Rand Paul Schools Whoopi on Automatic Weapons

Senator Rand Paul was a featured guest Wednesday on the ultra-liberal daytime talk show The View. When the topic of gun control came up, the senator held his ground, informing one co-host about the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

"I just don't understand why anyone objects to getting rid of automatic weapons," Whoopi Goldberg, a handgun owner, exclaimed.

Goldberg’s belief that automatic weapons are available to the public exposes her ignorance on the issue. Like most liberals, her ignorance doesn’t preclude outrage or advocating for the regulation of guns.

Senator Paul kindly explained that automatic weapons are actually banned, and what the The View co-host must have meant was "semiautomatic" weapons.

Glenn and his co-hosts on The Glenn Beck Program had a bit of fun discussing the exchange.

"I would love to know from Whoopi Goldberg, I would love to know what kind of gun she has," Glenn posed. "Because unless it's a revolver, she owns a semiautomatic weapon."

Watch the exchange between Senator Paul and Whoopi Goldberg beginning around 4:28.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Rand Paul and Whoopi Goldberg had a fascinating conversation about guns that we have to get to. In fact, we're going to start there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Let's start with some good news on Rand Paul who is -- you know, is in my top three guys of who I could vote for. I could vote for -- and actually if Rand Paul was doing better in polls, I would say he's my number two guy. But as far as I am, full disclosure, policy-wise, it's Cruz, Rubio -- sorry -- Cruz, Paul, and then policy-wise, a distant third is Rubio. And the rest of them I don't think I could consider.

If I think of electability and policy be, it would be Cruz, Rubio, Paul. And I would have put Paul up there earlier if he hadn't just kind of fizzled out. I mean, he has -- unfortunately, he's nowhere to be seen. And I think this is a real tragedy.

But he is good. He is really good when he sits down for an interview and is going -- and you're arguing with him. Listen to him with Whoopi Goldberg on The View.

WHOOPI: I don't understand why anyone objects to getting rid of automatic weapons. Automatic weapons, they're not for hunting. They do nothing. They're not --

PAT: As if the Second Amendment was made for hunting.

GLENN: Right.

STU: It's a hunting clause. They call it the hunting --

GLENN: Sports and hunting. There wasn't bowling as we know it, at the time. Otherwise, that would have been the Third Amendment. Your right to bowl and go to bowling allies on Tuesday nights for our league shall not be infringed.

(laughter)

PAT: It's a pretty historically famous story, when James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, and Thomas Jefferson were sitting around. I think it was Gouverneur's pad one night.

GLENN: Pad?

PAT: And Tom said, "Jim, I don't know. We need something for hunters." And Gouv said, "Well, what about -- what if we let them have a gun so they can go out and shoot some deer from time to time?"

GLENN: You know what, let's make that the First Amendment. And that's when Jefferson knocked on the door and said, "No, you got to make it the second one. I have something about speech or something that I really want to do --

STU: It the right to pornography. We got to get that as the first one.

GLENN: That's right. There's going to be a guy in a golden wheelchair at some point that wants to show, you know, mama's jugs, and we got to get that in first place.

JEFFY: Amen.

(laughter)

PAT: And we call that the Jeffy Amendment.

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: So hang on. Before we go back. Whoopi is now talking about automatic weapons.

PAT: Automatic weapons.

GLENN: And we already have a ban on automatic weapons.

WHOOPI: -- are only there to kill. And you notice that a lot of things that happen, happen with automatic weapons.

GLENN: Can you stop for a second? She's so stupid.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Okay. So, first of all --

PAT: I just can't.

GLENN: -- the dumbest sentence of her mouth is not what you're thinking. I think the dumbest sentence of her mouth was, "Automatic weapons are only there to kill."

PAT: AR-15s, of course, the semiautomatic weapons are there to heal and as planters --

GLENN: Right.

STU: And handguns are known as the massage weapon.

(laughter)

GLENN: I mean, that's what a gun is for, to kill.

PAT: They're only there to kill. Stupid.

WHOOPI: -- why don't we say, "You know, who really needs to have one, other than people who are at war?"

(applause)

PAT: And then the lemming audience, every time, this drives me out of my mind. Oh, jeez.

JEFFY: Oh.

GLENN: You have to understand, I've been on that set. I was on -- I'm on that set. They have applause signs, and they have people to get the audience to applaud.

PAT: Jeez.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So they're trained to be lemmings.

STU: But even if they were lemmings completely and they just had no thought and were clapping, you could be excused maybe for not knowing the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons or whatever.

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: But when you're a commentator making a point on the air about how smart you are about guns and how dumb the other argument is, shouldn't you be mildly aware that what you're saying is completely wrong?

PAT: Yes, mildly.

JEFFY: And she always makes a big point of being a gun owner.

PAT: She does.

GLENN: And I'd like to know what kind of gun she has. Does she have a revolver? Does she have a revolver, or does she have a Glock? Because if she has a Glock or a Sig, she owns a semiautomatic weapon. Unless she has a revolver or a flintlock, I'll give her Cap 'N Ball as well, she owns a semiautomatic.

PAT: Wow. And nobody needs that. That's the other thing. Progressives always do something you don't need. Nobody needs this. Nobody needs more money. Nobody needs certain things.

Well, who are you to tell me what I need and what I don't need?

GLENN: I would love to know from Whoopi Goldberg -- I would love to know what kind of gun she has. Because unless it's a revolver, she owns a semiautomatic weapon.

PAT: Yeah.

RAND: Truly automatic weapons, we don't have. You know, we banned truly automatic weapons I think in 193- --

WHOOPI: Yeah, but we still got a lot of them, Rand.

RAND: Well, what we have are not automatic weapons. We have semiautomatics --

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Stop. How many automatic weapons do we -- how many fully automatic weapons, just ballpark it, Stu. You had this number for me a couple days ago.

STU: Yes. I actually have the same article up. Give me a second, and I can find it.

GLENN: Truly automatic weapons.

STU: Something like 160,000.

PAT: 160,000 or something like that.

GLENN: I was amazed at the number. I own two fully automatic weapons. And I was amazed at the number -- how small the number is. 160,000 fully automatic weapons.

STU: We should point out none of the attacks --

PAT: None. Since 1934. There hasn't been one since 1934.

GLENN: You're kidding me.

PAT: There's been no automatic weapon fire killing Americans in America since about -- well, since 1933. Then they banned them in '34.

STU: Right. There are some. There is 160,000 that still exits.

PAT: They still exist. They're just not killing anybody.

STU: They were banned in 1986.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Do you know why? Do you know why? Because to buy them, first of all, the government has inflated their price so to buy a used -- a gun that costs you $3,000 can cost you anywhere from ten to $30,000, depending on how much everybody is freaked out by Barack Obama. Okay. So they've inflated the price, and they've made it almost impossible for you to buy or to use. You have to -- the reason why you could have 160,000 of these weapons out is because the people who have them are really, really responsible. You're going into a store, you're not going in and buying a -- I mean, even if you're a drug dealer and you have $10,000 to lay down on this weapon, you're not buying it.

STU: And you're going through so many background -- it's so ridiculous to try -- one of the first things they did with this was you had to have the head of your local police force sign a document saying it was okay for you to have an automatic weapon.

GLENN: I'm -- I'm not sure --

STU: I'm not sure if that still applies, but that's one of the first --

GLENN: I'm not sure, but I think at least in Connecticut, maybe in Texas too, I think -- something makes me remember that I think I had to let the police department know that I had an automatic weapon.

STU: Oh, yeah. And there's all sorts of requirements like that. Drug dealers are not going in and getting legal automatic weapons. That's absolutely implausible.

GLENN: No.

JEFFY: And they're not letting the local police chief know they have it either.

STU: No.

GLENN: Right. And I will tell you this. I think your stat -- you should check with the border. I think with all the drug cartels. Because they're carrying now automatic weapons on our side of the border with the drug cartels.

PAT: Yeah, the drug cartels rarely kill people in America though. They kidnap them and take them to Mexico. But rarely do they kill their potential customers. It usually doesn't happen.

GLENN: Okay. Good one.

RAND: In a fairly fast sequence, but you can't pull the trigger and then come like a machine gun. Those are -- those are no longer out there.

WHOOPI: Okay. But you know what I'm saying.

RAND: Yeah. This is --

GLENN: No, I don't.

STU: Yes, we do know what you're saying. What you're saying is you don't know anything about the issue you're talking about.

PAT: What you're saying is stupid. Yeah.

STU: You're announcing it to everyone who does know something about the issue you're talking about.

PAT: And thank you for doing that.

GLENN: I wish he would have asked her, what kind of handgun do you have? Because that would have sealed it that she has no idea. Whoopi, what kind of handgun do you have? I don't know. It's a --

STU: It's a little black one.

GLENN: Does it have a revolver? Do you spin the chamber out, and do you put the six little bullets in and put it back in?

No, I put it in with the clip. I put the clip in the bottom of it. Okay. All right. Then you have a semiautomatic. I thought no one needed one of those.

STU: Guaranteed that's what she has.

GLENN: Guarantee it.

PAT: Oh, that would have shut it down completely.

GLENN: Shut it down completely.

RAND: People do hunt with them. And do shooting. And sport shooting and target shooting with these guns. And come to Kentucky, I'll introduce you to -- there are a lot of people who like and enjoy this as a sport. But the other problem is if we're going to take away ownership of specific types of guns, you really have to modify -- something that big has to either be legislation or even possibly a constitutional amendment. We can't allow one individual to do it, and I'll give you an example why.

Let's say we had a terrible president that you didn't like from another party, and that president said, "The View, oh, you should hear the things they're saying on The View. We should limit their speech. We should register the journalists, and then we should have an approval board." And, you know, that's silly. We would all be opposed to that. But that's the danger of letting a president make the rules.

PAT: Undeterred, here's how Whoopi finishes.

WHOOPI: Sorry, man. There's no reason anybody needs to have an automatic weapon. I'm sorry. I get everything else --

(applause)

PAT: She's just told they've been banned.

GLENN: She doesn't have any idea.

PAT: No idea.

GLENN: These people are so stupid. So stupid.

STU: And it's not just Whoopi Goldberg, by the way. Michael Bloomberg, the guy who is donating tens of millions of dollars to organizations to stop you having a gun has made the same mistake on television.

GLENN: No, he has.

STU: And several journalists have done it as well.

GLENN: And I'd like to ask Michael Bloomberg what kind of gun he carries because he has a carry permit. What kind of gun does Michael Bloomberg carry? Does he carry a six shooter?

PAT: No way. You know he doesn't.

STU: He has one with a bayonet on it.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. I've got to open up the powder tray and put some powder into it. Nobody needs more than one shot.

STU: You don't have to know every detail about guns. But if you're telling people that they have to restrict certain types of guns, you need to know what types they are. You need to understand whether they're already banned and have been since the 1930s. That's kind of a major issue. And you need to have a basic handle on that before you start running your mouth.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The View

​YOU made Target​ choose between profit and 'progress'

SOPA Images / Contributor, OZAN KOSE / Contributor | Getty Images

Have you seen Target's newest pride month collection? Don't worry, you don't have to break your hard-won boycott streak to satisfy your morbid curiosity. Glenn took a look during a recent radio show. If you remember last year's display, you might be expecting horrors such as tuck-friendly bathing suits, chest binders for girls, and apparel made by a transgender Satan apologist. Fortunately, that's not what Glenn found. Instead, the collection was very tame, with one item being a charcuterie board with the phrase, "It's giving charcuterie" printed on it. So what happened? Did Target have a come-to-Jesus moment over the last year?

You. You are what happened.

The Target boycotts did exactly what they were supposed to do, they punched Target right in the wallet. According to the New York Post, Target lost a whopping TEN BILLION dollars in just ten days. You stood up for what you believed and Target had no choice but to listen. And this year's pride collection is proof that they heard you loud and clear.

"The inmates are now in charge of the asylum."

Now, this doesn't represent some change in the ethos of the company, but rather a desperate step back to protect their financial interests. The problem Target is now facing is that they don't have a whole lot of room to step back, as they have spent years cultivating a left-wing, progressive culture that really wants Target to take two steps forward instead. As Glenn said, "The inmates are now in charge of the asylum." These progressive activists within their company that they have pandered to for years don't take being told "no" very well. So when Target rolled back its pride collection, the internal backlash was immense.

Glenn's team was given access to leaked internal messaging within Target's Slack channel. The messages show the outcry of Target employees after Target announced they would be reducing the pride collection. Based on their reactions you would think they had just witnessed a national tragedy unfold. Some employees questioned if they could still work for Target after what had happened (remember, Target is still a VERY progressive company), and other employees discussed submitting ethics complaints. About a month after the internal firestorm, Target employees sent the following list of demands to leadership so that Target could atone:

  • An acknowledgment in writing, of the harm Target caused to the LGBTQ+ community.
  • A sincere apology.
  • To partner with prominent LGBTQ advocacy groups.
  • To immediately reinstate the Pride collection in full.
  • To donate to LGBTQ causes.
  • To implement sensitivity training for employees.
  • To cease all contributions to politicians and organizations that do not support the LGBTQ community.

Target has made a mistake.

By cultivating such a radical progressive community, they have placed themselves in a precarious position. On one side, there's the progressive monster they cultivated, with its ever-growing, ever-changing list of demands. On the other side, there are people like you—people who just want to shop without having to walk by transgender children's underwear. The more Target gives to the woke monster, the more they alienate their customers. Now Target is trapped—if they give in further to the woke mob, they'll lose billions of dollars, but if they don't, they'll be attacked from the inside.

So let Target serve as an example to other companies. Customers have a voice too, and when you stand up and use it, a great many things can happen.

Whatever happened to "do no harm?"

Last month, Glenn hosted a powerful Glenn TV special exposing malpractice and fudged consent standards among members in WPATH, the world's largest transgender health organization. Now that it's pride month, LGBTQ+ activists around the world are continuing their attempt to normalize life-altering transgender surgeries and hormone therapy as a legitimate option for minors experiencing gender confusion. However, as Glenn exposed in The Reckoning: Gender-Affirming Care, WPATH members are not only ideologically motivated to forego medical standards like "informed consent" to push transgender surgeries and hormone therapy on minors; they are financially incentivized to do so.

These "gender experts" are willing to bend the rules to do their dark work, and hospitals are turning a blind eye and rake in the cash. Here are 10 children's hospitals across the U.S. currently performing transgender procedures on minors:

1. Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago

We provide services including pubertal suppression, menstrual suppression, hormone therapy, and referrals for gender-affirming surgery.

Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago Gender Development Clinical Services page

2. Children’s Wisconsin

The most common care plans include ongoing psychological, emotional or social support. In some cases, our services may include reversible puberty-suppressing hormone therapy, gender-affirming hormone therapy and speech/voice training

Children's Wisconsin Gender Health Clinic page

3. Connecticut Children’s Hospital

The Division of Plastic Surgery at Connecticut Children’s offers surgical options for gender affirmation to individuals who have documented and persistent gender dysphoria. Gender incongruence occurs when a person’s sex assigned at birth does not correspond to the gender with which they identify. Gender affirmation operations are a group of surgical procedures that may be appropriate for transgender and gender diverse people to help affirm their gender identity.

Connecticut Children’s Hospital Gender Affirmation Surgery page

4. Doernbecher Children’s Hospital: Oregon Health and Science University

Our clinic accepts new patients through age 18. Our pediatricians, pediatric endocrinologists, adolescent medicine doctors and psychologists specialize in providing team-based care for children and teens.

Doernbecher Children’s Hospital: Doernbecher Gender Services

5. Golisano Children’s Hospital; associated with the University of Rochester Medicine

Gender Health Services coordinates with other divisions and departments to provide personal comprehensive care for our youth and young adults through age 26.
-Cross-gender Hormone Therapy: Gender Health Services provides cross-gender hormone therapy. We consult as needed with Pediatric or Adult Endocrinology
-Pubertal Blockade
-Mental Health Assessment: Referrals and coordinated care
-Surgical Services: Referrals and coordination of care (as medically necessary)Gender-affirming Top -Surgery: Plastic Surgery or Breast Surgery
-Vocal Therapy: Speech Pathology

Golisano Children’s Hospital: Gender Health Services

6. NYU Langone’s Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital

We help children and their families understand and explore their identity, with the goal of helping them achieving a true and nuanced sense of self. We want children to understand and value themselves, so that they can develop the confidence to talk with others about their sexual orientation and gender identity.

NYU Langone’s Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital Gender & Sexuality Service page

7. Seattle Children’s Hospital

We accept new patients ages 9 to 17.75 at the time of referral who have already started puberty. Patients ages 17.75 and older and patients who have not yet started puberty will be directed to community resources. Our clinic primarily provides gender-affirming medical care (such as puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones).

Seattle Children’s Hospital Gender Clinic page

8. Stanford Medicine Children’s Health

This multidisciplinary clinic provides medical services for gender nonconforming youths and their families in one central location. The expert members of the Gender Clinic team consists of providers from pediatric endocrinology, adolescent medicine, pediatric urology and social services, supporting each child’s or adolescent’s gender identity. All our providers are members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Stanford Medicine Children’s Health Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Clinic page

9. St. Luke’s Children’s Hospital

DSD (Differences in sexual development) encompasses conditions in which a person is born with sexual and/or reproductive anatomy that is not consistent with typical definitions of male or female anatomy. This may include atypical or ambiguous genitalia, unusual chromosome patterns, or differences in internal reproductive or urinary organ development. Our team provides hormonal therapy, mental health evaluation, and surgical consultations for patients with DSD.

St. Luke's Children's Essence Clinic page

10. University of Illinois Hospital

We are here to work with you to determine how to best meet your goals of external gender presentation. We want you to feel and be as prepared as possible while you take these important steps towards surgery.

University of Illinois Hospital Gender Affirming Surgery page

Why is my name on this deep state-backed Ukraine 'disinformation watch list'?

Chris Williamson / Contributor, Janos Kummer / Stringer | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

On Thursday, Texty.org, a so-called independent media outlet with an editor-in-chief who has ties to the U.S. State Department, placed dozens of American politicians, activists, and media outlets — including Blaze Media and myself — on a list of those who have allegedly shared Russian disinformation and anti-Ukrainian statements. The outlet published an article titled, "Roller Coaster: From Trumpists to Communists. The forces in the U.S. impeding aid to Ukraine and how they do it."

We have a color revolution happening within our own country.

There are 75 individuals on the list with the nearly 400 entities that have opposed sending aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Blaze Media and I were mentioned on page 34 of a 47-page list.

The group admits it couldn’t establish direct, proven ties between most of the entities on the list and the Russian government or known Russian propagandists. Instead, it gathered “evidence” that these people and outlets have spread Russian disinformation by echoing key messages of Russian propaganda in their arguments for ending further aid to Ukraine.

Who exactly are the people behind Texty.org? Its cofounder Anatoly Bondarenko was involved in the "tech camp," a public diplomacy program established by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the State Department. The tech camp is very much part of the State Department’s efforts to foment “color revolutions” in other countries. They find “tech-savvy people” and show them how to build movements against their governments. That's what our State Department is doing. What a coincidence that the editor-in-chief and cofounder was trained by the State Department and has ties to USAID.

I did a "Glenn TV" special a few weeks ago about regime change. It's been the United States' policy for a very long time. We use covert CIA operations to go into foreign counties and influence policy, manipulate the foreign media, meddle with and topple governments. We never admit that we do these things. When asked, we say, "We didn't do that. What are you talking about?"

It begins with those in the government who want to overthrow a regime.

This strategy started with the Cold War, but nothing the CIA has pulled off comes even close to what its successor began doing: the United States government, including the CIA, NGOs, trade unions, and people like George Soros. They coordinate together to bring about color revolutions. The first one that was really successful was in the Middle East: the Arab Spring. I told my audience years ago that the Arab Spring had its roots in 20th-century communist revolutions. After the “Communist Manifesto” was written, there was the European spring, which was the communists’ attempt to overthrow all of Europe.

We've carried out color revolutions in the Middle East, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Ukraine is one of them. Here’s how they do it. The United States keeps its distance from the “dirty work” by going through NGOs and trade unions. They train and mobilize street movement — like the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots or the current pro-Palestinian protests. These movements are funded by the same people and seem to pop up every four years.

Their money and actions usually come at a time of massive civil unrest right before an election. There's some kind of government element at the top — whether it be the CIA, the State Department, or USAID — but ultimately the office of the president calls the shots.

It begins with those in the government who want to overthrow a regime, and then the operation is privatized to give it distance from those in the government who are in charge.

This is where NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy come in. The National Endowment for Democracy is composed of four different entities: the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, and the Center for International Private Enterprise. Do you see what's happening here? It appears that the National Endowment for Democracy is composed of organizations from both sides of the aisle so it looks fair: Republican and Democrat, labor and private enterprise. But this is a bipartisan “cover story.”

Next on the food chain are the multibillion-dollar financiers and their organizations that partner in the entire operation. This is where George Soros comes in along with his organizations, the Open Society Foundations, and the Tides Foundation, which spread the message coming from the top: “Demonstrate in the streets!” They influence the media to report what the government wants to communicate to the masses.

This is the color revolution blueprint. We've done it many times, and I make the case that these same people are doing it here in America.

So, why am I on this list? I believe I'm on this list because I’m telling you exactly what’s happening.

We have a color revolution happening within our own country. Our government, NGOs, George Soros, and all the same actors used to initiate color revolutions abroad are now initiating a color revolution within the U.S.

This is what they've practiced in foreign nations, tested in 2020, and are doing right now ahead of the November presidential election. They might succeed this time because they can't have Donald Trump as president again. If he wins, you will have the government, the media, and the masses in street movements all saying that the election was illegitimate. This is how we've brought about regime change in foreign nations, and now it is being attempted on our own soil.

Top FIVE public figures calling out woke mob

Patrick McDermott / Stringer, Matt Winkelmeyer / Staff, Cooper Neill / Contributor | Getty Images

As Glenn says, there is balance in all things. The further the pendulum swings one way, the stronger the counter-force grows.

For the past decade, the pendulum has been swinging left so fast that it has been hard to keep up with. What's considered progressive and woke one day is suddenly old-fashioned and intolerant the next. Fortunately, many people (such as yourself) have seen the writing on the wall and have taken a stand against the woke mob that drags us closer and closer to tyranny, despite personal risk.

Some of these people have taken a stand despite being in the public eye, at the height of their careers, and having everything to lose. For these people, it would have been easier (not to mention more profitable) to stay quiet, keep their heads down, and do what they're told. But they didn't. Instead, they risked it all to make a stand against wokism. This is where we see the tide turning, the pendulum slowing, and perhaps starting to swing the other way. This is where we begin to take America back.

These are the top five public figures who have recently made a stand against the woke mob:

Harrison Butker

In his now famous commencement address to the graduating class of 2024 at Benedictine College, Kansas City Chief Kicker, Harrison Butker stood up for his religious values (and assumingly, the values of the students at this Catholic College). Butker criticized the president and media for perpetuating "degenerate values" and promoted traditional family values. For this, he was vilified by the media.

Jerry Seinfeld

Comedian Jerry Seinfeld has come under fire for defending his values several times over the last several months. During his commencement speech at Duke University that made the rounds on the internet a few weeks ago, Seinfeld was met with protests and walkouts by the pro-Palestine crowd due to his public support of Israel. Seinfeld has also received criticism for an interview with the New Yorker during which he blamed "the extreme left and P.C. crap" for the absence of quality comedy on television.

Joe Mazzulla

The NBA finals between the Dallas Mavericks and the Boston Celtics are the hot sporting event at the moment. The head coach of the Celtics, Joe Mazzulla, is an outspoken Catholic and speaks frequently about his faith. In a recent interview, Mazzulla was asked if he felt that it was significant that the head coaches for both teams were black, to which he responded "I wonder how many of those have been Christian coaches?"

Aaron Rodgers

NFL Quarterback Aaron Rodgers caught flack in 2021 for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine and going on air to defend his decision. He also criticized "woke culture" for being so easily offended. Rodgers has admitted that he lost money, friends, and media allies on a podcast with Joe Rogan since becoming outspoken about his beliefs. Rogers has continued to be vocal over issues concerning the vaccine and has championed other athletes who have spoken against vaccination.

Russell Brand

UK actor and comedian Russell Brand has faced recent criticism from the mainstream media for speaking his mind on several controversial issues. Brand started during the pandemic when he began posting videos on his YouTube channel that were critical of the way governments across the world were handling the crisis. Since then, Brand has defended his stance on COVID-19, called out woke corporations, and even converted to Christianity.