Biden Vows For 4th Time US Will Defend Taiwan, White House GOES ROGUE AGAIN Rejecting President's Policies
Biden Vows For 4th Time US Will Defend Taiwan, White House GOES ROGUE AGAIN Rejecting President's Policies. On Several occasions the White house has denied the president's policies and statements so much so that even liberal media outlets point it out.
At a certain point between Trump and Biden the executive branch in various forms has denied, pied, or rejected the president's policies signifying that the president has lost control of the branch of government.
While it may be due to fear that the presidents were both incapable mentally it is no grounds for the seizure of power. It seems to be a slow motion coup stripping power away from the duly elected president.
#democrats
#republicans
#biden
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is September 19th, 2022, and our first story.
For the fourth time publicly now, Joe Biden has vowed that the U.S.
will defend Taiwan if China invades, saying this is our commitment.
But again, the White House is rejecting these statements, saying no, Taiwan will defend itself.
At a certain point, when the president makes foreign policy announcements, the White House rejecting those signifies that they're defying the will of the executive, the commander-in-chief.
And we saw this under Trump as well.
Maybe it's a bit hyperbolic, but if the White House is defying, if the army, the military, the DOJ are defying the past president and this president, then maybe the whole executive branch is falling apart.
In our next story, Biden has declared the pandemic over.
An interview on 60 Minutes, and in our last story, a male teacher who wore massive, oversized novelty breasts to school is being defended by the school itself.
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.
Last night, 60 Minutes released an interview with President Joe Biden.
There were many instances where, when asked, Joe Biden rambled incoherently.
Notably, when asked about his age and mental focus, it's hard to understand exactly what Joe Biden was trying to say, but we get the gist of it.
He was incoherently rambling that he was all with it.
Sure.
But of the things he did say, nothing was more clear and coherent than the U.S.
policy to defend Taiwan in the instance that China invades the island.
Joe Biden was asked and then asked again to clarify.
And Biden said, yes, we made a commitment to defend the island.
Though we did not set a policy on whether or not they should be independent.
If they get invaded, the U.S.
military will defend the island, as noted by 60 Minutes.
Immediately afterwards, the White House walked this back, saying there is no policy change here whatsoever.
Now, the reason why I say the White House has gone rogue I thought about this long and hard.
This is the fourth time Joe Biden, as the Commander-in-Chief, even noted by CNN, he is the Commander-in-Chief.
This is the fourth time he has said, it is our commitment and policy to defend Taiwan.
Four times!
And I got them for you.
The White House still publicly rejects the statements from our Commander-in-Chief, and this is not the only time this has happened.
As many of you know, they've done it over and over again.
Now, of course, with many presidents, the White House has walked back statements, especially with Donald Trump.
But we can look at many matters of consequence in foreign policy, sparking fears of World War Three, when the president of our country, the commander in chief of our armed forces, has made explicit and coherent statements about what our policies and desires are.
And the White House comes out seemingly unprompted and says no.
Who is the White House?
That's the question I have.
Perhaps.
The Chief of Staff?
Not entirely sure.
With Donald Trump, it was often the chief of staff.
I believe it was Mark Meadows, an individual saying, well, you know, we got to clarify what Trump said.
Many of these circumstances were Trump offering up potentials and things we might do.
And again, yes, the White House, as the executive branch with an administration and many, many staffers and employees will collectively say our official policy is this.
My question is on matters of such profound importance.
That Biden has explicitly stated four times.
Who is rejecting the policies of our Commander-in-Chief as it pertains to the detachment to the deployment of our armed forces in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?
Certainly at this point, the White House would just be saying it is the opinion of Joe Biden.
It is the commitment made by the U.S.
that we will defend this island.
That's possible.
Joe Biden is just lying over and over again.
Or he doesn't know.
I reject that notion.
Now, I can certainly entertain the notion that Joe Biden's brain ain't all with it.
But four times, especially here, he says, we have made this commitment and we will do it.
Pelly asks him again to clarify.
And Biden says, yes, I'll play for you the clip.
Who who in the White House is denying the military plans, commitments and policies of our commander in chief?
Now let's go back to the Trump era.
And I'll say, I think it's fair to say that the executive branch is rogue at this point.
Perhaps a bit hyperbolic.
I will accept that, perhaps.
When Donald Trump said he wanted out of Afghanistan, what did they do?
They lied to him.
When he said he wanted our troops out of Syria, what had happened?
They lied to him.
You don't have the authority, they said.
So who does?
Unnamed bureaucrats denying Biden, denying Trump.
Something is not right.
Let's take a look at this.
We'll take a look at some of Trump's statements.
And then I want to show you a rather curious piece where Joe Biden rants incoherently about whether or not he's too old and has mental focus.
And maybe that's why they've come out in front of this.
Maybe the reason the White House is denying what he's saying is because they recognize his brain doesn't work.
But that doesn't change the fact that he is the commander in chief.
So who are they to supplant him?
In which case, Even if his brain don't work.
And you can argue it's a good reason to reject his policy plans.
No.
That's going rogue.
And we saw it under Trump as well, and this is a problem for us.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member.
If you'd like to support our work as a member, you will get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL podcast, uncensored after show, as well as our other shows, such as Cast Castle and Tales from the Inverted World.
Check those out.
We got more work coming, more shows, new stuff.
It's gonna be really great.
Don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Let's read the news.
You've heard me opine quite a bit.
Let's see what they have to say over at CBS.
Biden tells 60 Minutes U.S.
troops would defend Taiwan.
But White House says this is not official U.S.
policy.
How is that possible when Biden outright said this is our commitment?
Last Thursday, the same day 60 Minutes spoke to President Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
There's concerns that Russia's war in Ukraine could inspire China to attack the island of Taiwan.
policy since 1979 has been to recognize Taiwan as part of China, but to remain silent on whether the U.S.
military would defend the Democratic government there.
60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asked Mr. Biden about that.
Quote, What should Chinese President Xi know about your commitment to Taiwan?
Quote, We agree with what we signed on to a long time ago, and that there's one China policy, and Taiwan makes their own judgments about their independence.
We're not moving.
We're not encouraging their being independent.
We're not.
That's their decision.
Quote from Pelly.
But would U.S.
forces defend the island?
Yes, if in fact there was an unprecedented attack.
Quote, so unlike Ukraine, to be clear, U.S.
forces, U.S.
men and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion?
Yes, the president said.
After the interview, a White House official said U.S.
policy on Taiwan has not changed.
Officially, the U.S.
maintains strategic ambiguity on whether American forces would defend Taiwan, but the Taiwan Relations Act obligates the U.S.
If the president doesn't set the policy, who does?
For them to intervene after Biden stated very clearly four times now to say that they have not changed our policy, then who is Biden?
I don't understand.
Now, I don't want to act like this is the apocalyptic end of the world.
What we have here is disparate communications, I suppose.
But it's not the only time.
We've also seen the White House amend transcripts to change what Joe Biden said.
I got to be honest.
I think Biden, for the most part, is cut out.
They cut Trump out.
Why would they do anything different for Joe Biden?
unidentified
They're going to say, quote, Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
That's what happened earlier this month when the State Department announced a $1.1 billion sale of military equipment to the island democracy.
What they're basically saying is, Biden said it, doesn't matter, our policy hasn't changed, we'll equip them to defend itself.
They will equip- Are you- What?
To defend itself?
This package was in the works for some time precisely because we expected it would be needed as China increases pressure on Taiwan, yada, yada, yada.
Chinese embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu said the deal sends wrong signals.
Okay, okay, okay.
We get it.
We get it.
Let's roll.
Let's roll, baby.
May 23rd, 2022.
Biden says U.S.
would militarily intervene to defend Taiwan.
White House rushes to walk it back.
So let's grab the walk back.
CNN's John Berman noted during Monday's episode of New Day that the U.S.
generally has a policy of strategic ambiguity.
Quote, The comments this morning seem a little less ambiguous, Berman said.
As to whether they were strategic, CNN has learned the president's comments caught his top aides off guard.
They were already issuing some clarifications this morning.
Clarifications, huh?
The network's White House reporter Kevin Liptak obtained a comment from the administration
appearing to brush aside his remarks about military involvement, saying,
as the president said, our policy has not changed. He reiterated our one China policy
and our commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. He also reiterated our commitment
under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide Taiwan with military means to defend itself.
Saying the means is to defend itself is an outright rejection of Biden now saying at this
point, as I'm walking you through twice, that we will defend it.
it.
OK, so what was this?
This was at a Japanese press conference, I believe, in Tokyo at a news conference.
Let's roll, baby.
October 22nd, 2021.
White House walks back comments Joe Biden made during CNN town hall.
He says the article says the White House was forced into damage control mode Friday with spokespeople trying to clarify comments Biden made in a live scene in town hall, including a commitment to defend Taiwan from a possible attack by China while answering audience questions.
During Thursday night's event, Biden was pressed on how the US will match China's military following reports of hypersonic missile testing.
China, Russia, and the rest of the world knows.
We have the most powerful military in the history of the world.
Don't worry about whether we're going to.
They're going to be more powerful.
What you do have to worry about is whether or not they're going to engage in activities that will put them in a position where they may make a serious mistake.
After stating that he did not want a cold war with China, he said, I just want to make China understand that we are not going to step back.
We are not going to change any of our views.
Quote, so are you saying the U.S.
would come to Taiwan's defense if China is attacked?
Yes, Biden answered.
Yes, we have a commitment to do that.
Okay, okay.
The White House may be lying?
Simply put, sure.
Let's roll, baby.
From The Diplomat, August 24th, 2021.
Did Biden's Taiwan remarks represent a U.S.
policy change?
I don't even need to—you get the point.
Yes, it does.
Who sets the policy?
I ask you this, the Commander-in-Chief or his staff?
Listen, if Biden comes out four times saying this is what we will do, Then why is the White House coming out and saying, no, we will not?
We'll help them defend themselves.
We won't.
Because the White House clearly does not care what Joe Biden's intent is.
And you know what?
So this is why I say they've gone rogue.
You could argue that we have official policy, that Biden goes in, sits down and says, OK, let's enact policy.
What is our plan?
And the staff then writes it down and decides.
But he's the commander in chief.
The executive branch has an executive.
The commander in chief says, here's what we do.
Here's our policy set by him.
If he said it four times, at what point do we acknowledge that the White House denying clear and concise statements from the President represents them going rogue and defying the duly elected leader?
Okay.
I suppose it would have to be in the instance that China does attack.
Biden then says, I'm here by ordering, and then they ignore it.
Okay, let's go back to Donald Trump.
Donald Trump tried to get our troops out of Syria.
They lied to him, told us we didn't have that many troops there, and we wouldn't pull them out.
I believe it was something like they claimed there were only 200 troops there, when in reality there were several thousand, because Trump wanted them out.
Yeah, that sounds like the White House going rogue and persisting in their policies with the next president.
Something is broken here.
So maybe, maybe where I'm wrong is to say they've gone rogue.
Maybe what I should say is they went rogue a while back.
Biden said, for God's sake, this man cannot remain in power.
They walked it back saying, you know, we meant with, you know, his invasions and in other places.
Hey, there's more.
White House rushes to walk back Biden's admission of no federal solution to COVID-19.
Could it be that the reality is that Joe Biden is just spitting and yelling, accidentally admitting the truth?
When he says we have a commitment to defend Taiwan, could it be that we do?
We do.
And they're just trying to cover up because Biden is just spilling the beans?
Perhaps.
Here's another one.
Biden calls for regime change in Russia, which is from the other story.
Then White House claims he didn't mean what he said again.
Okay, so that's basically the same story as from the other one.
So I think I just mixed up the order here.
That's March 26.
That's right.
Here we go.
White House corrects Biden.
Quote, we are not sending U.S.
troops to Ukraine.
Okay.
Well, there it is.
Biden is not in control.
And this matters.
From TimCast.com.
And of course, of course, to all our haters.
NewsGuard certified!
82 out of 100.
It's true news.
True facts.
Biden said, quote, to the 82nd Airborne, you're going to see when you're there.
You're going to see women, young people standing in the middle in front of a damn tank saying, I'm not leaving.
You're going to see when you're there?
The White House then clarified.
They claim now that US troops are not in Ukraine.
Maybe they're lying.
Maybe US troops are.
Maybe Joe Biden was just speaking nonsense.
This?
Not policy.
Joe Biden stating clearly four times that it is our commitment and policy to defend with our military Taiwan is very different from him telling some, you know, servicemen and women mistakenly they're going to Ukraine because they were going to Poland.
Okay.
That I can acknowledge.
I can also acknowledge that there's been several instances where they've walked Trump back.
But maybe this is just Biden is saying stuff that makes no sense.
But look at all this.
Same story.
Biden tells U.S.
troops they'll be in Ukraine in war gaff.
They call it a gaff.
Psaki walks back Biden's comment that it's a personal decision if people want to wear masks on planes.
I'd also like to point out that Joe Biden stated the pandemic was over.
Still mandates in place.
There's still an emergency order in place.
There's still vaccine mandates from our armed forces.
At what point do we just recognize that Joe Biden is not in control, period?
That's it.
Here we go from Breitbart.
White House struggles to walk back Joe Biden condemnation of MAGA Americans.
I think when you break it down, you can see that there's an attempt at a reasoning as to why they're speaking on behalf of Joe Biden, because his brain is broken, ladies and gentlemen, from factcheck.org.
Oh, I love this one.
Take!
President Joe Biden quoted the Supreme Court majority opinion on ending the constitutional right to abortion in remarks he made on July 8th.
Social media posts falsely claim he mistakenly read teleprompter cues.
A White House press secretary told us Biden intentionally said, end of quote, and then said, repeat the line for emphasis.
And the full live remarks support that explanation.
The full live remarks support that explanation.
Okay, here's the transcript.
They say, here is the White House transcript.
He says he reads the quote, blah, blah, blah, blah. Cast a ballot is consistently higher the
percentage of men who do so, end of quote. Let me repeat the line. Women are not without electoral.
Okay, they're going to say in the video remarks, it's not clear that Biden says let me before saying repeat
the line.
But posts on social media shared a shortened clip of the part of Biden's remarks to falsely claim that he mistakenly read cues of the teleprompter.
It is noteworthy that the percentage of women who registered to vote and cast a ballot is consistently higher than the percentage of the men who do so, end of quote.
Even if you want to argue that the let me wasn't there, he said repeat the line, not let me repeat that line.
And then in the transcript, it says, let me repeat the line.
They're lying.
They are lying because Biden's brain is broken.
Here's what I think the truth is.
I think we do have a commitment to defend Taiwan.
I think Joe Biden is correct when he says it, but he's too stupid, or I should say his brain ain't all there.
So he's blurting it out over and over and over again, which he's not supposed to do.
And because the U.S.
does have a policy not to say anything, what are they supposed to say?
The president said it.
All they can do is reject it.
The Washington Post makes it clear.
This is not unique to Trump.
I do want to show you, there are several instances where they walked back Trump.
And edited transcripts.
ABC News says White House tries to walk back Trump attacks on Pentagon chiefs as beholden to arms dealers.
This is more of an insult in an off-the-cuff statement that they're trying to pull back.
That I get.
Trump also said in an off-the-cuff statement, we'd have to wipe out $75 billion—I think it was billion—in debt to Puerto Rico, causing chaos in the markets.
He didn't say we have a policy to do so.
He said, you know, we'd have to.
It's an opinion.
Not the same as foreign policy of what we are going to do with our commitments.
Granted, they've also walked back opinions of Joe Biden.
I don't want to make it sound like it's unique to Biden.
In fact, I want Trump very much to be included in this.
The White House, even with Trump's people, they have consistently denied and rejected the position of our president.
Maybe it's a good thing.
Maybe not.
But the White House points out.
I'm sorry, the Washington Post points out.
The White House keeps walking back Biden's remarks.
May 24th.
Some argue the president would be better served if his advisers let his off-the-cuff comments stand rather than suggesting he was mistaken.
Over and over again.
It is to the point where even the Washington Post could not deny it.
Yes, they've walked back other presidents, but something about Joe Biden is just completely different.
So, if the president's brain is broken, so be it.
We cannot have a system in place where people can unilaterally decide to supplant the president without invoking the 25th Amendment.
We have a policy for this.
Kamala Harris would need to invoke the 25th if they thought Biden was incapable of being president, instead of just denying what he's literally telling the world.
And if it's true that Biden is revealing secret policy positions, so much so the White House must intervene in defiance of her own commander-in-chief, then we have a serious security breach with the broken brain of our president.
However you want to cut it.
The system is completely broken.
Something must be done.
Please.
25th Amendment, this guy.
Oh, don't take my word for it.
Let me just show you this.
In a tweet from Benny Johnson, he pulled the clip.
I no more think of myself as being as old as I am than fly.
I mean, it's just not, uh, uh... I haven't observed anything in terms of... There's not things I don't do now that I did before, whether it's physical or mental or anything.
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 to this, to 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
that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer. Subscribe and download
your episodes wherever you get your podcast. It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer. I
From the Washington Times, Biden accused of pressuring FBI to fabricate extremist and white supremacist cases.
Rank-and-file agents are accusing the Biden admin of exaggerating the threat of white supremacists and pressuring agents to cook up domestic terror cases involving racist extremists.
Current and former FBI agents told the Washington Times that the perceived white supremacist threat is overblown by the administration.
They said top bureau officials are pressuring FBI agents to create domestic terror cases and tag people as white supremacists to meet internal metrics.
Broken?
Rogue?
It's the executive branch.
You know, I say the White House because they keep changing what the policy setter himself is saying.
Marjorie Taylor Greene mentioned how they just have, like, four guys from the Democrats and Republicans just sitting there, like, drooling, and then some random person says, like, this bill, and they go, meh.
Okay, it's through.
Fine, whatever.
Look at Omnibus spending bills.
They can't get things through.
They ram them through.
They say it's a budget thing, so we're gonna just do that.
The judicial branch is doing fairly well, to be honest.
But it's become hyper-partisan.
You've got rulings that are just clearly... Look, you can look at a ruling and be like, ah, that judge is a Republican.
Ah, that judge is a Democrat.
Not always, but typically.
And then you have the leak coming out of the Supreme Court, dysfunction.
And now you have this.
Pure dysfunction in the executive branch.
The FBI, the White House, the military... Nobody's listening anymore!
Yeah.
So people wonder, why do I say civil war?
Well, it's going to be something.
You take a look at Syria, and there were like 12 different factions.
Ultimately, they start like coming together and breaking apart and things like that, and you end up with bigger parent factions fighting the government.
In the United States, with the branches of government in pure dysfunction, I can't imagine that there won't be pure chaos.
Look, we're humans.
Humans are fallible.
The systems that we build and abide by are fallible.
And I think there's a lot of young people in this country that seem to think that the law is immovable.
I hear people say things like this to me all the time.
You can't do that because of this or that law, and I laugh.
I love it!
I love seeing lawsuits, for instance.
They're like, whoa, you're going to get sued and lose all your money, and I'm like...
You know, they're not going to pay a penny.
The Alex Jones thing, they're like, whoa, Alex Jones is going to pay 45 million, 60 million, 70, whatever the number.
And I'm like, he's not giving them a penny, dude.
Maybe, probably not.
They don't get it.
They just, people think, if it's written on paper, it must be done.
And then sooner or later, people realized, or realize that the only laws that actually are impenetrable are the physical laws.
That's it.
When it comes to science, all we can do is work within the confines of physical laws to manipulate energy better, in more efficient ways, to make our lives better.
That's really all we do, is collect free energy and organize it.
So we take fossil fuels, you put it into a machine, a bunch of fine working parts, perfectly organized, can give you a very specific outcome.
West Virginia, you cannot possess, smoke, buy or sell marijuana.
Maryland says you can.
The funny thing about the law, federally, marijuana is Schedule 1, one of the worst possible drugs.
Let me tell you about Half-Baked with Dave Chappelle.
A movie came out, a cult classic, at a time when it was illegal basically everywhere.
Yet in the movie, they're all smoking it, knowing it's illegal.
Culturally, we all did.
Laws are fallible.
So now what we see is the institutions we've built, these different branches of government, when people don't care for them, or when people think they have to bend the rules and exploit them for personal gain, then you get decay.
So here's what I think.
I think the White House has gone rogue.
I don't think it's as crazy as people realize, because it's been this way for several years now, especially under Trump.
I think the FBI has gone rogue, but they've been rogue for a long time.
And I think ultimately what you get is that Joe Biden's clearly a risk to this country because his brain doesn't work.
If we have a policy to defend Taiwan, him going out and blurting it out over and over again isn't helping us.
It's not like China didn't already know that anyway, I'd imagine.
But then the White House steps in and just rejects the words of the president.
I suppose because they're desperately trying to cling on to what we're supposed to be doing.
The policy is probably not that we won't defend Taiwan.
The policy is not to admit that we will.
And Biden is.
And he's putting us at risk.
So the White House is trying to cling to that, but it's busted.
All you have now is a White House defying what the President has said four times.
Something ain't right.
Something does not work.
And in the end, Dysfunction, decay, and then, I don't know, maybe collapse.
Or maybe all the corruption will result in someone truly crossing the Rubicon, transforming this country into an empire like we saw with Rome.
It's a terrifying prospect.
I guess we'll see.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Weird though, there's still an ongoing class action lawsuit against the military because they're trying to mandate vaccines.
There's still an active state of emergency, an executive order, that was put in place by Donald Trump.
So what is Joe Biden doing here?
Well, The president gave an interview on CBS's 60 Minutes.
Now, I don't know exactly when the interview took place, but it didn't take place just the other day.
So, in the past several days, week, or however long, Joe Biden knew and was saying the pandemic is over.
Now, question is, Why isn't the government responding in such a way?
Well, I'll tell you this.
There's a tweet out from Jack Posobiec.
He says, every service member needs to file lawsuits right now.
And I'll go one step further.
Or maybe this was the point.
Anyone, anyone being required to get a vaccine for their job or anything like that related to the pandemic.
Biden said it is over.
The funny thing is, there's a lot of stories coming out based on this interview that Joe Biden gave, and I can't cover every single thing he said, because it's just kind of nuts.
But one of the things he did say was that the U.S.
would intervene in Taiwan.
Now, I'm not going to get into all the Taiwan stuff in this segment, but this is important.
He said, we would intervene, we would defend Taiwan, and Scott Pelley is like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
I think it was Scott Pelley, by the way.
He's like, whoa, are you saying U.S.
troops We'll defend this island.
He goes, yep.
The White House immediately comes out and says, our policy has not changed and this is not true.
Dude, at this point, I don't care about what the White House thinks.
The president made a statement.
Shut your mouths.
Is Joe Biden a child?
Can he not speak for his own policies?
It's laughable.
So here's what's happening now.
It's basically the same thing.
Biden's word is as good as dog crap.
Because he can come out and say, quite literally, I'm the president and this is what we're doing.
We don't need remote, absentee, early, all that stuff.
It should go back to the way things were.
It was an emergency, an extraordinary moment.
We understand that we all came together over the past couple of years because there was a pandemic, but as the president has stated now, It's over.
So please, tell all of your jobs.
Tell all of your jobs.
And I'll tell you this, if you have a company that's giving you the business or enacting some kind of policy based on this, you can walk in right now and say, there you go, the pandemic is over.
And if they try to give you the business, you can say, I will sue you.
Because the president has stated, pandemic's over.
In fact, I gotta be honest, not even that, I think everybody should sue the government.
I'll talk to my lawyer, I'll see what's going on.
Because they still have an active emergency in place.
And if the president is gonna come out and say this, with an active emergency, granting the government rights to bypass the law, that's what it does, I'll show you in a minute.
Okay, we got a problem there.
Joe Biden is operating under Donald Trump's emergency declaration.
But if he's saying it's over, it's time to stop, right?
CNN reports President Joe Biden said he believes the COVID-19 pandemic is over.
He believes?
No, he said the pandemic is over.
Look at this.
Oh, these scumbags over at CNN.
He believes the pandemic is over.
He said the pandemic is over, but, you know, we still got some problems.
Okay.
Look at this.
President Joe Biden said he believes the COVID-19 pandemic is quote-unquote over in an appearance on CBS's 60 Minutes.
They put over in quotes, but acknowledged the U.S.
still has a problem with the virus that has killed more than 1 million Americans.
The pandemic is over.
We still have a problem with COVID.
We're still doing a lot of work on it.
But the pandemic is over.
The U.S.
government still designates COVID-19 a public health emergency and the World Health Organization says it remains a public health emergency of international concern.
But the president's comments follow other hopeful comments from global health leaders.
Oh, you just love it when CNN comes in and takes a crap right all over the floor and just barfs everywhere and then, this is garbage!
Look how they're framing everything!
Hopeful comments.
The president stated on one of the most prominent news programs in this country, the pandemic is over.
But the and again, the pandemic is over.
Shut your mouths, CNN.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director of the World Health Organization, said in a news briefing last week that the end of the COVID-19 pandemic was in sight, and that the world has never been in a better position to end the COVID-19 pandemic.
Quote, Last week, the number of weekly reported deaths from COVID-19 was the lowest since March 2020.
We have never been in a better position to end the pandemic.
We're not there yet, but the end is in sight.
So who is Joe Biden?
Who is Joe Biden if he is not the man who can end this?
I bring you now to the current list of emergencies we have here.
March 13th, 2020, a current emergency enacted under Donald Trump.
Declaring a national emergency concerning the novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19 outbreak, Proclamation 9994, on March 13th 2020, President Donald Trump declared that he would give the states and territories access to up to $50 billion in federal funds to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.
This includes the ability to waive laws to enable telehealth.
Stated by President Trump, quote, It gives remote doctors visits and hospital check-ins.
The power to waive certain federal license requirements so the doctors from other states can provide services in states with the greatest need.
End it.
It's done.
Joe Biden should not have the authority to keep this running.
The government should not be allowed to keep this running when the new president says it is over.
Now, the argument, I suppose, is they can come out and say, but the pandemic is over.
Yes, but there's still an emergency, right?
Biden said we're still dealing with things.
Hold on there a minute.
The purpose of it was to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.
If there is no longer a pandemic, then certainly we are done.
Nicole Safier, MD, says Biden said he believes the COVID-19 pandemic is over during a 60 Minutes interview.
Yeah, that's grabbing it from CNN.
Biden quote, said he quote, he was quoted as saying, the pandemic is over.
We've still got some problems.
Stop right there.
But Nicole goes on to say, any remaining mask and vaccine mandates should be null and void immediately.
Future vaccines, treatments, tests should undergo complete FDA review and not expedited under EUA.
So go to an airport, go to a cafe, go to a restaurant, go wherever, where they're being mandated by government to enforce any of these policies, and then that should grant you standing, I suppose.
I went to—this was a while ago—Central West Virginia.
I went to a train station, and they had a mask mandate in place.
This was around the time all of the mask mandates had been ended.
So, no more masks anywhere.
But the federal government still said, nope, we still do it.
Okay, well now, let's hear it in court.
Let's hear the statement in court.
Thomas Massey says, if the pandemic is over, as Biden says, then all of the president's emergency powers predicated on a pandemic, all COVID vax mandates, the emergency powers of every governor, emergency use authorizations, and the PREP Act should all be voided tomorrow.
You know, and that means there are still many vaccines that are operating under EUA.
But they should all be voided immediately.
I completely agree with Rep.
Thomas Massey.
He is correct.
Jonathan Reiner, here we go, is another doctor.
He has a different view.
We have this from CBS Mornings, September 16th.
So this is before Biden made his declaration.
Quote, I do think we are at the end of the pandemic, but we are not over COVID-19.
Dr. David Agus says now is the time to adjust to living with the virus, but adds that testing, taking advantage of Paxlivid, and watching out for symptoms are key.
Jonathan Reiner says, I don't understand how 3,000 COVID deaths per week is consistent with being at the end of the pandemic.
Seems like we're adjusting to dying with the virus.
We've become death blind.
Oh, whoa!
Jonathan, you said something really interesting there.
You know, let me break this down for the average person.
He says 3,000 COVID deaths per week.
What does that mean?
He says dying with the virus.
You see?
Now, this is important.
He didn't say dying from the virus.
And there it is.
In many circumstances, they were saying that we had, you know, x many COVID deaths.
But a COVID death was dying with the virus, not dying from the virus.
You see there's a distinction.
There was a viral video out of Illinois where the chief medical position officer or whatever for the state, whatever it's called, administrator, said that if you die from any cause and you do have COVID, they will mark down dying with COVID.
People then misconstrue that dying with COVID means COVID killed you.
It did not.
Now, I don't know what he's trying to imply here.
Maybe he's trying to imply that COVID is killing people, or maybe he is correctly stating that people who die with the virus will be marked down as a COVID death.
But that means, like, some dude who trips and falls into the Grand Canyon and dies from blunt force trauma, they then, oh, he had COVID.
You know?
So, is that it then?
Here we go.
Politico.
The pandemic changed how we vote.
These states are making the changes permanent.
Permanent, huh?
And that's the game.
And there it is.
So even though the pandemic is over, on 6-21-2021, they moved to make it permanent.
Many of these jurisdictions did.
They took advantage of the crisis to overhaul our entire electoral system.
A handful of states are locking in voting rights expansion.
Okay, I'm not playing this game.
I'm gonna play a different game.
It's gonna be called, I'm gonna fix these articles in real time for you.
A handful of states are locking in lax voter security policies that they piloted in 2020, extending early voting and absentee balloting programs, even as other states add restrictions to voting.
Whoa!
Let's try that again.
A handful of states are locking in the reduction in security over our voting and violation of our Constitution.
They're going to say extending early voting and absentee ballot programs even as other states add security and reaffirm the constitutional limits to our voting system.
That is to say, the Constitution prescribes a voting day, not a voting month.
That's very important.
Now, under the emergency, these rules were changed.
We should have a single day for voting.
That day should be a holiday.
People should not have to work on election day.
And we should not allow early and absentee ballots unless we're absolutely necessary.
That is to say, I think absentee is fine if you're overseas, if you're in the military, if, you know, a medical emergency or other circumstance arises.
But if you cannot, Physically get up and go vote.
You know, if you cannot do it, that's the limit to which we would offer absentee ballots or things like that.
Everyone else who, outside of that, if you are unwilling to get up and go vote, then I don't think your vote should be in.
You clearly don't care enough.
And I'm saying voting day should be a holiday.
You should be able to take off work with pay so you can go vote.
That's my opinion.
Now, I get it.
There's a challenge because, you know, with pay implies someone's got to pay your bills so that you can go vote.
And that shouldn't be incumbent upon the business.
And that's because the business might not be able to do it.
It's like, not only are we closed on election day so we don't make any money, I also got to pay out.
That might be possible.
Got an idea.
Tax credit equal to one day's work for you.
So, let's say you make, you know, $200 a day working your job or something like that.
On tax day, you will get a single day's credit for $200 towards your income tax.
A full $200.
Kicked right back to you as a refund.
Guaranteed refund for that day.
So, you pay your taxes.
I know, a lot of libertarians don't like it, but my view is, in this liberal republic where we have an income tax, whether you like it or not, We will kick back the money that was originally yours in the first place but to accommodate for that day where you won't be working but you will be voting.
Ultimately it means a tax reduction so that you will have money equal to that amount.
I love the reaction though.
Here we go from The Guardian.
Biden says COVID pandemic is over despite US daily death toll in the hundreds.
I love this one.
I like it so much more than CNN.
Because with CNN, they're like, Biden believes the pandemic is over, but it's not.
It's like, okay.
And The Guardian's like, Biden says it's over, but there's people dying.
I love it.
They're trying to find any way they can spin it to be like, no, no, no.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, here we go.
It's from the Air Force Times from three days ago.
About four days ago.
Air Force vaccine case will remain a class action.
I think they just won.
I think this class action now should amend their complaint and say Biden has declared the pandemic over.
He is the Commander-in-Chief.
Let it be said.
Let it be done.
Air Force Time says, Federal appellate judge has dealt another blow to the military's coronavirus vaccine mandate by allowing a high-profile class action lawsuit against the Air Force to move forward.
The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati opted to keep the case's class action status in an order issued September 9th.
The three-judge panel also said it plans to fast-track the government's appeal of an earlier district court ruling that favored the unvetoed plaintiffs who are suing on religious freedom grounds.
Well, my friends, you may now amend that complaint and say, if the pandemic is over, how do you mandate this?
This is funny.
Judge Raymond Ketledge's court order pushed back on the military's argument that stopping the mandate would cause irreparable harm by requiring the Department of the Air Force to retain nearly 10,000 troops who can't or aren't allowed to fully carry out their duties because they aren't vaccinated against COVID-19.
Well, certainly that doesn't matter anymore.
The pandemic is over.
Now look, there's a lot to break down in this interview that Joe Biden gave.
He said a lot of crazy things.
I think my favorite thing that he said was, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I'm not kidding.
Biden said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Man.
Joe Biden's mental acuity was challenged, and he responded by saying a bunch of incoherent rambling for the most part.
You know, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
And I'm just like, oh, I didn't realize the proof of the pudding was in the eating.
I thought the proof was in the pudding, which is a totally different, means something totally different, but sure.
Yeah, this is the current state of things.
So when the president comes out and garbles and rambles, and then the government doesn't respond, y'all, we got very serious problems.
It's the decay.
The end is nigh.
Call it what you will.
It was good while it lasted, I guess.
You know, it's this American experiment.
But I was doing some reading last night, and we've made some comments on Tim Castellaro.
We've said things like, crossing the Rubicon, and we've talked about the fall of the Roman Empire, but boy, are we conflating two completely different issues.
You know, someone said, no Tim, crossing the Rubicon didn't end Rome.
It extended its life by two centuries.
And I was like, you know what?
They make a good point.
We're conflating these two things.
Crossing the Rubicon was the end of the Republic, not the end of the Empire.
The end of the Empire was something else.
This past weekend, I got to hang out in Stonewall Jackson's headquarters over in Winchester, Virginia.
It wasn't his, like, official home or anything, but it was where he planned things out defending the Shenandoah.
So it was just one of many locations he used.
Cool.
Cool to see.
A lot of the original furniture.
There's actually, like, a tea kettle thing that was, like, actually Stonewall Jackson's.
It's interesting.
And, uh, you know, I brought it up because we went in the bed—I'm bringing this up because we went in the bedroom of this house, and they were explaining to me they had this rolling pin for the bed.
There were concerns about things that might cause illnesses or ailments.
You could die, you know, you get sick, you get typhus, you get an infection.
And then he said, you know, the guy there, he said it was really funny because right—they're so worried about this, but right next to the bed is the bathroom.
And he's like, quite literally, chamber pots.
Just sitting right there.
It's funny.
You take a dump in a pot.
You don't want to walk out to the outhouse, you take a dump in a pot.
Nasty.
And then up on top of the shelf was like water and other things for cleaning up a little bit.
They sat next to their own waste.
Put it in a pot.
Wow!
The Romans had indoor plumbing!
That's the point.
For so long, we went without indoor plumbing.
But the Roman Empire, they had indoor plumbing.
When the Roman Empire fell, the technology was lost.
It was lost because the economy couldn't sustain such a thing.
Indoor plumbing wasn't a necessity.
It was a benefit.
A luxury, in a certain sense.
But what mattered most was getting food and resources and water to people.
So when the Roman Empire falls, it shatters, basically.
And then you get the Romance languages and then you get new empires bubbling up hundreds of years later.
I think we're in the end of the Roman Republic era.
The American Republic may be coming to an end.
Someone is going to cross that Rubicon.
And then we will have an empire of some sort.
I don't know exactly how it'll function.
But things will, I suppose, generally improve for maybe a couple more centuries.
But it means there's going to be some really messed up stuff.
An American empire truly declared with an autocracy.
It may preserve this nation for a couple more centuries.
What happens afterwards?
Maybe it won't be identical.
Maybe it will be more like the fall of the Roman Empire.
And I bring up that story in that house because it's just, if it does fall, you need to understand technology will be lost.
Trade will end.
Cameras.
People probably won't make them.
We don't need them.
Sort of.
People will want stuff like that.
We'll know it existed.
But it'll be interesting to see nonetheless.
You know?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Is it the Republic or is it the Empire?
We're in the American Republic.
And many people say they believe it's an empire.
And they say that empires last 250 years.
But the United States hasn't been an empire for 250 years.
If you can even call it one now.
I don't think you can.
I think an empire would require an emperor.
Instead, we've had an electoral system.
Why would we not fall into an empirical state for 250 years?
Maybe that's where we're going.
We're looking at the corruptions and the failures.
Maybe it was the Democrats that crossed the Rubicon.
Maybe Donald Trump will cross the Rubicon.
I don't know.
And what I mean by that is quite literally establishing an autocracy.
We say crossing the Rubicon to mean a point of no return.
But maybe there will be a literal crossing of the Rubicon.
We'll see.
I'll leave it there.
We've got a lot more to talk about in this 60-minute interview that Biden gave.
The next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
channel. Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
For those that aren't familiar with the story, this is an image of a biological male who came out as transgender and now wears oversized novelty breasts to school in front of high school children.
Now, many people have pointed out or stated that these are prosthetic breasts, but they're not.
They're not.
And I'll say that for a few reasons.
One, The definition of prosthesis is a false body part meant to replace something.
I guess you could argue that it's just a false body part.
But typically, prosthetics are a replacement body part for something that is missing.
Some people may be born without a hand.
We give them a hand.
Now, I suppose some people may argue that the large, oversized, novelty breasts are a prosthetic.
But this man does, in fact, have breasts.
So I want to make this... I'm not trying to be mean or anything or disrespectful.
I'm trying to make a simple point.
When you have hands, if you lose a hand and then get a prosthetic hand, it goes over where your hand used to be.
This male individual has male breasts.
Believe it or not, men have breast tissue.
Just not that much.
Men can get breast cancer.
To wear this over the chest would be more like if you felt like you had small hands so you wore gloves to make your hands look like they were bigger.
Or, you know, something akin to that.
Like if you got a big fake hand and put it over your hand.
That I would not refer to as the prosthetic.
I would call an oversized novelty hand.
And I would also like to point out that my understanding, and I could be wrong, is that they do not make prosthetics like this.
So, when women undergo double mastectomies, for instance, or a mastectomy, the removal of breast tissue due to cancer, They will often get a prosthetic or an implant.
That means something designed to replace the body part that is missing.
And it's usually for psychological reasons, for social reasons, and sometimes for medical reasons.
You know, if you're going to be running, for instance, it's not psychological that you need a prosthetic leg so that you can be walking.
In this instance, this is, I would say, psychological, but I do not believe, and I could be wrong, that these large oversized novelty breasts, I believe they are likely produced from an adult fetish site.
So this is the news, the update here.
You know, many children at the school have been complaining about this online and posting videos.
The Daily Mail reports, Canadian High School defends transgender teacher who wore enormous prosthetic breasts underneath tight t-shirt to class.
Now, again, I want to stress, I do not believe prosthetic is the appropriate word.
I believe oversized novelty breasts is probably more correct as to what these are.
And that is not a moral judgment statement.
I am just trying to make a factual statement.
Now, some have said it's semantic.
Sure, I suppose you could argue it is semantic, but my point is I do not believe doctors would prescribe 50-pound or 95-pound prosthetics to women who undergo mastectomies or things like that.
Unless, of course, they are large and with large bust sizes.
There is a world-famous She's a Guinness Book of World Records for the largest breasts, which are comparable in size to these oversized novelty breasts.
They weigh 95 pounds.
I believe it could be 90 pounds or so.
Maybe it's 85.
Somewhere around there.
Conflicting reports.
I don't think a doctor is going to say, hey, you should carry this.
In fact, often doctors say, we need to reduce the tissue because it's extremely bad for your back and for your spine, things like this.
So again, I think these are toys.
Now, the big story here You know, a lot of people are calling this out, saying it's absurd, they're insulting it, they're mocking it.
This is just the beginning of something I pointed out quite a while ago.
That if the law specifically protects gender expression, which it does, and you can express your gender any way you want, you can wear literally anything.
Obviously, in this instance, we're talking about breasts, which are secondary sex characteristics for females.
This is a male individual who would like to express that by wearing these things.
But it's going to extend well beyond this.
This is just the beginning.
I've pointed out that it's, you know, sooner or later you'll have someone wearing a fur suit, a furry costume, or you'll have people wearing just, I mean, who knows what?
Robot suits.
Because how you express your gender is entirely subjective.
In fact, in New York, I can actually show you the law, it's ill-defined.
The clothes you wear, you cannot be discriminated against.
Let me say that again.
What they are saying in the law is that they cannot discriminate against you based on the clothing you wear.
Now that's where things get really interesting.
What if you wore a shirt with a slur on it or something like that?
Well, I'll tell you, my friends.
I talked to several human rights lawyers out of New York, and they told me that if you did something as absurd as that, the court would laugh you out.
Will the court laugh at this man?
I do not believe so.
This male individual identifies as a woman.
This individual is being defended by the school, likely because they don't feel they would win in court.
Here's the story.
Kayla Lemieux, a manufacturing technology teacher at Oakville Trafalgar High School in Ontario, has been pictured online taking classes while wearing the huge prosthetics.
Miss Lemieux, who began transitioning from male to female a year ago, has gone viral after students took photos and videos of the teacher seemingly without her knowledge.
Now, I want to pause again, too, because this is really frustrating.
There is no confirmation on pronouns for this individual.
And I'm, look, trying to get all the language right.
What we know is the individual may not be trans, according to some news reports, so it is what it is.
In response, the high school has doubled down and defended the employee, writing to parents and explaining why they support Ms.
Lemieux's gender expression.
Now, I'll come back to these images, but I want to show you the email in question.
It says, Dear Oakville Trafalgar High School Families, We are aware of discussion on social media and in the media regarding Oakville Trafalgar High School.
We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate to our community that we are committed to establishing and maintaining a safe, caring, inclusive, equitable, and welcoming learning and working environment for all students and staff.
As a school within the Halton District School Board, Oakville Trafalgar High School recognizes the rights of students, staff, parents, guardians, and community members to equitable treatment without discrimination based upon gender identity and gender expression.
That's it.
Gender identity and gender expression are protected grounds under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
I'm going to pause there.
We're going to come back to that.
But I do want to point some things out.
This is important here.
In this video, this is what first went viral.
It says, During one class, Ms.
Lemieux was filmed operating machinery while wearing her large prosthetics.
They are not prosthetics.
They are oversized novelty breasts I believe likely came from an adult fetish site.
I am not saying that to disparage the individual, I am making a statement of fact.
I do not believe doctors prescribe these items.
Now, when you are using a, I believe it's a circular saw, I could be wrong, many people have pointed out this is extremely dangerous.
No apron, no goggles, no mask.
No dangling objects near any saws, including large, oversized breasts.
And I'm being completely serious on this.
There are rules.
Even if women have large, natural busts, you have to have a smock or an apron to secure yourself, because you don't want things moving around.
This is an extremely dangerous object.
This right here should be a violation of safety protocols.
Nothing else.
You want to talk about the law and what is protected and what isn't?
Fine.
Let me show you this.
From the Cornell Law School, now I know we're jumping between Canada and the United States, and there's a distinction here, but let me show you this, how it will affect us in the United States.
Gender identity means a person's self-identified gender, which may or may not correspond with their birth sex.
Identity is how a person experiences and Expresses their gender.
Now that is from Cornell.
I'd like to bring you specifically and notice expression is included under there.
That's important because they say that several states explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of that identity.
Now let's take a look at New York City specifically.
It says here legal definitions in their human rights law.
Gender expression is the representation of gender as expressed through one's name, pronouns, clothing, hairstyle, behavior, voice, or similar characteristics.
Gender expression may or may not conform to gender stereotypes, norms, and expectations in a given culture or historical period.
Gender expression is not the same as sexual orientation or gender identity.
Terms associated with gender expression include, but are not limited to, androgynous, butch, female, woman, feminine, femme, gender non-conforming, male, masculine, et cetera, non-binary.
Okay.
Let's get down to brass tacks.
Brass tacks.
Gender identity is also protected.
But this is important.
They say.
Now let's go back to when I said I called a lawyer.
Human rights lawyers.
And I had some questions.
gender discrimination. Gender discrimination under the NYCHRL includes discrimination on
the basis of gender identity and gender expression. Now let's go back to when I said I called
a lawyer. Human rights lawyers. And I had some questions.
If gender expression includes your name, pronoun, clothing, hairstyle, behavior, voice,
or similar characteristics, and may or may not conform to norms, expectations in a given
culture, or historical period, let's walk you through where this goes.
What if you get to the point where you go two or three feet tall?
Marge Simpson style.
It doesn't matter if it seems strange.
It is protected.
Which brings me to historical period.
Okay, now things are starting to get weird.
Why is historical period protected here?
If any and all of it is protected, I talked to a lawyer, several actually, and they walked me through this.
They said, if someone went to court, someone got fired because they were wearing prosthetic breasts or a dress or whatever, they're fine.
They're protected.
They will win.
It's a $125,000 fine if it's involuntary and $250,000 fine if it's voluntary.
Meaning, if an individual was wearing this clothes, you said, I don't care.
You can't wear that here.
Get out!
And they knew it was wrong, it's double the fine.
I said, what if somebody, you know, clothing, and it doesn't have to conform to a stereotype, what if someone wore, like, bunny ears?
And they're like, well, now you're getting a little silly, it wouldn't pass the laugh test.
The laugh test?
Yeah, a judge would laugh it out of the courtroom, like, that's not what the law is supposed to protect.
What about oversized novelty breasts, size triple Z?
No, for real, I think those, someone brought up, like, the comparables on those, and it's like, you know, 60 triple Z or something.
Would a judge laugh that out?
Would a judge laugh at a woman who naturally has large breasts?
Therein lies the issue.
If it's protected, it's protected.
Where is the line?
Interpretable.
So perhaps right now you will say that a judge will laugh it out, but I give you 50 years, and they won't.
The example I like to use is the banning of public intoxication, of public drinking in New York.
When the law was initially passed, they said something, one of the city councilmen said, this law will not be used to, will not be construed to say that a man can't enjoy a beer with his lunch at work.
That's exactly what it is!
You can't even sit on your own porch in New York City and have a beer.
On your own property, they will fine you for this.
So where do we go?
Well, I pointed out that sooner or later someone's gender expression will be a fake voice using a voice changer and wearing a fursuit.
Why not?
That's how they express their gender.
Historical period is where it got really interesting.
So I asked the lawyer, what if somebody dressed up like a southern plantation owner?
I mean, look, you're saying any clothing and any historical period?
You mean to tell me that a guy can dress up like a plantation owner and walk in And that's protected?
That's insane.
And they said, no, no, they'll laugh it out of the courtroom.
But historical period is quite literally protected here.
So no, I don't think so.
I don't think it will be laughed out.
And I said, if they can laugh out someone wearing a historical period piece costume, why could not a judge laugh at a man dressed in a dress?
You can't give me a good reason, as long as that law stands.
I think it's fairly obvious where this goes.
It will lead to that place, where someone will show up, dressed like Vulciferon, Herald of the Winter Mists.
That will be their name.
And they'll say, you know, look, someone apply for a job at Starbucks.
And I'm not kidding.
And it's not meant to be funny.
fursuit with platform shoes and a voice changer that makes their voice sound like this. I am
Volsiferon, herald of the winter mists. Heed my name. And I'm not kidding. And it's not meant to
be funny. It's meant to point out the extent to which this law will be carried. Now, some people
say it's too absurd. It'll never happen. I'm not kidding.
I'm telling you, we are at the point now where a school is outright defending oversized novelty breasts as gender expression.
And far be it from me to tell someone they can't do it.
The law is the law.
Now, the school is saying this.
The Toronto Sun reports, Halton School Board prepares for backlash.
They're worried about the safety of the individual and the violence that may come.
Look, I don't care how somebody dresses.
I'll tell you this.
Get your kids out of these schools.
This is Canada.
It's not the United States.
It is what it is.
Here in the U.S., though, I think it's fair to say it's coming.
They're going to say gender identity can be, you know, a bunch of different things.
Male to female.
Male to male trans.
Pangender.
Woman of trans experience.
There's 31 different genders that are recognized in New York City.
Sooner or later, someone's going to get a job.
And it may come and go in increments.
That's how it always goes.
Someone will get a job at Starbucks.
They'll show up the next day wearing very large prosthetic breasts.
Legitimately prosthetic.
I don't mean oversized, just large.
And they may say, okay, yikes, what do we do?
It's within the realm of reason, the size, but it may be off-putting.
Maybe the person comes in dressed as a drag queen in full costume.
And they say, you can't dress that way.
I certainly can.
It's my gender expression.
Outright, the gender expression law will plainly state that uniforms are not protected.
You can come in and say, this is a male masculine outfit I refuse to wear.
I want a dress and a tiara.
Is Starbucks going to have to provide that or allow it?
I think the answer is yes.
You can't tell someone they can't wear clothing that doesn't conform to their gender.
What if someone shows up the next day and they're wearing leathers?
And you say, this is how I express my gender.
Are you going to discriminate against me?
Sooner or later, it's going to happen.
And as it carries on, it'll be in increments.
First, they'll say, this person is just dressing like a woman.
What do we do?
Can't do anything.
The next day, you'll get a man with oversized novelty breasts.
And they'll be like, okay, that's crossing the line.
They'll be like, but they're just breasts.
What if someone has a third breast?
And I'm not trying to be funny.
What if someone comes in with three, like in total recall?
What are you gonna say?
Are you gonna argue it's a prosthetic?
We're all missing a third nipple.
Well, not everybody.
Some people have what are they called?
Superfluous?
Is that the word?
I don't know.
Superfluous?
Maybe that's not the right word.
Vestigial?
No, it's not vestigial.
But some people will actually do this.
What happens if someone comes in wearing fake wings?
What happens if someone comes in wearing a tail?
Where is the line?
You can argue a court can laugh it out.
But I argue, what is their basis for saying this law should be void?
Is it that humans don't have tails?
Some humans do have tails.
That's right, you have to get it surgically removed.
And if they do, then why can't you have a large tail?
Are you going to say humans don't have wings?
Okay, perhaps.
But who's to say that's not the clothing I'm wearing to express my gender?
Where's the line?
Behavior!
Now this is where it's really crazy!
You understand that behavior can be detrimental and negative.
It can be aggressive and angry.
Does this mean they can't fire you?
What if...
Someone comes in and says, I identify as this gender and I'm a mean girl.
You've seen Mean Girls, right?
Rachel McAdams, Lindsay Lohan.
What if someone says that as part of the gender expression they want to be a snooty valley girl?
So a customer comes in and they're like, my coffee wasn't good.
Why?
Did you spit in it or something?
Was it bad?
And they're like, you can't talk to customers that way.
Actually, I can.
My behavior is protected under New York human rights law.
It doesn't say based on gender.
It just says behavior.
Because you can't define a gendered behavior.
It outright says it may not conform to gender stereotypes.
What if he just starts screaming?
You say the laugh test, and I hear you, but I'm telling you, if a judge can say the grunt you are making is not protected, then why could they not say deepening your voice or raising your voice is also not protected?
Is there not a person on this planet who would hear a 6'5 guy going, you have to refer to me as Janet, and they would laugh at that?
Even though it's a legitimate expression of gender?
Yeah.
This is where things go.
They're saying they're worried about violence, but I tell you, if your kids are in these schools, it's only a matter of time.
Maybe that's the goal.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I can only say that I don't think most people would want their kids to be taught by an individual who is doing something like this.
So what do you do?
Are you forced to defend the actions of this individual?
To accept them and have your children be around this individual?
Or do you say, we're going to vote to change this law, we don't accept this?
Seamus Coghlan over at Freedom Tunes, he pointed out on Timcast IRL, he said, we all thought it was a slippery slope, then it turned out it was a sheer cliff.
Because we didn't just slowly go down, we went right over the edge.
We announced we want to protect trans people, and I can respect that, and then you get this.
Again, I will stress my concerns here is that I believe these are oversized novelty breasts from a fetish store, not a prescribed prosthesis from a doctor.
And I think that's a reasonable assessment.
Where's the line?
What's the limit?
School choice, my friends!
You better move forward with the school choice stuff.
It's the only thing I can really say.
You need to make sure that your tax dollars are not being forced to pay for something like this.
That you can choose to move your children out of these schools to somewhere where you feel they will be safer.
Otherwise, it will not just end here.
It will keep going.
There will be more.
It'll be more, it'll be different.
This is completely unsafe next to a circular saw.
And because of these laws, they can't even stop the individual from doing that.
And I worry about the safety of all these people involved.
But that's where we're at, and I'll leave it there.
