Liz reacts to a video featuring Senator Mitch McConnell. In the video, McConnell freezes during a press conference, resembling a prior episode where he had a seizure.
This incident prompts Liz to discuss her evolving stance on age limits for political officeholders. Despite being a traditionalist and originalist, she now questions the wisdom of allowing politicians to remain in power as they face mental and physical decline. She cites McConnell’s alleged corruption and age-related concerns as factors influencing her shift.
Liz then shifts to a case in Finland where a member of Parliament faces trial for sharing a Bible verse online. She underscores the lack of neutrality in society’s values, with one set prevailing over the other. She raises concerns about the erosion of freedom of expression and religion, expressing worry that the opposition’s values are fundamentally contrary to those she holds dear.
Next, Liz takes a stance on women who undergo abortions, suggesting that they should not be exempt from criminal liability. She contends that their participation in what she views as a grave act should be subject to legal consequences.
Liz also discusses her altered views on marijuana legalization, the death penalty, and red flag laws due to new information and evolving perspectives.
This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.
I changed my mind about something. I find conversations about when people change their minds on something to be one of the most fascinating kinds of social conversations because I think it tells you a lot about the character of the person, especially if it’s a principled person or really just a stubborn, hardheaded person like I am. I don’t change my mind about things often because I’m pretty confident in my decisions. I’ve usually thought through positions that I hold, but I always find it really interesting when someone that I know someone who’s opinionated changes their opinion on something because it shows me either that their values are shifting or that they’ve gotten new information that’s changed the equation, which leads them to the outcome of the decision changing. So let me walk you through what I’ve changed my mind about and why, and I’m going to start with this video of Senator Mitch McConnell. He was in Kentucky at a Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, I believe, event, and he was doing a press conference with the press, and in the middle of this press conference, he freezes very much like the episode that he had a couple weeks ago where he had a seizure. This is outside of the Capitol. When he had the seizure the first time, this is what it looked like happened again. Let’s take a look at this video. I’ll walk you through what’s happening as it happens
Running for reelection in 2026.
So he is asked whether he’s going to run for reelection and then he just freezes. What’s strange is he’s not just refusing to answer this question, Senator, you can see that his eyes become vague and blurry and then his handler comes over his eyes, look underneath his eyes. He’s obviously having a seizure right now. Anybody who has a family member who has ever had a seizure recognizes exactly what this is. This is a seizure, and then he kind of comes back to, it’s like almost going unconscious without losing consciousness. How old is Mitch McConnell? How old is, I’m googling this right now. Does somebody else
Have a question? Please speak up.
He’s 81 years old. He is the Senate minority leader. This is the second time this has happened in the space of, what was that a month ago? It couldn’t have been more than two months ago that this happened in front of the Capitol. And for a long time, I have been opposed to the idea of age limits when it comes to both Congress and the presidency. Because I’m a traditionalist. I’m an originalist. There isn’t an age limit in the Constitution. There isn’t something that the founders put in our founding documents that said, Hey, once you get to a certain age, you’ve exceeded the limits of your opportunity for service. Let’s just say they do have a minimum age for the presidency. They don’t have a maximum age. And so being a traditionalist, being an originalist, I’m like, I don’t know. Is it a little discriminatory or unfair to people who do have their full faculties when they’re 70 or 75 or 80 or 85 to arbitrarily place an age limit on a term office?
There’ve been a lot of great people who’ve accomplished amazing things at very advanced ages. I’m not sure we should be placing arbitrary limits on especially age limits on members of Congress and the presidency. And I think I’ve changed my mind. I think I’ve changed my mind because for two reasons. One, Mitch McConnell’s, one of the most powerful people in the world. He’s not just one of the most powerful people in Congress. He’s not just one of the most powerful people in the United States. He’s one of the most powerful people in the world. He’s incredibly corrupt. He’s corrupt. I can’t quite compare his corruption level to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, but it’s the same sort of thing. His wife, Elaine Chow, is a perpetual bureaucrat, cabinet level bureaucrat, and her sister has a shipping company that is tied to the Chinese Communist Party. And because of Mitch McConnell and Elaine Chow’s position in the US government, this shipping company gets contracts and it’s tied to the Chinese Communist Party.
This is really deep and disgusting corruption. Mitch McConnell’s part of it. It’s part of the reason that he’s opposed to impeachment of Joe Biden. He’s a swamp creature. He’s a swamp creature. And it’s not just that that’s changing my mind, although I think that probably plays a role in it because right now he is continuing in his position, not because he believes that he’s qualified to continue serving, not because the people around him believe that he’s qualified to continue serving, but because he and his family and the people around him don’t want to lose the perks of him being in a position of power. And that in and of itself is a whole other layer of corruption right now, we’re governed not just by the administrative state and by unelected bureaucrats, we’re governed by ancient dinosaurs, Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell and Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, even Donald Trump, who I know, it’s hard to compare Donald Trump because he doesn’t have the demeanor of a geriatric, but he’s extremely old too.
At some point, he will lose his faculties. At some point, he will lose his physical robustness. And what are we going to be left with? We’re going to be governed by a row of people in assisted living homes. This is not good. This is bad. We’re about to get to the point where the leaders of our nation who are governing us, making laws that rule our families and our society are going to be ruling us from assisted living facilities. This is not good. And so this is why I changed my mind because I was thinking about this from a very individualistic standpoint. Like, oh, why should Mitch McConnell not be allowed to serve if he wants to serve just because he’s a certain age? And I realized that that’s the wrong perspective through which to view this. I shouldn’t be viewing this from an individualistic standpoint, just like if I want to serve in the military, I probably can’t because I don’t meet the standards, the qualifications that allow me to serve in the military.
Just like Mitch McConnell, if he wanted to serve in the military, he wouldn’t be allowed because he’s too old. It’s okay to have limits that might not be pleasant for someone on an individual basis if it’s better for the military or better for the government and better for society. So I think I’m changing my mind about this. I think I’m realizing that it is not a good thing for geriatrics to be ruling our nation when they are clearly in steep decline as Mitch McConnell is. And obviously Joe Biden isn’t even in steep decline. He’s at the bottom of the hill here. Someone let go of his wheelchair and he’s just plummeting as fast as you can to the bottom. I’ve changed my mind about a couple of things throughout the past two or three years, which we’re going to talk about. I’m kind of laughing because that’s the most ironic advertisement placement ever in the history of the show ever.
Joe needs a morning kick and so does Mitch McConnell obviously. So back to this conversation about changing your mind or me changing my mind, I find it very interesting when people change their mind because it says either they’ve gotten new information or they have changed their principles or their perspective has changed in some way. This is what I’m talking about. If we’re talking about good friends, fellow intellectuals, good faith people, not just flighty people who aren’t anchored to anything that changed their mind based on the way the wind blows. I’m not talking about those people. So the couple of things that I’ve changed my mind on in the past couple of years besides age limits on members of Congress and the presidency, I’ve changed my mind on marijuana. I know, I know you guys love when I talk about this topic, I never lose subscribers in as high numbers is when I talk about marijuana, but I will never stop talking about it, never.
You can try to socially ostracize me by clicking off my channel, but you know I’m right. You know I’m right. Marijuana is not safe. It’s not harmless. It’s not just blazing up. A Adobe marijuana leads to psychosis and leads to violence, and the studies show that it’s the recreational, the so-called recreational marijuana lobby that was disguised as medical marijuana that convinced everyone that it’s less harmful than alcohol, and that’s not true. It’s never been true. So I changed my mind about that. Not that I was ever a proponent of smoking pot. I’ve never smoked pot, never was a proponent, but I used to be fairly libertarian minded about what the laws should be surrounding marijuana. I used to think, well, I think it’s stupid if you’re a pothead, but whatever. If you want to smoke in your basement, do your thing. I don’t believe that anymore.
I’ve changed my mind on this. And the reason I changed my mind is because of new information. So not a change in principles, but new information. I’ve also changed my mind about the death penalty. I used to be a proponent of the death penalty. I used to think, well, listen, you commit a heinous enough crime, sorry, you’ve sacrificed your liberty. And if that means that capital punishment is on the table, yeah, it’s grotesque. It’s brutal, but it is what it is. I changed my mind on the death penalty, not because I changed my mind on those things, but because I realized, and this is again, new information, I realized that the number of people who have been put to death by the government and remember that is what our criminal justice system is. It is the government telling private citizens that they no longer have rights and well, not rights so much as liberties.
It’s a pretty serious responsibility for the government to be able to say, okay, we are going to put a private citizen to death, and the government has messed up a lot. There has been a lot of people who have faced capital punishment, who have been executed by the government who later were exonerated, especially by DNA evidence. So I changed my mind about the death penalty, not because I’m soft on crime, not at all. I don’t think we have an over-incarceration problem in this country. I think if anything, we probably have an under incarceration problem, but I changed my mind because we don’t really have jail breaks or prison breaks. So these really heinous criminals or terrorists aren’t a threat to society if they’re imprisoned for life. We have facilities that can contain them away from general populations, so they don’t pose a threat even to fellow inmates, people that are incarcerated, and it costs a lot of money.
It costs the government a ton of money to go through the appeals process because death penalty cases are extremely long, sometimes decades long. It’s not quick, and it actually costs less to house an inmate for life than it does to go through all the court appeals process before you actually get to the death penalty. So I changed my mind about that. I also changed my mind about red flag laws. Red flag laws, meaning if you see somebody who is or know somebody who is acting badly, whether this is, I’m not really talking about a criminal conviction. I’m talking about a mental health issue, like the guy in Florida, that white supremacist guy, that racist guy that just committed that mass shooting outside of college, the Dollar General, he’s a good example of what I’m talking about. So he was held under involuntary circumstances based on some mental breakdown that he had like five or six years ago, and I used to think that that was enough.
That kind of red flag should disqualify you from being able to own a firearm because obviously that guy is a risk. I mean, this guy in particular was a menace to society. He was a mass killer, and that’s awful. I don’t think that is the way to do it. Now, I’ve changed my mind on this based, again, somewhat on evidence and somewhat on evidence, meaning criminals still obtain firearms, whether or not they’re legally allowed to obtain firearms, they figure out a way to get a gun, and the government typically abuses their power. So this really runs the risk of friends and family, identifying individuals that might have red flags, but maybe not real red flags in the government subsequently taking away their right and it being a wrong circumstance. I think without adjudication, that’s too vulnerable of a circumstance, and I think I’ve changed my mind on red flag laws given those factors, whereas I used to think it was a good idea.
Now, I think I understand the depth of government corruption in a little bit more real of a sense, and I trust government officials a lot, lot less than I used to. I’m interested in what you guys have changed your mind on. I haven’t changed my mind on much politically in the past few years, maybe things like I think collectively we’ve all changed our mind on the Iraq War at the time during the George Bush administration, I think a lot of us thought, oh yeah, he had evidence of weapons of mass destruction just because Saddam Hussein might’ve destroyed it or something. He was justified going in there, and now that seems to be such a naive and stupid point of view because we realize that the intelligence community was corrupt, and that George Bush knew that this information, this intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was from one human source, someone who had no proof of this and just had a beef with Saddam personally because Saddam had murdered his brother.
Totally bananas justification for going into Iraq. So that’s I think, a collective party. As a party. We’ve collectively changed our mind, but I’m interested in what you’ve changed your mind on individually, politically, in the past few years and why. Oh, oh, there’s one more thing that I’ve changed my mind on, and this is a little bit of a, not a little bit. This is a big hot button topic. This is not an opinion that is widely accepted even among Republicans yet, although I think it will be in the future. I do not believe that women who abort their babies should be let off scot-free. I don’t agree with this position that just the abortionists should be criminalized. If we believe what we say about abortion, if we believe that abortion is actually killing a human being, it is murdering that innocent child inside the mother’s womb, then why should the woman who commissions this murder face zero criminal penalties?
I don’t believe she should, and I know that this, I know people are going to say, wow, that’s really harsh, Liz. And it is actually really harsh. It’s harsh because the reality of the situation is harsh. But this is the reason I changed my mind on this particular issue because right now there are five pro-lifers who protested outside an abortion clinic who are facing 11 years in federal prison for their protest, 11 years. These are men and women who have families who were protesting the brutal murder of unborn babies, and they’re facing 11 years in prison. So five pro-lifers have been found guilty of rescuing babies from abortion, and they’re now facing over a decade in prison. This is from Life News. Five Pro-life advocates have been found guilty of violating a federal law, protecting abortion centers, and now face the possibility of 11 years in prison.
Lauren Handy Will Goodman, John Hinshaw, Heather Ioni and Herb Garrity were each found guilty on all counts. The Biden administration brought against them for allegedly violating the face act. The jury found all of the defendants guilty of both charges they faced in court, and they were taken into custody. They will stay in federal prison until sentencing, which will take place after a second trial starting September 6th for the other pro-life advocates involved in the rescue. The trial began August 9th and the five Pro-life advocates were charged with conspiracy and violation of the FACE Act, which was signed into law in 1994 by former President Bill Clinton. The FACE Act, which stands for Freedom of Access to clinic entrances, prohibits individuals from attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere by use of force, threat of force or physical obstruction with anyone obtaining or performing an abortion. The pro-lifers on trial conducted a rescue at the Washington S clinic operated by the notorious late-term abortionist, Cesar Angelo, who was busted by a live action undercover investigator for admitting that he would not help a child with life-saving efforts if that child, he or she survived a late-term abortion.
The abortionist emphatically stated that a nearby hospital’s efforts to save the life of a child he was trying to abort was the stupidest thing they could have done. Lauren Handy and Herb Garrity cited those live action videos as the reason for the rescue and protest at the abortion business. Because of the concern babies might be left to die, they chained themselves to the entrance of the abortion center in an attempt to stop abortions. Life News says last March, some of the rescuers currently on trial were given 115 aborted babies by the driver of a medical waste van Outside San Angelo’s, late-term abortion facility. The babies were well-developed second and possibly third trimester. Their remains are still in a vault at the DC Medical Examiner’s office. It’s so grotesque. In October of 2020, about two months after the remains were obtained, the nine Pro-Lifers blocked the entrance of the abortion facility to protest the abortion. However, us, this is where it gets really interesting. US District Judge Colleen Collar Coley, a Clinton nominee would not allow the video to be used as evidence. She also prohibited the defendants from that. Their actions were protected by the First Amendment or were committed in defense of a third person in unborn children. This is the pro-life attorney for one of the defendants in Lauren’s mind. Any person she can prevent from going into that clinic is a person whose baby will not be born alive and left to die.
Think about this for a second. This judge prohibited the defendants from arguing that their actions were protected by the First Amendment. When I think it’s pretty clear that they were, or that they were committed in defense of a third person, she prohibited them from stating the scientific reality that unborn babies are human beings and that second and third trimester babies are viable, that they can survive outside the mother’s womb. This seems to be a gross miscarriage of justice. But all of that to say is there’s no such thing. This is one of the things I don’t know if I’ve changed my mind about, but I’ve come to recognize more clearly in recent years, is there’s no such thing as neutrality in our country, in institutions, in our government. It’s either the Democrat’s, beliefs or Republican or the values of conservatives, the values of the right, the values of Republicans, it’s one or the other.
One is going to prevail. Just like in public schools, children are going to be taught that communism is good or they’re going to be taught that communism is bad. They’re not just going to be taught well, what is the definition of communism that never happens? That’s not reality. And this is also the reality of what the Left wants to do to us. So my position a harsh position, though it might be that women who abort their babies should be held criminally liable for that. What’s the alternative? That pro-life advocates who are protesting outside abortion clinics not only are not allowed to do that, but aren’t allowed after they’ve been charged by the federal government to claim that their speech is protected under the First Amendment, and that they’re doing this in defense of a third person that unborn baby. There’s no such thing as neutrality, and we talked about this a little bit earlier in the week when I said that if you want to see what’s going to happen in the United States, we can oftentimes look to countries in Europe who are a step or two past us.
We haven’t gotten yet to where they are, but we’re on the same trajectory over in Finland. A member of Parliament is on trial and has been for four years for posting a Bible verse online. This is from Fox News. Last March, people of faith around the world breathed a collective sigh of relief when Pavi Rossen, a well-respected member of Finland’s parliament, was found not guilty by a Helsinki court in a case of legal persecution of her and Bishop Johanna POA for their Christian beliefs about marriage. It seemed then that the nightmare was over. It was not. Now Rossen and Paola head back to court Bibles in hand on August 31st to stand trial once again for simply being Christians. Everyone who values their perseverance and preservation of Western civilization should be gravely concerned by this trial. Fox says, for more than four years rasen and has been investigated by a rogue finish prosecutor’s office for the war crime of agitation against a population group for criticizing her own church, for sponsoring a gay pride parade and writing a pamphlet supporting a biblical view of marriage.
20 years ago, the prosecution levied an additional charge against Johanna Pa Jola, a bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Mission, diocese of Finland for merely hosting Rossin’s pamphlet on his church’s website. She faces criminal charges over a single tweet, not one inciting violence, but sharing a Bible verse. And this isn’t in North Korea or communist China. It’s in a so-called free country. It’s readily apparent to all people of good faith that the trial’s intent was not to bring about justice by prosecuting Anne or Paola for the so-called war crime of agitation against a population group. In fact, the prosecution had to search far and wide to find a single fin even offended by the tweet or the pamphlet. No. This case features a deeper acidic agenda to fundamentally undermine the foundations of modern Western civilization, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. Now, this piece that I’m reading to you was written by Congressman Chip Roy.
It’s an op-ed published on Fox News. Congressman Roy is exactly correct. This proves my point. There’s no such thing as neutrality, and if our values do not prevail, then the other side’s values will prevail. What are the other side’s Values is a question we should be asking and answering in detail. Well, the other side’s values are evident by their behavior and how they target us. Their values are exactly the opposite of all of the values that we hold dear, and they don’t want any tolerance for our religious beliefs or our principles or even our politics to the point. Can you imagine? Think about this. I mean, we’ve all done this. Actually. Think about opening up Instagram or opening up X, formerly known as Twitter and posting a Bible verse. I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve captioned a photo on Instagram with a Bible verse or tweeted out a Bible verse.
Can you imagine being prosecuted for that? Prosecuted for that? Because the government of your country said that your belief, your biblical belief was wrong and illegal, that it was prohibited and that you could be thrown in prison for it. Were in an existential battle, an existential battle, not just against a Democratic party that we think is stupid or unwise, but a Democratic party that has been fundamentally corrupted, not just by corrupt politicians, but by a downright evil ideology. And the reason this evil ideology was able to take hold is because of the corrupt politicians who were so who are, it’s not even in past tense, who are so focused on building up their own bank accounts by selling influence and pedaling access to high ranking US government officials that they’ve forgotten that principles even exist. They’ve surrendered our government to the Left, and this is true, by the way, on both sides of the aisle.
I’m not just talking about Joe Biden, although on Newsmax. Greg Kelly reported, I suppose, made a claim, is probably a more accurate way to phrase this, because he’s making a claim that a videotape exists that proves that Joe Biden did profit from Hunter Biden’s corruption. He didn’t show evidence of this. So I don’t want to say he reported on this. We have no evidence that this tape exists, although Greg Kelly is claiming that he has sources who told him that this videotape exists. This is what Greg Kelly said on his show on Newsmax. Take a look at this,
But he hasn’t seen the half of it yet. There is an audio tape. I am told by people in the know, not necessarily in government, not necessarily out of government. I can’t say too much, but there is incontrovertible evidence of Joe Biden’s corruption that is about to be made public. It’s not going to happen tomorrow. It’s not going to happen before Labor Day, but it will happen sometime between Labor Day and Halloween. This tape will be made public. I’m not sure by what entity at this point, but once it is heard, Joe Biden will have, well, he’ll have only two options. Number one, he will not be able to remain a candidate for the presidency for reelection. It will be over and done with. The only thing that he might be able to do potentially, but probably not, is remain as President. I am told this tape is that incriminating and they’re worried about it right now at the White House. They know about it. They know it’s out there. There may be more than one, and it makes a lot of sense.
So this is clearly a claim, not a report, because we’re not shown any evidence of it. It doesn’t mean that it’s not true. It seems like something that could vary. It’s very believable that an audio tape, I guess it’s not a videotape, an audiotape of Joe Biden exists in which Joe Biden is somehow demonstrating that he has profited from Hunter Biden’s corruption. That’s very believable. I’m sure that does exist. I mean, hunter Biden with his compulsion to record himself, I find it a little hard to believe that he wouldn’t have captured Joe Biden in some of those recordings. Maybe not the ones in the sensory deprivation egg, the ones smoking crack or the naked ones with prostitutes, but stranger things have happened, so it’s very believable that this tape exists. Now, would this tape somehow disqualify Joe Biden from being the candidate, the Democrat’s candidate for President next year?
That I find to be a little harder to believe? That’s a consequence, that’s an opinion. That’s not necessarily a report. Of course, Gavin Newsom is eagerly waiting in the background like a hungry wolf, hoping that Joe Biden falls and he can gobble him up and defeat him for the presidency. That could be true that some in the Democratic Party are hoping that this will cause Joe Biden to feel like he has to step aside. I don’t think that the Democrats would ever coalesce around or coalesce against Joe Biden based on evidence of his corruption because we already have evidence of his corruption. We have Hunter Biden’s laptop. We have emails that we’ve seen, text messages that we’ve read in which Hunter Biden is using his father’s name to threaten people in China, who then wire him five, $10 million based on this threat. We’ve already seen reports from Devin Archer, hunter Biden’s business partner.
This is like testimony Devin Archer gave to Congress under oath that Hunter Biden put Joe Biden on speakerphone the brand, put the brand on speakerphone when he was with some of these shady business associates around the world before he collected money from all of them. We have proof. We can see that Joe Biden was corrupt. So it’s not like Democrats are sitting around being like, well, we just want to make sure that he has his day in court. We just want to make sure that he actually is guilty before we get rid of him. Like no, they don’t care that he’s guilty. First of all, half of these people in Washington DC are doing somewhat of the same thing. They don’t all have access to the vice president or the President, but they’re all corrupt. They don’t care about corruption unless they can pretend to stage an impeachment inquiry just to win some points with their voters and their constituents.
But even the people running the impeachment inquiry don’t actually care about corruption. They’re just doing it because they think that it’s politically expedient for them. So no, I don’t think I’m skeptical. I should say that the Democratic Party, that this video is going to be such a bombshell or this audio recording is going to be such a bombshell, such a smoking gun that Joe Biden will have to step aside that I will believe when I see it. Let me know if you’ve changed your mind on any political issues, and if so, what issues, and if you’ve changed your mind on these issues, why did you change your mind? Did you change it because your beliefs changed, because the information changed because your perspective on something changed? Let me know. Go to x.com/liz Wheeler or go to liz wheeler.com and drop it in the comment section. I’m very interested to know, I think that changing your mind conversations are one of the most fascinating types of discussions that can be had. Thank you for watching today. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is the Liz Wheeler Show.