Everyone. Welcome back to Under Reported Stories, where you have the news at CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News failed to report on, or don't report on enough. We're gonna get into Kamala's plagiarism accusations, and much, much more on today's show. I promise you, we've got some great, like, Tony the Tiger stories for you guys today. I'm back in the Nashville Studios, really not for that much longer, but I am back here.
Last week on Thursday, you guys got a podcast from my hotel room in DC, which was so much fun. Oh my gosh. I had this opportunity to go to what is called the Influence America Summit. It was the very first one. It was put on by my friend CJ.
And really the idea of it was providing influencers like myself and others with the opportunity to learn from seasoned professionals at the Heritage Foundation about the data behind why we believe what we believe, and then best messaging and practical ways in which to act out and speak to our audiences about these subjects. And so it was really awesome. I actually fun fact about me, was an intern at the Heritage Foundation, so it was very fun to go back to my stomping grounds there in DC.
For those of you who don't know, the Heritage Foundation is, like, a conservative nonprofit 501c3, but they're just integral into all of the aspects of conservatism when it comes to the actual DC politics, the nitty gritty of it. So it was a really awesome opportunity. I'm really glad I went. I got to see my friends. As always, I have way too much fun when I'm with my influencer friends. It's really, really quite bad. But after that, I, you know, I got home.
I've been home for a couple of days, and tomorrow I am gone yet again. Don't worry, I will always have videos up on the channel. I work overtime. Okay? The devil might work hard, but Chrissy Clark works harder. Okay? So I have some videos for you throughout the week, but I'm headed tomorrow to an event for a chapter in New York. I'm gonna be speaking at a Turning Point chapter, giving them a speech, getting to discuss what's going on at their college campuses.
So I'm gonna be going there this week. Next week, I will be at 2 college campuses with Charlie Kirk and with Vivek Ramaswami. It's gonna be really fun. We're gonna be debating students, talking to students. I'll be doing lots of Man on the Street, so be sure to follow me on Instagram and x. Those are linked in the show notes. When you follow me on those platforms, that's really where you'll get to stay more up to date on my travels and what is going on. So that's what's been on my agenda.
Hope you guys are doing well. Hope all is well in your home. But before we get into today's underreported stories, I did wanna talk about a semi trending story. And I have been hearing from my audience that you guys do want me to talk about some more trending stories. One of the reasons why I don't talk about trending stories as much is because, a, I kinda wait to feel very passionate about them, which I do about this one. And also, my whole brand has been to be the under reported stories girl.
So I would like to focus my time, energy, and effort on some of the underreported stories aspects. But, you know, as I grow, I'm closer to 28 than I am to 27 now. As I grow up, as I've been in this world for quite a while, I understand that you guys value my opinion and my opinion on some of these subjects. It is maybe more interesting to you than it was 3 or 4 years ago when I was a little bit younger.
So I have heard you guys, I've heard your feedback, and so I I'm gonna talk about more of a trending story now. So, like I said, this one irked me more than others do. I just, like I woke up feeling annoyed by it. Do you know what I mean? Like, usually, I turn the political switch off around, like, 7:30 PM and then I turn it back on around 8 AM, typically. But for some reason, this story just kinda lived in my head rent free, so congrats, Politico, because it's about Politico.
Let me give you the rundown. So, Politico put out this, I don't know if I would even call this a hit piece, but a semi hit piece. And it was against JD Vance, who is the Republican vice presidential nominee. And the hit piece said that in 2017, JD Vance requested first class flights and a $40,000 speaking fee for his book tour. Oh my gosh. How dare he. That's wild. Who would ever deign to ask for money for a speaking tour, or a speaking fee, or nice flights when you are of relative popularity.
I don't know. Who would ever do that? Catch the sarcasm in my voice, guys. It's it's coming. The hypocrisy is incoming. Mind you, it is just important to note that JD Vance in 2017 was a private citizen. He didn't run for office, he won his Senate seat in Ohio during the 22 midterms. So it's not like he was capitalizing on his political connections to get these speaking gigs. That's not what, not at all what was happening.
But the Left is playing this dumbass holier than now game where they actually say, oh, they can't believe they feign this outrage over JD Vance asking for $40,000 in a first class ticket. When in actuality, this insane price gouging of speaking fees is quintessential to the Democratic narrative. So if the standard is that politicians shouldn't be allowed to make money off of speaking fees, then someone needs to talk to Michelle Obama.
Because I was doing my research and Michelle Obama charged 700, 7 wait. 741,000. Sorry, the math ain't mathing. $741,000. Okay. That's 6 figures. For a 1 hour speech about diversity and inclusion. And, I did the math on that and that is over $12,300 per minute. Imagine making $741,000 in an hour. Seriously. And then having the audacity to rip a man who made $40,000 for an entire speaking event minus flights. Or, if Michelle Obama doesn't hit it for you, Big Mike. How about Bill Clinton?
He was paid half a $1,000,000. $500,000 to speak at an event in Russia. Yeah. Okay. We use bills in the past, Michelle wasn't present. Oh. How about Obama? Obama got paid $800,000 for 2 speeches in 1 week. $400,000 per speech. Okay? So when political puts this out, in my head I'm like, maybe calm the f down on, on the $40,000 that JD Vance was making as a private citizen for a book tour, for his wildly popular book. Maybe just calm down.
And this theme has actually been overarching for me all this week. It's been really bugging me because it's not just Politico and Michelle Obama playing holier than thou. It's been Kamala doing this too. She's been playing this game with Trump. Oh, I'm better than Trump. I would never I'm a progressive prosecutor. And then she has Usher and Lizzo campaigning for her. 2 people who have different harassment allegations against them.
Usher has it's been alleged that he was very much involved with everything going on with Diddy. Lizzo is a lawsuit against her from 3 of her backup dancers about everything with a bunch of really disgusting allegations, namely that they were forced to touch male nude dancers at the behest of Lizzo at a sex show. Very odd, very disgusting. And if you're interested in that topic more, I did do a video about this yesterday on YouTube, Rumble X, and Facebook. You can find it everywhere there.
But now, let's get into our docket for today. This is what I wanna talk about. So Kamala Harris has plagiarized pages of congressional talk testimony. I wanna talk about that right off the top. Experts found that Canadian doctors are euthanizing people over social anxieties. I freaking called it, and I can't wait to freaking get into it. And a Democratic Senate candidate who is pushing crappy public schools on all children actually sent her child to a posh private school.
So, without further ado, let's get into the 5 underreported stories that you need to know. Today's show is brought to you by Based, my merch line. If you didn't know this already, I'm an independent creator, and the best way to support this show is by purchasing my merch line that represents your views. Instead of just asking you guys for donations to fund my independent journalism, my business partner and I created a line of merch called Based Apparel. Based means you are the opposite of woke.
It means you're based in logic, you're based in truth, you're based in facts. You gotta head over to based in logic.com to check out our latest apparel. My favorite, my personal favorite right now is the conspiracy theorist hat. And remember, when you buy merch, you are directly supporting me and this show. And when you get your apparel, please be sure to tag me on Instagram so I can repost you.
You. Like I've teased multiple times now, Kamala Harris reportedly plagiarized pages of congressional testimony from a Republican colleague. So back in 2007, Kamala was testifying before Congress in favor of a bill that at the time would have created a student loan repayment program for state and local prosecutors. So you become a state or a local prosecutor, you automatically get bought into this student loan repayment program for you since you took out loans to do something, quote, noble.
Okay. It never passed. But, when you take a step back and you review Kamala's testimony, it turns out that about 80% of her testimony was taken word for word from the testimony of Republican District Attorney, Paul Legoli, of Illinois. So, I'm pulling up a picture of Legoli's testimony versus Harris's testimony, side by side. Legoli's testimony and Harris's testimony, like, it is word for word the same thing.
In the first four paragraphs, the only thing that differentiates between these two testimonies is the word who versus whom. Ligoli uses the word who, Harris uses the word Whom. Other than that, in the listening audience, if you could just see this, it is 4 paragraphs of identical text coupled by 1 inserted paragraph from Harris coupled by exact same testimony back to back. It says, this is what Harris wrote that was different than the other person, than Paul Legoli.
Said public defenders are subject to the same difficulties in retaining attorneys. With starting salaries of about $35,000, new defenders cannot afford to repay their student loans. Little bit more than what Ligoli said, but truly almost word for word. Again, the Free Beacon, who is the person the organization that put all of this together, they said the main difference between their testimonies is that Legoli submitted his to the senate instead of the house.
And unlike Harris, Legoli is a Republican. That is literally the only thing you can see if you're in the viewing audience. If you're in the listening audience, I'm trying my best to describe this for you. These are almost word for word. The orange is the parts that are identical. And again, maybe I should put this on my Instagram story so you guys can see it because this is just wild. To me, this shows that Kamala really has a lack of attention to detail.
She's not really interested in moving the needle forward on when it something that she's passionate about. She's really just interested in getting the job done. And I don't necessarily think that she acts like that when she is campaigning for something, but I think it does speak wonders about how she acts once she gets into an elected position because she might look like she's working very hard right now. I think there's, evidence to show that that you can make that argument.
But once she gets into office, it seems like you could look at her 4 year track record as VP, you could look at her track record as a prosecutor, and you could look at her track record in even a small setting like plagiarizing. And you start to notice a pattern of her that she just works really hard to get elected and once she gets elected she relies on the people around her to do the bare minimum.
Now, I do wanna caveat this by saying I would like to give Kamala the benefit of the doubt here and that I have seen the way that lobbying and non profit organizations work when it comes to pushing forward legislation like this. So there very well could have been a non profit advocating for this bill that gave Kamala Harris and Paul Legally messaging points and a script that they both utilized.
But my issue with this is, when you're passionate about something, it should be really easy to write testimony for something you're incredibly passionate about. I think about all the times I've done brand deals, for instance, and, like, of course, I can't compare myself to writing testimony for congress, but I can speak to my own world.
And in my own world, I get offered brand deals a lot of the time and you can tell how passionate I am about a brand based on whether I just use the script or I go forward and I create my own thing. Now, I will say, like, 9 times out of 10, if I'm not passionate about it, I'm not gonna get involved in it. But for the most part, what I do is I see a brand and they wanna work with me and I'll say, you know what? I like your scripts and that's great that you do all that work.
The truth is I know my audience. I know what would what I would be interested in, and I am passionate enough about your project or about the message that I am willing to take on the extra work to be sure that this performs well or this does very well. And so I know what it takes to be passionate about something, and I promise you that copying and pasting script from a non profit does not prove that you are passionate about something.
So, I will leave it at that, but I think that this is quite pathetic, and it is a case for why Kamala Harris is a very apathetic person. But, this plagiarism report actually is not limited to one incident. So the Free Beacon went further in-depth on their report, and in a separate incident, Kamala Harris actually plagiarized a fictional story about a victim of sex trafficking, and then presented it as a real case. She's either ignorant, awful, or dumb. Or a combo of the 3.
It could very well be a combo of the 3. The story that Kamala Harris was plagiarizing comes to us from Polaris Project, which is a non profit that runs the National Human Trafficking hotline. And by June of 2012, the project had posted a series of vignettes, So, tiny little graphs or stories, that were quote representative of the types of calls the hotline received and really meant for informational purposes. So these were very big generalizations.
They were partially fictitious in order to keep the identities and stories of individuals who were victims of sex trafficking. From the Internet, according to archived pages, these are, again, meant for informational purposes only. But, in November of 2012, that same year that those vignettes went up, Kamala Harris included one of them in a report she published on the state of human trafficking in California.
Though she said the story was courtesy of the National Human Trafficking hotline, she copied it verbatim and did not acknowledge that it contained fictionalized material. So, if you are in the viewing audience, you can see that the Polaris Project, which is the vignette that you would see on social media, is mostly orange, and Kamala Harris' campaign website, or her, what was it? A report that she published on the state of human trafficking. This is on the right side.
They're almost word for word. They are copy and paste minus a couple of, I would say, a handful of words. No more than 20 words are changed in this. The only detail Kamala changed was the location of where this awful tragic case took place. So the Polaris Project actually described a young woman in a vignette. Her name was Kelly. And according to the again, this we don't know how factual this is.
The girl's name is obviously not Kelly, but Kelly, quote unquote, had been forced to engage in prostitution and was rescued by law enforcement in Washington, DC. But, in Kamala Harris's retelling of the story, Kelly had conveniently been found in San Francisco, where Kamala Harris was the district attorney at the time. And, the change, really what it did was it gave Kamala Harris credit for a rescue that never occurred. I mean, it did occur. It occurred in Washington, DC.
It did not occur in California, nonetheless, San Francisco. It's just wild that she tried to take somebody's awful sex trafficking story and turn it into her own. That is wholly unacceptable behavior. I can't think of anything more grotesque than taking and essentially appropriating a story about someone's sex trafficking, a very legitimate story that was changed and altered for the sole purpose of protecting that person's identity and changing the story to politically fit your narrative.
I I think it's disgusting. I think Kamlo should be held to account for this and I wish a journalist with any modicum of care for the victims of sex trafficking should ask this question because that's wild. Also, when I heard this plagiarism story writ large outside of the actual accusations that are found within them, isn't it so weird how plagiarism accusations keep coming up time and time and time again of Democrats?
And more so than answering why I think that's the case, I am just curious about your position because I see it two ways. Either right leaning outlets see that plagiarism accusations play really well online, so they're constantly looking for these stories in comparison to the left. Or, this really is a problem that is endemic among left leaning politicians and professors. So, if you have a take on this, please let me know in the comments. I am dying to hear from you.
And while you're commenting, let's move on to our next story. So, I don't know if you guys know who Billboard Chris is. He is an activist who, like his name suggests, wears a billboard on him. And he goes around with kind of radical statements written on the billboard. Radical in terms of our culture, not in terms of what they actually say. But he wears these billboards with these radical questions and he asks people to discuss the topics with him that are on the billboard.
Namely, in the past year or maybe 3, he's really just been honing in on the topic of gender ideology. So Billboard Chris is at UCLA, and he ran into a woman who goes by the name of Clementine. And in this, she comes up to him with the intention of saying, hi. You know, thank you for the work you do. I'm familiar with your work. I really like you. And it turned into her explaining how she was put on the gender transition track at the age of 12.
And so we're just gonna listen to her story, and I'll kinda intermittently stop to give you my opinions or maybe a little bit more thought or some notes as we go through. What's your name? My name is Clementine. Nice to meet you. I've actually seen your stuff online, and I'm a huge fan. I was on puberty blockers. I started when I was 12, and I've been on I was on testosterone from 14 to 17, and I got top surgery at 17. Totally messed my life up. So I just wanna say you're doing a good thing.
I just wanna stop it here because you can just see it, like, as a journalist, I'm looking at Chris and I can just tell he's like, oh, shit. We hit the gold mine. And for the listening audience, by the way, his sign says, children cannot consent to puberty blockers, billboard chris.com with a little QR code. And the person coming up, she is a biological woman, and she just comes up to say thank you.
And all of a sudden, I wouldn't call it trauma dumping because it's incredibly courageous, but just start sharing her experience and story, and it's it's very interesting. Oh. I can't believe people disagree with you on this. As a former, like, child transitioner, I'm just, like, appalled that people have anything to question you about. So I salute you. I'm so sorry you had to go through all that. I'm glad you are through it now. Thank you so much for speaking up.
That's extremely valuable because a lot of people are afraid to. Yeah. So do you mind if we have a little conversation about it? Of course. Yeah. Okay. Come on in this way just a little bit. Oh, yeah. For sure. Hi. So your name again? My name is Clementine. Clementine. So Clementine went on puberty blockers at what age? 12. And you detransitioned at? I detransitioned earlier this year, actually, but I had been going off testosterone since about 17.
I am so curious about what Clementine's age would be. She I mean, this is near UCLA, so very well could be somewhere in the age range of 18 to 22, probably. I'm gonna guess if I had to give my most, I'm gonna I'm gonna say 20. I'm gonna say 20 is my most educated guess on her age. But still, if anybody doesn't know the harms of puberty blockers, they are FDA approved to stop precocious puberty.
So puberty in kids that are maybe, say, 6, 7, 8, early onset puberty, they are now used by gender ideology advocates to say that children should stop puberty if they are of puberty age so that they can decide their gender. So that's what happened to Clementine when she was just 12 years old. FDA does not approve the drugs for that use to my knowledge. Because they gave me psychosis. When did they put you on testosterone?
I was 13. Wow. Stopping it again just to say the step after puberty blockers is cross sex hormones. So for men that believe that they are women, they then get estrogen and for women that are believe they are men, they then get testosterone.
And, of course, if you talk to many of the detransitioners and even plenty of people that have transitioned, they will be very forthright in telling you that the issues they have when taking a opposite sex just a ton of the opposite sex hormones is just awful. And in this case for Clementine, it was ultimately psychosis. And when did you have a double mastectomy? I had a double mastectomy at 14.
I'm currently going through, the process of getting reconstructive surgery, and it was harder to get that approved. I actually wasn't able to get it approved by my insurance. Right. But it was much harder to get surgery for that than it was to actually get the original top surgery procedure. At what point do we just start believing her? Like, at what point do we realize that this individual who has gone through it is telling the truth?
That it is harder for women to get their breasts augmented after having them chopped off as children. Like, that is her story. That is a reality that happened at UCLA medical facilities. That is something that happened and, by the way, that is a little side note that these surgeries, that all of this transitioning happened at a UCLA facility. Clementine will go on to say that. That was just noted in Chris billboard Chris's original, post about all of this.
For everyone watching this who says this isn't happening, well, it happened to Clementine. At 14, a double mastectomy. Puberty block is at 12. Testosterone at 13. How old are you now? I'm, 20 now. I just turned 20. Heck, yeah. Oh my gosh. That was such a good educated guess. Sorry. Only stopping in to say, fuck yeah. I was right. Have you ever talked to anyone about suing? I I can't disclose Okay. What's going on. But yeah.
It's Okay. Because I'm here to help you find someone if you need someone. Yeah. I've spoken do you know Campbell, Miller, Payne? I do. I've I yeah. I've talked to them a bunch. Fantastic. So Campbell, Miller, Payne is a law firm for dads in Texas who all left their previous law firms and started a new one just to sue for kids and young people like Clementine who've been harmed by this madness. And these are great guys.
They could've done anything to make a bunch of money, but they started a law firm. They left all their previous firms. They have 18 kids between them, and they're gonna cause a lot of waves. I know some good lawsuits coming too, which we aren't allowed to announce yet. Yeah. I really hope so. That's one of the way out of this mess we've gotten into. That's really the only way right now too. It's just suing the crap out of these organizations because what they're doing is madness.
It's destroying people's lives. I mean, the girl that is on our screen right now, she it's not a judgment on what she looks like, but you can just tell from her voice, aside from her looks, aside from the way she carries herself, that something incredibly sad and incredibly harmful happened in her life. And she is now dealing with the repercussions, trying her level best, but I mean, there are very relatively whole people who struggle at the age of 20.
Nonetheless, people who have gone through or undergone one like something that Clementine has gone through. It it really breaks my heart. One more note from Billboard Chris' post on all of this is that the specialist who allegedly harmed Clementine received a $5,700,000 grant from the NIH, so those are federal tax dollars, to research transitioning children.
This study in question involved giving cross sex hormones, so that's not just the puberty blockers, but the cross sex hormones, the injection of either a high amount of estrogen into men or boys or high amounts of testosterone into young girls. That all started at the age of 8 in this study. So, yeah, that study has no regard for how this is gonna impact people's lives.
Clearly the UCLA medical facility has no regard for how people's lives are gonna be impacted and it's just gonna mess up a ton of young people's lives and it's absolutely disgusting and I'm very, very proud of people that go out there and sue these organizations, these medical facilities, these doctors, because they deserve it. And that actually perfectly tees up a segment or segue into our next story, which is another medical organization messing up people's lives.
How are people getting away with this? Okay. I wanna preface this by saying I've talked about this before. And when I talked about it, everyone said, your girl was being dramatic for saying that medical euthanasia was a slippery slope. But now, I have been vindicated, and experts are agreeing with me. So, in Canada, you can euthanize yourself. But, the medical system has always insisted that you need either a fatal diagnosis or unmanageable pain to obtain the drugs for euthanasia.
Now, I've detailed this before, but as a Christian, I have taken the position that it is not in my will to decide when I will be leaving this earth. I'm a leave that to the big man upstairs. So the idea of offing myself with medication because of suffering, that is not in the cards for me.
That is not in the cards for probably a lot of Christians because we actually, well, I believe we actually learn a lot through suffering and we just don't know what miracles God can perform even in our worst times. So, I have been adamantly against euthanizing people for health reasons or age reasons because of my beliefs. So, that is my main argument. But I have also evoked the slippery slope argument, for better lack of a phrase.
And, it's because I believe, almost similar to our last story, that when medical systems see how much money they can make off of, say, changing someone's gender, or possibly euthanizing people, when that money and the opportunity and the incentives are there, it will become more readily available. Turns out, I'm right. Doctors are euthanizing people, now in Canada, with quote, unmet social needs. So think of people who might not have enough money, or social connections, or housing.
Basically, if you felt isolated, things in which are very temporary to my main point as to why we should not be doing these youth in Asia. You just don't know how temporary your circumstances are, even if they scientifically or theoretically don't feel like it. Lots of these situations can be temporary. And what was happening is that doctors were seeing these isolated people, seeing these, homeless people, and then euthanizing them.
Now the problem must be bad because the Associated Press is the one writing about it, but they did have a really good article about this that I just think is worth diving into. And they have 2 case studies that I wanna kind of unpack. The first one being the case as somebody that is defined or identified as mister a. So Ontario's expert committee, this is by by the way, just in case you don't know, Ontario's a province in Canada.
And it is there's a committee there that is studying whether authorities tried hard enough to relieve individuals' pains before euthanizing them. And mister a, in this case study, was an unemployed man in his forties, very young man, with bowel disease. Now that is unclear if it's Crohn's, which is a lot more serious, or something like IBS. In which case, I'm not gonna criticize, but I don't know the extent to this, quote bowel disease.
Mister a also had a history of substance abuse and mental illness. Obviously, that is very sad. He was described in clinics as socially vulnerable and isolated. Committee members were quote alarmed that a psychiatrist, this wasn't a doctor, a psychiatrist, suggested euthanasia during a mental health assessment. Oh my effing goodness.
So this person, who is in a very vulnerable and isolated state, as described by a psychiatrist was then suggested that he delete himself from the planet because in the low, I'm not saying that this is actually what his case was, but let's say in the lowest case he's in his forties, he poops a lot, he does some drugs, and he's depressed. And we're now suggesting that we kill you on alive people or delete people, whatever phrase you wanna use that doesn't get me dinged in the algorithm.
Like, what? What? That is really what people are doing that's that is heartless. That is so heartless. And, also, why is it always the psychiatrist? It's always the psychiatrist that recommend, oh, you don't know how you feel about yourself? You should change your gender. Oh, you're sad and you poop a lot? You should kill yourself. What? The study goes on to say, mister A was eventually picked up and driven to the location where he was deleted by the health professional who euthanized him.
A transgression of professional boundaries according to some of the committee members. Absolutely. If the standard is that you are only doing this to people with unmanageable pain and, chronic illnesses. This certainly doesn't categorize that. And then this is the other thing is that the similar to the gender debate, when it comes to euthanasia, what qualifies as unmanageable pain? Because I could go into a clinic today. I'm actually Canadian, whatever. I'll go up to Canada.
I could go into a clinic and say, hi. I have unmanageable pain of a broken heart. Delete me. Does that qual I need a specific definition of unmanageable pain. Cause eventually I could manage that. It might feel unmanageable in the interim. By the way, everything is good in my life. I should have caveated that. I was just that was a hypothetical. All is well. I'm happily married. All the good things.
But I'm saying hypothetically, I'm dying of a broken heart or so I feel that a current unmanageable pain that is, of course, ultimately manageable in the long run, it just feels unmanageable all the time. For obvious reasons, it's not to negate the problem, but that needs that definition of what it means to have unmanageable pain, we need a strong definition for that if that is what we're moving forward in this conversation.
Another case study that I wanted to go through was missus B or miss B. This woman is in her fifties, suffering from multiple chemical chemical sensitivity syndrome. I'm not quite sure what that is. Multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome. Assuming that's something along the line of I don't even I don't even know. Can I look it up? Multiple I'm gonna look it up on here. Multiple chemical sensitivity. From Johns Hopkins. It is known that chemicals make multiple chemo some of the chemicals okay.
So exposures to something like carpeting plastics, perfume, plants, paints, and cigarettes smokes. And it's an idiopathic environmental intolerance. So when you're around things like cigarette or plants or plastics, you might have a visceral reaction to that. Okay? Glad we clarified that.
So a woman who has problems with dealing with the environment around her, as well as a history of mental health including suicidality and PTSD, she was socially isolated and she requested to delete herself largely because she could not get proper housing. Committee members couldn't argue whether her death was justified. Some said that because her inadequate housing was the main reason for her suffering, she should have been disqualified from euthanasia.
Others argued that, quote, social needs may be considered irremediable. They can't be redeemed if other options have been explored. This is eugenics. This is eugenics. That what else would you call this other than eugenics? This person has a a crappy disorder. I get that. I'm not gonna go into my medical history on this show, but, like, I get it. I don't have chemical sensitivity syndrome, but I have my own issues that make life not the easiest to live day to day.
That doesn't mean you just get to delete yourself. That doesn't mean that the government should be subsidizing that. I am not making light of people's problems, but when I, at the same time, we all have shit. We all have issues. And, it is just beyond comprehension why you think that the answer to something that might be temporary is ultimately something that is permanent. But, mark my words, this is coming to America. Because we have created the loneliest generation, actually.
I believe it's 73% of Gen Z, reports feeling alone, sometimes or always. And, there is now a incentive to help those 73% of people by deleting themselves. That's the solution. In the age of mental health awareness, chronic therapy, the psychiatrists are now gonna offer this as some sort of ultimate solution. In my opinion, it actually sounds a lot more like population control than anything else, but you let me know your thoughts in the comments.
Today's show is sponsored by Freedom 2 O. Tired of so called health drinks that are filled with hidden sugars and artificial ingredients? Meet Freedom 2 O. The water that's clean, pure, and powerful. Freedom 2 O's 8 step filtration process, including reverse osmosis and UV light, plus the infusion of 432 Hertz, sets us apart from the rest. This isn't about hydration. It's about giving your body the pure energy it craves without the crash. Freedom 2 0 is your answer to truly clean hydration.
Ready to feel the difference? Click the link in the show notes and experience hydration that's more than just water. It's health in every drop. Alright. Chugging along to story number 4. More than anything else in this story, I actually don't necessarily wanna report it so much. Well, I will report the story obviously, but I I also wanna solicit your opinions on this story. So feel free to drop a couple of comments for this story.
Over the weekend, in case you missed it, Kamala Harris was holding a rally in Wisconsin where she was, shocker, talking about abortion. And at the time of the rally, 2 University of Wisconsin students yelled, Christ is king, and held up the crosses that were on their neck. Let's watch this moment together. And they did as he intended. Oh, you guys are at the wrong rally. So in there, you can kinda hear the booing happening. That was kids, 2 students. I shouldn't call them kids.
They're above the age of 18. 2 students from the University of Wisconsin Lacrosse saying Christ is king and holding up their, crosses. It's unclear whether they were in there to kinda heckle Kamala, not to say that that's wrong. It's unclear whether they were there for that reason or whether they were there to, like, actually listen and learn. I cannot speak to their intentions.
Either way, it is still not appropriate for the sitting vice president to say that if you believe Christ is king, you don't belong in the Democratic party. Or or is that on brand? I don't know. You let me know. Waving goodbye, like, it's it's so rude. It's not like these hecklers were saying f Kamala or something wild. She's just sitting there in the listening audience, if you guys can't see. She's just sitting there kind of waving at them like, bye. See you later. Okay, wench.
No, I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street. And the typical cackle. Shocker. Now, of course, you guys know where I kinda stand in the whole religious thing, but whether I agree or whether I disagree with the idea that abortion is satanic, in the context of our culture, outside of us, in the context of our culture, sadly, that idea is taken as exclusively a Republican conservative Christian talking point.
And, basically, the culture believes only Christians could possibly see it that way, that there's nothing inherently evil about abortion or about the Democratic party. But I think when you watch Kamala essentially tell people that abortion and the core beliefs of being a Democrat are mutually exclusive with Christianity, To me, that is living proof that this is an anti Christian administration. That is antithetical to what Christians believe. And if you are sitting there saying, Christ is king.
Oh, you don't belong here. How? I feel like that's outing yourself for being worse than people have even imagined. I mean, people use this as like some sort of a boogeyman of like, oh, the Democrats are satanic and then Kabul really just fed into that. And mind you, I was actually at a sermon this weekend where our pastor was highlighting that 51% of Christians plan to vote. That means 49% are not.
And if you galvanize 49% of those Christians with comments like, you don't belong in the Democratic party if you believe Christ is king, if those 49% heard that, voted for their values, the, I mean, the outcome of the election could be almost entirely decided by Christians. And so, if you're out there and you're a Christian and you're like, I don't wanna vote for either of these people.
Let me just remind you, you don't just have to vote for a person, although that would be ideal scenario, I'm not denying that, But you are voting for a set of values that dictate the future of this country and when one party is telling you that believing in your fundamental beliefs is antithetical to everything they stand for, maybe you should vote against them. Just an idea.
But I brought this story up more so than anything to discuss whether you guys believe this was Kamala Harris's basket of deplorables moment. So if you don't know what that is, the cultural reference point, during her 2016 run for president, Hillary Clinton dubbed Trump supporters a, quote, basket of deplorables. And what it did did is it made her seem very obvious. I mean, we all knew this, but it made her seem like she hated 50% of the country with that comment.
So my question that I wanted to pose to you is, do you think that this was Kamala's deplorables moment? Where we all just kinda got a glimpse into how she views us or the other 50% of the country or even I mean, there are alleged Christians in the Democratic party. Does she hate them too? Let me know your thoughts in the comments. Let's, while you're dropping those comments, let's get into our final story. So we've got some juicy Democrat hypocrisy.
Shocker. I know that Democrats are always being really hypocritical. Like at the top, this one also, very small story but really got my blood boiling because, oh, this is like a typical trope that the Democrats fall for. So there's a woman named Angela Alsobrook. She is a Democrat running for Senate in Maryland. AKA, if you're in Maryland, you cannot vote for this person in a couple of days.
And like many Democrats, she claims to have a personal relationship to public education, and her whole MO is really advocating for all the taxpayer dollars to go towards public schools, many of which have crappy outcomes for kids. The shocker of all shockers, she really outed herself in the fact that the the public schools in her area are probably crap because Angela Alsobrook also sent her kids to a ritzy private school that the people she claims to represent could literally never afford.
So this woman's daughter attended a school called Holy Trinity, which is a private Episcopal school for children up to the 8th grade. Tuition there costs $15,000 a year. I don't know about you, we can't just like pay that out of pocket from K through 8th grade. And then, when you get to 2019, which is when her daughter went from 8th grade to high school, the daughter moved to Georgetown Visitation, which is an elite all girls Catholic school in DC that costs over $30,000 per year to attend.
And that's without probably the, I don't know, 5 years of Harvard that this daughter is gonna go to, to go get stupider and stupider. And, I love these stories because I love the hypocrisy in pointing it out. It's just so funny to me because Angela Alsobrook is running on a whole platform of taking away the right to do what she did for her daughter with their own money.
So, in case you're not familiar with the whole public school choice, or school choice, anti public school manifesto or diatribe that I go on routinely, or just that conservatives generally believe in, it is an advocation that taxpayer dollars be given back to us, the people, through voucher programs. So I would get a stipend if my child did not attend public school for the money that would otherwise go to my child's public education.
And then I get it on a voucher and I can spend that on other educational tools like private school or, or or books for homeschooling or something along those lines. And not only does it help if you're trying to homeschool, but it really does help if you're trying to go to an elite private school. You can get some of those tax dollars back and it can make a significant dent in the cost of sending your kid to a private school.
In some cases, you could you could see a $5,000 credit or something like that. And that could really go a long way in getting a kid out of a crappy public school and into an awesome private school where they can get a great education. And what Angela Alsobrook is doing is essentially taking away that opportunity from other people. I can't think of a better example I've seen of someone pulling the ladder up from behind them. That's exactly what she did.
So if you're in Maryland, if I could give you any advice, don't vote for this person. She sucks. She really sucks. Anyway, before we wrap up today's show, I have a super short version of everyone's favorite segment, is it real or is it satire? Is it real or is it satire? You cannot be serious. Today's is a real or is it satire is a picture.
And so, for the listening audience, it is a picture of a jacked up Donald Trump in a Steelers uniform, the football team, the Steelers, and it was posted on Donald Trump's Truth social account. He's wearing the number 47 on his jersey. And again, it's like his veins are popping out of his arms. So do you think this is real or is it satire? Even if you can't see this picture, I promise you, you will know that it is satire. It's an AI generated image of Donald Trump.
Again, veins popping, standing super tall in a football uniform. It was so obviously a joke. And you knew that. I knew that. You all knew. We all knew that. Except for the dumbasses over at Newsweek who actually posted this headline. Donald Trump has shared that Donald share Donald Trump. Wow. Can't talk. Donald Trump has shared what is likely an AI generated image of his Truth Social account showing him as a player for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Wow. Thank you, Newsweek.
Thank you for clarifying that for us. They must think that we are all so stupid, that we cannot understand a joke. Because they're so stupid, they can't understand a joke. Seriously, if you work in traditional media and somehow you've wandered across those podcasts, please don't wonder why we don't trust you when you spend your legitimate resources talking down to us like we're too understand too stupid to understand that Donald Trump didn't just gear up on Sunday and sack Aaron Rodgers himself.
So dumb. These people are so dumb. It really makes me wonder whether that was real or satire. Anyway, that's all she wrote. I will be back on the podcast Thursday with a special guest, hopefully. I'm still trying to work all of that out, so I will see you then. If you're a real one and you made it to the end of today's show, will you please drop the football emoji for quarterback Trump? Thanks, guys. See you here next time. Thanks so much for watching.
If you liked what you heard, please be sure to give this video a thumbs up, and leave a comment about how beautiful, stunning, and funny I am. And if you want more content based in logic, be sure to click over here for more videos and clips of my show. If you have the means to financially support the show, consider purchasing from my merch line Based Apparel linked right below. I really appreciate it, and I'll see you back here next time. Bye, friends.