Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 18, 2022 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:17:36

Doctor Faces CRIMINAL Charges Over Democrat Abortion Hoax, Viral Story Turns Out To Be Manipulated

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:15:20

Appearances

Clips

josh hammer

00:31

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Today is July 15, 2022, and our first story.
		The abortionist from Indiana who provided care to a 10-year-old girl after she was raped may face criminal charges after she failed to report properly the child abuse.
		Something strange is going on with this story, and it appears to be politically orchestrated because the narrative about Ohio's abortion ban is untrue.
		They don't have a time limit, and they would have given this little girl the abortion she needed.
		In our next story, the house is moving to ban basically all weapons.
		The assault weapon ban covers almost every single modern rifle, even typical hunting rifles.
		They are trying to take your guns, and this bill proves it.
		And in our last story, a Canadian family has a gender reveal for their 8-year-old son after he says he's their daughter.
		The left, they're aborting their kids, they're sterilizing their kids, they're engaging in riskier behaviors, and it seems like the future will be conservative.
		If you liked this show, leave us a good review, share the show with your friends.
		Now, let's get into that first story.
		A doctor who provided medical services to a child after she was violently abused is
		facing a criminal indictment.
		After it turns out, she may have obfuscated severe abuse, and under Indiana law, she may be criminally liable.
		The story you may have heard.
		I'm trying to be delicate in my language for the sake of families, individuals who may be listening to my podcast with younger people around, but it's a truly brutal story, so just so you've been warned.
		A young girl, as the viral story claimed, was impregnated.
		A ten-year-old girl, as it were.
		She sought medical emergency treatments in Indiana, because in Ohio, they passed a heartbeat bill, which typically bans abortion after six weeks.
		In Indiana, the girl received treatment, and the story went viral.
		Evidence was scant.
		There were no criminal charges.
		Almost no information had been filed about what really happened.
		Many people questioned this.
		Then it turned out, the story was true.
		But the story is absolutely creepy.
		While the little girl does exist, the story itself appears to be orchestrated for political gain.
		Now, I refrain from reporting on the viral claims of the left because, well, I need evidence before I can say something is true or isn't and there's not much I can say about something that's an unfounded internet rumor.
		When it turned out there was in fact a little girl who received this emergency medical service, and that's what it was, well then many on the left said we were right, the right was wrong, and they tried to hide the fact that women need these treatments, these services, or little girls in this instance.
		But here's where it gets damning.
		Under Ohio law, the little girl would not have been denied emergency medical services.
		And this is outlined in a statement from the Ohio Attorney General released not that long ago, breaking down what the law actually says.
		So why is it that this little girl did not receive the emergency medical treatment she required in Ohio?
		Why did they not try to get the treatment, the process, procedure done in Ohio?
		Well, I don't know.
		But I do believe.
		One.
		If they did, in Ohio, and were denied, it would have been politically more advantageous for them.
		But I think when you look at the law as it stands, they decided to go to Indiana without filing a report because they wanted the political play.
		I believe they sat on information about the criminal in question so that the right would be drawn into a trap, calling it out as a potential hoax, and then being smeared when they say, ah, see, look, the little girl actually exists.
		But questions are arising now with the Republican Attorney General in Indiana saying, why was this not properly reported?
		The Washington Post says it was, in fact, properly reported.
		Fox News reports, in fact, the perpetrator, who is 27 years old, is being listed as 17 by the doctor in Indiana.
		Now, they may argue she may have made a mistake and just assumed that was true.
		But it doesn't really matter, does it?
		The question the AG has is, how did this person not come to justice?
		Why was there not more information given?
		Why was the information incorrect?
		And we need an investigation.
		Meaning, this abortion, abortionist, Could be criminally charged.
		Now, I want to point out something funny and strange.
		Abortionist is an old term.
		I looked it up.
		It goes back to 1844.
		I mean, abortion's been around for a while.
		And a person who provides an abortion is an abortionist.
		Yet, it's considered today to be improper to say that it is derogatory.
		I believe it was the AP.
		One of these outlets said, don't use the term.
		It is offensive.
		I don't care what you think is offensive or not.
		It's a term that describes a person who does a thing.
		And this abortionist out of Indiana may be criminally charged.
		But let's start with the first story, and that is what's happening with the AG.
	Before we do get started, head over to TimCast.com.
	Become a member to support our work as a member.
	You'll get exclusive, you'll get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast Uncensored After Show Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m.
	We had a really great week Monday.
	Probably the funniest show.
	So if you go to TimCast.com and click Members Only, it will bring you to the full roster of all of our After Hours uncensored show.
	Dave Lando, the comedian, was on Monday with Jamie Kilstein, and it was hilarious.
	Definitely want to check that out.
	And you're supporting our expansion and creating culture, trying new things, hiring our journalists, calling out the lives of the mainstream media, supporting videos like this.
	So if you want to help us out, TimCast.com.
	But don't forget, You can also just smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
	Now, let's get into that first story.
	Political reports.
	Republican AG says he'll investigate India in a doctor who provided care to the victim in question.
	The account about the girl has sparked intense dialogue in Washington, with some questioning its validity.
	Politico says, Indiana's Republican Attorney General said on Wednesday that his office planned to investigate the Indiana doctor who helped a victim who crossed state lines to have an abortion.
	Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Indianapolis, has told multiple outlets that she provided care to the 10-year-old after a child abuse doctor in Ohio contacted her.
	The child was six weeks and three days into the pregnancy, Bernard said.
	After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last month, a wave of state-level abortion restrictions took effect, including in Ohio.
	A state that bans abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy with no exceptions for rape or incest.
	Abortion in Indiana is banned after 22 weeks of pregnancy with some exceptions for medical emergencies.
	Pause.
	Politico.
	Why did you not include there is a medical exception to the rule?
	Why did you not include that this girl would fall under that medical exception?
	No questions.
	It's because it's political.
	Quote.
	We're gathering the evidence as we speak, and we're going to fight this to the end, including looking at her licensure if she failed to report.
	And in Indiana, it's a crime to intentionally not report.
	This is a child, and there's a strong public interest in understanding if someone under the age of 16 or under the age of 18, or really any woman, is having abortion in our state.
	And then, if a child is being abused, of course parents need to know, authorities need to know, public policy experts need to know.
	There are strict reporting requirements in both Ohio and Indiana for abortions and rape allegations.
	Rokita doubled down on his threats of criminal charges in a letter dated Wednesday, but released publicly on Thursday.
	The letter to Governor Eric Holcomb, a Republican, called for records from the Indiana Department of Public Health and Department of Child Services to determine whether Bernard filed a report within the required three-day window.
	Here's what we know so far.
	The Washington Post says she did report.
	Fox News says she reported the individual, the perpetrator, as a minor.
	Which is very strange.
	Which would change the nature of the crime committed.
	An illegal immigrant, 27 years old, committed the crime.
	Why was it wrong?
	I think this plays into the hoax narrative.
	They could have just gotten the treatment done in Ohio, but they didn't.
	They weren't denied, it seems.
	They were just referred out.
	There could have been an exemption made, and it would have been good for Republicans.
	Which is why I think they refused to do it.
	If, in Ohio, the doctor went to the government and said, look, here's what's happening.
	Or, if the doctor just went along with this, the Republicans would absolutely say, this is the kind of thing we're talking about.
	We accept these exceptions and we want to protect little girls who have been abused.
	That would not have worked for the Democrats.
	It would have favored the Republican narrative.
	That they do allow emergency treatments in extreme cases and in cases of child abuse.
	They decided just to leave the state, make a big story about it, and not explain what was going on.
	This is why I say it's a hoax.
	The doctor just made the mistake of incorrectly reporting the age of the man in question?
	Something doesn't add up.
	Now, you can argue it's all gross incompetence across the board, but why not just get the procedure done in Ohio?
	Why not make it a big political argument if they were denied, which they weren't?
	Because.
	Politics.
	At least in my opinion.
	I could be wrong.
	I don't know.
unidentified		I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's what I see here.
		If Dr. Bernard has failed to file the required reports on time, she has committed an offense, the consequences of which could include criminal prosecution and licensing repercussions.
		Ohio's Republican Attorney General Dave Yost said on Fox News on Monday, there was no evidence of a report being filed for the 10-year-old's case, though based on the felony complaint, a police report was generated in late June for the abuse of the child.
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 momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
		See you on the tour!
		Bye!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The account about the young girl has garnered national attention amid the fall of the constitutional
		right to abortion in the U.S.
		and has become a key focus of the abortion debate.
		The account sparked intense dialogue in Washington, with some questioning the story's validity, particularly after President Joe Biden cited the episode last week while slamming the court's decision in a major speech on abortion policy.
		She was forced to have to travel out of state to Indiana to seek to terminate the pregnancy and maybe save her life.
		Biden said in remarks, 10 years old, 10 years old, six weeks pregnant, already traumatized, was forced to travel to another state.
		Convenient, isn't it?
		It's convenient Joe Biden gets to say that because they did not get the treatment done in Ohio.
		Now I know the argument could be that the doctor in Ohio says, I won't do it because of the law, Why didn't the doctor even try to just say, we have to do this?
		Why didn't they try fighting the law in Ohio?
		It doesn't add up.
		Laziness?
		Ignorance, maybe?
		In my opinion, based on the misreporting of the criminal involved, I think this was a hoax.
		Now, Dr. Caitlin Bernard might sue Indiana AG Todd Rokita for defamation.
		That's absurd.
		I really don't think that will go anywhere.
		Now, I don't know what Dr. Caitlin Bernard's intentions were, and it's possible that when the case was referred to this doctor, she didn't know who the perpetrator was, and she was given the age of 17.
		Here's the story from Fox News.
		Ohio 10-year-old's alleged, uh, Alleged perpetrator was listed as a minor in abortionists report to state.
		Hold on.
		Was this the Ohio doctor or the Indiana doctor?
		The Indiana doctor.
		Dr. Caitlin Bernard reported that the alleged perpetrator was approximately 17 years old
		in an official filing to the Indiana Department of Health obtained Thursday by
		Fox News Digital.
		On Wednesday, Ohio authorities charged 27-year-old Gerson Fuentes, an illegal immigrant,
		with the crime in question on a minor under 13 years old.
		I'm trying to be delicate with the language, so...
		Yeah.
		Fuentes confessed to the crime to Columbus Police Department investigators, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yoss said in a statement Wednesday.
		However, the 10-year-old's mother said her daughter was fine and everything they say about Gerson is a lie when confronted Thursday by a Telemundo reporter.
		The alleged crime made headlines earlier this month after Bernard told the IndyStar on July 1st she had performed the abortion on a young victim who she said was forced to cross state lines from Ohio.
		So this we know.
		It's possible.
		Caitlin Bernard was just given bunk information by the family.
		And it seems like the family is trying to defend this criminal.
		So I don't know.
		How does this happen is the question.
		And I really just do not believe them.
		I do not believe them.
		Of course the Republicans don't want to be in this position right now.
		Of course they don't.
		Why are they?
		Because for some reason, a medical exception was not sought after.
		Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost says, The Ohio Attorney General's Office issued the following legal explainer regarding their exceptions on the Heartbeat Law.
		They say, Ohio's heartbeat law appears in section 2919 19 through 2919 19 10 of Ohio revised code.
		The relevant part of Ohio's heartbeat law appears in the section blah blah blah blah blah.
		There is no gestational time limit in Ohio's heartbeat law.
		But hold on.
		They said it bans it after six weeks.
		The AG says that's not true.
		The statute contains three exceptions, though they are not labeled as such.
		One, to prevent the death of the mother.
		The second, due to a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
		And third, the case of ectopic pregnancy.
		So there's no time limit.
		This is why I'm saying it's a hoax.
		You mean to tell me that they said the girl was six weeks and three days.
		It was too late.
		But the law literally does not have a time limit?
		It also says there's a medical emergency.
		They said, a condition that in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at the time, so complicates the woman's pregnancy as to necessitate the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion in order to prevent death of the pregnant woman or to avoid a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily function.
		Of the pregnant woman that delay in the performance or inducement of the abortion would create.
	That's what kind of tongue-tied me.
	Apologize.
	I apologize for pulling the Biden.
	Let me read that again.
	Okay.
	To avoid a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman that delay in the performance or inducement of the abortion would create.
	Okay.
	The italicized language is crucial as another provision.
	The serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
	Too mean.
	Alright, that legalese is getting me all jumbled up.
	You get the point.
	The main takeaway here is there was no time limit.
	She was able to get the procedure.
	A hoax.
	A hoax, right?
	That's what it seems like.
	We have this from the Washington Post.
	Records show Indiana doctor fulfilled duty to report 10-year-old's abortion.
	Really?
	But do they not mention that she reported it wrong?
	That's what I find crazy about this.
	They don't.
	They just say she did the right thing.
	On Wednesday, however, the Columbus Dispatch confirmed the account reporting the 27-year-old man, Gerson Fuentes.
	Do they mention that in Indiana she reported it incorrectly?
	Reporting it incorrectly may not be a crime, so we will see how that plays out.
	But I'm sorry, man.
	The whole thing seems so perfectly orchestrated.
	I'll tell you how.
	The left consistently puts out stories like Justice Millett with limited evidence, and they fall for it.
	Later on, the right calls them out, and it turns out the right was correct.
	Kyle Rittenhouse, Covington Catholic, and Justice Millett are just some recent examples.
	Then we get this viral story, with no reporting, with no confirmation, just a rumor.
	No one can seem to find any information about it, but because the story gets so big, the right takes the bait.
	Why?
	Conservatives started talking about a story that didn't exist?
	That's the stupidest thing ever.
	No, seriously.
	They react.
	That's what the right does.
	It's sad.
	Don't.
	Lead the charge.
	I did not engage with the story because there was no story to engage with.
	A bunch of random Twitter accounts were talking about a thing that they had no evidence of?
	Sorry, not interested.
	Next question.
	Then it turns out the girl existed, and as soon as that happens, they all point, see, the right was wrong.
	The right was wrong.
	See, we proved it.
	Whatever.
	They fell for this one.
	Now, I think it was strategic.
	That's my opinion.
	Because it's just such a weird story, the way everything falls into place.
	The reality is, the conservatives were wrong on this.
	The girl does exist, but I question the actions of the individuals involved.
	Now, where are we going with all of this?
	These are the propaganda stories used to try and codify Roe v. Wade, I guess.
	Where we currently are right now is that Democrats, they want power.
	Extreme power.
	And AOC is calling for the stripping of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
	And it's insane.
	It's an insane power grab.
	Rep AOC tweets, with our basic rights under threat from a rogue Supreme Court, Congress needs to exercise our legal authority to the fullest extent.
	That's why today we call on Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi to support stripping the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over abortion.
	Now on the surface it's laughable, because the Supreme Court did just that.
	The Supreme Court literally said, we do not have authority in this matter.
	So AOC is like, they shouldn't have authority in this matter!
	Okay.
	Well, if you look a little bit deeper, it's more than that.
	AOC is saying they shouldn't have appellate jurisdiction in this matter and should defer to a separate court, and that can be arranged.
	So it's not that she's saying the Supreme Court shouldn't be able to rule on Roe v. Wade, as they already did, or that it should be kicked back to the states.
	She's disagreeing with their ruling and saying a different court should oversee these rulings.
	It would seem they're trying to reinstate Roe v. Wade in a surreptitious, sneaky way that violates major core tenets of this country.
	AOC says, Congress is granted the authority to remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 3.
	To protect marriage equality, contraception, and more, we need to limit the power of the far-right court that's already overturned Roe v. Wade.
	So what AOC is saying is that because the Supreme Court, notably Clarence Thomas,
	questioned Obergefell v. Hodges, I believe, is that—let me make sure we get all these—Obergefell
	v. Hodges, Lawrence v. Texas, and Griswold v. Connecticut, we need right now to take away
	the appellate authority of the Supreme Court and give it to a local D.C. or
	or to a federal D.C.
	court so that they can issue the final ruling.
	It's a power play.
	It's a major power play.
	The Supreme Court said one simple thing.
	We do not have the authority.
	AOC now wants to grant the authority to a lesser court.
	Let me stress that again.
	Supreme Court says, leave us out of it.
	So AOC says, fine.
	Give the final say to a lower court.
	That makes absolutely no sense.
	It's a power grab.
	It's an insane power play.
	And I'm not surprised the Democrats are trying to do it.
	Now, they think they're winning this fight in it to a certain degree.
	They think their propaganda will work.
	It will not.
	They've lost in the Supreme Court.
	They're trying everything they can.
	I don't think they're going to be able to pull it off.
	The Washington Post ran this op-ed, which is particularly fascinating.
	A Berkeley professor's Senate testimony didn't go how the left thinks it did.
	I love it.
	Everyone agrees it was an epic own.
	There's much less agreement about who got owned.
	In Tuesday's Senate hearing on the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Senator John Cornyn asked University of California at Berkeley law professor Kiara Bridges whether she thought a baby that is not yet born has value.
	This ensued, quote, I believe a person with the capacity for pregnancy has value.
	They have intelligence.
	They have agency.
	Because that's how they talk.
	They do this weird thing that's extremely... It's just weird.
	You look at Christine Blasey Ford, she does the look down, you know, the weird thing with the eyes.
	Peter Struck did the same thing, looking down and... And there's another thing that we see from like AOC and this woman, where they go... They can ask a simple question.
	Does an unborn child have value?
	I believe a person with the capacity for pregnancy has value.
	They have intelligence.
	They have agency.
	I think it's creepy.
	I think it's manipulative.
	And I think many people who are easily manipulated fall for it.
	No, I'm talking about the baby, Cornyn interrupted.
	And I'm talking about the person with a capacity for pregnancy, she retorted.
	I'm answering a more interesting question to me.
	Then when it was his turn to speak, Senator Josh Hawley returned to this exchange saying, you referred to people with a capacity for pregnancy.
	Would that be women?
	In even tones, Bridges replied that while many cisgender women have the capacity for pregnancy, many don't.
	While some trans men and non-binary people do.
	But after a little back and forth, she gave up.
	So I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic, she said with an exasperated laugh, and it opens up trans people to violence.
	The whole thing became a Rorschach test.
	Many progressives cheered to see Professor Bridges' school a reactionary Republican.
	But conservatives also cheered because they see a gift to Republican election campaigns.
	Unlike a Rorschach test, however, this one has a right answer.
	And the progressives have it wrong.
	Moreover, the fact that they can't see just how badly this exchange went for their side shows what a big mistake it was to let academia and media institutions turn into left-wing monocultures.
	Within those rarefied circles, Bridges' answers were exquisitely and exactly correct.
	She allowed no hint that late-term fetuses might have more moral value, because that might suggest their interests could be weighed against those of the, well, pregnancy-capable.
	Nor did she concede an inch to the idea that biology can trump gender identity.
	And when she ran out of patience with all these questions, she pounced in exactly the prescribed manner.
	Your questions are transphobic, Senator, and you are putting trans people at risk of violence or suicide by denying their lived reality.
	Yet outside those circles, Bridges' answers don't really sound so convincing.
	In most of America, does a late-term fetus have value is a softball.
	And when Holly leaped in to ask whether women are the ones who give birth, a question few Americans today would struggle with, she resorted to extended question begging that might be fine for a Berkeley classroom, but it just won't do for a political debate in which the majority of voters disagree with you.
	Anyone who has ever tried to convince anyone of anything should be able to see that Bridge's approach was counterproductive.
	Why, then, do so many articles and tweets cheer the way she shut down Holly?
	Because there is one place that snickering, eye-rolling and so forth are very effective.
	Within an insular group, Where they help delineate the lines of acceptable belief.
	A sufficiently incredulous, are you suggesting?
	Effectively signals a silent corollary.
	Because if you are, we'll shun you.
	It tells people that this topic is not up for discussion.
	Within progressive institutions, that's transphobic, is another such signal, and it works.
	Within progressive institutions.
	In fact, it works too well.
	It leaves them unprepared to argue with outsiders.
	Um, McArdle goes on to say, the writer for the Washington Post, When I was reporting on the story of transgender college number Leah Thomas, I noticed a curious disconnect.
	If you read newspapers, watch television, or listen to academic experts, you might have thought that most people supported Thomas.
	With some dissent from a few reactionaries or jealous competitors.
	Yet the overwhelming majority of people that I actually spoke to thought it was unfair for her to compete in women's events, even though most of them were liberals who would never dream of voting Republican.
	They were, however, a fearfully silent majority, which meant Thomas' supporters never had to come up with good arguments.
	Instead, many of my questions got essentially the same answer as the one Bridges ultimately gave to Hawley, even asking the question is transphobic and dangerous.
	Within a narrow set of median academic circles, this was a devastatingly effective tactic that made it impossible for opponents to organize an effective response.
	Outside those circles, however, it failed utterly.
	The Swim Federation swiftly made new rules to bar Thomas, along with other athletes who transitioned after puberty, from participating in future races, which doesn't solve the problem.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		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 Full stop, full pause.
		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.
		It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Full stop, full pause.
		Puberty is meaningless.
		Meaningless.
		You need only look at the 12-year-old boys who have performed historical feats in skateboarding, like landing the first 1080s, and the 12-year-old girls who struggle to get anywhere near that.
		Sad reality for many of these progressives.
		The reality for everyone else.
		I wondered then whether that decision might have gone differently, or at least be less surprising, if Thomas' supporters had been forced to grapple more directly with the things her opponents were saying, quietly, in private, where they couldn't be overheard.
		And I wonder now, what further surprises are in store if progressives can't figure out how to talk to the majority of the country that disagrees with them on a whole lot of things.
		So here we are.
		The propaganda isn't working.
		The more these people sit in their little caves ignoring reality, The more they lose.
		Now, it may be effective in a certain sense.
		They may be able to keep the cult going with their lies.
		But every day we chisel away at that stone.
		We wake people up.
		We challenge the machine.
		We call out the lies.
		Jessie Waters says AOC is a big problem for Democrats.
		Reacts to AOC suggesting January 6th could be an inside job.
		Oh, I can rag on AOC for when I think she's wrong.
		She's right here.
		Here's what I don't get.
		Jack Posobiec.
		Uh, we like Jack.
		Jack's a good friend of the show.
		Jack's a good friend.
		And he said AOC admits.
		I dare say, Jack, she doesn't admit anything.
		She calls out exactly what we called out.
		When we come out and say someone opened the door for these people on January 6th, we're not admitting to it.
		Because that, I mean, what does that mean?
		Does that mean we know the person who did and we were hiding it before?
		No, AOC is calling out what we've been calling out too, unanswered questions.
		I think we have to be careful about that framing.
		When Jack tweeted AOC admits the doors were opened, it makes it seem like she knew before and was withholding that information, when she very clearly and in exasperation was demanding that investigation.
		I agree with AOC.
		Jesse Waters says, AOC is suggesting that January 6th might have been an inside job.
		How come Twitter hasn't banned that?
		She's getting into some very dangerous territory here.
		AOC is right about that.
		Questioning the institutions in D.C.
		is dangerous.
		That's why we're not allowed to ask about January 6th, the FBI's role in the collusion hoax, the State Department covering up Benghazi, the Wuhan lab.
		Welcome to my world, AOC.
		Dip your toe in.
		The water's warm.
		Next thing you know, the congresswoman is going to start asking about the laptop from hell.
		So AOC is a live wire and a big problem for Democrats.
		She's calling the January 6th Committee a sham, saying her side of the aisle is covering up the truth about what happened that day.
		That's a very dangerous place for AOC to be.
		And she is!
		She said, why aren't we investigating this?
		She's outright saying the Democrats are choosing politics over the truth.
		Bravo.
		AOC may have a preconceived notion about what's really happening.
		I don't care.
		I don't care what the right thinks.
		I don't care what the left thinks.
		I care that both sides agree, somebody opened the doors.
		Somebody was helping these people on the inside.
		Let's get to the bottom of it.
		Instead, you know, you get the right just going after AOC because Alex Stein yelled, you had a big booty.
		We got Alex Stein joining us on TimCast IRL.
		I think he's a funny guy.
	I think he's done some good stuff calling out the machine and mocking them, and I think culture jamming is extremely important.
	On this one, I got no problem criticizing the dude.
	I think it's funny.
	People are like, oh, Tim's mad.
	It's like, yo, dude, you think I'm going to sit here and just blindly agree with everything the right ever does?
	Sorry, I don't play that.
	When Alex Stein goes to these board meetings and pretends to be woke and just calls it out, that is brilliant, effective culture jamming.
	I've talked about doing similar things.
	You want to shock the system by just showing them themselves, holding up a mirror.
	Culture jamming is brilliant.
	Yelling at AOC that she has a big booty on the steps of the Capitol makes no argument, exposes nothing, and empowers the left, the far left, and the Democrats, gives them fuel for their fire, and allows them to use that as a propaganda tool to smear conservatives.
	It was a mistake.
	It's funny.
	I wouldn't do it.
	I don't like it.
	But I think the whole circumstance is funny.
	AOC was talking about Brett Kavanaugh.
	Let him eat cake.
	She reacts to Kavanaugh being forced out of his restaurant saying poor guy.
	Well, look, I'll tell you this.
	You gotta have sympathy for people who are getting heckled.
	However, there's a big difference here.
	Kavanaugh was being protested in private.
	AOC was being heckled on her way to work.
	They're different scenarios.
	You shouldn't yell about AOC's big booty because it solves nothing.
	It gives the left power.
	It gives them an argument.
	It gives them propaganda.
	And it doesn't prove a point for you.
	What am I supposed to say here?
	If Alex Stein says, AOC, why do you support killing babies?
	I'd be like, well, you know, there you go, he's asking a question.
	Instead, he just called her sexy and laughed.
	So there's no argument to be made.
	So what is there to support?
	The people protesting Kavanaugh were making an argument.
	A bad one, I might add, but there's more merit in an argument in politics.
	I don't think they should be protesting at a private restaurant over, you know, Kavanaugh eating or whatever.
	It is what it is.
	You can criticize it for a lot of things.
	If Alex Stein saw AOC and said, here's a contradiction, that would have been interesting, because then what would have happened?
	If he was actually protesting AOC and she got mad and called it out and screamed about it, then you'd come out and say the Kavanaugh thing.
	But in this instance, I get why AOC's mad.
	It's not the same thing.
	Yelling about her butt and how she looks is not a political argument.
	That's it.
	There's no argument.
	So AOC simply says, yeah, Kavanaugh was being protested on the merit.
	I was being yelled at over my butt.
	Yeah, okay.
	That's convincing.
	Now you can argue it's not.
	You can argue what you want to argue.
	You're allowed to.
	But I'll tell you this.
	We're in a fifth generational war.
	An information war.
	An info war, as it were.
	We gotta win hearts and minds.
	Do you think yelling about AOC's booty convinces working class people who want the gas prices to go down to vote Republican or to listen to Republicans?
	No.
	It is crass and crude and drives people away.
	It actually makes AOC look sympathetic.
	And then when we should be talking about her calls on January 6th, we don't.
	About January 6th, all we hear about is these booty stories.
	So.
	I think the important thing we do is make our arguments.
	The important thing we do is we call out the manipulations and the propaganda, and we try to get to the bottom of things.
	The Republican AG in Indiana is doing that.
	I think something fishes afoot.
	I could be wrong.
	That's fine.
	I'm giving you my opinion based on the facts.
	So we'll see.
	The next segment is coming up at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL tonight at 8pm.
	We're going to be hanging out with Alex Stein.
	I look forward to it.
	I think overall he does a lot of good work with culture jamming and activism and is brilliant.
	I don't like what he did here with AOC.
	We'll have that conversation.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	We'll see you all tonight at 8pm over at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
	So, they said they didn't want to ban guns, they post memes all day saying no one's trying to take your guns, and now the House Democrats are moving to ban your guns.
	As you know, my friends, I am a gun enthusiast, not a gun expert.
	I have a decent amount, and in recent times, especially living in the middle of nowhere, I have come to have a greater appreciation of the Second Amendment.
	A while ago, four years ago, I was more in the middle.
	I wasn't in favor of things like this because I want to see sound logic behind them.
	But my position was basically, maybe there's some middle ground reforms we could agree on that maybe would make things safer.
	And then I had some arguments.
	Realized I was wrong, and the big issue is, if you want to change the Constitution, you gotta change the Constitution.
	You can't just circumvent it with laws like this.
	The Democrats have repeatedly said they don't want to ban guns, but all they seem to do is ban guns.
	And what gets me particularly riled up is, now that I am an owner of many guns, and I want sound policy, and I want gun violence to stop, the left lies.
	And we get this.
	The Hill reports that they're moving for an assault weapons ban.
	Okay, well, let me show you the text of this bill and explain to you how it basically bans all guns.
	They've tried this before.
	Many say it won't work.
	They keep saying, they say, oh, that bill's going nowhere.
	And you know what, man?
	It's going nowhere only if you and I share stories like this, call it out, and put pressure on politicians not to support it.
	I could sit back and ignore the story and say, ah, who cares, they're going to try and do this thing, they always try and do it, it never works.
	But we just saw a handful of Republicans, including Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, a Republican, the second most Trump-supporting state, support gun control.
	The bill is ridiculous, supports red flag laws, and shout out, apparently people are saying even Ron DeSantis supported red flag laws.
	Huge red flag, in my opinion.
	Let me read you the story, and then I want to show you how they intend to ban guns.
	Because I have the bill pulled up right here, H.R.
	1808.
	And look at all these fancy Democrats who want to take away your God-given rights.
	They don't believe in civil rights.
	They don't believe in human rights.
	They only believe in the power of themselves and whatever serves their agenda.
	The Hill reports.
	House Democrats will soon vote to move an assault weapons ban to the floor, marking the first time in decades that Congress has put lawmakers on record barring the popular firearms.
	The announcement came Friday morning from Rep.
	Gerald Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who said the panel will stage its markup on the bill on Wednesday.
	The move comes in response to a series of recent high-profile mass shootings.
	As we know, there's Highland Park, there's Uvalde.
	In both cases, the alleged shooter was a young man using AR-style semi-automatic rifles, which is a chief target of the Democrats' legislation.
	Except in Highland Park, they had a ban.
	Highland Park passed an assault weapons ban in June 2013.
	Well, fat load of good, that did.
	I don't understand it.
	It's really simple.
	Do you think putting up a sign will stop someone who intends on killing someone?
	Okay, look, there are no trespassing signs everywhere.
	And there are some people who are unwilling to violate what the sign tells them.
	But trespassing is a slap on the wrist.
	Killing someone is one of the most egregious violations of human existence.
	So if someone is willing to do that, do you not think they're at least willing to walk past a sign?
	It's the most insane thing.
	Let's read.
	It is beyond frightening and disturbing that a weapon that was designed as a tool of war— Wrong!
	It's another lie.
	It's found its way into the hands of an 18-year-old.
	Let me tell you.
	The bill they've proposed would ban most modern hunting rifles.
	Okay, you hear that, Democrats?
	Alright, weapons of war are bad.
	Okay, we'll agree on that one.
	And let me say, did you read the bill?
	It would ban hunting rifles.
	I thought those are the ones you thought people should be allowed to have.
	You don't?
	It would ban handguns.
	Desert Eagle would be banned.
	How about that?
	The bill sponsored by Rep.
	David Cicilline of Rhode Island would prohibit the sale, transfer, import, and manufacture of hundreds of models of semi-automatic weapons that boast certain specific features, including those that combine pistol grips with detachable magazines.
	That is basically every modern rifle.
	But I'm not even talking about that.
	They have a bunch of other criteria that would ban even, like, wooden stock rifle grips.
	The ban would not apply to people who already own such weapons.
	That's the dirty, disgusting game they play.
	Fine.
	Go out and buy as many as you can because they'll be grandfathered in.
	But here's the point.
	Oh, they're gonna let you keep the ones you have.
	They're not confiscating them.
	Do you know what happens when they... Say they ban AR-15, just stock, there you go.
	Pistol grip with a detachable magazine.
	And they say you're allowed to keep the one you have.
	Well, one day, you're walking around with one, and you get arrested for having one.
	And they say, if you can prove you owned it before the ban, it's fine.
	That's the crazy thing.
	So, in Maryland, they banned the M1A.
	I believe it's a 7.62.
	Could be .308, but I think many people said, like, don't use .308, it's a 7.62.
	Anyway, I'm not gonna get into that, because I'm not the expert on it, but, you know, people argue.
	They say if you owned it or purchased it before, like October 2013, it's legal.
	Okay, how do you prove that to the cop who's looking at you and says you're under arrest?
	Do you have to carry the receipt with you?
	Or is it incumbent upon the police to prove you didn't buy it before 2013?
	No, they'll arrest you for it, take it away, and then tell you to prove it.
	They'll ban all these guns.
	They say those firearms rank among the most popular in the country.
	And opponents of the ban, including all but a handful of Republicans, say it would trample on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.
	Yes, it would.
	Supporters counter the Constitution written in an age of single-shot muzzle loaders was not intended to apply to much more powerful and efficient weapons, especially since they've been the popular choice of perpetrators in countless mass shootings over the past decade.
	That one's so easy to debunk.
	Did you read anything that was said by the Founding Fathers?
	Did you know that they had multi-muzzle, multi-shot artillery?
	Did you know that there was actually a crank... I guess you can call it, like, an early Gatling gun?
	There was a crank gun.
	No, no, I'm sorry.
	An early revolver.
	It would load the charge, it would fire, then you'd rotate.
	All of that existed around the times of the Founding Fathers.
	Research guns.
	There were, uh, the early revolvers were muzzle-loaded, but they were revolvers that could shoot six shots.
	Hand-crank revolvers.
	It was a revolver.
	You'd load the musket ball, the powder, the wadding, stuff it, rotate, do it again, rotate, do it again, and it would have six shots.
	And you'd have to pour the flint, but you could fire, hand rotate, pour, fire, hand rotate, pour, fire.
	These things are all within the era of the Founding Fathers.
	Now okay, it wasn't commonplace that people had repeaters or anything like that, but yo, they had cannons, and they had privateers, and there were corsairs.
	The Founding Fathers knew what it meant that people would have battleships privately owned.
	So don't play those lying.
	It's a lie.
	And mass shootings?
	The overwhelming majority.
	Handguns.
	But they want to ban modern hunting rifles.
	How many more kids need to die in their schools before we finally crack down on these dangerous firearms which are designed for war?
	They weren't.
	It's a lie.
	The M16 was...
	The AR-15 is a civilian variant, and it is just a semi-automatic rifle.
	That's it.
	It's a semantic argument to say it was designed for war.
	Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the bill.
	It is called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2021.
	Sponsored by Rep.
	David N. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
	They say, to regulate assault weapons to ensure the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited and for other purposes.
	Really?
	That's a fascinating way to frame the bill.
	I believe the Second Amendment says that a well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
	Let me break this down.
	First, tribalists will lie.
	They don't care for what the intent is.
	It says a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state.
	Full stop.
	The right of the people to keep in bare arms shall not be infringed.
	The question at hand is the infringement part, not the right of the people to keep in bare arms.
	That is assumed to be true in the Constitution.
	Now, the left says, but well-regulated militia, therefore, okay, you're talking about the limits of infringement, not that the right to keep and bear arms exists.
	That's in it.
	That's a fact.
	Now, if you think it should be about a well-regulated militia, you're talking about what constitutes infringement.
	Telling people they can't own weapons is an infringement.
	And if the right of the people to keep and bear arms is assumed to be true, as per the Constitution and any person who believes in civil rights, then to what degree is the government infringing when they take action in this direction?
	I would argue That arms is expansive and involves, as it always has, cannons.
	And that's something even the AP admits.
	The Second Amendment allows for the ownership of cannons.
	So you can own a cannon, a grapeshot, and a battleship, but they're saying you can't own an AR-15?
	Nonsense.
	Okay.
	Make the argument, fine.
	But the fact remains, Democrats are trying to ban, effectively, all guns.
	Here's what they say.
	The term semi-automatic pistol means any repeating pistol that utilizes a portion of energy, fire a cartridge, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, okay, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Here we go.
	The term semi-automatic assault weapon means any of the following regardless of country of manufacture or caliber or ammunition accepted.
	A semi-automatic rifle that has a magazine that is not fixed, not a fixed magazine, and has any one of the following.
	So, take a rifle, give it a detachable magazine, meaning you load it, and you click it in, chamber around, you're good to go.
	A pistol grip.
	A pistol grip and a detachable magazine is the overwhelming majority of modern rifles, period.
	That's it.
	It is not automatic.
	It doesn't go... It goes pop, pop, pop.
	Now, people who are good and go pop, pop, pop, pop and fire really, really fast, but that's just called a modern rifle.
	That's it.
	You pull the trigger one time, a bullet comes out.
	It might... Okay, so if it has a detentional magazine and a forward grip, meaning it could be a rifle.
	A hunting rifle with a wooden stock and a modification of a tiny bit so you can have your hand on it in the front to hold like a hunting rifle.
	Like, it's not really a hunting rifle, it's a rifle grip with a wooden stock.
	That's an assault weapon now?
	A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of that weapon.
	Let's say you have a modern hunting rifle with a telescoping, otherwise adjustable stock.
	There are stocks.
	A stock is a thing.
	You hold it into your shoulder to stabilize it.
	And there can be a release that allows you to shorten it if it's too long.
	That makes an assault weapon that they seek to ban.
	A grenade launcher.
	I get it.
	It's a grenade launcher.
	I still argue, how could that be limited?
	But here's the interesting thing.
	This is how insane this is.
	You want to ban a grenade launcher?
	I understand.
	However, if the grenade launcher's magazine is fixed, it's fine?
unidentified		How does that make sense?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Look, you either have the right to keep it in bare arms and it includes grenade launchers or not.
		A barrel shroud?
		Silly.
		It's stupid.
		A threaded barrel?
		Why?
		A threaded barrel in and of itself doesn't do anything.
		Now here's the best part.
		A semi-automatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds except for an attached tubular device designed to accept and capable of operating with only .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
		These people are insane.
		So they're saying... I mean, what does a tube mag hold for .22?
		Like 15 rounds?
		Whatever.
		But at least there's that exception, I guess.
		guess. Any part, combination of parts, component device, attachment, or accessory that is designed
		or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm, but not convert
		it into a machine gun. D. A semi-automatic pistol.
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's kind of weird, but I don't think you have to worry about that.
		Okay, whatever.
		I don't think it should be banned, but it's weird.
		of all pistols.
		A second pistol grip.
		That's kind of weird, but I don't think you have to worry about that.
		But, okay, whatever.
		I don't think it should be banned, but it's weird.
		A barrel shroud on a handgun, I guess.
		The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
		A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm.
		Here you go.
		A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded.
		Desert Eagles out.
		A handgun that is heavy as an assault weapon?
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You gonna hit somebody with it?
		A stabilizing brace or similar component that would ban the overwhelming majority of AR style pistols.
		That would ban all of them.
		So, you can't get a short-barreled rifle.
		That's a rifle below a certain length.
		They sell pistols that have a brace that comes out and goes on your arm, so when you're shooting, it's stabilized on your arm.
		However, fair point, many people use stabilizing braces as stocks.
		Taking a pistol, which they then put a brace on, but use the brace as a stock, effectively, functionally, a short-barreled rifle.
		That, fair point.
		However, I don't think short-barreled rifles should be banned or regulated in the first place.
		So, here we go.
		A stabilizing brace.
		A semi-automatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
		A semi-automatic shotgun that can utilize a magazine that is not fixed and has a folding stock, a pistol grip.
		I got a bullpup shotgun.
		It takes deer, you know, shotgun shells can take a lot of things.
		I don't need any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
		Well, I got one of those too!
		Amazing!
		They just want to ban basically everything.
		Take a look at this.
		All of the following types.
		All AK types including AK, AK-47, 47S, 74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK-90.
		I got an AK-47.
		It is a semi-automatic rifle.
		It does not go brrrrrr. It goes pop pop pop pop. It's a standard rifle. Look at this,
		they ban AR-10. Look at this. AR-10, AR-15. Now to be fair, it's defining these and it's
		to regulate them to the extent that they say they want to ban it, they call it an outright ban.
		Look at this, banning all of these other weapons. Anything that simulates full auto,
		it's absolutely crazy. Outright defining everything. Belt fed.
		Okay.
		Restrictions.
		By inserting, it shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semi-automatic assault weapon.
		As they've clearly defined, it would ban 99% of modern rifles.
		And people just don't know that.
		You can get a Ruger 10-22 with a pistol grip.
		Eh!
		Assault weapon.
		Sorry.
		Throw it out.
		Really?
		But you said the 22 fixed mag is fine.
		So when I buy a Ruger 10-22, it's got a default 10-round drum, but it's got a pistol grip.
		But the 10-round drum is detachable.
		Sorry.
		That's illegal now?
		That's insane.
		They are trying to ban all guns.
		I want to show you.
		They had this.
		Assault weapons ban in Highland Park.
		It didn't do anything.
		The AP.
		Amazing.
		From BearingArms.com.
		Associated Press tells reporters to avoid using politically charged terms like assault weapons.
		On the side of freedom, we have to talk about how language matters.
		The days of asking, what is, is, in such word cells, need to be shattered into a million pieces.
		The level of joy this brings me goes beyond comprehension because the AP is saying don't say these things.
		Here's what they say.
		The weapons menacing looks coupled with public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus
		semi-automatic assault weapons, anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a
		machine gun, can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
		In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.
	Wow. The AP is typically on a good job calling out nonsense.
	Not always.
	But I'm glad they're doing it here.
	They say, when Congress enacted a temporary assault weapons ban in 88, Sugarman objected that the new law created a small island of regulation in a vast sea of laissez-faire manufacture.
	The ban grandfathered every existing assault-style weapon in the U.S., as well as ammunition drums, armor-piercing bullets, and second-hand police weapons, everything from Glock pistols to Army rifles.
	We warned about the limits of the original ban, he said.
	The Violence Policy Center also warned about the sporterization of assault weapons.
	Correspondence came in the other day from the Second Amendment Foundation that's fairly big in my opinion.
	The notice revolves around this use of language and how inauthentic Sugarman's beloved terms really are.
	Alright, this might just be the nerd in me that's taking joy, but this is really, really a big deal.
	The use of language matters.
	We had Ethan Klein.
	It's remarkable this dude could be so successful and not just like Google anything about guns.
	Saying, he told people to go out in front of a certain person's home with weapons and go, You're not gonna get a gun that does that.
	Now, you can get an actual true assault rifle, a select-fire rifle, grandfathered in pre-1986.
	It's expensive.
	It'll take you six months to a year, and most likely it'll take you that long.
	It's gonna cost you $10,000-plus on average.
	They're extremely hard to come by.
	Also expensive and ineffective.
	But this is what these people think.
	They think people are walking around with machine guns just spraying...
	Not true.
	And they lie.
	And when I try telling people, you're not talking about assault rifles, you're talking about standard hunting rifles, they say, we don't care.
	Okay.
	The reason they lie is because they know what they're proposing would be rejected by the public.
	It's true in the case of abortion.
	It's true in the case of guns.
	If you went to the average person and said, the Democrats want to ban almost all rifles, including hunting rifles, they'd say, no, no, no, I'm not okay with that.
	We got to get rid of those fully auto.
	Oh, but those are already regulated and not widely used.
	And they go, oh, well, then what are you saying?
	Well then maybe you don't need to do anything.
	Maybe we need to arrest people who commit crimes.
	I don't know what the solution is to the fact that people are crazy.
	And with freedom comes risk.
	I'm armed.
	Because I recognize with freedom comes risk.
	I don't want cops lurking around my house all the time.
	So that means someone might come up and threaten me.
	What do you do?
	Take responsibility for your life.
	We can have better security at schools or public areas.
	Signs aren't going to cut it.
	Gun-free zone, says the sign as the lunatic walked right past it and said, I have breached their invisible barrier.
	Words are meaningless when it comes to a lunatic who seems to cause harm.
	Now it's true, that if someone didn't have the ability to get a gun, then they'd struggle to cause as much mass death as they have.
	But the problem is, guns can be 3D printed.
	And other weapons can be too.
	And if it's not guns, it's bombs.
	And that'll be a whole other scary world.
	Because bombs, horrifyingly, not that hard to come by.
	So how do you stop that?
	When somebody wants to cause harm, they will.
	The Democrats, they're lying.
	The government wants more power, the elites are insane, and they are coming to take your guns away.
	They admit it.
	You know, we know it because we pay attention, and I don't know how you convince people who just don't care.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	over at youtube.com slash timcast.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	A Canadian family has held a gender reveal party for their eight-year-old daughter after she told them, I don't feel like a boy inside at the age of six.
	Let me break this down for you for those that are confused by the headline.
	A six-year-old boy told his family that he was in fact a girl, and so the family held a new gender reveal party for the child who is now eight years old.
	The child from Ontario was born male, but always felt like a girl inside.
	Her family held a gender reveal party to introduce her to her wider family.
	Mother Nikki set up a social media page to offer advice on transitioning young.
	I'll give you my opinion right away.
	I've removed the images.
	I don't want to show the kid.
	I don't want to bring any undue... I don't want to... I don't know.
	I just want to respect a little bit of the privacy, but I think the story is just extremely important.
	The Daily Mail showed the Instagram account for this family.
	And so I looked, and I believe this is not the story of a trans child.
	This is the story of parents that I believe are suffering from Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
	Likely the mother, in my opinion.
	I'm not a medical doctor, I could be wrong.
	And the father is just too weak to care.
	And the reason I think that is not because it's a common idea when it comes to issues like this, but if you look at the social media profile for the family, it's very much Desperately trying to generate attention.
	They're going to events, they're posting.
	What I would just describe as inappropriate photos of their child, things like that.
	And a six-year-old, I'm sorry, just doesn't know.
	It's just not reality.
	There are many things that children say.
	I remember when I was a kid, and I would just say things because I heard my parents say them.
	And that's the issue we're facing now.
	Is this a child who genuinely believes, or is genuinely trans?
	Or is it just that the parents were encouraging certain things, showing this child certain books, which they were, and then the child said, yeah, okay, I'm that.
	There is a viral story going around, there is a viral story going around, where this woman says, we're allies, so I got my child books on trans children, and now they're claiming they're trans.
	The parent says, I don't think that's true, I wonder why this is happening, and it's, look, Prebubescent children don't understand certain feelings, they're very impressionable, and that's why you have to guide them.
	If a six-year-old came to you and said that they wanted to be a go-go dancer, you would say, no!
unidentified		No!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yet, something that is actually a bit beyond go-go dancing, like drag performances, which are inherently sexual, parents are telling their children they can do.
		If you want to look at a family like this and see stories like this, if you want to understand why these parents are probably wrong, Why they are likely causing an identity crisis for their child, you need only look at the drag performers.
		The drag children that parents are, you know, they're having their kids do these drag performances.
		Because that's not an identity.
		That's, at the bare minimum, you can call it a culture or lifestyle or hobby or something.
		But drag performances are inherently sexual.
		They are adult men who dress in... What's the right way to describe it?
		I guess they dress like a caricature of a woman with fake foam hips and fake foam breasts and they remove clothing on stage in exchange for money.
		It is inherently sexualized.
		Shaking their hips and thrusting and doing things like that.
		Getting down low.
		Other things like that.
		They do it for money.
		It is almost stripping.
		Almost fully nude stripping.
		Stripping actually doesn't always mean you get naked.
		There are many states that don't allow nude performances, so the women who strip take their clothes off, but only down to, you know, like a bikini or something, which is publicly legal.
		Still, not appropriate for kids.
		So that's drag.
		So when they bring drag performances to children, or encourage children to do drag performances, these kids don't have an identity.
		These kids didn't wake up one day and just say, I don't know why, but I really want to dress up like a caricature of a woman and dance around taking my clothes off for money.
		No, it's because they witnessed someone else do it.
		Now, you have these two circumstances.
		Drag kids and trans kids.
		The argument from the left is that drag is just a performance and it's a costume party.
		And that trans is an inherent thing within the child.
		Yet, as Bill Maher pointed out, why is it happening in places like California and not happening in places like Ohio?
		He says either Ohio is suppressing it or California is creating it.
		In my opinion, I don't think six-year-olds know I don't think so.
		I think it is possible.
		I think it absolutely is.
		I think in many circumstances, I don't think the majority, there are children who are legitimately transgender and experience gender dysphoria.
		And the reason I think that's true is because of the story of John Money.
		I believe that there are some people Who genuinely have gender dysphoria.
		I think the problem is when you get parents with Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, they begin to influence their kids, tell them these things, and then when the kids say, okay me, I'm like that, the parents just go, you got it!
		Instead of actually trying to explore it.
		So I think the challenge is, one of the big issues we're facing right now, with this stuff is going to children who are not exposed to this idea, showing them books, explaining all these things to them, and planting the seeds of these ideas and then confusing them.
		I believe the most effective way to help children who are trans is to not expose them to this, so that way if they come about the experience on their own and tell their parents, the parents can say, let me talk to you about it.
		The issue, however, is there is a social contagion element to much of what we are seeing.
		Parents who are encouraging it, giving literature to kids who don't understand it, and then the kids just say, sure, I guess.
		And the parents go, aha!
		And then they bring about a permanent change to a child who is too young to understand what any of this stuff means.
		That's a big problem.
		But here's what I want to get to with the philosophical argument here, I suppose the thesis of this.
		What do you do when freedom is in the mix?
		We believe, I say we, but I should say many people, that parents ultimately make the decisions for their children.
		So in the case of Florida, the Parental Rights and Education Bill, there is a logical conundrum when it comes to the ethics of what's happening.
		In the schools, you have strangers grooming kids.
		Well, that's wrong.
		It should be up to the parents to decide when their kids learn about these things.
		But what happens when you have parents, in this circumstance, telling their six-year-old these things and transitioning them?
		Do we then come out and say, no, no, no, that's wrong, you can't do that, or do we say, well, the parents know best?
		And that's the issue for me.
		Some people say it's not fair to the child, and I'm like, well, you know, maybe.
		I don't know where that line is.
		The parents decided to expose their children to information they thought was important, and now we've met stories like this.
		This is interesting.
		There are arguments that, obviously, if you show adult materials to children, in any context, it could be a crime.
		If an adult parent is showing lewd images to children, it could be a crime.
		But, what about sex education?
		Are you going to accuse a parent of abusing their child because the kid was six and the parent said, we're gonna have to talk about the birds and the bees?
		Well, the birds and the bees is not pornographic.
		A parent decided they wanted to get their kid to understand this at a younger age.
		What about kids who grow up on farms and see animals banging their entire life and then the parent says, let me explain to you what's going on and how this stuff works when the child is six or seven years old because they're watching it happen on the farm.
	It's tough, isn't it?
	Ultimately, I will tell you this.
	There are real problems that arise out of this, and I don't... I don't know how you... I don't know what the solution to the problem is.
	I suppose the issue is there is no simple answer to when a society should tolerate too much individual liberties or allow people to be individually... to entertain their own individual liberties.
	There's no real easy answer because there are ramifications to freedom.
	I suppose in my opinion, you will have families who transition their children.
	I think it's wrong.
	But I don't want to intervene and interfere with a family and how they think they should be raising their kids, because you will get weird... Look, the conversation here is actually twofold.
	Should I tell this Canadian family how to raise their kids?
	Well, if I do, then what's to stop them from telling schools or telling me how I should raise my kids?
	I don't have any kids, by the way, but you get the point.
	Do we just say, okay, fine, do your thing, and... I don't know.
	There's a real challenge to this because it extends into the public health issue.
	S.F.
	Gate.
	San Francisco is veering towards a public health mess on monkey pox.
	Alright.
	Let's just come out and say it.
	Monkey pox is spreading particularly among gay men.
	So it's no surprise that San Francisco is seeing an outbreak and a crisis.
	They need vaccines.
	Everyone pays the price for those vaccines.
	Because men, knowing there's an outbreak, don't care, and engage in activities with each other that spreads the disease.
	Interesting moral and ethical conundrum, I suppose.
	Seriously.
	At what point do we say we can't allow people to be doing a thing if it's causing a public health crisis, or do we just say, you're on your own?
	That's the big issue.
	Let me wrap these stories together and tell you what I'm saying.
	You have a family that is transitioning their child.
	In all likelihood, we'll give the child drugs which will sterilize the child.
	I believe that child will grow up and be very, very angry about this.
	I do.
	And there's going to be a public reckoning on the sterilization of children.
	Because it's one thing if you're an adult gay man engaging in adult activities in an area where there's a monkey pox outbreak, and then you get monkey pox.
	That's one issue.
	But you made your choice, you're an adult.
	For these children.
	They're being raised by parents who are going to irreparably harm their bodies.
	And I mean that quite literally, irreparably harm.
	Well, there are, in my opinion, people who are trans who say they wish they transitioned before puberty so that they would look more like the biological sex they wish to represent as.
	There are going to be many, many children who typically would desist.
	That is to say, at around puberty, they say, okay, that's not the case.
	Then come the puberty blockers, which cause bone density issues, brain development issues, eye issues, knee issues, and can permanently sterilize the child.
	These kids are going to grow up, and we're going to get a John Money situation.
	The John Money story is a tale about the dangers of meddling in these things.
	Two kids were born, both male, twins.
	Botched circumcision.
	So John Money says, how about we force this child to be raised as a female and give them female hormones?
	When this child learned the truth, immediately transitioned back to their biological sex.
	And was outraged, was angered, and then ultimately committed suicide, and then their brother ultimately committed suicide, John Money, forced these children to engage in simulated adult activities with each other.
	It was horrifying.
	The Orville, Seth MacFarlane's show, did a show about a baby in 2017 that was forcefully transitioned from female to male.
	They followed up with a detransition story, actually kind of crazy for, in my opinion, for Seth MacFarlane to actually do this, about the child who did not want to be represented as the other biological sex, and then detransitioned It seemed like they tried to play both sides on the issue with, you know, one parent refusing to allow the child to detransition and them saying, your traditions.
	It's like, OK, it's really interesting.
	Let me just put it this way.
	They did a show.
	Here's where I think we're going with all of this.
	a trans child wanting to be their biological sex and it was tradition to transgender, to
	transition them and it was progressive to say let them be their biological sex. I suppose the idea
	was to play both sides but it really was ultimately a story about de-transitioning a child who was
	unhappy. Here's where I think we're going with all of this.
	It's an implosion. The natural consequence will be, I guess, look.
	The people who are knowingly engaging in adult activities which spreads monkey pox will face the repercussions of that.
	In this instance, they are seeking vaccines, which the public has to pay for.
	It's remarkable, isn't it?
	Morbidly obese people want universal health care.
	Men who are engaging in sex acts with each other and getting monkey pox want vaccines from the government.
	Meaning everyone has to pay the price for what these people choose to do.
	It's an untenable situation.
	For those who are morbidly obese and want universal health care, they have health issues because they choose to eat and not exercise.
	Well, that's a problem.
	That's not sustainable.
	You can't make healthy people who make the right choices pay for those who don't.
	Men who know monkeypox is spreading want others to pay for them to be able to do these things during this health crisis.
	In the end, the system buckles under the pressure in two ways with both of these stories.
	The trans children, many of them are going to be sterilized.
	Look, I get it.
	The parents have chosen that.
	I don't know if I should be intervening in how the parents decide to raise their kids.
	You may see these children as victims, and I get it, so we're gonna have to, I don't know, litigate that and figure out where the line is.
	But if liberals choose to be morbidly obese, defend it with body positivity, if they choose to abort their children, if they choose to sterilize their children, and they choose to engage in adult activities which spreads a serious disease, the end result is simple.
	Good times make weak men.
	Weak men make hard times.
	Hard times make strong men, right?
	In the end, the conservative who believes in merit, who eats healthy, who exercises, who abstains from these things that could result in detriment to their health, Who chooses to raise their kids to be healthy and strong and have kids of their own.
	The mathematical equation is quite simple in all of this.
	You can come down and blame the parents, you can criticize abortion, you can criticize what these men are doing, but in the end, I think it's kind of simple.
	The left is removing themselves from the gene pool.
	The right has fortified themselves against these things.
	And the end result will be conservatives will have more kids.
	Those kids are more likely to reproduce and give it 20 years and this country is Christian conservative, period.
	There's no argument.
	It's pointless.
	Why are we seeing this big right-wing push, this right-wing populist, this Christian conservative resurgence?
	Because liberals aborted their children!
	They are less likely to have kids, they're more likely to abort.
	So that means this generation, 20 years ago, I've talked about the data, 20 years ago, conservatives were having about 25% more likely to have kids.
	Conservatives were having 2.01 children to liberals 1.5.
	have kids. Conservatives are having 2.01 children to liberals 1.5. That means give
	it 20 years and the generation will be slightly more conservative just because
	conservatives are raising these kids.
	Which is why I often say, if the Republican Party, if conservatives, if Trump supporters win on the issue of school choice, the left will cease to exist.
	Because they're doing it to themselves.
	And that's where I get to the point of, where's the line in individual freedoms?
	Me, I'm very much all about it.
	So when people talk about the pandemic and wearing masks, I say, stay home.
	If you're scared, stay home.
	When it comes to the monkey pox stuff, I'm like, I don't got anything to worry about because it's spreading among the gay community.
	And among the gay community, it's those who choose to engage in this, and not every guy is.
	There's probably many gay men who are like, I'm worried about monkey pox, so we should chill out.
	Give it two months.
	Abstain for two or three months.
	Monkey pox is gone.
	But they don't.
	So it spreads.
	Well, it's not going to affect me.
	So if people want to choose to do that and take the risks, that's on them.
	And then they will face the detriments of this.
	Parents who want to sterilize their kids, there's a concern.
	The children are being victimized.
	What do you do, though?
	Parents can decide for their children.
	Unless you want the government to intervene and say, this is what you must do when you raise your kids.
	And therein lies the challenge there.
	If the right embraces the idea the state can set a line on how children must be raised, then what if they come in and say, you must transition your kids?
	Or we can sit back and say, parents know best, let me stay out of it.
	That's why the end result I have on this is much more libertarian.
	And while I am concerned about what happens to these kids who grow up and then freak out because their parents did this to them, I ultimately say the end result is that the left will excise itself from society.
	It's exactly what they're doing right now.
	You've got the end of women's sports.
	Women's sports has become people in dress sports.
	It's no longer about biology.
	It's no longer about the differences between males and females.
	It's about sometimes people wear dresses, and that's what a woman is there for.
	If the argument from the left is that a woman is someone who identifies as an adult human female, and they change the definition to be such, then we need only call women's sports female sports, right?
	Problem solved.
	Female sports are about your assigned gender.
	I'll use the left's language on that one.
	Here's what I'll do.
	I'm libertarian.
	You know, I'm centrist libertarian, a little left on some economic policies, a little right.
	I can rag on free market capitalism all day, baby.
	You look at the pharmaceutical companies whose profit motive is driven not by curing diseases, but by sustaining them and treating symptoms.
	Not a fan.
	I can be a little bit more right-leaning and be like, y'all are excising yourself from society.
	But I'm fairly libertarian, so do your thing.
	Live your life.
	Be happy.
	And the end result will be a Christian conservative nation.
	What can be said?
	Conservatives are desperately trying to save liberals from themselves.
	To prevent abortion.
	To make sure that they have kids and those kids persist.
	To stop the child abuse of these children so they can have families and persist.
	But if the right just sat back with a more libertarian view and said, do everything you want to do tenfold, the United States would not collapse.
	The liberal faction of the United States would collapse within a generation or two.
	I'm libertarian.
	I say let them do what they want.
	I'll tell them I think you guys are excising yourselves from the gene pool.
	They don't seem to care, so why should I?
	Give it two generations, and their ideology is gone.
	Because they sterilize their kids.
	And because they engage in dangerous, risky activities amid pandemics.
	It's funny, isn't it?
	They're like, Republicans aren't wearing masks, there's a pandemic.
	And I'm like, yeah, okay.
	Because they assume the right to make that risk.
	I'll say the same thing of these men who are getting monkey pox.
	I don't think they're gonna die or anything like that.
	But, same issue.
	Be free.
	Do your thing.
	I will take care of myself.
	I will be responsible.
	I will try and spread values that I think are good, and those that refuse to accept them will eventually just no longer be a part of society when they don't have kids.
	That's it.
unidentified		I don't know, man.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Crazy days.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
		on this channel.

▲