All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 14, 2021 - Epoch Times
17:59
This is How The Mainstream Media Twists the Truth (Part 2)| Larry Elder
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Now, when we talk about media bias, we're normally talking about stories that the media just screws up.
Stories that typically hurt Republicans, but they get their facts wrong.
I wish it were that simple.
It is cultural.
It is deeper.
It is a mindset.
Now, we've given you five outstanding examples of media bias.
Here are five more outstanding examples of media bias.
Number one, the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes.
What percent of all federal income taxes is paid by the top 1%?
I was at a party once, met a woman named Irene.
Irene was complaining about how she felt rich people didn't pay their fair share in taxes.
I said, I don't know if you qualify me as rich, but I do okay.
I got a question for you.
Of all federal income taxes, what percentage is paid by the top 1%?
These are people that are making about $350,000 or more, I told her.
She says, oh, I don't think very much.
I said, ballpark it.
She said, maybe 1%, maybe 2%.
I said, you think the top 1%, those Americans making about $350,000 or more, contribute only 1% or 2% to all the federal income tax revenues?
She said, yeah, I think so.
They all have fancy lawyers.
I kept waiting for her to say, Larry, what's the answer?
She never answered it.
Do you know why she didn't answer it?
She didn't want to know.
She wanted to keep the mindset that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes, yada, blah, etc.
Do you know what the answer is?
Here are the facts.
The top 5%, those making more than $150,000, pay 60% of all federal income taxes.
The top 1%, those making more than $380,000 a year, according to the IRS, pay 40% of all federal income taxes End of quote.
Like Irene, most Americans are completely ignorant about the taxes paid by the top 1%.
Investor's Business Daily, the business publication, did a poll to find out how many Americans actually knew the top 1% pay about 40% of the income taxes.
It's what they found out.
The poll found 36% of Americans thought the rich paid 10% or less of all federal income taxes.
15% thought the rich paid between 10% and 20%.
10% thought the rich share was between 20% and 30%.
Only 12% of those polled thought the rich paid 40% or more of taxes.
End of quote.
Economist Thomas Sowell cites several examples in which presidents, including a Democrat, cut taxes and it generated revenue.
And the disastrous wealth tax enacted by French President Francois Hollande should have been a warning.
Republican Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon argued for lower tax rates in the 20s.
Democratic President John Kennedy argues for cuts in the tax rates in the 1960s.
Republican President Ronald Reagan, lower tax rates in the 80s.
And then George W. Bush lowers tax rates once again in the 2000s.
Four experiments, as it were, won by a Democrat.
In each of those four cases, what was the effect on the economy?
The effect on the economy was to increase the rate of growth, increase the revenue received by the government.
The rich not only paid more taxes after the tax cuts for the rich, as they call it, they paid a higher percentage of all taxes.
And this started back in the 1920s.
In the early 20s, the tax rate on the top income was 73%.
And the people making over $100,000 paid something like 30% of all taxes.
By the end of the decade, the tax rate on the top had been cut to 24%.
People making over $100,000 now paid 65% of all taxes.
And the reason is quite simple, that when you have the tax rate at 73%, people simply don't pay it.
They put their money into tax-exempt securities and arranged their financial affairs.
So what we're really talking about, do you want a symbolic high tax rate on the high-income people to win votes politically, which the rich themselves are not going to pay?
Or do you really want more tax revenue coming into the government?
Number two, the rich are greedy and selfish.
The rich are greedy, the rich are selfish.
I was getting my hair cut in a beauty shop once.
A woman next to me is complaining about how rich people are selfish and greedy.
And I said, really?
Let me ask you something.
As between liberals and conservatives, who gives more of their time?
Who gives more of their money?
She said, no liberals.
I said, actually, it's been studied, and it turns out conservatives give way more money and donate way more time than do liberals.
And she promptly said, well, that's because they have more money.
I said, actually, the average household income and net worth of a liberal is slightly higher than the average net worth of a conservative.
And then she changed the subject.
Another woman walked in.
I said, excuse me, I'm just having a conversation with this young lady here.
I want to get your opinion.
As between liberals and conservatives, which group do you think gives more money and more time to charity?
And she said, well, liberals.
I said, actually, conservatives give more time and more money than do liberals.
And she said, well, that's probably because they have more money.
The same thing the other woman said.
And I told her it wasn't true.
The average net worth of a liberal is slightly higher than the average net worth of a conservative.
She changed the subject.
Arthur C. Brooks wrote a book called Who Really Cares?
He was a public policy professor at Syracuse University.
Decided to do a study to find out whether or not liberals are more generous than conservatives, he assumed they would be, was shocked when his results came back.
And it turns out, conservatives give far more money than do liberals, And donate far more time than do liberals.
Why?
Well, conservatives believe that government should tend to its initial responsibilities and leave dealing with the needy to individuals.
So they talk the talk and walk the walk.
The other big reason that Brooks found is that conservatives were far more religious than liberals.
Religious liberals gave just as much money and time as did conservatives, but there were just far few religious liberals.
Look at the data.
Charity differences between religious and secular people persist.
The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular.
Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times.
To put this in perspective, religious people are just 33% of the population, but make up 52% of donations and 45% of the times volunteered.
Secular people are 26% of the population, but contribute 13% of the dollars and 17% of the times volunteered.
End of quote.
Number three, the media...
And guns.
The media routinely tells us that every year, roughly 30,000 Americans die because of gun violence.
Half of those, by the way, are suicides.
And I maintain that a determined suicide, and I think studies prove this, will find a means to kill himself or herself if he or she is sufficiently motivated.
So let's concentrate on the 15,000, shall we?
15,000 Americans die every year because of firearms.
How many Americans are alive every year because of firearms?
How many Americans use guns to defend themselves and feel that but for the firearm, they would have been dead or suffered serious bodily injury?
After the horrible Sandy Hook shooting, Barack Obama authorized the CDC to look at existing research to find out how often Americans use guns to defend themselves.
Here's what the CDC said.
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals.
with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year." Now, I did a documentary called Michael and Me to address some of the misleading stuff in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.
Michael Moore said publicly, I'll debate any Republican on guns.
We contacted him.
He said he'd debate me.
And then we couldn't contact him.
We couldn't reach him.
He wouldn't come.
So I found out he was giving us a speech at a local bookstore in Santa Monica.
So I decided to ambush him the way he ambushed other people.
And here's what happened.
Let me tell you a story.
In January 2003, Ivan Thompson, a career criminal with 19 prior convictions, broke into the Brooklyn home of Ron Dixon.
Ron found him in his two-year-old son's bedroom, rifling through the drawers.
So I quickly called 911.
I have a trust officer.
What fellow?
Brooklyn.
No!
I fired at him twice.
He fell down the stairs and he laid at the bottom of the stairs.
Thompson survived the shooting and was sent to prison.
Ron is a Wall Street worker and Navy veteran and has never been in trouble with the law.
But he was convicted of criminal possession of a firearm.
He also went to prison.
Jail?
You gotta be crazy.
He should never be going to jail.
Never.
He was protecting his family and his house.
It's not fair.
It's not fair at all.
To have to go to jail for the price of defending your family, you know, it's...
It just really scares me a lot.
Mr.
Moore, you know this kid?
His name is Kyle.
His father, Ron, used a firearm to defend him because someone was trying to break into the home.
This happens hundreds of thousands of times a year, wondering whether or not she might owe Mr.
Kesson an apology.
You know, actually what happens is there's hundreds of thousands of kids.
Who are in jeopardy every day because there's hundreds of thousands of guns in people's homes.
My question is, how many people a year do you think are alive?
Larry Elder.
How many people do you think are alive in America because of family or loved ones?
He didn't know.
He didn't care.
It didn't matter.
It ruins the narrative.
Number four, the left is more tolerant.
The left is more open-minded.
Let's test this theme and see if it holds up.
Three-quarters of single Democrats won't date Trump voters' survey fines.
71% of single Democrat Party voters said they were very unlikely even to consider dating a person who voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
By contrast, three-quarters of GOP-leaning voters said they would either consider dating a Democrat or they already have in the past.
End of quote.
Really?
Check out some of these stories.
This one's from Campus Reform.
Nearly half of Dartmouth Democrats don't want a conservative roommate.
45% of Democrats said they would be uncomfortable sharing a room with someone who holds opposing political views.
69% of Republicans said they would be completely comfortable With that arrangement.
How about this one?
Did you know if you're in academia and you are conservative, at least in the philosophy field, according to a new study, you're going to be discriminated against by your fellow liberal philosophy professors.
Look at this.
In papers, grants, and hiring, conservatives face discrimination in philosophy departments, study fines.
The study shows nearly 75 percent of philosophy professors are left-leaning.
A majority, 56 percent of the left-leaning philosophers, expressed a willingness to discriminate against their right-leaning peers in hiring decisions, at least occasionally.
They said they were willing to discriminate against their conservative colleagues in the review of papers, assessment of grant applications, symposia invitations, and hiring decisions." End of quote.
And what about employers who refuse to hire Trump supporters?
Quote, end of quote.
And how does the typical liberal feel about the typical Republican politician?
And how does the typical Republican conservative feel about the typical liberal Democrat politician?
University of Michigan uses a scale from 0 to 100.
0 meaning bad, 100 meaning they're a saint.
Extreme liberals gave President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in 2004 an average of 15 and 16 on a scale from 0 to 100.
Sixty percent of these extreme liberals gave Bush and Cheney a zero.
For perspective, the then-still-alive Saddam Hussein got an average score of eight from all Americans, which means that extreme liberals only rated Bush and Cheney a little bit higher than Saddam Hussein.
But extreme conservatives rated Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1998 with an average reading of 45.
Much higher than the average reading that extreme liberals gave of Messrs Bush and Cheney.
How tolerant is that?
Number five.
What is up with this term African-American?
Who started it?
When did it start?
My suspicion is it started when Jesse Jackson decided that black people were too insecure to be called black.
And now we're called African-Americans.
What is that?
Remember what Teddy Roosevelt said about hyphenated Americans?
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americans.
I do not refer to naturalized Americans.
Some of the best I've ever known were naturalized Americans.
But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.
Our allegiance must be purely to the United States.
We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.
The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic.
He has no place here, and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart allegiance, the better it will be for every good American." I once interviewed a reporter with the LA Times, and I asked him, under what circumstances do you use the term black and do you use the term African American?
And he was white and he said, well, we asked the individual how he wants to be referred.
I said, I've been interviewed a number of times by papers.
No one's ever said you want to be called black or African-American.
So I don't think he was telling the truth, but let's assume he were.
I said, what is your ethnic background?
He said, well, my great-grandparents came from Russia.
I said, so you're a Russian-American.
I said, do you ever call yourself that?
He said, well, no.
I said, I assure you, my people have been in this country longer than your people have.
Why do I have a dash, but you don't?
He didn't have a particularly good answer.
Now, I double-dog dare you to call Smokey Robinson an Uncle Tom.
Watch this.
God knows we've earned the right to be called American Americans and be free at last.
And rather than you moving forward with progress, you're dwelling in the past.
We've struggled too long.
We've come too far.
Instead of focusing on who we were, let's be proud of who we are.
We're the only people whose name is always a trend.
When is this shit going to end?
Look at all the different colors of our skin.
Black is not our color.
It's our core.
It's what we've been living and fighting and dying for.
But if you choose to be called African American, and that's your preference, then I give you that reference.
But I know on this issue I don't stand alone on my own.
And if I do, then let me be me.
And I'd appreciate it if when you see me, you say, there goes a man who says it loud.
I'm black.
I'm black.
I'm a black American, and I'm proud.
Because I love being an American.
And I love being black.
I love being called black.
Yeah, I said it.
And I don't take it back.
Now, speaking of Uncle Tom, ta-da!
My new documentary, Uncle Tom, comes out on June 19th.
Check out UncleTom.com.
We have three trailers up there.
Here's one.
I don't remember the actual day, but I remember the emotion that I felt when it happened.
I'm often asked, was there an epiphany?
I started asking questions.
As I became more politically aware.
A lot of the way that I saw things began to change.
All of this information I've been taking in for several years.
A continuation of these kind of contradictions.
I had bought into all of these lies.
You begin to see what the real agenda is.
That's usually how that red pilling process begins.
Black America is starting to get it.
People are starting to realize what's going on.
Coming to a theater near you.
I'm Larry Elder, and we've got a country to save.
▲
Export Selection