The Young Turks - Culture Warmongers

Episode Date: June 14, 2024

Supreme Court rejects challenge to abortion pill mifepristone. Biden admin lies about U.S. military in Israel. Here's why Europe is lurching to the right. Culture wars spark again as the House weighs a massive defense policy bill HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. I'm so upset. Oh my God.

Baguah! Live from the Polly Market Studio in L.A. It's the Young Turks. What's up, everyone, welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. And there's a lot of dense news in the rundown today. But it's important news to get to. Lots of updates on what's happening in Israel. The issue of reproductive rights in America, the Supreme Court actually weighed in on one of those big issues, having to do. with a woman's right to access abortion pills. I also took the time to really sit down and understand what is going on in the European Union.

They had their parliament elections just recently, and that has sparked some controversial decisions by Emmanuel Macron, the president of France. And so I want to update you all on that and how the political tide seem to be shifting in Europe. And I think we're starting to see similar trends arise here in the United States as well. So a lot of news to get to. As we experienced on Monday and Tuesday of this week, Wazni Lombre will be joining me for the second hour and the bonus episode of today's show. But look, guys, I'm going to actually make a plea to you all today. TYT's main show team works really, really hard on this show. And if you love the show, if you appreciate what we do, one of the best ways to

support us is to become a member. And so you can do that by joining, clicking that join button on YouTube. That's one way. And you can also go to t-y-t.com slash join and become a member that way. And if you just don't have the ability to become a member right now, no problem at all. We still love and appreciate your support. You can also like and share the stream, which is a free and easy way to support what we do here at TYT. Now, without further ado, let's get to our first story about a Supreme Court decision, a good one, but there is a caveat. The Supreme Court has preserved access to the abortion drug, Mepha Prestone, with a unanimous ruling. It's the first major abortion ruling since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The court did not rule on the merits of the FDA's approval of the drug. The justices simply found that the plaintiffs who brought the case lacked standing. Definitely some good news out of the Supreme Court today, but there is a giant caveat because the issue of women having the ability to act, Miffapristone or the abortion pill could be left to the Supreme Court eventually, and they might actually decide to do away with what the FDA has done in expanding the availability of this abortion pill to women across the country. Now let's take a step back and talk about the Supreme Court's ruling why they ruled the way they did and what the future could hold for women who seek to access the abortion pill Mifapristone.

So basically, this case was brought by anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations amid a wave of conservative laws severely limiting access to abortion around the country. The FDA decided to step in and do something in response to that. But because of those restrictions, women have become more and more reliant on medication abortion rather than surgical abortion. So let's take a look at this chart because it'll give you a sense of what I'm talking about. out here. You see that steep incline in the chart. And what that says is in 2020, 53% of abortions were performed through medication, but that spiked to 63% in 2023, making it the new target for the anti-abortion movement. And to be sure, they certainly did target the abortion pill. Now, the plaintiffs in this case against the pill argued that the FDA loosening the regulations around Mifapristone was unsafe. They didn't make a good case, in my opinion, in arguing that. But basically, what they were targeting is the fact that the FDA had approved Miffapristone

in 2000 as part of a two drug regimen to end pregnancy. But over the course of two decades, some of the restrictions revolving around Mifapristone had been loosened by the FDA. So the agency loosened those restrictions that it initially placed on the drug in 2016, for instance, It allowed women to take the drug later into pregnancy. At first, they limited the drug to about seven weeks, and then they expanded it to about 10 weeks pregnancy or gestational age of the fetus. It also permitted non-physicians, like nurses, for instance, to prescribe Mithopristone.

Now, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA announced it would no longer enforce the in-person dispensing requirement. Last year after the doctor's lawsuit was filed, the FDA formalized that decision allowing the drug to be dispensed through the mail. Now, as you can imagine, conservatives in the country didn't like that because they want to restrict abortion as much as humanly possible, if not outright ban it. But the FDA and several prominent medical groups, including the American Medical Association, told the Supreme Court that Mipipristone is safe. The argument that it's unsafe is just ridiculous and unfounded. So safe, in fact, that let's do a little bit of a comparison here, a great comparison to Viagra.

If you take a look at this, it shows that the risk of death by taking Viagra is nearly 10 times greater than taking Mithopristone. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs wanted Mitha Pristone to be taken off the market. And the case bounced around in the lower courts as what typically happens when something is challenged through the court system. And then finally, the Supreme Court decided that they would step in last year. And they ordered that the status quo around Mifapristone remain in place. So nothing change until the justices were able to review that case. But this part is super critical, everyone. This is the caveat that I'm talking about.

The actual legal merits of this challenge to the FDA was not adjudicated. Okay. So for now, Miphristone is safe, but it's not because the Supreme Court, justices looked into the safety or lack thereof of Mifapristone. In fact, what they looked into was the fact that, well, the people who brought the case who were challenging the availability of Miffapristone really had no standing. In other words, this case could actually make it all the way back to the Supreme Court eventually and the Supreme Court might actually rule differently the second time. But for now, we're okay, Miffa Pristone is still there.

Now let's go to the issue of standing. What does that mean? None of the doctors who submitted declarations to the lower court actually prescribed Mithapristode and none pointed to an instance when they were potentially required to complete an abortion for a patient who had complications after taking that drug. So if you have standing, you can't argue that this is an unsafe drug and that it has created some sort of injury or some sort of issue. When again, these doctors who brought the case don't even have to deal with Mitha Pristone. You have to have standing in order to make the argument that the plaintiffs in this case were making. Here's more information.

I think it's really important that the court spoke here with a unanimous voice saying, here's what you need for something called Article III standing. You need to be injured. You can't be asserting somebody else's injury. that injury, that government action, you need causation to show that your injury was caused by whatever you're complaining about and you need to be able to show something called redressability or you need to be able to show that you can get a remedy. And what we see throughout this opinion is the court saying no, no, no to all of the plaintiff's

allegations here that they can be the ones to try and assert this suit. These were people who didn't want to use the pill. These are doctors who never wanted to prescribe the pill. These were people who just objected to it and said that the FDA didn't do enough to look at the safety issues around the drug. Okay, can we just like acknowledge how these people are total goofballs? So again, just to really simplify this, the Supreme Court essentially told the plaintiffs, like, you have no business bringing this case to us because you yourself were not harmed. You weren't harmed physically, you weren't harmed monetarily, you have no standing in bringing this case forward. In the majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the following.

We recognize that many citizens, including the plaintiff doctors here, have sincere concerns about and objections to others using Mifapristone and obtaining abortions. But citizens and doctors do not have standing to sue simply because others are allowed to engage in certain activities. at least without the plaintiffs demonstrating how they would be injured by the government's alleged under regulation of others. Under the Constitution, Kavanaugh wrote, a plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue. So he's absolutely right about that. And this is the reason why the majority of Supreme Court justices ruled along with Brett Kavanaugh. And he also noted that federal law already, protects individual health care providers who have objections to performing abortions for moral

reasons or religious reasons. He says, in short, given the broad and comprehensive conscience protections guaranteed by federal law, the plaintiffs have not shown and cannot show that FDA's actions will cause them to suffer any consequence or conscience injury, conscience injury, right? So he's basically saying, listen, the loosening of the regulations has had no impact on you and you're the one bringing the case. You don't have standing. You can't really sue for this. So it is good news that the case was rejected, but you shouldn't really breathe a deep sigh of relief. I think that it's okay to have a momentary sigh of relief, considering the abortion pill is still safe. But the ruling does leave an opening for three states, Missouri,

Kansas, and Idaho to basically quickly try to revive the challenge before federal judge Matthew Casmeric, who is a very well-known anti-abortion judge. And the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is a conservative legal group that brought the lawsuit in the first place on behalf of the anti-abortion doctors, has made it pretty clear that they're not going to give up and they're going to use those states in order to keep this fight going. They're very persistent. And that's why I say, even though we've got some good news today, things could turn around rather quickly, given how motivated these individuals are to limit or completely restrict access to Mifapristone. And because the underlying argument wasn't even addressed in the Supreme

Court's decision, it really doesn't tell us much about how the court would rule in the future if a legitimate challenge withstanding is brought forward. Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, the two that we should look out for the most in my opinion, seemed open during oral argument to the idea that when deciding how to regulate Mithopristone, the FDA should have considered the Comstock Act long-dormant legislation from the 1800s that prohibits the mailing of any drug medicine article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion. And that really does suggest that the conservative justices may in fact side with the plaintiffs if the case is brought forward by individuals with standing or under different circumstances.

Plus, Scotis, the Supreme Court, is still separately considering a separate abortion case, which we should be concerned about, that it has to do with what happens when pregnant women show up to the hospital with medical emergencies in states where abortions effectively have been banned. So that decision will have a significant consequence. on the reproductive freedoms and rights of women as well. So stay tuned for that. So again, for the moment being, we do have some good news on Miffa Pristone, but it could be temporary good news,

considering the motivations of the plaintiffs here, how incredibly persistent they are, and how we do still have an incredibly conservative Supreme Court that, of course, has already reversed the landmark Roe v. Wade, which granted abortions to women in America. up until the point of viability. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going?

I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Neeson. Buy your tickets now. I get a free Tilly Dog. Chilly Dog, not included. The Naked Gun. Tickets on sale now. August 1st.

All right, well, let's move on to an entirely different story. And I want to thank the audience member who brought this story to my attention on yesterday's show. I said I would look into it. And we did look into it. And it's fantastic reporting by Ken Clippenstein. Let's get to it. A U.S. official says that while there were no American boots on the ground, the U.S. offered Israel intelligence.

An American official confirming to ABC News that the U.S. provided intelligence and expertise to support the hostage recovery efforts, while stressing that no U.S. boots were on the ground as part of the operation. After Israel conducted the airstrikes that killed 274 people but freed four Israeli hostages, I noticed that there was this trend in the way the media was reporting on that story. There were no American boots on the ground, no American boots. on the ground. That's what U.S. officials are saying, no boots on the ground. Now, during that particular operation, maybe, possibly there weren't boots on the ground in Gaza. But the notion that there are no American boots on the ground in Israel is a lie. And it appears that the U.S. government under the Biden administration is attempting to hide that information from us. Now, this is according to new reporting by Ken Klippenstein. You can check it out in his substack piece and it is fascinating to say the least. So here's what you need to know. Every six

months, the White House is required to submit a war powers report to Congress. Now, the whole point of that war powers report is to inform Americans where U.S. troops are deployed. Now, interestingly enough, last Friday, the White House submitted one of those biannual war powers reports. And there was something really interesting missing from that report. Okay, the report did not mention any U.S. military presence in Israel whatsoever. Fascinating. Why is that? Now, it's not true that there are no U.S. military individuals in Israel, that there are no boots on the ground in Israel. In fact, Klippenstein reports that the U.S. has maintained military facilities in Israel for literally decades. And there's actually voluminous evidence to prove that. One of them is called the 13th

missile defense battery. It's an air and missile defense station that's been in place in Israel since 2016. In fact, it was actually established during the Obama administration and was meant to basically coordinate with Israel in fording an Iranian long-range missile attack. I believe this was part of the negotiations that Obama engaged in with Netanyahu to kind of ease the tensions following the Iran nuclear deal. Netanyahu was not happy with the Iran nuclear deal because he would rather go to war with Iran. Wait, let me clarify, he would rather have the United States go to war with Iran on his behalf. And so the Iran nuclear deal would kind of prevent that from happening. And so he moved the goalposts and said, well, you know,

it's great that you guys are dealing with the whole developing nuclear weapons thing, but we're actually very concerned about missiles coming from Iran as well. And so this was probably part of Obama's efforts and easing the tensions that he was feeling with Netanyahu over that issue. Now, the United States hasn't exactly done a great job keeping all of this secret either. So Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, shouted the troops deployed at the 13th out during a December 2023 post. on X, we grab that for you. So in that post, he wrote, meet U.S. Army First Lieutenant Alexander Andre Berry, 13th Missile Defense Battery Military Police Officer. As an immigrant to the United States, he proudly serves in the U.S. Army to give back to his country. And in that

post, he also included a video of the individual that he was talking about. Now, the Pentagon also published a photo of former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. He was Secretary of defense under the Trump administration and the photo you're looking at is from 2020. This is him meeting with that very unit in Israel. And if you're wondering what that caption says, it reads Defense Secretary Mark Esper meets with soldiers assigned to the 13th missile defense battery team in Tel Aviv Israel, October 29th, 2020. Esper also met with Israeli defense minister Benjamin Gantz and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And then finally, the battery also also has a Facebook and Instagram page and has even celebrated our Israeli Air Force partners

and the 678th Air Defense Artillery Brigade Command Team. Neither has posted anything on the page since October 7th. So we know that this exists, okay? We know that there are American troops in Israel. And the reason why that matters is because as this ongoing war on Gaza continues, and as a The scuffles between Hezbollah and Israel continue to escalate on Israel's northern border, that not only puts Israelis at risk, which is why easing the tensions and trying to find peaceful solutions is incredibly important. It also puts American troops at risk as well,

and Americans deserve to know where our troops, where our service members are deployed. And the fact that the Biden administration is trying to hide this from us is really interesting. Right? So the United States very clearly wants to hide this because they removed several references to this facility in the official army websites. So why did they take those things down? And then remember the war powers report that I was talking about earlier, they also took out references to American troops in Israel, to this very specific unit in Israel. They took it out of the war powers report, which is strange as well. And this is a problem that goes beyond the 13th missile defense battery team. For decades, the U.S. has stored arms and other war material on the ground in Israel for U.S. use in the defense of Israel. These various warehouses and compounds are secreted behind other innocuous names, site 51, site 53, site 64. or your hard-earned tax dollars going to good use. It's just they want to hide it from you.

So if it is really being put to good use, why would the American government want to hide this from you? And the only reason the information is deliberately omitted in the congressional document seems to be because of the fact that they're trying to hide it from Americans. So what do I mean by that? As Klippenstein writes, no one in Congress has raised any issue about this, perhaps because it doesn't affect them. For as the War Powers report notes,

a classified annex to this report provides further information that presumably includes Israel, information available to members of Congress, but not to ordinary people. By the way, this was information that was available to ordinary people previously, and now suddenly during this war on Gaza has been omitted from the report. Longbendy Twizzlers candy keeps the fun going. Keep the fun going.

So the presence of U.S. troops in Israel is obviously pretty risky. It's risky for those service members, especially during this war between the IDF and Hamas. And it risks the lives of these people. We should know about what's going on. But that's not the only place in the Middle East where we have troops on the ground. And we've talked about some of these other examples in the past. For instance, the U.S. has battled the Houthi. rebels, the fighters who are targeting cargo ships in the Red Sea. We also built that floating

aid pier, if you want to refer to it that way off the coast of Gaza. It's running into even more problems now, more reports saying that there are all sorts of issues with that floating pier. There's also the troops that were already stationed in the Middle East. Today, in addition to its larger longstanding bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, the United States has some 4,000 troops in Jordan, 2,500 in Iraq, and 900 in Syria. And the operations remain relatively modest, with no significant increase to the military's pre-October 7th presence on land. But after the events of October 7th, let's just say things changed a little bit. And that's another thing that I believe is not really being reported on. And thankfully due to Ken Clippenstein,

We have some great reporting on it. In Iraq and Syria, for instance, the Gaza conflict rekindled the long simmering campaign by Iranian proxy groups to inflict damage on U.S. forces. The groups have launched more than 170 attacks on those forces since October 7th. On January 28th, a drone assault killed three U.S. service members at Tower 22, a small support base in Jordan. So the conflict in the Middle East is already a massive tragedy, and the longer this war on Gaza goes on, the more it puts everyone in that region at risk, including the U.S. service members who have been deployed there. And I believe that is the reason why the Biden administration is trying to erase any mention of U.S. troops on the ground in Israel. There's already backlash toward the Biden administration, especially from voters in his own party, over the fact that he has been. unwilling to use his leverage, meaning the military weapons that we've been supplying with Israel, in order to reign Netanyahu and that far-right Israeli government in. And since he's unwilling to use that leverage, this war has only escalated.

Not only are countless civilians dying in Gaza as a result of these aerial bombardments, but the possible expanded war with Hezbollah in Lebanon is becoming more and more real every past day. You also have, honestly, a very scary situation in which if things start to heat up again with Iran, you know, if Israel goes to war with Iran, you think that the U.S. won't be dragged into that war. We absolutely will be. So it's important to know about all the details about what we're doing with our service members, how this war is actually playing out. And more importantly, I think the American people deserve to know why it is, that this information that was previously available to them is now suddenly being classified out of sight for U.S. citizens.

So there you have it. Definitely check out this report. It's Ken Klippenstein's incredible substack. You should subscribe if you haven't already. We're going to take a break when we come back. We've got more news for you, including a little bit of a deep dive on the elections in the European Parliament and how that is impacting France. Welcome back to the show, everyone. Let's do a little bit of international news because there has been a lot going on with the European Union. There has been a bit of a right word shift in the politics of the European Union. And I think it's worth getting. into that, but also understanding the impact it's having on France in particular. Let's get to it. Reekened French president, Emmanuel Macron's party was trounced by candidates for Marine

Le Pen's nationalist party. So here's how the vote actually broke down. A stunning rebuke of Macron's centrist coalition, a big victory for the political right. This is suicide. This is suicide. Some people are definitely losing their minds in Europe now that the European Parliament elections have happened. And there has clearly been a right word shift in the politics of the European Union. Now that follows, again, the outcome of the EU's election, which is different from the individual countries that make up the EU and the elections that they have.

However, the European Union's election basically had an impact, a huge impact on France and the political, possible political makeup of that country. Now, before we get to France and an incredibly risky move that Emmanuel Macron, the president of France made, let's understand what happened during the EU parliament elections. Now, in order to understand it, we need to kind of get familiar with the main political parties at play. So in the European Parliament elections, individual countries, parties fit within one of nine different overarching groups, two of which are definitively associated with the right, the identity and democracy and the European conservatives and reformists. Now, Europeans did vote in more, they did vote in more right-wing politicians. Make no mistake about it. And they did so in many countries that, that make up the European Union, that includes Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy. Okay, so if you're concerned about, you know, the basically reemergence of the right wing in Europe, well, you have cause for concern, especially after we saw the results of the parliament elections.

So with the results now in for all 27 member states, the two right wing parties combined hold 131 of the 726. seats, which is an increase of 15 seats from the last election and other unaffiliated parties, including the far right fids who hold about 100 additional seats, right? So what's important to keep in mind is, look, there are major political issues that explain this right word shift in political preferences, but it's also important to keep in mind that For now, the centrist, the various centrist parties have formed a coalition to ensure that there's still the majority within the EU parliament. So centrist still kind of rule the day, but clearly what we're seeing is this move toward more and more right wing politicians within the European Union. And there are some major reasons for why that's happening.

Part of the right word shift is driven by centrist politicians moving further to the right on immigration in particular, operating under the premise that immigration is a major concern for voters, and that promising harsher policies would help the center retain power. And look, this is different from the weak pathetic Democrats in the United States who try to run as like Republican light and typically lose elections. I don't want you guys to compare what's happening to the European Parliament to the Democrats in the United States, because it is in fact true that there is a lot of backlash among European voters in regard to the influx of migration into some of these European countries, not all, but certainly some of them. And so the immigration problem isn't the only issue that's moving the European Union to a right-wing agenda. Besides immigration, the right-wing was especially able to capitalize on environmental policies because of large-scale protests by European farmers, especially in France and Germany, about the economic effects of the bloc's climate change policies.

So I'm going to pause and riff a little bit on this point, because this is what I've been trying to warn about in the context of the United States. And Waz and I actually had a wonderful conversation about it not too long ago, where a Washington Post reporter was encouraging Americans to stop using hot water in any context, whether you're washing your clothes, washing your dishes, or washing yourself. She tried to get people to take cold showers to save the environment. And the more you put the onus on ordinary people, the more you put the economic burden in combating climate change on ordinary people, the more backlash you're going to get to it or in response to it. And you're certainly starting to see that in Europe. And so I thought it was important to highlight that point. Now, inflation also continues to be a huge problem in Europe as well. And in Austria, it's particularly pronounced. And so the sanctions that have been implemented on Russian fuel has taken a toll on

energy prices there. And if you have high energy prices, that's going to translate to higher prices for goods and services as well, because goods are going to certainly be far more expensive because transporting those goods is going to be more expensive due to the higher costs of fuel. So these elections weren't just about embracing right-wing voters or embracing the fact that these right-wing voters wanted to push back on centrist's and left-leaning policies. They just feel like the center and the left hasn't really been working for them or looking out for their best interests. And we've only kind of heard one side. of the European story as it pertains to the ongoing war in Europe, in Ukraine, I should say,

you know, you would think that everyone in Europe is super concerned because, you know, they might be next. Putin might come after them next. And, you know, countries like Poland, I think certainly do feel that way. But there's also an economic toll that the war in Ukraine is having on Europeans. And so there's a growing body of, you know, voters who are kind of starting to side with the right wing who want to put an end to this war in Ukraine and basically force Ukraine to make a deal with Putin. However you feel about that, that's your decision to make, that's your feeling to have. But I'm just explaining what some Europeans are feeling as a result of the economic toll that this war in Ukraine is having on them. Now, the centrist did take a hit

as a result of this backlash from the policies. So for instance, the centrist renew group, or yeah, the centrist Europe renew group, the party of French President Emmanuel Macron lost a stunning 23 seats, while the more left-wing Greens slash European Free Alliance lost 19. So look, this again does not mean that there's this massive change in the makeup of the EU because ultimately Macron's coalition is combined with other centrist parties across Europe, and they still have a significant amount of power and sway within the European Parliament. But it is true the centrists are losing ground. The left is losing ground, and they're not losing ground to the far left. They're losing ground to the right wing.

The center left socialists and Democrats, which lost four seats, and the center-right European People's Party still have the largest number of seats combined with Renew, the center, which still holds the majority of seats. But Macron clearly took a hit. His specific party took a hit, and that is the reason why he has decided to take a massive risk. And I can't believe he decided to do this, but he might be taking a risk in order to play a long game. So let me explain. Because of the outcome of the EU parliament election, Macron decided to basically take this gamble in France

by calling for emergency elections. Okay, so French president Macron called a snap parliamentary election in his country because his party did so poorly. And the notorious far right German party, AFD, won more seats than German Chancellor Olaf Schultz social Democrats did. Even if Macron loses, by the way, he's still going to remain president. So this is not going to be a snap presidential election. He has a mandate to serve as president till 2027.

So you should think of this as a legislative election. Here's more. In France, the SNAP election call is just a legislative election call. It's not a presidential election. So if Marine Le Pen's party were to win a majority, Emmanuel Macron would stay president. But he'd have to appoint a prime minister, typically from the party that wins the most seats.

And that would mean sharing power, where the president keeps control of foreign policy and defense, while the prime minister takes charge of domestic affairs and budgets. An arrangement like this would make France, I would say, almost ungovernable. Macron is a staunch believer in the EU. The far right wants to completely dismantle the block from the inside. And they have completely different views on immigration, Ukraine. the environment. So if Marine Le Pen's party wins during the snap election and Macron has no choice but to have

this prime minister, a far right prime minister, obviously it's going to cause tension within the French government. It's going to be essentially the type of gridlock we experience in Congress. So why the hell would Macron want to do this? Well, there's what he says publicly, which you should always take with a great assault, right? A meantime a politician says they're doing something for a specific reason, they're not giving you the full story. I'm going to give you what I think the full story is in just a moment. But the French leader said his move to call early polls, the voting will take place in two rounds on June 30th and July 7th showed his confidence in the French people.

He urged moderate politicians from the left and the right to regroup with his own centrist alliance in order to defeat the far right. And there have been some protests taking place in France. You know, there are some predictions or some speculation that Macron is of the mind that now that it's real, that there could be a right-wing shift in France, maybe this is going to motivate or galvanize the more moderate or left-wing voters in the country to solidify power behind the centrist or the left-wing. But Macron justified his decision by the fact that he could not ignore the new political reality after his pro-European party was handed a chastening defeat and garnered less than half the support of the national rally with its star leader Jordan Bardela. But look, it's interesting because some analysts are arguing that, no, Macron's actually playing a long game here.

And I like this prediction. I like this speculation because I think it makes a lot of sense. I still think it's incredibly risky for Macron to do this. But they're arguing that, look, there are some pretty deep issues right now in France. There is a huge budget deficit that's difficult to deal with. And whoever is in charge of domestic policy in France is going to have to make some real tough decisions. Decisions that I would venture to say Macron does not want to make. So if, you know, the far right wing party wins legislatively and they have say over the domestic policy in France, well, then they're going to either have to cut spending, which, well, we know what people in France feel about that. We've seen the mass protests that have basically come up after there was this effort to increase the retirement age in France. Nothing like what we have here in the United States. People in France have fought a lot more aggressively in order to protect their right to retire at a, you know, a more acceptable younger age, right? But nonetheless, there was a proposal to increase the retirement age and people took to

the streets like you wouldn't believe. I remember covering that story. And so if the right-wing party wins and they start proposing cuts to social services, if they start demanding hiring taxes or start demanding that they hire taxes, that could be increasingly. incredibly unpopular, and by the time the next presidential election comes around in 2027, well then there might be increased distaste toward the right wing in France, and that could actually pave the way for the centrist to win easier victories. So that is a risk because it's just assuming that the right wing will be unpopular by the time 2027 rolls around. Others argue it would have been far better for Macron to take what happened in the

European Parliament as something to inform his decisions moving forward so he can actually work on increasing his favorability and the centrist's favorability among the French electorate. That's a lot harder to do, right? That would mean that he'd have to get his hands dirty and he would have to work for the French people in order to garner support for them. But it seems like he'd rather kind of go along with this stunt. And I really do think that what the analysts are predicting here is true. I really do think that's what's motivating his decision. So we'll see how it plays out.

But it is not necessarily good news that the perception of European voters is that, you know, the centrists and the left in Europe haven't really done much to represent their best interest. and they're frustrated about their economic conditions. They're frustrated about their own version of the migrant crisis. And so they're looking to kind of retaliate against the current power structure, against the current power holders within the European Union because they want change. And so we'll see how that all plays out. But there you have it.

There's a good summary of what happened in the European Union and what is currently happening in France. We'll give you an update after those legislative elections take place. take place in France. For now, we're going to take a break. When we come back, we've got more news for you, including how the House of Representatives is using the National Defense Authorization Act to engage in more culture, war nonsense. That and more coming up, we'll be right back. Welcome back to the show. We've got one more story for you before we head over to the second hour and join Wazni Lombray for some fun. I wanted to give you an update on an annual bill, an annual bill that typically passes with bipartisan support with very, very little debate.

But now that members of Congress have basically used every opportunity to engage in theater and virtual. signaling, the National Defense Authorization Act isn't so easy to pass. And there have been lots of amendments offered up by the GOP House members. So without further ado, let's discuss. My amendment would ensure that no funds are authorized in this year's NDAA to be used on electric vehicles or electric vehicle charging infrastructure. And none of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars should be used for our military to be forced onto electric vehicles. We're debating whether or not this should even be an option within the military. Why in the world would we tie the hands of our military to maintain what they already have?

That's just dumb. I don't understand why we're doing it. We shouldn't do it. Well, that was a small taste of the ongoing debates breaking out in the House of Representatives over amendments to the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. You know, it's that big military spending bill that's up for renewal every year. And just like last year, House Republicans are using it as an opportunity to condition their support for the bill on various culture war-related amendments. You just heard Marjorie Taylor Green whine about the use of electric vehicles within the military and how she doesn't want any money to go toward those electric vehicles.

We'll get back to whether or not her amendment was supported and made part of the final bill. But the legislation, I think, should be talked about in general first, because every year, without fail, the amount of money allocated for the National Defense Authorization Act, the money allocated for our military increases significantly. So for the year 2025, the price tag for this bill would be $895.3 billion, billion dollars, meaning we're quickly approaching spending a trillion dollars a year on our military, on the Pentagon, which has failed every single audit that has been conducted. Unbelievable. Now, House lawmakers on Wednesday began debating some 350 proposed amendments to the bill.

A list narrowed by the Rules Committee from more than 1,350 that were submitted. The process is expected to stretch into Thursday with a vote on the defense bill likely to occur later this week on Friday. Now, Republicans proposed amendments to the legislation that would do a whole host of things. And look, at the end of the day, this is really just Peter because the House doesn't get to unilaterally decide what this bill looks like. They have to get the Senate to agree with it. And if last year was any example of what's going to happen this year, all these amendments are probably going to get stripped out of the final bill anyway. But nonetheless, what Republicans seek to do is restrict service members' access. to abortion and also to some diversity protections.

They also want to block future U.S. assistance to Ukraine and Palestinian civilians. So get a load of this. This actually infuriates me the most. So we provide Israel with the bombs to level Gaza, destroy the hospitals, the universities, the schools, the refugee camps, the residential buildings. And then you have Republican lawmakers who have the audacity to essentially say, we're not, we're not going to offer those Palestinian civilians that we're helping to slaughter any help after the war is over. I'm going to give you more details on that in just a moment. So hold.

They also want to increase military presence along the southern border to respond to the migrant crisis. I mean, they could have just passed immigration reform, but God forbid they do anything useful with their time. They also want to roll back Biden's environmental protections, like funding for those electric vehicles that Marjorie Taylor Green was talking about in that video that we just showed you. Now, House Republicans secured several contentious amendments. So they have already succeeded on some of this stuff, including a measure that was proposed by Representative Chip Roy, who's part of the Far Right House Freedom Caucus, to essentially prohibit funds from being used in support of Biden's climate agenda. Amendments led by representatives Brian Mast and Jody Arrington from Texas would bar U.S. defense funding for building or rebuilding in the war ravaged Gaza Strip when the war between Israel and Hamas ends and for transporting Palestinian refugees to the United States. Brian Mast is one of the worst people on the planet.

He is a disgusting, reprehensible human being, okay? just has complete ill will and malice in his heart for innocent civilians who have done nothing to him whatsoever. That's who Brian Nast is. Un-American wearing the uniform of a foreign government's military in the halls of Congress. It's sick. Now, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Adam Smith, said something that I agree with. He characterized mast and Arrington's amendments as counterproductive to U.S. and Israeli interests and called the effort to block Palestinian refugees biased and somewhat bigoted. So we're obviously assisting Israel in their ethnic cleansing. So of the Palestinians who might

manage to survive the aerial bombardments that were aiding and abetting in, what exactly are Palestinians supposed to do? Where are they supposed to go? Like the U.S. is real good at essentially manufacturing migrant crises and then giving the middle finger, okay, to the refugees who result from the wars that we start or the wars that we aid and take part in. I mean, we did it with Syria as well. We engaged in that proxy war. There's a huge migrant crisis as a result. And then we just give the middle finger to those migrants, to those refugees, to people fleeing from a man who was literally using chemical weapons against his old people. Okay. So look, right now, things don't look so great. But

overall, I think even if you have cause for concern, a lot of these amendments that I absolutely hate are probably going to get stripped by the time this bill makes its way to the Senate. Now, other amendments from Republicans didn't even make the cut, so that's good news, including an effort by Andy Biggs to cut U.S. funding for NATO. And just going back to Marjorie Taylor Green's proposed amendment to ban funding for electric vehicles and related infrastructure, that also did not make it in the final bill, at least for now. There are some areas of agreement, though, between both parties.

And I think that this should come as no surprise to you. But nonetheless, I'll tell you what the details are. And Democrats on the Armed Services Committee said the legislation approved by their panel authorizes broad and badly needed improvements to service members pay and benefits, including a 19.5% raise for junior enlisted personnel and expanded childcare access plus improvements to dilapidated military housing and other infrastructure around the world. I apologize. That's actually not something that I was unsurprised by. I was very surprised by that. I was very surprised that, There's a rare instance where you have both parties agreeing that maybe some of this money should go toward improving the lives of our service members. Because usually they're the ones who are neglected while the bulk of the money goes to private defense contractors and a whole host of other moneyed interests that are involved in this military industrial complex. So this is actually a good thing that both parties seem to agree on. And I really do hope they pass that because our service members deserve way better. But not all agreement is good because both parties also agree with increasing funding for our ongoing arms race with China.

There could also be increased aid to Israel included in this bill as well, which would not surprise me. Now, Republicans control the House by a thin margin, 218, two Democrats, 213. And while House Speaker Mike Johnson was willing to work with Democrats in order to secure military funding for Ukraine and Israel, there's really no indication that he is willing to work with Democrats this time around. But again, in the end, all of these amendments might get stripped away, especially if you look at last year as a good example. So the radically different House and Senate bills that emerged following the amendments process last year made for a tense, lengthy negotiation, and ultimately delivered an embarrassing defeat to House Republicans when they were forced to accept a final bill largely stripped of most contentious. provisions. So we don't really know what the final bill is going to look like just yet. And House Republicans are probably just engaging in this process for what they do best, political

theater. But the final thing I'll say about this is we spend way too much on the Pentagon. And I don't say that because I think we're wasting money on national security. I say that because we are spending too much money in the wrong places. And I think we could save money if we stopped doing all sorts of sweetheart deals and government grants with some of these military contractors. And so the only bright spot that I saw in these amendments and these proposals is the fact that they're looking to improve conditions for armed services for our service members. Other than that, it looks like a giant smorgish board of nonsense, culture war amendments that have been proposed. And I guess they're having a lot of fun debating those amendments

that might not go anywhere anyway. All right, let's take a break. When we come back, Wazni Lombray joins me for the second hour. Don't miss it. We'll be right back.