Biden Admin Warns Of GLOBAL FAMINE, Europe ALREADY Rationing, Inflation And Shortages To Get WORSE
Biden Admin Warns Of GLOBAL FAMINE, Europe ALREADY Rationing, Inflation And Shortages To Get WORSE. Politicians blame Putin for everything yet the costs and shortages were happening before the ukraine war.
From Europe to the Democrats and even Putin warnings of a coming food crisis persist. Gas prices, inflation, and shortages seem to only be getting worse since the pandemic began fading out of the news cycle.
#Putin
#Democrats
#FoodShortage
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Biden administration is warning of a coming global food crisis, saying, we see the storm coming.
Even Vladimir Putin is warning there will be a global food crisis.
The UN is saying the same thing, so please pay attention to what is coming in this fall.
In our next story.
Media outlets and leftists, for some reason, are now defending the idea of grooming children with one article saying, Why are Republicans so concerned about grooming?
A strange admission from these media outlets.
And in our last story, California has proposed a bill which pro-lifers say will legalize post-birth abortion.
Reuters fact-checked this article, but then deleted the fact-check because, well, it may be true.
Now, if you like this story, leave us a good review, share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
The Biden administration would love to blame the coming food crisis and global famine on Russia.
But it is not just Russia's fault.
The problems we are seeing with food shortages and with inflation and in some places hyperinflation started well before the war began.
But it is fair to say that Russia plays a major role in why we are now going to experience potential famine.
We see the storm coming.
US struggles to contain a deepening global food crisis.
The French Foreign Minister is warning of a global famine.
And in Spain...
They are already beginning supermarket rationing to prevent shortages.
I want you to imagine what it's going to be like this coming fall.
Now, right now, fertilizer costs are up nearly 300%, at least it's being reported.
Part of this is due to inflation, and part of it is due to the fact that we have sanctioned Russia, and we get a large quantity of our fertilizer from Russia.
Even Vladimir Putin is warning that these sanctions are going to lead to a global famine.
Without fertilizer, the spring planting season will be weak, and that means the fall harvest will be very weak.
Some are estimating crop yields will be down 40%.
So what's that going to look like?
I want you to imagine this.
You walk into your supermarket, and they're food rationing.
They tell you, If you would like chicken, you may only procure one chicken item.
If you want milk, you may only take but a half gallon.
Sorry, there is no bread available today.
The funny thing about this is, aside from the fact it's already happening in Spain, many of you are probably saying, wait, wait, hold on, we already did that!
We went through that with the pandemic!
Oh yeah, I remember that.
I remember going to the store and there were signs everywhere saying, customers may only take one chicken item, or one chicken item per customer, thank you very much.
In some instances, there was just no meats, limited bread, and don't get me started on toilet paper.
But we're not out of supply chain woods yet.
The pandemic is only just now coming to its end in the past few months.
So, if we're still facing supply chain crunch, inflation, and food shortages from the pandemic, what's going to happen now if you layer on top war?
Well, we're seeing inflation.
Over in Russia, it's being reported that the inflation rate is near 200%.
Russia's saying, we're not going to be exporting food, agriculture, to unfriendly nations.
So, Europe Well, they're getting pretty worried, which is why we're seeing Spain beginning their food rationing at supermarkets.
In Germany, food costs are reportedly up 20-50%.
And yes, it will come to the United States because of the inability to get fertilizer and because of the high cost of fertilizer.
Some estimates say that your monthly grocery bill will exceed $1,000.
How is the average person going to afford this?
My friends, I hate to be a consistent bearer of bad news, but this is reality, and it's happening all around us.
The White House is worried about famine overseas due to the Russia-Ukraine war.
Well, that was April 1st.
Overseas, okay.
So we're supposed to be fine?
Biden already warned about food shortages, but now the story is from Politico that Biden officials are recognizing it is a global food crisis.
It's gonna be everything.
Gas prices are already way up.
It's going to hit you across the board.
I only ask that you pay attention to the big stories around what's happening.
Sure, we can pretend it's not happening.
I can talk about something else.
I can talk about Will Smith or Chris Rock.
People will say, Tim, you're always talking about these bad things.
And I say, you know, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but at the very least, these stories exist and you will be prepared.
I'm not saying build a bunker and store 30 years worth of beans.
I am saying pay attention to what's happening so you can decide for yourself what is the best course of action.
Now let's read this story and talk about what's happening in Europe.
The head of the UN food program warning about this stuff, what US lawmakers are doing.
What's going to be happening with inflation in general?
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work as a member.
You will get access to exclusive episodes of the TimCast IRL podcast Monday through Thursday at 8pm so we have a wide range of guests.
People like Marjorie Taylor Greene, people like Alex Jones.
If you want to watch those episodes, become a member or Just become a member to help support all of our journalists who are writing stories and fact-checking news every single day.
We even have on-the-ground reporters and are looking to expand to the best of our abilities, and with your support, we will do so.
So don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, smash that like button, share the video wherever you can.
Let's read the first story from Politico.
We see the storm coming.
As Russian forces refocus the brunt of their military assault on Ukraine's food-producing southeast, U.S.
officials and lawmakers are struggling to help ward off a deepening crisis both inside Ukraine and for fragile economies around the world already reeling from climate disasters and COVID-19.
Russia's military is pushing further into Ukraine's wheat fields, which could jeopardize millions of tons of grain set to be harvested in July, threatening sustained shortages in countries across Africa and the Middle East that rely on Ukraine as a major source of their grain and sunflower oil to feed millions of people.
The crisis has also contributed to skyrocketing grain prices, which has made it harder for humanitarian organizations like the UN, the United Nations World Food Programme, to respond.
The agency says it needs an additional $16 billion to feed a record 137 million people for the rest of the year.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told the UN Security Council Tuesday that Moscow has provoked a global food crisis that could lead to famine in Africa, Asia, and other regions, and large-scale political chaos in so many countries.
I have had enough of Zelensky's lying!
I like Ukraine.
I think it's a great country.
I once contemplated living there.
I have friends who live there, and I've been there several times.
I think there was a period where I was there for like two months.
Love Kiev.
It's just amazing.
The food, the people, just amazing.
Maybe it's the climate.
Similar to Chicago, I just really like it.
But the more I hear these lies from Zelensky, because he is that whiny, pathetic individual who's like, go to World War 3 for me!
And it's like, dude, we can't do that!
Shut up!
Stop lying to us.
Come to us with honesty and integrity and say, please.
We cannot sustain this effort without your support.
And I'm listening, man.
And I say, let's be there to the best of our abilities without provoking World War III.
But when you say over and over again, oh, there's radiation, and oh, they're attacking nuclear power plants, and then you get these organizations coming out saying it's not true, it's not true, shut up!
I am tired of hearing of the lies and the manipulations to drag us into war.
The more I see the propaganda, the more sickened I become with Ukraine's leadership.
But to the Ukrainian people, man, I wish you only the best, and absolutely Vladimir Putin is at fault for what's going on.
Now, the U.S.
has its reasons to be blamed for a lot of things, but Putin decided to invade this country.
But I am just sick of the lies and the manipulations.
The New York Times says how the war in Ukraine is creating a global food crisis.
They said the same thing about gas prices.
It's Putin's gas price hike.
That's what the Biden administration is saying.
No.
No.
This is failed policy across the board.
Some of it comes from the war.
Responding with sanctions, maybe it was the right move.
But responding with sanctions is not the same as invading a country.
So that, that's on Putin.
I get that.
But let's be real.
How the Ukraine, how the war in Ukraine, that's the New York Times.
Yeah?
Take a look at this.
Putin's war has started a global food crisis and the New York Times has the nerve to smack you in the face with a graph disproving their fake claims.
Does Putin contribute?
Yes.
Is it Putin?
Is he solely responsible?
No.
Take a look at this.
Change in price since December 31st, 2020.
Soybeans.
Well, that's strange.
At the beginning of 22, the price of soybeans spiked up until the war started.
Around 24, or maybe even 28%.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Then the war started and the spike actually slowed down a little bit.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Hold on.
For soybeans, you mean the prices spiked by 28 or so percent before the war, and have only increased a further 10 percent after the war?
Doesn't sound very much like Putin's fault.
In fact, the spike has slowed down.
Sunflower oil has been spiking since the end of 2021.
Now, sunflower oil, a few days after the invasion, did increase a little bit.
The speed, the rate at which the prices were going up.
Okay.
Well, hold on there.
Corn.
Corn was already going up since the end of 2021.
And then we see a larger spike with the war.
Okay.
But you're saying that from the end of 2021, it went from a 20% increase to before the war to just to around a 38% increase.
to before the war to just to around a 38% increase now it's at 64. It was already going up before the
Again, I will say, Putin does play a role in this.
But the prices were already going up.
Wheat, in the beginning of 2022, was going down, started to tick upwards, and then spiked again.
Okay.
Putin's war.
Has it started a global food crisis?
That's the point.
No.
It has contributed to what was already a problem in the cost of food.
They just want to blame Putin because they want you to hate Russians.
Airbnb.
I saw this widely reported, so fact check me.
Maybe this isn't true, but I read the Airbnb website.
I'm pretty sure that's what it was.
And it said that Russian and Belarusian citizens anywhere would not be able to use their services.
Well, that's illegal in the U.S.
You can't deny someone a service, a public accommodation based on their national origin.
That's exactly what they're doing.
Putin, again, does contribute, but the global food crisis was happening well before this.
Prices for corn were spiking in mid-2021.
They went down a little bit, they started going up again.
How is any of that fluctuation just Putin?
Here we go.
Spain allows supermarket rationing to prevent shortages.
It is a combination of factors.
They say, The move came as empty shelves appeared in many supermarkets due to the combined effects of a truck driver's strike and the Ukraine war.
Ah, and there it is.
Let's go back in time.
The pandemic.
I remember in the first few months of the pandemic, I went to Walmart.
There was like no food.
I mean, there was food, but there was very little relative to what there normally is.
Limited bread, peanut butter, milk, yogurt, cream, all the dairy was gone, and I was just like, yo, where is everything?
Toilet paper aisle?
Nothing.
Well, what had happened was people rushed into these stores, and they bought up a lot of what they had immediately, because they were concerned about what a pandemic meant.
This massive surge in demand, without an increase in supply, resulted in store shelves being barren.
But food was currently on the way.
It was just that if a store says, here's how much we typically sell between the 1st and the 15th, we're not going to order more food because it'll spoil, right?
But when everyone buys everything all at once, well, then all of your two-week supply of food is gone in three days.
You're going to have a week and a half of empty shelves.
When the trucks finally came in, that food stock got replenished and people were like, okay, here we go.
But people were still stocking up.
Everybody was buying all at once.
What eventually ends up happening is due to the shutdown at supermarkets, due to the shutdown at, uh, less so at supermarkets, but at restaurants and small businesses, all of a sudden people had tons of extra dairy and meat with nowhere for it to go.
Bottling plant said, we can't sell all the milk we already have, so we're trashing it.
We're not gonna buy more from you, dairy farm.
So the dairy farm said, we're gonna dump the milk out on the floor, because we got nowhere to send it.
Farmers were tilling over their crops because there was nowhere for it to go.
The whole system basically was like a freight train stopping instantly and just flying off the tracks.
We have not recovered from this.
Inflation, the reason food prices are through the roof, partly, initially, is because of this.
We have not recovered from it.
Now, with the price of fertilizer and the war, it's only going to get worse.
But you see, they're trying to scapegoat the whole thing on Vladimir Putin because they're failed leaders who won't accept responsibility.
They don't want to be honest and reasonable with you and say, look, maybe we did the wrong thing.
I have no problem saying early on in the pandemic, I said, I understand a shutdown.
I understand this massive spending package and relief bill because I couldn't tell what was going to happen.
And I said, better safe than sorry.
We'll pay those costs down the road.
And we did.
But now we realize what a mistake it was and we realize how damaging it was.
Instead of just coming out and admitting it, they just say, it's all Putin's fault.
Everything is Putin's fault.
The gas price, everything, it's all Putin's fault.
It's pathetic.
It's annoying.
Because I am sick of the propaganda.
But outside of all that, Guys, just please be prepared for what may be coming.
I don't know how bad it will get.
You know, obviously, I've promoted things like SafeAndReadyMeals.com.
I've had certain promotional spots for them on various segments I've done, because I genuinely think you should have some emergency food that lasts you a while.
Be it water.
Not doing a promo spot for them, but, you know, it exists.
Here's the French Foreign Minister warning of a global famine.
We must take charge of this new situation quickly, Le Drian said when arriving at a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in Brussels.
It's not sanctions that are making the global food security malfunction, it's the war.
Because there aren't any sanctions on food, it's the war that's proving problematic.
And that will tomorrow bring with it the risk of famine.
We see the consequences of war.
The impossibility of harvesting, of sowing, of exporting.
You know, we didn't have to sanction Putin.
We're not going to engage in a ground war.
Apparently the Biden administration says we are not getting dragged into a war in Ukraine no matter what.
We don't need to sanction Putin, but we did.
I don't like what Putin did.
I don't like what the U.S.
does.
I like the U.S.
more than I like Russia.
But did we need to risk food security around the planet because Russia invaded Ukraine?
It's not a rhetorical question, it's a real question.
I honestly, I don't know.
You guys tell me.
From Business Insider.
Putin tells Western countries their sanctions will lead to food shortages in the poorest regions of the world and cause migration to spike, report says.
Putin said higher energy prices and fertilizer shortages would mean Western nations would have to print more money to buy supplies, which would cause food shortages in poorer countries.
They will inevitably exacerbate food shortages in the poorest regions of the world, spur new waves of migration, and in general, drive food prices even higher, Putin said in a meeting on developing food production, Reuters reported.
Putin also suggested Russia wouldn't export food to countries hostile to it.
We will have to be more careful about food supplies abroad.
Especially, carefully, monitor the exports to countries which are hostile to us.
Last week, Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president and a senior security official in the country, also said Russia will not supply our products and agricultural products to our enemies.
That measure would be in retaliation for sanctions.
We will supply food and crops only to our friends.
Both Russia and Ukraine are major exporters of wheat and corn.
Russia accounts for almost 17% of global supply of wheat, which makes it the largest exporter
of the crop, according to an ING report.
Ukraine accounts for 12% of wheat supplies and 17% of corn supply.
A World Bank spokesperson previously told insiders Uruba Jamal that the war in Ukraine
comes at a bad time for the world.
Poor and vulnerable everywhere were already suffering from high inflation and rising food prices, exacerbated by high energy costs and trade restrictions.
Shortages of these commodities and broad-based increases in prices could add to inflation pressures and food insecurity.
Well, the head of the UN Food Agency says, the war in Ukraine will lead to worst food crisis since World War Two.
You know, again, it seems like they're ignoring the fact that there was a major pandemic and we did not recover from it.
But sure.
They want the war.
And that's it.
When the average person is standing in line at a grocery store and they're like, where's the beef?
Or they walk up to someone and say, do you got milk?
And they're told, no, we don't.
These people are going to say, why not?
And they're going to say, blame Vladimir Putin.
They're then going to be like, ooh, that Putin!
Then you're going to get some warmonger neocon neolib who's going to come out and be like, we must go to war to end this shortage of food for you.
I'm on your side.
And the next thing you know, the U.S.
is involved in a ground war in Eastern Europe.
Russia's got nukes, and it's not going to end well for anyone.
Perhaps.
The U.S.
should have been more resilient and relied on itself more.
Lawmakers scramble to avert global food shortage, reports the Washington Examiner.
Now, again, maybe I am the bearer of bad news, okay?
All of these stories being dropped in the past two weeks, they're real stories.
I will bring you these stories.
I will talk to you about them, but these stories have been existing, have existed, and if you read the news, you've been seeing them.
Have you taken any kind of precautions?
Have you bought any emergency food, water, first aid kit?
Or would you rather be in a Walmart parking lot fighting with Agnes over the last can of beans?
I know it sounds silly.
It's meant to be a bit irreverent, kind of funny, fighting over some old lady.
Give me the beans, Agnes!
You can't have them!
You really don't want to be there.
Remember the videos of people fighting over rolls of toilet paper?
Yeah, you don't want to be there.
Don't panic buy, because you don't want to stock up on perishables.
This is why I tell people, you know, you get the emergency food that comes in those buckets that's like, it lasts for 25 years.
Because all you need is water.
You can put it in your closet, or your pantry, and forget about it.
But rushing into a store and buying up things?
Perishables, man.
Now, many of you may have a deep freezer.
We have a deep freezer here at the Cast Castle.
It's loaded up with farm fresh meats.
And in a deep freezer, they basically last forever.
We've also got flour and other freeze-dried emergency food supplies.
Truth, with as many people as we have here at the castle, it's not that much food, but it's enough for a short-term emergency.
And what I'm often told, you guys should check into this, is that when there is a food crisis or shortage, don't eat your emergency supplies, only if you absolutely have to.
Now, out here in the Blue Ridge Mountains, Western Maryland and in West Virginia, as we're building our new free domestan, we have large quantities of arable land and very fertile soil.
So we've grown our own crops before.
It was really cool when we did our own sunflowers, and we had all these sunflower seeds, and we just didn't know what to do with them.
Chickens loved them, though.
And then we also had tomatoes and pumpkin.
We had zucchinis.
Yeah, massive zucchinis.
That was really awesome.
We grew our own peppers and cherry tomatoes.
We grew our own herbs.
It was one of the coolest things ever.
To go out to the chicken coop, collect seven fresh eggs just from that morning, and then make a huge omelet for several people with our own basil, with our own peppers, with our own cherry tomatoes.
Just it just felt really good to eat your own food man to just it was you know
You know what was the weirdest thing to me the first time I ever ate food from the dirt
From the ground now. I know when I was a kid We had a garden and you'd get a vegetable from the garden.
It was like, okay fine, but I mean like overt gathering We went out
Because right now uh out in this area chives are everywhere They're one of the first things to grow.
You walk around in the yard, at the castle, and there's just chives all over the place.
So I find a good area where we got a big, healthy-looking stalk of chives, we cut it off, and we made dip, and we made ground beef with the chives in it.
Delicious!
Just absolutely delicious.
You've got to make sure you know what you're doing.
In terms of getting food from outside.
But it is a truly rewarding experience when at least some of the food you consume, you produce.
Also, we got a bunch of chickens!
You may have noticed.
Now, as of right now, we have no intention on eating them because they're layers.
They lay eggs.
Maybe once they grow beyond their laying years, some of them will be forced to retire to a nice chicken meal.
Many of them will keep around.
But, uh, for the most part, we have many chicken babies.
And we have, I think, like 50 chickens now, because we have so many babies.
Yeah.
Being responsible for your own food.
It's a cool thing.
For those that live in cities.
I worry the most about you guys, because it is going to get bad.
It is going to get worse than you realize.
There's a story that you may have seen last week or so.
BlackRockScapito says scarcity inflation is driving economy.
He said for the first time this generation is going to go into a store and not be able to get what they want.
And we have a very entitled generation.
What do you think it's gonna be like in a city?
When you walk into a grocery store, and there's like, seriously, one can of beans left.
Now, I joke when I say you'll be fighting with Agnes over the last can of beans.
But, if it gets really bad, do you think it's gonna be Agnes?
Or do you think it's gonna be... John?
Yeah, just some guy who's gonna be like, I've got kids, I'm taking this can of beans.
And you're gonna say, I got kids, I'm taking the can of beans.
You know, living in a city.
You don't really have the ability to grow an amount of food or forage for anything.
On top of being able to have our own garden, we got something called wineberry season out here in the Blue Ridge Mountains.
I don't think you can subsist off just wineberries.
They don't make wine.
I mean, you can make wine out of them.
They're just called wineberries.
They're wild Chinese raspberries.
They're everywhere.
And they're delicious.
You go out for 15 minutes, and you've got two pounds of wineberry.
Humans cannot survive in cities when food shortages hit.
You are gonna be going around asking for food, you're gonna be trying to find, but everyone's gonna be.
Not to mention, water constraints.
If people in cities actually start trying to do gardens on the top of their buildings and things like that, which I think would be great, putting grass and gardens on the top of buildings is a smart idea, you're gonna need a lot more water.
Water consumption will dramatically increase.
What's happening now is that food is made and then shipped into these cities where everyone consumes it.
Cities are... Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
They produce weird, abstract human things like media articles and ideas at universities, I suppose.
But they don't make food.
They don't make raw materials.
Some cities have factories, don't get me wrong, but for the most part, cities don't make food.
Food is made outside of cities and brought into cities.
So if you're in New York City, man, I do not envy you, my friends.
Come Come fall, November, when the harvest is way below expectations, or at the very least it's exactly where we expect it to be, really low, it's going to be interesting to see how people in cities react.
Not being able to eat.
You know what you're going to see?
Restaurants are going to struggle to stay in business.
People are going to panic.
Businesses will shut down.
The streets will just be full of angry, hungry people.
I don't know how bad it will get because America truly is a wealthy place and we kind of do overeat as it is.
So maybe thinking that we're going to be left hungry and grumbling is the wrong idea.
Maybe what actually happens is that the morbidly obese sect of America just becomes the fin along with everybody else.
You know, I look at the average American diet.
You see these nutrition labels on food and it says, based on the average, you know, consumption of 2,000 calories.
And to me that's crazy, because I eat like 1,000 calories a day.
I'm not even exaggerating.
No, it really is.
I've seen these things that were like, 1,500 is enough.
Maybe it's because I've been losing weight.
That's fair.
Back in like October or whatever, I stopped eating bread and carbs and stuff like that, and I dropped like 25 pounds rather quickly.
But as of recent, I've been eating mostly veggies, meats, cheeses, things like that.
And I've cut out most of the bread and most of the carbs.
Though I'm not doing hardcore keto.
There's still some sugar in my diet.
And I've actually been counting calories, and my weight's been fairly stable.
And I've not been consuming breads, but I've only been getting between 1,000 and 1,500 calories.
The fact that humans are told you need 2,000 to me is just weird because I can't even eat that much if I want to.
So like for breakfast, I typically don't have breakfast, but some days I will.
Have a little bit.
Usually I'll just have coffee, because I'm just not really that hungry.
And then for dinner, I can only really eat so much.
You know, I'll have like 10 chicken wings and maybe a side of coleslaw or something, and then I'm just super full, like I couldn't eat more if I wanted to.
And I feel great.
I do take vitamins, however.
And I do, you know, try to make sure I get vegetables and stuff in my diet for fiber and all that stuff.
Some days, I'll have maybe like some meats and cheeses as a snack in the morning.
I wouldn't call it a full breakfast, but it's food.
I just don't eat that much.
I don't know.
I think Americans eat way too much.
So maybe, maybe we don't need to be overly pessimistic.
Maybe what's really happening is everyone's like, dude, Americans eat way more than they should.
Ice creams, cakes, pies.
We put sugar on our chicken.
Yeah, I mean, have you had Chinese food?
Panda Express is chicken, battered, deep fried, and then rolled in sugar syrup.
Okay.
Yeah, I don't eat that stuff.
I used to love eating Panda Express.
Now I'm just like, I can't do it, man.
When I go to Chipotle, I'm just like, give me the fajita vegetables and some chicken with cheese and guac on it.
And it's more than enough.
I can't even finish.
It's just too much food.
Maybe when you cut out the carbs and you're getting better fats, meats, and vegetables.
I love peppers.
Your body's like, that's all we need, dude.
We don't need all of this crazy stuff.
So maybe we don't need to be eating as much as we do.
Maybe there will be some kind of great food reset, I suppose.
Well, I hate to say it, but, you know, there's still bad news on that front.
Raw Story reports, Iowa's bird flu death toll tops 13 million.
Two more poultry flocks in Iowa, including one with more than 5 million egg-laying chickens, were infected with a highly contagious avian influenza, the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship reported Friday.
The new detections of the virus were a massive commercial egg-laying flock in the flock, and turkeys.
It was confirmed to those flocks, blah blah blah.
Now they're saying that if your chickens get this sickness, you gotta kill them.
Well, our chickens are quarantined.
As much as we like to say Chicken City is a city, it's more of a chicken internment camp.
Let's be honest.
People asked me if Chicken City was a prison.
For those that aren't familiar, if you go to YouTube.com slash Chicken City, you can see the livestream of our chickens as they're enjoying their days.
But they're isolated.
We bought chickens, and we've kept them isolated from the other chickens for several weeks.
It's now been around a month, I'm pretty sure, and so we're in the clear.
We're not going to introduce our chickens to other chickens.
We will quarantine the new chickens so that they don't interact with the other chickens so that disease doesn't spread.
If these chickens keep spreading this illness and they get wiped out, you are going to see chicken shortages like we've already seen in the past.
The funniest thing was when restaurants were like, don't order wings, order thighs.
And it's funny because, you know, people love chicken wings.
I love chicken wings.
But now they're like, how about thighs?
Because there was a chicken wing shortage.
Egg.
Some of these chickens lay eggs.
Gonna be egg shortages.
It's not just gonna be the grains.
I think things will get bad.
How bad?
I don't know.
I don't think things got as bad as a lot of people thought they were gonna get over the pandemic.
But, to be honest, I left the urban area, came out here, and everything was fine.
We were in South Jersey, in the Philly suburbs, and when they announced all the lockdowns and we saw the shortages, I said, let's move, we're getting out.
And I decided to head early to the West Virginia area, and it meant the first setup I had for my show was in a closet.
That's what we did.
And we didn't know if we were going to have the internet to be able to do TimCast IRL.
But I said, we can't stick around for this.
So we bailed out.
Things were pretty much fine out here.
We didn't have masks.
You could walk around, do whatever you want.
Restaurants, you just go in and eat food.
Food was there.
Some shortages, but not nearly as bad.
I wonder what's going to happen next.
Because I don't know what it was like for you guys in the cities, but I hear bad things with businesses being shut down, cities being a shell of their former selves.
If these shortages really do get bad as they claim, I think Democrats will face a reckoning, because they're going to take responsibility for a lot of this.
And I think people are going to finally learn what it means to not live in this bubble.
Because for too long, Americans have been living in a golden age.
Just all the food you can eat whenever, wherever.
I know there's poverty, but man, do we have it good.
I hope you're paying attention to this stuff.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
Let's be honest, folks.
Conservatives are not good at narrative control.
They're not good at making culture.
But things are changing.
There have been a lot of post-liberals, as they're called, and libertarians, who seem to have been teaming up with conservatives, and thus, with these combined powers, Narrative control is starting to revert back to regular people.
The Daily Wire, mostly conservative, doing a fantastic job getting the ball rolling, starting culture, and challenging the establishment.
But for the longest time, the establishment has been left.
You've got colleges, you've got big tech, you've got media.
They are still dominated by the left because the right is just not that good at building culture or controlling narratives.
But there's something interesting that happens when you are correct.
When you hit the nail on the head with the hammer so hard, you speak a truth so truthful that there's nothing they can do.
The narrative they attempt to weave is... insane.
Which brings me to... Okay, Groomer.
Y'all know about what's going on in Florida.
The Parental Rights and Education Bill.
Well, we have similar bills in, I think, Georgia, Ohio, I think Louisiana's got one.
All of these states have begun introducing bills that basically say, parents have rights.
You have a right to know what your kid's being taught.
You have a right to know how they're instructing your child in terms of medical, mental, or physical issues.
And that teachers have to be informing the parents about what's going on.
They cannot be discouraging students from talking to their parents.
And, as is the case with Florida, teachers, school employees, or whatever, cannot be giving classroom instruction on identity or orientation.
Now the concern from people on the right is that you've got creepy teachers who are having overtly adult conversations with children ages five through nine.
That seems to be inappropriate to most Americans.
Hey, we need to sign a permission slip.
We need to approve of the school talking to our kids about these serious matters.
And perhaps five through nine is too young.
Well, Ladies and gentlemen, the backlash from the left in a desperate attempt to try and regain control of the narrative is just worse.
I give you this story from The Week.
Theweek.com.
I'm fairly certain that The Week is considered to be a progressive outlet.
I'm not entirely sure if they say, the website of The Week is a U.S.
version of a British magazine that publishes national and international news and commentary.
This is from NewsGuard.
The headline reads, Why are Republicans so concerned about grooming?
Yes, please keep going with that line.
Say it more.
Shout it from the high heavens.
Make sure every single person in this country hears you say, Why are Republicans so concerned about grooming?
I don't know what's going to happen in November, you know.
I'm reluctant to predict a red tsunami.
I think, based on everything we're seeing, there will be one.
But far be it for me to know exactly what Americans are thinking.
Talk about a successful narrative control effort, campaign, or whatever you want to call it, or just, in all honesty, honesty.
Yeah, people are concerned about grooming.
People are concerned about their kids, who are five years old, being sat down, having a teacher talk to them, giving them instruction on sexual matters.
Parents don't want you talking to their kids about these things.
They view it as grooming them.
You are shaping their behavior.
Towards things that these kids need to develop into naturally or with their parents' guidance, not strange government employees and they want to keep it a secret.
That's what they oppose.
That's why they oppose the Parental Rights and Education Bill.
We've seen many interviews from people where they're like, I have to now out my students to their parents.
Yes, you do.
They're the parents.
They need to know about what's going on with their kids.
I have to tell the parents about, you know, what these kids are experiencing?
Yes, you're just a teacher.
You're not the parents.
You know why they want to keep it a secret?
Because they want to groom the kids.
They've decided they should tell these kids what they should be doing with their lives
and they want to sever the connection between parent and child.
The week.
Why are Republicans so concerned about grooming?
Suddenly, the American right is fairly exploding with accusations of sexual grooming against
his political opponents because it's not about political opponents.
When the bill was introduced, it was Democrats who decided that it was don't say gay.
The bill prevents discussions on heterosexual marriage as well.
And the left is coming out being like, you want to know how I'm dealing with this bill?
Well, I'm not going to say pronouns.
And it's like, okay, dude.
First of all, you can say pronouns.
You're just being obtuse.
But I get your point.
And we all get your point.
The bill does prohibit a teacher talking to a student about man and woman.
A teacher can't say, OK, everybody, I'm going to give you classroom instruction on traditional marriage.
And conservatives are totally OK with that.
So it seems like The post-liberal, libertarian, conservative faction are like, yeah, we understand you're not going to be talking to the kids about any of this stuff, be it traditional marriage between a man and a woman, or, you know, gay marriage, and we're fine with that because we don't want our kids being groomed.
And then the left is like, why, why are you attacking gay people?
And it's just like, do you, do you think that only gay people are trying to have secret sexual conversations with five-year-olds?
Is that your view?
Apparently so.
I just want you, I just, this headline.
Why are Republicans so concerned about grooming?
Because they care about their children?
They don't want predators going after their kids?
What an insane headline.
He goes on to mention, Joel Mathis mentions, Christina Pasha, a spokesperson for Ron DeSantis, how she said it was an anti-grooming bill.
"'It's not a very nice word to be sure,' wrote the American Greatness author.
But the right must decide.
Do we prefer to play nice with perverts who are very sexually interested in our children, or do we prefer to stand up for the innocence of childhood against societal forces that seek to mutilate little kids for political gain?' It's hard to know how much of this is sincere hysteria, and how much is ugly McCarthyist politics.
Mostly the latter, probably.
In its normal usage, Groomer suggests a sexual predator, carefully prepping their prey for an assault, which is literally what people are complaining about.
That's what they're complaining about.
They're complaining that they are sexualizing five to nine-year-olds, pre-pubescent children, who they have not gone through puberty.
That's what pre-pubescent is.
No hormones, no concept of these issues.
And they're going to them and telling them things so that when they get to that age, they will be primed, groomed, as it were.
And these people are like, oh, oh, haramf, I say.
I'm going to mention, it does include ideology as well, and of course it does.
Yes.
In this instance, the bill is specifically talking about sexual issues, not political issues.
But people do have an issue with teachers going to their five-year-olds and trying to indoctrinate them to some cult.
Here's one of my favorites.
Here we go.
From Vice.
This is absolutely fantastic.
Vice writes this article, conservatives are smearing don't-say-gay opponents as pedo groomers.
Uh, yes, because if you want to have a conversation with about a bunch of 5- to 9-year-olds, so 5-year-olds, 6-year-olds, 7-year-olds, 8-year-olds, and 9-year-olds, about sexual issues in secret, and you don't want the parents to find out about it, I'm just going to go ahead and assume you're a child predator.
You shouldn't be doing it.
And the bill is clear.
Check this out.
So in this section they say, blah blah blah, oh it's so much like the 70s and the right just hates gay people.
Some of those using the term argue they're not talking specifically about LGBTQ people when they're using the term grooming, because they're not.
Quote.
I have never once singled out LGBTQ people, because groomers, child predators, can be of any orientation or identity.
Pasha, DeSantis' press secretary, told Vice News in an email.
Your assumption that criticism of grooming is criticism of the LGBTQ community equates LGBTQ people with groomers, which is both bigoted and inaccurate.
Do better.
And any adult who wants to discuss sexual and gender identity topics with other people's five to eight-year-old children, while keeping this a secret from their parents, is either a groomer or is complicit in promoting an environment where grooming becomes normalized.
Pasha said, the law doesn't single out or mention LGBTQ people, which is technically true, but misleading.
Technically true?
No, no, no, no, you mean it's literally true.
You'd say it's literally true, in that the bill doesn't include those statements.
You can then say, but technically, it's misleading.
You see, when they say it's technically true, your grammar is off-vice.
It is literally true.
The bill specifically prohibits classroom discussion about orientation or identity for children in third grade or younger, How is that misleading?
You can't be like, okay kids, you're eight years old.
It's time to learn about men and women and traditional marriage.
No, you can't do that.
That's why I said jokingly, somewhat jokingly, it's the don't say straight bill.
If they're going to claim it's the don't say gay bill, why couldn't I just be like, Now, they're claiming that adults who want to teach kids about traditional marriage are groomers.
Same thing, right?
Except for some reason, conservatives, who very much like traditional marriage, I guess, don't mind that that is banned.
Just think about that for two seconds.
Conservatives passed a bill that prohibits classroom instruction on traditional marriage, and they're not complaining about it.
Why?
The concern is not LGBTQ people, although for many it is.
The overarching concern is don't talk to kids in secret about sex.
Anti-trans bill reaches an all-time high.
You see what, this is how they do it.
I do believe when you see like child drag shows, okay?
A child drag show has nothing to do with LGBTQ necessarily on the surface.
The issues with child drag shows are that you have pre-pubescent children taking their clothes off on stage for money.
This is grooming, okay?
It's grooming.
Now when they say, but you're attacking the gay community!
Are you implying that there is an issue in the gay community that grooms children for sexual activity?
I talked to some people I know.
People I know who have been strippers.
And actually, as many of you know, I believe... Well, we'll just get to the nitty-gritty.
In certain states, you can't show full nudity at a strip club.
So the women wear bikinis, and they call these places bikini bars.
But they're still called gentlemen's clubs or strip clubs.
Because the women will go on stage, they'll pole dance, and they'll take off their clothes until they're just wearing their underwear.
Men will throw money at them.
Many of these women at bikini bars will also strip full nude, or at topless bars, there's varying degree.
Some people don't realize this, that in some states, like, full nudity is not allowed at strip clubs.
There are some states that do allow it, some that don't.
Some only allow topless, some don't allow, you know, full nudity, whatever, you get the point.
If you have a woman on stage taking off her clothes as men give, or anyone, gives money to her as she dances, we call those strip clubs.
When you have a child drag show and you have a little boy taking off his clothes until he's down to an under layer and they're throwing money at him, they are grooming the child to be a stripper.
I mean, quite literally, the kid is stripping.
That's what stripping is.
And then they try and lie, say, no, no, no, it's a drag show.
Call it whatever you want.
You got little boys stripping because you're creepos and groomers and perverts.
Now, There are straight women supporting this.
And of course, a pre-bubescent child does not have an orientation.
So it is not a LGBTQ-specific issue, although drag shows are more associated with LGBTQ communities, as opposed to straight communities.
But regardless, banning that is not saying anything about whether or not someone who is gay has rights or is good or is bad.
You can be gay, or trans, or queer, or a lesbian, or bi.
And no one's complaining about that.
But if you go to a child and say, take off your clothes and I'll give you money, now you are grooming them.
You see?
Therein lies the big problem.
And I just, I just, I think it's absolutely fascinating that the left has doubled down on child drag shows.
And I just hope they defend them.
Because it, because they actually feel that way.
And it exposes them to regular people.
When they write articles, why are Republicans so concerned about grooming?
Wow, dude.
I assume some people are saying, you know, what he means is like, why are they talking about it so much?
Why are Republicans so concerned about grooming?
Boy, what a headline.
If you wanted to get Republicans elected, that's how you do it.
So I pull up the actual bill here, just so we can show the Parental Rights and Education Bill one more time.
I've got the actual bill here.
Now, this summary analysis, in my opinion, I think, is the best way to discuss the bill.
Why?
Well, on the myfloridahouse.gov version of the bill, there's limited information.
In the actual bill, there's a lot of legal stuff, and it's just like, well, you know, I don't want to read through the actual language of the bill.
It's fluffed up because they use a ton of words, you know, constructing, prohibiting.
They often do this because for legal reasons.
But here we go.
The summary is actually quite simple.
They say, the bill reinforces the fundamental rights of parents by prohibiting school districts
from adopting procedures or support forms that prohibit school personnel from disclosing
information related to a student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being
to parents or that encourages students to withhold such information.
To put it simply, schools can't keep secrets or encourage it. Prohibiting classroom instruction
on sexual orientation or gender identity in the kindergarten through grade three or in a manner
that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with
state standards and requiring that parents be notified of all health care services offered
at their student's school and given the opportunity to individually consent to or decline each service.
Additionally, schools may not administer a student well-being questionnaire or health screening to a student in kindergarten through grade three without first receiving consent from the student's parents.
The reason why the left is upset.
Their intent is to provide some kind of mental or health service, be it social, mental, physical, or whatever, like giving a child a new identity without their parents knowing.
And many parents have complained about this, that their daughters are given male identities at school, and then they're told not to tell their parents.
Why?
The parents want what's best for the child.
The parents are going to be with these kids their entire lives.
Their entire lives!
Until the parent passes away.
Teacher will be there for about what, a year?
Yeah, that's grooming.
You are a creep and a predator if you are trying to take a child from their parents.
And that's it.
That's what it does.
That's the summary.
But here we go.
Oh, I love this one from the Daily Beast.
Man, you guys keep desperately trying to make it seem like gay people are pedophiles.
say groomer to put a nice face on homophobia. The new don't say gay law in Florida, just one part
of a larger nostalgia for straight up hate. Man, you guys keep desperately trying to make it seem
like gay people are pedophiles. That's the weird thing to me. Dave Rubin, not not a groomer,
not going after people's kids. I just.
He's a gay married man, he's having kids.
Conservatives have talked to him about how they don't like the idea of surrogacy with his husband, me personally.
I think those kids are going to be way better off.
With Dave and his husband, they're going to have a great life, because Dave is a man of talent and means, and of principle.
To whatever degree, I mean, Dave deserves a lot of criticism, for sure, everybody does.
I don't want to make it seem like anybody's perfect, I always say that.
But I think Dave having these kids is, they're going to be well-adjusted and good kids.
And I'm sure he's going to teach them proper values and raise them to be good people, and understanding, intelligent.
I think that's fantastic.
How is that homophobia?
Blair White, another example.
And you know what they do, they always try to say like, oh, these people are just grifters, and it's like, because you can't recognize that principles exist.
That there are many trans people of principle, who come out and be like, look, you know, just stay away from the kids, let the kids be who they are, and when the kids come to an understanding of their bodies as they get older, then you can start having these conversations as they begin to ask questions, but don't force them on these kids.
Calling out groomers is homophobia?
This is the most insane thing ever, and this is where the left's nonsense garbage lies just make no sense.
They say, only white people can be racist, but Candace Owens is a white supremacist.
Larry Elder, the black face of white supremacy.
Are you nuts?
Look, your narrative control is crumbling, and it's pathetic.
The reality is that there are bad people and good people, and there are groomers who are pedophiles but attracted to the opposite sex.
I honestly don't think that matters all that much.
I don't think orientation matters all that much when it comes to people abusing children.
If there is a 40-year-old man going after a 10-year-old girl at a school, That's disgusting.
And if it's a 10-year-old boy, equally as disgusting.
Going after children.
Children should be left alone and not be sexualized.
If it is a 40-year-old woman doing the same thing to either a male or female child, they're groomers.
I don't care.
It's the craziest thing that the left is like, implying Republicans only care that the male teacher is talking to male students?
Homophobia?
What are you talking about?
I'm 100% certain that a suburban housewife mother Hearing about a 40-year-old woman talking to her son about these issues is also going to be upset.
I don't think orientation plays a role in whether or not parents get upset that someone is talking to their children about sexual matters.
The Wall Street Journal from April 1st.
Don't say gay is popular, you don't say.
One poll shows backing from suburbs, parents, and Democrats.
So be it.
The parental rights and education bills are sweeping across this country, especially after what happened in Loudoun County.
A young girl was raped, and the school sought to keep it a secret.
And a father came in screaming, angry, and he got arrested.
Parents want to know what's going on with their kids.
Here's what I say to parents.
Get your kids out of these schools.
Homeschool.
Have your kids Start, uh, go into pod learning.
Like, this is where you're, you and your, and other families can set up a tutor, hire a teacher who will teach your kids.
There's a great business opportunity here, in my opinion.
A series of private tutors, and here's what, here's, here's what I'm thinking.
Here's what you do.
You have three different tutors in three different neighborhoods.
And students rotate between each neighborhood, and each class is... I said two before, but here's what I'm thinking.
In the class, you have kids who are group A, B, or C, or red, green, or blue if you don't want to do anything overtly hierarchical.
On Mondays, they meet with teacher 1, and it will be the red group and the green group of students.
On day 2, red and yellow meet with teacher 2.
You see where I'm getting with this?
The idea is that the students will weave between each other so they're always interacting with a different group of kids.
And they'll interact with different teachers, but each teacher is hired specifically by a local community and is vetted, and the parents know.
This will be substantially cheaper than many private schools.
It'll be substantially cheaper than however much money you're paying into these public schools.
I'm also in favor of voucher systems.
You know, make it so that parents get a voucher for the school and they can have school choice.
But do the pod learning.
That way your kids get social interaction with each other.
They're around like-minded families of similar values, and you vet the teachers.
And you keep the government out of your house.
I just want to, like, I would encourage all of you to take this story, Why Are Republicans So Concerned About Grooming?, and just screenshot it.
And just share it with all of your friends and ask them, Are you not?
Do you not care?
Weird, huh?
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
In Oklahoma, they have just passed a near total ban on abortion.
The only exception is if the mother's life is in jeopardy.
Other than that, abortion, out the window.
And the reason this bill is passing, I don't think it's been signed just yet, it's not been signed by the governor, but the reason is that in Texas, with the new restrictions on abortion, women are fleeing into Oklahoma to get abortions, so now Oklahoma is like, we are not going to be the location people flee to to get abortions.
But while you have that on one side, on the other side you have what basically amounts to, as the pro-lifers are saying, post-birth abortion or just outright killing babies.
We have this story from Christian Headlines.
New California bill would legalize infanticide by permitting perinatal death, pro-lifers say.
Now NewsGuard says Christian Headlines is fake news!
It's actually got a 57 out of 100, which is fairly normal.
And the reason NewsGuard gives ChristianHeadlines.com a negative rating is because they don't label advertising, reveal who's in charge, they don't correct their errors, and NewsGuard says they don't present information responsibly.
But they don't publish false content.
And that's the important part here.
They don't publish false content.
But I wanted to show you how pro-lifers are viewing this.
Legalizing infanticide.
And then I'll bring you over to TimCast.com where we take a more analytical and neutral framing to the issue.
But still.
The result is the same.
Upon looking at the proposal in California, it basically says you can't be held responsible if your baby dies, for whatever reason, within seven days of it being born.
Which many people say, it's like, okay, if somebody has a baby and then kills it, there's no penalty?
And if you help them kill it, there's no penalty?
Maybe that should not be the law.
Many are viewing this on the right as the complete inversion of banning abortion, outright saying you can kill a baby within seven days.
And of course, based on what we've seen with Colorado now having their zero-restriction abortion guarantees, or protections as they would call it, and in Virginia, former Governor Northam saying the baby would be delivered, made comfortable, and then the mother and the doctor would decide what to do next.
Based on those statements, many people see this outright as just like, yeah, the left wants to legalize infanticide.
Now, let's actually read the bill and see what it says.
But you know what's really fascinating here?
I am no fan of false framing or exaggerated claims, and I always seek to look at critical takes, fact checks.
I always want to go through this, because I don't want to get things wrong.
I get things wrong, I do, and I try to correct them.
Before I just come out and talk about a story like, is this legalizing infanticide?
I'll do a general search for what, you know, personalities, what other outlets are saying about this, try and get a greater context, and I'll look at the bill myself before just coming out and saying it does something or doesn't.
The interesting thing here is that when you go to Reuters, when you search for this bill on Google, you get a link to a Reuters fact check.
I want to, I want to read you this fact check in a second.
It says, fact check, California reproductive health bill leads to misinterpretation online.
Talking about legalizing infanticide, legalize the murder of children up to nine months gestation, gestation, and in weeks, week after birth.
The Twitter post went viral.
Okay.
What you're looking at on the screen is not in fact Reuters.com, but Google user content web cache.
This is a cached version of the article because let me go to Reuters.
This up top I have the URL for the fact check.
Actually let me do this in real time.
On this website I will take the actual URL In full, I'm now going to take it and paste it into the, paste the URL in, and enter it, and you'll see very quickly, 404 not found.
And then it reloads Reuters.
I don't know why, but for some reason, Reuters has deleted this fact check.
Very interesting.
Let's take a look at what's going on with this bill.
TimCast.com reports, California considers proposal to end review of pregnancy-related fetal deaths.
Pro-life groups are concerned the inclusion of perinatal death could legalize infanticide.
You see, we're not coming out and just saying they want to legalize post-birth abortion.
But this is what people view it as, and I'll show you why.
The California Assembly's Judiciary Committee passed a bill that would not prosecute women whose babies die of pregnancy-related causes up to one week after birth, alarming several pro-life groups.
Assembly Bill 2223 amends the pre-existing sections of the state's Health and Safety Code.
If adopted, the bill would delete the requirement that a coroner hold inquests for death related to or following known or suspected self-induced or criminal abortion.
And would delete the requirement that an unattended fetal death be handled as a death without medical attendance.
Just think about that for two seconds!
Finally, the bill would prohibit using the coroner's statements on the certificate of fetal death to establish, bring, or support a criminal prosecution or civil cause of damages against any person.
The bill was introduced by Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, a self-described lifelong community organizer who previously worked on Barack Obama's presidential campaigns.
She recently filed for re-election in the East Bay's Assembly District 14.
Wicks said she wrote AB 2223 to prevent women from facing investigation, prosecution, or incarceration due to pregnancy-related outcomes, including abortions.
Anti-abortion activists are peddling an absurd and disingenuous argument that AB 2223 allows parents to harm infants, when the truth is, the part of the bill they're pointing to is about protecting and supporting parents who are experiencing the grief and trauma of pregnancy loss, she wrote in a Twitter thread defending the bill.
This isn't a bill about infanticide.
This is about protecting Californians who suffer pregnancy loss from being unjustly investigated, prosecuted, or incarcerated.
Now, I want to pause there.
Uh, actually, you know, I shouldn't.
Let me read the bill provision first, then I want to bring up very important points.
While testifying before the Judiciary Committee, Wicks gave the example of an unnamed California woman who was prosecuted after she had to deliver her baby via C-section at eight months following a car accident.
Under AB 2223, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual potential or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.
The CDC defines perinatal mortality as a late fetal death at 28 weeks or more, and early neonatal death under age 7 days.
Additionally, the bill states that a person who aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising their rights under this article shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty or otherwise be deprived of their rights based solely on their actions to aid or assist a pregnant person in exercising their rights under this article with the pregnant person's voluntary consent.
The bill also replaces the word woman with gender-neutral terms like individual or pregnant person throughout the text.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee recommended the bill be passed on April 5th.
The committee's vote was split along party lines, with six Democrats voting in favor and two Republicans voting against.
The last Republican member did not vote on the proposed policy.
I want to pause real quick.
I understand the point being made, and it is something the Right needs to address.
The last thing any of us want is, say, there's a woman, and she gives birth to a child, and the child dies within a day or two or three.
We don't want that woman being prosecuted and accused of a crime when dealing with a very serious tragedy.
But there's also the very serious issue of If someone you know and care about dies, you get investigated.
Like, if you're involved in some way, if you're there, if you watch it happen, even if you report it.
When it comes to, say, like, a woman or man being murdered, they will look to the spouse and say, what were you doing?
Where were you?
Because you were the one who had best access to the individual.
Now, you might say, a mother wouldn't want to kill her baby, or why would a husband or wife kill their significant other?
It happens.
And there's good reason to investigate.
So in this instance, I don't think it's a fair argument necessarily from the left to say that if a woman has her baby die within seven days of being born, you won't investigate.
And that's basically what it seems like is happening.
Now, let me read it again.
A person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty or deprived of their rights based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or perinatal death.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
This doesn't do what they're claiming it does.
This literally is like a woman gives birth to a baby, the baby mysteriously dies, and then the woman can just say nothing, omit whatever happened, or even based on their actions they know about.
So hold on there a minute.
They're saying they can't be deprived of their rights, criminally charged, or held civilly liable, if based on their actions there is a perinatal death.
Um, so like, at day five of the baby, the mother throws it out the window?
Is that their actions?
It really does seem like this would legalize infanticide.
It really, really does.
Well, let's take a look at what our good friends over at Reuters had to say before they deleted the fact check.
They say a newspaper article suggesting a proposed California reproductive health bill would legalize the maternal killing of newborn babies, a claim that quickly spread on social media where users claimed the bill would legalize infanticide, misinterpreted the bill, experts told Reuters.
The California Assembly member who introduced the bill filed amendments to further clarify the language used.
The online Miami Standards story ran with the headline, California introduces new bill that would allow mothers to kill their babies up to seven days after birth.
It refers to the bill as an infanticide bill that would legalize the murder of children up to nine months gestation and in the weeks after birth.
A Twitter post sharing a screenshot of the article has over 6,000 reactions.
We get it.
The bill introduced in California by member Buffy Wicks is available to read in full.
The part of the bill that is generating the most concern is section 7a, which reads, notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty or otherwise deprived of their rights based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual potential or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion, or perinatal death.
I'm reading it fast because we already know it, but I want to read for the sake of the article.
The worry for several readers and commentators online is that the language around perinatal death, which some fear excerpts, I'm sorry, exempts parents from prosecution for murder, One Twitter user quoting the section wrote, here is the worrying part.
A representative for WIX quoted him as saying that the online claims, anti-abortion activists, so we saw that.
The representative said WIX filed amendments to the bill on Monday to further clarify the language and clear up misinterpretations that perinatal deaths meant anything other than mothers losing their babies due to pregnancy-related issues.
But that still doesn't pull this bill out of dark territory, as it were.
What's a pregnancy-related issue?
Is abortion a pregnancy-related issue?
Uh-huh.
So, here's the challenge I have with this unrestricted, unfettered abortion stuff that's happening.
As most of you know, when it comes to this issue, I am at odds with basically everyone.
Because I recognize life begins at conception.
That's scientific fact.
There's no logical or scientific argument as to why it doesn't.
The left simply says that because it makes it easier to justify terminating for no reason a baby, killing a fetus for no reason.
I think killing a baby, aborting a baby, is wrong.
I think it's absolutely wrong.
However, The reason why I end up more on the pro-choice side is simply because I want restrictions on government, and I think it's kind of worrying and it is to me a scarier outcome that the government would have controls over whether or not you can provide, whether or not you have to provide your body to someone else.
I just don't like that idea, and I don't know how you reconcile it.
It is more of a liberty-minded and bodily autonomy stance, but The way I see it is, a woman gets pregnant.
We then what?
Try to determine whether or not she was forced to carry the baby.
Some people say it doesn't matter if she was raped or it was incest.
There is a life and you can't terminate the life.
And then my response is like, you will never force me to provide any part of my body to anyone else.
It'll never happen.
It will never happen.
Government comes to me and says, we want to hook up your blood to somebody else.
I'm going to be like, no.
How about this?
So there's very serious moral conundrums here.
And the issue is, let's say, people like to say, if a woman chooses to engage in reproductive activities and gets pregnant, she has a responsibility.
I agree.
I do.
How do you solve for rape then?
Do we then say, prove that you were raped?
I don't know how you deal with it.
I am not going to be the person that tells a rape victim, or maybe even someone who's underage, you are forced to provide your body, your blood, your nutrients to another person.
Imagine you're in a car accident with someone, and you get into an accident, and then in order to keep the other person alive, they hook both of your blood up together.
It's a hypothetical, I know, it's fairly absurd, but the point is, I'd be like, dude, I have no obligation to give part of my body to someone.
What if they, like, without your permission, took your kidney and gave it to somebody else?
Like, I just...
I can't reconcile that in terms of a liberty issue.
You will not touch me.
So, the problem arises then because the majority, overwhelming majority of abortions are for literally no reason.
It's abortion as contraception, which I think is wrong.
How do you solve that problem?
I honestly have no idea.
I don't.
I do think there's probably just simple compromise in that within a certain amount of time, abortions should be permitted.
The problem is the left is going overwhelmingly pro-abortion in any circumstance up to the point of birth, like we saw almost in Virginia, like Colorado is basically doing.
There's no restrictions at all.
And we're seeing on the right, they're basically saying either only in a few weeks or, in the case of Oklahoma, outright not at all.
For me, I'm just like, get the government out of there.
Ben Shapiro makes a really good point, though.
He says, if there's one thing the government should do, it's protect life.
And if you have a woman who is pregnant, the government should not allow this person to terminate that life.
But it's just, like, the person's attached to you and, like, it's just, it's not that easy.
You have two distinct life forms, the baby and the mother, whose rights get protected.
You can argue the right to life supersedes the right of the mother not to provide her body, but then I'm like, is that not still the mother's right to life?
Far be it for me to claim to be the arbiter of morality.
I think this is one of the most difficult moral conundrums we face, and because of it, we're dealing with what may be a catalyst for civil war, or at least a major component.
Oklahoma, Colorado, California, Texas, Mississippi, these dramatically, diametrically opposed abortion laws, they're coming into play.
And it's resulting in people fleeing some states for other states.
I don't see why someone who is conservative minded in a blue state would flee to a state that bans abortion because they just wouldn't get one.
I can understand why people in a red state who want abortions would flee and go live in states that allow them.
It's going to cause geographic hyperpolarization.
Right now we have polarization based on digital tribalism.
It's kind of meaningless if you live in New York and in the suburbs you're conservative and in the city they're liberal because you're still basically living next to each other.
But now because of many of these laws, it's actually driving geographical hyperpolarization, meaning conservatives will more likely live in conservative areas or vote for policies like this, resulting in people who are Democrat fleeing to other areas.
And then what will happen is when these Democrats flee from Texas into Colorado, Colorado will become deeper blue, driving out conservatives for a variety of reasons, maybe tax policy or wokeness in schools.
You will then have states that despise to an extreme degree other states.
Where does that lead to?
Now, I don't know why Reuters deleted this, but when you actually go on Google and look up this fact check, it's gone, as I already showed.
Sorry, that page is missing.
Do you want to check if a saved version is available on the Wayback Machine?
Don't worry, I used Google Cash to figure out what the bill was actually about.
Why did they delete this fact check?
I have a theory.
I have a hypothesis.
I think it's because Reuters actually read through the bill and realized, like, uh, actually the critics are right.
They're right.
This isn't a fact check.
It's an opinion piece.
So Reuters had to get rid of it.
The reality is, under this bill, it's all about an argument in court.
If pro-life individuals say, this bill could allow Infanticide.
Well, you can't fact-check an opinion.
It's an opinion.
And the reality is, it's true.
It could.
Doesn't mean it will.
That is to say, under this language, it will go before a court, and a judge will have to interpret what it does or doesn't allow.
Now, I think the language is very clear, and a judge would look at it and be like, the baby died on day five after being born.
The law says you can't.
So we won't.
Now, that's a scary prospect.
Here's the issue I see.
I don't like abortion.
Specifically, what I mean by abortion is that you've got a woman who chooses to hook up with a guy, gets pregnant, and then says, uh-oh, better get rid of it.
It's like, well, dude, look, you've got to take responsibility, okay?
You chose to do that, and now there is a life attached to you.
I understand it's tough because it's specific to women.
But you made a choice.
Now with the instance of force, now you've got a problem.
A woman forced to carry a baby by a man who violated her body.
The last thing I want is the government to be like, now this other life form will be attached.
I don't like forcing a woman to carry something when she didn't choose to do it.
I don't like the idea of forcing any woman to prove she didn't want it.
It's very difficult.
But I especially don't like women who do choose and then just say, contraception, kill it.
I'm not a fan of that.
So I don't know how you solve for that problem.
The issue now is, if women are allowed faultless, no-requirement abortion, they are, it does lead to things like this.
Eventually you'll get late-term abortion, the line keeps being pushed.
And when the right says, we're stopping here enough, The left says no, yanks the chain, saying we're moving further left without you, the chain snaps, and the right says then we're going back to where we were, and then there's no meaningful compromise.
The end result will either be, women will have to carry pregnancies no matter what, even if there's a health risk to the baby, even if they were raped.
I understand there's a big challenge.
People say, how is it fair to the baby that the woman, you know, was the victim?
Why should the baby be victim too?
And I'm just like, you can't force someone to be attached to my body and then expect me to be like, I'm gonna maintain this connection.
It's not easy.
The answers to these questions are not simple.
But some people just say, don't know, don't care.
The last thing I want is for the government to impose itself.
But if you come out and say women who have accidents or their babies die or whatever should be prosecuted, it's like, yeah, and then what happens when someone exploits the law and actually does kill their baby?
I'm reminded of a story of this couple I read about where they had a child and the child died.
And they were heartbroken, devastated, and severely depressed.
And the state came in and said, you killed the baby, when they didn't.
The kid just had, the kid had some bruising defect.
And so when the kid fell, the kid died.
The parents rushed to get to the hospital.
They're like, we don't know what's wrong.
And they said, this bruising is indicative of abuse.
And they were like, no, the kid has a condition.
And the state said, we don't care.
You're going to prison.
I don't like those stories.
I believe it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
How you solve for a problem like this, I don't think there's any good answer.
I do think, though, that you're going to end up with people on the left and the right, and they are going to say no to the other side, and that's it.
There won't be a compromise.
And neither side wants one.
I think it's a catalyst for civil war in this country.
Not that I think it'll take the form like we saw back in the 1800s, and that's probably the easiest misconception.
I'm saying the future of war will be very, very different.
