Biden Student Debt Forgiveness BACKFIRES, Democrats Say He's INSULTING Workers And The GOP AGREES
Biden Student Debt Forgiveness BACKFIRES, Democrats Say He's INSULTING Workers And The GOP AGREES. The tax bill for Biden's plan is estimated at $600B and sparks fears it will drive inflation.
Leftists are mad Biden didn't go far enough and cancel all debt, Democrats are mad that its an insult to blue collar workers who were responsible or didn't go to college and republicans actually agree.
Some surmise this will hurt democrats severely in the midterms as working class people will continue their revolt against the establishment and democrats.
#democrats
#biden
#republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Joe Biden's student debt forgiveness is backfiring.
Moderate Democrats are furious, saying he's basically spitting on people who already paid off their loans by giving out this cash, and they can't answer how they're going to pay for it.
Now, the left is angry because they're not going far enough, though they are kind of happy with it.
Biden has just entered a lose-lose situation, and the tax bill is estimated at $600 billion.
Americans are concerned this will drive inflation.
In our next story, strangely, the narrative on vaccines is shifting.
Democrats are attacking Trump for rushing the vaccine through.
Huh.
YouTube has also changed its rules on vaccine misinformation in a very strange way.
And in our last story, Marjorie Taylor Greene swatted again.
And a federal court has ruled that gender dysphoria is a protected disability.
If you like the show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
He went all in on the student debt forgiveness, but Democrats, leftists, and conservatives are all angry.
That's kind of funny.
The left is angry that he's not doing enough, while many of the people on the moderate left-leaning left are okay with it.
They like the idea of student debt forgiveness.
Many of them have been complaining, saying, $10,000?
What's that?
You need to forgive everything!
There was talk about $50,000 being forgiven, and now what?
Moderate Democrats, those establishment types, are actually angry, saying, there are people who didn't take out loans who are receiving no benefit.
You are giving a grant to people who have the highest salaries on average in this country.
And the right?
Saying basically the same thing.
Free money.
The people who paid off their loans, saved up and sacrificed, get nothing.
No, for me.
Yeah, I think we need some kind of forgiveness.
That's my personal opinion.
I don't know if this is the way to do it.
I actually don't think this is the way to do it.
I think you gotta go for, like, interest forgiveness.
But there's a big challenge here.
The tax bill.
The cost of this.
It could be up to $600 billion.
And it will come out of the pockets of regular working-class Americans.
Now, if there's a federal loan where the government gave a loan, they can just say, you know what?
We don't want it.
We don't want it.
Okay, fine.
That money still came from the taxpayers.
Now, you can argue, what these leftists are arguing, they're like, you're not taking money from anybody, you're just cancelling the debt, it no longer exists.
Where'd the money come from in the first place to give to the students?
So, someone comes and says, can I borrow money?
The federal government gets its money from you, from the taxpayer.
Give all that money to people.
They're supposed to pay it back.
When they do, that's your tax money being returned to the government to be used for programs you, well, typically don't agree with.
But at the very least, it's your money going back to the system, not just being given away for free.
Now what we're seeing is with Joe Biden's plan, he's basically pissed off everybody.
It's not enough, it goes too far, and it's angering many Americans who are now concerned this will lead to more inflation.
And it will.
Here's the worst part about it.
Look, I think we need some kind of system because the loans are predatory.
The whole system is predatory on young people.
We need to solve this problem.
The problem here is that Joe Biden's plan actually will likely result in tuition going up.
Yep.
The White House press secretary said basically just that, or he said, you know, we anticipate this and we're gonna be looking out for it.
Are you kidding?
So you're doing this half-cocked plan of a 10k debt forgiveness that's going to the highest income earners in the country.
That's crazy.
Now I will add, within Joe Biden's plan, there are some interesting things that I think are worth addressing.
It's not, it's not, well, it's kind of bad, okay?
This plan doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
But there's interesting things in there.
They're taking a more classical liberal approach to solving racial disparities.
Instead of saying, we're going to give debt forgiveness based on race, they're saying, hey, we think this plan ultimately will, regardless of race, benefit people, you know, in different minority groups.
And that's the way it should be.
So, look, I always want to make sure we're giving credit where credit is due and we promote the good while calling out the bad.
If Biden is backing away from race-based policies and saying, hey, this non-race-based policy will have a net benefit on people who have suffered, you know, through racism or whatever, that's the way you go about doing it.
Of course, politically, it's resulting in a lot of problems.
And one thing that's being exposed here is that it doesn't matter what you actually support.
I mean, I can tell you from experience, I have all these lefties just being like, Tim, you oppose debt forgiveness!
And I'm like, how many times do I gotta say, I'm in favor of debt forgiveness?
Until they finally get it through their heads.
Nope.
It's meaningless.
They're bots.
Dave Smith.
Libertarian guy.
He comes out, he says he's against this as well, but he's got a problem with big corporations getting tax breaks.
I'm like, I agree with him.
And then someone responds with, but you go on the Rupert Murdoch network.
So I want to address that.
The way the media has been shapened by the culture war.
And why so many people now are leaving the left or saying the left left me.
We'll read this first story about the backlash from Democrats over Biden's plan.
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 segments of the TimCast IRL podcast uncensored
after hours Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m. Last night was particularly spicy.
Um, no.
Not for the families.
And we had James Lindsay on talking about these predatory books going after children.
Really interesting stuff.
Of course, we have the weekly show, Cast Castle, which you'll definitely want to check out the first episode.
We're ramping things up.
We're figuring it out, and we're starting from the bottom.
We're not a big Hollywood production facility, but with your support, we're building culture.
At midnight tonight, technically Friday at 1201 AM, we will be releasing Timcast Records' first single, Only Ever One.
Technically, you could say Will of the People was the song we released, but this is under the official Timcast Records, and we're going to be releasing songs from a bunch of other people because our goal is to build culture, to push back, and create a space where people can just be themselves and not have to worry about being cancelled or bending the knee to a cult.
We're going to support people who just want to have fun.
And that's coming up.
Stick around.
I'm really excited for this song.
Really, it's not political at all.
It's just regular music.
Yeah.
Maybe it won't be your cup of tea.
Maybe it will.
We'll see.
Smash that like button.
Subscribe to this channel.
Share this show with your friends.
Here we go.
The Daily Mail reports.
Democrats' civil war over student loans explodes.
Biden is blasted as out of touch and told he is punishing those without a degree by his own party, as new projection says it will cost Americans $500 billion.
There's a funny meme going around.
It says, if you didn't have student loan before, you do now.
Sputterings of dissatisfaction among Democratic ranks over Biden's plan to wipe out at least 10K in student loans has erupted into a full-blown civil war within the party, with some claiming the move is out of touch with what Americans want.
The shocking price tag for the forgiveness plan is now estimated to cost taxpayers up to $600 billion, even for those who did not take out federal student loans or have already paid it off.
Thousands of families who saved up to pay for college educations are furious that their responsible financial planning will leave them without benefiting one cent from the relief plan and potentially paying roughly $2,000 in taxes to help pay for it.
I got an idea!
Here's my idea.
How about this?
Everybody else gets a $10,000 tax credit.
I'm gonna say that again.
Everybody else gets a $10,000 tax credit.
But you may be saying, but Tim!
That is a massive sum of money.
We're talking billions of dollars not going in taxes.
Uh-huh.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm totally fine with that.
Maybe we can make it permanent.
How about this?
You give $10K to people to pay off their student loan debt, everyone else gets a $10,000 tax credit.
Anyway.
Democrats, they say there's thousands of families who saved up.
They say paying roughly $2,000, their responsible financial planning will leave them without benefiting one cent, and potentially paying roughly two grand in taxes to cover it.
Democrats who are fearing a Republican bloodbath in the 2022 midterms are turning against the president as the White House scrambles to explain how they will pay for the plan.
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona ducked twice when asked by CNN's New Day how much the plan would cost and how it would be paid for.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released estimates Wednesday claiming that the forgiveness plan could cost taxpayers between $400 and $600 billion over the next decade.
This estimate includes the most up-to-date information revealed by the administration and is higher than previous estimates made before Biden announced that Pell Grant borrowers would receive $20,000 in forgiveness while non-Pell Grant recipients stay at the $10,000 figure.
The White House and Education Department did not respond to a Daily Mail request for comment.
Biden officially announced on Wednesday his administration is forgiving $10K in student loans for individuals making less than $125K, or joint filers with $250K income combined.
The scale of the gulf in the Democratic Party was made clear when progressive factions demanded all student loan debt be canceled.
Meanwhile, more establishment and moderate members are pushing back against the more conservative move the administration made on Wednesday.
Maine Representative Jared Golden said in a statement, this decision by the president is out of touch with what
the majority of the American people want from the White House, which is leadership to address the
most immediate challenges the country is facing.
Fellow Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio said it sends the wrong message to those without a degree.
Quote.
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 Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax deductible donations.
So go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet and greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Well, there's no doubt that a college education should be about opening opportunities.
Waiving debt for those already on a trajectory to financial security sends the wrong message to the millions of Ohioans without a degree working just as hard to make ends meet.
That's right.
College degree holders are the highest income earners in the country on average.
Why are they getting a freebie?
You were given a loan.
You make more money now.
Now, I still think we got to end this loan system.
And I agree.
My view on this is Forgive interest?
I think it's a compromise like most people are okay with.
My attitude is actually a little bit more than just the compromise.
I say interest rates gone.
You got to pay back your principal and any interest paid prior will be applied to your principal.
Any excess interest paid will be considered a tax credit.
This means you have to have paid back what you used.
That's it.
There's a question there about potential interest because there is inflation.
So, okay, fair point.
It still is on the side of debt forgiveness.
For me, it's just more of a moderate, slightly left position.
But I'd be willing to say, okay, how about we do a flat, not compounded interest?
If you borrowed 50k, we calculate for inflation, and you have to pay back with inflation.
Then, that will be your new principle, and all interest prior will be applied.
Here's why I think that makes sense.
Look, when you borrow money, you gotta pay it back.
You can't take taxpayer dollars, or, assuming it's fractional reserve and credited upon issuance of the loan, you can't inflate the money market and then expect all of these regular working class people to absorb the inflation.
No, you gotta pay it back.
These loans, in my opinion, are predatory.
And there are people who have taken out loans for $50,000, paid back $70,000, and still owe $30,000.
I'm sure you know people who are in that position.
How does that make sense?
That's not inflation!
That's insane!
So, how about this?
You took out $50,000 ten years ago.
Today, that's probably around $65,000.
Okay, well, we'll apply that inflation.
You gotta pay that back.
Whatever interest you paid is applied to your existing principal.
And then anything after that I think goes towards a tax credit because I gotta be honest, I literally don't care if taxes were like totally eliminated outright.
Give everybody a tax credit!
I'll tell you this, everybody gets a $100,000 tax credit.
There you go.
Not only the rich people are paying.
Yup.
Still fine with that.
Anyway.
They say with midterms right around the corner, some Democrats are worried that they will lose favor among those who worked hard to save up, work through, or swiftly pay off their loans.
Yup.
That's a fact.
One of the most vulnerable Democrats in the House, Rep.
Chris Pappas of New Hampshire, criticized Biden's decision on student loan forgiveness.
He said the move sidesteps Congress and insisted it would do little to fix the core issue of the affordability of higher education.
The nonprofit Taxpayers Protection Alliance told Daily Mail that Biden's plan is a reckless policy that will overwhelmingly benefit wealthy Americans and increase the deficit and debt.
Not to mention, my friends, that back in July of last year, Nancy Pelosi disputed Joe Biden's power to forgive student loans, saying, no, Congress has to do it.
Yeah.
Well, Biden doesn't care.
See, this has been the hallmark of the Joe Biden presidency.
Do things by executive order that you know are probably not constitutional and then wait for them to reverse it.
But it already happened.
Like the mandates.
He can come out and be like, yeah, well, you know what, we'll do it, and then it'll take several months before you can actually get any court remedies, and he'll get to do it.
What's basically being said is you can do it until the court stops you.
Absolutely insane.
How did we come to this point?
Where's Pelosi now?
The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote a scathing article slamming Joe Biden and the cost,
writing, Biden's half trillion dollar student loan forgiveness coup. His student loan wrote
off as an abuse of power that favors college grads at the expense of plumbers and FedEx drivers.
This is not the way, man.
And I'll say it again.
The left wants me to come out and give this nonsensical and insane, full-throated, we should cancel all debt!
Not happening.
Because I don't favor giving free money to rich people!
The left is not really the left.
These people, I don't know what's wrong with them.
I want to tax the rich!
Yo, the college-educated, they're the bourgeoisie.
They are the higher-income earners in this country.
I agree.
The loan system is predatory, and I want to see it shut down, and I want to see relief to these people, because I can respect that they're trapped under a boot.
But for them to come out and think they get free money?
No.
You gotta pay back the principal.
But I think it's fair to deal with the interest.
Wall Street Journal's editorial board writes, Well, he did it!
Waving his baronial wand, President Biden on Wednesday cancelled student debt for some 40 million borrowers on no authority but his own.
This is easily the worst domestic decision of his presidency and makes chumps of Congress and every American who repaid loans or didn't go to college.
You gotta understand, man.
I get the argument when they're like, You're mad because I'm getting relief because you didn't?
Yeah, because there are people who slept on couches thinking, I need to pay these loans off.
And you, and other people who didn't, paid the bare minimum, and now you're getting a free ride.
Sends the wrong message, and it's going to really piss people off.
The president, who never says no to the left, did their bidding again with this act of executive lawmaking, er, breaking.
The government will cancel 10k, so this we know.
But there's much more.
Biden is also extending loan forbearance for another four months, even as unemployment among college grads is near a record low 2%.
Congress's CARES Act deferred payments and waived interest through September 2020.
But Donald Trump and Joe Biden have extended the pause for what will now be nearly three years.
Wow, that's crazy.
The administration is claiming again.
This will be the last extension and is needed to help borrowers prepare to resume payments.
But even if the administration lets the forbearance end in December, about half of borrowers won't have to make payments since their debt will have been canceled.
Most of the rest will only make de minimis payments because Mr. Biden is also sweetening the income-based repayment plans that Barack Obama expanded by fiat.
Borrowers currently pay only up to 10% of discretionary income each month and can discharge their remaining debt after 20 years, 10 if they work in the public service.
Democrats said these plans would reduce defaults.
They haven't.
Federal student debt has ballooned because many borrowers don't make enough to cover interest and principal payments.
So their balances expand.
Student debt has nearly doubled since 2011 to $1.6 trillion.
Though the number of borrowers has increased only 18%.
Now, Mr. Biden is cutting undergrad payments to a mere 5% of discretionary income.
The government will also cover unpaid monthly interest for borrowers so their balances won't grow even if they aren't paying a penny.
This will mask the cost to taxpayers of the administration's rolling loan write-off.
Student loan debt won't appear to swell even as it does.
What a fabulous accounting trick.
The Penn Wharton budget model estimates that canceling $10,000 for borrowers earning up to $125K will cost about $300 billion.
The Pell Grant addition could increase this by as much as $270 billion.
The four-month freeze on payments will cost $20 billion on top of the roughly $115 billion it already has.
The payment plan revisions could eventually add hundreds of billions of dollars more.
An analysis commissioned by the Trump Education Department estimated that taxpayers would lose $435 billion on federal student loans.
Largely because borrowers in these payment plans, on average, were expected to repay only half of their balances.
Now, they will repay even less.
Worse on the cost is the moral hazard and awful precedent this sets.
Those who will pay for this write-off are the tens of million Americans who did not go to college, or repaid their debt, or skimped and saved to pay for college, and chose lower-cost schools to avoid a debt trap.
This is a college graduate bailout paid for by plumbers and FedEx drivers.
Colleges will also capitalize by raising tuition to capture the write-off windfall.
A White House fact sheet hilariously says that colleges will, quote, have an obligation to keep prices reasonable and ensure borrowers get value for their investments, not debt they cannot afford.
Only a fool could believe colleges will do this.
Which brings me to a couple of tweets from Benny Johnson.
He says, Biden's bumbling press secretary forced to admit tuition costs about to skyrocket after Biden's latest move to tank the economy.
I love the all-caps.
And it's funny because when I meme the all-caps, the left really thinks it's a legitimate tweet.
I tweeted something about Vosch calling him a communist or something, and they were like, look what Tim is saying, blah.
And I was like, dude, it's not a real tweet.
Calm down, you weirdos.
Anyway, in this video, We have Biden's bumbling press secretary unable to answer and just saying, we're going to be keeping an eye on this.
And they basically are expecting it to happen.
That because they're paying these bills, tuition will go up.
It's going to make things worse.
Then we have this one.
Peter Doocy sends Biden's press secretary into panicked word salad when asked how Biden is paying for absurd student loan forgiveness.
To put it simply, my friends, she did not have an answer.
She went, and then when Peter Doocy was like, how are we paying for this?
Who's paying?
She goes, I already laid out how things are happening.
You didn't say how we are paying for this.
And she goes, I told you how it's being laid out.
This is the WORST press secretary I've ever seen.
Yo.
Everybody liked to rag on Jen Psaki.
But she was good at what she did.
And I long maintained that.
She'd circle back, circle back.
She'd give the spin.
She had an answer.
This lady?
She's quite literally the worst in terms of her skill.
As a person, I don't know her.
Maybe she's lovely.
And I'll give a shout out to, you know, Spicer and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
I don't believe any of these people were telling the truth.
I think this is a big waste of our time and the fact that anybody watches the White House press conference is insane to me.
You think they're gonna come out and tell you the truth?
Get out of here.
Anyway, back to the Wall Street Journal, they say, it's important to appreciate that there's never been an
executive action of this costly magnitude in peacetime. Not Mr. Obama's immigration amnesties, not
his clean power plan, not Trump's border wall. Nothing comes, and they call it wall fund
diversion, nothing comes close to this half trillion dollar or more executive coup. Congress authorized
none of Mr. Biden's loan relief and appropriated no funds for it.
Progressives say the Higher Education Act of 1965 lets the Education Secretary compromise student debt.
But the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 sets a very limited terms and strict procedures for such compromise.
Even Mr. Biden said in December 2020 it was pretty questionable whether he had the authority to cancel debt this way.
The Supreme Court recently underscored in West Virginia v. EPA that Congress must provide clear authorization to agencies taking action on major questions.
Canceling so much debt is beyond major to a mega-ultra-super question.
I say backfire.
precedent. Progressives will return to this vote buying exercise every election year. The only
antidote will be if Democrats conclude this gambit boomeranged politically by mobilizing
an opposition coalition of Americans who are tired of being played for saps by progressives.
The test arrives in November. I say backfire. I say backfire.
I think you're going to see many regular people that are really, really angry about this.
Take a look at this, Forbes.
Most Americans worry student loan forgiveness will worsen inflation poll fines.
And what's funny is, guess, if I were to ask you, among those who hold student loan debt, do you believe they overwhelmingly support or oppose this bill?
Surprise, surprise, the people with debt overwhelmingly support it.
What about people with no debt?
Oh, surprise, surprise, they overwhelmingly oppose it.
That's basically what you have.
People who are in debt and got free money don't want to pay it back.
Okay.
And I'll say it again for those in the back.
Interest rates, I understand.
Cancel the interest rates.
Forgive that.
But the principal must be paid back because that's our money.
The survey found 59% of Americans reported concern about how loan forgiveness would affect already high inflation, according to an online study that polled a national sample of 5,142 adults from August 4th to 15th.
That's a big sample.
According to the poll, 34% of respondents said only borrowers in need should have their student loans forgiven, while 32% are in favor of loan forgiveness for all Americans who have debt.
You know what, I think one good argument that was made was allow student loan loans to be removed through bankruptcy.
Because people who can afford to pay them back won't want the bankruptcy.
It's bad.
And the people who can't will get relief.
That's the purpose.
Right now, you can't do it.
I want to jump to this tweet from Dave Smith, who makes a good point.
He says, I'm as against student loan forgiveness as anyone, but it is a little crazy to see the reaction.
Every damn billionaire in this country is on welfare.
The last two years have seen the largest corporate giveaways in human history, and it doesn't seem to generate as much outrage.
You know, I disagree to a certain extent, Dave.
I think many people were complaining about the transfer of wealth to major corporations when the lockdowns happened.
Democrat governors, by the way.
Many people outright said, you're shutting down a small business but allowing Walmart to keep operating.
It was a big story.
In response to this, someone said, lol, you go on Rupert Murdoch's network.
And there it is.
Someone else said, pretty much the same goes the largest military budget in history year in year out, just partisan hackery like on every issue of the day.
I actually want less people paying the government for anything.
That's why I'm kind of like, okay, you know, tax credit for everybody.
Hey, we can agree on that.
You can't discriminate.
If everybody gets 10k in student loan forgiveness, everybody else should get 10k debt forgiveness across the board.
So how about that?
Tax credit.
Anyway.
You go on Rupert Murdoch's network.
It requires and has a really great thread breaking this down, and it's important to understand what's happening.
He says, have you wondered why folks you previously thought of as left of center
are appearing on Tucker Carlson, Epoch Times, and The Blaze?
It's effectively the story behind this tweet.
Before 2011, outfits like NPR were left-leaning news services.
About 10 years ago, that changed.
He says, I used to talk at folks at CNN, NPR, and the Washington Post all the time on inflation, physics, immigration, science policy.
Then, mysteriously, reporters slowly started complaining about the situation at work.
Much more.
Seemed like we went from news to spin with spin to narrative.
Eric, it is quite literally called mission-driven storytelling.
That's the internal term they use at many of these companies to describe what they're doing.
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.
He says narrative driven news was the New York Times special brand.
On the one hand, it was written with lovely prose.
On the other hand, I hated the idea that the narrative arc was constructed to fit facts that sometimes hadn't even happened yet.
The idea of narrative beyond spin took off.
Narrative is a half measure, okay?
Narrative implies they want to tell a story.
No, it's called mission-driven storytelling, meaning the narrative intends to fulfill a purpose.
Mission-driven news or mission-driven storytelling is a more important framing because narrative-driven news, again, you're just basically saying they have a story to weave.
Mission-driven is they're lying to you for political power.
He says, Reporters started warning me.
We're hiring kids who don't believe in objective factual reporting.
We're being pushed to be on Twitter.
Editors aren't letting our best stories through as much.
I can't use you anymore if you aren't going to play ball.
It sucks.
Sorry.
He says, I can probably figure out the last time a reporter called me up trying to understand a story as opposed to trying to get a grist for a gotcha piece.
But it seems like years ago.
So what happened?
Many Democrats tried to go back to NPR but found the door slammed in their face.
Eventually we took the hint.
Journalism at prestige legacy media properties was changing.
News desks were dropping stories entirely that didn't fit house narratives.
They weren't forced to report them and spin them.
They would just spike the story that previously would be a scoop.
And this led to the question, if Fox News is willing to run and spin a story, the New York Times and CNN is pretending it doesn't exist, do I go on that channel?
The answer is, if you're a Democrat in the U.S.
who doesn't agree with the new crazy direction of the party and its media, then in the new world, you need to become one of two things.
Silent, or identified with the discredited, far-loony tunes right.
But you went on Fox!
Which is the main point.
When Dave Smith comes out and makes a moderate point, that's the response he gets.
Now, this is what happens.
He says, so you'll see the following tweet.
If you want to know who Prof. ABC really is, look at where she chooses to appear.
But the good doctor ABC isn't making this choice.
She is choosing not to be silenced by media and stopped reporting and started defending news narratives.
So expect more and more ordinary dissenting professors, physicians, economists, technologists to show up on right-of-center platforms.
They aren't making the choice.
You are being led to believe they are.
Ask instead, why did you choose Fox over NPR, and then you'll learn why.
The last piece of diabolical BS you will hear is, boo-hoo, people with enormous platforms whine about being canceled or silenced, go cry to your millions of listeners.
Not the point.
Institutions can ignore almost any individuals with large followings, but not big media.
The point of cancellations is making sure that you have to go on Joe Rogan to spread reasoned dissent.
If you could really do it through legacy media, it would force hearings, it would force disclosures, it would force resignations, but experts can't get the needed access anymore.
Moral.
When you want to know why dissenting Democrats are all over right-wing media, it's largely about blackballing all those who would disassemble the House narrative and strategies of the institutions.
Legacy Media is by and for institutions now.
That's why it seems insane.
Don't fall for the Dr. XYZ when on Epoch Times.
It's a trick.
Learn it.
Instead, ask why didn't you go on MSNBC, NPR, New York Times, CNN instead.
Embrace yourself for the answer.
So I reached out to Fox News about running ads.
They said, sounds good to us, we don't care.
Here's the price.
I think it was like, it's like 12k to run an ad on Tucker Carlson.
The ad also appears on the reruns of Tucker Carlson.
I also reached out to MSNBC, who never got back to me.
It's funny, right?
The ad we wanted to run was Chicken City.
You know how we have a live stream of our chickens?
Yeah, we wanted to put a commercial on Tucker Carlson.
You know, we did run the commercial on Google and it was funny.
And we never got around to it because we don't have the managerial power.
So, uh, that's why I don't like saying we are gonna do things, because then it's like, man, you don't do it, you feel bad, like... But, uh, we are releasing a song tomorrow.
We are running ads.
But anyway, I digress.
This is the name of the game and you all know it.
I can call up any right-wing platform and they'll be like, sounds good to me.
I can talk to, uh, I can invite whoever on the platform, but guess what?
The people who come on are always right-wing.
The left, when they do finally agree, they always want to pull some weird strings.
Only by Skype, and only at certain times, and only on certain days, and it's just like, dude, it's a Monday through Friday show, 8 p.m.
to 10 p.m., in person, we cover all costs, we fly you out, and the left doesn't want to do it.
I think it's like 90% of our guests are moderate to right-leaning, and like 10% are left-leaning.
I mean, 10% is better than nothing.
We've had progressives on.
We've had people I disagree with on.
A couple different leftists.
They were good shows, in my opinion.
And this is what you get, though.
The system is completely broken.
Biden is making a huge mistake here.
What he's doing is trying to pander to the progressive vote who hates him.
They despise him.
This half-measure is just pissing everybody off.
He's not giving the left what they want, and he's spitting in the face of working-class blue-collar Democrats and conservatives.
So what is the point of this?
To fizzle out?
To set insane precedent about buying votes?
That's what he's trying to do.
You know, if he was smart, what he'd say is, what we're gonna do Man, we're going to forgive $10,000, and then we're going to run it through Congress in the next session, maybe around February, to approve $50,000.
That'd be the smart play.
Because it gives you a little taste.
That's how it works.
That's how the drug dealers do it.
They give you a little taste.
You feel that debt forgiveness?
Feels good, huh?
You want the full package?
Well, only if the Democrats win Congress in November.
That would be the smart play.
But you know what?
Maybe too overt.
Too heavy-handed.
Because that's buying votes, basically.
That's that famous quote, though, by that dude who said the American public will endure until Congress realizes they can pay the American voter with their own money.
Especially considering fractional reserve banking and the printing of money, quantitative easing, etc., they can just create money on the books, Deposit it in your account, and then let inflation destroy everything, but you still feel good getting that hit after hit.
That's the game they're playing.
To give you a little taste.
Here's some free money.
You don't gotta work.
Then, the people who didn't want to work, they get it forgiven.
And the people who did want to work, get spit on.
We'll see how this plays out, my friends, because the midterms are coming up.
As I often end these segments, we will see exactly what will happen.
I can't tell you for sure, because I'm not a psychic, but I kind of lean towards Democrats are on track to lose bigly, especially because of stuff like this.
Next segment is coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
I keep seeing everybody post on Twitter that Alex Jones was right.
And they're posting images, memes of Alex Jones was right jars full of money.
Because we have this story from the Washington Post.
There's also a story from Politico.
And some interesting things are starting to happen.
House panel.
Trump sought to pressure FDA on COVID vaccines and treatment.
The report offers fresh details about that campaign and how it rattled agency officials.
I saw this story and I was like, what?
Trump getting the vaccines out fast was a good thing.
Everybody said it was a good thing.
Well, except for like Alex Jones.
Uh-oh.
Why is the media now creating a negative tint on getting the vaccines out?
Ladies and gentlemen, the idea here, the narrative that we see emerging, but I don't know where it'll go.
But what people believe is that there's going to be a narrative shift that will now be more critical of the vaccines and they will blame Trump for it.
I don't know if that's the case.
Maybe.
But I do think it's weird that we're seeing these stories and also I have pulled up the old rules on YouTube.
This is from January 18th.
And I pulled up January because that's when Dan, around the time Dan Bongino got suspended.
I pulled up those rules.
I pulled up the current rules.
And then I ran them through a text compare.
And here's what I will say.
And I will be very careful in how I say it because something is happening in the narrative.
On the left, these are the archived rules, and on the right, these are the current rules.
Text Compare shows you the differences.
YouTube's rules in January stated you could not claim that COVID-19 vaccines are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19.
In the modern, the current rules, that has been removed.
It's been removed.
That's it.
I mean, a bunch of things have been removed.
That's very strange to me.
Claims that COVID-19 vaccines do not reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19.
That's line 37 of the January rules.
Now, it's a slightly different line because it's been reformatted.
But in the same position, you cannot claim that COVID-19 vaccines do not reduce risk of serious illness or death.
They've changed it.
It used to be that they said vaccines prevented contraction.
YouTube is now saying they're not saying that.
That I find really interesting.
Claims that COVID-19 vaccines are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19.
Let me just say, claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause contraction of other infections, you can't say that, okay?
You can't say that.
Huh.
So here's what people think.
The conspiracy theory, I suppose, is that in the next couple of years, they're going to start coming out and either saying the vaccines were bad or didn't work, and this is the beginning of that narrative.
I don't know, man.
I've long maintained you should talk to your doctor and not talk to me, because I honestly have no idea what you should be doing with your health.
I know a bunch of people, it's a crazy thing because I hear a bunch of people talk, and they've always done this, talk about, you know, they think vaccines are bad or whatever, the mRNA one specifically.
Because most people aren't anti-vax, they're just concerned about, you know, this being rushed out.
But I know tons of people who got it totally, totally fine.
And we had the Surgeon General from Florida on, and it's like... I don't know, man.
I think you gotta watch out for tribalism on this one.
And you've gotta make the decision that's best for you.
You go and talk to a doctor.
If you don't think your doctor is good, you talk to a better doctor.
It is really quite simple.
That's all I can really say.
But let's read this, because I think this is extremely important.
The Washington Post says White House officials such as trade adviser Peter Navarro and outside allies such as TV host and physician Mehmet Oz also pressed federal officials in 2020 to authorize the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus treatment, with Navarro and a deputy working behind the scenes to have a hospital craft a request to the FDA for widespread access to the debunked therapy touted by Trump.
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis concluded in a report released Wednesday.
And I want to address this too.
I'm not a doctor, okay?
But my understanding is it doesn't work.
I've remarked at an HCQ I've never been a proponent of.
Some people come out and they seem to think, That I'm saying that just for the sake of YouTube.
It's like, dude, I said it on Joe Rogan's show, too.
It's not about that.
It's about, I've looked at a bunch of studies.
I've seen interesting things.
Shrug.
Don't know.
Talk to a doctor.
When I got sick, I got monoclonal antibodies.
That, for the most part, worked for me.
They told me to take ivermectin.
I said I didn't want it.
Doctor's orders.
I just said, fine, sure, whatever.
But I think you've got to be careful about tribalism.
People who are going to claim things work for the sake of being anti-establishment, and people who claim things don't work for the sake of being pro-establishment, when in reality it's like, do you trust your doctor?
It's the best you can do.
The report adds new details to the contemporaneous reports by the Trump White House of efforts to sway the FDA in the first year of the pandemic, a pressure campaign that rattled agency officials and threatened to undermine confidence in vaccines and other medical treatments, former Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the panel.
I felt very strongly about the fact that our scientists had created this vaccine guidance.
I totally supported the science and the clinical data behind it, and I objected to any suggestion that it be changed, Hahn said in a January 2022 interview.
I also felt any changes would be obviously reported and would further reduce vaccine confidence.
Officials and public health experts have also said that Trump's attacks on the FDA left lingering scars on the agency.
Quote, these assaults on our nation's public health institutions undermine the nation's coronavirus response and are precisely why we must never again settle for leaders who prioritize politics over keeping Americans safe.
Republicans have decried the Democrat-led panel's work as politically motivated and vowed to launch their own investigation into Anthony Fauci, the government's top infectious disease expert, and the Biden administration's coronavirus response, should they retake one or both chambers of Congress this fall.
You want to know what else is missing from the COVID medical misinformation policy since January?
Masks.
You used to be able... I mean, this is... Let me just tell you how crazy things are getting.
And let's go back in time.
Let's go back in time.
Anthony Fauci said, I think this is 2020, he told people not to wear masks.
He said, you don't need to be wearing masks.
And then people started saying, yeah, okay, all right, you know, you shouldn't do that.
A bunch of conservatives were buying masks.
A few months later, Fauci came out and said, you should be wearing a mask.
And his reasoning was, they didn't realize there was asymptomatic spread.
He said, you know, back when they told people not to wear masks, they assumed that you had to have symptoms, and if you did, people were going to avoid that or avoid going out and spreading those, you know, coughing and stuff.
Then they found out that there was asymptomatic spread.
Okay, now everybody should be wearing masks.
The idea is because you don't know if you're sick.
He also did say they were concerned that medical professionals would not be able to get the masks, and they needed to make sure they got them first, because doctors got to have those masks.
That's a very, very important point of this issue in this story, that Fauci completely inverted It is possible that the medical establishment will do a 180 on everything they've claimed.
Keep that in mind, because the science changes.
And I'll show you this.
In the COVID-19 Medical Misinformation Policy on YouTube, it says, note, YouTube's policies on COVID-19 are subject to change in response to changes to global or local health authorities' guidance on the virus.
There may be a delay between new LHA and WHO guidance and policy updates given the frequency with which this guidance changes.
And our policies may not cover all LHA WHO guidance related to COVID-19.
Our COVID-19 policies were first published on May 20th, 2020.
They say what this policy means for you.
If you're posting content, don't post content on YouTube.
It includes any of the following.
And this is where we come to the changes from January to today.
Let's talk about what is currently missing.
So in January, they said you could not make claims that wearing a mask is dangerous or causes negative physical health effects.
That has been removed from their rules.
So that is no longer against the rules.
Claims that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19.
That has also been removed from the rules.
In fact, in the new rules, the word mask doesn't even appear.
Zero.
The word mask is no longer in their rules.
That is a major change!
They suspended Dan Bongino and Ranth Paul because they made claims about masks.
Interesting.
Here we go.
This one's the one that I noticed right away.
And this is because now that they're coming out and they're saying, you know, oh, Trump rushed this vaccine.
I was like, that's not a bad thing that the vaccine was touted as the right move.
Context is being changed, and I talk about contextual, uh, contemporary context.
It's a very, very important idea y'all need to understand.
I'll put it this way.
On the day of January 6th, no one had any idea people would try and break into the Capitol.
Nobody did.
If they did, there would have been more security.
Unless, of course, you believe there was a greater conspiracy, sure.
But, um, my understanding is that AOC had no idea.
If she did, she certainly would have reported it, right?
Contemporary context.
Here's how it works.
The day after, or I should say sometime after January 6th, AOC came out with a video where she said someone knocked on her door and she ran and hid in the bathroom and someone went, where is she?
Where is she?
And she thought they got to her office and that she might die.
The only problem is, that story occurred one hour before the Capitol was breached.
You see, hindsight being 20-20, once everybody knew the events of January 6, it got mashed up and the context changes, right?
So now when AOC tells this story about someone knocking on her door, it sounds like, with modern context, the January 6 rioters had made it to her office.
They went through the tunnels or something.
In reality, she had no idea.
That story makes no sense.
Nobody breached the Capitol by the time- She was- She was- It was an hour before the Capitol was breached.
An hour!
She didn't know it was gonna happen.
What was she scared of?
She lied.
Here's another example.
I was talking about Alex Jones in like, man, what is this, 2017?
And I said Alex Jones is trying to be like a right-wing Huffington Post.
I said Alex Jones, I said Infowars is trying to be like a right-wing Huffington Post.
The left came out and then used all of the things Jones has ever said.
Combine that with what I had said then to make it seem like I was saying Jones was on the level or comparable to the Huffington Post, when what I was saying was, it was this election period, I think it was 2016 actually, and they were trying to do right partisan info, things like that, you know, right partisan news.
Another example is, there's a video where I say I trust Dave Rubin more than I trust the New York Times.
I wasn't saying that Dave Rubin is factually correct 100% of the time, the New York Times isn't.
I was referring to one story.
And I said, this story came out.
The New York Times says X. Rubin says Y. I trust Rubin more than I trust the New York Times.
They clip that and make it seem like I was saying in all context.
They manipulate it.
When you are outside of the daily news cycle, it sounds very, very different.
This is what's happening now.
What's going to start happening is when they remove these rules, they're now claiming it was a bad thing that Donald Trump rushed through the vaccine.
I'm sorry.
I thought that was like the really great thing he did.
This is the narrative that's forming.
Politico.
Let me show you this.
Politico.
Trump White House exerted pressure on FDA for COVID-19 emergency use authorizations, House finds.
The report by House Democrats examining the pandemic says Trump officials sought vaccine approvals to sway voters before the 2020 election.
So what?
Isn't that what Democrats wanted?
At the time, people like Kamala Harris and others were criticizing Trump's vaccine.
They call it Trump's vaccine.
And when we were mocking them, I was like, are you nuts?
It's like going through this.
What?
It's absolutely insane the way the narratives work in this country.
Then, the next year, they started saying, oh, but the vaccines were great and everybody got to get them.
And I've maintained my position.
I don't know, man.
I'm not a doctor.
Don't come to me for medical advice because I don't want to get sued.
It's not about YouTube's rules.
It's about I'm not going to advise you to do things.
You should never take anything I do as direct legal or medical advice.
Or financial advice, for that matter.
But anyway, that being said... Now, all of a sudden we get the first grain of sand in the... Trump was rushing through the vaccine.
Huh?
Why?
The context, the contemporary context, will change.
YouTube will change its rules.
They've already done it.
You've noticed this on Twitter, right?
How the cult is coming out and saying, you know, that they are claiming the vaccine doesn't prevent infection.
Dr. Birx came out and gave a quote where she said that she always knew it wasn't going to stop infection.
She always knew, and people believe it.
No, no, no.
She said it was one of the greatest weapons against infection.
That's what she said.
Wow.
The context is changing.
Once the context sufficiently changes... And YouTube didn't make an announcement about these rule changes.
I only just noticed this.
They didn't make an announcement.
Or, as far as I can tell, there was no announcement.
Once the context changes, I believe that it will be reasonable to suggest in the future they may turn completely on the vaccines as we approach 2024 and Donald Trump's running for office, and then say Trump was the one who forced these things through and forced them on the American people.
Even though it was Democrats who issued all of the mandates.
But you see it changing here in real time.
You see, the craziest thing about this, okay?
Because again, I'm not here to make any scientific or medical assertions.
I can only show you what YouTube is saying.
Here's some crazy things.
Social distancing and self-isolation misinformation.
Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities or who's guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures.
Gone.
You know why?
Because the new CDC rules say no quarantine.
The new CDC rules say that guidance for those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated is now the same.
That's what the CDC says.
Look at this.
Claims the virus no longer exists or the pandemic is over?
Gone.
Gone.
Here's the crazy one.
It's about the mask one.
I think it's the craziest one.
Look at this.
Claims that wearing a mask causes oxygen levels to drop?
Been removed!
What?
No, come on!
I'm sorry.
I still do not believe that masks reduce oxygen levels.
That's, I mean, look.
If you're running full speed and exercising and wearing a mask, I can certainly understand why that would be problematic.
But they've removed that.
Okay.
Claims that masks cause lung cancer or brain damage.
That's been removed?
You're allowed to say that, YouTube?
What?
Claims that wearing a mask gives you COVID-19.
What?
That was a rule in January.
No longer a rule on YouTube.
You can claim that?
That's ridiculous.
This is crazy.
Where are they going with this, YouTube?
YouTube, by what standard are you saying it is okay for people to make those claims?
Weird.
Alright, here's another one.
Claims the COVID-19 vaccine will kill people who receive it.
Claims that COVID-19 vaccines kill people who receive them.
So they changed the language, but still.
You can't say that.
Alright, here's one.
Claims that COVID-19 vaccines are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19.
We had on the Florida Surgeon General, and he made statements about masks.
We pulled up a story from USC and UCLA saying that the mask mandates effectively did nothing.
It was like a 1% overall reduction in seroprevalence.
And then I told the guy, I told him, this is Joe Latipo, I was like, yeah, YouTube bans us, they might hit us for this.
And so I was like, here, I pulled it up, and all of a sudden I'm like, wait a minute.
Masks didn't even appear at all in the rules.
So I tweeted about it.
Got 5,000, 6,000 retweets.
People were like, whoa.
Today, when I saw the story about Trump and how they're trying to make it look bad or whatever, I was like, get out of here, what is this?
They're claiming Trump, what?
So I did a comparison.
Sure enough, there's a bunch of things that have been changed.
Well, here's Alex Jones.
This is from Changing America, thehill.com.
Alex Jones blasts Trump as dumbass over vaccines.
Alex Jones slammed former President Trump after he encouraged people to get vaccinated.
He says, at least you're going to get some good Republicans elected, and we like you, but my God, maybe you're not that bright, Jones added.
Well, Alex Jones recently endorsed Ron DeSantis.
He called Donald Trump pig-headed.
This is the crazy thing.
I don't think Trump is... Look, I'm not going to tell you what vaccines do or don't do.
I'm going to tell you to go talk to a doctor.
But Donald Trump coming out, he really teed himself up for the political gamesmanship that we've been seeing here.
It is remarkable to me.
This is where we are.
Let me show you what Politico says.
The Trump administration pressured the FDA, including FDA Commissioner Stephen Hunt, to authorize unproven treatments for COVID-19 and the first COVID-19 vaccines on an accelerated timeline, according to a report released Wednesday by Democrats.
Democrats are against the vaccine now?
There you go.
Why?
What has to happen in the next several months to a year to justify what the Democrats are putting forward?
Are we going to start hearing reports about the vaccine in a negative light?
Are they going to start making claims about the vaccine in a negative light?
Seems like that's where it's headed.
I don't know.
I can't say for sure.
But a lot of people are coming out and saying Alex Jones was right.
Considering the major shift on mask usage, this is really weird.
Are people going to forget that Democrats were the ones that were mandating the vaccine?
That makes no sense to me.
This story that's coming out where they're like, Trump rushed this through.
Is that now, they're gonna come out and be like, well, we didn't want to mandate the vaccines, but Trump pressured us and we had no choice.
Is that the way they're going?
Maybe.
Maybe that's the play they're going to make.
Hey, you know all those things you really hated?
The mandates, the lockdowns?
That was because Trump was the one who rushed this through, and if he didn't, it wouldn't have happened.
I am just a humbly flabbergasted individual complaining about things he sees on the internet and confused as to why they're happening.
And I have questions about YouTube's policies and whether they have culpability for what they've advocated for and what they've prevented.
When Rand Paul came out as a doctor and questioned masks, they suspended him.
I think this was August of 2021.
Turns out, Rand Paul was correct, at least according to USC and UCLA doctors, but they stopped him.
He's a doctor and a senator.
Why wasn't he allowed to bring this up?
Why is it now that USC and UCLA were allowed to make the claim, and then YouTube didn't listen to our own politicians?
If the president comes out and says something, they're going to ban him for it?
Who are they to have more authority than our elected officials?
We got major problems in this country, my friends.
We need to stop big tech.
We need antitrust.
There's a major lawsuit right now.
The state of Missouri going after, filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the Democrats and the U.S.
government.
We need this.
The argument is that the U.S.
government is violating the First Amendment rights of individuals with Section 230.
That Section 230 violates the First Amendment.
Correct.
I agree.
This lawsuit needs to keep happening, whether this one goes through or not.
Section 230 allows companies to pick and choose who can speak.
It is a governmental protection on liability.
That's a violation of 1A.
Hands down.
I think that is a brilliant approach to it, and it needs to see its way through the courts.
We'll see.
I'll leave it there, my friends.
Take a look for yourself.
I tweeted about it.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, actually.
And thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Marjorie Taylor Greene says that she was swatted for a second time.
Now, this is two nights in a row, The Conservative Brief reports.
The swatting incident came after Rep Greene responded with additional information regarding the swatting incident early Wednesday morning at her home in Rome, Georgia.
In a Twitter post that contained a link to a local report about the incident, Greene quoted a police report regarding the incident, which is apparently still under investigation by the local police department.
911 received a call from the suspects claiming responsibility for the incident.
They explained they were upset about Ms.
Greene's stance on transgender youth rights and stated they were trying to swat her.
Well, the big news now, my friends.
Gender dysphoria covered by disability law federal court rules.
The ruling could become a powerful tool to challenge legislation restricting access to medical care and other accommodations for transgender people, advocates say.
I'm not going to mince words, my friends.
This will likely reach the Supreme Court, and with a conservative Supreme Court likely be struck down, and it is entirely probable that the sex change operations for children and medical transitioning will be made illegal.
Republicans are expected to win in November.
It's actually looking pretty good for Democrats, so we'll see.
Maybe they'll lose.
This issue is not a very powerful issue for Democrats.
In fact, I'm fairly certain if Democrats knew what was going on, they would oppose it.
But they don't.
We have a story about that, too.
There's a lot going on.
Now, the reason I mention the Marjorie Taylor Greene swatting with these stories being the main segment is because she's being targeted for trying to outlaw this behavior, which likely will ultimately, in my opinion, be outlawed.
From the Washington Examiner, they say, how the transgender social contagion took over this Alaska town.
The reason I highlight this segment, or this story in the segment, is because there was a parent Who did not know the school was secretly transitioning their daughter, causing the daughter to become anxious, depressed, and causing them serious distress.
They claim to be helping the kid, but they are just seriously afflicting the child.
And now I think the end result of this story is the parents took the kid out of the school and the kid is doing better.
It was the school that was causing the distress.
And I'll break down and talk to you why and why they mentioned social contagion.
There's a lot to say.
Now, we have the story from NBC News.
This is interesting.
A federal ruling that gender dysphoria is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act could help block conservative political efforts to restrict access to gender-affirming care, advocates and experts say.
A panel of the Fourth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appellate court in the country to find the 1990 landmark federal law protects transgender people who experience anguish and other symptoms as a result of the disparity between their assigned sex and their gender identity.
Assigned sex?
Okay.
Sorry.
NBC News, you have a factual error here.
Assigned sex and a gender identity being used in the same way makes no sense.
Now you can say they're observed or actual sex and their gender identity.
But assigned sex and identity is confusing the issue because you're basically saying their perceived identity and their identity.
It doesn't make sense.
The phrase assigned sex here doesn't make sense.
In fact, I don't think the phrase makes sense at all.
A doctor can observe the sex, but they can't assign it to you that's meaningless.
In fact, assigned sex is actually rather paradoxical.
What this sentence would actually imply is that someone was actually, let's say a person was born female, literally female, and the doctor's like, eh, dude.
Okay, that would be an assignment and that would be incorrect.
The ruling could become a powerful tool to challenge legislation restricting access to medical care and other accommodations for trans people, including employment and government benefits, advocates said.
It's a very important and positive ruling to increase people's access to gender-affirming care.
Now, this is from Rodrigo Heng-Laitinen, Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality.
I think it's important to point out that NBC News reporting the AP and this federal court bigots, transphobes, this federal court is saying that if you are trans you are disabled.
Now that is offensive and wrong.
Trans people are not disabled.
Why would advocates want to claim that trans people were disabled?
I mean, it says the Americans with Disabilities Act.
For people who are transgender?
It's a disability now?
Is that how they want to be seen?
I'm not so sure.
The ruling is binding in the states covered by the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit—Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia—but will inevitably be cited in cases in other states, said Kevin Berry, a law professor at Quinnipiac University.
The decision came in the case of a transgender woman who sued the Fairfax County Sheriff in Virginia for housing her in a jail with men.
The decision is not limited to transgender people challenging jail policies, but also applies broadly to all areas of society covered by the disability rights law, including employment, government benefits, and services and public accommodations.
This decision destigmatized a health condition, gender dysphoria, and it says that what Congress did in 1990 wasn't okay.
The Sheriff's Office did not respond to phone messages seeking comment.
This means, in these states, if you get arrested, you can assert that you want to go in the other jail.
I got to be honest, I think you're going to see criminals exploit this.
I do.
I think that will ultimately negatively impact trans people.
I can understand.
You know, here's what we got to make sure we're drawing a distinction against.
There are trans people like Blaire White.
Blaire White's great.
Blaire White's a good friend, and I'm a big fan.
And Blaire is biologically male, transgender female, but I think Blaire is like 5'4", 5'5".
Blaire, I'm not sure how tall you are, but not a large person.
I don't think it would be appropriate for Blair to be put in a male jail cell, you know, with a bunch of guys.
But I also don't know if it's appropriate to put any and all trans people in whatever, or I shouldn't even say trans people, any and all people should not be allowed to choose just where they get locked up.
So therein lies a challenge.
If a man is 5'2 and 120 pounds, They're gonna go into men's jail.
So Blair White should probably not be getting any special accommodations, right?
Look, man, I think there's some nuances here that we need to have a conversation about.
If we're talking about keeping people safe, then, you know, what do we do and what's the right way to do it?
If the concern is someone, and sorry, not to single you out, Blair, but if there is a trans woman who is not large, masculine, and is very small and effeminate, Putting them in a male gel is creating harm and risk.
That, I think, we can agree on.
Does that mean they get special accommodation?
That's the argument.
But what if then we say, okay, well, the answer is no, across the board.
Because then you end up with some dude who's, you know, six foot eight and just lies and says, you know what, I don't want to be in here.
I'm gonna lie.
What happens when you have someone who's a predator, an offender, and they just say, you know what?
Better off being in a women's jail than a men's.
How do we?
We can't just have a blanket policy, and that's the big challenge here.
So ultimately what it comes down to then is, if we're separating by, you know, male and female, Well, then that's just how we have to do it.
You know, it's interesting.
When you look at the bathroom stuff, the solution to the gender identity bathroom thing was to create single-stall bathrooms.
So instead of two bathrooms with a bunch of stalls, or one with urinals, you just create four rooms.
You go in the room, you close the door behind you, you have your own private room.
I actually think that's way preferable anyway, right?
That doesn't work for jail.
It doesn't work for prisons.
And there's a reason why we keep men and women separate.
There's a story now of women who became pregnant by a transgender woman who was housed in the female jails.
I don't know much about the story and I'm not trying to pass judgment on anybody.
Simply trying to point out a fact.
Women became pregnant.
Now, there are issues, and we keep people jailed separately because, you know, they have different biology.
If that's the case, then does it matter what a trans person looks like?
They should be housed in the appropriate gendered or biologically sexed facilities.
Right now, in these states, anyone will be able to just decide which prison they go to, which defeats the purpose.
I guess.
They say, some Republican leaders who have led efforts to limit access to transition treatment for youths have labeled it a form of child abuse.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott this year, for instance, ordered the state's child welfare agency to investigate reports of gender-affirming care for child children as abuse.
Now you see, framing is everything.
NBC News is clearly on the left, and this country is bifurcated.
Gender-affirming care, what does that mean?
Greg Abbott was specifically referring to surgeries.
There's a difference between gender-affirming care.
Gender-affirming also is interesting because gender-affirming prescribes a treatment before a diagnosis.
The idea that you would seek gender-affirming care implies the child should be affirmed.
What if there is a child who is clearly not trans and is suffering from some other issue?
You would not seek to affirm whatever issue it is they're facing.
What if the child is claiming to be trans but is actually suffering from some other kind of mental health episode?
You would not seek gender-affirming care.
You would seek psychotherapy.
In fact, that's what they're doing in many European countries.
A new rule in Florida restricts Medicaid coverage for gender dysphoria treatments for youths and adults.
The state health agency previously released a report stating that puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgery have not been proven safe or effective in treating gender dysphoria.
And I believe the medications are off-label use.
So doctors are deciding to use it, but I don't believe the clinical trials are there.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is widely touted as a potential 2024 Republican presidential candidate, recently tweeted that children should not be able to take puberty blockers or mutilate their body by getting a sex change.
But leading medical entities contradict those positions.
Hank Lettinen said, yes, in the United States, and okay.
However, we shouldn't ignore what other countries are doing, notably in Scandinavian countries where they've stopped these practices.
This is big.
I believe this will go to the Supreme Court and get knocked down.
That's typically how it's going to happen.
And then this will result in states across the board banning this stuff.
I don't think this is a strong moral or social issue for the left, to be completely honest.
Abortion is.
Take a look at this story.
From The Examiner.
How the transgender social contagion took over this Alaska town.
I'll tell you my thoughts.
We had James Lindsay on the show the other day.
James Lindsay told me that he does not believe there's a such thing as transgender children.
I said, I gotta stop you.
I think you're wrong.
We have seen numerous studies about endocrine disruptors, hormone disruptors, and it's entirely possible that, one, there is a natural phenomena of gender dysphoria, of transgenderism.
I think that's true.
Rare, however.
Then there is also the environmental factors, which we have been talking about for some time.
Alex Jones famously talked about atrazine and turning the frogs gay!
Which was a concern that chemicals in our food supply and water would have endocrine-disrupting effects on human beings.
Which stands to reason you're going to end up with children born with masculinized or feminized brains, and that's going to create dysphoria.
I don't know the prevalence of that, but I think it's entirely obvious.
I think it's obvious.
And again, citing Alex Jones' reporting on the matter, what did you think was going to happen?
When Alex Jones talked about atrazine, several years later, this is what the end result would be.
Children who are experiencing transgenderism.
What I mean by that is, gender dysphoria, to me, typically is the mental impact a person has.
What I'm talking about is, I believe there's actually A phenomenon where there are feminized brains or hormone disruption that results in a physical impact, which results then in the mental dysphoria.
I'm not saying it's extremely common.
What I think is happening is that there is a social contagion.
Because you have these jumps to affirmation, this story is a really good example, for instance.
And in Alaska, no less.
The long story short is that a woman Had a daughter.
They come back to this Alaska town.
All of a sudden, the daughter gets exposed to gender dysphoric teens, and then decides they, too, are a boy.
And the school lies to the parents, and the parents end up finding out later on the school was secretly transitioning the child, resulting in very serious trauma to the child, and the child was unhappy because of it.
See, that's the problem.
So this is what I'm talking about.
They say this, Suzie's now 16-year-old daughter recently said that going to school makes her want to throw up with anxiety.
Often she asks not to go to school at all.
Right now, Suzie said the school is the only place that's using male pronouns in her daughter's made-up name.
If she's trying to get away from school because it makes her feel bad, and she wants to be home, where we absolutely affirm her as a person, but we don't affirm his identity, to me, that speaks volumes.
Let's talk about what this is, and what's happening.
You know what FOMO is?
Fear of missing out.
Why do we get FOMO?
We are social beings.
We want to be a part of the group.
We don't want to miss out.
One of the most brutal feelings you can get.
It's Saturday night.
It's 9 p.m.
Your friends are talking about going out.
You had a long work week in your early 20s or whatever.
And you're like, oh man, like I really want to go out and meet up with everybody and hang out.
And then you look at your phone or whatever, or this is, you know, for me it's a while ago.
And then you're like, uh, I'm gonna rest real- I gotta wait another 15 minutes before, you know, I hear back from my friends.
To wake up and be like, dude, oh, I missed Saturday night drinks with the friends, now I gotta- aw man.
I would've rather just stayed up.
It's a brutal feeling.
Or, all your friends go out to a club and you miss the phone call and you're like, dude, they're all at the big show and I missed it.
That's painful, isn't it?
Now imagine you're a teenager.
And everyone at your school is talking about how cool it is to be trans, and a handful of people are trans, and a handful of people are non-binary, and a handful of people are bi or queer or whatever.
You don't want to miss out.
You don't want to be the outlier.
But what's happening now with this young girl, it looks like it was causing pain to them because they didn't want this!
In the story, they talk about how this teenager was still wearing makeup, was still wearing female clothing, but the school kept saying they were a boy.
And now they're saying they don't want to go there.
They're getting anxiety from the school.
And it's probably because you're being forced into something you don't want.
So here's what I see from all of this.
What I see is, I think there absolutely are trans kids.
I don't know the solution.
I don't think sex change surgeries and off-label drug use is the appropriate response.
I think we can look at some of these other countries, the gold standard according to the left, and say, hey, they're giving psychotherapy.
Again, I don't have the answers.
What I can say is, I don't believe we should allow this because, regardless of how common or rare it is, there is a social contagion element.
You know, here's the thing.
Some people believe it's all social contagion.
Some people believe it's not.
It's all medical.
And I'm like, it's probably a large portion social contagion and a decent amount actual medical issues.
Because like I mentioned, endocrine disruptors and things like that.
The problem then, what if they gave this teenager a double mastectomy?
I mean, we're seeing detransitioners.
This is terrifying.
These kids are getting older and they're saying, my life is destroyed because of this.
They're talking about how transition made them want to kill themselves.
We don't want anyone doing that.
We don't want anyone suffering.
How do we solve this problem?
I don't have the answers for you, other than we probably shouldn't give children life-altering surgeries and medication when we aren't sure.
It's that simple.
For now, we are starting to see how the moral logic of our legal system is untenable.
This is the reality of life.
Laws can only go so far.
Human values go further.
I talk about this quite a bit in the context, but we ended racial segregation.
You know, people were saying separate but equal back, you know, 70 years ago.
Separate but equal.
There's two bathrooms for men, white and black.
There you go.
Problem solved.
And it's like, people came out and said, no, that's not okay.
That's ridiculous.
Just give everybody the same bathroom.
Just allow people to sit wherever they want on the bus.
Things like that.
And we agreed.
Race made no... What?
Why would we do that?
But we didn't say the same thing for sex.
We went, well, of course, you know, we shouldn't segregate by race.
Now, sex is something entirely different.
Today, you are seeing a cultural push to say sex is not entirely different.
And they're winning.
For now.
I don't see how this will be tenable, because how do you have... This is the interesting thing.
In Birmingham in the UK, Muslims were protesting LGBT education in the grade schools.
The same law that protects Muslims protects the LGBT people in the exact same way.
Well, how do you rectify this?
Who gets precedent?
A church, for instance.
A church can't deny certain practices based on civil rights cases.
But then you're infringing upon a religion.
But religion's protected, too.
You can't discriminate on the basis of someone's religion.
So if someone wants to have a business that says, our religion prohibits these things, you can choose to go somewhere else.
How can you intervene and force them to do something?
And this is happening.
So herein lies the main issue.
Our laws.
More like guidelines.
And that's the reality.
I often talk about there are many laws.
Like, um...
You can't water your grass on Tuesdays in some places.
But nobody ever—no cop's gonna arrest you for it.
Because our culture changed.
Because our water access changed.
It used to be tough.
You had a well, and the well was running low, and the town was like, stop wasting water.
No watering your lawn.
Now we have improved water access and water reclamation.
Nobody cares anymore.
Nobody complains.
Nobody files charges.
And it would be absurd to actually arrest you for these things.
That's culture.
Even though on the books, it's illegal.
Now we have a culture war, and we're split down the middle.
Prisons, because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because of these federal court rulings, they're saying, look, the law says you can't segregate, you can't discriminate for these reasons.
So the prisons have no choice!
Let me take you back in time, my friends.
I read this great story from the New York Times once.
Yeah, from the New York Times.
There was a black cop.
He was upset that cops were going to Harlem, going to the Bronx, and giving tickets to black people who are drinking 40s on their own stoops.
They were saying, you're drinking in public, and they're like, this is my house, I'm hanging out on my porch with my friends.
Nope, you can't do it.
To me, that's insane.
That's ridiculous.
You want to hang out on your porch and have a beer?
That's your own business.
Nope, nope.
Your stoop don't count.
So this black cop goes to Central Park.
And he starts walking up to all of the white WASPy people enjoying a nice glass of bubbly or wine with their picnics.
We're allowed to picnic in Central Park with wine?
And he says, no you're not.
Public drinking is illegal.
The city apologized.
to these people in Central Park.
We're so sorry this happened.
And they punished the cop.
The cop was right.
If you want to go to Harlem and give tickets to black people who are drinking a beer on their porch, why can't he give a ticket to people drinking wine?
Now, the reality is nobody should have gotten these tickets.
Go back in time.
They said that when this bill was being passed, the idea was to stop drunkards and homeless people who are plastered.
And one of the legislators in the city said, This law will never be construed to imply that someone couldn't enjoy a beer on their lunch break from work.
That was the idea.
You're at work, it's the middle of the day, you go outside, you have your sandwich, you have a bag of chips, and you have a beer.
One beer ain't no thang, you're not gonna get drunk, take the edge off a little bit maybe, but it's fine, right?
Not anymore.
Because that was the intent of the law, but the culture changed.
Eventually they just said, here's a path towards revenue, and started going after everybody.
This is what happens.
We as a culture decide, this one thing is okay.
So we're going to make a law saying you can't do this thing.
And then someone says, hey, you realize that that concept of discrimination on the basis of religion and sex also applies to this other thing, too.
And they go, well, I guess you're right.
It does.
And the courts say, well, the law says it.
And this is where we end up.
People getting arrested and saying, I want to go to the other prison.
And it's always in one direction.
We don't see biological females going to male prisons, for the most part.
We don't see biological females entering male sports, for the most part.
There was Mac Beggs.
So we have an issue.
I don't know what the solution is, and I'm not going to prescribe it, but I'm going to tell you, I think this will go to the Supreme Court.
