2A.
Vosh, we've had on the show, I think, twice now, and he's armed.
And there's left establishment.
There's the culture war left, the cultural left, which is the establishment and the leftists, and then there are the leftists, and then there's the establishment politicians, which include many Republicans.
I want to point out the manipulations here.
What he's done is he's seen a few tweets that he didn't like, he sided with Claire Lehman's manipulative lies about what's going on in Australia, because any reasonably discerning person can be like people who are trying to escape a facility aren't there voluntarily, and especially if they're getting arrested, That's by force.
And he decided to write a fake article about it.
What ends up happening is people who read this will come to believe that certainly I must be wrong.
Why must I be wrong?
Because I've been captured by my audience.
Okay.
Let's say, for an instance, his argument was correct.
Notably, that if you produce an episode and people get mad at you on Twitter and others like you, then you'll probably start drifting towards that group.
After we had Vosh on the show twice, I was getting heaps of praise from leftists.
In fact, there was a meme someone put out that was like, you know, if you had to be forced to stay in a room with someone, who would it be?
And it was like Ben Shapiro and me and someone else, and everyone was like, actually Tim seems pretty chill, just dumb.
Am I supposed to now, according to his narrative, be like, I better be a leftist because all these people like me!
When I was defending Bill Gates, oh yeah, you heard me, the context was that Luke on the show brought up Bill Gates, I was exhausted and just sick and tired of hearing about the guy, and I said, It was BARDA, the biological research thing for the United States, that announced they were working on some kind of treatment for weaponized smallpox.
Then a few months later, Bill Gates mentions he's worried about it.
And everyone acts like there's a conspiracy.
And I was like, dude, the guy probably just read the news.
The same thing as with Trump.
Now, I don't like Bill Gates.
I think his ideas are dumb.
I think he's a bad person.
Look at the history of what he did with Microsoft and how he formed it and all that stuff.
I'm not a fan.
But now, according to this narrative, what happens is when everyone in chat lit up calling me Tim Gates and saying Tim's defending Bill Gates and all that stuff, was I supposed to all of a sudden now embrace those who love Bill Gates?
According to Jesse, that's the case.
When I came out and said a Green New Deal, actually investment into infrastructure and green technology would be a good thing, were all the people who told me I was wrong, was I supposed to be like, well, I better be a leftist now?
When I said I think universal health care is actually an ideal to strive for, and my current position is that low-tier, basic universal health care is a good idea, supplemented by private health care, and all the libertarians started yelling at me saying I was wrong, am I supposed to now just start agreeing with Ocasio-Cortez on what's true and what isn't?
According to Jesse, the answer is yes.
This is the problem.
And again, to be honest, of course I have an emotional reaction to this guy.
You know, when you write something that's overtly false about me, I wish I could just pander, man.
I wish I could come out on YouTube and just say all the stupid garbage about fraud and go to my website and rally a ton of people to give me money on that basis.
It ain't gonna happen.
No, I'm persona non grata on the Trump forums.
They don't like me because I've said over and over again, no fraud.
Or at the very least, I've said, reasonably, I don't believe fraud is why Donald Trump lost the election.
What did Jesse Singleton tweet?
That I had conspiracy theories about ballots?
What?
And conspiracy theories about Australia.
This is why I use NewsGuard.
This is why you'll now understand.
What Jesse's actually saying is he doesn't like that I've talked about things that have been reported by certified NewsGuard sources.
This is what bothers me about the whole thing.
Jesse is a useful idiot.
I know that's a stupid term.
Everybody says it.
They call me a useful idiot.
But in this capacity, I think his intention was to write about an idea he's heard about before.
He said he learned about it from Eric Weinstein.
And he's not wrong.
It does exist.
There have been many people I've known personally Who kept tweeting things and were getting pulled and pulled further into some ideological pithole.
Strangely though, you'd think with all of the Trump supporters who followed me during the election, I would not be supporting a Green New Deal or a progressive tax or universal basic health care.
But these are things I principally believe are good, because I'm left libertarian.
The issue is, many of these things can't be implemented unless you have authority, which I don't believe in the authoritarian spectrum.
I'm not, I don't believe in that.
And thus, ultimately it comes down to persuasion.
Which then leads me to probably having more of an agreement with right libertarians on a lot of things.
It brings me to looking at news and discerning and saying, if you tell someone they can't leave their home for food, then deploy army trucks to bring them to a quarantine facility.
And if they escape, you'll arrest them.
You're forcefully relocating indigenous people.
I never said anything about the reason.
I never said anything about the merits of the COVID pandemic.
I simply said the government should not be allowed to do that.
And if Australia doesn't call it out, it'd be a bad thing.
What you'll end up with is Claire Lehman.
And it's remarkable to me that people still support Quillette.
Because you can support people who believe in freedom, so long as they're consistent.
I suppose you can mistakenly support them.
But you can read Quillette, and I encourage everyone to do so.
But you don't have to give them money.
I use CNN as a source all the time.
I'm not going to give them money.
I suppose the ads they have on their page generates revenue for them.
The point is, You vote with your dollars, you know what I mean?
So it is remarkable to me that people are actively supporting them, financially, considering Claire Lehman's stance is to obfuscate what's happening here.
I've never come out and said that they're putting people in gas chambers or beating them to death.
That's ridiculous.
What I've said is, when they started bringing people on planes to these camps, I said, wow, it's a really bad thing they have camps.
I then said, asterisk, concentration camp, in response to a tweet, notably, because I troll on Twitter all the time and I was being hyperbolic, but making a rhetorical point, as I've stated.
That triggered them to an extreme degree, but I also think it gave them the ability to, you know, just virtue signal and try and make money and, you know, play their stupid orthodoxy game.
But my point was just that, and I stated this, it's only a matter of time before people are taken from their homes.
Because there's a video of a man where the cop pulls up, the police pull up, and they say, you've tested positive for COVID.
He's like, I didn't even realize.
And they said, get in the van.
He goes, all right.
And then the news report said that he would now be indefinitely quarantined.
I don't know what indefinitely means.
Maybe the guy, we've never heard from the guy, or at least I haven't.
I looked it up, tried to figure out where he went and haven't found anything, but he's not a public figure.
So maybe, who knows?
Maybe he just went back home after two weeks and it's no big deal.
A lot of people have posted about how They've gotten out of these camps, and they said, you know, it was nice to have your breakfast brought to you every morning, but they're happy to be home.
And now we're hearing reports about people escaping these facilities.
Take a look at the Uyghur Muslims.
Let me ask you this.
Do you believe the Uyghur Muslims are being brutalized, sterilized, forced abortions, and all that stuff?
Why do you believe it?
Well, because corporate press reported it was true.
I believe it was the Guardian and the Associated Press have had extensive reports on what China is doing in these Uyghur Muslim camps.
But China's routinely said none of that is happening.
China said these are facilities to help de-radicalize people and everyone's happy there.
So... Are we all conspiracy theorists for thinking that China is doing these things to the Uighur Muslims?
Because Australia says it's true doesn't mean it is.
Because they put out videos and photos doesn't mean it's true.
But when they do report that people are being brought there and escaping and being arrested... To be fair, it doesn't mean it's true, but it's more likely to be the case.
So when I look at The Guardian and they report this, when I look at The Guardian and the AP and they report about Uighur Muslims, I lean towards, yeah, I actually probably think the reporting is true, because in the absence of evidence, the solution that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be the correct one.
Occam's razor.
In this capacity, I don't think the media is making up all of these stories across the board.
I mean, the minister himself came out and said, we're transporting these people, I'd like to thank the prime minister and the ADF personnel in the army trucks.
Sounds to me like it's happening.
So Jesse, maybe you should use Google!
And maybe watch the show before making up complete bullcrap.
