5 Headlines You Can’t Miss

Hi guys. Welcome to Liz Wheeler Show. Man, oh man, do we have a lot of stuff to talk about today. Some really, really good stories. But first, if you haven’t already subscribed to the show, would you do that right now? Pick up your phone. If you have an iPhone, go to Apple Podcasts. If you have an Android, go to Spotify, click that subscribe button. If you like the video version of the show better, that’s okay. You can go to YouTube or Rumble or Locals and you can subscribe over there and make sure you hit that bell on YouTube so that you are the first to get every new episode, every new interview, every new piece of content, every video that I’m constantly producing just for you. Greatly appreciate everybody who’s been subscribing. So, a couple of the things that I wanna talk about with you today. A college professor in Minnesota was fired from her job because she showed a piece of art.

She’s an art history professor, by the way, pertinent to the story. This art history professor was fired from her job because she showed a piece of art depicting Muhammed the Prophet in the Muslim religion. Now, this is a contested thing in the Muslim religion. Some Muslims think that you shouldn’t show any visual depiction of Muhammed. Some Muslims think it depends on whether it’s artistic or whether it’s something that you’re worshiping the picture, the idol instead of instead of the true God. This professor, this story is actually bananas. This professor was fired even though she warned Muslims in the class that they were gonna study this picture and that if this offended them, they could step out of the class. So we’re gonna talk about some of the big takeaways from this because there’s something veryor there’s a part of this story that’s missing from the coverage that it has gotten.

We’re gonna talk about that. We’re also gonna talk about a network of emergency room doctors on Twitter. These were some of the loudest COVID criers on Twitter who were claiming expertise in COVID because they’re doctors. It turns out this network of doctors were fake. They’re not real. They’re completely invented. We’re gonna talk about that. We’re also gonna talk about the World Health Organization’s quite startling threat against anybody who declined the COVID-19 vaccine. And guys, I have a funny, funny bananas video of the week for you. So you wanna stick around till the end of the show for that. But what I wanna do right now is I want to contrast what some of the mainstream outlets or networks or publications, what their headlines are, what they think is important for you to see versus what I think is important for us to talk about.

So let’s start with CNN. CNN headline right now says, former Trump organization CFO is headed to Rikers Island. Alan Weisselberg sentenced to jail for his role in a decades long tax fraud scheme, but his legal woes are not over. That’s what CNN thinks is the most important thing this week. Let’s try MSNBC. What do they think? MSNBC? Yeah. MSNBC, same thing. They say the most disturbing finding from Trump’s tax returns. Let me ask you, do you guys care about this? Yeah, me neither. Okay. Washington Post, let’s see what the Washington Post is headlining, the Washington Post. Well, at least this is newsworthy. The Washington Post says, House Republicans formed committee to investigate the government. Isn’t it funny how they frame these things? That, of course, this is the select committee to investigate the weaponization of the FBI and the Department of Justice against us.

This is what these leftist, corporate, mainstream media outlets think are the most important headlines. And when I say they think these are the most important headlines, I mean, this is what they want you to care about. This is what they want you to hear. And these headlines are what these media outlets use to distract you from other things that are happening. So what I wanna do today is talk about five headlines that you can’t miss. You gotta read these headlines and you will see pretty quickly the reason why the mainstream media is ignoring almost all of these stories. So let’s get to it.

Okay, so story number one. Headline number one today is a college professor fired over showing a depiction of Muhammed Muslim art in her classroom. And believe it or not, this is not going to happen very often when we’re talking about underreported headlines. Believe it or not, this article came from the New York Times. The New York Times, and yes, there’s bias in it, which you will see as we read through this. But the premise of this story is that a professor named Erica Lopez Prater she’s an adjunct professor, an art history professor at Hamlin University, and she was teaching a global art history class and showing art that is not just western art. She’s showing Persian art. A picture depicting Mohamed and she got fired for doing so. This is what the New York Times writes. Erika Lopez Prater, an adjunct professor at Hamlin University, said she knew many Muslims have deeply-held religious beliefs that prohibit depictions of the prophet Muhammed.

So last semester, for a global art history class, she took many precautions before showing a 14th century painting of Islam’s founder. In the syllabus, the New York Times writes, she warned that images of holy figures, including the prophet Muhammed and the Buddha would be shown in the course. She asked students to contact her with any concerns, and she said no one did. In class, she prepped students telling them that in a few minutes, the painting would be displayed in case anyone wanted to leave. Then Dr. Lopez Prater showed the image and lost her teaching gig. After Dr. Lopez Prater showed the image, a senior in the class complained to the administration. Other Muslim students not in the course supported the student saying the class was an attack on their religion. They demanded the officials take action. Officials told Dr. Lopez Prater that her services next semester were no longer needed. In emails to students and faculty,

they said that the incident was clearly Islamophobic. Hamlin’s President, Faynessee S. Miller, co-signed an email that said, respect for the Muslim students should have superseded academic freedom at a town hall. An invited Muslim speaker compared showing the images to teaching that Hitler was good. Yeah, believe it or not, this is from the New York Times, but just wait. It gets better. They write free speech. Supporters started their own campaign. An Islamic art historian wrote an essay defending Dr. Lopez Prater, and started a petition demanding the university’s board investigate the matter. It had more than 2,800 signatures. Free speech groups and publications issued blistering critiques. Penn America called it one of the most egregious violations of academic freedom in recent memory. And Muslims themselves debated whether the action was Islamophobic. Dr. Miller, the school’s president, defended the decision in a statement. This is what he said. To look upon an image of the prophet Muhammed, for many Muslims, is against their faith.

It was important that our Muslim students, as well as other students, feel safe, supported and respected, both in and out of our classrooms. This is what the New York Times then says about the student who complained. This is maybe the most interesting part of this story. In a December interview with a school newspaper, the student who complained to the administration, Aram Wedatalla, described being blindsided by the image. I’m like, this can’t be real, said Miss Wedatalla, who in a public forum described herself as Sudanese. As a Muslim and a black person, I don’t feel like I belong, and I don’t think I’ll ever belong in a community where they don’t value me as a member and they don’t show the same respect that I show them. The painting shown in Dr. Lopez Prater’s class is one of the earliest Islamic-illustrated histories of the world, a compendium of chronicles written during the 14th century, shown regularly in art history classes.

The painting shows a winged and crowned angel Gabriel pointing at the prophet Muhammed and delivering to him the first Quranic revelation. Muslims believe that the Quran comprises the words of Allah revealed to the prophet Muhammed through Angel Gabriel. The image is a masterpiece of Persian manuscript painting, said Christian Gruber, a professor of Islamic art at the University of Michigan. It’s housed at the University of Edenborough. Similar paintings have been on display at places like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and a sculpture of the prophet is at the Supreme Court. Okay. Okay, so a couple of thoughts that I have about this, a couple of thoughts. She’s fired for this and at first she was like, okay, whatever. I have other job opportunities. I can go work for someone else, I don’t need this job. But then she was told that she was Islamophobic, that this was an act of hate against Muslim students, even though she put a warning in the class syllabus.

So when students went to sign up for the class, they could see, oh, hey, I’m Muslim. I don’t wanna see a picture of the prophet Muhammad because it violates my religious beliefs. I won’t sign up for this class. A student signed up for it, anyway. Then on the day that she was going to show this very famous Persian painting, she said, hey, if this violates anybody’s religious beliefs, you can step out of class and I’ll let you know when you can come back. Nobody said anything. She showed this painting, and then a girl, who said she doesn’t feel like she belongs because she’s Muslim and she’s black and she’ll never belong to a community that doesn’t respect her, complained to the university, and the university fired her and took this student’s side. This is quite something. First of all, kudos from the New York Times for actually writing a relatively decent piece about this because this is an obvious, it’s not only violation of academic freedom, it is an example of the woke eating their own.

This is one of the reasons why I have said on the state level, when we’re talking about legislation coming from Republicans or Democrats and how Republicans have been extremely naive the past probably 40 years, when the Democrats said, listen, we just want tolerance for other people’s lifestyle. We want your morality, Republican morality, removed from state law. We just want it to be a neutral playing field. We want the absence of morality so that everybody, individually, can make decisions about what they believe or what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong. And Republicans like the sometimes naive dunces they are, were like, oh, okay, that sounds like a good way to act. Let’s be tolerant. Democrats never intended for an absence of morality to exist in state law. What they intended for was as soon as Republicans removed our objective truth, our idea of right and wrong, they were gonna

insert their own twisted version of morality into state law. So I understand the difference here is that what I just described happens at the legislative level at state governments. This university is not a state, this is not a government, this is not legislative, but it is the same sort of situation. This is what happens when there’s an absence of morality. It’s really not an absence of morality, right? It’s not actual tolerance and inclusion. It is, you will be made to care the phrase from Eric Erickson that defines what the left is trying to do to us as Christians and conservatives. They don’t want tolerance. They don’t want inclusion for everybody’s beliefs. What they want is to force you to practice their religion, because that’s what they’re trying to do to this professor. She didn’t say that she was Muslim.

I have no idea what her religion is. She didn’t say that she has a religious belief that prohibits her from looking at this, but they don’t want her to be allowed to do it because it violates their religious belief. That’s theocracy. The Left wants theocracy, and their religion, they may not worship, now, these Muslim students may worship the Allah or whatever they call it in the Muslim religion. These woke professors worship wokeness. They think this is virtue signaling. They think this is intersectionality. And in trigger warnings, it’s never enough. I mean, you could be a leftist professor doing this and it’s never enough. The woke eats their own. But this is what happens when there’s the absence of morality. The Left doesn’t want a neutral playing field. They want to force you to adhere to the tenets of their religion, even if their religion is atheism, their religion is wokeness, whatever it may be, they wanna force you, under threat of losing your job in social ostracization, to follow the tenants of their ideology. Kudos where it’s due, credit, where it’s due the New York Times covered this, but perhaps too little too late, because this type of event has been a long time in coming in our culture, and the New York Times has been singularly silent as the Marxists have infiltrated and embedded themselves into our cultural institutions until we’re at the point where people see this story and they’re like, well, it’s kind of what we expect at this point.

Okay, story number two. Story number two is a group of doctors on Twitter who portrayed themselves to be emergency room doctors. They portrayed themselves to be frontline warriors in the battle against COVID-19. These ER doctors, this network of ER doctors, it wasn’t just one. It wasn’t just two. They turned out to be fake, like not even real. Completely fake. This is reporting from the San Francisco Standard. They write, last month, Dr. Robert Honeyman lost their sister. By the way, Dr. Robert Honeyman portrayed himself to be trans non-binary using these neo-Marxist pronouns. I’m reading it verbatim from the San Francisco Standard, not that I endorse it. Last month, Dr. Robert Honeyman lost their sister to COVID. They wrote about it on Twitter and received dozens of condolences, over 4,000 retweets, and 43,000 likes. Exactly one month later on December 12th, Honeyman wrote that another tragedy had befallen their family.

This is a quote, sad to announce that my husband has entered a coma after being in hospital with COVID. The doctor is unsure if he will come out. This year has been the toughest of my life, losing my sister to this virus. This is the first time in my life I don’t see light at the end of the tunnel. The San Francisco Standard continues, again, the condolences and well wishes rolled in, but there was a problem. Honeyman wasn’t real. The transgender doctor of sociology and feminist studies with a keen interest in poetry, who used they them pronouns, was in fact a stock photo described on Deposit Photos, a royalty-free image site, as smiling, happy, handsome Latino man outside headshot portrait. Their supposedly comatose husband, Dr. Patrick C. Honeyman, was also fake. His Twitter photo had been stolen from an insurance professional in Wayne, Indiana. The two fake doctors, whose accounts urged extreme caution about COVID-19, were part of a network of at least four fake accounts that touted their ties to the LGBTQ+ community, vocally advocated for mask wearing and social distancing and dished out criticism to those they felt were not taking the pandemic seriously.

The Honeymans cannot be reached for comment, as they do not exist. That actually is the funniest line of the whole article. The San Francisco Standard says, at publication time, Robert Honeyman’s account was no longer active. The fake doctors were uncovered by Joshua Gutterman Tran, a self-described gay writer pursuing a Master’s of Fine Art at Bennington College. He saw Robert Honeyman’s tweet about their husband being in a coma, noticed people he followed also followed them, and thought that they might be part of the LGBTQ academic community. But after 10 minutes of Googling, Gutterman Tran and concluded that Robert Honeyman’s photo was a stock image, and his biography stretched the boundaries of believability, an academic who left no traces on academic websites and had lost two family members to COVID in late 2022. Despite masking and distancing, Gutterman Tran said the character looked like liberal madlibs. Gutterman Tran said, I’m a self-identified leftist, and I understand that people have a lot of different identities, but it felt concocted in the lab about how many identities and horrible experiences can we put on one person. Okay, so this particular article has a bit of a leftist bent, as you can plainly see using these neo-Marxist pronouns. The article goes on to say that it’s unclear who is behind this network of fake COVID-crier, doctor-impersonating accounts, and then goes on to say, and the reason, the motivation for creating a fake network of COVID-crying doctor impersonating accounts is unclear. And that is where I disagree with this article. Strongly disagree. To me, it is perfectly clear exactly why this happened. It’s called astroturfing. It’s an astro turf campaign. An astroturf campaign is when there’s a political policy or political agenda, and you, the whoever is behind this, I don’t know who is behind this, by the way, but the why is very clear, whoever is behind this doesn’t have the organic reach, doesn’t have the organic support for whatever their political agenda might be.

In this case, it sounds like very stringent COVID restrictions or what these fake doctors were pushing. There’s no organic support for this agenda. And so they create fake accounts, fake people to essentially serve as a megaphone for the agenda that they can’t get real people to say. They create fake people, and they disseminate all of these fake people under the guise. They pretend that these are real organic comments, real life people making organic comments. This is a despicable strategy that unfortunately is used in politics. Although when you get caught, it’s the end of your political career. The reason for this, the reason for this astroturfing done in this way is because the left has in their direct object, the establishment of a technocracy in our country. A technocracy is ruled by the so-called experts. This is what we see with Fauci telling us he’s the science, and you can’t question the science or you are anti-science.

This is what we get when we’re told, well, if you are declining the COVID-19 vaccine, then you are a science denier because the CDC says you should take it. And doctors say you should take it. And public health administrators and officials say that you should take it. You, in a technocracy, you mean nothing. Your opinion means nothing. Your voice means nothing. Your dissent is a rejection of the expertise, is a rejection of, in most of the cases, they usually try to refer to it as science. Technocracy is just one step away from socialism and Marxism and communism because the purpose of technocracy is to make it so that you are not qualified or allowed to dissent against the ruling class. This is what this astroturfing, this is the why behind this astroturfing campaign. There’s a reason that these people, who these fake accounts were created as doctors, because doctors are supposedly the experts.

And you and me as the, sorry people, are not supposed to be qualified to question the experts, to dissent from the experts. That is technocracy. It’s a way of tricking. In the case of COVID, it’s a way of tricking us with fear. So the who behind this would be very interesting. I’d be very interested to hear from Elon Musk if he could expose who was behind this astroturfing campaign because I believe this is against the terms of service at Twitter to create a network of fake accounts pretending to be somebody that you are not, and in a way that’s not clear that you are a parody account, but the why the San Francisco Standard misses the boat on this one. The why is perfectly clear. Kudos to them for reporting on it. But isn’t that funny? Think about all those doctor tweets you saw as you were scrolling through your Twitter timeline over the past three years.

How many of them were fake? Kinda makes you scratch your head, doesn’t it? Okay, story number three is a little bit of a throwback to a conversation that we had a couple of weeks ago, maybe a month ago now. Remember when we had Leor Sapir on the, on the show? Leor Sapir is a PhD who did an analysis of a meta-study that was published in a psychology journal. This, this meta study that was published in the psychology journal was authored by a doctor named Jack Turbin. And Jack Turban was claiming that when he analyzed 16 different studies that looked at adolescents who had been put on puberty-blocking hormone therapy, that those who suffered from gender disorders and were prescribed these, these hormone, these trans hormone therapy, that it had a positive outcome on their mental health. That was the purpose of this article from Jack Turban in this psychology journal.

He claimed it was based on science, based on an analysis of these 16 studies. We had Leor Sapir on the show who did his own analysis of Jack Turbans analysis and found that Jack Turban is a big fat liar. That he was deliberately misrepresenting these studies. That they showed no such thing. They did not show that there was a positive mental health outcome when children are put on puberty blocking drugs. But one of the interesting parts of that conversation, and if you haven’t already listened to it and you want to, you can just go to your podcast app and you can search Leor Sapir and Liz Wheeler show, and it’ll come right up. I can even post a link to it under the description of this episode for anybody who’s interested. But one of the studies that I talked about, or that Leor talked about with me, was a study called the Dutch study.

The Dutch study is the basis on which the gender-affirming model of care for gender-disordered youth is based. So the gender-affirming model is a euphemism for anytime a child feels uncomfortable with their gender, whether this is ongoing, whether it’s rapid onset gender dysphoria, how they’re immediately put on puberty blocking hormones. And this is clearly harmful for children. It’s not just a pause button on puberty. It has really, really horrific effects on their physical health and their mental health, their ability to be fertile to have children in the future, whether they’re boys or whether they’re girls. And the justification for doing this, even though there’s obvious harm that comes from it, is this study that was conducted in the Netherlands, that’s why it’s called the Dutch study, of adolescents. It was about 50 adolescents who had gender disorders, and they were put on puberty-blocking hormones and found that they had a positive mental health outcome.

The problem with the portrayal that I just gave you is there were confounding elements of this study. And what I mean by that is in the Dutch study, it wasn’t everybody, every adolescent or every young person who was selected to be a candidate for trans hormones, it was actually a very stringent process for selecting who would be eligible in the sense that families had to be supportive, these gender disordered youth had to go through therapy, they had to go to counseling simultaneously to deal with other comorbidities, other mental health issues, and they were put on on this hormone therapy. And so the obvious question then is, well, was there improved status mental health-wise because of the hormone therapy? Or was there improved status mental health wise because of the counseling for comorbidities that oftentimes play into gender dysphoria in the first place?

To you and I, the answer to that might be very obvious, but anybody who uses the Dutch study as justification for putting kids on hormones ignores that and just says, oh, this is reason. This showed us that all children, if they express that there are any issues with their feelings regarding their biological sex, should be immediately put on puberty blockers. Okay. So that’s the background here. The story from today was published by The Post Millennial. This was it, it was actually republished by The Post Millennial, but kudos to them for finding this. There was another investigative report coming from the Netherlands that found that this Dutch study had a further ethical concern that completely invalidates the findings. This is what The Post Millennial writes. A Dutch investigative report has revealed that the 2006 study, upon which the entire medical experiment of child sex changes is based, was funded by a maker of puberty blockers.

The NRC article published on December 31st takes aim at the treatment approach known as the Dutch protocol, which involves blocking the puberty of adolescents who are suffering from gender dysphoria, and forms the basis for the gender-affirming care model adopted by pediatric gender clinics all over the world. The Dutch protocol was the result of a deeply-flawed 2006 study, which it has now been revealed, was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals, that’s F-E-R-R-I-N-G, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, the company that markets the drug triptorelin as a puberty blocker. But according to investigative journalist Jan Cooten Brower and media sociologist Peter Vesterman, authors of the NRC article, the quote, scientific underpinnings of the Dutch protocol turned out to be pretty shaky. The research that is always cited as justification for clinics adopting the affirmative model of care and fast-tracking children onto these harmful experimental drugs consists of this one Dutch study, with results published in 2011 and 2014.

The research followed just 55 children first treated with puberty blockers and then with cross-sex hormones who reported positive results 18 months later, this article from The Post Millennial goes on to say, the NRC report isn’t the first time the connection has been made between Ferring pharmaceuticals and the infamous 2006 study that unleashed this reckless medical experiment onto the world. In 2018, Transgender Trend, a group that has been at the forefront of campaigning for evidence-based care and gender clinics, published a blog post revealing that the Amsterdam clinic was financially supported in its experimental project to block puberty and gender-dysphoric adolescents by a pharmaceutical company, which stood to make commercial gains from their new protocol.

Can you believe that? This study, which is the basis for every gender clinic’s affirming model, which puts kids on these transgender hormones, this study that it’s based on was funded by a pharmaceutical company that profits from selling this hormone therapy to children. You can’t make this stuff up. At the same time over in Switzerland, this has been reported by Slay News. They say in a landmark move, Switzerland’s government has rejected gender ideology by ruling that sex is binary and people must be referred to as either male or female, with no exceptions. The Swiss government rejected a proposal to introduce a third gender or no gender option for official records. The nation ruled against the gender identity ideology that other European countries have succumbed to. Swiss residents will continue to be entered into the nation’s civil registry as male or female, with no other options. The Swiss Federal Council said in response to two proposals from Parliament, this according to the Associated press, the binary gender model is still strongly anchored in Swiss society.

The more reporting that happens about the transgender ideology, which is just queer theory, it’s the outgrowth of queer theory, how this has infiltrated into our medical community, in our medical industry, and how big pharma plays a role in this, the more reporting on this that happens, the more we see the corruption and the collusion that has led to children being butchered, children’s bodies being butchered. Thank goodness for places like Switzerland who are rejecting this. And kudos to The Post Millennial for publishing this information about the Dutch study being funded by a pharmaceutical company. Okay, story number four. Oh, this one is not from a source that you would think we’d be talking about today. Okay. Story number four is from the Washington Post. Believe it or not, believe it or not. The reason, actually, this story has been covered by quite a few outlets, but the reason I picked the Washington Post to highlight today is because of the contrast between their reporting now and their reporting

just a couple of years ago. The Washington Post reports that Russian trolls on Twitter had little impact on the 2016 presidential election outcome. This is what they write. Russian influence operators on Twitter, in the 2016 presidential election, reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning. The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections. My personal sense, this is Josh Tucker, one of the report’s authors, my personal sense coming out of this is that this got way overhyped. Now we’re looking back at data, and we can see how concentrated this was in one small portion of the population, and how the fact that people who were being exposed to these were really, really, really likely to vote for Trump.

And then we have this data to show we can’t find any relationship between being exposed to these tweets and people’s change in attitudes. Is this cracking you up? Because it’s cracking me up. We were told, of course, that Russian disinformation, especially on social media, was the reason Trump defeated Hillary Clinton. The Washington Post goes on to say, but the study doesn’t go as far to say that Russia had no influence on people who voted for Donald Trump. They just can’t help themselves. They say it doesn’t examine other social media like the much larger Facebook, nor does it address the Russian hack and leak operations. Lastly, it doesn’t suggest that foreign influence operations aren’t a threat at all. Key findings of the report, though, only 1% of Twitter users accounted for 70% of the exposure to accounts that Twitter identified as Russian troll accounts. Highly partisan Republicans were exposed to nine times more posts than non-Republicans.

Content from the news media and US politicians dwarfed the amount of Russian in influence content the electorate was exposed to during the 2016 race. And this is what they conclude. There was no measurable impact on political attitudes, polarization, and vote preference and behavior from the Russian accounts and posts. Okay, so this is another thing. We were told that we were Russian operatives. We were told we were conspiracy theorists. And what we said, of course was neither. We’re neither puppets of Putin or we conspiracy theorists turned out to be true. The Washington Post accused us of these things just years ago, accused Trump of winning the election just because of Putin’s interference in the lead-up in the campaign, in the lead-up and the influence of what people were seeing, especially on social media. And it’s all fake. It’s fake, it’s not real.

And even the Washington Post is admitting that. Of course, you visit the Washington Post website and this is nowhere to be seen on their homepage. But they did publish it. They did publish it. So a tiny, tiny kudos to them. But of course they didn’t include the fact that they were wrong for years about their claims. All right, story number five. Story number five is best explained, I guess, by showing you the video, but I wanna explain to you what you’re gonna see before you see it. This video was posted on Twitter by the World Health Organization. So the World Health Organization and endorses what is in this video because they published it. It was created for the World Health Organization by this doctor. And it’s regarding people who decline to take the COVID-19 vaccine. This is what the World Health Organization thinks of you, thinks of me, and wants governments to do to us. Take a look at this.

We have to recognize that anti-vaccine activism, which I actually call anti-science aggression, has now become a major killing force globally. During the COVID Pandemic in the United States, 200,000 Americans needlessly lost their lives because they refused a COVID vaccine even after vaccines became widely available. And now the anti-vaccine activism is expanding across the world, even into low and middle-income countries. It’s a killing force. Anti-Science now kills more people than things like gun violence, global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or cyber-attacks. And now it’s become a political movement. In the US, It’s linked to far extremism on the far right, same in Germany. So this is a new face of anti-science aggression. And so we need political solutions to address this.

Anti-Vaccine activism is deadlier than global terrorism, and we need governments to take action on this. What does this mean? This is from the World Health Organization. Why do we, why are we still giving money? My money on your money? Why are we still giving money to the World Health Organization when they hate us? They’re an anti-science organization that is, that is serving as a platform for authoritarian activists. This is actually one of the scariest things that I’ve seen in a long time. The United States gives between 600 and 800 million to the World Health Organization. We fund it. We’re giving money to a place that is not only rejecting the science of the thing when it comes to both COVID 19, the virus, and the mRNA jab for COVID-19, but is actually trying to pressure our government to do something to us if we dare to dissent from the universal vaccination agenda?

My tax money, your tax money being given to this place. And the first thing that I thought when I saw this is, these political solutions that this doctor is advocating for, what exactly is he suggesting? Because it seems to me that if this doctor doesn’t like what I say when I say, well, I haven’t gotten the COVID-19 vaccine because I don’t think, YouTube, we’re gonna have to bleep this out on YouTube but you know what I’m gonna say because I don’t think it’s safe and I don’t think it’s effective and it’s a medical procedure that I decline to take and I have a right to do that. I have medical freedom, I have bodily autonomy, and that’s all there is to it. Nobody should ask me whether I got the COVID-19 vaccine. I certainly shouldn’t be coerced or bullied.

Shouldn’t face mandates. But if I take this position, this is a position that this doctor speaking, that the World Health Organization is promoting, is a position that he wants governments to take political action on. So what does he want? Does he want me to be censored and silenced? Does he want the government to violate my First Amendment right to freedom of speech? Does he want me to face a mandate where I don’t have the medical freedom, I don’t have the choice to decline a medical procedure that I don’t want for my body? Does he want, I mean, if he’s saying that I’m a terrorist, a global terrorist, does he want prosecution for this so-called literal violence that’s more dangerous than global terrorism? What is he suggesting? Because the history of the world, this is not just something that is in the far, distant history.

The history of the world is there’s a spectrum on which speech exists. And on one end of this, you have free speech. This absolute idea of free speech. This idea that free speech is a right that you are inherently endowed with, that a government simply has no right to infringe upon. That is the view of free speech in America, in our law, in our legal system. That is a foundational principle in our founding documents of this country. And if you move along the opposite end of this spectrum, you got to a point that’s extremely scary. So along the spectrum, first you have free speech, but then if a government infringes on free speech, it first starts with just a little bit of censorship, which I think we’re experiencing now in the United States, especially on social media. The collusion between big tech and the FBI that we’ve seen in the Twitter files is a good example.

You move along from free speech to censorship, and then the step after that is financial repercussions. Whether this is a fine for hate speech, which we’re seeing in some other countries, or whether this is being demonetized on a platform that otherwise allows people to make money. This would maybe be being kicked off of YouTube or Facebook’s monetization schedule. A step past that would be being de platformed being silenced. You’re not allowed to have the position that you have if you say something that dissents from the ruling class talking points, you move a little bit further along the spectrum and you get to prosecution. If you are that dangerous that you’ve been censored and deprived of your financial, your ability to provide for your family, you’ve been canceled, censored. Well, if you’re so dangerous, maybe you should face prosecution.

We have prosecution after prosecution. What’s your penalty? Is your penalty jail time imprisoned for saying something that the radical left doesn’t want you to say? And in authoritarian countries, it goes except further than that, after you’ve been in prison, you face torture, you face death. This is all on the spectrum of speech. This is not a slippery slope to talk about that’s happening in our country or around the world. This is what the World Health Organization is endorsing. They’re endorsing an idea that government gets involved in dictating what we can or can’t say. And when government gets involved in dictating what we can or can’t say, there’s a penalty if we violate those rules. And where that penalty lies along, along the spectrum I just described, depends. But when a doctor, like this doctor is suggesting that anti-vaccine activism is deadlier than global terrorism, well, you know that this is, in the minds of these people,

they’re pretty far to the left on this spectrum of wanting these penalties. And this, like I said, this is not just something that’s happened in the history, the distant past. You can look all around the world, countries, authoritarian regimes that squash free speech. Look at what happens in Iran to dissenters, in North Korea, in Syria, in Russia, in Cuba. Look at these nations that have squashed free speech. We are on the path to that, if we allow places like the World Health Organization, which is funded by our money, to become an activism platform for people who think that they should be allowed to say whatever they want, but we should be punished if we dissent from what they say. And now for the bananas video of the week. This of course was found on TikTok. Where else? Not that I have TikTok, I don’t, but fortunately it went viral on every social media platform. And I’m not going to introduce you to the topic of what this is. I’m going to let this woman speak for herself. So take a look.

This is not like racism. It is racism. Anti-Fat ness is rooted in anti-blackness. And the reason why people are pursuing thinness is because they’re pursuing proximity to whiteness. The reason why people hate fat people is because people hate black people and appearing curvier bigger is associated with blackness, especially black women. And that’s why they’re discriminated in the workplace, overly sexualized. And this has gone back for centuries and centuries. All systems of oppression, capitalism, sexism, racism, it all comes back to white supremacy, which is the foundation of the fabric of America and rules every sector and aspect of our society.

Well, if she sounds like a robot, it’s because she’s been indoctrinated in the talking points of the radical Left. Listen, fat, fatness, obesity is not an immutable characteristic. So what she’s saying is obviously moronic and stupid. Fat, obesity is a health condition. It’s a health condition. It’s not something you’re born with. Being obese, being fat is unhealthy. That’s simply the fact of the matter. This is what happens when, as a society, we begin to reject objective truth. When we begin to define your truth and my truth, the truth gets tossed out with the bath water here. In fact, you are caring for black people, for fat people, she’s talking about black people, that’s why I’m using this example, you are caring about fat people of any race when you are honest about the fact that obesity is unhealthy and obesity leads to serious, serious negative health repercussions.

In fact, I would argue that it’s racist to insinuate that black people are born obese, that they’re born unhealthy, or that they are unable to correct this when they’re not born fat and become fat. That they can’t regain their healthy status in their body. It’s racist to insinuate that they’re unable to do that. Black people are not inherently fat. No one is inherently fat. It’s an absurd idea. The question we should be asking is, why is there an epidemic of obesity in the black community in the United States? Because there is. That’s simply the fact of the matter. The answer is because the FDA and Big Food rubber-stamp food that’s trash food, that’s garbage. We literally eat garbage. We put things in our bodies that our bodies were never meant to process. Chemicals and preservatives, fake flavors and artificial colors, GMOs and sugar, processed food, addictive substances and food that make your body crave something that actually doesn’t nourish it, it harms it.

What we don’t do in this country is we don’t focus on the fact that food is to nourish our bodies so that our bodies operate the way that they were supposed to do. If we did that, the black community and the white community, this has nothing to do with race, would be a lot better off. Anti-Fat is actually pro-black. And I can’t believe that we have to say that in this day and age. This is what happens, as I said, when you destroy reality and paint everyone as victims. Alright, thank you for watching today. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is the Liz Wheeler Show.