The Young Turks - Killing Fields

Episode Date: June 28, 2025

The Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship ban, delivering a blow to immigration advocates. Reports emerge that IDF soldiers were ordered to shoot unarmed Gazans waiting for humanitarian aid. Marjorie Taylor Greene is called out on Rising for posting a photo of the Statue of Liberty in a burqa after Zohran Mamdani’s victory. HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur), John Iadarola  (@johniadarola), Nina Turner (@ninaturner) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com 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. You're smoking some of the best, no God ever put breath in. Thank you, Friday. 315 315 315

319 319 315 319 319 319 Dhing Dmit

Drop it! All right, power power panel, Jank Uger, John I'd rolla. Nina Turner, how you doing, Nina? Great to be here with you. All right, how's it going, Nina? How are you doing? All right, Senator Nina Turner, yes. All right, this is going to be great power panel.

I'm going to, I, on my way in, I was thinking, okay, don't lose your You're cool, don't lose your cool, don't lose your cool. Because we do have an Israel story and then the attacks against Mom Dani are so racist. I just can't take it. All right, so we'll see, we'll see what happens. Everybody brace for impact. Keep your cool. I already told the whole crew like three hours ago, it's like, Jake's not going to make it through this without blowing up.

Yeah, I know. Let's see what happens. And I saw this super powerful movie last night that I'm gonna tell you guys more about later. But let's get started. Okay, let's do it. Actually, we're gonna start off with this. Actually, no, we can, we can jump right into this. Well, this was a big one, wasn't it?

This was a big decision, an amazing decision, one that we're very happy about. This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch. The Supreme Court has stopped the presidency itself, that's what they've done. And really it's been, it's been an amazing period of time this last hour. Okay, so Grandpa's train of thought fell apart a little bit at the end there, but it is a big day, not only for President Donald Trump, but any aspiring autocrat who wants the power to trample,

not only what Congress is constitutionally obligated to do, but the Supreme Court, lower courts as well. And so they announced earlier today that what he wants, which is an end to a lower court ruling that was temporarily blocking his bid to end birthright citizenship, he got it. And he got it not only in the birthright citizenship case, but effectively, it could be that for all cases in which lower courts try to even temporarily block Donald Trump's executive decrees, they won't be able to do that in the future. And that has only like the widest of implications. So we're to get into all of it, the arguing where we go from here, Bajank, what do you think?

Yeah, real quick, the substance of this decision is not that bad or important. In fact, it doesn't even exist. I'll explain that in a little bit after we give you all the details of the story. But the process argument made here is a disaster. So it's important why it's a disaster, and that's what we're going to explain to you after you get all the details first. Yeah, I think it's a disaster on like seven different levels. And hearing Donald Trump announce it as a win for the Constitution and the separation of powers.

I mean, that's that's your Orwellian, bizarro world reversal of the truth. And Donald Trump here, of course, as president, not happy that these nationwide injunctions are happening. And I would love to see one example of him when he wasn't president arguing against a nationwide injunction stopping a president. If a nationwide injunction had stopped Joe Biden, did he ever say that that was a court exceeding its authority? No, of course, they cheered it. They thought it was the best thing ever. And in this case, they have their conservative super majority on the court, and so most of the time the right is going to get what it wants, and this is what happened here. Six-3 ruling, as we've come to expect, the liberal justices dissenting. Now, Jenk mentioned substance. This does not actually

rule on whether birthright citizenship will continue to be a constitutionally guaranteed right as it has been for over 150 years, they'll get to that at some point, I suppose. This is just going to allow after a 30-day pause the resumption of whatever it is that Trump decides to do when it comes to birthright citizenship. So it is looking like in the majority of states it will not be a right for a day or a month or two years or forever. However long it takes the Supreme Court to eventually circle back around to this crucial topic. But don't get too down on them, it does take a lot of time to figure out whether something that's clearly stipulated in the Constitution is in fact constitutional. Can you tell that I'm not happy about

this? So here is what Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority in this case. By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act was immediately frozen by a federal district court. The trend has continued. During the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, district courts issued approximately 25 universal injunctions. As the number of universal injunctions has increased, so too has the importance of the issue. Basically saying there that now both sides are just, they're doing too much of this. And judges at the lower levels are allowing it too often. And then she throws her hands up in the air and says it's impossible for us to quickly adjudicate whether an executive order or action is on

its face explicitly unconstitutional. So rather than engaging on a case-by-case basis with something like two dozen lower court rulings, instead will just allow the president to do effectively whatever he wants. Seems like a dereliction of their duty. So that's the majority. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the minority in this case, says with the stroke of a pen, the president has made a solemn mockery of our constitution. Rather than stand firm, the court gives way. The court's decision is nothing less. than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution. This is so, Sotomayor goes on to say, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy

even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court. And by the way, we've already had many instances in just the past few months where the Trump administration has made very clear that even when a court order is still standing, they're just not going to abide by it. We found out that one of his nominees for, I believe, an appeals court judicial position was advising the lawyers in the DOJ, just don't pay attention to it. You don't have to follow literally any of that. So we know, and the members of the SCOTUS know exactly what the Trump regime's approach to the separation of powers, and in particular the judiciary is. They know all of that, and yet they are still delivering, not every single

time, but in the vast majority of cases, more power to the Trump administration. Perhaps the the administration in American history least qualified or deserving of the increased powers that are being delegated to them. So we have more, we have videos, but we should probably jump into discussion. Yeah, so first thing that I want everybody to recognize is John mentioned it, but there, I want to double down on it so people don't panic. This is not to take away birth rights citizenship. They have not decided anything about that. They have remanded to the lower courts to go back up. They do this all the time. They send it back down. to have it go back up, okay?

And so because they're ruling quickly, theoretically, right? And so they have another 30 days here, and then they'll go into effect. Okay, so, and again, the birthright citizenship ban doesn't, is not adjudicated, right? They have not made a decision. Okay, so then what is going to happen? Well, this is the, like, the awful part of this ruling, and it's preposterous, and I have a couple theories as to why they did this. So let me give you an example.

So they're saying no nationwide injunction, even if the president seems to do something blatantly, obviously constitutional. So this is blatantly and obviously constitutional, why birthright citizenship is in the 14th amendment. It's been adjudicated by the court multiple times. There's massive precedent over it, there's no question about it, right? So okay, here's another thing that's been adjudicated a lot, which is torture is a violation of the Eighth Amendment, right?

And so if the president says, you know what, I'm gonna start doing torture now. You can't do a nationwide injunction on it. So what they would have to do is, according to this ruling, only the people who sued who had already been tortured or the states that say, hey, I would not like to torture, it applies to them, an injunction applies to them, okay, but not to any of the other states and not to the people who are about to get tortured. Okay, that makes no sense. Do we have a constitution or don't we have a constitution? You can't say, oh, the Constitution applies only to people who sue. Wait, did you get it? The second problem?

That means now there's going to be a flood of lawsuits because nobody wants to get tortured, right? So now that's an comparison analogy. But in this case, there is already a flood of lawsuits because people are like, oh, okay, well, I was born in America or my kid's about to be born in America. I'm pregnant or, you know, or my kid just got born in America, but I'm not in one of those. those states, so now I have to go file a lawsuit to make sure that my kids' rights aren't taken away. We could have a ridiculous, enormous amount of lawsuits. By the way, some states have already in groups and human rights groups have already started

suing, right? So what are we doing here? That's so dumb. So look, I think that the right way to do this is, when I get the issue with a nationwide injunction, I, you know what I always do, show on another foot, right? So Biden had a lot of his stuff blocked by nationwide injunctions. And I didn't like some of the stuff that was blocked. Like I wanted it to go through student debt relief was one that was blocked, right?

And it takes forever to get out of the block. So they should have a rule, this is a fair thing that if, hey, if you're gonna do a nationwide injunction on some constitutional issues that are necessary, then the case gets significantly expedited, right? Okay, that makes sense because hey, is it constitutional or not? We gotta adjudicate that right away. But, and we have to stop the president from doing unconstitutional things in the meanwhile, but if it turns out it's not unconstitutional, then he can go forward.

So that makes sense, this doesn't, they're gonna reverse this at some point. I don't know how long it'll take, but this will clog up the courts, it's a super dumb decision. So why do they do it? Here's my very generous theory and you feel free to totally not believe it and we'll see how it actually plays out, is that since what Trump is doing is so obviously unconstitutional, they're gonna have to rule against it when it comes back up to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, they're just throwing out a huge chunk of precedent and how we interpret the Constitution in America. It'll have enormous ramifications on the substance, right? No, I hear you, I hear you. That's why I say everyone's free to totally not believe me.

This one, okay, you're all released, okay? No, seriously, I think that they have to rule against them. So part of what I think Roberts is doing here, in my opinion, is splitting the baby and going, oh, on the procedural stuff. Oh, Donald Trump is so right. So right. Now, don't get mad at us later when we tell you that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when it comes to the Constitution. So that feels like a Roberts type of compromise. But the good part hasn't happened yet, only the bad part has happened. So, Nina, what do you think? Well, Jink, I hope you're right about that. It's hard for me to put faith in robbers, but what you're saying, you know, it makes sense. It makes too much sense.

So I hope that you're right. But on the face of what is happening right now, you know, the point that John was making, the court totally abdicated its responsibility, cut the legs out from under other courts. And you know, I really do think that this court is calling President Donald Trump their daddy. I really do. I mean, it's as sick as all of this is with the daddy stuff, the t-shirts and all of that. But it just, it just, it's just. It just feels like this. And this man is celebrating. You know, you got people who are hungry, you know, people who need health care, you know, all the things that this president could be doing with his power.

But he steps up to a mic in the press room to celebrate a so-called victory, which is really no victory at all for the vast majority of people in this country. Because they come for immigrants, eventually they're coming for everybody else. I mean, there is no red line for Donald J. Trump, this is not good. By the way, I have been dreading later in the show when I have to present the daddy story and ask Senator Nina Turner to talk about it, and she actually brought it up first. So now I feel a little bit better about that whole thing. Yeah, so look, my concern is that like Amy Coney Barrett's like, yeah, the Republicans did this a lot to Biden. Yeah, but like, can the Supreme Court not tell the difference between a fivis

frivolous attempt to block something that is definitely within the power of the executive branch and something that seems intentionally designed to violate the Constitution. And it's not even just this, it's not even just like they found the birthright citizenship and they were like, yeah, you know what? Some of the white supremacists of voters for us don't like this, so we're going to get rid of this. I mean, they're dispatching the military to US citizens. They've they've now taken over 250 miles of the southern border and said, yeah, that's actually all of the military base. So the military can arrest migrants in there. They are, case after case, they are just trying to find the few remaining limitations on executive power

and knock them down. This is where the Supreme Court has to act expeditiously, particularly in cases of life and death. I mean, maybe it's the case that they do end up ruling on this in a month, and it never goes into effect, or very soon after that. But when you combine the willingness of Donald Trump to now start choosing who gets to be a citizen and who doesn't, scary in the first place, with his nonstop horniness to deport people, you could have kids that are born that should by rights be citizens, but won't be the only possible protection they have under this lawless regime to not be sent to El Salvador or South Sudan or Alligator Alcatraz or Guantanamo.

And then he deports them. And the Supreme Court, we're just waiting around. I hope they get back in session and pick this up. But maybe the kid is now in South Sudan, so what's gonna happen once they get their citizenship retroactively reapplied. The Trump administration is going to fly him back over. Boy, I hope they weren't assaulted or robbed or sexually abused or murdered in the meantime. Like if there's any time where the Supreme Court has to act, it's the easiest thing in the world. If in four years, President Alexandria Ocasicortez signs an executive order that just says, oh, by the way,

y'all can't own guns anymore, do you think the Supreme Court's going to be like, well, let's not be hasty. No nationwide injunctions, and we'll think about it. We'll get back to you in two years. You know, damn sure they're not going to do that. They acted quicker on student debt relief than something that seems designed to give the double middle figure to the Constitution. Yeah, you're stealing my thunder and you're stealing the thunder of one of the members that I was about to do. Oh, really? Okay. What's the hat?

So on Twitch, drenched wildfire said, it seems like a really bad precedent for the GOP's agenda to set for President AOC. Okay, so, and the reason I want to read that is similar to what you said, John, but I'll make a prediction on it. procedure lead that this will lead to a giant mess. It's totally untenable. They'll have to reverse themselves on this decision, right? Just in time for- Yeah, exactly. So as I was, you were talking, John, and I'm reading Drenched Wildfires comment, I thought, oh, I know when they're going to reverse it as soon as there's a Democratic president and they need a nationwide injunction on something. They're like, well, it turns out this is a procedural mess. Jank was right, we're reversing it. I'm sure they'll throw that in. And then I'm going to do one last member

for me at least, John Bojino on t.com wrote in already funny, if we get rid of birthright citizenship, what claim do any of us have to being an American? Well, so that leads to two points. I'm going to feel really good about this because I feel like naturalized citizens should have the same rights to everyone else, including the right to run for president. But it turns out now we have more rights than you guys, because none of you are citizens anymore if this, the substance of this stays, by definition, you all kind of have to prove that you had American parents or some other documentation, whereas naturalized citizens, by definition are naturalized, we already proved it. We have the documentation.

So I'm going to need to see all your papers. Okay. And think about how ridiculous that is, because in the states that didn't sue, right now, they have to start asking the parents, Are you American or not? And there's no way to verify. And there's no system for the doctors or nurses or the hospital to verify. So they don't know what to write on the birth certificate. It's so monumentally dumb. So there's going to be potentially thousands and thousands of kids that have birth certificates

that are unclear as to whether they're U.S. citizens or not. And then what are you going to do with all those cases? This is so dumb, it hurts the mind to think about it. All right, last word goes to Nina. Thanks, I was thinking about the administrative nightmare. You know, it is a nightmare, but you think about the amount of money that hospitals are going to have to spend, states will have to spend, or counties will have to spend to create a system to be in line with this dumbness.

And then another point I want to make, what good is a lifetime appointment? You're supposed to have courage, right? I thought have a little extra courage, because I think if you run for office, you should have courage anyway. Don't worry so much about the next election, do all that you can in the one that you just won. But especially when you have a lifetime appointment, you're supposed to be able to do more of the right thing. But this particular Supreme Court has shown time and time again that it is not willing to do so. I mean, they act like their names are on the ballot or something. Am I missing something?

Exactly. Do they still have lifetime appointments? It feels like it feels like longer than one lifetime. Yeah, they always, they like, whenever there's a Republican president, they're always like feeling out, oh, public opinion and stuff like that. Yes. Yeah, but whatever it's, you know, anything related to corporations, money in politics, they're like, who cares about public opinion? No, you guys don't have a democracy anymore. Corporations, you're now human beings and you could spend unlimited money bribing our politicians. Go ahead.

Okay, then they never checked the polls because that polls at 7% in popularity. But, oh, well, we're going to take a break. As we go to the break, I want to give the conservatives an additional thing to think about. Not only the precedent this is setting for President Buttigieg or whatever, who will not be bound by lower court decisions, but also Donald Trump announced in his little victory speech today that one of the reasons he's right about birthright citizenship is because it was only intended to apply to newly freed slaves. Now obviously it doesn't say that in the Constitution, but he's saying ignore the literal text of the Constitution and add whatever context you want.

That is the official position of your dear leader. I think that we can run with that in the future. Especially for the Second Amendment. Exactly. Lots changed since then. Anyway, so we're going to take a break. We'll be back after this. All right, back on TYT, Jank, Nina and John with here.

It's also LOL joined. So I mean, if we're all laughing out loud, we're having a great time. I love it, okay, thank you for hitting the join button below the video. And Schroederger's Dragon sent in a young tourist memberships on YouTube. We appreciate you. Nina, you were saying something during the social break. Yeah, one of the members that were saying they would hope that the MAGA people will wake up on the immigrant stuff and I'm just thinking to myself as if all of their ancestors, all of these people

that's raising all this fuss as if they originated from this land. I mean, it just kills me how they don't understand the history of this land. Yeah, 100% I mean, show me your papers from the Mayflower. You're all undocumented, right? That part. It's just us naturalized citizens and Native Americans, sorry. Jesus, Jesus. Well, I don't know, Jing, now.

They said they were forced over here, okay? So you got, we got to be in that now. Okay, you know what? I'm happy to keep me. I like how naturalized citizens are in charge now, since we're the only ones that are apparently definitely citizens. Okay. So, well, you know, Mom Dani's a naturalized citizen.

Wait till they get a load of that. Okay, and they have, as you'll see in a story that's coming up. All right, let's go to the next story. I have nothing to really add to that. The Italians came over and nobody had any problems with it. So we didn't cause any problems either. Anyway, okay, well, we were LOLing a moment ago. It's gonna, we're gonna have to stop doing that for a little bit,

because this is one of the worst stories you're gonna have heard in quite a while. Let's take a look. The headline is chilling. IDF soldiers ordered to shoot deliberately at unarmed Garzans waiting for humanitarian aid. It seems everyone, including ordinary hungry civilians, are deemed to be targets. The IDF is actually communicate the Garzan population by, by, by fire, by fired alive ammunition. As you saw right there, we're learning horrific new details about the IDF's recent conduct

in Gaza, thanks to a damning report from Israeli newspaper Heretz. And as the journalist was saying right there, the IDF was ordered by their leadership to communicate with totally unarmed, peaceful Palestinians by firing at them with live ammunition as a policy going forward. And these These details are horrific, the numbers are terrible, but we're going to run through all of it because not nearly enough people are paying attention to this story anymore, particularly with what's going on with Iran. But the situation there remains as horrific as anywhere in the world and the numbers are climbing every single day. And so these aid centers that have been the site of near daily massacres are run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. It's been in the Gaza Strip since May. It's an organization that was set up by Israel working with U.S. evangelicals and private security contractors.

It's staffed by American and Palestinian workers and then secured by the IDF from a few hundred meters away. And since they've opened, just one month ago, there have been 19 different shooting incidents there. And according to the Gaza Health Ministry, 549 people have already been killed in just one month near these aid centers. Just waiting for food, the small amount of food that is allowed through when enough food exists for every single man, woman and children there to be perfectly fine, but they don't let it in. And then when it comes in, you are risking your life every single day going to get it. Over 4,000 people have been wounded. And we don't know for sure what these numbers are. That's what it's believed.

And those numbers are so insane. I mean, I was recently watching Andor, and they just, they wanted to create a fictional scenario that would drill home how cruel and evil a regime was. And they had a smaller massacre than that. And that was enough for people to understand who the bad guy in that story was. And that number will be higher tomorrow. And it'll be higher the day after that. And if you're of Palestine in the area, there's nothing you can do, but continue to go to the

place where you just might be murdered. because otherwise you and your family will likely starve to death. And so this is not just a series of accidents or miscommunications, as Heretz reported. This is the policy. This is working as it is supposed to. According to officers and soldiers who served there, this is not just the people being murdered saying this, this is those serving in this area. The idea fires at people who arrive before opening hours to prevent them from approaching, or again, after the center's closed to disperse them,

Since some of the shooting incidents occurred at night ahead of the opening, it's possible that some civilians couldn't see the boundaries of the designated area. Others might have believed that worst case scenario they would be told to leave, not shot by the military. And so a lot of miscommunications here, sort of understandably. One soldier said, it's a killing field where I was stationed between one and five people were killed every day. They're treated like a hostile force. No crowd control measures, no tear gas, just live fire with everything imaginable. Heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars. Then once the center opens, the shooting stops, and they know they can approach.

Our form of communication is gunfire. We open fire early in the morning, if someone tries to get in line from a few hundred meters away, and sometimes we just charge them from close range. But there's no danger to the forces, I'm not aware of a single instance of return fire. There's no enemy, no weapons. This is not, you know, where they over exaggerate a threat. Someone threw a rock so they needed to blow up a building and kill 100 civilians or whatever. They're not even pretending that there's a threat, they just don't want to talk to the people.

They don't want to communicate with them, see them as humans. So instead, you shoot them, you kill one, two, four, seven people a day, and then the others, I guess we'll get the message. And so this is not like us reporting on, hey, the Guardian looked into it and six months ago there was a bad massacre, it could be happening as we do this show. And by the time the Young Turks goes live on Monday, it will have happened multiple times again. And they are hoping, and we'll get more into the propaganda aspect of this, they are hoping that nobody gives a damn about this story anymore and doesn't care at all about the ever growing list of people who've been killed just desperately trying to feed their families. Yeah. So lots of devastating

facts here. First of all, when you target civilians on purpose, that has a name. It's called being a terrorist. And so what I'm sick of is the racism in American media where they, if it's a Muslim that does something, terrorism instantly. And half the time they don't even check to see if it's military or civilians. By the way, did you know that out of the 1,200 killed in Israel on October 7th, about 400 were military? So it's still a despicable act. They still killed over over 800 civilians, but they just lump it all in. Even if you kill Israeli military, you're not allowed to do that, you're a terrorist. But Israel can kill your civilians on purpose, and no, they're not a terrorist state,

because that only applies to Muslims. So it's just a racist word, it doesn't mean anything anymore, it's trash. Unless you say no, no, no, no, yes, from now on, we're calling Israel a terrorist state because they are definitely killing civilians on purpose. And you know, the daddy's unfortunately theme here, the program they have where they wait for somebody that an AI picked to go home that they think might be connected to someone who else is connected to someone who was Hamas at some point. Again, it's AI picking, they have no idea, okay?

And they wait for them to go home so that they could kill their entire family and their children along with them. So people who target children and civilians on purpose are terrorists, and that is the IDF. It's indisputable. The only reason why you would argue it is if you're racist and say, yeah, no, only Muslims get to call that. Okay, so I'm, there's, so I don't want to hear anybody being offended about, oh, anti-Semitism. No, I get to be racist towards you, but you don't get to be accurate in your labels against me.

Okay, so none of that crap. Okay, now let's talk about the wanton slaughter that Israel does in this despicable genocide, okay? So this is straight book, straight out of the textbook genocide situation. I've told you this before, Serbrenica was a genocide, considered genocide by the UN and by all scholars. About 8,000 Muslims were killed, so a much lower number than here in Israel, and they targeted Muslims, just like Israel's targeting Palestinians. And they did the same exact trick. And the people, the soldiers explained later in Serbunits of the Serb soldiers, we realized that if we starve them, it would be easier to kill them because then if they, when they came to get the food that we brought them, they were sitting ducks. And then we just killed their civilians that were coming out for food.

That's exactly what Israel is doing here. But if you think that all of this is self-defense, you're a terrible person. It's not self-defense at all. October 7th was two years ago. They're still claiming self-defense. They destroyed her damage 92% of the buildings. Okay, here's another part of the story. That's just a side part where they're like, oh, by the way,

they've hired American private contractors to literally destroy every home in Gaza. and they get paid $1,500 per home that they destroy. Wait, it always gets worse. They're given carte blanche. So if they see anyone near a home, including someone who owns the home, they murder them. They have a right to kill any civilian around a home that they want to demolish. And since they're getting $1,500 per home that they're demolishing, they want to hurry. So they were like, okay, go, smash that one, smash that one.

Wait, are you looking for a mosque? No, they're destroying all the homes, and if anyone's near the homes, they murder them. These are 100% terrorists. Okay, and then U.S. evangelicals are part of this scheme. Think about how twisted you have to get Christianity, that you go near the birthplace of Jesus, not to feed the hungry, but to murder the hungry. No, stop calling yourselves Christians. You're not Christians at all.

Tom Massey's right. real Christians don't want genocide, are not in favor of the slaughter of 17,000 children, or don't agree with the terrorism of Israel. So, and then every step of the way, just when you think it can't get worse, it does. Israel has a version of the game, red light, green light that you've seen as squid games, a lot of you. They're saying basically, that's what they're playing with the people who are trying to get food. And so I saw last night, Gaza journalists under fire by Brave New Films. You should watch that movie.

Bravenewfilms.org, we'll put the link down below. Make sure you watch that movie. It is so powerful. Israel is clearly murdering journalists on purpose. They're clearly murdering civilians on purpose. And so in this case, what they're reporting, Heretz is reporting, an Israeli paper is, They're saying, oh, these people are desperate, they're trying to get, you know, food for their kids. And that was in the movie, one of the guys who'd been shot trying to get food.

He's like, either my kids are going to starve or I'm going to risk getting shot while trying to get food. So they have them stop and go, stop and go, and maybe they're amused at murdering them. When up, it was red light and you still went, so I murdered you. This is the current state of Israel, deeply, deeply terrorist state. And we give money to these terrorists. Those bullets are paid for by American taxpayers. You know that sometimes at these food centers, they throw hand grenades. They throw hand grenades and civilians coming to get food.

This is German level now. And I don't care at all if you're offended. If you're more offended by me calling the Israelis terrorists and Germans, Then you are at the civilians that they're murdering, something wrong with your moral compass. Like if you're like, oh, 70,000 dead kids, who cares? He offended me with a word. Oh, he's not allowed to criticize us like that. Okay, then you're a terrible person.

You should be spending all of your time trying to end this massacre. Nina. I mean, Jank, you said it all. I mean, this is sick by any stretch of it. is sick. The Biden administration is complicit as hell. They got blood on their hands. President Biden should have done something about this when he was all in office because we knew what was going to happen when President Donald J. Trump got in office. All he's doing is continuing what the Democrats set up. So it's not just President Biden. It is that entire

Congress is complicit in this genocide. But by the grace of God, there go I. And as a woman who was raised up in the Christian church, the black liberation theology. What would Jesus do? He wouldn't do any of this. He would be with the people. So you shoot them out right, then you starve them to death, and then you shoot them when they try to get food. I mean, this is sick as hell. And everybody, everybody should be thoroughly disgusted by this. And Jink and John, you know, something that the United Nations Secretary General just put out about six hours ago. He said, diplomacy and human dignity for all must prevail. What is wrong with that?

I mean, I'm just trying to understand why people can't understand that. He said, as people in Gaza face injury and death, this is what he stresses. We cannot, quoting him, we cannot allow the suffering of Palestinians and Gaza to be pushed into the shadows. Amen to that. This country is complicit. We have blood on our hands because it is our weapons, our money that's. aiding and abetting a freaking genocide. And I know we talk about how many children that are killed because that is devastating

and we're hoping that when people hear the word, children are being killed, that they'll have a little more compassion and mercy. But that doesn't seem to work because it's Palestinians. So as far as I'm concerned, Jenk and John, all of the innocent civilians that are being killed, whether they're children, men, women, family and friends, all of the people in that region are suffering, either they're being right shot straight up or they're being starved to death. And let's think about the water, you know, not getting enough water, the types of diseases that are bubbling up because of all those buildings that have been destroyed, the environmental

damage that will take decades upon decades to remediate. This is a sickness. We are violating American law. We're violating the 620 I that that is very clear that when a president of the United States, the Foreign Assistance Act, that is very clear that when the president of the United States of America has been informed that a country that we are giving weapons to is not allowing aid to come into the place for the civilians. That president is supposed to stop this. So damn it, that goes for Biden who failed and definitely President Donald J. Trump is now. He ran and said he was going to do this thing differently. Not just in Gaza, he said he wasn't going to be a war president. Yeah. It's sick. This is sick. This is sick.

And now he's asking for Nobel Peace Prize. If only there were a terrible conflict that you could do literally anything to help stop. Yeah. And doesn't a war require equal size to have equal power? This is a war on Gaza, because they don't have equal forces. They don't have European nations on their side that have weapon them up. This is a war on the Palestinians in Gaza. It is not an equal, it's not a war, it's a war on. 100%. Well, we're getting on the hour, so I think we do have to take our break.

But when we come back, we're to get to some of the continued fallout people losing their minds over Zoran Mandani's win in New York. All right, back on TYT, Jank, Nina and John with you guys. And also Ash Siddique, Ash, thanks for joining it. We appreciate it, they hit the join button below. You do that or t.com slash join. I'm just going to read one comment from TYat.com member, Wong John here. You either die in Israeli soldier or you live long enough to see yourself become a German one.

Powerful and true. All right, John. Yow. Okay, well, Jank got moderately fired up over that. Let's see if we can push him right over the edge with this next story, starting with this. Yesterday morning, which is, of course, the morning after is around Mam Dhanie's win in New York. You did tweet a photo or an image of the Statue of Liberty in a burqa, and you added the caption or comment, this hits hard. What did you mean by that?

I'm so thankful every day that AI exists. But right there, you saw Marjorie Taylor Green being asked live to respond to this incendiary meme that she posted in the aftermath of Zorn Maldani winning the New York Democratic mayoral race. And we're gonna show you the video of her responding. Jenk, any predictions of how she's gonna handle this? Very poorly. I'm gonna go off on these politicians in a minute. I think first of all, you should be nice to her.

But anyway, let's see what she had to say. I'm an American woman, and I have all the freedoms in the world to never have to bow to a religion that would force me to cover my body up and only see my eyes and my fingertips. And that is a major threat for all American women. And I think that's something that hits hard for all women. What were you tweeting it in reference to when you say it's a threat to American women? Oh, that's a Muslim takeover or possibly Sharia law. That is a great threat to every single American woman. Of course, voters have the right to elect that, and I'll maintain my right to say that I think Sharia law and women being forced to where Burk is is the greatest threat to our freedoms as American women.

Right, but are you opposed to Muslims holding elected office? I am 100% opposed to Sharia law in America, 100% unapologetically opposed to Sharia law. law in America. I'll just be thinking about that the next time she asked me to be nice to her. So he is Muslim, and so she's not going to say it, but he cannot hold elected office. And she's hardly alone in believing that. And this is just another example of the nonstop 24-7 identity politics from the right. They're not going to even attempt to argue against Mamdani on the policies.

His identity is the argument. He is that way, so that's it, I don't have to explain. myself. And in America, we don't have Sharia law. Muslim, like, dictates or whatever, do not determine the rights that you have. This is America. Evangelical Christianity dictates what rights you have in America, unfortunately. By the way, it was earlier today that the Supreme Court came out with multiple rulings that effectively just enshrined Christian nationalist policies into law. On the topic of parents' rights, you had three dissenting justices saying that insurance shouldn't have to pay for HIV medication, an explicit sop to the

religious right. But anyway, so she's not going to apologize for it. She's not going to explain it. She probably doesn't even understand the point that she's making. But that's her. And that is just a tweet after all. That's as far as it goes for her. For others like Representative Andy Ogles, it's not just a tweet. So he put out a tweet, but he wants action. He said, Zorin, little Muhammad Mamdani is an anti-Semitic socialist communist who will destroy the great city of New York. He needs to be deported, which is why I'm calling for him to be subject to denaturalization proceeding.

So yesterday it was like the young Republicans club saying, we can't hope to beat this guy, so please save us, get him out of this country instantly. And as I tweeted, the debate me bros have become the deport him bros. That's how much faith they have in their rhetoric and policies. Anyway, that's a representative. I don't know, maybe you know, Jank, what the little Muhammad means. I don't even know what that's a reference to. I think it's just racism, but he's anti-Semitic socialist and a communist.

And for one or multiple of those reasons, the fact that he's a citizen is irrelevant, he should be shipped out of the country. Now if you're for instance like Nick Fuentes or Kanye West and you're wildly anti-Semitic, you get to have dinner with the president. If you are Muslim and we want to make that equate to anti-Semitism, then you don't get to hold an elected office in America. Again, all this is just based off of your identity combined with your skin color. But that's two representatives losing their minds, triggered beyond rational thought over the

fact that this young charismatic man did better than expected in that race. And so I don't know by Monday, what is Holman gonna be doing? What is Stephen Miller gonna be doing? Bondi is a total tool in this fascist regime. Is it impossible that she'll look into finding some sort of excuse? Do you think that they're not pouring through his paperwork? He's been a citizen for years, but is it possible that maybe something was punctuated wrong in one of his pieces of paperwork a decade ago?

Maybe he was laid on something that they wouldn't find some excuse to deport this guy based entirely off of his identity. Yeah, so you know, I've been telling you guys, don't just blanket call all Trump voters fascists or racist, right? So that's about the voters, not the politicians. And as I've clarified a thousand times, you fight the politicians, you fight the powerful, you fight the donors, you fight the mainstream media, you look up, right? And secondly, when they are actually literally being racist or bigots, yeah, you get to say that. So here's a contrast, super random, super chat just came in, not having to do with this, but I'm gonna read it to you

Because of the point I'm making, Jason Travis said, I'm a populist conservative, so agree with you on a lot of economic issues, Medicaid for all, for example, I can say I would rather vote AOC for president than a corporate Republican, and that's why I'm a TYT member. So that's awesome, and we appreciate you, Jason. So that's why I say, don't make blanket assumptions about the voters. They're a giant range. But when it comes to the politicians, Andy Ogles is a dirt bag. obviously a racist bigot, right? And I don't really care if he gets offended at all because he obviously doesn't care if he offends Muslims, right? What is little Muhammad? It's not a reference to anything except ha ha ha he's Muslim, ha ha ha ha let's all hate him. That's because

Andy Ogles is a moron of epic proportions, okay? And what the hell is that Marjorie Taylor Green Berka thing? And her explanation makes it even worse. Like a Sharia law is the greatest threat to our freedom. Really? This is what I remember when Oklahoma passed a law saying that there shall be no Sharia law in Oklahoma. Really? Why? Was Tulsa in danger of being taken over by the caliphate? Okay? No, this is just the drama of hatred towards Muslims. Nobody's taken over New York with Sharia law. There's giant Muslim countries like Turkey that don't have Sharia law.

You think one guy is going to come into New York? Be like, that is it. Even though I didn't say anything about it and I'm not fundamentalist and I'm not radical and I'm not any of these things. I'm going to just math, I'm going to turn New York into Sharia law. And by the way, the state legislature is going to go along with it, and so as the city council. They're not even trying to make sense, okay? So what they're saying is, ha, he's mad them. So if you don't like that, don't say stupid crap like that.

Because you sound like a total utter moron. It's not just that, okay, look, I can get mad about the racism and bigotry, et cetera. As a person who grew up Muslim in America, I'm a little used to it. it, right? And that's why I'm honestly, I get amused by Israeli supporters. So you're like, I'm offended. You said that word slightly wrong. Oh my God, I'm so offended, right? Try being Muslim for a second and see how that turns out for you. But put that aside. I just want to focus on how stupid they are. Because they think like all two billion Muslims are the same and that we're all violent terrorists. And that if, if Mamdani takes over New York as takes over New York as mayor,

A lot of them, as we're gonna get to here, think that, oh, it's gonna be 9-11 right away. Like Laura Lumer said it, others have said it, like he's gonna come in and go, okay, that's it. I'm now the mayor, this is the button to blow up New York, right? There is no button to blow up New York, and he's coming to serve New York, but because he's Muslim, they say all these terrible things without any backup, any backup to it at all. Because they're terrible human beings, but hold, I'm gonna argue that it gets worse, okay, because I think what Kirsten Gillibrand is doing is not as clearly racist as this, but I think that it is more subversive, more disgusting, and more likely to be effective.

In fact, we're asking the hardest question we've ever asked at t.yt.com. Who will do the most damage to Zoran Mamdani? A, MAGA, maga guys who are like, oh yeah, he's Muslim, it's gonna blow up me up, okay. Yeah, that was a little bit at their voters. Hey, listen, if you don't think that in your MAGA, you're innocent. If you do think that, you are a moron. Okay, B, establishment Democrats, that's the Gillibrand part we're going to get to. C, donors like A-PAC, Bill Ackman.

You can see how this is hard because they're all going to come from them. And D, mainstream media. I don't know how to answer that. I think MAGA, because there's like the MAGA politicians, because they're so stupid and obviously racist, will do the least damage, but the other three are going to combine for massive damage against Mom Donnie. Yeah, absolutely, Jing. You made that impossible. I'm saying be all the way. It will definitely be the neo-libs. I'm old enough to remember when India Walton in Buffalo, New York won the Democratic

primary. And the neoliberals found a way to snatch that from her by having the mayor that the incumbent, he was able to run on another line and capture the general election. So we know Cuomo is out there now basically saying, you know, he doesn't know what he's going to do, but he's going to keep that line. In terms of Marjorie Telegram, Lord Jesus, two words, seek help. Really, Sharia law is the biggest threat to women in America, but not the legislation that has been enacted all over this country in various states that takes away a woman's ability to control her own body. That's not the biggest threat, but Sharia law is. How about the fact that Most women are not making dollar to dollar, dollar for dollar as their male counterparts.

That's not a big threat, but non-existent Sharia law in America is. Or how about the federal minimum wage not increasing or the sub minimum wage that we got to do? Oh no, none of those things. How about the fact that we don't have universal health care? See, those things are real threats to women in America. So if the Congresswoman was really serious about fighting those threats, She will come on and join the folks on the side that want to change material conditions. And in terms of women being able to control what they wear, I can remember even in some of my church experiences being limited growing up on what I could wear in certain segments of churches, women wearing pants is not acceptable. And since I was a child being indoctrinated in this way, I didn't have many choices until I became grown.

So for her to sit up here and say that only in some Muslim, you know, portions of Theria, Shiite, whatever, you know, the different segments of it is the only thing that oppresses women. The woman is lying her teeth. She's lying through her teeth. And I would have more respect for her if she just come on out and say that Mundani is a Muslim. And that is why she is opposed to him versus playing these games. Tricks are for kids, Congresswoman. Yeah, one quick thing, like if you think that all Muslims are violent fundamentalists, it's like somebody coming in going, you know, Christians, they're so stupid, they handle

the snakes and speak in tongues like morons. No, no, that's just Pentecostal fundamentalist, okay? To say that all Christians like that would be mental, right? But Muslim terrorists are even smaller than fundamentalist Pentecostals because they're terrorists. There's like only a couple of hundred of them in the whole planet. There's two billion Muslims, right? It's a microscopic percentage, right? But no, when it's a Muslim, you can smear all of them.

You can smear a quarter of the planet, and it's totally fine. It's not fine if you do it to Christians, it's not fun, or Jews or Muslims. Yeah, and so, especially- For a party that decries identity politics, they sure play a lot of it, doesn't it? Exactly, that's a great point, Nina. Because this is how, look, I say a lot of times, don't fall into the trap of going along with things that are unpopular in identity politics. But this is the Republicans starting identity politics. And they started all the time.

There's another identity politics thing they started. It's called the Southern Strategy. Okay, so you should check that out of my book. Justice is coming. So Republicans that complain about identity politics. So when your own politicians do it, why don't you tell them to shut their mouth? All right, go ahead. Yeah, and in particular when the Democrats know that the Republicans elected media otherwise

are doing all of this, the fact that so many of them would either participate as we're going to show you or for the most part, a lot of them just stand back, don't say, don't defend him, don't rally around your popular future star potentially, instead just allow them to be attacked or in some cases actually participate in it. And so here's Kirsten Gillibrand. But I do also want to be clear that he said he does not support violent Intifada. Is that fair? So, Brian, I didn't hear your exchange with him, but if I was speaking to him directly, I would simply say that is not how the words are received.

And it doesn't matter what meaning you have in your brain. It is not how the word is received. And when you use a word like Intifada, to many Jewish Americans, Americans and Jewish New Yorkers, that means you are permissive for violence against Jews. So I appreciate that he told you he didn't mean that, and that's great. And I think we also clarify, or he was clarifying that he never said Globalized the Intifada. He was asked in an interview if he would denounce the phrase, Globalize the Intifada. And then that led to the kind of conversation, you know, that you were just referring to.

But that he was never out there saying globalized the Intifada. He was asked about other people who used it. So just to be precise about what happened there, yes? Well, as a leader of a city as diverse as New York City with 8 million people as the largest Jewish population in the country, he should denounce it. And that's it. Period. Pretty naturally it goes from denouncing him because you think mistakenly that he said it, then you're reminded that he did not in fact say it and you're still just denouncing him exactly as much. Like it doesn't matter. And again, yeah, you're a leader of that state and the

Democratic elector of that state also just chose him. He could potentially be a leader too. Maybe speak with him. Maybe especially when you see the rabid, vile Islamophobia racing towards him as not we're not just talking about catch phrases. Elected representatives are calling for him to be denaturalized and deported, maybe end up in Seacott or something like that. The fact that Gillibrand would so readily jump on board with that is depressing. Now coming out of the interview, spokesman for Gillibrand said that she had misspoken when initially implying that he had said it. Again, she didn't misspeak, she was wrong. And even when corrected held basically the same position, but in any event, we've been debating who it is is going to

do more damage. Jank, what do you make of that and the willingness to do this character assassination? So that's just a sophisticated way of saying, hey little Mohammed, my donors say you shouldn't be in this race. Hey donors, send me money, I love Israel, and I'm going to smear any Muslim that comes across here. So Gillibrand's disgusting, okay? So look, I'm going to go off more on Gillibrand and tell you how dangerous she is and how counterproductive she's been to the entire Democratic Party. But first, huh, he didn't even say a word, but they're doing a character assassination based on him defending someone else saying a word. Gee, I wonder if I predicted that there would be character assassinations from the left and the right. Let's just watch from yesterday's show.

What I want you to know and look for going forward from this day to the day of the general election in New York is watch what the mainstream media does. Because they're the actual hatchet men. Remember, the Ackman money goes into buying ads in mainstream media, and then mainstream media coincidentally supports their candidate 100%, and then digs and digs and dicks and tries to find something wrong with Mamdani. And then comes on and goes, ah ha, we have this and this and this. And a Republican congressman today already at it. He found a rap lyric in something Mamdani sang once. And he's like, aha, he's supporting the wrong people in a rap line or whatever. So you're going to see 200 stories like that. And here we go.

We're on the board already. Okay, with several of them. And the way that it works is it's an incestrious cycle. Someone plants a story in the media. Did you know he didn't denounce the word, the phrase globalized the Intifada? And then establishment Democrat like Jilla Brand picks it up and goes, oh my God, he's saying illegal words. Oh, my donors are super upset. I mean, the voters of New York are super upset.

They're super upset that anyone is criticizing our beloved Israel. I mean, this goddamn Muslim. I mean, I mean, I'm worried about the words he's using. Well, he didn't use them. But words he's defending that he might use, but he doesn't use, et cetera. I told you. I told you. They're going to pull one hatchet after another.

By the way, if they're using words he didn't even use to smear him, like I said, there's going to be 200 of these. And that also means they don't have much. Yeah. If they're having to go to rap lyrics from when he was a kid about some randos and they're going to words he didn't even say, that means they got bupkis. They have the equivalent of Marjorie Taylor Green and the burqa and Andy Ogles and Little Muhammad.

But the reason why I think Gillibrand does more damage is because, of two things. One, it's more nefarious. So when the idiot Republican politician goes in and goes, oh, he's not them, I don't like them, right? You're like, hey, everybody on the planet knows, what a moron, easy to dismiss, right? Jill Brand comes in with, he's offending people. He's the one that's actually causing harm. We have to stop him. He's causing harm with his Muslimness and hit the fact that he doesn't love Israel and say that we should send all our money to Israel. We have to stop that I mean, I mean, I'm way more sophisticated. My voters are offended.

Hey, I'm offended a lot of words from the river to the sea, right? Terrible, I denounced that. I said, don't do that and the chances counterproductive. It's not going to help us. And then Benjamin Nanyahu came out and said, for the whole world, that Israel is going to do from the river to the sea. He literally said it, and then he literally is doing it. And is that a problem?

Gillibrand has never called that out, never. So Gillibrand loves it when Israel does the genocide because tons and tons of her donors are A-PAC and other Israeli lobbyists. So the Republicans stab you from the front, the Democrats stab you from the back. And Gillibrand's famous for that, she's the one who stabbed Al Franken in the back and said, oh, I'm so disgusted by his sexual harassment. Because she thought that she was gonna run for president, she did for about a second. And Franken was going to run for president at the time.

So she wanted to eliminate one of her opponents within the Democratic Party. And now she sees Zoran Mamdani, and he's unacceptably not polishing the boots of Netanyahu. And so she's like, donors, remember how much I tried to put a hatchet and Mamdani's back. Because he's a stupid Muslim. You're just like Marjorie Taylor Green. In fact, you're worse than her. Okay, that's how I feel about it, Nina. Amen. I mean, amen. She is a coward of epic proportions. And yes, Democrats like her are going to do more damage than MAGA. And they're going to combine with the media and with the money class. So they all go together. But she is an absolute coward.

So I'm just amen to what you said. Jake, you already, you summed it up. I'm just add she's a coward. Yes, I agree. And mainstream media will love it. They'll say tut, tut, tut to Andy Ogles and Marjorie Taylor Green. And then they will repeat the Gillibrand kind of smears 2,000 times. Watch, you'll see it. You'll see it going forward. Mainstream media will take that super legitimately. And they'll talk endlessly about a word he didn't even say, right?

And yes, Intifada can mean both things. And oftentimes is referred to as a global fight back against the occupation through politics, diplomacy, words, and some people mean it as violence, and others do not mean it as violence. Also, there are words like greater Israel, Arets Israel, which mean, and Judeo-Simaria. That means that West Bank and Gaza Strip are Jewish land, that Israel will swallow whole. They have the maps up in their cabinet, in their Knesset, et cetera, and they plan to ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians and take that land. And they're actually doing it.

But that has never bothered Gillibrand as long as the check's clear. She's totally and completely bought by the Israeli lobby. And yes, I said that. And let me see you call out Aretz Israel. Let me see you call out the genocidal, terroristic state of Israel. We just did a story earlier today. Heretz reporting, they're murdering people getting food on purpose, civilians. 17,000 dead kids, but Gillibrand doesn't care.

She cares about words, words, a stadium full of murdered children. A pack of the check clerk, the stupid Muslims, who cares about them, right? Oh, a word offended one of my donors, a word he didn't even say. So that's kind of scum, Kirsten Gillibrand is, who likes to destroy people. And then all of mainstream media will help her try to to destroy mom Donnie and credit to Brian Lehrer for actually singing up for the truth there. Thank you brother for doing your job and saying what was true instead of going along with this horrifically racist senator from New York, okay? No, Jewish Americans are not the only

people who get to say that they are offended. I'm offended, I'm offended. Does that count? No, no, if Muslims are offended because you attack all Muslims who don't bow their heads to a foreign government, but we our offense doesn't matter, right, Gillibrand? Because we didn't donate to you. That's how these crooks are, both in the Republican and Democratic Party, young Turks.