March 20, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
02:21:56
3624 True News: Week In Review - March 19th, 2017
0:30 - Secret Service Laptop Theft/White House Intruders8:31 - Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly: Friend of DACA10:20 - Judicial Activism to Double Refugee Numbers18:33 - NYS Right To Be Forgotten Bill30:55 - Turkey’s Threats Against Europe43:25 - France Survey Details48:24 - Venezuela Bakery Nationalization58:42 - Eric Idle vs. Climate Change Skeptics1:07:45 - Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson Virtue Signaling1:17:47 - Illegal Immigrants “Going Hungry” – Avoiding Food Stamps1:32:12 - California School Bans Tag1:38:11 - New York School to Abolish Teacher Literacy Test1:47:03 - Donna Brazile Comes Clean2:00:10 - Steve King Tweet Controversy2:05:53 - Texas Legislation to Fine Male Masturbation2:15:43 - Michael Brown Documentary ControversySources: http://www.fdrurl.com/week-in-review-2017-03-19Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
It is Michael DeMarco and Stefan Molyneux here for what is a new concept that we're going to try.
So we certainly want your feedback on this.
Our weekly news roundup show.
All the news and information that is kind of important and certainly worth putting a spotlight on, yet not enough for us to do a single, solitary, dedicated show on it.
So welcome, Stefan, to our new concept show.
Yeah, I appreciate that, Mike.
And it kind of comes from the idea that if we enjoy chatting this much with each other, we might as well share it.
And so we're going to talk about this stuff anyway, figuring out what we should put on our show.
So why not share the joy of the conversations and give you some of the lunacy that is going on in the news these days.
So why don't we just jump straight in?
First, today we have an interesting story regarding the Secret Service.
So on Thursday morning, a laptop computer containing floor pans for Trump Tower evacuation protocols, that sounds important, information about Hillary Clinton's email investigation, also sounds important, and other national security information was stolen from a Secret Service agent's vehicle, which was, where was it?
It was parked in the driveway of her home.
Her home.
Her home.
Two of the sources said some items stolen from the vehicle included a set of lapel pins that allow agents entry into security perimeters around dignitaries protected by the Secret Service.
Not important at all.
I'd leave that in the backseat of my car, absolutely.
Do you think the car was locked just out of curiosity?
I mean, do you think they even bothered locking it?
If this was the Secret Service of decades ago, maybe now who the heck knows.
But here's the thing, too.
Like, why do they even care?
Surely the laptop is encrypted.
Surely the laptop has, like, near-unbreakable passwords.
Like, if not, I don't quite understand what Secret Service means anymore.
If it's just like, oh, yeah, you know, it's an open-text USB drive just I left lying around in an unlocked vehicle.
I mean, surely this stuff should be bolted down.
Well, given the government's track record of information security lately, even if they do have some level of encryption, you could just take one of those CIA tools that have been developed that are now floating out on the black market and try and break into it in some way, shape, or form.
Listen, let's not joke about that because it's really, really tough being a blackmailer.
It's tough.
computer.
It's tough being a blackmailer and some sort of black ops guy.
The fact that the CIA has taken, generously taken, taxpayer money, developed a huge number of tools for breaking into other people's computers and getting at their communications, and charitably released it to the entire criminal element of the planet is very kind.
Welfare should not just be for law-buying citizens.
We need welfare for the underworld as well, and I think that's a very nice thing they did.
I personally am losing sleep over all the Nigerian email scammers that are now going to have to either step up their game or find a new line of work, given that the market for blackmail just went down significantly.
The CIA hacking tools are so good, you don't just get an email from a Nigerian prince.
What happens is you get an email and you wake up in the trunk of a car in Nigeria.
That is how good.
It just sucks you through the pipes.
Are you aware of my nightmare from last night, Steph?
I try to send them as best I can using the odd voodoo magic that happens.
Now, apparently the lapel pins that allow agents access to the security perimeters were recovered in the vicinity soon after the break-in.
So I guess that's good.
I don't know if that stuff can be quickly key coded or if this was some smash and grab type thing or someone that strategically grabbed this stuff, you know, got what information they needed to reproduce it off of it and then just ditched it.
So they were less concerned, but they were recovered.
The fact that they don't even know, like, was this a targeted job where they like, oh, wow, you know, this is a secret service agent's house.
Well, it shouldn't matter.
If it's a targeted job, they shouldn't.
I mean, first of all, they shouldn't know where you live.
And even if they don't know where you live, who cares?
Because you shouldn't have this stuff in your car.
It shouldn't be available to anyone.
So the fact that they don't even know if it was just some random smash and grab or whether it was a targeted thing.
Oh, man, it was so bad.
Well, it gets worse.
One person who's in contact with the Secret Service said that an agency-used radio used for secure closed-circuit communications was also among the stolen items.
And they're not sure if that's been recovered or not.
So, you know, the private radio that the Secret Service uses to communicate, someone may have it or may have the channel or may be able to reproduce the channel.
Now, can they switch to a different radio?
Can they switch to a different channel?
How easy is that to do?
How much additional money is that going to cost?
How many headaches are that going to cause?
Is that going to cause additional security problems in and of itself?
I don't know.
I just know it's not good.
And maybe you shouldn't leave this stuff in the backseat of your car.
It's weird when more than the Secret Service, the NSA, the CIA and 18 other security agencies can actually listen to secure communications.
You want to keep it to like 18 or so agencies with, of course, Barack Obama's flood all the raw data among all the agencies just to make sure that some of it's going to leak through to the media.
But, you know, 18 agencies loosely leaking to the media plus one other guy.
Oh, that one other guy, that to me is like, that's the straw that breaks the camel's back for security.
I'm personally fine with 19 agencies spying on me, but you get to 20 and I get really pissed off all of a sudden.
So the police source continued and said, "The Secret Service is very heavily involved in citing national security.
There's very little we have on our side.
It's a very big deal.
There's data on there that's highly sensitive.
They're scrambling like mad.
Yay." Fantastic.
So, this is in the mists of last week, a California guy climbed over the White House fence and managed to roam undetected on the grounds for how long, Steph?
Oh, 17 minutes.
Yeah, 17 minutes he was roaming around the White House lawn after jumping the fence, and Secret Service agents appeared to ignore several alarms.
I don't want to hear Secret Service agents ignoring alarms in a sentence ever.
And just to show you how great security is at the White House...
Another person today, Saturday, when we're recording this, jumped the barrier in front of the White House and it resulted in another full lockdown of the entire White House complex.
So that's not good.
That fence that Barack Obama ordered, I think, a year and a half ago, they were going to raise the fence around the White House.
That can't come soon enough.
And given the complete and total media hysteria around Donald Trump, They need to make sure they're not ignoring any alarms and intruders on White House grounds.
Well, and remember, Barack Obama can legitimately order for a fence to be raised and strengthened because a fence is different from a wall.
Like, he doesn't want people coming into his area because they might be, you know, negative or dangerous and so on.
Maybe they just want an autograph, or maybe they, you know, want to carve him up like a Halloween pumpkin.
But because he calls it a fence rather than a wall, it's not hypocritical in any way, shape, or form.
It's just really important to remember that.
Well, they don't get any special voting privileges if they sneak onto the White House lawn compared to if they're just in Washington, D.C. So got to keep them outside of the White House grounds.
Now, Trump does have some suspicion, I would guess, about the efficacy and efficiency and honor and legitimacy and dedication of at least some portion of the security agencies of the United States.
He may be reforming those.
I wonder if...
Secret Service agents appearing to ignore several alarms, if that has anything to do with the fact that he might be gunning to make them just a little bit more efficient over time.
Well, remember, we had that female Secret Service agent, another female Secret Service agent, I'll just point that out, who not too long ago said she wouldn't take a bullet for the president because she didn't like him.
And she caught all kinds of hack and never really heard out how that flushed out.
If she was fired, I hope she was fired, just like I hope the person that left this stuff in their car was fired.
But, you know, that happened.
That's kind of disconcerting.
And there's a whole lot of stuff regarding the Secret Service.
I mean, Trump has retained his own kind of private security team.
So he's trusting and has praised the Secret Service, but not trusting enough that he's going to use that as his sole option to protect himself, his person, and his family.
A woman fired for breaking security protocols?
Dear God, Mike, a woman was almost hired to be head of the American government who broke security protocols.
I'm not sure that's a big standard thing for them.
It's amazing that Trump got in, given that that seems to be a requirement to be in any high office in the United States, breaking some kind of law or breaking security protocols.
But Steph, it's okay because Donald Trump paid his taxes 10 years ago or something of the sort, so that's equivalent.
Okay, John Kelly.
Yeah, this is another story which is pretty frightening.
So Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, appointed by Donald Trump, made some comments about immigration enforcement, specifically the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Dreamers program that everyone is very, very concerned about.
And that's for children and are here illegally, but, you know, they're children.
So what do you do?
Well, they let them stay, or they have been letting them stay.
Obama had this Dreamers program, and lots of people want that repealed or rescinded.
Okay, well, Secretary John Kelly said...
If you don't like the laws we are enforcing, and I don't like many of them, please, please, please change the law.
I'm the best thing that ever happened to DACA, D-A-C-A. It is still on the books.
And this is a report of a private conversation, so again, take this with a slight grain of salt.
But here you have the person whose responsibility it is to enforce immigration laws outright saying he doesn't like many of the immigration laws, virtue signaling that he doesn't like the immigration laws, and saying that, oh, the reason why the Dreamers program is still here is I'm the best thing that ever happened to it.
So, yay!
Fantastic!
But if you don't like the law, you can change it.
That's kind of concerning.
You know, I've always been told, if you don't like the system, you know, just run for office and Or at least, you know, advocate for somebody who's running for office that you like.
And go in there, make the case, and change the laws.
Now...
We'll get to this in a bit, but the law is pretty clear that the head of the government, the president, has control over immigration.
So Trump is trying to do that, and he's not being allowed to by a variety of pretty activist lefty judges.
A federal district court judge in Maryland is considering whether he should order President Donald Trump to double the annual inflow of refugees up to 100,000 per year.
Now, I wasn't aware that Disric court judges have the jurisdiction to dictate immigration policy.
Apparently they do.
To the president, who clearly constitutionally has control over immigration.
And to the American people that, you know, have to pay for those 100,000 refugees.
A judge sitting on a bench can just say, this is what we're doing.
I'm going to issue an order.
I don't think that's how it works, but nonetheless, the plaintiffs have requested 100,000 refugees each year.
And now, who are the plaintiffs in this, Kate?
Oh, oh, oh, wait, wait!
The International Refugee Assistance Project, Steph, which is paid by federal agencies to import refugees.
So, we are paying the Internal Refugee Assistance Project.
We're paying them to settle refugees so they can take some of the funds that they make from settling refugees to sue the federal government, which is paying them to take more refugees so they can get more money.
Well, and there is, of course, reason to be concerned when you have unelected judges ordering presidents to do something without any public review and without any possibility really of being voted out or anything like that.
Unelected people ordering policy seems kind of fascistic to me.
So I'm sure Antifa will be right out there protesting this job.
No, no, they won't be, because they're really just anti-conservatives, or anti-borders, or pro-globalists, or communists, or whatever, right?
But yeah, these unelected people ordering things around seems a little on the fashy side to me.
So this refugee group received 19.5 million, at least 19.5 million in government grants in 2014.
So that kind of puts...
Dollar amount on what some of these refugee organizations make.
And there's a lot of money in these organizations that settle refugees.
And when you have that kind of incentive, then you create the lobbying incentive to bring more refugees in.
Why?
Because you want to help people?
Well, maybe.
But also because you want the dollars and cents to come with it, which...
People complain about privatized prisons for the same reason.
Man, then you get these private prisons lobbying for increased sentences and that type of thing, and they're for the drug war and all that.
Well, you get the exact same kind of incentives in place with these refugee programs for profit, trying to quote-unquote help people while also helping themselves.
Well, so there's the welfare that people see very sort of upfront, right?
So we were talking about this on the show, how I think it's in Sweden or something, you get like $3,000 or $4,000 a month as a refugee.
So there's that welfare consumption, but that's secondary.
That's like the shadow cast by the corporate welfare or the charitable welfare or in some cases the church welfare of the government...
You know, firing billions and billions of dollars at organizations who are focused on resettling these economic migrants or refugees or people who are looking to trade up to the Western way of life.
And that's something which we don't really see.
People see the welfare state as far as what the refugees are directly consuming, but there's this whole penumbra of organizations circling the government like sharks looking for bloody chunks of taxpayer revenue to be thrown overboard so they can snap it up.
Not to mention, we've discussed this on the show many times.
A study from the Center for Immigration Studies showed pretty clearly that if you actually want to help refugees, you can help 12 to 13 for the same price as helping one in the United States, if you help them in the Middle East, where they already are, where it's a similar culture, similar language, similar climate, lots of similarities.
I really think it's cruel.
What's done with some of these refugees.
If you dropped me right now, and I'm not a dumb guy, if you dropped me, I haven't been in a war-torn situation, traumatized either, and you dropped me into mainland China with nothing, I'm gonna fail.
I'm gonna fail unless I can get out.
These individuals, they're dropped into a foreign culture, different language.
Some of them, unfortunately, not even literate in their own language.
You're setting them up to fail and fail in catastrophic ways, which will then breed resentment.
More claims of racism from the outside as to why these people have failed.
It's just continuing this cycle of victimization and then the entire market that exists for creating victims and then victim blaming and calling white people racist, yada, yada, yada.
It's This is why these refugee agencies, this is why it's not the common sense, oh, well, we can help people in the Middle East.
We can help far more of them if we just take a different perspective on this.
Wait, sorry, white people were called racist?
Just when?
Well, think too.
Remember the thing that Trump was talking about with the Mexicans, right?
That they're not sending their best.
So imagine you're some family out there somewhere in the Middle East, and you've got, I don't know, like five sons.
And some of the sons are smarter than the others.
There's a bell curve, right?
Even within families, right?
So do you want to say, send to Europe, your very smartest and wisest and best educated Or do you want to send a son who's been, you know, playing with hula hoops just maybe a little bit too long and is having trouble with fine print and so on?
I don't know that if you're in the Middle East or somewhere else that you're going to send necessarily your very best family members off to Europe.
It could just be like, yep, off you go.
Good luck in Europe.
Man, dodge that bullet.
Well, and regardless of this situation, apparently Trump isn't allowed to make any executive order commanding what should be done on immigration despite having the legal authority to do so.
And since we can't repeat this enough, I'm just going to read section 212F of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which gives the president near complete power over who gets into the United States.
And I quote, Psst, i.e.
executive order.
And for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
It's pretty clear, isn't it?
Well, and of course there is, I think it was in the 60s that legislation was passed.
That said, you couldn't discriminate on the basis of religion.
Now, and that's an interesting question.
That's an interesting question.
If, let's say there's this company called Uzbekulamistan.
Uzbekulamistan, I think I can remember that.
I think I bought a hamburger from them once.
Yeah.
Now let's say, yeah, they're right next to White Castle, I think.
So Uzbekistan, let's just say that you and I, Mike, create a religion called We Want to Overthrow Uzbekistan.
We want to overthrow the government of Uzbekistan.
And then we start, you know, get a whole bunch of people all together and we all start swarming into this country.
Would they be able to start and say, no, no, no, it's just our religion.
You know, when a religion, any religion, has specific political objectives, let's say they have their own court system, let's say they have their own law system, let's say they have their own preferred method of governance, is it just a religion?
Hypothetically, let's say that.
Again, completely hypothetically.
Is that still just a religion, or is it a political system with religious elements?
And that, to me, is interesting.
I do believe that...
You can prevent immigration from groups that have, as some of their core beliefs, the institution of a new government in the country that they're immigrating to or emigrating to from their home country.
These are just possibilities of ways of looking at it, but that would require for people to get a little bit more knowledgeable about various theocracies around the world.
I don't know.
I think the most important thing taken into consideration when it comes to immigration policy is off-the-cuff remarks Rudy Giuliani made on Fox News about a year ago.
Well, that's fair.
I mean, more than the Constitution, more than the U.S. Code.
Anyway, that whole story.
We'll talk some more about immigration later.
But let's move to something that's happening in New York.
And I live in New York, so this is kind of delightful.
And a bill aimed at securing a quote-unquote right to be forgotten.
Oh, good.
The introduction of more rights.
That's always wonderful for my pocketbook.
It's introduced by Assemblyman David Wypen, and it's Senate Bill 4561-2022.
Liberal New York politicians would require people to remove, quote, inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate, or excessive statements about others.
Steph, do you know an excessive statement about someone else?
Do you have any idea what that means?
Yeah, I mean, you take excessive and you make it your ex.
So you take a normal amount, and if it's higher than a normal amount, which can be completely defined objectively, it's nothing to do with subjective profession, Yeah.
People already have legal recourse to this.
So I'd also like to know what is irrelevant information about others.
Irrelevant to who?
Irrelevant to who?
Based on what?
In what context?
Inadequate.
Inadequate.
What does that exactly mean?
Also, can I just mention, what do we got here?
It's March.
March 18.
I don't know when the year beginning is for Senate bills, but the fact that you're up to Senate Bill 4561 in March, dear God.
That is a very, very...
Why don't they just start using the scientific notation, you know, like the E plus numbers?
I mean, just infinity.
You know what?
Just infinity.
So within 30 days of a request from an individual, all search engine, this is this is quote directly from it, all search engines and online speakers shall remove content about such individual and links or indexes to any of the same that is, quote, inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate or excessive again.
And without replacing such removed content with any disclaimer or takedown notice.
Right.
So you remove it and you don't say even that it's been removed.
Mm-hmm.
Inadequate, irrelevant, inadequate, or excessive shall mean content, which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication, is no longer material to the current public debate or discourse.
Again, nothing subjective at all about that statement.
That can't possibly be taken multiple ways.
No, no, no, no, no.
Okay, Mike, Mike.
It's true that inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate, or excessive is subjective, but the word significant?
Well, that's just science.
I just hope that Snopes can be the final arbitrator because, you know, that large woman with a cat, she's very, very good when it comes to pointing out fake news.
Now, it continues.
Especially, oh good, we have especially, when considered in light of financial, reputational, and or demonstrable other harm that the information is causing to the requester's professional, financial, reputational, or other interest.
So, anything that anyone can possibly say harms them in any way.
Well, but without having to go through a legal process of establishing harm.
Well, what if stuff is true?
You know, it causes financial harm.
Well, it's true.
Well, we have to hide it.
I'm sure there's many politicians that would like this approach, but, you know, what can be said?
With the exception—oh, there's an exception, good—of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest and to which the requester's role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.
Yeah, we got significant, we got central, and substantial.
That's really the tripod of objectivity when it comes to making decisions.
Ah, that is significant to the current public interest.
Good God.
Lawyers are just like licking their lips and rubbing their hands together at the possibility of getting to litigate some of this nonsense.
Well, except that failure to comply, say, make the search engines or speakers liable for at least statutory damages of $250 a day plus attorney fees, right?
Now, that's interesting because attorney fees, I think, should have access to some kind of courtroom, shouldn't they, or some kind of process to establish this kind of stuff?
I assume this would have to be done in a court of law.
I assume.
But within 30 days of a request from an individual, that seems relative...
I mean, I don't think that the United States legal system is quite that snappy, you know?
I mean, within 30...
So somebody just sends you a request, and within 30 days, how on earth can you have a legal process to determine the accuracy, relevancy, adequateness, or non-excessiveness of statements about others relative to their potential financial...
How can you possibly resolve that in the legal system within 30 days?
It's not as if courts across the country are also clogged with all types of nonsense cases to the point where they have to keep delaying and delaying and delaying and delaying.
15 million lawsuits filed a year in America.
15 million.
More than 9 out of 10 of them filed against rich people.
Anyway.
So yeah, this is bad.
And I assume it's a way to...
It's a way for public figures, right?
Because if you're a public figure, people can say stuff about you and it's really hard to sort of fight back unless you can prove malice, which of course is really tough to do.
So I assume this is just some way, particularly for politicians, you know, like maybe you type Anthony Weiner in and like the internet shuts down.
Don't go to images.
Don't.
Yeah, yeah.
Don't go to images.
That's right.
Well, I think too, that'll probably be the net effect of it.
But it's also, I think, going to be sold under, oh, well, let's say your daughter.
Your daughter did something stupid and posted something, and it, oh, it embarrasses her, and she's very upset about it, and years later, it's still there.
It should be – you should be able to take that down to help her, right?
And everyone can kind of look at that and go like, well, yeah, I can understand why that would be.
But it's going to be used as a sledgehammer to get rid of anything that the government, i.e. the people that are going to be enforcing this.
And Lord knows, it's not like we've had any conversations in the last 15 minutes about judicial activism that could possibly be concerning in the context of this.
That the government and the court system don't like or deem inappropriate with any of these wiggle words that are included in this.
So under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, all would have to be censored.
Whenever a judge and jury found, or the author expected them to find, that the speech was, quote-unquote, again, no longer material to the current public debate or discourse.
So, this will pretty much, if passed, and I don't expect it to pass, because this is even one step further than I think the left is capable of at this point.
I mean, this would destroy...
I mean, would you have to have, like, a ban on Wikipedia for New York State IPs or something of the state?
Because...
I mean, Wikipedia couldn't exist.
Google in of itself would have a very difficult time existing.
Certainly Google Books, Amazon, you know, any type of research.
You have research and you quote a study and that study says something.
I mean, how many degrees of separation are we going to go with this?
You know, I find as well, Mike, I don't find the Magna Carta is any longer material to current public debate or discourse.
And it certainly has nothing to do with convicted felons and legal matters relating to violence.
So I think the Magna Carta, if not all of Plato's works, not really material to current public debate.
I think it'll all just be scrubbed.
Let's just, you know, let's have the internet only remember the last 12 minutes.
And after that, it's no longer material.
Come on.
Now, I'm not sure that the Constitution is related to any convicted felonies or legal matters related to violence.
And at least according to immigration, it no longer seems to be material to current public debate.
It doesn't matter what the Constitution says.
Just judges can be bought a tight dinner by Obama and open up the U.S. borders like a cheap hooker.
I guess freedom of speech has the right to be forgotten, at least in the context of this bill, which hopefully won't go anywhere, but...
I want to take a little mental journey into the conscience of the person who's feverishly introducing this bill.
What is out there?
Like, what is out there?
It's dark and sticky.
Like, if we look at these guys or whoever it is that's behind this, what kind of skeletons are they trying to bulldoze over with this?
We've got to have a right to be forgotten, man.
Quick, can we get to 30 days?
What kind of conscience do you have?
It's like, ah...
Well, when you factor in as well, this is an aspect that just dawned on me.
The internet, 4chan and such, lots of Reddit, has broken a lot of really big stories and leads in important cases.
It seems the collective wisdom of the internet often is far better than any of the intelligence agencies or investigative agencies when it comes to high-profile cases.
So that would be significantly diminishing the capacity of the internet to look into public matters, find information, And try and get to the bottom of various situations.
So it'd just be another barrier to actually getting to the truth.
And, you know, any barriers that prevent us from getting to the truth, needless to say, I'm not going to be a big fan of.
Right, right.
Well, hopefully it won't pass, but it is important to...
The thing to remember is this is going to be enforced by judges or juries.
Let's just say you're on the right and the judge is very much a leftist.
Is that going to have any effect?
On what is considered to be in compliance or not in compliance with the statute, or conversely, if you're on the left and the judge is very right-leaning, is that going to have any effect?
The more you give people subjectivity, the more you're going to reinforce and inflict biases.
And of course, the thing is, too, I mean, there's a whole other internet apparently out there, like the dark web and stuff.
It's not going to prevent the dissemination of particular information.
It's just going to drive it underground anyway.
Yeah, and the most concerning thing about this isn't the bill itself, because I don't expect the bill to pass, but that a politician would feel comfortable submitting this bill without fear that his career would be immediately destroyed.
So even though this likely won't pass, the fact that he can feel comfortable to submit this and not just be shouted down from everyone with a microphone, period, within media and otherwise.
It's a trial balloon, right?
They're just seeing if they can get away with it.
This is going to happen in more places than just New York.
And while the United States has freedom of speech, they're going to try in every way, shape, or form to erode it to whatever degree serves their interest.
So this is a trial balloon, and I expect more of this stuff to pop up over the course of the next several years.
And hopefully, there will be a massive public outcry, similar to the public outcry that seems to show up whenever Jordan Peterson tries to give a speech.
That poor man, for God's sake, he just wants to talk about free speech and the importance of having an intellectual exchange of ideas and people with bull horns continuously shout him down.
Sorry, I just watched that video and pretty irritated about it still.
Well, and this senator – this is Senate Bill 4561, state senator Tove Avella.
Uh.
A Democrat.
Now, that's weird, because normally Democrats are very much into freedom of speech.
The left is very much into freedom of speech, as you can see, whenever you try and give a conservative speech on a college campus, and they call in, you know, the Interfa airstrike.
So, well, I guess there are...
I guess now that Republicans are in, it's fair.
Now, I do think, though, I do think that in the States, Leo Trump has talked about the need for sort of reforms in certain areas of libel or slander or whatever.
The fact that if you're a public figure that you have to prove actual malice, like people knew it was false, I mean, that's an impossible standard.
So I do think that that is really written for the benefit of the media.
And, you know, I'd be interested in seeing what kind of reforms might come out of that area, but not this stuff.
This is going to be crazy.
And, of course, also, if you're a big company, this benefits big companies, because if a big company, you've got lawyers on staff, you can fight this stuff without a huge amount of, but just some blogger or whatever, and it's like, you get one of these, it's like, forget it, you know?
Like, it's not evenly applied.
That's a great point, too.
This would disproportionately harm alternative media, which seems to be one of the only sources for getting facts out there present day.
Yeah, yeah.
So...
So, let's move on to...
I wish I could say let's move on to a more positive subject, but it's not that much more positive.
It's not positive, it's negative.
There you go.
There you go.
Okay, so Turkey's interior minister has threatened to blow the mind of Europe by sending...
15,000 refugees a month.
If you want, that's a quote, if you want, we could open the way for 15,000 refugees that we don't send each month and blow the mind.
So this whole thing is in the aftermath of the Netherlands and Germany refusing to allow Turkish ministers to campaign in their own country.
Why are Turkish ministers campaigning or wanting to campaign in the Netherlands and Germany and other European countries?
Well, there's a referendum in Turkey on April 16th that'll turn pretty much de facto dictator Erdogan into a real dictator.
And there's lots and lots of Turks in these countries.
So the Netherlands said no mas.
Germany said no mas.
And Merkel actually said no to a Turk that wanted to enter the country.
That's shocking.
And yeah, now it prompted...
Erdogan to compare these countries to Nazi Germany.
Now they're, you know, they had this agreement with the European Union.
Pay us large, large, large amounts of money and we will hold some of the refugees coming over for you.
Now that's completely unsustainable.
Everyone knows it's unsustainable.
Turkey has threatened multiple times, you know, oh gee, you know, you just, if we don't get into the European Union like you kind of quasi promised, we're going to have to, you know, just be ashamed if these refugees cross the border.
Now they're talking about 15,000 a month.
You know, that's the latest threat.
This is not the first time they've threatened this.
So I don't know that threats are probably the best way to get into the European Union or at least, you know, assuage the fears and concerns of the European Union member countries that don't want Turkey involved.
But nonetheless, that's what's happening.
And for the record, I should just say that Sweden totally cucked and allowed the rallies to occur.
So there is that.
Yay, Sweden!
You're just racking up the fails now, aren't you?
Well, not for long.
This ain't gonna be Sweden for long.
And this, you know, so even Turkey is looking at these refugees as a bioweapon to attack Europe with.
I mean, that's astounding.
So if you look at the view of, say, the German or Swedish governments of these refugees, like the German government saying, well, you know, we just need to replace the falling German population.
First of all, I thought the whole point was to reduce our environmental impact, to reduce our consumption.
What the hell is wrong with the falling population?
Nothing wrong with it at all.
Nothing.
Well, when you have massive entitlement programs that you need to fund and need to prop up your aging population, it's a lot easier to make that argument.
Yeah, but that doesn't get solved with refugees who consume even more resources than the average population, right?
Well, if you leave out that key detail stuff, I mean, yeah, fine.
But, you know, we can swamp the population and make them think that these are fountains of economic productivity.
No, but it's so astounding.
Because when the governments say, well, you see, we have to have all of the economic productivity of these migrants come flooding into our societies.
Well, doesn't Turkey want this economic productivity of these migrants?
Doesn't Turkey want the wonderful economic growth represented by these migrants?
Why on earth would they be pointing them in a threatening way at Europe if they're going to pour into Europe and generate massive amounts of economic growth with their skills at walking or...
Walking.
Or...
Wait for it.
Oh!
Looking up radicalizing videos on the internet.
Or...
Napping.
Or praying.
Or...
Or, you know, the fact that two-thirds of the Syrian migrants are illiterate even in their own language.
It completely blows up the lie that replacing Europeans with people from the Middle East is an economic plus.
Because again, if Turkey wants all this money...
You know, like, there's a certain amount of money that's been paid by the EU to Turkey to hang on to these migrants.
But why would you pay money to Turkey to hang on to these migrants if these migrants were fantastic to your economy?
Like, it makes no sense.
It's like paying customers to not come into your store.
Let's pay billions of euros to Turkey to keep all these doctors and lawyers and physicists out of our economy where they could add value.
I guess they don't just hate white males.
They also hate economic growth as a whole.
And then suddenly, like, whoop, flip the card, man.
Flip the coin.
And now it's like, well, you know, we've got to have these migrants come in for that wonderful economic growth.
It's like, then why are you paying Turkey to keep them out of your country?
And then inviting them in.
Madness.
Yeah, if Turkey's threat, using the liberal logic in most of Europe, Turkey's threat amounts to, we're going to stimulate your economy by giving you a productive workforce every single month.
Wow.
Wow, that should be fantastic, shouldn't it?
So Turkey's interior minister continued, they're trying to complete the work that they did not finish.
This is hearkening back to the comparisons to Nazi Germany.
Who is doing this work?
It's the Netherlands and Germany, Europe.
Do you have that kind of courage?
Let us remind you that you cannot play games in this region and ignore Turkey.
Okay, can I also tell you, this is like the most, I mean, I'm sure there's translation shit too, but this is like the most incomprehensible trash talk.
You know, it's like me, you know, slouching up on some inner city basketball court and saying, What ho, what ho, I do believe that we must release the pigeons in your armpits in order to secure victory in this hoop game.
What?
Like, what are you talking about?
And also, I just wanted to point out that there is a universe-wide cracking sound as the word Nazi loses its power completely in Europe.
Turkey, in particular.
Turkey allied with Nazi Germany and the Nazis, depending on which region you look at in the Netherlands, occupied the Netherlands for between four and a half and five years and slaughtered countless people.
So the fact that the people who lied with the Nazis are calling those who were killed by the Nazis Nazis means that the word Nazi has lost all power for anyone with any brains.
Well, especially if you look at what has happened.
As a result of, I guess you can say, as a result of the coup that tried to happen in Kirky that many people think was pretty much an excuse for a massive power grab.
I mean, you have journalists that are disappearing or being thrown in jail.
You have lots of people that have any kind of Western influence.
Being thrown out of any position of power.
So for Turkey or anyone in Turkey to talk about Nazi Germany, it's pretty rich just because they won't allow rallies regarding a referendum to give pretty much dictatorial powers to the current Turkish president.
You pretend Nazis aren't letting me become a real Nazi.
That makes you total Nazis.
Just the damn idea that there are enough of a foreign population in a country to the point where Another country is going to send people to campaign?
I find that a little concerning.
And it's a bit more concerning when you look at some of the additional comments that have been made over the last week.
The Turkish Foreign Minister, we talked about the Turkey Interior Minister before, now we have the Turkish Foreign Minister, he said, now the election is over in the Netherlands.
When you look at the many parties, you see there is no difference between the Social Democrats and the fascist Wilders.
All have the same mentality.
Where will you go?
Where are you taking Europe?
You've begun to collapse Europe.
You're dragging Europe into the abyss.
Holy wars will soon begin in Europe.
Huh.
Threats of holy wars!
Huh.
Okay.
Nothing to see here.
Nothing to be concerned about.
Nothing to look at history and see how this has played out before.
No, you don't want to do that.
You don't want to watch our Truth About the Crusades presentation.
You don't want to do that.
So this also, you know, a pro-Urdojan newspaper pointed out that there's only 48,000 Dutch troops, but there's 400,000 Turks currently living in Holland.
So we got Holy War.
You're Nazis, pointing out that they have far less troops than Turks.
Living in Holland, there were Turkish riots in the street of the Netherlands last week before the election.
It's kind of hard to look at this as anything other than a threat with a standing army that's currently occupying many European nations.
So, on top of it, it doesn't get better.
Erdogan also told this week the 2.5 million Turkish citizens residing in Europe, from here on I say to my citizens, I say to my brothers and sisters in Europe, educate your children at better schools, make sure your family live in better areas, drive the best cars, live in the best houses, have five children, not three.
You are Europe's future.
This is the best answer to the rudeness shown to you, the enmity, the wrongs.
So, okay, we got your Nazis, holy wars will soon begin, we have more Turks than you have troops in the European countries, and make sure that you have lots and lots of children and outbreed these ethnic Europeans.
No, I'm sorry.
I still don't see what your point is.
No, I'm sorry.
I still don't see what your point is because I'm from Europe and Netflix just dropped something new I want to watch.
So, no, and it's amazing to me.
I mean, we look back in history at times when conflict was escalating and was open and we, you know, in the future they'll study all of this stuff.
And they'll say, holy crap.
It wasn't like this stuff was being hidden.
It wasn't like everybody was completely open about what they wanted to do and everybody just ignored it.
It's the worst secret plan ever.
Yeah, it's like the worst secret plan ever.
I mean, you might as well take this giant Turkish secret plan and put it on the laptop of a woman who works for the social security services in America.
I wonder if it was stolen.
I wonder if her car was actually like it had the sunroof open.
Like, that's my guess.
But the other thing too, like we just play this game for everyone.
Like, I mean, when you look at a country and it's really, really important to do this, just get into the mental habit of doing this.
A country, you want to understand what's going on in the country, look up the average IQ in the country.
The average IQ in Turkey is 90.
Average IQ in the Netherlands, first of all, pick a name, for God's sakes.
Dutch, Holland, the Netherlands, for God's sakes.
I mean, what, do you exist in five different dimensions?
But average IQ is 100 in the Netherlands, and that's even with a lot of Turks.
So if you want to know what's going on in a particular country or what's going on in a particular culture, it's not the final answer.
First place you do.
Oh, here's a country.
Wow.
Hong Kong doing really well?
Let me look up the average IQ. Oh dear, Nigeria not doing very well.
Let me look up the average IQ. And with Turkey, average IQ of 90, well, that's right on the border of what can sustain a democracy or any kind of limited government, right?
Once you get below 90, no country in the history of the world or across the world has ever managed to maintain a small state with an IQ below 90.
It's right on the edge in Turkey.
Oh, what was that thing you posted too, Mike, about...
The proportion of Turkish marriages with child brides?
Yeah, I was going to suggest that people look up some opinion surveys of people in Turkey.
You know, if we just we throw any type of IQ stuff out of the question and just go straight culture, you can look at some of the cultural decisions in Turkey.
And, you know, for people that are concerned about intolerance, you might raise some red flags.
But 33 percent of all Turkish marriages involve underage brides.
So so, yay.
Make sure you have your your three to five kids with your underage bride.
Yeah.
OK, that's wonderful.
And if you know if you hear this news and you feel a little discouraged, don't worry, don't worry.
Some German experts, they have a suggestion, Steph, a suggestion that's that's going to help.
Yeah.
They've suggested an intake, and this is recently, an intake of 300,000 migrants a year for the next 40 years to counter lower German birth rates.
Right.
Yeah, because the option of, say, lowering taxes which you're used to paying for existing migrants so that Germans can afford to have their own children is completely impossible.
Well, they're making it more and more impossible every single day now, aren't they?
For ethnic Germans to have their own children.
So, moving on from the delightful, delightful deal with Turkey and Europe, which is something to keep an eye out on over the course of the next several weeks and months.
Let's move to, um, let's move to France and some opinion surveys.
No, no, let's not move to, oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.
I just wet myself and not in the way that I like.
So, anyway, sorry, go on.
So, a pretty interesting survey came out this week regarding opinions of people in France, and given that the election is coming up very, very soon there, I thought it was pretty interesting.
So, the survey found that 93% believe the threat of more terror attacks is high.
Huh.
So that means 7% of the French population are planning new terror attacks because they say, not high, absolutely certain because we're going to make it happen.
93% threat of more terror attacks is high.
71% feel the security situation in France has gotten worse over the last five years.
59% of those polls said they did not feel safe anywhere.
So almost 60% of the population in France said they don't feel safe anywhere.
Can you imagine just how high these numbers would be if there was freedom of speech in France?
Like, if the media was actually allowed to report on things, or if, say, they counted ethnicities in their crime statistics and were actually – like, if there was actual freedom of speech and you could publish whatever you liked that conformed to basic definitions of all that, can you imagine how much higher these numbers would be?
Well, actually, I don't know if this was a phone survey or if this was an online or digital-based survey because we've seen, certainly with Trump and most of the populist stuff, that when you do phone and there's a social pressure element where you actually have to tell another human being your thoughts on something, the numbers for any type of populist or concern about terrorism or support of Trump or Wilders or anything like that, it's a lot lower than if it's anonymous in a way.
So people don't actually have to speak to another human being and tell them and possibly face some semblance of social disapproval.
So, those 60% of people that don't feel safe anywhere could be higher.
88% believe France should deport foreigners sentenced to prison for serious offenses.
Sorry, what was that percentage?
88%.
Now, isn't that the law in France, that if you're there and you don't have citizenship?
Like, I remember years ago, I was chatting with a friend.
It took me a long time to get my Canadian citizenship.
And my friend pointed out, he said, look, if you ever get convicted of a crime, they could just ship your ass back to England.
After I'd been in Canada for, like, a long time.
We see how this plays out in the United States, where, yes, that's the law, but if your host country won't take you back, then they can't hold you and they just release you back into the United States.
Wait, who releases you?
Like, the government releases you?
Yes, they can't hold you for whatever reason.
If your host country won't take you back, they just release you back into the wild.
So when you hear about, you know, the convicted illegal aliens, sometimes that's them coming back, and other times it's just they let them go.
They let them go because they couldn't hold them.
I mean, how can you refuse to take a country, like if you're a country, how can you refuse somebody who has citizenship in your country?
It's a pretty interesting question now, isn't it?
But it happens all the time.
All the time.
Is it Carlos Slim at the border turning people back and saying, please get some more remittances from the US taxpayers and send it to Mexico so people can buy my products?
Is that sort of his big thing?
He's like the pong paddle in the old pong game, just peep, peep, peep, just pushing people back to make sure that they get more money for him?
Please prop up my telecom monopoly in Mexico.
That's right.
55% would also like to see France exit the European Union's open border Schengen zone.
So those are the people that are slightly concerned about any talk of, you know, Turkey.
Joining the European Union and then being given free movement.
All those Turks!
Not the refugees, just the native Turks being given free movement across Europe.
You know, the people that there's more of than the soldiers and all that fun stuff with the Holy War coming.
I think we talked about this.
So this survey, another survey, also found that Marine Le Pen was judged the best candidate with the best policies in keeping both property and people safe.
32%.
And in the fight against terror, 35%.
And in addition, and this is pretty encouraging news, she reached a new all-time high, Marine Le Pen, in the polls for the second round of the French elections.
I know, second round of the French elections.
France's electoral system is kind of interesting, and the top two vote-getting people will go to a second round that'll occur, and then it's whoever wins that will be the leader in France.
So...
She gets 41% in a face-off with Macron and 45% with Fallon.
So that's an all-time high for her.
And given that it seems every single day there's a story of something terrible happening in France, I don't think facts and reality are going to hurt Marine Le Pen's numbers.
So we'll see how she does.
Up next, Steph, we're going to go to Venezuela.
Are you ready?
I am.
I am, in fact, ready because I like lead with my bread.
And I think that Venezuela has managed to combine two wonderful things, bullets and carbs, together in a way that really tantalizes the palate and shocks the conscience.
All right.
So this is an article from the Miami Herald.
They wrote, Venezuela has a bread shortage.
The government has decided bakers are the problem.
Yes, of course.
Okay, and just for those who'd like to watch the truth of the Venezuela presentations that we've done on this channel, it's all horrible socialism and central planning and the usual hellish freak show that goes on when the left gets in power through Chavez.
So just so everyone knows, it's not a bread shortage, it's a government excess.
They've got price controls and central planning and all the usual crap that ends up with people starving in the streets, which they're literally doing in Venezuela.
No, Steph, it's the bakers.
The bakers are the problem.
Venezuelan government has told me.
But it's nothing a few bullets can't solve, right?
Because that's the best way to make people productive.
You know, the best way you train ballerinas is shoot at people's feet.
People are hungry?
Let's throw some more people in jail.
That'll solve the problem.
Oh, God.
All right.
Well, the article goes on and says, facing a bread shortage of the spawning massive lines and souring the national mood.
Yeah, I think starving to death would sour the national mood.
Sourdough.
I love it.
The Venezuelan government is responding this week by detaining bakers and seizing establishments.
In a press release, the National Superintendent for the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights...
That's the best title ever.
You know what?
That's a business card that doubles as a shiv.
I just wanted to mention that.
They said that they had charged four people and temporarily seized two bakeries as the Socialist Administration accused bakers of being part of a broad economic war aimed at destabilizing the country.
And that is important to remember that if you're having trouble getting food to your people, arrest people who deliver food to your people.
That's just going to – because, you know, they're like clogged arteries.
It's just going to open up the whole supply chain.
Well, I'm sure the National Superintendent for the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights is very good at – Working with an oven.
They're very good with the yeast.
They know how to manage this stuff tremendously.
So, of course, them just seizing these bakeries will just result in tremendous productivity.
Nationalism ovens.
Nationalism ovens.
No, no.
No?
Okay, we'll come back.
Okay, keep going.
In a statement, the government said the bakers had been selling underweight bread.
That's like the worst thing to get arrested for ever.
And we're using price-regulated flour to illegally make specialty items like sweet rolls and croissants.
The government said bakeries are only allowed to produce French bread and white loaves with government-imported flour.
However, in a tweet on Thursday, I'm glad that the price czar in Venezuela has a Twitter account, the price control czar said that only 90% of the baked goods had to be price-controlled products.
You know, that's where you want that clarified stuff, on the Twitter account of the price control czar in Venezuela.
That sounds like due process to me.
Two bakeries were also seized for 90 days for breaking a number of rules, including, again, selling overpriced bread.
So, now we'll move to the president of the Industrial Flour Union.
Again, the fact that this stuff exists should scare the hell out of you in and of itself.
Well, listen, I've got no problem with an Industrial Flour Union.
I mean, no problem at all.
That seems vaguely free market.
I mean, it probably isn't, but it could be.
But, yeah, Juan Crespo, go ahead.
The government isn't importing enough wheat.
If you don't have enough wheat, you don't have flour.
If you don't have flour, you don't have bread.
The logic of this man is impeccable.
Well, and this is interesting, too, because the way it used to work in Venezuela, as in every other sane country, is let's say you're a bakery, and let's say that you want wheat.
You go and buy it.
You don't have to wait for the government to import it and hand it to you, being subject to all of the bullshit that goes on with all this.
Central planning is just central theft, right?
Because what happens is, like, they had the army go out and try and enforce stuff, and the army just stole everything.
I mean, this is insane, right?
So if you've got to beg the government for the materials you need to produce your good, you're doomed as a country.
I mean, it should just be, just order it and get some flour.
But no!
The government isn't handing me enough flour!
Well, I can tell you in this situation, the people that aren't going to starve if there's a bread shortage or a food shortage, it's not going to be the military people marching around the country with guns.
It's not going to be them.
It's most likely not going to be the political figures, although it's more likely to be them than it is the people that actually hold the guns and know how to use them, as we've kind of seen with military coups over the course of...
History.
So, yeah, now they're going to nationalize or threatening to nationalize bakeries because there's bread lines and bread shortages.
And this is the hell of being a producer in central planning, is the government says, you need to produce 100 loaves of bread a day, but we're only going to give you Wheat for 50.
And they all have to be 200 grams or whatever, right?
And the equation can't possibly...
There's no way to make what the government demands that you make according to the specifications that they demand given what you're able to get a hold of.
You actually...
It is criminalizing even being a baker.
I mean, even more and even more egregiously than if you're like a baker who doesn't want to bake a theoretical cake for a theoretical gay wedding.
This is like...
And now, of course, who the hell wants to become a baker?
Who the hell wants to try and produce anything in this country now, given that you're going to end up falling down the trapdoor of government takeovers or go to jail or whatever?
And I got to imagine if there's not enough food for the population as a whole, I don't imagine the jail buffet is overflowing either.
You're in a situation where either you don't produce as many loaves as they say you have to produce because you don't have the supplies, or you produce those loaves but they're underweight or you use some filler or something to try and make it happen, and then they say, well, that's wrong.
So you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And who the hell is going to go into and try and start a business in that environment to try and solve the actual problem of, hey, there's not enough bread?
I mean, in a free market situation, that's a really easy problem to solve.
But when you have a command and control economy that's run essentially under the dictatorship that you have in Venezuela, not so easy to solve, and that's why you get mass starvations and continued problems.
So the thing to keep in mind, and you hear about these stories, or you don't hear about them if you follow any type of mainstream news outlet.
It's not like this is being blared on CNN at all.
Well, honorable Miami Herald accepted, of course.
Yeah.
The thing is, this kind of stuff, I hate to say it, but don't think that it can't happen to you in the country that you are.
Oh, hell yeah. hell yeah.
Imagine if you showed them these pictures, showed them the bread lines, showed them the headlines of, you know, let's take your bakery because you can't produce enough bread.
They wouldn't believe it for a second.
And here they are.
Here they are.
So pay attention, because there's lots of countries across the globe that are heading in a more government regulation direction.
Freedom is on the decline, actually, worldwide.
Economic freedom in particular.
You can look this stuff up online.
But freedom is withdrawing.
Freedom is pulling back.
Freedom is drawing up.
And we talked earlier about the freedom of speech issue and the New York bill that was introduced and that type of creeping tack on the First Amendment.
The controls that are already in place in many aspects of the American economy and European economy, Canadian economy, many of these economies, it's only getting worse.
Hopefully that gets turned back with people like Donald Trump.
Hopefully.
But it's only getting worse.
And pay attention.
And don't think that it can't happen to you because that's what the people in Venezuela and in all the other countries that faced mass starvation.
We've got the BBC and the UK broadcasting stories about, you know, how should blasphemy be punished?
And, you know, it's the current year.
Well, you know, it is the 21st century.
I think we pretty much left that in the rear view in the West.
But it seems to be making a comeback.
Hard to imagine why.
Did you see the follow-up statement to that stuff?
Their follow-up?
I did, but what was it again?
They were like, oh, we didn't mean to imply that you should be punished for blasphemy by asking, what should the punishment be for blasphemy?
Yeah.
Oh, okay.
We follow up a horrendous moral statement with a Weasley incomprehensible non-defense.
All right.
Oh, you know, it's just going to help whoever comes in at some point to defund that Jimmy Seville protecting monstrosity.
Alright, so from there we go to a situation that I think you have quite a bit to say about, Steph, so I'll let you carry the load after I introduce this.
Eric Idle.
Now, if you don't know who Eric Idle is, he's an English comedian, an actor, a voice actor, an author, a singer-songwriter, a musician, a writer, a comedic composer, and a totalitarian asshole.
Now, he's most famous for his involvement in Monty Python and more recently for posting completely insane tweets on his Twitter account.
So Eric Idle the other day tweeted this.
He said, I think that denying climate change is a crime against humanity, and they should be held accountable in a world court.
If that's not bad enough, someone asked him, are you saying stupidity and ignorance should be punishable?
Question mark.
He responded, yes, but humanely.
Put down gently.
Dot, dot, dot.
So, world court putting people down gently.
Steph, uh, what's your thought on this tweet?
Oh, it's, yeah, Mike, it's just heartbreaking.
You know, I mean, I was introduced, my brother actually introduced me to Monty Python, and I found their...
Comedy disconcerting.
I mean, very alternative, at least back in the day.
And I think their movies were more successful than their television.
And I think one of the most successful things they ever did was the incredibly hilarious Fawlty Towers with John Cleese.
I mean, there used to be, this is before the internet, I think you can get it more easily now, but it used to come on Channel 17 out of New York with Goldie constantly yammering at people to send them money.
It used to come on with lots of interruptions.
My friends and I used to gather, like once a year, these faulty towers would come on.
We just watched them back to back, well, with the interruptions for money begging.
But it was hilarious.
And there certainly are bits of comic genius in a lot of Monty Python, and the movies in particular, The Life of Brian, although...
For alternative comedy.
And physically gross comedy in many ways as well.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail is good.
I never got that much into the Meaning of Life video.
It was just a little bit too base.
But brilliant bits of comedy in a lot of the stuff.
Especially, like, The Life of Brian is a very atheistic movie.
It is very counter to religiosity.
And of course, you know, when you're young, and for me, a budding atheist, it's like, wow, that's really cool.
You know, it's really, really brave.
And they did get into some significant trouble for their portrayal of a Jesus figure in a comedy movie.
And it's all about, you know, thinking for yourself and being individualistic, at least towards the end.
And for me, it was like, wow, that's really cool.
These guys are really smart.
Now it turns out that basically we're just leftist assholes programming you out of religion so they can pave the way for a giant state.
They are the talented, useful, monstrous idiots that take down the historical barriers to the growth of the state so that their socialist buddies can expand the power of the state enormously.
And that feeling taken in by that, I think, I mean, this has happened to me with a lot of entertainers post-Trump, like post the emergence of Trump as a candidate, where I'm like, wow, I really like this person's art or really like this person's music or whatever.
And then you find out about them.
Like, I went to go and see Queen with Adam Lambert.
Well, we both went to go.
And Brian May's all up and about climate change and doom and gloom.
And it's like, shut up, man.
Just play some guitar, make some weird space noises, and then do Fat Bottom Girls.
I don't care about the rest of this shit.
And so feeling like I was not just entertained, but I was actually programmed.
It's really a terrible feeling, and it takes a lot of your youth and turns it into something that seemed fun and enjoyable and engaging and entertaining, and then actually just became leftist programming that helped dissolve Western society.
And these guys, I think, have a lot to do with it.
So Eric Heidel is the one who's involved in that, and John Cleese.
A brilliant comedian.
A terrible husband.
He's been married a whole bunch of times.
And he has to keep going back out on the road because he owes...
Alimony tour.
Alimony tour.
Yeah, the alimony tour.
So, you know, these guys who are really, really great at figuring out...
All of these wonderful things about society, they just can't keep any particular individual in love with them, and they just can't love any particular individual in any consistent way, and that is pretty tragic.
It's not like everyone who's divorced is not anyone you should listen to about the world, but...
I think it would give you some humility.
You really know how the fucking weather should run when you can't even run your own personal relationships, at least with John Cleese, in a way that is even remotely sustainable.
If you're such a wonderful person, why does everyone you marry end up hating you?
And this love of humanity in the abstract, while having no capacity to productively relate with individuals, is very common.
It's very common.
Standing in front of a crowd and being yourself is a weird thing to do.
And people who are very good at that kind of stuff, they tend not to be very good at individual relationships.
And so I think that's an important thing to remember for the people that...
You admire or who have particular talents.
John Cleese, I guess, International Women's Day.
He called Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, two great women who've actually been on this show, he called them assholes.
International Women's Day, John Cleese is calling them assholes.
And I looked up a little interview with John Cleese and he was being asked about politics and so on.
And Cleese said, but the extraordinary thing is neither Eric nor I have ever met a Trump voter.
Really?
Really?
Never met.
He'd travel all over the world.
He's talking about doing sitcoms in Australia.
No, he's talking about, sorry, he's directing Fawlty Towers in Australia.
He's got a sitcom going on in England.
He's touring America all over the place, in and out America all the time.
Never met a Trump voter.
And, you know, he's also done some pretty good self-knowledge-y stuff.
John Cleese co-wrote a book, I think, with a psychologist about self-knowledge, which was pretty good.
But it's the same bullshit excuse with Trump, like this incomprehensibility.
So he was asked and he said, I suppose when people get angry, and people are certainly very angry, they identify with someone who's also angry.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Trump is just angry white males.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
I remember all the time.
I remember all the time when people said, oh yeah, the fact that like 97% of blacks voted for Obama.
Well, you know, Obama is just angry.
And blacks are just angry, so they're just voting for Obama.
It's like, oh, come on.
Don't be such fucking cowards.
At least have it consistent, but they won't.
Anyway, he goes on to say, But I'm not clear what points are being made in what Trump say, except that globalization can have some really harmful effects on employment, and that a degree of protectionism is a viable option.
So this is the argument from incomprehension, otherwise known as being a fucking idiot.
But I'm not clear what points are being made in what Trump says.
Oh yeah, but that's without a doubt just because Trump is incomprehensible, not because you have an R-selected barrier to understanding what Trump says.
Like, you can't, well, you know, I don't really understand the mathematics behind the general theory of relativity, so clearly it's incomprehensible and therefore wrong.
Like, holy Dunning-Kruger, Batman.
Anyway, so Cleese says, I'm not desperately in favor of free trade all the time in all circumstances, so I would be sympathetic to that, but I just don't understand the appeal of the rest of what he says.
And I just don't understand why the Clinton email thing was coveted the way it was in the media over and over, and that it was considered to be so important.
I just don't understand that at all.
It's like, then shut up about it!
I don't understand things.
Listen to me.
Single fucking comprehensible thought together, and I certainly have no idea what's going on in the economically destroyed rust belts and lower middle class in America.
I have no idea what's going on in the black community and how difficult it is for them with endless waves of immigrants coming in and driving down the wages they need to get out of the welfare state and climb the ladder into the middle class.
I don't have a fucking clue, but I'm going to talk a lot about things I openly admit I have no clue about and have no social circles wherein anyone can ever explain anything to me.
And people, like, why don't people ask me about brain surgery more?
I don't understand it.
Like, fuck, I can cut a steak?
Why don't people ask me more about brain surgery?
And then I can say, well, I don't.
It's a very complicated thing.
I don't understand it.
But let me tell you all of my thoughts about it.
Anyway, so he finished off by saying, well, I was thinking today that the way I would put it is like this.
Do you want someone running the United States who is basically in touch with reality?
Or do you want someone who isn't in touch with reality at all?
I think the bigger point is that when Hillary lies, she knows she's lying and I can accept that.
But when Trump lies, he actually believes it because he is delusional.
Oh, yeah.
I'm going to fucking John Cleese to find people who are in touch with reality.
Oh, absolutely.
Yeah.
The reality called, I'm a divorced guy who was funny decades ago who has to tramp around like a homeless guy from city to city, yammering on about things I did in the past because all my ex-wives hate me so much that they only view me as a penis with money.
Yeah.
Please, tell me more about your knowledge of the world.
I can't possibly top that, so let's move on.
Fine!
I'm divorcing John Cleese and Eric Heidel!
We'll add that to the tally.
Yeah, everyone's got their, whether it's actor or musician or entertainment figure, that now it's like, oh dear.
Mike, tell me about The Rock.
No, don't!
It would be too painful.
It's really bad when people like The Rock have to virtue signal.
And people that don't know this story, The Rock and a couple other celebrities have Under Armour contracts, endorsement contracts for the merchandising brand Under Armour.
And the CEO, I believe, of Under Armour made some positive comments about Donald Trump and what he could do for the economy.
You know, businessman, Donald Trump, ran on a business-friendly platform.
This isn't controversial.
Didn't go off on immigration or anything like that, but just talked about, we'll be good for business, having Donald Trump as president, and talked about him favorably.
And this, I think, was after a meeting he was involved with, where one of the many Trump meetings where he just invites lots and lots of business leaders in to, you know, let me know your thoughts.
What's going on?
All those listening sessions that you hear about.
So, this got reported, and then several people that have Under Armour endorsements being paid lots and lots of money to wear a fucking shirt, which I have no problem with.
No problem with whatsoever.
What I did have a bit of a problem with was the pedantic virtue signaling that ensued from most of these Under Armour athletes.
And, you know, I'm not familiar with many of them and didn't particularly care.
But then...
The rock of all people, Dwayne Johnson, who, if you look at Dwayne Johnson as he murders 47 people in the opening trailer of whatever action movie he is currently leading, I don't exactly see Mr.
Political Correctness.
You know, voted the most sexiest man on earth not too long ago, and also one of the highest-grossing, if not the highest-grossing overall actors in Hollywood for the last couple of years.
He is good for the Bolt brand.
I just wanted to mention that.
Go on.
He's a powerhouse.
And ridiculously charming.
Oh, charisma of the wazoo.
Vaguely saying, you know, vaguely saying that the CEO shouldn't have done what he did.
And what he did was just say Donald Trump will be good for businesses.
And you can pull it up and read it if you want.
It's just long, rambly, incomprehensible.
Add someone else to the list of people that have virtue signaled.
I'm sure he has a PR firm that told him to craft a statement to protect his image.
I'm sure, but this I kind of note with a lot of people.
A lot of people that have what I like to term the fuck you money, or the people that have their age, it's high enough to where, really, are you really going to be so concerned about your career when you're like 85 years old?
Really?
Really?
Those are the people that can afford to push back against the insanity of the political correctness of the modern day.
Those are the people that, in many ways, have more responsibility than the average schlub who, if he dares speak out in his social media account or whatever, gets reported to his boss, they're going to face economic sanctions and they may have to face some real financial hardship.
The people that have the "fuck you money," the people that have enough prominence, the people that are, they might not be here in six months, but they have a mouthpiece and a name that they could actually do something.
Those are the people that I think, really, I mean, what are you waiting for?
Those are the people that really, I think, have more of a responsibility to speak out against this political correctness.
And when they go the other direction, it's just, it's disappointing.
It's sad.
But most of all, it's pretty fucking pathetic.
That's how it hits me.
That someone like Dwayne Johnson...
Would virtue signal and say it's really bad that the CEO of Under Armour praised Donald Trump for being business friendly.
Like, of all the statements, not even about immigration, nothing about anything controversial.
He's good for business.
A Republican president that might be good for business.
This has never been suggested at all of human history in the United States.
Good God, this is now a controversial statement that people need to write about in many columns and many newspapers across the world.
And it's, oh, it's pathetic.
It's pathetic.
Well, this is the thing, right?
So you become famous, you become an industry.
And there are so many people hanging on to your fame and your paycheck.
I mean, he's got agents, publicists, and copywriters, and bookers, and like, I mean, this just goes on and on, right?
And all of these people, his income is going to fluctuate depending on his popularity, but he can always get it back.
But if you're, like, making a tenth of one percent of what he's making and hanging on that way, that, you know, that means something to you.
So, you know, my guess is that celebrities just get bad advice.
They just get bad advice.
Like the woman who wore the MAGA dress recently.
I mean, she, her album went through the roof.
Like, went to what?
Within the top ten on iTunes and stuff like that.
There's a huge amount of economic incentives to buy.
At least not be anti-Trump or whatever.
I think Glenn Beck may be sailing his ship that way as well.
But I just got to assume that there are a bunch of people out there who are saying, oh, you know, Dwayne, this is like a big deal.
People are going to hate you.
You don't know how much Donald Trump has hated in your whole constituency.
And here's some numbers.
You got to put something out now or your brand is going to be irrevocably harmed.
And we'll write it for you.
And it's, you know, this is a way to put it behind.
I think there's just that kind of stuff going on.
Like, I can't imagine that...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't imagine he sits there and says, oh, some guy who's in charge of some company who's paying me to wear his t-shirt says that Trump is good for business.
Well, I can read the numbers, you know, like a huge increase in job creation since Trump took office.
I better deal with, like, it's all the other people, all the mosquitoes around you.
And, you know, if you're famous, man, you got to be really careful about that kind of stuff because I think it's not serving you the way that you think it is.
Well, the interesting element of this as well for someone like Dwayne Johnson, who's publicly talked about his political aspirations previously.
Also a good friend of President Barack Obama.
A lot of people don't know that, but he is.
So you have this.
I just see angling in many ways.
People were saying, oh, Rock, are you going to run for run for president?
And of course, a celebrity of note that has wide popularity, again, across large swaths of the American population, or in other countries as well, being asked if they're going to run for political office.
This is not uncommon.
But you saw a lot of these articles right after Trump got elected.
And who do the Democrats have right now?
They don't have anyone.
I mean, Elizabeth Warren, really?
You're going to trot up Elizabeth Warren?
Like, if you want to win...
Trump was the template and has shown you what works.
You want to get someone that's very popular.
Yeah, giggly grandma ain't gonna cut it.
Yeah.
So I wonder if this is a little bit of angling, and there's the pressure that he's got to put himself on the right side.
And previously, I had heard he was a Republican.
So it's just, it's an interesting situation.
And I have some sympathy for the celebrities that are put in positions where it's like, you not coming out against Trump puts you on the hate list.
If you're not viriently anti-Trump, they look at you as if you're viriently pro-Trump by default.
I have sympathy for people like that, but when you have a certain status, when you have a certain amount of money, once you have a certain level of celebrity, I mean, it's pretty sad to think that you can't just actually make use of the two balls that are between your legs and have an opinion of your own.
We are not kowtowing and virtue signaling to people and pedantic Instagram posts?
Well, he's, you know, he's probably worried, too.
Like, if he runs for office as a Democrat, people will say, oh, yeah, well, I remember that time when you took that money from that guy who said positive things about, you know, like, it's just all of this.
The people can root through, I guess, unless he takes advantage.
He moves to New York and takes advantage of that law, but people can just root through everything and, oh, you know, so I think he's probably trying to aim at minimizing that kind of stuff, but This is the kind of paranoia that goes with this kind of mindset that, well, what did I say once at some point that people could, right?
I mean, just this self-censorship that goes on because everyone goes over everything these days.
If you achieve any kind of prominence, that self-censorship is really crippling.
Why can't people just say, I'm in entertainment.
I have fans and supporters that are Republicans, some that are Democrats, and I'm not saying anything about politics.
Why can't you just say that?
Yeah, or, you know, so some guy who pays me money has political opinions that are different from me.
Viva la difference.
It's free speech.
Deal with it.
That would create an even bigger scandal.
And then the people that were upset about the CEO's comments would then be upset about Dwayne's comments.
And then it goes into another news cycle.
And then it becomes a thing.
And the outrage culture continues.
And it will continue until people put their foot down in say no mas.
And Dwayne did not put his foot down.
Instead, he put it in his mouth.
I'm not sure if he turned it sideways first.
But nonetheless, it went in his mouth.
And my respect for him, it has dissipated quite a bit.
Well, and if, for heaven's sakes, don't go see new Emma Watson movies.
I just wanted to point that out.
People have to pay for he for she.
And I've got a whole video on Emma Watson's UN speech, which you can find on the channel.
At this point, don't go see any movies.
Don't go see any movies in the theaters.
Sorry, theaters.
Your model for business is being destroyed because people can't keep their mouths shut and have to voach your signal relentlessly.
And the industry you're involved in is completely cancerous to the survival of the American population.
So, yeah, sorry.
I'm not going to go see any movies.
I'll wait until something's on Netflix and watch it for my $7.99 a month or whatever the hell it is these days.
Up next, we have a story from the Washington Post, or as it is otherwise known as Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos' propaganda blog that currently has an existing $600 million contract with the CIA. Wait, wait.
Did you find that out from Amazon?
No.
When they were talking about stuff, did they talk about, well, you know, we do have a $600 million contract with the CIA, which might affect how we talk about security issues on the paper?
Did they...
No, there's no disclosures on the articles about the CIA or anything having to do with surveillance or anything like that on the Washington Post that I have seen.
But nonetheless, it's very, very important.
The mere rumor that Donald Trump might have a piece of property in the vicinity of Russia or owned by a Russian, that must be investigated to the fullest extent possible by how many investigative journalists?
But no, no, that's not mentioned.
And look it up, folks.
This isn't conspiracy theory.
Amazon has an existing $600 million contract with the CIA. So...
You know, might influence them just a little bit, one would think.
So the Washington Post, they put out a headline that was very quickly changed.
The headline of this article said, Immigrants are now canceling their food stamps for fear that Donald Trump will deport them.
Hmm.
Hmm.
That was quickly changed to immigrants are going hungry so Trump won't deport them.
Oh, I'm afraid a little bit of sunlit truth got through the cracks of propaganda.
Quick, seal it up!
Seal it up!
Polly, fill it up, that mother.
Yeah, I gotta thank the idea that you're gonna put that in your paper and people are gonna go, wait a minute!
Immigrants are taking food stamps?
Well, why are immigrants on food stamps?
Aren't we only taking the best and brightest?
Well, it was quickly changed.
But the article itself remains pretty intriguing.
So let's dig into the text.
Well, just a sec.
Plus, immigrants are now canceling their food stamps for fear that Trump will deport them.
Trump can't actually legally deport immigrants.
Well, if you talk to some judges in liberal courts across America, Trump can't legally deport anybody, but...
No, no, but it's like calling a bed and breakfast the victim of a home invasion.
You know, are you there legally or are you there illegally?
Just mentioning that they're immigrants?
They're illegal immigrants.
They're invaders.
They're parasites.
Whatever you want to call them, but immigrants, it's an insult to the people who've gone through the process of getting legal citizenship or legal residence status.
The text continues and says...
Louisa Fortin sometimes sits up at night wondering what her clients are eating.
She is a SNAP outreach coordinator for the Chattanooga Food Bank, but lately she has done less outreaching.
Her families, working immigrants in northwest Georgia, are spooked by the political climate.
Increasingly, she has been asked to explain how food stamps may impact immigration status, if not to outright cancel family food benefits.
Since mid-January, five of Forston's families have withdrawn from the SNAP program.
Five people.
One, the single mother of three citizen daughters, had fled to Georgia to escape an abusive husband.
They're not sending their best.
Another, two green card holders with four young children, were thinking of taking on third jobs to compensate for the lost benefits.
Wait, so they have the capacity to work...
But instead they sign up for benefits.
Interesting.
Interesting.
Okay.
Well, no.
Or they're such low-skilled workers that even two jobs doesn't give them enough money to buy bread.
There is that, and they're not even in Venezuela.
Which is displacing low-skilled American workers, which particularly negatively affects the black community, so blah blah blah.
Anyway.
These families represent a small fraction of Fortin's caseload.
She estimates that she has signed 200 immigrant families up for SNAP over the past six months.
Now, given the prior use of the term immigrants, we're talking about illegal immigrants here.
So let's just look into this a little bit.
Now, people may be surprised by the fact that illegal immigrants, or immigrants as a whole, Are able to get food assistance, including SNAP. There's a bunch of things.
There's women, infants, and children, WIC. There's the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. And then there's school lunch subsidies.
So, what we have right here is some data from the Center for Immigration Studies on immigrant consumption of food assistance, which includes all those programs.
Now, for the native households, the American population native households, 22% of American households use one of those programs.
All immigrant households, that number goes up to 44%.
So it doubles for immigrant households.
And that's not illegal immigrant households.
That's just immigrant households.
Now, if we break this down even further by ethnicity, Asian natives, they're at 14%.
So they're below the baseline for native households as a whole.
If we go to Asian immigrants, it's up to 20%, which is still below the native baseline as a whole.
Now if we go to white natives, 15% for white native households.
White immigrant households, 24%.
So it's just a little bit above the baseline for white immigrant households, but it's close.
Now it really starts to jump when we go to Hispanic native households, which is 44% just for the natives.
So that's double in of itself the total native household baseline population.
Now if we go to Hispanic immigrants, That jumps up to 60%.
60% of Hispanic immigrant households are using some form of food assistance.
So WIC, SNAP, school lunch subsidies.
So those are the people that this woman is signing up on a regular basis.
If we go to black native households, it's 44% for natives.
And immigrant black households, it's 39%.
It actually goes down for black immigrant households, which kind of makes sense considering there isn't a black majority country.
On one of the United States borders, so you don't get lots of low-skilled people just easily rushing into the country.
Most of the black immigrants that are coming to the United States, they're likely here on some form of visa.
They're likely high-skilled.
They're likely tech workers, something of the sort.
So the idea that it's less than the native black population makes some sense in that regards.
But a lot of people are pretty darn surprised that Immigrants whatsoever are a-eligible, first off, eligible, much less able to get these kind of benefits, and in such large numbers.
And the idea that the Washington Post accidentally published a very inconvenient truth that I think a lot of people would be very interested in and upset about if it got out into the mainstream consciousness, and then quickly, quickly changed her headline, I thought was one of the more interesting factoids from the Newsweek.
Oh, wild.
Well, and there are stories, of course, of immigrants using EBT, which is like food stamps on a card or whatever, right, to buy up groceries, which they can then resell at their own convenience store, which is not particularly wonderful for the economy, the taxpayers, or people who don't do this kind of stuff.
So yeah, it is pretty rough.
And I gotta tell you, Mike, it's pretty girly stuff.
You know, I hate to get all kinds of sexist, but I'm going to anyway.
So this text, Louisa Fontaine sometimes sits up at night wondering what her clients are eating.
So sitting up at night worrying about who's eating what, that's kind of like a girly thing.
That's a very good point.
That's very much reaching out for women.
You know, it's like, oh, they're spooked by the political climate, right?
So that's anxiety, fear.
And that's, again, that's kind of like a girly thing.
Donald Trump's darkness!
Darkness, right?
And it's all about women here, right?
So, you know, we've got one, the single mother of three citizen daughters.
Well, first of all, they're citizen daughters because it's just happening, not because it's legal, right?
This sort of anchor baby birthright citizenship stuff.
Has fled to Georgia to escape.
An abusive husband, so a mean man, lots of dependent, needy women and so on.
Another two green card holders with four young children.
We're thinking of taking on third jobs, right?
Again, girl, girl, girl.
Worrying about who's hungry is like a mom thing.
And I think it's just really interesting.
This is very much playing on female roles.
Based lizard brain needs and requirements.
They're going hungry so that you won't, and this is the splitting up of families, it's all very much programming women's lizard brains to respond negatively to any kind of enforcement of immigration law.
Well, there's nothing even in the realm of female responsibility in there.
I'm not expecting that for any type of mainstream media.
I'm not even expecting that for most alternative media.
You know, oh, she just happened to be a single mom with three children and an abusive husband.
Why did she give three children to this abusive man?
That's not even examined.
But yes, it's all the spooky language.
The spooky language.
And there is not even a hint.
Of consideration or talk regarding who the heck is paying for this?
It's like, oh, we just take these food stamps and all the food associated with it out of a magic sack.
And we just give it to people.
You wouldn't want to not give food to hungry people, would you?
My God, you just want to see them starving the street.
Well, the funny thing is, you know, if you can convince, as we've talked about in the show before, if you can convince women to not have their own children, what they do is they start imagining that other people are their children.
Because if, let's say that you have three kids and your husband's working or you're working, well, you look at this story and you say, okay, so they're getting food at the expense of my kids getting food.
Right?
And so there's this conflict, right?
And you say, well, so these people are taking all this money out of my wallet or out of my husband's wallet.
They're taking money from my family and my children and my future.
Right?
But if you can convince women not to have kids, then they still have those same instincts to take care of and to feed and all that sort of stuff.
But what happens is they don't have the balancing, well, what about my kids' needs?
And so it really kind of gets out of control.
And this is borne out in all the data that's available regarding married women trending more conservative in the United States for that exact reason.
What they need to do is they need to take the money in tax on cat food.
If they do that...
Well, anyway, go on.
But then we have the cats going hungry, Steph, and then we need food stamps for cats.
You see, that's the hole with no bottom.
All right.
And then Trump will grab a cat?
Anyway, okay, it all goes haywire from here.
Yeah, so there's a lot of interesting stats that have been coming out this week on immigrant households, in addition to the Washington Post telling an inconvenient truth.
It came out that 23% of U.S. schoolchildren live in immigrant households.
23% of U.S. schoolchildren live in immigrant households.
That is more than double the percentage from just 1990, and it was only 7% back in 1980.
And I wonder if they're including illegals, because again, the word immigrant now has just become completely meaningless, and you don't know whether they're talking about legal immigrants or illegal immigrants.
But yeah, you're right.
Either way, the demographic replacement is underway.
So a study last year from the Federation for American Immigration Reform indicated that 1 in 10 students have been designated as limited English proficiency.
So that's a special program that every single year costs American taxpayers $59.8 billion for these 1 in 10 students that are not proficient in English.
Now obviously these are immigrants coming from other countries that English is not the first language and they need extra assistance and these are the type of programs and there's a ton of them that are not even part of the debate or discussion regarding the cost of immigration Much less, can you imagine just the sheer resources within a classroom when you have students that not only don't just speak English very well, but they also speak different languages.
It's not as if you just have Spanish speakers.
You have people that speak all different kinds of languages, aren't proficient in English, and you need resources in order to accommodate that.
Again, money, stats, all type of stuff that no one takes into consideration regarding the overall cost of immigration as a whole.
Another thing is That came out, which kind of shocked me, and these stats don't really shock me much these days, but we actually got hard numbers that 21.7% of the United States federal prison inmates are not U.S. citizens.
You read that right.
21.7% of everyone in the United States federal prison system are not United States citizens.
So, again...
Well, that's a fine immigration policy they got going on there.
Just excellent.
Good quality control.
So again, American taxpayers, congratulations!
You get to pay for the 21.7% of United States federal prison inmates that are not U.S. citizens.
It's bad enough that you have to pay for the ones that are U.S. citizens, and now you have to pay for the criminals from other countries.
And don't worry, don't worry.
When they're done serving their prison sentence, if their host country won't take them back, they'll just be released back into the American population, where I'm sure after being imprisoned, Wait, wait.
Do you think that their employment opportunities go up or down after they've been in prison?
Well, if you mean employment opportunities in gangs, then, you know, it helps with the street cred.
Yeah, plus they've had eight hours a day to work out in prison, because it's really, really important to take the least peaceful and most aggressive and violent members of society and make them stronger.
They can actually raise their rate for protection and shakedown services.
So in some ways, we're actually helping the non-US citizen community.
And it's networking.
You know, you can't meet the right kind of criminals unless you're in prison.
Because then, I mean, it's like a nerd going to a GeekFest conference.
I mean, that's the networking that you want to really help them branch out and get into new areas of criminality they might not have had a chance to explore otherwise.
Again, all this stuff, very well sourced, it's pretty indisputable, and it's never talked about.
And why isn't it talked about?
Well, you know the answer to that question.
They don't like the answer, so they have to pretend that it doesn't exist.
Now, the next story on our slate here, it's not the biggest deal in the world, but it's kind of an example of the systematic effects that we've seen from this self-esteem, social justice warrior culture that's pervading modern America.
Golden Ridge Elementary School in California was Has banned the game of TAG. Yes, TAG, if you played it while you were in school, if you played it as a child, apparently TAG Is a microaggression, or maybe just a general aggression.
So, the principal sent home a note to parents saying, So, Playing tag, running around, that we need to stop.
But putting children in endless rows for eight hours a day, sitting in chairs, when sitting is the new smoking.
I know that's kind of a buzzword tagline, but the statistical data bears it out that sitting is terrible for you.
So we're cramming children into schools where they sit in chairs for eight hours a day around other students who may or may not be the most healthy, non-aggressive individuals on the planet.
And we're concerned about student safety, so we have to ban running around and tagging people.
But one thing I remember when I was a kid was, you know, this...
The gym teachers, they always had chewing tobacco breath.
And unless you actually were missing a body part or some core artery have been split open to the sky, they're like, yeah, walk it off.
Walk it off.
I mean, you had that in hockey too, right?
I mean, you take a shot and you go into the glass and something, and people are like, are you almost done yet?
We want to keep playing.
Are you done with your bleeding and picking up body parts?
Because we've got to get back into the game.
And we'd occasionally get the, huh, do you want to go see the nurse?
But we said it exactly that way, like, oh, are you really?
Are you that hurt?
Do you want to go see the nurse?
Do you have a boo-boo?
Do you need to be taken care of?
And it's a bit of a boy-girl thing, too.
I mean, I remember we used to split the gym into two.
This is when I think it was in junior high at this point.
We split the gym in two, and there was like this divider between the boys and the girls.
And...
I guess I was about, I don't know, 13 or something like that.
And, you know, at the age of 13, let's just say there's quite a spread in physical development among the boys, right?
Like some of them still look like, you know, eight-year-old anime characters, and the other of them look like You know, ogres from Dungeons& Dragons or something.
Or some haggar from Harry Potter.
And so there's a huge spread.
And so we got to do Greco-Roman wrestling, which is really not fair, especially at the age of 13 when there's just such a huge...
I mean, there was these Lebanese guys in my class who...
By grade six, they already had to shave the backs of their hands.
That was so huge.
And it was just completely unfair.
So basically, you've got Lebanese ass in your face crushing your windpipe and so on.
And then you sort of stagger out and they're walking off.
And then you sort of peek around what the girls are doing.
And they're all doing little dance moves and dance routines and all that.
I remember thinking like...
Man, that actually looks like a whole lot more fun than what we're doing here.
But yeah, boys need that kind of stuff.
You need the rough and tumble stuff.
And this is just the over-feminization of education has just gone mad.
It's just gone mad.
Lebanese ass in your face.
So you've been looking at my Google search results.
I see that.
Okay.
Actually, it's what you're posting.
But yes.
Well, there's an interesting element, too.
It just kind of dawned on me.
You get refugees coming into the country that claim to be under 18, and that's kind of dubious in some ways.
So I wonder to what degree you have immigrants coming into the country where their age can't be determined.
They're put in schools or older than they are, and maybe they're a bit rougher.
You know, so you have larger people that are older playing games of tag.
Yeah, I could see how that would lead to concerns about the game of tag, but...
You know, also as a parent, it's a big deal to help your kids control their aggression.
Because when you're very little, like toddler, you use your full strength on everything because your full strength is so little.
But then as you get older and you get stronger...
You have to have parents, I guess, and playmates too, but I think it's a parent's job.
You know, you do your roughhousing and you continually have to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, too rough, easy.
You know, this is supposed to be play fighting because they're so used to using their full strength.
And I wonder, you know, again, I don't think moms are particularly good at the whole play fighting manager strength.
That's a bit of a dad's wheelhouse thing.
And I, you know, the single...
The single mom situation, I don't think that the boys are necessarily learning how to manage their physical intensity, if that makes sense.
And so I think that also leads to some of this aggression.
Or it might not even be there, but the girls or the female teachers are all like, it's too rough, it's too rough.
Well, so either it's not there, so then they're banning it because they don't like tag.
Or it is there, and there's also an element of, okay, so you're saying that there's an entire generation of school kids that don't have empathy.
So they're going to be too rough because they can't empathize with the person that they're tagging or tackling.
So, what are we raising, an entire generation of sociopaths?
So, let's ban the symptom of any kind of problems, any kind of physical aggression.
Let's get rid of the tag.
If we push stuff under the surface, it'll just go away and won't become a problem years later.
No, not at all.
Yeah, no, it's chilling stuff.
And I have hugely positive memories of those kinds of games, even the rough games and all of that.
And it's supposed to be enforced horizontally, right?
The stepping in and banning stuff, it's so ridiculous.
The way that play is supposed to be enforced is anarchically.
If you play with someone who's too rough, you don't play with them until they deal with their roughness.
If you play with someone who cheats, then you don't play with them until they stop cheating.
Like, it's supposed to be enforced through ostracism, but everybody these days is so used to running to authority that we're creating people who can't negotiate, who can't enforce social rules horizontally, which is great for the state.
They love all that stuff.
Well, moving on, back to New York.
From one liberal hellhole to another, we're back to New York regarding teacher literacy.
Steph, should teachers be able to pass a basic literacy test before they set foot in a classroom?
I'm not sure why.
I mean, there's Google, right?
And assuming you don't know how to type, you can look things up on Google.
Oh, actually, no, you can't.
By the way, is it just me?
Every now and then, Google will ask me to identify, you know, show me all of these pictures with mountains in them.
I can never do it.
It's absolutely – because, you know, is that a mountain in the background?
Anyway, who knows?
But I just wanted to point out that's kind of annoying.
But yeah, of course they should.
I mean, what a ridiculous question.
But apparently the school board doesn't necessarily agree with this.
Yes, New York once agreed with this common sense approach requiring teachers to pass the academic literacy skills test.
The exam, which is equivalent to a 12th grade level assessment, consisted of multiple choice and written form literacy questions.
Now, let's go to a quote.
The literacy tests raise alarms from the beginning because just 46% of Hispanic test takers and 41% of black test takers pass it on the first try compared with 64% of white candidates.
So we're talking about teachers here.
Right.
This is the teachers who are being asked to pass a test similar to the one they might administer to their students.
It's a literacy test for teachers.
46% of Hispanic test takers And 41% of black test takers pass it on the first try.
Only!
So you have the majority that are unable to pass the damn literacy test.
That's a bit of a challenge.
That's a bit concerning.
Now, a federal judge ruled in 2015 that the test was not discriminatory, thank God, but faculty members at educational schools say that the test screens out so many minorities and is thus problematic.
The Pace University education professor said, we want high standards without a doubt.
Not every given test is going to get us there.
Having a white workforce really doesn't match our student body anymore.
Can't we just have a workforce of people able to pass a basic literacy test if they're going to be?
No.
Well, you know this, right?
No.
Not if you want quotas, right?
Not if you want the teaching profession to match the demographics, right?
Because of race and IQ, there's these problems, right?
And the problems are, which we all know, that if you're going to have a blanket test for abilities, intelligence, skills, whatever proxy it might be for an IQ test, we have a problem.
You'll get a disproportionately high number of Ashkenazi Jews and of East Asians and of whites, and then it will be lower for Hispanics and blacks.
And so, yeah, I mean, anything...
If you assume everyone's the same, no matter what, whether it's culture or genetics, we don't know, it doesn't really matter.
But if you assume everyone's the same, then all disparities in outcome by ethnicity must be due to bigotry.
Whereas if you understand the basic facts on the ground, which apparently people are still fighting to tooth and nail, well, then this stuff all makes sense.
No, no stuff.
Those are interesting things to say, talking about IQ and that.
Kate Walsh, the president of the National Council on Teacher Quality...
Which pushes for higher standards for teachers, you know, like maybe having literate teachers, said that blacks and Latinos don't score as well on whites on the literacy tests, not because of IQ, but because of factors like poverty and the legacy of racism.
Yay, legacy of racism!
There's not a test in the country that doesn't have disproportionate performance on the part of blacks and Latinos.
But she said that getting rid of the literacy test would be a crying shame.
So at least she doesn't want to get rid of the literacy test because of the results that it shows, much like the California school district that wants to get rid of TAG because it shows the aggression of the kids, which might have other symptoms.
Again, we have to get rid of the test.
And again, all the problems from it if we just get rid of the symptom are just going to vanish.
No, they won't.
But yes, it's the legacy of racism and poverty stuff.
It has nothing to do with IQ whatsoever.
Sure, and that is a theory that the left has been working with for more than half a century.
And I would be more comfortable with that as a theory if they didn't violently oppose anyone who brought up IQ disparities and possible causation other than racism.
Because I don't know the proof for that.
I don't know the proof for any of that.
And the fact that people assume that something emotionally comfortable is true...
Is not very comforting.
Usually that which is true is not comfortable, particularly if it's a truth that leads to a lessening of government power or identity politics or leftist stereotypes or whatever.
And so I just assume that it's propaganda to say, well, it's all the result of racism.
Because, of course, if there are ethnicity and IQ differences, which there certainly are, you can check the American Psychological Association's verification of Ernstine and Murray's work in the bell curve for more on this.
They went in thinking it wasn't true, I think, and found out that it was.
Then we already have a hypothesis which explains these kinds of disparities and coming up with another hypothesis that hasn't solved any of these problems.
I mean, if it's racism and poverty and the legacy of slavery, which is exactly what they said sort of 60 years ago, Then they've spent trillions of dollars and like untold amounts of human labor to try and close this gap.
And the gap has not closed in sort of ethnicity and test taking and scores and so on.
It's barely closed.
So if you have a theory which says, well, the solution is less racism.
And if the solution is poverty, then we throw lots of money at the problem.
Then the problem should have been long solved by now.
Um...
But it hasn't been, and that should give people some pause regarding this hypothesis.
If they're going to propose a hypothesis such as poverty, for example, despite the fact that untold amount of money has been poured into programs like the Head Start, which has been shown to be a complete and total colossal failure, I need a null hypothesis to take you seriously.
How do I show that this is incorrect?
What standards of proof are there for this thesis?
Or do you just want to take a thesis and carry it on regardless of Now, 37%.
I mean, just want everyone to understand what that means.
It's supposed to be a republic, right, in America.
And so it's supposed to, you have to be able to comprehensively read and understand basic things to be able to even remotely intelligently vote in a republic or a democracy.
And I mean, that's astounding.
That's just reading.
We're not even talking critical thinking.
We're not thinking about problem solving.
That's just proficient in being able to read the text.
And unfortunately, it doesn't get better.
That number drops to 27% when it comes to writing.
So after 12 years, or in this case, 11 years of government education, these high school seniors, you have 37% that are proficient in reading and 27% that are proficient in writing.
At some point, you've got to ask, what the hell is the point of all this education if these are the results?
Well, the point of education is to capture property tax money and send it to the Democrats.
To send it to the Democrats and, I mean, the entire model of the American school system is based on a model which had far more to do with indoctrination than actually educating a competent citizenry.
Well, and also, if you are importing lots of immigrants from lower IQ countries, then it's going to have an effect on what you can teach.
And even if we say that the IQ is not an issue, well, then we've got language barriers, we've got cultural barriers, we've got religious barriers.
Huge amounts of resources are being diverted away from educating American kids to educate immigrant kids, which is going to result in a dilution of the quality that is available as a whole.
And, you know, parents should be up in arms about this, but...
Still waiting for all that to happen.
Well, again, we go back to the 1 in 10 students that have been designated as limited English proficiency.
Right.
You know, so 1 in 10 of these numbers, you're probably talking about immigrants.
So that's something important to keep in mind.
Well, and there was this, I think it was a politician in France who said, look, in some districts in my region, 91% of the students in school are Muslim from, you know, way outside of France.
He got in trouble for speaking this basic fact, but that is going to be a challenge as we go forward.
All right, let's move on to the next one.
All right, well, up next we have veteran democratic operative Donna Brazile.
Everyone remembers Donna, who...
Finally now has admitted that she used her position as a CNN commentator to relay questions ahead of the debates to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary.
So for the people that aren't aware of this story, let's just break it down a little bit.
So in an email before a March 6th debate in Flint, Michigan, Brazil sent an email saying, one of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash.
Her family has lead poisoning, and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the people of Flint?
So that's pretty clear.
There's a woman with a rash that's going to ask a question about this.
Be prepared.
Okay.
Now, another email was sent March 12th from Brazil to Hillary Clinton's director of communications, and the subject line was, from time to time, I get the questions in advance.
So if Donna wants to make the claim that she doesn't get questions in advance or doesn't receive any questions, that subject line is pretty tough to overcome.
So after that, in that email, she provided a description of a possible death penalty question, which, again, matched a question that was asked the next night.
So on March 17th, she wrote an article, and a lot of it was Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but this is the part that had to do with the email and the debate question controversy.
She says, in October, a subsequent release of emails revealed that among the many things I did in my role as a Democratic operative and DNC chair, vice chair, prior to assuming the interim DNC chair position, was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign.
I had been working behind the scenes to add more town hall events and debates to the primary calendar, and I helped ensure those events included diverse moderators and addressed topics vital to minority communities.
My job was to make our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen.
But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.
Hmm.
So she regrets sending the emails, but she worked with both candidacies and she didn't favor Hillary Clinton.
Okay.
She continues and says, By stealing all the DNC's emails and then selectively releasing those few, the Russians made it look like I was in the tank for Hillary Clinton!
Despite the strong public support I received from top Sanders campaign aides in the wake of those leaks—by that point, Hillary already had the nomination and everyone was just falling behind the leader— The media narrative played out just as the Russians had hoped.
Oh dear.
Leaving Sanders supporters understandably angry and sowing division in our ranks.
Yes.
Yes.
Shockingly, when you're completely in the tank for one candidate, it sows division in the ranks with the people that didn't originally support that candidate.
Yes.
Shocking.
But it's the Russians' fault.
Because...
Because...
Moving on.
In reality, not only was I not playing favorites...
The more competitive and heated the primary got, the harder DNC staff worked to be scrupulously fair and beyond reproach.
You sent the questions to the DNC! You sent the questions to Hillary Clinton campaign operatives!
Ah, so maybe the DNC staff was working hard to be scrupulously fair and beyond reproach, but you, someone with deep ties to the DNC, was sending questions ahead of time and completely trying to screw Bernie Sanders.
So, she continued.
And did she take even more personal responsibility?
No, she didn't.
She blamed Russia.
We need to come up with, like, a syndrome that involves blaming Russia for all your personal foibles.
She said, let me be clear.
This is not just the price of politics.
This is not normal.
We cannot let this stand.
Our democratic process itself was attacked and harmed, and all Americans should be concerned.
So, Steph, we should be concerned that emails...
We're leaked and released by WikiLeaks, which again, not proven at all.
There's no evidence to suggest that Russia had anything to do with getting the emails from the DNC and giving them to WikiLeaks to then release them.
No evidence whatsoever.
So we're already assuming in this that Russia gave them to WikiLeaks, which isn't even proven.
But even if we accept that as true, the fact that they had poor security, they had people involved that might leak this stuff, And then it was released, the fact that these facts are now out there, that they don't want out there, that show that they were completely in the tank against Bernie Sanders and for Hillary Clinton.
Somehow that's the fault of Russia.
So Donna Brazile has taken no responsibility for her actions, and the Bernie Sanders supporters, which were very upset, I think of every reason to be, and her apology does little to dissuade from that.
Well, I mean, but to be fair, Mike, It is all a legacy of racism and slavery.
We're gonna go there for...
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
It is somehow the result of the...
It's the result of the 4% of American whites who owned slave 150 years ago.
It's got...
I mean, six degrees of white separation.
We'll find a way to thread that needle and get it back.
Now, how many questions did she leak?
There were two.
Two.
Okay.
So it's interesting.
Interesting.
So that's cheating on a test, right?
Yeah.
That's cheating on a test.
And not only did she send them, but Hillary campaign operatives and Hillary accepted them, which tells you something of that campaign and Hillary herself.
It's not just that these were sent.
They were accepted.
Yeah, and you don't, you know, if I'm on a running race with Kyle Lewis in his prime, you don't need to give him steroids.
Right?
Like, if it's me versus Usain Bolt, you don't need to give him a jetpack because he's going to win.
So when you cheat in this way, you're clearly saying that Hillary can't win on an even playing field.
That's sort of number one.
So it's an absolute act of lack of confidence in cheating.
In Hillary, which I think is, oh, trying to make them look good?
No, no, no.
The other thing, too, is that even from high school to college courses, right, the first time you get caught cheating, it's a big deal.
So standard is you get zero on the exam.
You fail the exam.
Now, a lot of places, a lot of colleges, if you get caught cheating, you get a failing grade for the whole course, not just the exam itself.
And you've got to go in front of a disciplinary board, and you might get even more.
And if you get caught cheating a second time in general...
You get expelled from the college.
And so two cheating, I mean, two cheating instances.
I mean, if she was in high school, or at least in college, she would have been kicked out for the most part.
And what are the consequences?
So, an 18-year-old in college has a huge negative consequence, right?
You get kicked out.
I don't think you get a full refund.
It's on your record.
It's tough to get into a new college.
Could, you know, really ruin your whole life to cheat on some sociology exam that who cares what about a fart in a rain bucket.
But, boy, leader of the free world, cheat twice, knowingly, complicitly, no negative consequences.
Nope.
And, you know, if we're going to say the legacy of slavery...
I know that's a bit in jest, but if we're going to say the legacy of slavery is the reason behind, A, black underachievement in high school and down in Brazil, what about the legacy of communism as an excuse for Russia?
Did they get to play that card?
Communism way worse than slavery.
Slavery did not cause the death of 60 million.
I just did the show with Mike Cernovich about Solzhenitsyn's great work on the gulag, and Solzhenitsyn's estimated 60 million killed.
There's nowhere even close to anything like that.
I would much rather be a slave in the American South than trapped in the Russian concentration camp system under Stalin, or Lenin for that matter.
Yeah, I mean, I'd like to hear the argument if the legacy of slavery argument is in any way, shape, or form valid how the legacy of communism argument isn't equally as valid to excuse the Russians and the Russian people from doing just about anything present-day.
Maybe they didn't know that you couldn't do X, Y, and Z because of the legacy of communism.
Ever think of that?
No, I'm sure you're not going to hear that on CNN. Well, given that the left praised communism for most of its existence, I'm sure they're having a tough time seeing it as a negative.
By the way, did you know that the Gulag Archipelago, which is 1,800 pages of very intense literary work by one of the greatest literary geniuses in Russian history and world history, do you know that Putin has said that this should be assigned and is being assigned to high school students in Russia?
I did not know that.
Can you imagine?
I mean, if, you know, what was it, 37% of American students are even remotely literate.
Can you imagine if they had to grind their way through that book?
What would happen?
It just shows you the difference between Russian high schools and American high schools.
It would be interesting to get a comparison of the books that are required reading in various countries in their public educational systems.
You know, United States C-spot run.
Well, no.
And Russia, clearly it's a teen hacker's guide to the Democrats' file structure on their servers.
That would be pretty much all they're taking.
All right.
So this Donna Brazile statement, it's bad enough in and of itself.
It's what we call a BNAP, a bullshit non-apology.
She regrets it, but she's apologizing, but not apologizing.
Now, putting this in the context of her fervent denials throughout the campaign cycle, I mean, just last February, she said, You know, I think there's always a lot of confusion when something is put out on a dump of emails that trickles out.
So the first answer is an easy answer.
Did CNN provide Donna Brazile or any other contributor debate questions?
No.
I never received questions from CNN. I've made that very clear.
I've made that very plain.
The emails were allegedly sent to me or sent from me.
You know, told a story, but it didn't tell a complete story.
Again, the title of the email.
Where is it?
From time to time, I get the questions in advance.
Hmm.
So, you have no wiggle room, and just last February, she was trying to wiggle through it and saying, you know, they don't tell a complete picture, and, you know, this was leaked out, and they might not be completely accurate.
In October, when this first came out, October 11th, she said, as it pertains to the CNN debates, I never had access to questions and would never have shared them with the candidates if I did.
So, she was lying, evidenced by her current statement.
She...
Doesn't admit and doesn't come out and say, I apologize for misleading people, and I did do this, but based on her news statement, she was clearly lying October 11th and was aware that she was lying.
And October 19th, she said, I can just once again let you know that as far as I know that CNN has never provided me with questions, absolutely ever.
And as I said repeatedly, CNN in the last 14 years I was associated with CNN, I have never received anything.
Again, sometimes I receive the questions in advance.
I've never received anything.
If I had a blank piece of paper that would basically be the end of the conversation, I never get documents from CNN. Then it gets better.
Let's get back to the core issues, though.
The important thing is that Trump didn't make a lot of money off his stakes.
The success or failure of Trump's stakes as a business clearly needs to be deliberated and discussed ad nauseum.
And this just shows you that the left, you know, listen to them and believe them, people, when they say they have no standards, no values, and they don't have any standards by which they can help.
The standards are all set up to trip you up.
They don't care.
They don't care.
How on earth is this person who lied openly, it appears, about all of this stuff in a very hotly contested and pivotal election campaign for the presidency of the United States?
Lied!
Misled!
Cheated!
Repeatedly!
And this is someone who was the DNC chair at one point.
I mean, that tells you the type of people that are involved in the DNC... Yeah, why aren't the Democrats, like the rank-and-file Democrats, why aren't they standing up and saying, no, no, no, no, this cannot stand?
In order for us to have credibility, for us to trust you as an—they don't care.
It's just about delivering tax money from productive people.
They don't care, and they can't be relied on to follow any objective, moral, or ethical standard.
That's the key.
Well, Steph, she continued, and this is the best part of the quote.
She said, as a Christian woman, I understand persecution.
But I will not sit here and be prosecuted.
Do you understand thou shalt not bear false witness?
Thou shalt not lie?
Is that something you understand?
Maybe we should check her reading proficiency level and see if she understood that part.
Yeah, maybe she just didn't get down the whole ten.
Who knows?
There you go.
But she will not sit here and be prosecuted because your information is sorely false.
Wow, so you cheat, and you lie, and you manipulate, and then when you're caught, you play the victim.
Never seen that before on the left.
I'm racking my brain.
Racking my brain.
Speaking of another situation where someone was victimized in the court of public opinion, we move now to Representative Steve King of Iowa, who sparked quite the controversy for a tweet, a controversy about a tweet from a Republican.
Nope.
Again, no examples of that.
Where he expressed support for Dutch politician Gert Wilders.
He said, Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny.
We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies.
Would you like to break that out, Steph, and maybe explain what he was alluding to?
Well, it's not really that complicated.
If you move everyone from Saudi Arabia to Denmark and everyone from Denmark to Saudi Arabia, the countries are completely different.
It's not that complicated, and we all kind of understand that.
Can you imagine going to Asian countries and saying, well, there's just way too many Asian people here.
We really need to displace you with other groups.
It would be kind of weird and creepy.
Who on earth would think of that as a remotely sensible thing to do?
But everyone's preying upon white guilt, white universalism, and the fundamental inability for whites to recognize that you can't just bring other people into your culture and have your culture remain Unchanged.
You simply can't.
I mean, this is all very well understood.
See, when white people go to third world countries and strip mine them for resources, that's evil colonialism.
But when third world people do it to white countries, it's wonderful multiculturalism and diversity as a strength.
And this is what he's basically saying.
Why do we need to bring in all these people from foreign cultures, foreign religions, foreign countries?
Why can't we just have babies?
And that's...
Why is that such a weird question?
Well, it's a weird question, of course, because the Democrats want to buy votes by importing a third world, a third world and then paying them with the taxpayers of productive Americans at the expense, particularly of American minorities.
So it's a reasonable question.
Why?
Why?
What's wrong?
What's wrong with just having sex?
I ask myself that every day.
What is wrong with just making babies?
And it is not an addition, right?
American birth rate has now fallen below replacement levels.
It's very low in Europe.
And some of that has to do with...
Feminism, education, and other things which, certainly as far as female education and opportunities go, fantastic, wonderful.
I think all that stuff's great.
But it is a replacement because what happens is the third world cultures come in, they have lots of babies, which means lots of social benefits, lots of social welfare, lots of consumption of socially funded or publicly funded healthcare systems and so on.
So all that happens is the taxes go up for the native population, and there's a massive shift of resources to the immigrant population, which means they have more babies.
The native population has fewer.
It's not, say, France plus immigrants.
It's France minus French people plus immigrants.
And at some point, there is a tipping point.
The usual democratic elites and establishment people came out to condemn this terrible tweet.
We'll read one from Rep. John Lewis, whose reputation continues to go through the floor.
He said that Rep. King's statement is bigoted and racist.
It suggests that there is one cultural tradition and one appearance that all humanity should conform to.
These ideas have given rise to some of the worst atrocities in human history, and they must be condemned.
I'm not sure the worst atrocity in human history is brought about by saying facts about demographics, but nonetheless, John Lewis thinks that's the case.
So, of course, you expect the Democrats to go nuts on this or anything that involves race that they can possibly bait into upsetting people.
But the sad part is the Republicans.
Oh, God, there's so many establishment Republicans who just, oh, man, they're looking for an opportunity to cuck out on these kind of things.
So Iowa Republican Party Chairman Jeff Kaufman put out a statement, said, First of all, I do not agree with the Congressman King's statement.
We are a nation of immigrants, and diversity is the strength of any nation and any community.
Now, Iowa Republican Party Chairman Jeff Kaufman failed to provide evidence that I've read Robert Putnam's work, and he makes a very good case as to why diversity may not be a strength and the drawbacks of it.
No, it's catastrophic, let's be frank, for those who don't know the history.
Diversity is catastrophic to neighborhoods, to cultures, to communities, to productivity, to peace, to fiscal sensibility and stability.
It's a disaster all around.
And then Paul Ryan, his spokesperson, said, Is one of its great strengths.
So the Republican establishment pile on for anyone that says anything, even remotely politically incorrect or challenging of the conventional narrative, always continues.
And Paul Ryan can't resist getting himself in there, but I'm sure he's going to fix health care without any problems.
Well, look, I mean, the basic demographics is that white people around the world are very much below replacement levels.
And it's sort of funny to me, of course, right?
The environmentalists, if there's this imaginary threat to polar bears, they go completely mental, even though polar bear population is actually increasing.
You know, you see all these pictures of the polar bears clinging to the last ice cube in the Arctic Ocean and so on, crying.
We're going to run out of extras for Coke commercials.
So when there's a sort of...
A species that is threatened.
The left goes completely insane and everyone has to pay massive amounts of taxes and all of that to help support the species.
But if white people are below replacement levels and say, well, you know, maybe we should sort of figure this out.
No!
That's evil and racist.
And it's like, oh, come on.
You guys are so boring.
You need to be quiet about the polar bear thing, Steph, because they may go after the polar bears next.
Polar bear privilege.
It's everywhere.
All right.
So let's move on to another interesting story, this time out of Texas.
A Texas politician has filed legislation that would see men fined $100 for masturbating!
Unless they are doing it in a sanctioned session at a hospital or clinic.
Yay!
Jessica Farr, a Democrat, created the Men's Right to Know Act to highlight how women have been affected and targeted by healthcare legislation in her state, particularly relating to abortion.
Now, you can pull up this woman if you want.
I hate to say it.
She looks exactly as you would expect her to look.
Wait, her picture is not on the wall of these sanctioned sessions at the hospital to help you spill your seed into a cup or something?
No, she's not part of the literature that would be used.
So masturbation now is being related to abortion.
Masturbation is somehow morally equivalent or biologically equivalent to abortion.
So that's like me saying, hey, I have a handful of flour.
That's exactly the same as an eight-level wedding cake.
But she's just trying to raise awareness, Steph.
Don't think of this logically.
She's just trying to raise awareness.
I'll give her the $100 for masturbating.
Wait, let me rephrase that.
Phraseology error, physics fail.
But sure, okay, let's say that that's a possibility, but then I want equal funding for prostate cancer as breast cancer.
Regarding this bill, she said its rules would include a mandatory waiting period before a vasectomy procedure or receiving a prescription for Viagra.
As well as a medically unnecessary digital rectal exam, which is designed to mirror Texas' laws on healthcare restrictions, quote-unquote restrictions, faced by Texas women.
The headline stipulation would categorize ejaculation outside either a vagina or a medical facility as an act against an unborn child in failing to preserve the sanctity of life.
Oh, so she would include, like, non-vaginal sex in this as well?
That doesn't get specified, but that was the immediate question that everyone asked.
Right, so you bust a nut somewhere other...
Oh, how about where the woman is not currently ovulating?
You bust a nut somewhere other than the proximity of a fertile egg rolling down the old tubes, and you are exactly the same as a woman who has a DNC, who scrapes out a fetus from the inside of her body.
Not all the sperm get there either, Steph, so I don't know how we're going to sort out that problem.
Oh, that's true.
That's true.
Maybe it's $100 per sperm that doesn't actually get through an egg.
Boy, that's quite a lot.
I don't think Bill Gates got enough of that.
We could balance the national debt if that was the case.
We could pay that off, although we would still be enslaving the young.
I mean, there's a difference between the prevention of pregnancy and the termination of the life of a fetus.
I mean, there is just a difference.
There's a difference between quitting smoking and going in for cancer surgery on your cancerous lungs.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as I grew up learning.
There's a huge difference between not gaining weight because you manage your diet and exercise ahead of time and going in and having massive amounts of blubber hacked off your body.
There's just a difference between prevention and, quote, cure.
Now, the proposed law would also force the state to create pamphlets, mimicking those given to women seeking an abortion, filled with information about vasectomies, Viagra, and colonoscopies, and would allow doctors to, quote, Invoke their personal, moralistic, or religious beliefs in refusing to perform an elective vasectomy or prescribing Viagra.
So, the Texas House of Representatives is currently controlled by a Republican majority, and the state has—it does have some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country due to the conservative Christian culture.
And the person behind the bill said, A lot of people find the bill funny.
What's not funny are the obstacles that Texas women face every day— That were placed there by legislatures, making it very difficult for them to access healthcare.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my...
Oh, fuck.
Go ahead, Steph.
Abortion is not healthcare.
A baby is not a disease.
It is not a cancer.
A baby in your body is kind of what you were...
Before you were born.
As Ronald Reagan says, I notice everyone who's either pro or against abortion suffers from the enormous blessing of not having been aborted themselves.
It is not healthcare to cure yourself of a pregnancy.
A baby is not an illness.
Now, the way she phrases it, you'd think abortion was illegal in Texas or something.
So what are these really oppressive laws that she is...
proposing this mock bill to bring attention to.
So from 2011, women have been made to undergo an invasive ultrasound scan.
Ultrasound is not invasive.
No, no, no.
I was there when my daughter was still the waka waka waka, the little pac-man in the womb.
I went to the end.
I'm telling you, there were no needles involved.
Nothing had to be opened up.
There was nothing that had to be swallowed.
There was no little Isaac Asimov extras floating around in some pill in a body.
They put something up.
And I've had an ultrasound scan of a sports injury.
It's not invasive.
She thinks it's invasive.
The scan has to happen 24 hours before It's not a hand up the ass, which he seems to be analogizing it to.
The abortion itself seems far more evasive than the damn ultrasound scan, which now apparently needs to happen 24 hours before the abortion.
Well, technically, the thing which produces the pregnancy is a little bit more invasive than the ultrasound scan.
No, that's a good point.
That's a really good point.
And this requires at least two trips to a clinic.
So you have to go there to get the ultrasound, and then you have to go back to actually get the abortion.
So it requires two-trip stuff, and this is really bad.
So...
Heaven forbid that people be presented with more information.
You are ending a potential human life, and if you can't look at it on the ultrasound, maybe you should think twice.
You know, to me, I'd rather have the government have nothing to do with any of this stuff at all, in any way, shape, or form.
But the reality is, when you take money from the government, you subject yourself to social norms in a way that you don't.
You know, if I'm broke and I go to a friend of mine and I say, I need money for food, and then he catches me at the casino, he has a right to be upset.
Now, if I'm rolling in money and I go to the casino, that's fine.
But if I say, man, I need money, I'm so hungry, I've got to buy some food, and then he catches me at the casino or doing some useless thing with the money, he has a right to be upset because I'm taking his money.
So to me, a great way to prevent all of this stuff is get rid of governments paying for healthcare.
And that way, you can go and do what you want, and nobody has to get unnecessary rectal exams.
I mean, unless that's your thing.
Well, she goes even further than that, because earlier she says, you know, she's upset with the fact that doctors could evoke their personal moralistic or religious beliefs in refusing to perform an elective vasectomy or prescribing Viagra.
That's part of the joke bill.
So that's saying...
That she's upset with the fact that certain doctors don't want to perform abortions.
So what's the argument?
We need to force doctors that don't want to perform abortions to perform abortions.
So we need to not only get the state to pay for many of these quote-unquote healthcare services, but we also need to force doctors at gunpoint to do things that they don't want to do.
Can we stop forcing people at gunpoint to do things they don't want to do, whether it's a gay wedding cake, whether it's, you know, they don't want to perform an abortion?
Can we stop doing that?
Or funding food stamps for illegal immigrants.
But this goes right to the core of what is laughingly called feminism these days, which is that if they can't get taxpayer-funded abortions on demand, feminism has a bit of a problem.
Right?
Because if a woman gets pregnant and she decides or wants to is encouraged or guilted or whatever keeps the baby, then she needs resources because she's pregnant, she's giving birth, she's breastfeeding, she needs resources.
And if she can't get resources by whining and bleating at the government, then she needs a man to give her resources, which means she has to provide value to a family as a wife or as a partner, which means that she's going to end up finding something positive about men.
Now, if she finds out something positive about men, a lot of feminism falls away.
So she's right in a way in that if you want to create some sort of valid justification for this fourth-wave feminism stuff, sure, the government needs to provide abortion on demands paid for largely by males' taxes so that women don't accidentally end up falling in love with a man and enjoying his company. the government needs to provide abortion on demands paid for So she's really saying that women are too intellectually inferior to use birth control?
They're just not smart enough to figure out how to use multiple forms of birth control so they don't become impregnated?
Well, yeah, I mean, there is some failure rate to birth control, though it's nowhere near the rate of abortions.
And abortions are bad for women.
Bad for women psychologically raises cancer risks.
I mean, they are bad for women.
And again, with regards to the legality, I don't want to have the government involved.
In six miles of this kind of stuff.
But this is...
I actually...
I appreciate Ms.
Ferrara doing this stuff because it...
Again, occasionally you need that geyser of estrogen crazy to stain the very sky so that people can see it from a distance.
All right.
Well, moving on to another story which was really underreported.
I think many leftist outlets saw how insane it was.
So there's a new documentary out claiming...
Seth.
Michael Brown is innocent, okay?
He's really a victim in this situation.
Why is he a victim?
Because he was a drug dealer.
You see, he...
What?
Yes.
No.
He's innocent of criminality because he's a criminal.
Yes.
You see, he didn't actually rob the convenience store.
You know the video that everyone has seen where he's bullying the clerk?
Well, he pushes the guy into the rack and...
That looks pretty bad.
The police were called, which is how Darren Wilson got the call.
So the argument is he didn't actually rob the store, you see, because previously he went to the store, and this was many, many, many hours previous, and he brought a bag full of something that they're claiming was marijuana, and he put it on the table and tried to trade it for the cigarillos.
And the clerk didn't want it.
He wasn't interested in the bag.
But when he came back, you see, he was just retrieving his property, the Cigarellos, that were from this failed drug deal that didn't happen in some way, shape, or form.
So somehow, even if we accept that as true, the fact that Michael Brown was a drug dealer, he's innocent, He's innocent and the conclusions of the grand jury and Eric Holder's Justice Department and everyone that looked through this case with a fine-tooth comb obviously must be wrong because Michael Brown tried to trade drugs for cigarillos and therefore he's a great guy.
But he's not a very good drug dealer if the deal doesn't go through.
There's a bad drug dealer.
That's the argument.
Yeah, so he leaves his stuff there.
It's like, oh, you don't want to make this trade?
Okay, I'll just leave my stuff here and come back for it later.
That doesn't make any sense.
No, it doesn't make any sense.
But, you know, there's an entire documentary based around this claim.
I mean, this stuff is bad enough, even if there weren't consequences.
But there's some pretty serious consequences to this documentary coming out and the filmmaker going around and talking about these claims.
Okay, so the filmmaker claims that the video shows that the slain teen – I like the verbiage in that word that I'm reading verbatim – traded pot for the cigarillos that he would later be accused of stealing, but the clerk rejected Brown's offer.
So the clerk rejected the offer.
So isn't it still theft, even using his own argument?
The clerk didn't want the trade.
So then he came and took the cigarillos.
So even within the context of his own argument, he's saying that the clerk rejected the offering.
Right, right.
So it's not a deal and you don't get to, you know, like if I'm at some garage sale and someone wants 50 bucks for a lawnmower and I offer them 30 bucks and they say, no, that's not a deal, I don't get to leave my 30 bucks somewhere and then go and take the lawnmower.
Jesus.
All right.
So attorney Jay Kasler, who's representing the Ferguson store, this is the store that all this stuff is around.
He responded to this because some people were very upset.
He said, the clerks gave back the marijuana or whatever is in the bag.
You can't have a drug transaction, as implied by the documentary, if you don't have a transaction.
What was thrown up on the counter looked and smelled like marijuana, according to my clients, but they didn't keep it.
They didn't want to take marijuana for merchandise.
So he's making the case that we made.
You can't have a transaction without an actual transaction.
Now, this lawyer...
Faced off with a whole bunch of protesters that saw this documentary, saw the coverage of this documentary, saw the interviews by the filmmaker, and somehow this immediately meant that Michael Brown was innocent.
And this information, and this video, I mean, law enforcement agencies knew about this video, knew about the earlier appearance.
This was written about extensively.
It's in all the grand jury testimony.
The video was even provided to the attorneys of the Michael Brown family.
So this is known.
This is not a surprise.
It's just because everyone doesn't know about it It's being presented now as if this is something big and different.
And what kind of culture do you have to have where it's like, we're now going to grasp at the straw of innocence because it was a drug deal?
You think you might be able to find some better kind of martyr moral heroes in the black community than Michael Brown?
But, Steph, he was going to go to high school, like, what was it, the next day or the next week, and he was like an upstanding young man and blah blah blah, and you add drug dealer into the equation, and that's the argument that's being made here.
I mean, that's, uh, even by the standard of leftist narratives, this one's pretty, pretty damn shaky.
So, the lawyer faced off with protesters that were hurling profanities at him at the store, and, you know, of course they were demanding to know why the video was never disclosed during the investigation, which it was.
And then, well, there's the protests.
There were gunshots!
Gunshots that erupted outside the store.
Now, thankfully, no one was hurt.
But, I mean, clearly, I mean, this poor shop owner.
Hey, hey, Mike, feel like opening a shop in a black neighborhood these days?
There are a lot of businesses that pulled out of Ferguson after the riots and everything went down and, you know, this type of stuff.
Yeah, but it's okay.
The left has got their votes, so what does it matter how the community may be destroyed?
What does it matter?
So the lawyer continued and said, this is all great publicity for the filmmaker, but there's real lives at risk.
Police officers were shot at.
There were threats to burn down the store.
Well, listen, thanks everyone so much for listening.
I appreciate your attention through this chat.
Let us know what you think.
Let us know what you like, what you'd like more of, what you would like less of, unless it's me.
I mean, the whole point of this is there's a whole lot of stories that I think are worth bringing attention to, but at the same time...
We don't have enough time to do dedicated breakdown shows on all of them, so kind of a fun roundup where we talk about them and just kind of put a spotlight on stuff that is important and does need to be addressed.
That's the goal of this show.
That's the thought behind this show.
If you have any other things you'd like to see included in this show, stuff you'd like us to change, stuff you'd like us to add or let us know, interested in that feedback, and thank you very much for listening.
And don't forget, freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
