Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Swiftspiracy, Brink of WW3?

Episode Date: January 29, 2024

On Piers Morgan Uncensored: Amid conspiracy that the Super Bowl is going to be fixed to set up Taylor Swift’s endorsement of President Biden, Piers Morgan asks; is the script already written? He was joined by Clay Travis and more to discuss. President Biden says the United States will respond as an Iran-backed militia kills three US soldiers in Jordan. Trump says we’re heading for World War 3 - is the war in Gaza spiralling out of control? Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight, up here's Morgana says that a schizophrenic triple murderer who led a knife rampage to a British city avoids jail on the grounds of diminished responsibility, because he belonged behind bars and could his bloodbath had been prevented. President Biden says the United States will respond as an Iran-backed militia kills three U.S. soldiers in Jordan. Trump says we're heading for World War III. Is the war in Gaza spiraling out of control? And controversial transgender swimmer Leah Thomas sues to regain her. placed in elite competition and clicking in the Olympics. I'll talk to one of her former teammates.

Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored. Good evening from London. Welcome to Piers Morgan Unsensored. Valdo Calacaine is a triple murderer who massacred three innocent people and a knife rampage, then sped across the city of Nottingham in a stolen van and rammed into three more people. His victims were Barnaby Weber and Grace Amali Kumar, two students aged just 19. and Ian Coates, a 65-year-old caretaker, just a month or two from retirement, before stealing his white van to continue the bloodthirsty spree.

The judge was told in evidence that Valdo Calicane is a paranoid schizophrenic, but also that he's a highly intelligent man with a degree in mechanical engineering. Two consultant psychiatrists submitted evidence that he knew what he was doing and was not insane at the time of his rampage. But Calicane's been found not guilty of murder,

accepting free charges of manslaughter by diminished responsibility. Instead of going to jail, he'll now go to a mental hospital for an indeterminate amount of time. Reportedly, he'll be allowed to pass his time building Lego sets, playing the guitar, learning how to paint in a room, not a cell, decorated with plants and rugs. It's hard to disagree with the family of Ian Coates, who says Calicane has got away with murder. The NHS Mental Health Trust have to be held accountable for their failures, along with the police. all we can do is hope that in due course

some sort of justice will be served. This man has made a mockery of the system and he has got away of murder. Yeah, he has. Make no mistake, Caldercane is a monster. Chilling footage charts his demented spree as he pounces on his two teenage victims who were chatting happily together

as they walked home from a night out. And after then stabbing Ian Coates to death, he stole his van, a rammed into three pedestrians, two of whom suffered life-changing injuries. I can only imagine how many more people he might have killed. if police hadn't finally brought the blood bath to an end.

And there were serious questions to answer about whether the police should have prevented it from ever happening. As far back as May 2020, CaliCame was arrested for breaking into two apartments, forcing one terrified resident to jump out of a window to escape him. He was assessed as psychotic, but after being discharged, he broke into another apartment then stopped taking his medication.

A year later, he travelled to MI5 in London and told him to stop controlling him. He assaulted a police officer. He attacked a flatmate. He was kicked out of halls by his university. He attacked two colleagues at a warehouse. The list goes on and on and on. This looks like a total system breakdown,

which allowed a cold-blooded mass killer to rampage through our streets. And the brief loved ones of his victims now have to bear the scars of a complete absence of justice. Well, joining me now as the lawyer, writer and broadcaster, Chris Dawley, KC, talk TV contributor, Esther Cracko,

and the associate editor of The Daily Mirror, Kevin McGuire. Okay, let's get into this. Chris Dore, you're a KC, Explain to the British public, many of whom are completely baffled by this, how this guy can plead guilty to attempted murder and be found guilty as charged, but then have his murder charges downgraded to manslaughter with diminished responsibility? Well, it's very straightforward in law, although I have to say that it's not been very well explained by the media or indeed,

possibly by the judicial system. But in law, it's very straightforward. with the defence of diminished responsibility, which basically arises where someone is so psychotic that their perception of reality is completely distorted. They can plead guilty to diminished responsibility only to murder. That defence is not available to attempted murder as a matter of law, and that's why the difference between the two charges.

Why? You'd have to ask Parliament. It's a parliamentary decision to... But you're a KC. Do you not share my utter bemusement the fact that you can plead guilty in a situation like this to attempted murder because you're attempting to murder people,

but on the charge of actually murdering people, you're allowed to get away with a lesser charge and a cushier sentence. I mean, it just makes absolutely no sense. I can quite understand that these families believe that the law is just not fit for purpose here. Well, it's neither a lesser sentence nor a cushy sentence. Neither of those things is true.

He's not in a prison cell, and he won't spend any time in a prison cell. He's not in a prison cell because he was psychotic. What you didn't say in your misleading introduction was that all five psychiatrists, including the prosecution psychiatrist, agreed that he only committed these crimes because of his paranoid schizophrenic psychosis. But for that, all the psychiatrists and the judge agreed

he wouldn't have done any of it. So let's look at the way we're thinking about and talking about mental illness rather than, as it were, taking someone who was so psychotic that he was so disturbed he took three lives and treating them as if they're a pariah for the sake of their mental health. Well, I see more mass.

murderers are psychos, to be perfectly honest with you. Otherwise, it wouldn't commit mass murder. He did not be convicted of murder. Well, I also remember the Yorkshire Ripper, for example. He was convicted of murdering 13 people. Later, identified, was identified as a paranoid schizophrenia. But he was found guilty of 13 murders. Indeed. Why?

That's correct. At the time of the trial, he was undiagnosed. It was a very, very long time ago. Psychiatry has moved on a lot in 40 years or so. and nowadays psychiatrists are able to accurately diagnose schizophrenia, and that's why all five doctors agreed. There was no doubt about the medical diagnosis, and there was no doubt in the High Court judge's mind that these crimes derived entirely from his mental state

and not from any underlying history of violence. Okay, why did two experts who were called disagree then? They didn't disagree. That was another part of your misleading introduction. All five agreed it was diminished responsibility. None of them suggested that he was insane. Now, the insanity laws date back to the 1840s, and that's an entirely and very specific legal issue. Nobody was saying he was responsible for his actions.

The difference was, is it insanity or is it diminished responsibility? They all agreed it was diminished responsibility, and that's the significance of insanity. Not to say that he was in some way competent, but because in the dividing line between insanity and diminished responsibility, the evidence was clear. But what I find baffling about this is that he seems to have been so... calm, chillingly calm in the way he's planned all this, getting all his weapons, nothing about his behaviour we've seen really suggests that he's having some kind of psychotic episode

from any of the video footage. This is a guy just basically planning calmly to commit mass murder. And that, again, a lot of my questions to you, Chris, are more reflecting what the public are thinking about this, which is a lot of anger based on the anger of the families. You know, I'm sort of more... more in the bemused camp, to be honest with you, because he doesn't look to me like someone

who's not completely in control. Now, I accept that maybe the experts say he was a paranoid schizophrenic, but everything about the way he planned and executed this looks to the, you know, unprofessional eye, admittedly, that he is just a cold-blooded, pre-planned killer. Well, if you read the judgment and the judge set out in great detail, He quoted from all five of the psychiatrists. He went through the entire history of this man.

Going back to day one, he was a very clever man. He'd obviously gone to university and studied engineering. There was no intellectual deficit. The difference here, and the judge explained this with real clarity and compassion, was that his belief set, which was completely paranoid, was created by delusions from his illness. He believed that he had to listen to a voice in his head, telling him to go and commit these murders, or his own family would be killed.

He believed that to be his own truth because of his psychosis. And when people understand that's what's in his mind, it perhaps makes more sense that he's going to spend the rest of his life in a psychiatric institution rather than a prison, which are only intended for people of sound mind. Final question for you at the moment, Chris, but will he spend the rest of his life in a institution or is there, as I believe is a case, the possibility that he may actually get out,

and that would not have applied if he'd been given a, for life sentence for murder? Well, that would have depended on the sentence that the judge decided. But you're absolutely right. Had it not been for his diminished responsibility, he would inevitably have been convicted of triple murder and he would have received a whole life order and never been released from prison.

That is true. But this particular order gives no early estate for release and he could only ever be released if two things happened. One, a mental health tribunal decided that he was no longer a danger to the public and two, the Secretary of State for Justice agreed to his release. Now, if you just think about it for two or three seconds, the likelihood of any such scenario is so remote as to be not even worthy of belief.

Okay, Kevin has to be waiting patiently here? Kevin, what's your take? I watched you this morning on Good Morning Britain with two of the parents. It's incredibly powerful, moving interview. And you were kind of wrestling, I could see, with your heart saying one thing, your head saying another about this.

That's right. I put myself. from the shoes of the parents, Barnaby's parents, and I would feel cheated by the system. But I think where it went wrong is not on the sentence because he will be locked away forever. And I visited a secure mental hospital before. You have to go five, six checks,

just like you're going into a prison. I think it's why was he free anyway when he'd been sectioned four times, and there were warrants out for his arrest and the police hadn't picked him up. And attack police. Yeah, I think that is the failure, not the verdict, not the...

not the judge saying it is manslaughter through diminished responsibility. OK, but Esther, I mean, when you hear that he, when the public here, this guy's pleaded guilty to attempted murder, but then is not found guilty of the ones he murdered, in my estimation, I think they're entitled to be pretty bemused by what the law has done here. And I think that... I mean, Chris, the door is completely correct here. That is the law.

Yeah. But the law seems to me to be inexplicable. I mean, that's what I really struggled with. How can someone who traveled from London prowled the streets of Nottingham for hours not be convicted of premeditating this attack? But I listened to the judge's comments and he spent 33 minutes explaining it

and he testified on behalf of the five psychiatrists that said this man is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. I think we also have to consider the fact that he's a danger to prison inmates as well as prison wardens if he did go to prison. I think the only justice, any parent whose child has been murdered would be for the person to be hung.

but in this country we don't hang people for having a mental illness and that's the really difficult thing to take from this the fact that this person is so mentally unwell that he'll have to spend the rest of his life behind bars imagine if he becomes cognizant of what he's done he might even wish he was hung because he couldn't live with himself he murdered three people the difference of course about being in one of his institutions get it he will be mandated

to take all his medication he will make sure he does which by all we know about him when he took the medication he was relatively normal, right? Yeah, and there's a great failure in so-called care in the community that people are really basically left on their own. And this guy was obviously frightening and obviously terrifying to other people

and obviously a danger. But the end result is he will not be on the streets. He will be detained. Do we really think people with severe mental illnesses should be put in prison? I know what's even worse. But I really am with the parents. If the CPR,

had gone ahead with the murder charge, they would have lost, and then they would have to have a retrial and put the parents through more years of the slow, clunky British judicial system. And I don't think that's fair either. Lucy Letby, for instance, you know, the parents got a knock on the door in 2018 that someone may have murdered your baby. And then it went to trial in 2023. That's five years of agony.

Imagine if, you know, the trial wasn't as meticulous as it was, and they had to go through another five years of that agony. And I think they've actually saved the parents. I know it doesn't seem that way, but they've saved the parents. Well, let me bring Chris back in here, because the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, Tana Aging case, he said the court backlogs and a lack of barristers meant the reasons for the different outcomes

were not explained to the families, which seems to me absolutely shocking, shameful actually, that these poor families were completely unaware that this was all going on behind the scenes until right at the last minute. Well, if that's the case, of course, it's utterly, it's a complete failure of the justice system. But the point that was being made by Tarner Adkins is a very good one.

The truth is that the waits for justice are almost indefinite. Those who have been raped are waiting on average four and a half years to give evidence against their attacker if they can make it that long. Four and a half years is the average peers. That's how rages. A rape trial to get to trial after charge. And that because the system is, as Tarner Adkins made clear, there are nowhere near enough specialist powers. As you can imagine, the skill and sensitivity it takes to either defend. or prosecute in a rape case, there are simply nowhere near enough of them left because the government

starved the system of funding for well over a decade and many, many people left the profession. And so victims pay the price every single day in our system. And sadly, in cases like this, murder cases and other cases, whether it be rape or other sorts of serious violent offences, the prosecutors simply don't have enough time to sit for an hour or two or three. Frankly, in a council of perfection peers, in a case of this kind, I would have wanted to sit with the family for an entire day. to every single problem that they had with a decision, justify it and explain it properly and that didn't happen

and that's a breakdown of the system. I mean, Kevin, on every level, these families have been let down by a system that has just not been fit for purpose here. No, and it's callous and it's cruel. And there they are. They're just treated as spectators while they've lost a loved one.

They should be taken through every step and involved, it has to be explained. And maybe they'll object at times. You would understand that. have just had your life totally changed in the most gruesome and horrific way. But the system is broken. It is. It's absolutely broken.

If you take your child to a specialist and say my child has depression, they have to wait over a year just to see someone. So if you think about the lack of medical health resources that we have in this country, it's no surprise that someone like this. I thought what Chris just said about a four and a half year average weight for a rape case.

There's no justice. And that will explain why very few, rape cases ever result in a conviction. Because people give up, they despair, they don't want to bring the clean in the first place. The system is broad and smashed. You've got to make it work. I absolutely stand by the British judicial system.

I think when it works, it works. It's just slow and clunky and undefunded. And unfortunately, I think the prosecution knew this and they wanted to save the parents years of agony. And you know what? The British public, I can tell you, they're going to feel the same way the families have felt, which is betrayed at every level by the system,

but also inexplicable that he can be simultaneously convicted of attempted murder, but not of murder. No one's going to understand that. I'm sure that is the law. I know it's the law. Chris has confirmed it's the law. It's just the law's an ass.

Because if the public can't understand something that simple, then it has to change. I just don't think anyone can hear that. and go, what? It makes no sense. If I was one of those parents, I'd be furious. Murder is intentional killing. I mean, Crystal explains me.

It's intentionally going to kill somebody. Manslaw is unintentional. What's attempted murder, then? Well, you attempt to kill somebody, but you don't do it. But if you... You're deliberately attempted to kill it. Why isn't there a case of murder by, you know, sort of... I mean, I thought it would be a murder case.

You're mentally ill as you do it. But traditionally, it would have been a murder case, and the mitigating factor would be his mental health issue. That's what most people would expect. Well, let me ask Chris one final question. What is to stop, Chris, somebody who's just a killer, playing the mental health card saying, I'm a paranoid schizophrenic?

I mean, what's to stop them doing that? Well, I'll tell you what's to stop them. There's two things. Firstly, both the prosecution and the defence get expert reports from not one, not two, but a total of five of the most senior forensic psychiatrists in the country who deal with psychics. psychotic patients 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Secondly, there's a high court judge who has to make the overall decision. He weighs all of that evidence, and he considered very carefully whether there was a possibility. He explicitly referred to it. Is it possible that he's, as it were, swinging the lead or that somehow this is fabricated? And the judge said the possibility of that was so slim that it was not even worthy of consideration because of the expert opinion from so many different places. But you do make a good point, Piers, which is that you do need intent to kill to commit a And so I can well understand why people are confused because actually the defence of diminished responsibility should be available to both.

Makes absolutely no sense to me and I'm sure not to many people. But Chris, I appreciate you joining me. Thank you very much. To Kevin, Esther, thank you very much. And our hearts go out to all those poor families. I can't think of anything worse in the world than what they've had to endure. Absolutely horrific. And the fact the system let them down so badly and the fact they end up with not even a murder conviction.

is to me completely wrong. Anyway, thank you. I appreciate it, joining me. On the sensor next, Netanyahu says the Hamas war is a war between Iran and the west as three U.S. soldiers are killed by Iranian militants in Jordan. Donald Trump says we're on the brink of World War III. Is he right?

Dennis Prager and Jake Yuga are up next. You told me last time something happened that was so depraved. You couldn't even tell me on air. There's people still missing for my bachelor party. We never found me. Well, there's fuck you money. And then there's Elon Musk.

Right. He literally says, fuck you. Yes. The government thought I was not paying my fine that I had. They thought I was hiding money. They looked at my asshole with a frickin microscope, right? And you know what they found after five years?

Zero. Look at Donald Trump. He was a great president. Has Margot Robbie thanked you yet for you propelling her career? She did. I thought Barbie sucked. Have you seen Leah? Does you know what?

They can't make. movies like that. No, because they just can't. They can't. It was pretty wild. Do you ever get urges to just go and take loads of queludes? Quailudes, yeah. You have one, we can go after you. Just for the record,

I do not have any creludes. Very entertaining interview with the real life wolf of Wall Street, Jordan Belford. That's tomorrow night. Well worth an hour of your time. He's highly entertaining, fascinating. Fascinating guy. Welcome back to Unsensate. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Talk tough on Iran in a new interview telling uncensored regular Douglas Murray that Iran is bent on domination and conquest. He framed Israel's ongoing war with Hamasas as a battle to the western Iran before warning that Israel will fight around as long as it takes. Alone, if necessary, comes to President Biden, warns the US will respond

after three American soldiers were killed in a drone strike by Iranian-backed militants on a US base in Jordan. Donald Trump, meanwhile, says we're on the brink of World War III. Is he right? What you want to discuss all this? Is the conservative talk show host, and author Dennis Prager and the Democratic presidential challenger,

Jenk Yuga. Welcome to both of you. Dennis Prager, a lot of jungle drums beating now about the potential of a massive escalation in this war in the Middle East because of these attacks killing Americans, because of Biden's comments, and because of Iran's general saber rattling. What do you feel about what is happening here?

I don't believe Iran wants a hot war with the United States. I believe that Iran wants to use people to kill Israelis to kill Americans and see how far it can go. Thus far, it has been able to go pretty far. And there was a great Wall Street Journal editorial on this, that there is a sense that the American president is much more interested in avoiding conflict with Iran than in fighting back against Iran. So I don't predict a violent war with Iran. However, it is accurate to say that there is a world war now, and there has been for quite a while between the West and those who hate the West. Iran hates the West. The Islamist world hates the West, not every Muslim, the Islamist world as opposed to the Islamic world.

And the people like Hamas hate the West. Israel is attacked for being an outpost of Western civilization in the Middle East. It's fascinating that that is an attack. One would think that that would be praise since Western civilization has been the most decent civilization ever created in human history. But it is used as an attack

by those who hate the West, the left, not liberals, the left, and the Islamists. And they are in alliance against Israel and the United States. All right, Jake Yuga, I want to play a clip from this interview between Douglas Murray and Benjamin Netanyai, where he talks about the war will take as long as it takes.

Let's watch this. We have to win in Gaza. We have to achieve total victory. Hamas cannot be left standing, coming out of the ruins with a V sign, and saying, we'll do it again and again and again. What I say to our American friends, whose help I appreciate a great deal,

I said, the war will take as long as it takes, but it will result in total victory because our battle is your battle and our victory is your victory as well. Now, Jake, I saw today that one of his cabinet was suggesting that they believe 25% of Hamas terrorists have now been killed and 25% more wounded. And so in their estimation, 50% of the enemy has now been effectively taken out of the battlefield. A, do you think that is probably true? And B, what do you make of what Netanyahu said about this effectively, whether people like it or not, they're going to finish this job?

Yeah, so I'll address the propaganda first. There's no way of confirming any propaganda that comes out of Israel. Those are made up numbers. But let's assume for a second that it was true. Okay, so you've taken down half of Hamas and killed 26,000 some on people. Does that mean you're going to kill another 26,000? How many Palestinians is America supposed to help you murder for your nonsense objective, which never made any sense in the first place?

Which leads me to the second part. Nanyahu says two absurd things. One is an effort to avoid accountability. He kept saying to Douglas over and over again, oh, in terms of what went wrong on me not defending Israel on October 7th when they needed the defense, not offense, not killing random innocent Palestinian civilians, but actual defense. He says, oh, we'll get to that accountability after the war. Okay, when is the war going to be over?

He says, well, we have to have total victory. Does that mean you have to kill every member of Hamas? us. Well, everybody knows that's impossible. So, oh, look at that. He set up an impossible standard for the war to be over so that it's never over and we never get any accountability. And finally, the idea that America should fight Israel's war for it is absurd. No, a hard no. We should send no money to Israel going forward to kill innocent Palestinians or as long as they do the occupation. And now they're dragging us into a giant war in the Middle East that they're going to ask us to pay for both in blood and treasure. There's no Americans

that are actually in favor of that, other than neo-conservatives that dragged us into Iraq and that debacle over there. So my answer to Netanyahu is a hard no. No way do I want to go to war with Iran to help your political career. Dennis Prager, do you think Benjamin Netanyahu is long for this world as the leader of Israel? Because he's so unpopular domestically.

The polls have never been worse for him. You get a feeling of somebody where the war is almost his last stand as leader. And in a very cynical way, if he stays in it long enough and can claim victory over Hamas, that might be his only way of maintaining power. It's hard to imagine another Israeli leader

acting differently. There is this perception in the West, and I'm neither a Netanyahu fan nor a Netanyahu opponent. But it is hard to imagine an Israeli leader who would say, you know, Hamas butchered our people on October 7, raped our women, burned families alive, want to destroy us, want to kill every

Jew that they can find, but we won't respond militarily. In Israel, there is virtual unanimity. There may be discussed with that man individually, I have no idea. The British kicked out Churchill after World War II. People are very fickle about their political leaders, so I have no interest in what the polls are. All I can tell you is I can't think of an Israeli leader who would be acting differently. Yeah, I think that's probably true. Jake Hugo, I want to talk about this disturbing report

which has come out about the United Nations Relief of Works Agency where there were murmurings about potential involvement of some of their members in what happened. We've now seen a Wall Street Journal investigation which seemingly establishes from a dossier, actually the New York Times as well, an Israeli intelligence dossier, alleging that 200 workers from the UNRWA are Hamas or Islamic jihad operatives, didn't provide detailed evidence.

The dossier also alleged that 12 workers crossed into Israel on October the 7th with the Hamas terror group. UNRWA has sacked nine of those employees and says it's investigating another report by the Wall Street Journal, citing also Israeli intelligence dossier, alleges 1,200 of the UNRWA's 12,000 employees in Gaza have links to Hamas or Islamic jihad. Now, I'm sure your first response will be, well, I'm not going to believe Israeli intelligence dossiers, but the fact that the UNRWA has already sacked nine of these people

suggests there's a clear problem there. Yeah, so there's two different issues here, Pierce. So first, you're right, I don't believe Israeli propaganda. They say, oh, trust us. There's hundreds of them. No, I don't trust you at all. The IDF and the Israeli government have an enormous track record of lying on almost every occasion related to this war. But, okay, so you say there's nine folks who've already been terminated, and that's fair, and that's definitely true. So obviously, there must have been some evidence. Okay, great, fantastic. I want accountability. I don't want anybody involved in October 7th attacks, and they've been fired.

If you want to do a further investigation to see if anybody else was involved and you want to fire them, Terrific, no problem. But that's not the real issue here. The real issue is the right-wing Israeli government hates this organization because they help Palestinians. There's now half a million Palestinians that are starving, and the only people that are helping them is basically this organization. And Israel thinks, now their right-wing government thinks, well, look, if we can eliminate the one organization that's helping Palestinians, they'll starve more. That way when we bomb them and we kill them and we starve them, there'll be no one to help them. So that'll help us with our ethnic cleansing when we try to push them into Egypt, which several cabinet ministers, including their national security minister, have now said that is what they want to do, which is, of course, ethnic cleansing 101. So they're targeting this group to try to eliminate its funding, and it's working brilliantly. The Western powers don't actually want to help the Palestinians, so they're using this as an excuse to target the whole group.

And one last thing that gives you a stark example of it. Let's say that there was nine people or even a couple hundred people inside Israel who helped Hamas on October 7th. It's not impossible. There could be collaborators, right? So does that mean we should get rid of funding for all of Israel? It's an absurd idea when you apply it to Israel, but somehow it's not

absurd when you apply it to this organization from the United Nations? Of course it's absurd. They should keep the funding but fire anyone who is in fault. Dennis Prager, your response to this story. Well, first, let me just say the idea that Israel wants to starve the Palestinians

is vile. It is another left-wing atrocity on language, like Israel is committing genocide. Genocide has been raped, like the word racism has been raped. Every decent term has been denuded of its meaning by people on the left. Not by liberals, I always draw that distinction, but by people like Chink. They have raped the word genocide. They have raped the word racism.

They have raped the word sexual. attack, all the evils have been removed from their context. Israel has no interest. There are five times more Palestinians today than there were in 1950. It is the worst, most ineffective genocide in the history of genocide. It is a vile smear. The United Nations stinks. The United States should leave the United Nations with every other democracy. It is a place. where the Human Rights Commission has been headed by Iran, where you have Iran even heading the Women's Rights Commission. It is a terrible organization.

The United Nations is to nations what the university has become to education. It has become a moral cesspool. It is time for America to leave. Jane, your response, finally. Yeah, I mean, this guy's hilarious. Did he say I rape words? Yes, you rape words. I know you find that funny.

It isn't funny. Yeah, I do. Yeah. I think, first of all, that what you've done then, by your own definition, is rape of the English language and rape of the word rape,

let alone the fact that, of course, you know, you say, oh, the left says racism. Anytime anybody criticizes Israel, what do you guys all say? Anti-Semitism. Have you raped that word? That's not true.

That's a lie. We say it about those who want to destroy Israel, not criticize Israel. It is a complete. Okay, so let me address the United Nations. Sure, sure, sure. So look, the United Nations is all of the nations. And right-wringers like Dennis don't want us to work with all of the nations.

They don't like peace. They don't like the world community. They say, we're the ones who are right. We're the good guys. And then Yahoo said this in the interview that you display. We're the good guys. They're the axes of evil. And what is the only answer for evil?

War. So, and that's another thing that the United Nations is trying to prevent war. And so the neo-conservators like Dennis Prager and the others go, no, no, no, no, United Nations, people working together. We hate that. People that have different opinions than us, we hate that. People who are for peace, we hate that. The only answer is war, war, war, war. Of course they don't like the United Nations. So what are we supposed to do, not having United Nations. We're all just supposed to hate each other forever, never work together, don't even coordinate, don't even communicate, just go to war forever and ever. This is insanity. And by the way, end the occupation. I'm the only candidate that wants to end, not only, funding for Israel, not just for this war, but for the occupation, which is the core evil, to use the words of Dennis Prager. And it is an indisputable evil that Israel is doing there. And Israel doesn't have to do it.

I believe Israel can be a great and peaceful and flourishing country, but they must end the occupation. Jenkforamerica.com. Okay. Gentlemen, I'm going to leave you there. Thank you for a spirited debate. I appreciate it. Unsets at next, controversial transgender swimmer, Leah Thomas, has her sights of competing in the women's category in the Olympics. One of her former teammates joins me next. Well, welcome back. Leah Thomas made global headlines when she became the first transgender person to win a National College title

at swimming, leading to outrage from the women she defeated. She was ranked 65th when competing as a man. Well, three months after that win, she was banned from competing against biological women, but she's now mounted a legal fight to overturn the ban, and as potentially the Paris Olympics in her sights. I'm joined now by the former teammate of Leah Thomas, stand with women's spokeswoman Paula Scanlan, Outkicks CEO, Clay Travis and political journalist,

and defender of the indefensible on these things, Ava Santina. So welcome to all of you. Let me start with you, if I may, Paula. You have competed against Leah Thomas. In your estimation, how unfair is it that Leah Thomas was allowed to compete against biological females, and is now trying to seek legal address to do so, but potentially removing one woman from the women's Olympic team.

Yeah, it's incredibly unfair. I think just looking at the situation, Leah Thomas was the tallest person on both the men's and the women's team at the University of Pennsylvania, just the height difference, the muscle difference, the length in bones, the body shape, and also the hormones that males have that women don't. That was obviously a huge factor in Leah being much,

better than the rest of us. To put it into perspective, the University of Pennsylvania has never had an NCAA female champion until Leah Thomas came around. And I think that really shows that our program went from hardly ever having anyone qualify for the NCAA championship to having somebody win an event. And you didn't actually compete against her, I think. You competed with her, is that right? Yes, I swam different events than Leah, but I was on the same team. Right. I mean, I've just seen, you know, some of the video clips from some of the races she was in, both when she competed as a man and then as a woman. And the difference is just astounding.

I mean, in one race, she was winning by over 50 seconds or something crazy. Yeah, and in that event, actually, the second place finisher was a University of Pennsylvania swimmer that lost to Leah by over two laps in the pool. And if you were a member of the Women's Olympic team for the United States, a woman, and you lost your place to Leah Thomas now, how do you think you're going to. feel? I would feel terrible. And in fact, the girls that Leah beat when Leah won the 500

yard freestyle, the second, third and fourth place finisher were Olympians themselves, some of which having medals. So it already happened, and it would definitely happen in the Olympics. And I think that would be a big scandal because it would affect not just NCAA athletes, but all women from all different countries

that compete in the sport of swimming. And also in other sports that they allow this to happen in, they'll also be affected as well. Right. Clay Travis, I've got a feeling in like 10 years time, maybe sooner, we're going to look back on this period of the existence of planet Earth and think, what the hell were we doing? How was this insanity being allowed to happen? And it'll probably culminate in a six-foot-six-inch transgender athlete winning the 100 meters women's race at the Olympics by about 50 yards. I mean, that's what's

going to happen. Yeah, I give credit to Paula for speaking out. and being willing to point out how ridiculous this is, because I do think it's going to take women athletes more so than people like you and me, Peers, who can look at this and talk about how ridiculous it is. But what we're starting to see is in America, at least, when Gallup pulls this issue, increasingly massive majorities of the American population are saying, this is wrong.

And, peers, I don't even think you have to focus on sex itself. Obviously, men are bigger, stronger, and faster than women as a group. And by the way, that doesn't mean that some women aren't bigger, stronger, and faster than some men. No, but it is anecdotally how people will respond. It is why we separate the genders at the Olympics. I mean, if you made it gender, if you had what these... There would never be... If you had the woke dream of a gender-neutral Olympics,

can you imagine how many actual women, biological females, would win a medal? I mean, literally, other than probably equestrian and shooting, maybe, that's it. Yeah, that's it. That's it. There would be no women medalist. That's why the separation occurs. And by the way, Pierce, what I focus on is I coach little league sports. I've got three boys. If I showed up for 12-year-old soccer and I had a 16-year-old kid on my team, every parent would say, no, this is unacceptable. You can't do this. Can't do it for baseball, football, basketball. We have all sorts of changes to regulations. You can't be trans age, right? Like I couldn't suddenly decide that I'm going to be a little leaguer. That's why they asked for. birth certificates so you can go try to win the Little League World Series because otherwise people would cheat. And if I suddenly said, I'm coaching, I'm about to head. As soon as I finish this interview, Pierce, I'm going to go to seventh grade basketball and watch my 13-year-old son participate. If suddenly one of the coaches came out on the court, you know, six-four and said,

hey, I'm trans age now. Sure, I'm 33, but I feel 13. Everybody would think it was ridiculous. It's just the very essence of sport itself. Yeah. Okay, Ava, I'm looking at you frowning away here. Explain to me why this isn't just insane that Leah Thomas, who, as we just heard, was not just the tallest boy in her college when she was competing as a biological male, but obviously the tallest girl as well.

How can any of this be fair? I think, okay, so this is a really interesting topic for someone who is gender-critical, because on this show before, we have discussed puberty blockers and whether children should be allowed access to them when they are 12, 13 years of age. Now, boys develop when they are 12, 13,

the second that they start to have testosterone, that is when they grow bigger, they have a larger muscle mass than women. If you don't want to see trans women competing in women's sports, then you're going to have to allow young children who do not feel, who are experiencing gender dysphoria, to have those drugs when they're younger. No, not at all.

In my estimation, you do one of two things. It's very straightforward. This whole supposed insolvable problem is very straightforward. trans women either compete against other trans women in an entirely new category as there are more and more of them competing or they compete against their biological sex because that is the biology they've been born with.

Tell me why that's not fair. I don't think it's fair that people who've experienced gender dysphoria when they're growing up and don't feel that they are in the right body should not be allowed to compete in sports and if you're going to take away their rights... Why don't you care? Look, you go on about women's rights

and a lot of the time I agree with you. I want women to enjoy utter fairness and equality. I think this is fair. How can you possibly sign up to something that is so grotesquely unfair and unequal? So women's right. Because Leah Thomas didn't wake up one morning and suddenly decide I'm going to be able to win in the women's category, so I'm going to... That's exactly what she's doing. That's not what happens.

That's what she's doing. Leah Thomas, she is a woman, and so she is competing as a woman. She's a trans woman. She is a woman. She's a trans woman. We can go back and forth on this. She's a trans woman born with a biological male body, which gives her an in a immediate massive advantage over women who weren't.

So why aren't other members of her team happy that they're finally winning and qualifying for all of the things that they never qualified for before? Because they can all see that it's unfair. Is it not a little bit of jealousy? No, it's just they know that at some stage, Leah Thomas is going to probably win the Olympic gold medal. Oh no, that would be awful for America.

That would be terrible. Here's why it's terrible. The United States women's soccer team, let's call it soccer for the benefit of this discussion because they call themselves that. Well, number one in the world, the best women's soccer players on the planet and they got beaten, I think it was 8-1 by the Dallas under 15 boys team.

Right? That is the point, is that it wasn't that the women's team weren't great as a woman's team at soccer. It's to put them against a bunch of kids who are male with male physiology. They got hammered. Okay. That's why we separate the sexes. So what do we say about trans women then? Do we just say they're not allowed to play sport ever?

I just told you what we do. No, because they compete against their biological sex, which is perfectly reasonable and fair. That's not reasonable. It's perfectly reasonable. By the way, solves the problem of the dressing room too and who gets taken with who. Let's talk about all of those teenage years where they would have been seeking medical treatment

and they weren't allowed access to it. Now, that's happening in the UK and it's happening very much so in the US. People are being denied medical treatment when they would like to have it. Then when they get to evade, you don't let them play sports. You and I are going to come back to this when someone, like Lear Thomas wins an Olympic gold

depriving a woman of ring Olympic gold. She is a woman. And you're going to finally say, Piers, you were right all along. Let's take a short break. I want to thank you, Paula. we're going to let you go. I appreciate you joining us. So I'm going to keep Clay and Ava for round two, which is

a mixture of Taylor Swift. Is she wrecking American football, as Clay believes, and will she influence the election? And the Mona Lisa mob, what do we do about these idiots? Throw soup out of them? That's after the break. We're back, Carl, Uncensing, with my pack,

Ava and Clay tonight. So, Clay, let me start with you, because you're enraged by the Taylor Swift phenomenon, which, from what I'm looking at, the NFL massively more popular. Apparently TV ratings are off the charts this season for the NFL purely because of Taylor Swift

rocking up to see her boyfriend. Travis, who won again last night and is now in the Super Bowl. It's the ultimate American story, isn't it? Look, I have been to a Taylor Swift concert. I am not anti-Taylor Swift, peers. What most football fans object to is the constant focus on Taylor Swift.

Now, they dialed it back a bit. She wasn't on the television that much during the NFC championship game between the Chiefs and the Ravens. And actually, when CBS showed her, I don't know if you have the clip here, so it's kind of interesting. She was like, take me off, basically. You can see her read her lips of herself watching, watching herself on the screen. So even Taylor Swift herself seems to be somewhat annoyed by the amount of attention on Taylor Swift. And I do think it's been dialed back lately. Here's a deal. My football team, real football, Arsenal, in the Premier League over here, haven't won the league since 2004, 20 years, right?

If we suddenly had Taylor Swift falling in love with our striker, and it turned him into a world beater and we won the league, I would be literally leading the Swifty fan club. I don't know what you're all moaning about. To be fair, to be fair, though, Pierce, Travis Kelsey had a pretty awful season, once this relationship with public and she started attending his games. Now, because of Patrick Mahomes is his quarterback, the greatest quarterback in the NFL right now.

He's in the Super Bowl. And he did have a good game, to be fair, on yesterday. But a lot of sports fans don't want Taylor Swift taking over the Super Bowl. They want to get away from the Swifties and all their insanity. Here's what I think it's going to happen. She's going to fly back. She's playing a concert in Japan. She's just got time apparently.

Get on her private plane after us and get back. in time. She'll attend Kansas City Chiefs, San Francisco 49es. The Chiefs will win. Her boyfriend will be the man of the match to score the winning touchdown. Ratings will smash all records and it will be another accolade for the great Taylor. Let's turn to the Mona Lisa though, Eva. Go 49ers, save us. I'm in the old Chiefs camp. Am I not allowed to say how much I love Taylor's I know you love her, so you said that you love. Of course you know nothing about football. You just love scene table. I want to talk about Mona Lisa very quickly, these idiots who

invaded the Louvre in Paris. I was in Paris at the weekend. This was all happening. And through, it turned like to be pumpkin soup over the page. Obviously, he didn't actually hit the exact canvas because it's protected and so on. But once again, Ava, what did they hope to achieve? Apparently they were protesting to

raise awareness about hunger in France. They just wasted buckets of soup that could have fed hungry people. Okay. I think this is a fantastic And you've got to say one thing the French do really well is protest. Okay, over here you don't see half what you see in France. You don't see the streets on fire.

You don't see soup thrown at the Mona Lisa. And look, I have to say everyone was being a bit wet in their reaction to this. It's got a glass screen on it. The painting isn't damaged and they've made headline news around the world. And you think that wasting buckets of soup is the best way to highlight hunger. Do you really think that those couple of cans of soup would have sold world hunger? Why don't you say that in places which have abject poverty and real hunger? Oh, come on.

how far a couple of buckets of soup would take you. This has done more to raise awareness of hunger. Nobody knows what they were doing, raising awareness for. Only I do, because I researched the group. Thankfully, you've told us now. So now we all know. And they're related to just off. Oil and extinction, rebellion,

they're all part of the same collaboration. And it's like just nothing they do ever makes anybody want to join their calls. Nothing. I don't agree with that because the group has expanded significantly. And look, the best way to go about protest is direct action. We're at a point in time where politicians are not listening. Well, stop wrecking everybody's fine.

stop trashing paintings, particularly stop going after cricket pitches. Grow up, protest properly, democratically. Clay, got to leave it there. Great to have you. Go the Chiefs and stop the moaning leases. That's it from me. Whatever up to, keep it uncensored. Good night.