 This is The Humanist Report with Mike Figueredo. The Humanist Report podcast is funded by viewers like you through Patreon and PayPal. To support the show, visit patreon.com forward slash humanistreport or become a member at humanistreport.com. Now enjoy the show. Welcome to The Humanist Report podcast. My name is Mike Figueredo and this is episode 296 of the program. Today is Friday, June 25th. And before we get started, I want to thank all of the folks who took time out of their day to support the show by either becoming members through Patreon or YouTube by signing up to sub to us through Twitch or by simply sending us a donation through PayPal. This week, that includes Adam Praul, Chalkweed, Copper Queen 2-2, Kultrasmith, Crazy Hawaiian in PA, Deep Res 4-3-0-1, Dragon 1-0-0-0-1-0-1, Gloria Cuevas, James from the Internet, Judy Cook, Literal Lills, Mad City Miss Kitty, Michael Rooch, MJ, Nari, 0-2-2, Mr. G, Prong 9-9-9, Scott Collier, Socialist Maker, Torrential Rage, and Zion Smiley. So thank you so much to all of these kind souls. If you'd also like to support the show, you can do so by going to humanistreport.com or you can click Join underneath any one of our YouTube videos. Additionally, if you want to watch more content on Twitch, you can sub to us through twitch.tv slash humanistreport there as well. So this week, we've got a great episode for you. We'll talk about Cold Feet Crowder's Debate with Ethan Klein and Sam Cedar, or lack thereof. And we'll also cover the aftermath, which might be better than the event itself. And we'll also address his deeply bigoted and homophobic claim about gay men. Also, corporate lobbyists declare war on Nina Turner. Ford Fisher and Ken Clippenstein shared documents that give us some insight into how the government views socialists and also will dissect Tom Cotton's absurd attack on Bernie Sanders. All that and more will be discussed on today's program. Hopefully you will enjoy the episode. Let's get right to it. In an interview with Fox News, Senator Tom Cotton decided to talk about the For the People Act and Bernie Sanders, and he lied through his teeth. I mean, he was blatant and shameless. And it's so bad that you'd think he'd be a little bit afraid of how disingenuous he would come across. Nonetheless, he didn't care. And the claims he made were so outrageous that I feel like even a Fox News viewer should be able to identify them as untruthful. But I mean, regardless, we'll watch what he had to say. And then when we come back, there's a lot that I wanna say in regards to this segment. And the Congress must address that in any and every way. I mean, that's the really idiotic argument that he's making, H.R.1 nationalizes elections. But Joe Manchin is offering a memo of a halfway point. Make election day a holiday requires all states to give absentee ballots and partisanship, Jerry Mandarin, require voter ID. You saw the memo, you saw the H.R.1, where do you stand? Yeah, the Republicans don't have a plan to nationalize our elections, Brian, because we don't think we should nationalize our elections. We trust our states and their counties and cities to run our elections. And they've done a pretty good job of it for over 200 years. But that Bernie Sanders line, I mean, I just gotta say it's rich for a guy who honeymooned in the Soviet Union to be criticizing Republican governors and legislatures for undermining democracy. I mean, he's had an op-ed over the weekend that Republicans like me are trying to start a new Cold War with China. I guess he's still smarting from his loss in the first Cold War with Russia. But this bill, just to give you one example of how bad it is, would actually take your tax dollars and send them to Bernie Sanders and any other politician running for office to run their campaigns. So think about that. Arkansans would be subsidizing Bernie Sanders campaigns. I don't think many Americans want to see their tax dollars to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars going to support politicians who they oppose attacking politicians they support. You also mentioned gerrymandering, the process of rigging electoral districts. This bill would allow Democratic operatives in all 50 states to draw district lines just like they have in places like Maryland and Illinois. And it's all built, guys. It's all built on a fabrication that Republican governors and legislatures are somehow suppressing the vote when in reality, states like Georgia are actually passing laws that expand voting access compared to Democratic states like New York and Delaware. All these states are doing is making it easy to vote but hard to cheat. So I don't even know where to begin. There's a lot to unpack there, but I'll start with their use of the word nationalize. When I think about the word nationalize, it conjures up images of a government taking control of a privately owned and operated business or entity of some sort. But the way that they use the nationalize was very unique, we'll say. They were saying, well, this for the People Act is an attempt to nationalize elections. Now, by the traditional definition of nationalize, I think that having the government owned elections is a good thing. Do you really want to outsource elections to private corporations? But it's because they were deliberately using nationalize in a really weird way. And what they were saying was basically, this is gonna nationalize elections to the extent that it lays out standards at the national level that apply to all 50 states. That's a little bit weird. Just say these national standards are gonna apply to all 50 states and states are better at running elections than the federal government. They could say something like that, but they didn't. And there's a really specific reason for that. They deliberately used the word nationalize because they want to prime individuals who are watching Fox News to think about socialism. So if they use the word nationalize, then people will think, oh, for the People Act, this is nationalization and nationalization is oftentimes linked to socialism and socialism bad. So therefore, for the People Act must be bad as well. That's exactly what they're trying to do. It is incredibly disingenuous, but this tactic is effective. Now, when it comes to federal standards for elections, this is not anything that's new, right? States have control over elections and usually these are run at the local level, but there are federal standards that exist. States and local governments can't just do whatever they want. So federal standards already exist. It's just that there will be more federal standards to make democracy stronger, but they don't like that and they can't really say what the For the People Act is in actuality because if they just explained what it was to Fox News viewers in a good faith and accurate way, then they'd probably support it. So what do they do? They lie and they fear longer. But the claims about the For the People Act perhaps weren't as outrageous as the claims that Tom Cotton made about Bernie Sanders, which to me were just downright bizarre and stupid. So Tom Cotton said that Bernie Sanders line, I just gotta say it's rich for a guy who honeymooned in the Soviet Union to be criticizing Republican governors and legislatures for undermining democracy. Wait, so because Bernie Sanders honeymooned in the Soviet Union, automatically that assumes that he endorsed every single element of the Soviet government and the Soviet regime and especially he supported the authoritarianism. So since Bernie Sanders honeymooned in Soviet Union, he is forever tainted. Is that really the logic that you wanna use? So I mean, Tom Cotton, I'm sure he's been to Israel. Here's a photograph of him shaking hands with the former prime minister of Israel. So it's also true that even though Israel is an apartheid regime, and I'm sure that he definitely endorses that being the fascist that he is, but this regime also offers guaranteed basic healthcare to every single citizen. They have a universal healthcare system. So since Tom Cotton has been seen with the former prime minister of Israel, he is automatically endorsing every single element of Israel's regime, including universal healthcare. And since universal healthcare is linked to socialism, according to Republicans, then that must mean that Tom Cotton is also a socialist. And since socialism is associated with the Soviet Union, that also means that Tom Cotton must also embrace the authoritarianism that Bernie Sanders embraces. I mean, I'm being intentionally hyperbolic here, but this is the logic that he's using, right? It's like saying, hey, I saw you eating, you know, a chocolate ice cream cone. And since chocolate is the same color as shit, you must like to eat feces. Like this is the level of logic that we're operating with here. And he knows that it's disingenuous, but I don't think that the average Fox News viewer who sees him say that is gonna put much thought into it. He adds, Bernie Sanders said in an op-ed over the weekend that Republicans like me are trying to start a new Cold War with China. I guess he's still snorting. I think that was the word that he used from his first loss in the Cold War with China. So not only is he suggesting here that Bernie Sanders embraces the authoritarianism of the Soviet regime, but Bernie Sanders also is a traitor. That's correct. During the Soviet years, when Bernie Sanders was a public servant, he was a mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he actually was more of a supporter of the Soviet Union than the United States of America. He was a traitor. That's the actual allegation that Tom Cotton is making here. It's, I mean, look, it's almost like I give him credit for being so bold and confident, but yet wrong at the same time. This is done in action, but this is a very, very stupid, sick burn. It's idiotic, Tom Cotton. And I'm sorry, but it is the case that it seems like Republicans and a lot of Democrats, to be fair, want a Cold War with Russia. You keep ramping up the hawkish behavior, saber-rattling against China in some instances. So, I mean, Bernie Sanders isn't wrong to point that out. Now, let's look at what he says about HR1. What HR1 would do, and I'm gonna read the full quote because I think it's worthwhile. It would take your tax dollars and send them to Bernie Sanders and any other politician running for office to run their campaigns. So think about it. Arkansas would be subsidizing Bernie Sanders' campaign. I don't think many Americans want to see their tax dollars to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars going to support politicians who they oppose, attacking politicians they support. This is basically a really long and roundabout way of saying, I support our current system of legalized bribes because what he's trying to do is demonize public financing of elections. Now, I think that if he actually presented this to Fox News' audience in a straightforward and factual way, they wouldn't agree with him. So what does he do? He tries to sell it in this really bad way. We'll actually think about this. Do you want your tax dollars to go to Bernie Sanders? When all you have to do is think about this longer than a few seconds and you realize how this is objectively good if you care about democracy. Taxes aren't just going to subsidize the campaigns of people who Republicans don't like. It's also going to subsidize the campaigns of folks like Marjorie Greene and even fascists like Tom Kahn. You see, the way that elections work in America where you've basically commodified our democracy is you have a higher chance of getting elected if you have more money. So politicians have this incentive to go to billionaires. Go to these giant funders who could give them millions of dollars, donate all of that at once to their super PAC, and then they have a greater likelihood of winning their election. But what the For The People Act would do is offer matching funds. So that way, if you are an average citizen and you donate $25 to a politician, well, that's going to be matched. So it would be a $50 donation. So this further incentivizes politicians to actually get grassroots funding for their campaigns. And if you do this, corrupt fools like Tom Cotton wouldn't have to beg the Koch brothers for money. I mean, there's a reason why a 2014 Princeton University study found that policy outcomes don't reflect the will of normal Americans. They reflect the will of business elites and special interests. And that's because of the fundraising model. It's legalized bribery effectively, and what the For The People Act does is even the playing field, make normal Americans more competitive with the oligarchs in America. Now it's not perfect because this matching funds clause in the For The People Act does exclude third-party candidates. But passing the For The People Act wouldn't make third-party candidates any less likely to get elected than they are now. We need electoral reform, but that's a different story for a different day. Long story short, what it would do is it would incentivize grassroots donations by offering publicly matching funds. Tom Cotton knows that if he just said this is what it would do, Republicans would probably even support that because most Americans know that money is an issue in American politics. But again, he doesn't want them to support it so he's trying to poison the well and then he tells them what it is. It's just, it's such, if I were a Republican and I found out the way that they lied to me, I would be so furious, right? Just present them with the details, present Fox News' audience with the details as they are objectively so, give them the facts and let them make the decision. But Tom Cotton knows that if he actually told folks what the For The People Act was, they'd likely support it. So this is why he has to lie. He's insulting your intelligence if you're a Republican. Do you stand for this? Now he also says here that gerrymandering is the process of rigging electoral politics. This bill would allow Democratic operatives in all 50 states to draw district lines just like they have in places like Maryland. Now, this right here is a blatant lie. He's just straight up lying. So gerrymandering is a thing that happens. Mostly Republicans engage in it. Democrats also do, but Republicans are far more egregious. I mean, just Google what Dan Crenshaw's district looks like and that is the perfect example of gerrymandering. But it would outsource the redrawing of district lines to independent commissions. So they redraw district lines in a non-partisan way. This actually would even the playing field. But what he's saying is actually this is gonna give Democrats more power. No, that's a lie. But Tom Cotton doesn't want independent commissions to redraw district lines because he wants Republicans to actually be able to do what he said. Rig the process, right? Redraw district lines to turn Republican seats into safe seats across the country and give them a better chance of getting elected in the house. It's just, he keeps lying. And it's so frustrating to watch this because his lives are so transparent. Like, even if you don't know about the details of the Before the People Act, with how purposefully hyperbolic he's being, like the average viewer should be able to see through him, should be able to notice that this guy, like the things that he's saying, they seem a little bit out there, right? There's gotta be more to the story. He's gotta be lying to me. But Fox News' viewers are global and they likely eat that shit up. And it's frustrating. This is why people in America are so stupid because they get misinformed and lied to by politicians and news networks who are supposed to actually be giving them the details, the facts. But I mean, we saw the way that he misrepresented Bernie Sanders and the Before the People Act. Bernie being in Russia means he is a traitor to America. He supports authoritarianism and wanting to have independent commissions redraw district lines. That is tantamount to Democrats wanting to rig elections. It's just he's a liar and he should be ashamed of himself, but he has no shame because this individual is deeply authoritarian himself. So he doesn't care about how uninformed he's making people. He just cares about the outcome, right? The ends justify the means. Without question, the January 6th insurrection was terrifying. And I want that to not happen again. Having said that though, I've always been very apprehensive about the implementation of some sort of policy to stop violent extremism in America because we've seen countless times the way that the US government uses these sorts of incidents to further consolidate state power and crackdown on civil liberties. I mean, we saw the way that the Patriot Act used 9-11 to justify the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. I mean, bulk metadata collection, warrantless surveillance. So I don't want the government to use January 6th to justify them taking away more rights from US citizens. And we're learning about the Biden administration stance towards domestic extremists. And already there's a lot of red flags that journalist Ford Fisher is pointing out via Twitter. He says, Now he also shares this document. And as you can see, it describes DVE's domestic violent extremists as, quote, US-based actors who conduct or threaten activities that are dangerous to human life and violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, appearing to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population and influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion or affect the conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping as per the definition. It also goes on to say mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute violent extremism. So the definition is fairly broad and I think purposefully so. You know, it might be somewhat reassuring to see them point out that mere advocacy of political positions that are perceived to be extreme, including, you know, the philosophical acceptance of violence as a political tactic that in and of itself doesn't mean that you are a domestic violent extremist. Having said that though, when you look at some of the examples here, you can see that the scope of this, what his administration characterizes as a DVE, domestic violent extremist, is incredibly bizarre in a number of ways because some of the examples listed here, there isn't much evidence to suggest that these are threats at all. So you see animal rights and environmental violent extremists. You know, there are instances of extremism from these sections of society. Not incredibly prevalent though, not prevalent enough in my opinion to be listed in the same category with like far right extremists like sovereign citizens. And then you also see abortion related violent extremists and it says DVEs with ideological agendas in support of pro-life or pro-choice beliefs. Now just pause there for a moment. Like we've heard about violent pro-life extremists, right? Threats being made towards abortion doctors, but pro-choice extremism. So it's a bit of a bizarre thing to include here because to the extent that pro-choice extremists exist, one, are they as violent as fascist groups in America, the Proud Boys, and are they as prevalent as any other extremist group? I mean, I've never heard of extremist pro-choice people. It doesn't really make sense. Also anti-government, anti-authority violent extremists, including anarchist violent extremists, DVEs who oppose all forms of capitalism, corporate globalization and governing institutions who are perceived as harmful to society. Now of course, it prefaces anti-capitalist by saying these are DVE anti-capitalists, but still they're basically like with all of these groups being contained in the same document. Like me looking at this as a layman, I see this and I think, wow, these groups are all similar, right? But this is a false equivalence. If you're in an administration and you're trying to pinpoint the most extremist elements domestically in society, I mean, you look to the actual ones doing the violence and disproportionately it is right-wingers. Now that's not to say that the administration isn't expected to like look at left-wing extremists as well. I mean, of course that's expected, but to be so broad in your application of who could possibly be DVEs, that's what worries me. And also what constitutes being DVE, even though they try to lay out a definition here, that could be broadened. I mean, we're constantly seeing what extremist is be broadened. So for example, BDS, that's viewed as something that is politically unacceptable. We see state governments try to crack down on BDS across the country. So what's to stop the Biden administration from lumping in BDS? Because that is technically violent because you're advocating for a boycott, divestment and sanctions against the Israeli government. Therefore, we're gonna characterize that as you being a domestic extremist. And so really to me, I worry about the application of this and Fort Fisher kind of runs down why these classifications are problematic. He explains, the reason I reference this is that as Congress and Biden expand policing power and budgets, the media's framing largely pertains to right-wing extremism. Biden is making no secret of the fact that his administration puts the anti-fascist movement officially in the same boat. By the same token, Biden is apparently concerned about both pro-life and pro-choice domestic violent extremists. An interesting contrast in the document is that militia groups are only classified by Biden as domestic violent extremists if they take over its steps to fight government. Some militias wouldn't be DVEs to Biden. Meanwhile, anarchists need only oppose capitalism without steps. Included in Biden's broad definition of anti-government slash anti-authority violent extremists are DVEs who oppose perceived economic, social or racial hierarchies. In activist discourse, this is referring to those who identify as anti-capitalist, anti-fascist and anti-racist. As some are pointing out, this document does precede every section with DVEs, domestic violent extremists, who demonstrate the ideologies in question. That said, the surveillance state obviously doesn't only investigate slash monitor once individuals become violent. And that's key. I think that Fort Fisher here is making a phenomenal point. So these are all red flags to me and it worries me because our government, they've been doing this for decades now. And we have to make sure that they're not using people's fears about January 6th and them wanting to prevent another January 6th against them. They're not weaponizing that issue to crack down on civil rights and civil liberties. So this is an issue that I will continue to monitor. But of course, I absolutely unequivocally do not condone anything related to another Patriot Act for January 6th. That's not the solution. Of course, the government should take meaningful steps to stop another January 6th insurrection from happening because people died on that day. It was very serious. But whatever we enact, it can't just be enacted willy nilly. It has to be something that is thoughtful, something that is not overall going to take away liberty of Americans. But I mean, something tells me that you can get Americans to be in support of something that's against their own self-interest. And all you have to do is really weaponize fear a little bit and you see what happens. So, you know, this is something that is, I mean, sure, they're saying DVEs, right? They're prefacing it. Every single thing they say, anti-capitalist, but only if you're a DVE, anti-capitalist. So you have to already be a domestic violent extremist. But as Fort Fisher pointed out, it's not like they're just all of a sudden only going to start tracking you as an individual once you become violent. So what worries me, it makes it seem as if the government views anti-capitalists as big of a threat as they view insurrectionists, QAnon. So, you know, it's just something that we have to look out for. These are a lot of red flags and I would encourage you to pay attention to this and do not allow people to, you know, condone something like this because they're worried about the broader implications of like another January 6th. Don't let fear be used as a weapon against us to take away our civil liberties because once they're gone, like it's hard to get them back, right? So we just, we have to be cognizant of what our government is doing, who they view as extremists. And this is pretty broad, it's something to watch, it's something to just keep an eye on because this worries me a lot. Stephen Crowder is probably one of, if not the most homophobic people on the right. And while most of his peers on the right has found more toned down and like covert ways of expressing their homophobia, he doesn't resort to dog whistles. Like he just straight up says the quiet part out loud. And I've got to say Stephen Crowder is a little bit sus. For someone who is supposedly straight to be that concerned and seemingly obsessed with gay people, I have to assume he's going through a little bit of a struggle internally himself. And everything that he says is like, it's his internalized homophobia getting vocalized in a way that he thinks is going to make him seem more straight when in actuality, the things that he says here to me make him seem really gay and it makes him seem like a closeted homosexual. But regardless of his motivations, what he's doing and what he's saying is deeply, deeply troubling. And he's going to use a stereotype about gay men that has been used to justify discrimination against them for decades. And he's gonna say this all with a straight face while wearing a cape. So at this point, this is basically just like brazen hate speech. Nonetheless, take it away, Steven. I think women generally, and I mean this, don't fully understand the danger at play, particularly from gay men. They are definitely more predatory in nature as far as recruiting than women because men are more sexually predatory in nature. I think a lot of women just think, oh, you know, oh, he's just catty and I always have, women always love having gay friends. And I've known that for a long time and I understand it's, you're comfortable because it's like being with a woman but they don't often understand the world. Well, we're talking about sexuality that men live in. And so you don't see it nearly as hyper sexualized, for example, with lesbian women to the same degree that you do with gay men. Look, here's the issue with the homosexual community with men that I need women to understand because often like, well, what's the harm in going to drag queen story art? Okay, any woman who has been in a sexual relationship with a man, okay? Think of all the times that the man wanted to have sex which was pretty much always, and you said not right now. Now remove the not right now. That's every gay couple. That's why almost non are monogamous. Statistically, it's true. A very, very small percentage of gay couples are monogamous. Why? Because men can have unfettered sex with no emotional connection. And guess what? It feels good. And this is why you have a hyper sexualized community. This is why AIDS was exclusive to the gay community in the United States, despite how Fauci lied about it initially. Your chance of getting AIDS right now in this country as a heterosexual monogamous non drug-using male is 0% and it's still statistically zero even if you haven't been entirely monogamous. Let's just be clear about that. And I want, this is a message to mothers out there because I think fathers always inherently at least understand what they, they're overly protective of young girls, generally speaking. And then they are generally speaking more aware of how they need to be protective with young boys. It's why often women don't understand how young boys are bullied. Yeah. Because it's very different from how young women are bullied. You need to understand the risk, particularly with young boys in your household as it comes from this, this community. And what do I mean by this community? I mean, men who have kids climb on them, show them their crotchless nylons and do drag queen story hour. It's not just fun and a little bit peppy or spicy. It's a problem. And you need to be aware of how they're marketing to your kids. Notice how he kind of toll on himself there a little bit. Men can have unfettered sex with no emotional connection. And guess what? It feels good. Interesting. It sounds like you're speaking from experience, Steven. It feels good. Now, there's a lot of tells in there. Like there's a lot of red flags that lead me to believe that this individual is a six on the Kinsey scale. Like he is as gay as you can possibly be, but he's fighting so hard to like hide it. So he says they are definitely more predatory in nature as far as recruiting. Now, whenever I hear somebody talk about recruiting in the context of LGBTQ plus issues, I think either one, they're stupid or two, they're gay themselves because you can't be recruited to be gay. It's not contagious. Like getting exposed to a gay person or coming in contact with a gay person knowing that they exist in and of itself isn't going to entice you into making a choice to believe that you can be enticed or recruited suggests that you're kind of projecting. You didn't make that choice, but you think others also want to make that choice because you're attracted to men, Steven, but you chose to suppress it and live as a heterosexual. Marry a one. Look, regardless of what you choose to do, being gay is not a choice. It's something that's innate and suppressing it or not suppressing it. You're still gay. So Steven Crowder here to think that people can be recruited, that's like one of the biggest tells of all. Steven, do you think that people can be recruited to be gay because they're gonna see it as enticing? Is that like what you believe? It feels good. Another tell. He says that lesbians aren't hypersexualized. I mean, saying that, my head nearly exploded. Have you seen a single music video in the last 10, 15 years? Have you seen the trending tab on any pornographic website? I mean, as a straight man, lesbian porn is probably one of the more popular categories for straight men. They're sexualized for purposes of appeasing heterosexual men. And so I feel like as a straight man, he would kind of know this, right? But he's not really thinking that much about the sexualization of lesbians because he's not attracted to women. And again, I'm just psychoanalyzing him here and I'm not a psychologist, but like everything that he says, the way he acts is precisely the way that I acted as a teenager. Like I thought that if I were as homophobic as I could possibly be, people would think that I was less gay when in actuality, like being super homophobic is a telltale sign that you yourself are suppressing those feelings and you're struggling a little bit. Now, he says that a very small percentage of gay couples are monogamous. He also throws out another statistic. Your chance of getting AIDS is a straight man as statistically 0%. So he doesn't even have to cite these statistics to make his point. But the statistics that he's citing, he pulled out of thin air because they're not true. First of all, to say that a very small percentage of gay couples are monogamous, that's just wrong. And second of all, you shouldn't care because what consenting adults do on their own time, it doesn't concern you, Stephen. But that's also not true. 30% of gay men are in open relationships, which means that 70% are in monogamous relationships. Now, 30% of gay men being in open relationships is actually higher than I expected. But nonetheless, like he claimed the opposite, he said that it's a very small percentage who are monogamous. On top of that, when it comes to the AIDS rate, it is the case that LGBTQ plus people suffer from HIV and AIDS at a higher rate than their straight peers. But he said that it's like statistically 0% chance that you're gonna get AIDS if you're a straight man. When it's actually 7% of heterosexual men that made up all of the new HIV diagnosis and heterosexual people overall make up 23% of the diagnosis. Why he chose to lie about this? He thinks that it's helping to prove his point. Like the gay aversion to monogamy in some instances, he thinks is going to prove that they're like more promiscuous than the average individual. But he just like confidently says something so incredibly wrong, uses statistics that I'm guessing, he pulled out of his ass. On top of that, he goes on to say, you need to understand the risk, particularly with young boys in your household as it comes to this community. So when he says this community, understand that he's broadening out that term. He's not just talking about gay men anymore. He's saying that all members of the community are preying on young boys. Now he doesn't use an example of the risk that they pose. He cites drag queen story hour. I don't think that's a risk. Dressing up in a costume, that's not a risk to children. You're literally wearing a costume as you film this segment. But what are you talking about, Steven? He didn't say the word pedophilia or molestation, but he's priming you to think gay men are pedophiles. And so, since he seemed so obsessed with facts and statistics, we should actually look at the data here when it comes to this issue. So the Southern Poverty Law Center explains, according to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herrick, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men. The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools, waiting to snatch children from the playground as much religious right rhetoric suggests. So using these statistics and his logic, the logic that he applies to gay people, we should really understand the risk that heterosexual men like Steven Crowder pose to children in actuality. I'm just looking at the data, right? Maybe he's trying to lure children and he's wearing a cape after all. Are you trying to appeal to children? Are you trying to prey on them? Get them to be friendly with you because you're wearing a cape? I mean, of course, when I'm saying this, I'm being purposefully hyperbolic, but this is the logic that he's using to demonize gay men. And regardless if he is gay himself or not, what he's doing here is deeply, deeply harmful because his audience, they trust what he has to say and so they're gonna think, oh wow, gay men are predators. LGBTQ plus people in general, they are a risk to young boys and that is absolutely factually incorrect and morally reprehensible. So this is a hate speech. There's no if ands or buts about it and regardless if Steven Crowder is in the closet or not, the damage that he's doing to gay people here is truly, truly irreparable because these stereotypes, even if gay people are accepted much more culturally now and socially, these stereotypes still linger till this day, they still are used to make people feel homophobic and for him to invoke this stereotype to demonize gay people, it's truly just gross and this is like one of the biggest pieces of shit on the internet. Oh no, Sam Cedar, whoa, what a fucking nightmare. I had no idea this was going to happen. Oh no, Sam Cedar. Gotcha, bitch. I am incredibly excited to talk about this story and if you're wondering why I'm wearing a beanie, no, I'm not trying to cosplay as Tim Pull. I am repping my Teddy Fresh merch because I'm a huge H3 fan. I've been a fan of H3, both the YouTube channel and their podcast since 2015, since back in the Ethan Bradbury days. I love Ethan and Ela Klein. I love everything about them. I think they're hilarious and lately the world of entertainment that I adore has kind of clashed with my world of politics and political commentary and it's so interesting. It's fascinating and it's really, really entertaining. So basically a couple of weeks ago on the H3 podcast, Ela and Ethan were responding to a clip from Joe Rogan where he called Ela Klein an idiot because she was wearing a mask outdoors during the peak of COVID or whatever. So they were responding and they said something that Steven Crowder then used to like slam them over. Ethan said something to the effect of look, we're wearing a mask because the government said or the CDC said so just listen to the government. And Steven like took that as ha ha, you're just sheep, you're listening to the government, I'm paraphrasing. But long story short, the reason why you have that background and context is because all of this led to Steven Crowder getting tricked into debating Sam Cedar after years of him dodging a debate with Sam Cedar. So it's funny because Steven Crowder is this debate bro, right? It's like this flex, like it proves how masculine you are if you wanna debate people but he only debates college students, right? People who aren't media trained but he doesn't wanna actually debate people who know they're a shit. Sam Cedar is one individual. So he is basically offered to debate Steven Crowder for years and Steven Crowder doesn't wanna debate Sam Cedar. In fact, he pulled out of a debate a couple of years ago at Politicon saying that he got cold feet. This is what a Politicon representative told Sam Cedar. So after Steven Crowder took some shots at Ethan Klein, they both kind of had this back and forth and then Steven Crowder does what Steven Crowder always does. Debate me bro, debate me bro, you gonna debate me bro? Yeah. So Ethan Klein decided to accept this debate and he had a little bit of a trick up his sleeve. So he was going to have Sam Cedar stand in for him to debate Steven Crowder on his behalf. Now what's funny is that and I'm gonna show a video of Sam Cedar explaining this. When Steven Crowder suspected that Sam Cedar would be joining the debate, he chickened out again apparently. Like we can only speculate at this point but he very actively is trying to evade debating Sam Cedar. Take a look, let Sam Cedar explain this. I get a DM from Ethan like a week later or something like that. And he says, hey, Steven Crowder wants to debate me. And he's like, I don't do a political show. He's like, I think you should come on and debate him as I'm on with him. And I was like, I would love to do that. Thank you. And so last week you'll recall last Monday they were scheduled to have a debate at 1 p.m. Eastern, which is 10 a.m. I think it was Pacific. And so you'll recall last week we started the show early. We ended at 12.30 p.m., which was 30 minutes before the debate that- 11 to 12.30, if you guys remember. That Crowder had planned with Ethan Klein on age three. And so we connect with age three through Zoom and like immediately after we're done with the show and then four or five minutes later, they go, oh, we just got an email from Crowder's dad that Steven had an emergency with his wife who's pregnant. And this is actually sort of disturbing. We were concerned. We were concerned. And I'm being serious about that actually. And he can't do it. However, we will reschedule for next Monday at noon. And Ethan says they knew that you were getting off and getting off your show early and they're afraid that you're gonna be debating him. And I gotta say that I was like- Come on, Ethan. I don't think I said that to him because I was like, I didn't wanna be, you know, rude but I was like, all right, I'm not sure about that. Like would he really pretend that his wife who's pregnant with two kids is in jeopardy? I mean, this is the father, this is the grandfather of those kids. If I was that guy, I would be like, look, we have an emergency, can't get back to you. I wouldn't give the details, because why would I? And I'm like, it's an emergency and I'll get back to you later in the week to reschedule. But no, they rescheduled it for 12 p.m. on Monday, Eastern, which is exactly when we go live. That's so weird. So I was like, all right, let's pre-tape the show. And I pre-tape the interview last week with Stephen Wertheim, great interview. Yeah, that's why I had to step out. Yeah, well, if people watched the show today, they noticed also that we were stretched. And that is because we're back in the studio and we haven't quite set up our system to do the show and to output it. And so we were just like, oh, let's just run it. And so we pre-recorded the intro and the outro to make it for today at like 1030. And so what happened was Dan figured out some technological sorcery, because we got him so good because we put the ball at his court. It was his Zoom call, they sent the link, they sent the time, they felt very comfortable that there was no way for us to get him. So we joined their Zoom link this morning and Dan, as I said, figured out some black sorcery where he could zip Sam's feet, he could cross the feet. Ghostbuster style. Yeah. Wow. And so we got to the point where we're like, okay, well, let's do this thing and then kind of Sam just popped up. And the result of it, which I don't wanna give away, is just Stephen had a meltdown and he gave something away and his fit of passion that it will haunt him his whole career. No way. So in short, Stephen Crowder, this loudmouth tough guy got tricked into debating Sam Cedar once and for all. And at the time that I filmed this, the debate just went live on YouTube, so I'm anxious to watch that. But this is just, this is perfect. I have been wanting to see a debate between Sam Cedar and Stephen Crowder for years, ever since Sam Cedar floated it. And I'm not necessarily someone who thinks that debates are super useful. I think that ultimately it's a performative thing and whoever gives off the best performance, regardless if they were more correct or not, is usually the individual perceived to be the winner. So I don't necessarily think it does a lot to change hearts and minds. Having said that though, someone as idiotic and belligerent as Stephen Crowder to actually be confronted and debate someone who actually knows what they're talking about, like Sam Cedar, it's just glorious. So yeah. Well, unless you're living under a rock, by now you should know about Stephen Crowder's debate debacle. Stephen Crowder is a debate bro who does debates on a regular basis, although he does them with unprepared college students. And this is a media-trained individual. So, you know, he likes to debate on the easiest difficulty imaginable, but when it comes to people who are actually intelligent, he's a little bit more afraid of that. So he challenged Ethan Klein to a debate, someone who he claimed would be a layup. But unfortunately for him, he got a surprise that he wasn't too happy about. Stephen, do you know that the Spartans that they are like practice man love with children? Oh geez, okay, this is what's gonna happen. What did I tell you? He was gonna do anything he could to avoid. Oh, oh, there he is. Oh no, Sam Cedar, what a fucking nightmare. I had no idea this was going to happen. I thought Ethan was a standup guy. This is where we are. Yeah, Dave, Dave, remember I told you? I told you, I said, I guarantee you he's gonna do anything he can to avoid the debate. Oh, I just think he believes that he should debate you. No, no, he doesn't. He just takes advantage of women with mental health issues. Ethan Klein doesn't stand up and do his own fighting. I gotta say, I have a lot of my producers. You would do anything to avoid talking to me. I think the point that you made is that you're getting at this point. Yeah, Joe Rogan Adventure, and Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson and Noam Chomsky, and Sam Harris, everyone's been avoiding. Not just the sense to get your audience by jumping in. Well, I debated with Charlie Kirk. Steven, I mean, it's about issues. Let's talk about those issues. That's what you're doing here. I think that's some valid points that I think I should just go over. I had no idea that you were taking your show off early last time coming in today with your pig pen peanut sauce. I wish ever since. You take those off with a velveteen button sip. We must have been very worried about this, Steven. I don't know why. No one's worried about it, Sam. I don't want to do it. Well, let's have a debate. Come on, I'll tell you what, I have a general rule. I have a general rule. This is a great opportunity. I don't start a debate based with people on a why, and how about you get to a sabotaging? How about you get to a target for the audience share? Steven, show yourself. Don't show your co-host. Ethan, you should show yourself. Ethan, how can you respect yourself as a man, brother? Steven, Steven, you are such a power. Stop showing your little leprechaun co-host who comes out dressed like your sidekick. Ethan, why do you have to bring on a show? I'm showing you a show, Steven. I'm the viewership of the show. That's the thing I've ever heard. So you have to show it with less viewers to come on to debate him because you can't. He was not ready. And I just want to read back that quote. Once he saw that Sam Cedar was on the screen, he said, oh, no, Sam Cedar. Well, what a fucking nightmare. And he admits that he was tracking Sam's activity the week before to make sure that he was live. So there would be no possibility that Ethan can do a little bit of a switcheroo and bring on Sam Cedar. And even like before he spoke to Sam Cedar, you can hear in his voice, he was actually trembling. Like you could see how nervous he was. And it doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, you are a debate bro. You challenge everyone to debates. It's your shtick. You're the change my mind guy. So the fact that you won't even engage with somebody else, especially when they're on your level, you think that you'd want to really test your skills, right? And debate Sam Cedar. But he didn't want to do that. And he proceeded to have him out down. And then he just straight up, he left. Let's debate, Steven. Don't hide behind the glass. Don't see a coward. Let's debate, Ethan. You've lost. All right, this is Sam. Debate the issues. What does the matter mean, you debate coward? All right, good. You guys are good. Thank you. You won't even take off the glasses. I was right. All right, yeah, you can run away. You run away twice. Cold feet again. Come on, Steven. Wow. Oh, god. Wow, dude. I can't believe he had met in the following. He admitted that he followed the show last week. We got him. He admitted that he watched the show last week. We got him. He was early. Dude, we played him so hard because he literally was following. He saw that you went live. Dude, we fucking got him. Oh my god, we fucking nailed him. Wow. It's just it's hilarious. And you're probably wondering like, OK, he's going to take the L on this, right? He's just going to admit, look, we were ambushed. I wasn't necessarily ready to debate Sam Cedar. I would have prepped if I knew it was going to be Sam Cedar. But no, he's actually trying to spin this to make it seem as if he came out victorious. Yeah. So first of all, he stuffed the debate segment within a one hour and 20 minute video with the title, quote, the greatest self-own H3H3Rex himself brags about it. And he then pinned this comment to the top of that video, which says, how cowardly is it to accept an honest debate challenge and bring in a grifter with one sixth of your following to debate for you? Are you crying? Am I crying? No, I'm not crying. You're crying. Oh, so you're not actually the coward. Ethan is the coward. It's not you who left wouldn't even debate. Ethan's the coward. And Sam Cedar is a grifter. Because he wants to debate you. Again, you are a debate, bro. The right has cultivated this culture within political discourse to challenge any and everyone to debates. So you have someone who wants to debate you. And all of a sudden you're mad because his audience isn't big enough or you were ambushed when you've done the same thing to Jane Guger of the Young Turks and others. It's just it's embarrassing. There's really no way out of this. And he's trying so hard like he's in full on damage control mode, but you look like a bitch, Steven. Take the fucking L because you're only making yourself look worse. Like people who are just neutral and they don't have any idea who Sam Cedar, Ethan Klein or Steven Crowder is. Like they can see this and obviously deduce well, the guy who like left mid debate who challenges everyone to debates, he must be the one who's in the wrong. He's the one who looks like the coward. But in Steven Crowder's like twisted mind, he thinks that he's the winner. Or actually, you know what? I don't even think that he believes that. I think that he's projecting what he wants people to see, but in actuality, that's all of a sod. Like deep down he is embarrassed because that was embarrassing. Like you are the debate me guy and you left mid debate or you wouldn't even start the debate. You can tell how fearful you were. And you know, the right wing media sphere is also trying to do damage control at the behest of Steven Crowder. So the Daily Wire pendant article in Steven Crowder's defense titled Steven Crowder showed why we shouldn't engage with debate me bros. Now, first of all, again, it's the right wingers who started this debate me bro bullshit. You are the ones who started all of this. And this article was written in an outlet owned by Ben Shapiro, who is another debate me bro who just challenged AOC to a debate last year. And now all of a sudden debate me is bad and you shouldn't engage with the debate me bros. Again, you are the ones who started this culture. You made debates a sort of pissing contest, you know, among political commentators. And now all of a sudden when the debate culture is backfiring, you're against it. How convenient. Now also Tim Poole, otherwise known as Pym Tool, he decided to speak up. He actually is someone to his credit who did debate Sam Cedar. But for whatever reason, he was really outraged that Sam Cedar would dare and try to debate someone who wants to debate everyone and take a look. Like he actually is getting genuinely angry here in this clip. You know, it's fine, Ethan. Do your pop culture comedy stuff. It's funny stuff. I got no issue with that. But don't come into this space where people are trying to have very serious conversations about how people live and how people might die if we don't solve certain problems and then set it on fire and kick the can down the road or just make everything worse. You bring in a con man like Sam Cedar whose whole business is just burning things down for personal gain and I'm gonna get pissed off about it. Yeah, you seem pretty mad, Tim. You seem really mad. First of all, Ethan didn't just insert himself into the world of political commentary. Stephen Crowder challenged him to a debate. Second of all, you claim that Sam Cedar is a con man for simply trying to debate Stephen Crowder who wants to debate everyone. And by you saying that Sam Cedar is a con man, it sounds like you're trying to cancel him. I thought that the right was against cancel culture. Now are you doing a flip-flop because they're trying to do what you all want, what this to do, which is debate. And third, stop pretending like you and Stephen Crowder are actually talking about serious issues. Just the other day, Stephen Crowder did a video where he was wearing a cape talking about how gay men are predators. You're not solving the issues in the world, Pym Tool. You're part of the fucking problem. And finally, no matter how hard you try to spin this to make Sam Cedar and Ethan Klein look like the bad guys, like it or not, your boy, Stephen Crowder, looks like a coward right now. So you can try to do damage control, you can try to spin and twist the narrative, retake control of the narrative, but the fact remains that most people are going to see that this was thoroughly embarrassing for Stephen Crowder. So if he had any dignity left, he would just acknowledge that this was embarrassing for him and have some humility and take the L. But you're not gonna do that because part of your whole persona as a right winger is to huff and puff and act tough. I mean, the dude wears gun holsters, right? So he can never show any sign of weakness whatsoever because that would mean that he's a cuck. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how you try to portray yourself. People see what happened. Stephen Crowder is a coward. And now going forward, nobody should ever take him seriously when he says anyone else is a coward. Stephen, this is Jesse. I hear from Sam that you want to debate him, that you have cold feet, and that you are a beta male, beta, if it's true, beta male. And by the way, Sam said he is an alpha male, alpha male, not a beta male, and that you are afraid to debate him, Stephen, uh-uh-uh-uh. And that your father should stop allowing you to be beta. Debate Sam, Stephen, don't be afraid. Don't be a beta male. So as soon as I saw the poll, which showed Nina Turner having a 35 point lead over her opponent, right then and there, it became evident to me that the Democratic Party establishment was going to get very active in this race. And they were going to try to do whatever they possibly could to try to stop Nina Turner. So they brought out the big guns and by big guns, I mean Hilary Clinton. And she came out to endorse Nina Turner's opponent. Now this backfired because this ended up being one of Nina Turner's biggest fundraising days ever. And the same was true for Jamal Bowman as well. So this predictably backfired and it's like Democratic Party operatives haven't been paying attention and they don't know that Hilary Clinton fell out of favor with the Democratic Party base. Regardless though, the effort to try to stop Nina Turner is now serious. So now it's time to sound the alarm and now it's time for everyone who's just been sitting on the sidelines to actually get involved and sign up to Phone Bank for Nina Turner, Canvas for Nina Turner. And if you can, spare a buck or two to try to make sure that this victory is ours because this isn't going to be a foregone conclusion. Yes, she does have a lead but a lot can change when you are working against this establishment machine that will do any and everything that basically has unlimited pockets to try to stop someone who they view as a threat. And now all of the corporate lobbying class has come out against Nina Turner. Now for the scoop on this, we go to the Daily Poster where Andrew Perez and Joel Warner explain as progressive icon Nina Turner racks up local endorsements and surges in the polls in a closely watched congressional race. Washington lobbyists and business-friendly Democrats are working to try to block her victory in the August 3rd Democratic primary for Ohio's 11th congressional district. Last week, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton endorsed Turner's opponent, Shantel Brown, in what observers saw as a response to Turner's association with Bernie Sanders. On that same day, lobbyists and the Corporate-aligned Democratic House Coalition hosted a fundraiser to boost Brown after a poll sponsored by Turner's campaign found her with a commanding 50 to 15 lead in the race. Punchbowl posted an invite last week for the fundraising reception honoring Brown, Representative Pete Aguilar of California, a caucus vice chair of the Corporate New Democratic Coalition in the House was listed as a special guest at the event. The Coalition's PAC New Dem Action Fund was listed as a host. The fundraising invite says, the host committee in formation for the event was Protecting Our Vote Federal PAC, a voter rights-oriented political action committee. The organization has an affiliated super PAC called Protecting Our Vote PAC that has made small independent expenditures supporting Brown. The super PAC's treasurer is Marcus Mason, a corporate lobbyist who is also listed as a host of the event. Mason's clients include Fox News' parent company Fox Corp, private equity giant Carlisle Group, student loan servicer Navian, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, tech giant Google, and gig delivery company DoorDash. Every other host named on the fundraising event appears to be a lobbyist too. Virgil Miller, lobbies for oil and gas giant ExxonMobil, telecom firms Comcast and AT&T pharmacy chain CVS Health, and DoorDash. Nicole Venable, lobbies for Apple, Bayer McDonald's, and Navian. She also represents the business roundtable, a lobbying group for corporate CEOs and surveillance software company Palantir. Jerome Murray, lobbies for the American Investment Council, a trade group for the private equity industry. He also represents the powerful drug lobby, pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America, as well as drug makers Pfizer, Amgen, and Abvy individually. Brandon Garrett lobbies for Walmart, American Airlines, FedEx, Nike, and the Managed Funds Association, a trade group for hedge funds. Dante Smalls is a lobbyist for UPS. So basically, lobbyists who represent a plethora of sectors in corporate America are all coming out against Nina Turner. These anti endorsements tell you everything you need to know about Nina Turner and say a lot about her opponent, who was previously begging for super PAC donations. And so, if you want Nina Turner to win, you can't just bank on that one poll that shows her head, you have to fight. Because if corporate America can, they will sing Nina Turner's campaign. And yes, it's Nina Turner, she is a warrior, she's a political behemoth. Having said that though, this isn't going to be an easy race and it never was. So a poll might be a little bit deceptive in a way because it shows her in the lead, but then people might get complacent and that complacency leads to defeat. And I don't want that to be the case. Look, I feel confident, I feel optimistic, but I don't want to take any chances. I think that we need to pretend as if it's the case that Nina Turner is actually 35 points down, not 35 points up. We have to have this mentality that it's not over until it's over, until it's called. And so if you truly want Nina Turner to win, which every single person on the left should, then now is the time to get involved. Because the claws are out and they're coming after Nina Turner because they do not want her in the house of representatives. So that really tells you that if she is elected, what kind of a politician she'll be if every lobbyist from all these industries is coming out so forcefully to try to stop her. It says a lot. A couple of days ago in the program, we talked about a tweet from journalist Ford Fisher where he details the way that the government describes domestic violent extremists or TVEs. And it lays out some various examples that are a bit bizarre to me, right? Of course it lists all of the far-right extremists but then it also has pro-choice and pro-life as if these are comparable. I mean, you don't really see much violent pro-choice extremists. So it seems as if, you know, this document that Ford Fisher shared was an attempt to conflate all of these groups. Having said that though, simply put, if you want to interpret that document in the most charitable way possible, you can basically view it as, all right, look, any ideology could potentially become violent and the government isn't necessarily saying that pro-life activists and socialists, anti-capitalists are inherently violent. Having said that though, to even put them in the same category with far-right extremists is worrying, to say the least. Now, to compliment what we found out through Ford Fisher, journalist Ken Clippenstein obtained a document from the United States military. It's a training document and it does appear to conflate left-wing people, socialists, anti-capitalists with far-right extremists, including neo-Nazis. So this is incredibly worrying, but it's not necessarily very surprising because anti-capitalists, socialists, they threaten the status quo. And even if they're not vocally violent or they don't advocate for violence, their ideology is still a threat to the government or they perceive it to be a threat. So they are instructing everyone to view them essentially the same as fascists, which as a socialist, I take issue with obviously. So journalist Ken Clippenstein explains, a Navy counter-terrorism training document obtained exclusively by the Intercept appears to conflate socialists with terrorists and lists the left-wing ideology alongside neo-Nazis. A section of the document subtitled study questions includes the following, anarchists, socialists, and neo-Nazis represent which terrorist ideological category. The correct answer is quote, political terrorists, a military source briefed on the training told me. The document titled introduction to terrorism slash terrorist operations is part of a longer training manual recently disseminated by the Naval Education Training and commands Navy Tactical Training Center in conjunction with the Center for Security Forces. The training is designed for masters at arms the Navy's internal police, the military source said. While the right has been vocal with its concerns about being unfairly targeted for political opinions, media coverage of the Biden administration's focus on domestic extremism has paid considerably less to what it might mean for movements on the left, including Black Lives Matter, anti-fa, short for anti-fascists, and the environmental movement. In fact, internal FBI documents I reported on in 2019 specifically list anarchists and environmental extremists among its counter-terrorism priorities. As the Intercept reported in a recent series, the Justice Department's handling of domestic extremism can often be arbitrary and disproportionate to any threat its targets may pose. One example of this is Black activist groups which as former FBI agent Mike German has pointed out, the FBI has been targeting for many years, not surprising there. In 2019, I obtained internal documents revealing the FBI's counter-terrorism priorities in the fiscal years 2018 to 2020. While the bureau's 2018 priorities included right-wing groups like militia extremists, sovereign citizen extremists, and white supremacy extremists, it also included Black identity extremists and anarchist extremists. The FBI documents suggest without evidence that the term Black identity extremist grew out of the Black Lives Matter movement, which is not typically associated with violence. So this is a huge red flag. The media gets people to go along with the government cracking down on who they deem extreme because they're not necessarily giving you the full scope of what's happening. Sure, it's the case like reasonable Americans are going to see what happened on January 6th, they'll feel terrified and think, okay, the government should take meaningful action to crack down on violent extremists. But the media just frames it as well as just cracking down on right-wing extremists when an actuality is cracking down on anyone who they purport to be extremists and who isn't, isn't extreme is a very subjective term. But based on the documents we've read over the course of the last week, the government's definition of who is extreme is very, very broad and that's intentional, right? Black identity extremists, what does that even mean? When you think about all of the extremism that we see in the country, do you think black identity extremists, like are they going around harassing people? No, that is not the case. Black Lives Matter protests, which is targeted here, they're overwhelmingly peaceful. A report by The Washington Post conducted in 2020 found that the overwhelming majority of violent instances, they happened to be directed at Black Lives Matter protests. There's, it wasn't conducted by Black Lives Matter activists itself. Having said that though, it's easy to think that Black Lives Matter is disproportionately violent because the media back in 2020, they were reporting on the violent instances of the Black Lives Matter protests, right? And sure, that happened. And, but many marches across the country also happened simultaneously but the media isn't gonna cover the things that aren't sexy, they're not gonna just cover a peaceful march of Black Lives Matter protesters, they're gonna cover what's going to get them eyeballs. And so you kind of create this false narrative that conflates Black Lives Matter with right-wing extremists and then this leads to the American people getting duped by propaganda from the mainstream media and sensationalist coverage of news events and basically tacitly accepting a crackdown on all extremists as if Black Lives Matter or black identity extremists are comparable in any way to the far-right who had a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan who's actually doing terrorism around the country. So look, what we have to do is be very, very cautious here. I absolutely do not want the left and even centrists to give the government permission to crackdown on extremists if that means that we're gonna see our civil liberties be violated. Of course, the government is expected to stop extremism and violence. As American citizens, we have a right to be safe, right? Having said that, though, we can't allow propaganda and fear to lead to us seeing our Fourth Amendment rights being eroded even more or First Amendment rights being eroded even more. And with the Patriot Act after 9-11, we saw how fearful Americans were and the government took advantage of them and we cannot let that happen again. Long story short, the cognizant of what's happening be aware of who the government says is and isn't extreme and make sure that you push back in the event you see a crackdown on your First and Fourth Amendment rights in the event it comes to that. Right now, these are just classifications that don't necessarily amount to much yet when it comes to policy, but that can change and we have to make sure that we pay attention so we don't allow the government to do what they did after 9-11 and have some Patriot Act 2.0 under the guise of tackling extremism in the United States. Ron DeSantis by far is one of the worst governors in the United States and all of the things that I find irredeemable about him, like that's precisely why he's becoming a rising star within the Republican Party. Like he had one of the worst COVID responses where he actually banned local governments from issuing mask mandates and because of that, like Republicans are citing his response as something to be celebrated. But he has another law, you know, this is after the law where he basically made it easier to legally run over protestors where you're gonna react like he's reacting in this photograph, your mouth should hit the floor if you actually know in any way how this could be implemented in a very, very negative way. I mean, right now you might read this law and think, okay, this doesn't necessarily seem like that big of a deal. It's relatively inoffensive, albeit unnecessary. But the way that this law that he just signed into law can be used is it's Orwellian to put it lightly. So as Julia Conley of Common Dreams explains, Democratic lawmakers and educators nationwide are expressing alarm over legislation signed this week by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, which is ostensibly aimed at ensuring college students and educators in the state feel permitted to express a variety of political views and which critics say could end up punishing professors whose opinions don't line up with those of the state's right-wing leaders. DeSantis on Tuesday signed House Bill 233 into law requiring more than three dozen public colleges and universities in Florida to conduct yearly surveys of their students and faculty members' beliefs to determine the institution's level of intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity. Yeah, the law is vague regarding how state authorities can proceed if a university is found to be insufficiently welcoming to certain viewpoints. State Representative Spencer Roach, a Republican who sponsored the bill in the House told the Chronicle of Higher Education the survey results, quote, could shape whatever action a university president may want to take or whatever action a future legislative body may want to take. At a news conference on Tuesday, DeSantis said his government could intervene if it finds universities to be hotbeds for stale ideology without specifying what that ideology might be and suggesting funding cuts could ensue. That's not worth tax dollars and not something we're going to be supporting moving forward, the governor said. The law does not ensure that surveys will be taken anonymously, raising concerns that faculty members could also raise retaliation if they express progressive views or share that they would not welcome certain viewpoints, for example, discriminatory or abuse of comments directed at a student in their classrooms. Under the law, students will also be permitted to record professors without their consent in connection with the complaint according to the Chronicle. Now, there's so much to say about this. First of all, I just got to point out that it's ironic that he says that he wants to defund universities if they are hotbeds of stale ideology. You mean like the ideologies that you subscribe to? Trickle down economics, that's not a stale ideology that's been disproven a thousand times in a thousand different ways, really? On top of that, the union in the state or one of the unions in the state that represents 20,000 instructors, they're basically saying, look, he's signing this bill into law and he's creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist because there's been no increase in complaints about ideological diversity. There's been no condemnation of folks with conservative viewpoints. Like this isn't necessarily a thing that needs fixing because it's not a problem. And furthermore, if he actually wants to ensure greater ideological diversity, defunding public colleges in the state of Florida, that's not gonna ensure greater diversity. You actually should give them more money if you want more ideological diversity because then obviously these institutions can offer more courses, hire more instructors. So what he's doing here, I mean, I think it's pretty transparent. Most people who know what this guy is about should understand what this is about. As a state lawmaker, Anna Escamani puts it, sounds like fascism to me. Exactly, I mean, it is incredibly dystopian, it's Orwellian and we know that there's this meme that colleges are liberal factories. So if a college, for example, might be a little bit too liberal or left leaning, well, this is giving him basically an opportunity to defund it based on really broad and vague terms and for just unspecified reasoning. It's just, it's so weird. I mean, obviously DeSantis is trying to create some disincentives for colleges and he wants to make sure that they don't have an incentive to teach a broad range of things contrary to what he says. They teach a little bit too much critical race theory courses and women's studies and a conservative student complains, perhaps that school can be penalized. It's just weird. Like the second the government says, we wanna track people based on their political ideology in and of itself, like the red flags should be going up in your mind. I mean, conservatives are against a database for gun owners but yet they wanna track students and faculty members based on their political ideology. It's absurd if you did this to any conservative for whatever reason. Like if you said, we're going to keep track of the political ideologies of members of churches, they would be screeching at the top of their lungs and guess what, they'd be right. I would side with them in that instance because that is not information that the government needs to know. Obviously you're just setting up this situation where if you want to, you can penalize them because of their political ideology. Precisely what conservatives claim is happening to them constantly. So this bill is disgusting and if I had to make a prediction, this is not going to be used in a way that would be beneficial to increasing ideological diversity. It's going to do the opposite. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. This victory is ours, of many. The elected office right now, you are being put on notice. Yes! They are coming. Yes, yes. That was a clip from the victory speech of India Walton who is now poised to become the first socialist mayor in decades and it is really, really nice to see this. I'm a little bit late to the party on this particular story, but there's no way I'm passing up this opportunity for really, really good hope. So for more details on this, we go to Rebecca shared of NBC News to explains a socialist candidate in Buffalo, New York defeated the city's four-term mayor in a major upset in Tuesday's Democratic primary. India B. Walton beat mayor Byron Brown 52% to 45% with 100% of precincts reporting. The Associated Press called the race late Wednesday morning. Quote, I believe we won because we organized. We have a message of care, love and hope that is resonant with working class Buffalo. Walton told MSNBC's, I'm in Moyeldin on Wednesday. If Walton 39 wins the general election in November, she will become the first socialist mayor of a large American city since 1960 when Frank Zadler left office in Milwaukee. Her chances of winning are high since Buffalo hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1965. After declaring victory, Walton called her mother by phone and was seen in a video recorded by the Buffalo News celebrating, mommy, I won, mommy, I'm the mayor of Buffalo. Well, not until January, but yeah, Walton has worked as a nurse and community activist in Buffalo and had never run for elected office. Brown 62 did not concede Tuesday night, saying the race was too close to call. He has served as Buffalo's mayor since 2006 and previously was chair of the New York Democratic Party and a member of the state legislature. The Buffalo News reported he's weighing a right in campaign against Walton, of course. There is no Republican candidate in the race. So as it stands now, she looks poised to win. I'm not gonna say that her victory is guaranteed because I don't wanna take this for granted and get a little bit too arrogant because her former opponent in the Democratic Party primary is weighing a right in campaign. But I mean, even if he chooses to do this, I mean, she beat him once, she can beat him again and this is a very, very heavily Democratic Party leading district. So odds are they're gonna support her. She's on the ticket of Democrats and working family's party. So I mean, all around, this is really excellent to see because what she can now do is create a blueprint for other mayors, create a blueprint for the campaign that she ran. And look, it's her successes now that will prove how popular socialist programs are. And it's not like she's like extremely radical and she is advocating for seizing the means of production violently. That's not what she's talking about. Her socialism is a brand that is a lot more softer around the edges. It's more social democratic, but I don't wanna speak for her. But she talks about basically expanding the social safety and tackling poverty in a real meaningful way. And when I hear her speak, it really reminds me of the old speeches from Bernie Sanders when he was the mayor of Burlington, Vermont and it's really nice to see. Now I do wanna play a clip from that MSNBC interview that was referenced where she talks about her style of socialism and also what her first priority is going to be and it's gonna warm your heart to hear her speak about this. Coming out is India Walton. Ms. Walton, thank you so much for your time. First of all, congratulations to you on this historic victory. Your opponent will be the first incumbent Buffalo Mayor to lose since 1961. New York Governor Andrew Coma had this to say on Brown earlier. His campaign strategy as I understand it was basically to avoid engaging in a campaign. And then you had a very low turnout. We know that combination. We've seen that before. That doesn't work. I wanna get your thoughts on why you won. I mean, there's gonna be a lot of people who are gonna speculate about it as we just heard there from the governor giving us his political analysis, but what do you believe are the reasons for your victory? I believe we won because we organized. We have a message of care, love, and care. A message of care, love, and hope that is resonant with working class Buffalo. We organized and we won. As I noted, you would be the country's first socialist mayor in more than 60 years. People like Governor Cuomo again have called your win an anomaly. I wanna hear from you what you think this means for the broader movement in the country and progressives generally. What does it mean for leftist politics nationally? And obviously you're aware of how those on the right use the term socialism to hammer the Democratic Party generally. And what do you make of that broadly speaking? The pandemic has proven that we can have social programs that prioritize people and working class families. And we can make efforts to reduce childhood poverty and it works. No one is returning their stimulus. We all enjoyed free healthcare and immunizations. That is socialism. That is our government stepping up to take care of its people. And that is what we should expect as Americans, as New Yorkers and as Buffalonians. If elected in the general election and you do become mayor of Buffalo, what do you feel needs to change in that city specifically? What would your priorities be as mayor? My priority is putting resources in neighborhoods and really tackling the issue of poverty. Buffalo is the third poor city of our size in the country. It is unacceptable. We have disproportionately poor health outcomes. We know that social determinants of health are on a lot of people's radar as an indicator of a successful community. So we are looking at getting to the root causes of concentrated poverty and disadvantage. So that was great. And I think that her message right there, really that is the perfect way that you sell socialism to normal working Americans because even though we've made some progress, it still is the case that socialism, that's basically a boogeyman in the United States like it or not. We have to push back against that. But the way that she is selling it is she's trying to tell people that socialism isn't necessarily this foreign concept as it's been made out to be. It's actually a little bit more familiar and she brings in familiar policies like the stimulus check. We all love the stimulus check. We're not returning our stimulus checks. She pointed that out. We got the socialism in the form of free healthcare immunizations with the COVID-19 shots. So these public policies, they work and they're extremely, extremely popular. So the way that she speaks about socialism, like not only is she kind of taking away like all the negative connotations and the smears that will inevitably come even though like you're not gonna disarm all of that but she's bringing in people who are reluctant and don't necessarily like the word socialism but she's getting them to think about this in a different way. Oh well, you know, I like that the COVID-19 shot was free. I like the stimulus check. So it's brilliant and politicians like her, like she is so good for the movement. Every single success, every victory that we have as a movement I think needs to be celebrated because look, we don't get victories electorally speaking that frequently. So when we have a major one like this especially an upset that wasn't expected by anyone, I think we have to celebrate it and look, I'm really happy about this. We had a really good meeting and answer a direct question, we have a deal. And I think it's really important. We've all agreed that none of us got all that we wanted. I clearly didn't get all I wanted. They gave more than I think maybe they were inclined to give in the first place. But this reminds me of the days when we used to get an awful lot done up in the United States Congress. We actually work with them, we had five parts of the deal. Five parts of the deal means compromise. One of the things that I've made clear, I've signed on and I'm gonna let them give you the detail because, and you can ask them and I will talk to y'all later next hour or two but I promise I'm not going away. But one of the things that we agreed on infrastructure we made serious compromises on both ends. There is, and they'll give you the numbers. But we did not, they did not, and I understand their position. Republicans and this group did not wanna go along with my family plan issues, the childcare, tax credits, the human infrastructure that I talk about. And that will see what happens in the reconciliation bill and the budget process. Give that, if we get some compromise there and if we can't see if I can attract all the Democrats to a position that is there but they're gonna move in a dual track and that's all I wanna say but I wanna thank each and every one of them. It's been, a lot of us go back a long way where we're used to doing one thing, give each other our word and that's the end. That was President Joe Biden alongside some of the most loathsome people in the country announcing that they finally struck a deal on infrastructure and that deal is so laughably bad that I have to think they've gotta be trolling us. Like it's laughable. It's very obviously an attempt for them to get something accomplished that they could take back to their constituents and say, look, we got this done. When in actuality all of the really good things about this were taken out of it. And especially the provisions that lead to us investing in clean green renewable technology which is really, really important for infrastructure. There is a moment in that video where it really, I don't know if I'm looking too much into this but I really, I hate all of these folks so you can just tell that I'm biased but Biden talked about how we removed the early childhood tax credit and mansion and cinema. They're just sitting there nodding along. Yep, we didn't agree with that as if they're like proud that they got that removed. You should be embarrassed that that was taken out because that actually does help families. It has a concrete impact on the lives of millions of families and you got that taken out and now you're celebrating that effectively. It's embarrassing but there is a tiny, tiny little bit of hope to be left when it comes to whether or not there's gonna be any progressive policy concessions that come out of this. I'm not necessarily too optimistic. In fact, I'm pretty skeptical. Having said that though, we're gonna read a Common Dreams article that kind of breaks down what's in that bill and what could be done to possibly pass some progressive policy since they all got taken out of the infrastructure compromise. So as Jake Johnson of Common Dreams explains, President Joe Biden announced in front of the White House on Thursday that he reached a deal with a group of Republican and Democratic senators on an infrastructure framework that includes hundreds of billions of dollars in spending on roads, bridges, water systems and broadband over the next half decade. The package, which Biden characterized as the product of serious compromises on both ends will be far smaller than the president's original American jobs plan, which proposed roughly 2.2 trillion in new infrastructure spending over the next eight years. According to a fact sheet released by the White House, the bipartisan deal includes 579 billion in new infrastructure spending over the course of five years with 309 billion going to transportation and 109 billion earmarked for roads, bridges and other major projects. Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who led the bipartisan talks along with Senator Kirsten Sinema, said the blueprint will not include any new taxes. Instead, the framework proposes financing the plan by repurposing unspent unemployment insurance funds, reducing the IRS tax gap and utilizing public-private partnerships and asset recycling. Progressive advocacy groups have warned that the latter two payfors would hand public infrastructure over to corporations and Wall Street investors. And that's why they wanted it. Shortly before Biden announced the bipartisan agreement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters that the lower chamber will not vote on bipartisan infrastructure legislation until the Senate also passes a reconciliation bill containing Democratic priorities that were excluded from the compromise measure, including spending on social safety net programs, green energy and more. Senator Bernie Sanders, Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer are currently working on a $6 trillion reconciliation package that also includes a Medicare expansion and other progressive agenda items. Okay, so that last paragraph is particularly of interest to me. So when it comes to Nancy Pelosi's stipulation that we're not gonna vote on this infrastructure compromise in the House until we vote on a reconciliation bill or until the Senate votes on a reconciliation bill, that is something that is important because that's one way that they can use the budget resolution to pass progressive priorities using budget reconciliation. And it seems as if Joe Biden is on board with that, he agrees that both bills basically have to be passed simultaneously. I expect that in the coming months this summer before the fiscal year is over that we will have voted on this bill as well, the infrastructure bill, as well as voted on the budget resolution. And that's when they'll, but if only one comes to me, I'm not, if this is the only thing that comes to me, I'm not signing it. It's in tandem. Okay, so a lot is still up in the air. We don't necessarily know what is and isn't going to happen. But in the event, if they support this infrastructure proposal, the bipartisan compromise that it removes provisions that invest in clean, green, renewable technology, wind, solar, hydro, but they have spending for this in, you know, the budget resolution passed using reconciliation with 50 votes plus one, is that a victory for the left? It depends. Like we have to see the details. I don't think anyone at this point can say that anyone is victorious at this point or is going to be victorious at this point in time because the details are still being hashed out when it comes to the budget resolution. So we have to basically wait and see. But if I'm a lawmaker, this is what I'm saying. In the event that budget resolution does not contain a lot of concessions, especially investments in clean, green, renewable technology, like a green new deal light, I'm not voting for it. And progressives have got to stand firm here. And for the most part, to their credit, they've said very clearly no climate, no deal. And Mondar Jones retweeted himself with a meme that suggests that they're not going to budge. If they don't get concessions when it comes to climate change and addressing climate change, then they're not going to support this infrastructure bill. Now, if Biden ends up weakening what's offered in the budget resolution and cite some bullshit excuse about the Senate parliamentarian or Joe Manchin or Kristen Sinema, I think that progressives cannot agree to support the infrastructure plan. Because basically everything that you wanted in that infrastructure package got removed. So if you don't get some really strong concrete concessions in the budget resolution, then don't support it. Threaten to torpedo it if you have to, stay strong, no climate, no deal. You have to draw a line in the sand. And if any money is going to go towards infrastructure, but we're not simultaneously trying to do even the most minimal amount that we can to mitigate climate change, you've got to tank it, make them get back to the drawing board. And look, they're going to get blamed in the media if this happens. We're talking hypotheticals at this point, but if progressives have to end up tanking this, yes, the media is going to demonize them. The moderates will look victorious, but they've got to fight, they've got to stand strong because if they get rolled here, it's not going to bode well for the future of their agenda if they can't use this opportunity right now. So what is in that budget reconciliation package, the budget resolution that they're going to be voting on with 51 votes? That is going to be so important, keep an eye out for that. I do trust Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is trying to basically expand Medicare to more people. He's trying to work in student debt cancellation. So Bernie Sanders is going to try to make it as progressive as possible. So it depends on what gets left out of what Bernie is proposing because I'm assuming there's going to be some compromises there as well. And I put compromise in quotes because it's going to be more demands made from corporate Democrats because still, even though they're using budget reconciliation, they need 50 votes. And Kamala Harris will be the tiebreaker, but if it gets a little bit too progressive than Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, they might say, well, you know what? I don't like that there's an increase to the minimum wage. I don't like that there is an expansion for Medicare in there. So let's take it out. And so if that's the case, if you water down that as well after the moderates got basically a watered down infrastructure package that's laughably weak and woefully inadequate, then progressives have got to sink this bill. They've got to throw their weight around because this doesn't pass without the moderates, but it also doesn't pass without progressives. So now is the time to make demands. And we'll have to leave that there. I'll reserve a judgment for what's in the package, but I really, really hope that progressives have formed a cohesive plan and they're going to be united here. And I hope that they, you know, when they said no climate, no deal, they meant it because now is the time where the spotlight's on them. And you know, if they let us down here, you know, this is going to hurt the movement overall. So I really, really hope that they fight. And so far, they haven't showed any signs that they're going to be backing down. So I'm crossing my fingers and toes that the left doesn't get screwed. Having said that, though, I'm skeptical. I'm going to, you know, hope for the best, but brace for the absolute worst because this is American politics and that's usually the way that things go. We don't get too many victories on the left. So look, it's a game of wait and see for those of us on the outside. Well, folks, that is everything. Thank you all so much for tuning in. If you made it this far in the program, as usual, we're not going to end without thanking all of the folks to make this show possible. All of our Patreon, PayPal and YouTube members. Thank you all so much. Look, there's so much that I want to plug. Thursdays at 7 p.m. PST, twitch.tv slash humanist report. I'm talking politics. I'm playing video games sometimes on top of that. Every single Wednesday now at 6 p.m. PST right here on the YouTube channel. You can watch dystopian times, which is a live panel show where, you know, we'll talk about politics and, you know, random stuff. And it's not just me. I am getting the input from other individuals. I actually get to talk with people, which is nice because I've been talking to the camera by myself for a while, so it's nice to get, you know, some feedback from other individuals. Having said that though, that's it. I'm Spen. I've got nothing left to talk about. I will see you all next week. My name is Mike Figueredo. This has been The Humanist Report. Take care, everyone.