Officers allegedly found the baby placed in the stroller on top of live maggots

A federal court is declaring that employers must cover gender transition surgeries for their employees in their health insurance plans. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled last week that a refusal by an employer to cover gender transition surgeries in an employee’s health insurance violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.” In the court’s majority opinion, Clinton-appointed Judge Charles R. Wilson wrote, “Generally, discrimination in the Title VII context occurs when an employer intentionally treats an employee worse than other similarly situated employees.” Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, he then explained that “an employer who discriminates based on transgender status is intentionally treating that employee differently ‘because of their sex.’” The case began when Anna Lange, a biological male who identifies as a woman, sought a gender transition surgery in 2018. Lange had at the time been employed by the Houston County Sheriff’s Office in Georgia for more than 10 years. Houston County’s health insurance plan, which also covers employees of the Sheriff’s Office, excludes coverage of “[d]rugs for sex change surgery” and “[s]ervices and supplies for a sex change and/or the reversal of a sex change … .” Lange filed an appeal with Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the organization which administers Houston County’s health insurance plan, but was denied. Lange also petitioned the Houston County Board of Supervisors to remove the exclusion before finally filing a lawsuit against Houston County and the Sheriff of Houston County, claiming violations of Title VII, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. A district court ruled in Lange’s favor regarding the Title VII violation, but determined that Houston County did not violate the ADA. At trial, a jury awarded Lange $60,000 in damages and the court permanently barred Houston County and the Sheriff’s Office from enforcing or applying the exclusion in its health insurance plan. Houston County and the Sheriff’s Office then sought a stay of the order from the 11th Circuit Court, which was denied. In his opinion last week, Wilson wrote, “[W]e conclude that the district court was correct in finding that the Exclusion violated Title VII. There is no genuine dispute of fact or law as to whether the Exclusion unlawfully discriminates against Lange and other transgender persons.” He continued, “The Exclusion is a blanket denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery. Health Plan participants who are transgender are the only participants who would seek gender-affirming surgery. Because transgender persons are the only plan participants who qualify for gender-affirming surgery, the plan denies health care coverage based on transgender status.” Trump-appointed Judge Andrew L. Brasher dissented from the majority, arguing that the exclusion of gender transition surgeries from the health insurance plan was not discriminatory toward employees who identify as transgender but “is consistent with the pattern in the rest of the insurance plan: it covers medically necessary treatments, but excludes particularly expensive, top-of-the-line procedures.” Brasher wrote, “Lange argues, and the majority holds, that excluding sex-change operations on the face of this policy necessarily means that the County is intentionally discriminating against transgender people because of sex. I disagree.” He continued, “Although the policy does not cover sex-change surgeries, it doesn’t treat anyone differently based on sex, gender nonconformity, or transgender status.” “Unlike the employees in Bostock, who were fired because they identified with a gender different from their natal sex, this health insurance plan does not deny medical coverage to participants ‘simply for being … transgender,’” Brasher reasoned. “The County’s insurance plan covers transgender people and provides treatments for gender dysphoria. Lange’s sex is not relevant to the County’s insurer at all. All that matters is whether Lange is asking the insurer to pay for the constellation of medical procedures known as a ‘sex change.’” “The exclusion for sex change surgery is consistent with other exclusions for treatments for sexual dysfunction, cosmetic surgery, bariatric surgery, and the like. And the exclusion applies equally to sex change reversals,” Brasher further argued (emphasis in original). “If the plan discriminated against participants because of gender stereotypes, it would cover procedures to align a participant’s physical characteristics with those of his or her natal sex. Instead, the plan refuses to pay for a suite of medical procedures whether the goal is to align with natal sex or differ from natal sex.” The majority opinion says that it doesn’t matter that the insurance plan covers transgender people and gender dysphoria because an employer “is not shielded from liability when it engages in discriminatory practices concerning some treatment and not others.” But the majority is missing the point. The point is that, on the face of the plan, it does not draw a line between procedures transgender people need and procedures that other people need. Instead, the plan draws a line between sex-change operations and other operations. In his majority opinion, Wilson attempted to address Brasher’s argument. “According to the dissent, ‘the plan draws a line between sex-change operations and other operations.’ … But this kind of line-drawing is precisely what makes the plan discriminatory,” Wilson claimed. “By drawing a line between gender-affirming surgery and other operations, the plan intentionally carves out an exclusion based on one’s transgender status. Lange’s sex is inextricably tied to the denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery.” Wilson further argued, “An employer is not shielded from liability when it engages in discriminatory practices concerning some treatment and not others. Each instance of discrimination presents an independent violation. … If we were to find otherwise, Title VII would be rendered obsolete.” He concluded, “The Exclusion is a facially discriminatory policy, and its harmful effects are not mitigated by the existence of other nondiscriminatory policies.” In his dissent, Brasher noted the flaws he saw in the majority’s opinion, claiming that Wilson’s reasoning doesn’t “equalize fringe benefits,” but instead “treats certain people more favorably than others. Under the majority’s view, an insurance policy can exclude coverage for obesity. It can decline to cover cosmetic procedures to hide scars and repair mastectomies. It can even decline to cover expensive, lifesaving cancer treatment.” Brasher added, “But an employer-provided insurance plan must always cover every treatment for gender dysphoria. There is no basis in the text of Title VII for that result.” “For this policy to facially discriminate against transgender people, coverage under the policy must turn on sex, a gender stereotype, or transgender status. It doesn’t,” Brasher concluded. “Because the exclusion is not facially discriminatory under Title VII, I would reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment, vacate the permanent injunction, and remand for further proceedings.” In a news release, the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund touted the majority ruling as a “historic win.” Of note, the fund boasted that the Civil Rights Office of the U.S. Department of Justice had filed an amicus brief in support of Lange. Originally published at WashingtonStand.com The post Health Insurance Plan Can’t Exclude Gender Transition Surgeries, Court Rules appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Next month, companies will add rainbow flags to their icons and logos, the White House will hold events celebrating LGBTQ individuals, and Target and other stores will likely promote rainbow-themed merchandise. Amid all this “Pride,” the men and women who rejected a homosexual lifestyle will be forgotten. Why should “Pride” have the entire month of June? That’s a question Jennifer Roback Morse, president of the Ruth Institute, asked herself. She came to the conclusion that if so much of America’s culture is going to celebrate people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, she might as well highlight the Americans who rejected those identities. Morse has christened the first Sunday in June (which is June 2 this year) “Ex-Gay Visibility Day,” in a fitting response to the White House’s commemoration of “Transgender Day of Visibility.” “It’s not politically correct to talk about ex-LGBT people,” Morse says in a press release provided early to The Daily Signal. “To the gay lobby, they don’t exist, or they’re just lying to themselves or were never really gay in the first place. But I have met many people who have journeyed away from an LGBT identity and are living happy, fulfilled lives with opposite-sex partners.” Morse mentions research from Father Paul Sullins, a Roman Catholic priest, senior research associate at The Ruth Institute, and former sociology professor at Catholic University, who found that sexual orientation is more malleable than LGBTQ activists claim. The “born this way” narrative doesn’t match up with the results of Sullins’ research. Sullins previously told The Daily Signal that he doesn’t encourage lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to try to change their sexual orientation unless they feel uncomfortable about it. He emphasized that efforts to change sexual orientation don’t always work, but—contrary to the LGBTQ narrative—they do occasionally succeed. “When people attempt to change sexual orientation, it is fully successful in my studies about 17 to 20% of the time,” Sullins said. “Most persons who undergo it, meaning about 60 to 65%, report that they are less caught up in homosexual attractions and behaviors and activity.” Sullins noted that about 30% of the 1,500 lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in a 2020 study on sexual orientation said that they have tried to change their sexual orientation and about 10% said they agreed with this statement: “If I could be completely heterosexual, I would want to do that.” “So there is a minority of the gay population who wants to change, is not happy with living the way that they’re living,” Sullins said. As Roman Catholics, both Morse and Sullins consider homosexual activity to be a sin, but they’re not supporting Ex-Gay Visibility Day to shame those who identify as LGBTQ. They say they merely intend to highlight the fact that there are options for people who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria (the painful and persistent feeling of identifying with the gender opposite one’s biological sex), even if they are uncomfortable with their feelings. The White House is so dedicated to the LGBTQ movement that it chose Good Friday (the day Western Christians commemorate Jesus’ Crucifixion) as the day to release a statement commemorating Transgender Day of Visibility, which coincided this year with Easter Sunday, the holiest day on the Western Christian calendar. The White House played off this timing as a coincidence, but it shocked many Americans, especially Roman Catholics. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns the ideology behind the transgender movement.) President Joe Biden is unlikely to celebrate Ex-Gay Visibility Day, however, even though it doesn’t coincide with a more popular holiday. Biden touted “transgender leaders” whom he appointed to serve in the federal government, but he is unlikely to mention any ex-gays or detransitioners. These heretics give the lie to the LGBTQ movement’s claim that it offers the only solution for those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. They are living proof that it is possible to reject the movement and they’re often dismissed as irrelevant, so a day of visibility arguably makes far more sense for them than it does for transgender individuals, who enjoy a chorus of support from companies, stores, and government bodies. The Ruth Institute will release videos about ex-gays and detransitioners over the coming month, but especially June 2, to present hope for anyone who wants another answer. Sadly, it seems Biden, Target, and their allies would prefer that these people remain invisible. The post Finally, a ‘Visibility Day’ For the People the LGBTQ Movement Finds Inconvenient appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case rejected on Tuesday special counsel Jack Smith’s request to impose a gag order, admonishing his team for their failure to “meaningful[ly] confer” with the defense. Trump’s attorneys aired their frustration Monday night with prosecutors’ decision to file the motion before the Memorial Day weekend without first conferring about the matter, asking Judge Aileen Cannon to impose sanctions for prosecutors’ “bad-faith” decision to rush an “extraordinary, unprecedented, and unconstitutional censorship application.” Cannon declined to impose sanctions but warned prosecutors in her sharply worded order that she may impose them in the future if they fail again to comply with “basic requirements,” writing that motions should not be filed “absent meaningful, timely, and professional conferral.” “It should go without saying that meaningful conferral is not a perfunctory exercise,” Cannon wrote. “Sufficient time needs to be afforded to permit reasonable evaluation of the requested relief by opposing counsel and to allow for adequate follow-up discussion as necessary about the specific factual and legal basis underlying the motion.” “This is so even when a party ‘assume[s]’ the opposing party will oppose the proposed motion [583-1], and it applies with additional force when the relief sought—at issue for the first time in this proceeding and raised in a procedurally distinct manner than in cited cases—implicates substantive and/or Constitutional questions,” Cannon continued. Smith’s team asked the judge on Friday to amend Trump’s conditions of release to clarify that he cannot “make statements that pose a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents participating in the investigation and prosecution of this case.” The request came after Trump’s Truth Social post referencing reports that the FBI authorized the use of “deadly” force for its raid on Mar-a-Lago. The FBI denied the claim after it began circulating in the media, noting that the statement was “standard protocol.” Trump’s attorneys wrote in their filing that the Special Counsel’s Office “declined” their offer to discuss the motion on Memorial Day—an offer his attorneys made despite the fact that they were also preparing for closing arguments in Trump’s Manhattan trial—and instead decided to rush to file the motion on Friday night. “The decision by the Special Counsel’s Office to do so, when it did so, cannot be explained in a manner that is consistent with the need for prosecutorial ethics and public confidence in these proceedings,” Trump’s attorneys wrote Monday night, adding that “the bias and animus that are evident from the Office’s recent course of action are relevant to the pending motions to dismiss based on selective and vindictive prosecution as well as prosecutorial misconduct.” Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Judge Smacks Down Jack Smith’s Gag Order Request, Warns of Future Sanctions for Flouting ‘Basic Requirements’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

EU Sanctions on Israel?

Moscovium is a radioactive, synthetic element about which little is known. It is classified as a metal and is expected to be solid at room temperature. It decays quickly into other elements, including nihonium. The element had previously been designated ununpentium, a placeholder name that means one-one-five in Latin. In November 2016, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) approved the name moscovium for element 115. The IUPAC also approved names for elements 113 (nihonium, with atomic symbol Nh), 117 (tennessine, Ts) and 118 (oganesson, Og). With atomic numbers of 113, 115, 117, and 118, the International Union… This premium content is for PLUS+ members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read. The post Element 115: the mystical link between Ununpentium, Bob Lazar, and UFOs appeared first on Anomalien.com.

Detrans: True Stories of Escaping the Gender Ideology Cult is out Tuesday and we spoke with its author — 2023 MRC Bulldog Award winner and Daily Signal senior writer Mary Margaret Olohan — about what she’s discovered in speaking with several young men and women who had fallen victim to transgender ideology. We also discussed the Orwellian doublespeak in media style guides from groups like GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign and received an update on the many lawsuits filed against allegedly unethical medical providers. One of the country’s most connected and esteemed pro-life reporters, Olohan has spent years accruing sources and cultivating relationships with Americans the liberal media ignore on topics such as abortion, the Catholic Church, culture, education, freedom, life, protecting children, and, as we discussed, defending the simple fact that men are men and women are women. After the interview, we discussed our takeaways from the book. Nick pointed out the unethical nature of the apparent psychiatrist-to-hormone/surgery pipeline, which industry professionals bragged about as very lucrative. He also highlighted their insistence that transitioning was a silver bullet to treat gender dysphoria. As for Curtis, he observed how the book points to the high correlation between autism spectrum disorder (or ASD, which sometimes goes undiagnosed), the deceitful pull of transgenderism, and the lack of mental health resources for treating children with ASD or other developmental challenges.

A number of lawmakers and pundits on the right concluded last week that the FBI's Aug. 8, 2022, Mar-a-Lago raid had all the makings of an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. They appear to have done so, at least at the outset, on the basis of a RealClearInvestigations contributor's framing of a court filing in the federal classified documents case against Trump, which intimated that FBI agents had been uncustomarily authorized to use deadly force against the former president. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) tweeted, "The Biden DOJ and FBI were planning to assassinate Pres Trump and gave the green light. Does everyone get it yet???!!!!" Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) asserted, "Biden ordered the hit on Trump at Mar-a-Lago." Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon said on his show, "War Room," that this was an "assassination attempt on Donald John Trump or people associated with him. They wanted a gun fight." The Trump campaign circulated a fundraising email claiming that "BIDEN'S DOJ WAS AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME!" The trouble with these claims is that they rested largely on an apparent misconstruence of critical facts and gloss over decades of precedent. Antipathetic toward various federal outfits and having himself been on the receiving end of politicized lawfare, Blaze News investigative reporter Steve Baker said, "You know, under normal circumstances I would probably just say, 'Leave it.' You know what, under normal circumstances I wouldn't even have addressed it." However, Baker indicated that a failure to address the misleading framing of an automatically filled FBI form and the excerpts spun without context could alternatively lead to rash decisions or even violence — to what Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck refers to the "Bubba Effect." 'You outrage them unnecessarily so many times and then people take action.' "Anytime you force artificial or manufactured rage on your audience, then there's always that element — it doesn't matter if we're talking about the left or the right — who will respond with violence," said Baker. "The worst among us that commit these types of acts are the people that are most outraged by their own group's rhetoric. ... You outrage them unnecessarily so many times and then people take action and they do crazy things — whether it's transgenders shooting up schools or it's some right-wing militia nut who's snapped." Baker said the erroneous suggestion in this case that the FBI "was ordered by the president to assassinate Trump is not just irresponsible — it's dangerous." Baker has recently noted in multiple interviews as well as on X that a review of the pertinent FBI documents in the case — the "Law Enforcement Operations Order" form FD-888 and FD302 in particular — paint "an entirely less 'mind-blowing' picture than the artificial rage storm that was unleashed last week." Not only was Trump not present at the time of the raid, the documents indicate that "FBI leadership informed and coordinated with local United States Secret Service (USSS) leadership. Local USSS facilitated entry onto the premises, provided escort and access to various locations within, and posted USSS personnel in locations where the FBI team conducted searches." — (@) Instead of a "gun fight," the raid appeared to be an exercise in federal hand-holding. Baker highlighted that on page 8 of Form FD-888, the plan all along was for the DOJ and FBI to "contact FPOTUS' retained counsel, [redacted] on 8/8/2022, to notify him of the search warrant and request collaboration and assistance." "After a reasonable time period, FBI WF/MM will execute the search warrant with the Case Team, MM Filter Team, and MAL/USSS representatives, as deemed necessary," says the form. "This execution will require coordination with USSS and may include coordination with MAL Guest Services to ensure a fulsome understanding of spaces occupied as designated in the search warrant." — (@) Baker told Blaze News that the initial framing of the documents especially lacked clarity around the FD-888 form, particularly its use-of-force statement. 'Now, we can argue all day whether it should happen or not, but once the protocols are put in place, this form is filled out.' "FD-888 is a blank form. Almost every single page of that form are lines to be filled out. There's promptings, for instance, there's a handling of the injured section. There's a handling of the prisoners section. And, by the way, the handling of prisoners was all marked 'not applicable,' 'not applicable,'" said Baker. "But if anybody is injured, there's a place on the form where they have to fill out the trauma center, the hospital, ... additional emergency medical information, and they actually 100% of the time are required to provide a map, which they did as per protocol." — (@) — (@) "This is what they do every single time, 1,000s upon 1,000s of times, regardless of whether it's a white-collar crime, blue collar, gang-related, drug-related, documents, President Biden or President Trump," continued Baker. "Now, we can argue all day whether it should happen or not, but once the protocols are put in place, this form is filled out." "There's one section of that form that is pre-printed. It's the only section on the entire form that's pre-printed," said Baker. Contrary to its characterization last week as a deliberate and targeted use of force authorization against the former president of the United States, Baker emphasized that "it's not. In every single FD-888, the only section that is pre-printed is the policy statement use of deadly force and has been that way for decades." 'To say that they were going to send these guys into battle with each other on a surprise raid is complete bullshit.' Beside the customary auto-fill of that section, Baker suggested there was one more piece of the assassination narrative that did not compute. "It's less likely that there was going to be use of force [on Aug. 8, 2022] than in any other raid the FBI has ever done," said Baker. "The last thing that the FBI wants to go up against is the training of the Secret Service. Right? And versa." "It's logically laughable. ... There's plenty of reason for us to hate on the Biden administration, on Merrick Garland, the Department of Justice and the FBI. But to say that they were going to send these guys into battle with each other on a surprise raid is complete bullshit. And that's what it is: bullshit," added Baker. Baker highlighted that there have been instances where the FBI has overstepped its bounds and used unnecessary force, but stressed, "This was not one." Blaze News previously reported that the FBI responded to the assassination claims by noting the offending policy is standard procedure. "The FBI followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force," the bureau said in a statement obtained by the New York Post. "No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter." Frank Figliuzzi, the FBI's former assistant director of counterintelligence, noted that "every FBI operations order contains a reminder of FBI deadly force policy. Even for a search warrant. Deadly force is always authorized if the required threat presents itself." "We all want to win," said Baker. "But the most important weapon in our quiver, though, is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. People laugh at us when we make mistakes. That's why it's so imperative to go through so many layers of protection — through editors' and legal review and everything else." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Mike Tyson had an apparent medical emergency while on a flight from Miami to Los Angeles, eyewitness accounts explained. The emergency came just seven weeks before his Netflix boxing match.The flight had already reportedly been delayed by two hours because the plane was too hot as a result of the weather in Miami. Tyson was witnessed being escorted on and off the flight before it was set to take off.The boxing legend was seen in American Airlines' Admirals Club before he boarded, which reportedly garnered a lot of fanfare in the area."There was a lot of buzz when he left the Admirals Club and got to the gate. A lot of fans recognized him, and a few people got pictures," a witness told In Touch Weekly. "He was very accommodating, and then he was escorted away from the gate because the flight was delayed because the gate person said that the plane was too hot because it had been sitting all day and had to cool down."Fast-forward to 30 minutes before the flight landed in Los Angeles, and flight personnel made an announcement asking if any medical technicians or doctors were aboard the plane. 'It's false reporting that his medical attention caused the flight delay.'"The flight issued an announcement asking for a doctor — the message even came on everyone's screens," the witness explained.Upon landing, the witness said that Tyson "had some kind of medical emergency on the plane and paramedics boarded." This caused a 25-minute delay as paramedics attended to Tyson in first class.Following the incident, a representative for the former heavyweight champion said that "thankfully," Tyson was "doing great."The issue was apparently an ulcer of Tyson's that had flared up."He became nauseous and dizzy due to an ulcer flare-up 30 minutes before landing," the representative said. "He is appreciative to the medical staff that were there to help him."The spokesperson also cleared up any previous reporting that Tyson had delayed the flight's takeoff."It's false reporting that his medical attention caused the flight delay," he added, per ESPN. "This two-hour delay was due to an air conditioning issue on the aircraft."Following the reports, Tyson took to his X account to declare that he was feeling better and then took a shot at opponent Jake Paul."Now feeling 100% even though I don't need to be to beat Jake Paul." — (@) Tyson has remained confident ahead of his July 20, 2024, fight with Paul at the AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas. The boxer has given fiery responses about his ability to draw fans and took shots at naysayers in an April interview."I'm 58 and what? I'm getting billions of views from just talking to somebody about fighting," he stated. "Everybody, even most of the athletes, they're jealous, that's whack. ... I say 'in your prime you couldn't draw a million people, man. What are you talking about, you couldn't sell out [an] arena.' Who at 58 could sell out an 80,000-seat arena?" Tyson said.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Don Lemon has stayed true to his colors and is still shilling for the media and the government — despite losing his coveted gig on CNN. He made this clear in an interview on "The Full Send Podcast," where the Nelk boys confronted him with some basic facts about the government’s disastrous COVID policies. “There’s a certain set of people that no matter what evidence is put in front of them as it pertains to COVID or as it pertains to the border or the economy or anything else — they will still run defense for the system,” Dave Rubin of "The Rubin Report" explains, before showing the embarrassing clip. One of the Nelk boys accused Lemon of being like Cuomo, very pro- “take the thing, do it,” about vaccines. “This whole argument about vaccines is a little weird to me because I think people are Monday-morning quarterbacking the idea of vaccines,” Lemon responded sheepishly, adding he thought that “instead of being selfish” people should have been “doing what was best for our fellow man.” “So, I think that the people who are questioning the use of masks, even in the moment, were being a bit selfish,” Lemon said, before repeating the commonly heard line that “there was no medical evidence that ivermectin could help save people from getting COVID, or prevent them from getting COVID, or had any effect on the COVID-19 vaccine.” “I believe in medicine, I believe in science, and I believe that my government is looking out for me and trying to do the best for me,” Lemon continued. “Shouldn’t other people have the right to not take the vaccine and not forced to put something in their body that they didn’t want?” the other Nelk boy asks, adding, “It seemed at the time like media was really shaming people if you didn’t get a vaccine, like it’s your fault.” “Well, I don’t know if the media was shaming people,” Lemon responded. “If you don’t get the vaccine, then don’t get the vaccine, but don’t expect to be able to do and go places,” he continued before being cut off. “Like make a living, right?” one of the boys asked. “I’ve watched that clip a couple of times, and it gets worse each time. I mean, he is on his knees blowing a system that literally fired him,” Rubin comments, shocked. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.