Best of the Program | Guests: Sen. Eric Schmitt & Tamara Pietzke | 3/19/24

Charlie Sheen is an icon of decadence.

I lit the fuse, and my life turns into everything it wasn't supposed to be.

He's going the distance.

He was the highest-paid TV star of all time.

When it started to change, it was quick.

He kept saying, No, no, no, I'm in the hospital now, but next week I'll be ready for the show.

Now, Charlie's sober.

He's gonna tell you the truth.

How do I present this with any class?

I think we're past that, Charlie.

We're past that, yeah.

Somebody call action.

Yeah, aka Charlie Sheen, only on Netflix, September 10th.

Hey, on today's podcast, we start with Judge Jackson because I just, she asked, I'm just looking for help here on trying to understand the First Amendment.

And gosh, can't the government, you know, override the First Amendment?

I've never heard this from a Supreme Court justice before, but hey, stranger things have happened.

It's another horse on the highway.

But we

have the

full breakdown on that.

And I wanted to share share some of my knowledge on the Constitution with her.

Also, we talk a little bit about how

being prepared is now mainstream, according to the mainstream media.

Now that liberals are doing it too, going, wow, this doesn't seem like it's safe.

Yeah, it's gone mainstream.

We want to talk to you a little deeper on preparing other things as our history is starting to disappear.

Also, we have Eric Schmidt on.

He's the guy who filed the original,

what was it, Missouri against Biden or Biden v.

Missouri.

That was the case that the Supreme Court heard yesterday.

We wanted to get his take on it,

as well as an amazing story of a woman who just wants to do right by kids.

She is a social worker, a social health worker.

She was at one of the big hospitals in Seattle.

She's got 12 years of experience, six at that hospital.

She raised her hand and said, hey, I don't think this gender affirming care is really good.

I've been looking into what they're saying over in Europe and they're starting to pull away from it.

She became a pariah, was fired, can't find a job.

Wait until you hear that story.

All on today's podcast.

First, let me tell you about our sponsor, Lear Capital.

The U.S.

debt load is rising right now at a rate of $1 trillion every 100 days.

I just, I can't,

I go blind when I think about this, that everybody is not at home saying to each other when they go grocery shopping or out for dinner, oh, you know why it's your food prices are up 20% from the last four years?

$1 trillion

every 100 days.

I'm sorry,

three trillion that we're just going to borrow and print,

and we don't think that's gonna be a problem.

Huh, that's weird.

That's

interesting.

May I suggest gold or silver or anything that has value that you know the world has always returned to over and over and over again?

Because this insanity happens every so often.

We're just like, well, it's different this time.

It's really not different.

And with over 3 billion in trusted transactions, thousands of five-star reviews, 24-hour risk-free purchase guarantee, Lear is the precious metals leader that you can trust.

Go get your free wealth protection guide.

Lear will also credit your account $250 towards your purchase.

Call today, 800-957-GOL.

800-957-GOLD.

It's 800-957-GOLD.

You're listening to

the best of the Blenbeck program.

Well, I don't know if you heard Justice Jackson yesterday, but

was she

in tune with our system of government?

Here she is yesterday where free speech is on trial.

The government is making the claim that their free speech is being limited

because they want to tell social media what to do,

and their First Amendment rights are being trampled on.

Just so you know, the government doesn't have First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment right goes to the people, and it says that the government can't tell you what you can say and what you can't say.

Here is Justice Brown Jackson yesterday.

Justice Jackson.

So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important

time periods.

I mean, what would you have the government do?

I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done.

And so

I guess some might say that that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country.

And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.

So can you help me?

Because

I'm really worried about that.

Because you've got the First Amendment operating

in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems.

I'd love to help you with that.

I'd love to help you with that.

Let me help you.

And I appreciate your asking for help.

Don't usually experience that, you know, cry for help on understanding any of the amendments, let alone the first one from a Supreme Court justice.

But I appreciate your willingness to say, I really don't have a clue as to what I'm doing here.

See, we have a Bill of Rights that was built, our country is built unlike any other country in the world.

And our Bill of Rights came from a

founding era where they had been really living under the thumb of a tyrant.

And so they knew tyranny firsthand.

And it made them very, very skittish about governments and what they could do.

Because when governments speak, that's one thing.

The government can speak and say, hey, this is bad.

You shouldn't do this.

But when governments coerce people, especially businesses, well, they've got an awful lot of power.

And that can turn into tyranny quickly.

Now, the

Bill of Rights was written,

and especially the First Amendment, was written for those bad times.

You know, you I know you're worried about,

well,

I mean, freedom of speech is great unless things are, you know, troubled.

Well, okay, but that's why they wrote this down.

Our documents are a negative Charter of Liberties.

So it means that the Bill of Rights apply to the citizens, but not to the governments.

The government cannot do anything to violate these rights.

And if, you know, it changes when there's trouble or when the government feels there's trouble,

well, then you don't really have the right, do you?

And you really don't have any shackles on the presidency, the administration, or the government.

What you have, actually, is another Constitution written in 1936.

It was really great.

Because of the way, I mean, it was way advanced.

All voting restrictions were taken off.

Universal direct suffrage, the right to work, the right guaranteed by the previous Constitution.

In addition, in 1936,

And by the way, I'm not talking about Germany, okay?

1936, the Constitution recognized the collective and social economic rights, including the right to work, the right to rest, the right to leisure, the health protection, care in old age and in sickness, and the right to housing and education and cultural benefits.

It was really a cutting-edge constitution because everybody wants that stuff, right?

You have a universal right to it.

And all of the government bodies had to help provide those things because you, the citizen, have a right.

And they went right direct election of all government bodies and

they reorganized in 1936, and they just

streamlined the government, you know, so there wasn't a lot of red tape.

So, Article 122 in

the Constitution said that women are accorded equal rights with men.

Now, this is 1936.

Think about how advanced this is.

Women have equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social, and political life.

In fact, they were really the first one to make sure that there was, you know, kindergartens and a universal right to kindergarten and maternity leave and pre-maternity and protection of the mom and her interests.

It was really, really, really good in Article 122 and 123.

That was the equal rights for all citizens.

It was equity for everybody, irrespective of their nationality or their race in all spheres of life.

And they wanted to make sure that there was racial inclusiveness and no hatred or contempt or restrictions of rights and privileges on account of nationality or race.

And if you did any of these hate crimes, it was punishable by law.

So this is now the Soviet Constitution

of 1936, and it was the longest running constitution of the Soviet Union, and it was great.

Article 124 guaranteed freedom of religion, including the separation of church and state, and school from church.

And 124, it ensured all citizens the freedom of conscience, freedom of religious worship, and freedom of any anti-religious propaganda recognized for all citizens, which was nice.

And in 124, Stalin, in the face of real stiff opposition there, eventually said, you know what?

Maybe we should talk to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Maybe we should allow them, you know, to exist.

And he did, kind of.

But it was all within the Constitution.

Because, see, this Constitution is

a constitution of positive liberties, unlike ours, negative liberties, telling the government what it cannot do.

Theirs is a positive liberty, all the things the government must do.

And Article 125, remember this is 1936.

Article 125 of the Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and the press and freedom of assembly.

Then they, you know, they said, you know, look,

the Communist Party really needs to come together.

And we can have diversity in the Communist Party, but it's only one party in the free elections.

So

you could do that.

Now,

this Constitution was written in 1936

and it was thoroughly Democratic, thoroughly democratic.

I mean,

yeah, once the writers of the Constitution and

the organizers, you know, finished it, they were imprisoned and or executed right after because they were counter-revolutionaries.

And, you know, you got to get rid of those people.

There were some people that were just too radical, and they were the writers of the Constitution.

But, you know, that's an old, dusty document.

You know, sure, it was written last week, but they didn't foresee everything.

So

they started

the Great Terror

is what it's called.

I don't know what happened during the Great Terror, but it coincided with the signing of the new Constitution.

But everybody was protected.

You could say whatever you want.

You know, you could look at the Great Terror or the subcategory of the Great Purge

and say, hey, you know what?

They're stepping on those rights there of those people.

But they're people that the state really doesn't.

You know, the state really needs some authority to be, sure, you have a right to speak.

You know, you have the enjoyment of rights and freedoms of citizens.

But, I'm just quoting the Constitution, not to the detriment of the the interests of society or the state.

So if you saw something, you know, like

Kajondi, whatever her name is, Jackson,

Brown Jackson,

whatever her name is, I love her.

And she is right.

When the state has an interest, because the state knows best, then we have to, you know,

restrain people from saying things.

So

let me just quote Article 39.

Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of citizens must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state.

Amen.

That's what she's saying.

I mean, they've been saying this since 1936 in the Soviet Union.

Article 59 obliged citizens to obey all the laws and comply with the standards of the socialist society as determined by the party.

So if the party said, you know, let's just say

we can mutilate your children, you can speak out about that.

I mean, you're going to have to go to jail for it because it'll be a hate crime.

In fact, hate crimes were even mentioned specifically in that night.

They were so far ahead.

They were just way, way.

way, way, way, way, way ahead.

Because they were already on those hate crimes.

You know,

you don't have a right to say, you know,

for instance, here it is, quote,

the Constitution prohibits incitement of hatred or hostility on any religious ground.

So you couldn't just, you know, say to the Bible, the Bible says this, if it incited hatred.

So,

and the Constitution, you know, gave, you have a freedom of conscience.

You can do that.

You can profess or not profess any religion.

And

you can conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda.

As long, and I'm quoting, as long as it's in the interest of the state,

you see, because they know better.

They know better.

So, Katanji, I just, I'm trying to help you because you asked for help yesterday,

which I find just so refreshing that a talk show host that's a recovering alcoholic and former DJ who is just completely self-educated,

you know, knows this stuff

better than

a Supreme Court justice.

But I think that's great, that you, you know, you're humble enough to say i don't know my ass from my elbow

um i think that's great i really i really do i really do so let's just remember

the government you know we have inalienable rights what do that what does that mean i don't know something about aliens from space maybe katanji no means no man can change those rights alter those rights or take away that's what inalienable means um and in the Soviet Union, they didn't have that.

Okay, they didn't have inalienable rights.

You, as a citizen, can, and I'm quoting, enjoy rights when the exercise of these rights do not interfere with the interests of the state and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

They alone have the power and authority to determine policies for the government and society.

What a utopia that is.

Man,

if we could just model our constitution on something as open-minded as this,

we'd certainly be fixed.

Kind of in the way my dog was fixed, but we'd be fixed, all right.

Let me tell you about Jace Medical.

I want you to do me a favor.

Do yourself a favor.

I want you to put this down on your list.

to do one of the honeydew lists, one of the items.

Call Jace Medical or go to their website.

I want you to get the antibiotics and I want you to look at all of the other medications that are available and see what you can order and have a year's worth supply in your home.

It is critical that you begin to take this very seriously.

Troubled times are coming

and

it doesn't have to be violent or ugly or anything else.

It's just troubled times.

We are headed towards what our grandparents or great-grandparents lived through.

It's Jace Medical, J-A-S-E-Medical.com.

Go there now and

write this down.

Do this either today, right now, or this weekend.

JASE Medical.com.

Enter the promo code Beck at checkout.

Get a discount on your order by using the promo code Beck.

JASE Medical.com.

JaceMedical.com.

Now back to the podcast.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Yesterday,

I witnessed something I didn't think I would ever witness in America, a Supreme Court justice

trying to, I guess, make the case

that the government can override the First Amendment.

You know, I mean, if it's a situation situation where kids are jumping out windows.

Wow, I've never heard that before.

But there was a case that was heard yesterday, Murthy versus Missouri, originally filed as Missouri versus Biden, and it concerns whether the federal government officials had violated the First Amendment by coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms.

This is on various topics, but really COVID-19 was the big one.

And

we have the guy who filed the original suit when he was AG of Missouri.

He's now the senator from Missouri, Eric Schmidt in Washington.

Hello, Eric.

How are you?

I'm good, good.

How are you?

What did you think about what happened yesterday?

How do you think it went?

Well, I think it's always difficult to gauge based on the questions asked by the justices.

I think that's a fair question and a question that's often asked.

It's just it's difficult to really gauge where individual justices are at based on some of the questions because most of what they'll be considering as they move towards a decision probably sometime in June is the briefs and the record that had been submitted.

So sometimes those questions are meant to sort of fill in some gaps.

The question you're referring to, I think, was,

you know, isn't the First Amendment a hindrance to the government in this instance or in the hypothetical?

And of course it is.

That is like, that's the point, is that the First Amendment is actually

was put there by our founders because they knew exactly what the government might want to do.

And if the idea was protecting individual liberty and your ability to speak your mind and be a dissenter, that ought to be a hindrance to the government.

So anyway, so that question was somewhat revealing, but I still feel good about it.

Here's the best news of all of this, Glenn, is

early on in the litigation, when we filed the case in May of 2022, we were able to get discovery before the preliminary injunction hearing, which we won, which was essentially affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and now is in front of the court.

Why is that important?

Because the record is filled now with emails and text messages about how the federal government, we should be partners with Facebook.

And they want answers, exclamation points.

They had regular meetings, they had censorship meetings, they had constant pestering, they suggested new rules.

Tell us what you're going to do.

Literally, 20 plus thousand pages of this kind of evidence of how the government was coercing these social media companies to do their will.

And I think that hopefully will carry the day.

So, the problem here is that coercion, you don't have a partnership with the government.

You might think you do, but in the end, the government wins because the government can do all kinds of things to you and you have nobody to run to for help.

And the government cannot be the final arbiter of truth.

It cannot be.

Our founders were really clear on this.

And then again, later, they hashed it out because of the Sedition Act.

And, you know, they made it very, very clear that if the government is the one that decides what the truth is and is the final arbiter of truth, truth will be lost.

And I think

if the government hadn't been and didn't have taken on the role of being the arbiter of truth and silencing people about the vaccines or whatever, they just would have let it go.

Science, I don't think, would have been discredited the way it it was.

I don't think the vaccine, you know, anti-vaccine movement would have grown as much as it has.

They caused the problems by trying to shut people down.

People don't like that.

That's right.

And I think that, you know, people often say power corrupts.

Probably more appropriately

described, power reveals.

And you had a situation during COVID where it was an emergency or perceived emergency, and people used it to aggregate, accumulate, and exercise power in ways that I don't think many of us really believed could happen in the United States of America.

I think it's important to put us back in that time.

And regardless of how the government feels about what you should be doing, to your point, individuals get to make these decisions.

And that is what was so dangerous about what was happening was you had this wasn't just a one-off from some actor or two.

This was a leviathan of government agencies working in concert to quell dissent, to shut down dissent, whether it was on the lab league theory, the Hunter Biden laptop story, origins of COVID, the efficacy of masks, all of that.

The full force of the government was at play to silence people.

And if we believe in this country, which we do, I do, you do, that fundamental human expression is a right given to us by God.

And government's role is really there to protect that right, to secure those rights, certainly not to infringe upon them.

So let me play.

That's why this case is so so important.

Let me play devil's advocate.

Yes, but we're at war.

There is a let me use a real one that I know they've already wargamed, and I think it's the International Bank or the World Bank has come out with their recommendations.

If currencies begin to collapse, if the world starts to go into a real slide, that people who disagree with the actions of the central banks of the world must be silenced because even if they're right, they will harm all of the safety mechanisms that the governments are trying to put into place.

So they'll do more harm

even if they're right.

That's their point of view.

Yeah, and so that's going to happen.

And the government will use any event to silence people.

And a lot of people, like they did in COVID, will say, say well we have to protect everything how do you answer that

yeah well you sort of heard yesterday this similar vein when it was referred to by the government's lawyer as a once-in-a-lifetime event okay

first of all to your point this is a playbook in many ways because what you'll have now we're already hearing the language change on climate issues it went from you know global cooling to global warming to climate change.

Now it's a climate emergency, right?

So the language has shifted even on that particular issue.

And the example that you give, the Constitution, what's important to remember is the Constitution doesn't have a pandemic exception.

It doesn't have a World Bank emergency exception.

The Constitution was created really for those most difficult times when government actors really, really want to do something and they really, really think they're right.

The point is that we get to make those decisions.

It's like with the vaccine mandate.

I actually had the case, the OSHA, you know, those cases that that went to the Supreme Court on the vaccine mandate, and we won at the Supreme Court.

And my contention all along was on whether it was the vaccine or masks.

Give everybody the information and let them make their own decisions.

But you saw the left really gravitate towards, no, no, no, we don't really care about reasonable debate.

We don't care about any of that.

Just, you know, take the shot, put the damn mask on.

That was their point of view.

That's not going to change when we have the next thing.

And so that's why this case is so important, because if the government actually thinks that they can pressure social media companies to do their bidding, they don't get to get around the First Amendment by contracting that out to private parties.

And Glenn, one last point on this.

The reason why the coercion piece fits here in particular is these companies live and die by their Section 230 protections.

They're immune from lawsuits.

So if you don't think that was being wielded here as a threat or antitrust investigations or all those sorts of things that the government, we've seen this administration do to Catholics or to

pick the opponent, they

mobilize and weaponize government.

That was always at play here.

And so I think that whether it's

that standard or it's the sort of the cooperative standard, whatever you want to use, the government was very intent here on silencing speech, and they don't get to do it in the run the Constitution by outsourcing that to big tech.

And they also endorsed speech during the same period by saying, you can't protest outside about COVID.

You can protest for BLM.

And so they were endorsing speech as well and setting a precedence there.

That's the problem with the government having the lever of what speech is approved and what isn't.

You don't have a real free democracy, or in our case, a republic,

if they can can do that and everyone knows if you're thinking about going and

you know praying at a abortion clinic you now know the government has been weaponized against you if you're going to go into a store and you're going to just go steal all the makeup from a makeup counter you know you have a better chance of getting away with it because the government has laid off that kind of stuff.

So

they're directing our society just by leaning one way or another.

And if you don't think that the, I mean, you cannot have, I've never had calls from the FCC.

I've done this job for almost 50 years.

I've never had a call from the FCC.

I know when our license is up for renewal and everybody at the radio station, we get nervous about, hey, what did you say?

Because we don't want any trouble.

We don't want any letters going to the FCC.

They know the power of that.

But the FCC, at least in my case, has never exercised itself like that.

They've tried, they've attempted, but it never stood.

These guys were calling these social media companies daily and saying, you know, you got a nice company that'd hate to have something happen to it.

That's the mob.

Yep.

No, that's right.

And I think what...

What is it's interesting you brought up the whole the protests in the summer of

you know you saw that in 2020 and then covid um and then really when biden came in in 2021 he did all the things he said he wasn't going to do he said he wasn't going to be a mandate um you know all these sorts of things uh that came i think it just it like i said it just revealed and i think that the the modern democrat party which the energy and the money and everything is now squarely in on on the left here.

You look at what's happened with the border.

These are not things that certainly, even Barack Obama, terrible of a president he was, wasn't really advocating for an open borders policy.

That's where we're at now.

Liberals, I'm 48.

I remember when liberals actually cared about free speech, not anymore.

And so we've gotten to a place now where they have crossed the Rubicon.

And really, it's not about process or principles.

It is about results and power and control.

And I think that more people wake up to that, they'll realize how important it is to stand up and say no.

You know, I dissent.

I object.

I'm the guy in Norman Rockwell, you know, classic portrait where he stands up, you know, and that's what we need more of in this country.

And so that always motivated me.

It certainly did in the filing of this lawsuit.

I only have 30 seconds for an answer here, but is this the closed door, hopefully, on any of the government, you know, speech control efforts, you know, the Nina Jankowicz stuff?

Yeah, I mean, that certainly the Disinformation Governance Board, I think, but their mistake there was they were probably pretty too open about it.

What we have to be on guard is that it's more loosely tied and it's not named something like the Ministry of Truth, right?

So, I think we have to be on guard.

Right.

They're still not acting in concert.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much.

This Senator

Eric Schmidt from the great state of Missouri, who filed the original lawsuit as AG in Missouri

against the government.

And the government responded by saying they're violating my First Amendment rights at the White House.

You don't have them.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Tamara Pitsky is with us now.

Tamara, how are you?

Fine, thank you so much for having me.

Sure.

So can I ask you, you're from I'm from Seattle, but I moved away long before the madness set in.

Yeah.

You went to the University of Washington.

I'm guessing we don't necessarily agree on a lot of policy things.

You seem like a really nice person who has just seen some injustice here

and

I guess kind of reluctantly stood up.

Yeah, I mean,

I've not considered myself political in any sense, and somehow I just kind of ended up in this position, you know?

And it's been incredibly difficult.

I just can't believe how.

So it

but what you stood up for, it's not political, is it?

Well, I didn't think so, but I'm learning it in a lot of people's minds that it is.

You know, I thought I was just trying to protect kids, and now I'm realizing that people are so quick to say, you know, things about me that are political or that I'm transphobic or something.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So

tell me what happened at Multicare.

Sure.

So there was a mandated gender-affirming care training in September.

And when I found that out, I started doing some research.

I was like, I don't know that I feel this, I think this might not be, you know, this is bad news.

And so I started doing some research.

went to the meeting, asked some questions like, hey, why are we mandating this of our clinicians if countries in Europe are pulling back and saying, you know what, I don't think that is the right way to handle gender distressed use.

And

they were horrible to me.

They said leave politics out of this, which is the first time I thought, I was like, what does that even mean?

Like I had no idea that people thought this was a political issue.

People said I was doing harm to clients, that I was transphobic.

I started after that meeting, I talked with my boss, the leader of the meeting,

and just tried to like air my concerns with them and see if maybe somebody would listen to me.

At no point did anyone ever say, okay, yeah, let me see that article that you're reading.

Let me look at that for you so that we can have a conversation.

They were just like completely shut me down.

And then when I presented specific client issues, I was reported to risk management and I thought, okay, finally, risk management and I can have a conversation.

We can look through these clients' charts, figure out like, no, this is not, it's not good for this child to start testosterone.

They've got so much else going on.

And rather than have that conversation, they decided that I was the risk, not the testosterone, that I was the risk and that they took my client from me.

So

this had to seem like a movie that you were trapped in

it was crazy making like I was like am I so real I am losing my mind yeah

yeah yeah um so

what were the things that you were pointing out I mean Europe is usually ahead of us medically and much more

I don't mean this in a in a political way, but much more progressive or liberal on medicines.

And

them pulling out has, especially when we're talking about Sweden and Norway, when those countries start to pull out of something, they're usually so progressive that it should make a huge statement.

That didn't play a role in, they didn't even talk about it with you?

No, they didn't even address it at all.

And so that's when I started to realize, like, okay, we aren't actually protecting the kids here.

We're protecting an ideology.

Like, I'm trying to advocate for the kids.

And the other side here is like, no, I won't hear any of that.

We're just going to go full steam ahead with this like ideology that we're

holding to so rigidly, you know.

I'm not an expert in all the different areas of this field of study, but I know enough to know that 80% of gender distressed youth typically outgrow it by the time they're adults.

But rather than letting them like progress through that, and just kind of figure out who they are as any adolescent does, we're medicalizing them.

If they come in at 13 and say, I want to be a man, then we're like, okay, sounds great.

Like there's no, there's nothing that we do to like

determine are you going to be of that 20% who's going to persist in this as an adult?

We don't have any way to determine that.

And so we're just letting these young people diagnose themselves and decide their own medical treatment.

And they just don't have the mental capacity to consent to that at 13 or even 20.

What does this, what does this lead to when

science becomes politicized and there's no longer

reason,

you know, because

you can disagree with science, but when it becomes the science, when it becomes the authority,

and nothing can...

nothing can change its mind, it's no longer science, is it?

I don't think so.

I think people are just

like I said they're defending an ideology at this point and when I try to present studies and other

you know evidence to people like they just don't hear it they don't hear it at all so

yeah I don't know it's just so the fascinating the other the other people the other people in your profession

do they just not see it are they not as brave as you to come up and step forward

what's happened to the profession I really think that it's like a cult mentality for a lot of people.

They think that they're doing good.

I don't think everybody thinks that.

I think the higher up you go, the more people are aware that this is a corrupted situation that we're in.

But I think a lot of my colleagues really think they're doing good.

And so then they're quick to villainize me.

Like in that meeting, there was 122 people.

And after that meeting, four of them reached out to me and said, Thank you for saying something.

I'm too scared to.

But everyone else, as far as I know, had just kind of like decided that I was the enemy you know

so you then went to work someplace else and you were let go after two or three weeks

yep just mysteriously they're like we don't think you're a good fit for this position and so now I'm a single mom of three trying to live off of a go fund me or a give send go

and can't get a job.

The state's coming after my license.

Like it's just been craziness.

The state's coming after your license as well.

Yeah, I found out on Friday they said because I wasn't being gender affirming.

So I didn't refer to the clients in the article by their chosen pronoun and suggested that gender dysphoria is a mental illness.

Have you thought about moving?

Oh, yes, I've thought about moving.

If I could scoop up every single person that I love and leave the state, I would so quickly.

Yeah.

It's just not that easy.

You know, I just, I don't know.

Yeah, I know.

Madness

to be like, I know, it is madness.

Yeah.

To be like, hey, I'm worried that we're hurting kids.

And for them to not even, for them to be like, I don't think you should be a therapist.

Like, you're hateful and transphobic.

Like, that blows my mind.

Like, I'm just trying to make sure that we're not hurting kids.

Like, I don't understand how this is suddenly being turned on me where I'm the enemy.

It's just, I guess I'm just so naive in that way.

Like, I just didn't see that coming.

How's your family handling it?

Fortunately, my kids are young.

They have no idea that anything shifted.

And I'm very grateful for that.

I will tell you that,

you know, when I started doing what I do now, because I was never really political either.

And when I started doing this, and especially when I went to Fox from CNN, I said to my children at the time, I said, I'm going to be made into just a monster.

And the only thing that matters to me is that my family and my kids know who I am.

And if you ever hear of something, you bring it to me and we can talk about it.

And I'll admit my mistakes.

And

my kids

are my biggest defenders, not necessarily of everything I say, but they know who I am.

And that's all that matters.

Your kids are going to be very proud of you in the end.

You're doing the right thing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's my hope.

And it helps to hear that that was your experience with your family as well.

Yeah.

So you're working with, or they're supporting you, the LGBT Courage Coalition, which I

love that.

I'd never heard of these guys.

I think I love these people.

This is so great.

Yeah.

So if I understand what they do, this is...

you know, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender.

And they are they're living their life, but they're saying this is bad medicine for kids and they're standing up for kids against their own community you want to talk about pariahs they've got to be massive pariahs in their community

yeah i don't know what i i couldn't have navigated all of this without them they have been incredible and i think it's so important for other people to that have concerns about stuff to know that this organization is there like they can help support you through it you know it's so important that that that they that it was founded.

I want to do an interview with them.

I didn't know they even existed.

Yeah, I'm sure they would love to see them.

Yeah,

they are amazing.

And so

they're raising money for you, and

they have a goal of $80,000, which is

money that you can live on until you can find a job.

And you go to givesendgo.com slash whistleblower Tamara, T-A-M-A-R-A, Tamara, givesendgo.com slash whistleblower Tamara and

give.

Thank you so much for talking to us.

And

boy, if you ever get down, just please call because

I know a lot of people who have been there.

I've kind of been there myself.

And it's really hard.

You feel alone, but know that you're not.

You're really not.

I really, really appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thanks, Tamara.

Bye-bye.

I just, that is, that is such a great story.

Such a great story.

Well, no.

I kind of think it's the opposite.

Yeah, it's a bad story, but

it's good to see not only she's standing up, and it's fascinating to me.

This is going to happen to so many people.

I don't know when this became political.

That's going to happen to almost everybody who right now is just

and they're going to step into something and they'll say, No, but this just made sense.

Yeah, the world changed overnight and you weren't paying attention.

But for her to hold her ground and then for this LGBT group to come in, man, I have respect for them.

That's fantastic.

Trip planner by Expedia.

You were made to outdo your holiday,

your hammocking

and your pooling.

We were made to help organize the competition.

Expedia, made to travel.