The Young Turks - Ripping Racists
Episode Date: July 21, 2023"Shameful": Ohio Senator Nina Turner slams New Hampshire Libertarian party's racist tweet. Florida just approved new Black history standards that includes noting enslaved people developed skills that ...“could be applied for their personal benefit.” New GOP bill would curb Biden’s power to fight climate change. Nearly two years after Texas' six-week abortion ban, more infants are dying. Trump promotes a threatening video: "We are going to do things to you that have never been done before." HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@CenkUygur) & 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 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
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.
All right,
All right,
Turks, Jake Ugar Anna Kasparan with you guys.
I was going to say a fun show.
You know it's going to be a fun show because we make it fun, but is the news fun?
Well, not really, but that's okay.
That's okay. Well, actually, that's, in the second hour, though, we do have some fascinating stories.
Chink in the bonus episode, that's what you definitely do not want to miss, okay?
Because he is going to almost show off his anti-dog bona fides.
You should, you know, all the lies spread about me online.
Okay, the idea that I'm anti-dog is one of the biggest ones.
Anyway, but in the bonus episode, you'll see you'll get the judge for yourself.
the members, t.yt.com slash join. But meanwhile, we have an amazing show for you guys.
I actually wanted to start off just by saying a few words about my dear friend Michael Brooks.
Today marks the third year since his passing. And look, I don't want to belabor it.
There are wonderful people who are doing wonderful tributes for him. His good friend David Griscombe,
who he did a show with, did an incredible tribute for Michael today. Please check that out on the left
reckoning. But the most important thing I want to say about Michael is please go back and watch
his content, understand his message, understand what he meant for the left and what he was
trying to build for the left. Because his clarity and what he wanted to accomplish and how
he wanted to accomplish it, I think he was 100% right on. And I think there's a lot to learn from
by really understanding who he was. So I miss him. And I just wanted to say a few words honoring him
and his memory today.
Yeah, and Anna and Michael worked together on a show,
and Michael was on here a bunch of times
and was clearly one of the smartest guys in the left,
easily, easily.
And so he's greatly missed.
All right, so we begin with a story involving Nina Turner
and an incredibly disgusting attack against her on Twitter.
Nina Turner is calling out and condemning the New Hampshire Libertarian Party after someone on their Twitter account decided to respond to, I think, a common sense tweet, a non-offensive tweet in an incredibly racist way.
Now, it all started when Senator Turner tweeted about insulin and the cost of medicine, something that she's clearly passionate about, something she talks about on her show, and on social media regularly.
Here's the tweet, insulin should be free. Medicine should be free. Now, apparently the New Hampshire
Libertarian Party took great offense to that and responded simply with Nina Turner picking crops
should be free. Wow, that is unreal. And so look guys, I mean, you tell me, because if you're a right
winger, and it's perfectly normal to say, I'm not a libertarian or I don't agree with that guy.
Or like, hey, I, yeah, you know what? The drug companies, I love them and they should make so
much more money on insulin. And I agree with that guy. But if you mention crops, you're obviously
referencing slavery. To a black woman. To a black woman. And it's disgusting. Can I get that out of
the right wing? Can someone the right go that? Yeah, like, I get it. Not everything is racist,
But that's clearly racist.
Reference to crops to a black woman, that's not subtle at all.
And he doubled down, triple down, et cetera.
So we're going to give you Nina's statements too.
But there's actually, I want to talk about the insulin part of it,
because Nina's bringing up an excellent point.
And this analogy is not just disgusting and racist.
But it's also, I also want to show you how deeply wrongheaded that philosophy is overall.
Right.
So, yeah, I just want to reiterate.
It's one thing to disagree with what her point is in that tweet, but to respond to that tweet
the way that this individual controlling this Twitter account responded was inappropriate
to say the least, incredibly racist considering the fact that he or she, whoever it is,
is responding to a black woman.
And they tried to, I don't know, maybe clarify the point in a subsequent tweet.
I'm going to read that to you.
Insulin should be free is equally offensive as calling for someone to be compelled to pick crops.
Disagree.
No.
They are the same moral statement, and we should react to them with identical moral abhorrence.
No.
And so these are the taxationist theft type of people, right?
They think all taxation is theft.
I would be curious to see what kind of life they would live in a society that does not collect any
taxes. But nonetheless, curious what you think about that. Yeah. That comparison, Jank.
So look, we defend Nina Turner for a number of reasons. One is because this is the biggest
layup in history of the guys over the top racist. It's super obvious. Number two, of course,
Nina Turner works with us. You check out our videos on Rebel headquarters now. And she's a terrific
person and one of the best progressives in the country. But one of the reasons she's one of the
best progress is because she makes points like this. So they go back and forth with this guy going,
What racism?
Oh, picking crops for free?
Gee, I wonder where I got that forever.
Okay, okay.
But let's go to Graphics 7 because this point is important ideologically outside of the racism of this tweet, okay?
So Nina wrote back, taxpayers subsidizing life-saving medicine is not equal to chattel slavery.
If you don't agree with that policy stance, that's one thing, but equating it to chattel slavery is extremely insulting, hope that helps.
And by the way, look at how generous that tweet is.
Yeah, absolutely.
Like, she's saying like, oh, I don't even mind your, if you had a legitimate criticism, right?
And so, but obviously you're doing it in a way to be purposely racist.
So, you know, congrats.
I don't know.
So look, one of the issues is what I mentioned earlier, which is that the right, do you guys ever criticize any of your own or it's just a cult and everyone's, it's not just that Trump is right about everything, but everyone who says something racist is right about everything, right?
So that's a good question to ask yourselves as we ask our side questions as well.
And now in the substance of that tweet, though, that Nina had, guys, tons of countries, but not only tons of country, but like all of the developed countries have nationalized health care.
So what that means is they provide a lot of the medicine or almost all of it for free.
Now, it comes out of your taxes, but on average they pay half of what we pay.
So that means it, oh, high taxes, no, no, no, we're paying twice as much right now in America
and we're getting way worse results and we do not have the free medicine that they have in
Europe, Canada, and so many other places in the world, Japan, Taiwan, you name it, okay?
So this is a very normal thing that most countries do and all developed countries do outside
of the United States.
Is that a little bit different than keeping human beings as slaves and whipping them and killing
them and maiming them and selling off their babies? Is that a little different? Come on,
anyone who isn't brain dead knows that that's massively different. So again, I ask right wingers,
does this guy speak for you? You're going to defend every form of racism and every absurd
maximalist argument on the right? Or can anyone on the right go, oh, that's abhorrent, man.
You shouldn't do things like that. Yeah, so look, I think it's interesting because
even without the gross racism and racist response to Nina Turner, what's interesting
is the lack of exploring what you're saying and trying to figure out whether there's actual
merit to it. Because as libertarians, and based on the kind of back and forth I'm seeing
here, they see themselves as individuals who do not think taxes make sense, they think
taxation is theft, they think everything should be left to market forces. Just yesterday,
I covered a story about how the country is grappling with a very severe prescription drug
shortage, especially prescription drugs necessary to treat cancer.
There are as many as 14 drugs that are in short supply. Doctors and pharmacists are literally
telling cancer patients in America, we're sorry, we don't have the drug you need to treat
your cancer. So why is that happening? Well, it's because these are drugs that require
you know, kind of a complicated processing, right?
They're sterile injectable drugs in some cases.
So it's a little more complicated, a little more expensive to produce these drugs.
And so if it's the generic version of the drug that's actually affordable for people relative
to the name brand, their profit margins are super slim.
So a lot of these companies are like, nah, it doesn't, what's the point?
Not enough profit in producing this medication that people need to stay alive.
I give you that example because there are some elements of our economy or some elements of what we're dealing with in society today that cannot be left to market forces because if you do, you're going to deal with drug shortages.
And by the way, this is not the first time we're dealing with this. We dealt with similar drug shortages just a decade ago.
It keeps happening again and again and again.
Look, I'm going to be insulting here, but libertarianism is basically for two types of people.
One is high school kids because they don't understand that in the real world you need balance
and you can't just go to one extreme and go, oh, no rules.
Chaos is awesome.
It seems appealing for like a second.
You're like, oh, totally free.
And I'm a 15 year old boy.
I want to be free to do whatever I want, right?
But if you do that, you're going to realize there's a reason why you need balance in your life
and you can't just go to an extreme.
The second type of people that are libertarians these days are people who are Republicans but are
embarrassed to say they're Republicans.
That's 100% true.
Yeah.
So, and so that's why they call themselves libertarians.
But this is not a serious philosophy.
And look, now I'll offend more people.
I also think the extreme left-wing policies that, frankly, communism is the same thing.
Oh, eventually we'll have utopia and chaos is awesome, and we don't need any rules.
If you say so, brothers and sisters, but that's not usually how it works out.
So these extremes, I think, are absurd, and now you guys can all get mad at me all at the same time.
Oh, they will.
They will.
Yeah.
actually go to an example because we have a clip, we've covered this before back when it
actually happened during the presidential debates. The Libertarian Party held its own presidential
debate and there was a moment that really stood out to me because Gary Johnson said something
that made a lot of sense. But the reaction from the audience and other candidates will tell you
a little bit about, well, what they stand for. Let's watch. Should someone have to have a government
to shoot licensed to drive a car.
Hell no.
What's next requiring a license to make toast in your own damn toaster?
The license to drive, you know, I'd like to see some competency exhibited by people before they drive.
One of my favorite presidential debate moments of all time.
So good.
No, I don't know what was better.
The guy, the toaster guy, you make some damn toast or the booze that Gary Johnson got what he's like,
I mean, to drive.
I mean, kind of right.
You're like, boo, no rules, no rules.
Chaos is awesome.
I mean, I'd like to see some competency before they get behind a, you know, massive automobile
that can kill people.
They don't know how to drive.
Okay.
So, look, if you're at the very top, maybe you want no rules.
But even then, I don't think you want no rules.
You're gonna need rules to protect you, right?
Right.
But if for most human beings, we need some sort of structure so that other people don't hurt you.
And whether that is another individual assaulting you, or it's a company that's putting poison in the local lake or polluting the water,
or putting feces in the sausage that they're giving you, et cetera, that's why you need rules.
Or by the way, on Wall Street, so that they don't do insider trading.
Okay, but for libertarians, Littlefinger was the hero in Game of Thrones.
Chaos is a ladder.
All right, let's move on to some other.
All right, let's move on to some other news.
Let's take a little trip to the state of Florida.
The Florida Board of Education has unanimously approved new standards for how black history
will be taught in the state, in public schools, and the updates are, well, disturbing, to say the
least.
So I'm going to start off with the most disturbing element of this new curriculum.
The new standards require instruction for middle school students to include
get a load of this, how slaves develop skills, which in some instances could be applied
for their personal benefit. A document listing the standards and posted in the Florida
Department of Education website said. And we double check that ourselves, and that's what it says.
Yeah, so that is unreal, man. And there's another part of this that's unreal. So, but I want to
give you context first. Remember when the conservators started this and DeSantis and
others did where they say, oh, look, we just don't want critical race theory being taught in the schools.
Now, there are parts of critical race theory that I totally agree with.
And there are parts of it where I go, well, I'm not so sure about that.
That some of those positions are debatable.
Good news, that's why they're not taught in any schools across the country, high school or lower.
They're taught in graduate level courses because there's controversial material in there and it takes thought to wait through those issues.
Okay.
But now we're not a critical race theory anymore.
Now we're just whitewashing history.
Yeah, look, I totally agree with you.
And look, I took a step back and I was like, look, obviously they're not teaching graduate
level critical race theory in grade school.
There's no way that's happening.
But let me understand their argument because maybe they're trying to argue that there
are like traces of that curriculum in public schools, right?
And if they genuinely believe that, how do you answer for the fact that they're trying to now input this like revisionist history about how, you know, there were some positive elements of slavery if you really think about it.
Like this gives the whole game away.
You get what I'm saying?
Exactly right, Anna.
So I want to read graphics two and three because I think they're even more devastating.
So CNN explains when high school students learn about events such as the 1920 Okoe massacre,
The new rules require that the instruction include, quote, acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans.
Now, already, that's disastrous, okay?
Why are you putting in those two things in the same sentence?
Why are you conflating them?
But wait until you see the context.
The context is much worse.
I thought when I read that, they were saying, okay, now look, there was the Tulsa massacre and all these massacres and the lynchings, et cetera.
But don't forget, black people sometimes commit crimes.
That already is terrible.
Why are you mentioning that?
So to white people, so do Asians.
Why are you randomly mentioning that within the context of civil rights?
But no, it's way worse.
So here's the explanation.
Instruction includes acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans,
but is not limited to the 1906 Atlanta race riot, 19191919, Washington, D.C. race riot,
1920, Okoee massacre, and that happened in Florida.
That's why they mentioned it earlier.
1921 Tulsa Massacre and the 1923 Rosewood Massacre.
So when you see that, and then I read the longer explanation of it too, just to be absolutely sure,
they're saying that these acts of violence happen to African Americans and by African Americans
in reference to things like the Tulsa Massacre and Rosewood and these massacres of African Americans,
the one in that happened in Florida.
Can I talk about that one?
Yeah, so that particular case had to do with a black man by the name of Moses Norman.
And he was a landowner in the community.
This is in Florida, of course, and he decides, I'm going to go vote.
I'm going to cast my ballot.
He gets turned away by white poll workers.
And then all of a sudden, he's eventually followed home by a mob of 250 people, white people, who killed dozens of African Americans.
They set fire to their houses, just absolutely destroyed the community.
community drove the black community out of their own community, just because this black
landowner wanted to cast a ballot and vote in the election.
So now given that context, and by the way, 60 people were murdered and they not only burned
down their homes, but this is also interesting, they went out of their way to burn down
their schools, okay, and that was all for voting.
Now in that context, they mentioned it as violence done to African Americans and buy African
Americans. Why are you playing the victim, blaming the victims in a scenario like this?
Are you insane? How did that? It's almost like they're saying, well, you know, they had it
coming. Now, this is disgusting, man. This isn't anywhere near critical race theory.
This is just Republicans saying, we don't really like black folks. And we just, we vomited out
wherever we are. So, I mean, look, you tell me Republicans, you love dissenters. You got to,
you gave a 20 point win in Florida. What the hell is this crap? Well, look, I,
There's something really interesting happening, and by interesting, I mean abhorrent.
And it has to do with this revisionism I'm seeing on, look, obviously in this case with the
right, but also with some on the fringes of the left.
And it's to rewrite history and make it appear as though the gains that were accomplished
and won during the civil rights movement were done so by the implementation of violence.
And I think that that is inaccurate to say the least.
When we think about the leader of the civil rights movement, who do we think about Martin Luther King, Jr.
Speech after speech, book after book. He makes his philosophy abundantly clear. And I want to give
you just a short snippet of one of his speeches, but please watch the whole thing, look it up online,
it's readily available. Here's what his philosophy actually was.
We will never have peace in the world until men everywhere recognize
That ends are not cut off from means, because the means represent the ideal in the making
and the end in process.
And ultimately, you can't reach good ends through evil means.
Because the means represent the seed, and the end represents the tree.
So where's the violence by African Americans?
In this context, so here's Martin Luther King, the greatest civil rights leader, saying a thousand times over, not only do we believe in nonviolence as an end, but as a means, we are always nonviolent, yet gratuitously the right wingers put it in there as if African Americans had these massacres coming, and then someone left now maniacally have started to say no, Martin Luther King was for violence. Why are you helping right wing framing when it's not anywhere near true, right? So no, please get an education, learn,
what Martin Luther King was about and for the people in Florida now that, well, when you go
tell them to get an education, this is what their public schools are teaching them now.
And this is really a war against teachers, this is a war against history, it's a war against
truth. It's absolutely Orwellian and it's made extra Orwellian by the people who claim
that they're for freedom. Yeah, look, we can go on, including, you know, talking about
the individuals who are trying to pretend as though this isn't an attempt to
to whitewash history, it absolutely is.
I just wanna give you a few more details about this.
So they lay out new benchmark clarifications
to the existing black history curriculum
that critics say ends up watering down the history.
So the changes include teaching elementary school
children to recognize Rosa Parks and Thomas Jefferson
as individuals who represent the United States.
The Florida Education Association criticized the approach
saying it excludes a deeper teaching
of their histories and strong
in favor of easy identification and memorization.
They also made sure to include how aggrieved the virtuous white people were in the 1800s.
Instruction includes how whites who supported reconstruction policies for freed blacks after the Civil War,
white southerners being called scallowags and white northerners being called carpetbaggers were targeted.
So that's directly from the Florida state's academic standards for
2023.
So look, I think the Rosa Parks criticism is legitimate.
They should give you the context of why Rosa Parks was a hero,
not just generically name her.
But at least they mentioned her as an American hero.
And I don't want anybody to get the wrong impression that they're not
teaching slavery or civil rights at all.
They are.
They're just doing this reframing of it as slightly black people's fault.
So to me, the Rosa Parks thing is a legitimate
complaint but doesn't necessarily show their hand. But when they say, oh, black people got
all these benefits from being slaves. And by the way, the violence that was done against,
that was also kind of done by them, as Anna said, you're showing your hand. Yep.
We now we know exactly what you actually think. All right, we're gonna take a break.
When we come back, we've got more news for you, including, what are we gonna move on to?
Well, the right wing wants us to believe that they're taking climate change seriously.
What is their proposal to tackle it?
You don't want to miss that.
I'll give you the details when we come back.
Viserichon, the Draccharis dragon.
I like the Dracarous dragon.
That's a tough one.
All right, you guys are awesome.
Thank you for becoming young Turks members.
Thank you for being young Turks and help us do honest, independent news.
We appreciate you for it.
They did that by hitting the join button below the video on YouTube.
You could do it by going to t.com slash join.
Casper.
This story is fascinating.
So buckle up for this.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy wants you to know that the Republican Party
for once is taking the climate emergency very seriously, and they have a proposal.
What's the proposal? Well, they want to plant one trillion trees.
There are some issues with that plan. Number one, it's not really the comprehensive and
robust answer to fighting climate change. There's also some issues with, you know, space in
America, and I'll tell you what I mean in just a moment. So McCarthy said this. He said, we
need to manage our force better so our environment can be stronger. Let's replace Russia's
natural gas or Russian natural gas with American natural gas. And let's not only have a cleaner
world, let's have a safer world. So he said that to elaborate on his plan to plant the one
trillion trees. And then he spouts this nonsense about energy independence in America when he
fully knows that the fossil fuel industry is owned by corporations, they get to sell the fossil
fuels wherever they please, including to other countries. We have, we could have control
over that, but the federal government chooses not to. Anyway, moving on, there are issues with
this plan, Jank. For instance, in 2020, Trump had signed an executive order supporting this
plan, and he said that he wanted to, you know, plant a trillion trees, except the plan specific
called to plant far less than that.
I believe about a third of that.
And on top of that, yeah, one third of the goal.
So 855 million trees.
Either way, a trillion trees would be impossible to actually plant
because we don't have enough space.
Planting one trillion trees would require a massive amount of space
roughly the size of the continental United States.
Yeah, so look, I'm a little less skeptical about tree planting than you are.
As we're gonna show you, 2019 study says there might be enough space on the planet to be able to plant that many trees.
Sure, but we're not going to invade other countries to plant trees, right?
No, no, I know, of course, and there's different ways to incentivize them.
And let me be clear, planting trees is lovely, and it does help the environment, but it is not enough to mitigate what we are currently doing and what we've been doing to the environment.
Yeah, and that's what I'm getting to, which is, I think the planting trees is great.
And if I thought, for example, that if we planted a trillion trees and that we, that we could and we did, and it solved climate change.
Oh, I'd be so happy.
Yeah.
And then by the way, then go drive as much as you like.
They're blast air conditioning.
Let's all go nuts, right?
Like, and then people like reflect so you'd be like, well, oil's still bad.
No, if you cure, I mean, you'd have to assume you're curing the pollution too.
But like, if you cure the pollution and the climate change, have added horse.
Right? So if I thought planning a trillion trees was enough, I'd be like, great, let's do it, right?
But it's not enough, guys. It's not even close to enough. It's good. It's good. Do it. Let's plant as many trees as we can.
But you've got to do a lot more to cut emissions. Otherwise, we're not going to make it.
And so now that leads to the most important point, which is that this is a, it's a smoke screen. It's a smoke screen.
Yeah, they're trying to distract you because they're not even proposing it. They're not actually going to pass it. They're not going to finance it. They're not going to do any of it.
So let me just explain what I personally think is happening, okay, my analysis of this whole
situation. I think Republican voters are honestly smarter than some people on the left would
believe, especially when it comes to climate change. I think a lot of Republican voters know
that climate change is happening, they know it's manmade, and they do want to do something
about it. And I think that some Republican politicians clearly are feeling some pressure
to respond to them. Because remember, Republican voters are a little better organized
than the left is. So our politicians on the left don't care about us. They're not afraid
of us. They don't listen to us. Okay, even if we get them elected, okay, even if we create
literal packs to support their candidacy and get them elected into Congress, they then refuse to
listen to us. They don't care because we're not as organized as the right. So when the right
decides the voters decide, no, I'm concerned about this and I want my elected lawmakers to do
something about it, they end up listening. So I think that this is the Republican Party's
attempt to make it appear as though they're taking the climate emergency somewhat seriously,
but in reality, this is a smokescreen. Just to go back to the point that Jank made about how
planting the trees isn't enough, I want to go to that study that he referenced. So it's a
2019 study that suggested that planting trees to suck up heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
from the atmosphere could be one of the most effective ways to fight climate change,
but the authors of the original study have also clarified that planting trees does not
eliminate the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So again, it's a smokescreen,
obviously we need to do more. I've been talking more and more about nuclear energy on the show
to kind of close the gap that's left behind by, you know, stopping our reliance on fossil fuels.
But let's also talk a little bit about what else the Republican Party is up to.
Yeah.
So there's four reasons why they're doing this.
First of all, it's a talking point so that when climate change comes up,
oh, it's okay, we're in favor of planting trees.
Trillion trees, I'm done with it.
I'm moving on.
So, but wait, what about curbing emissions?
Not planting trees.
And so this is the same thing that Republicans do with mass shootings and mental health.
It's just, don't worry about the guns.
It's just about mental health.
And then you know what happens afterwards?
The Democrats propose a bill to increase funding for mental health,
especially at the schools.
And they vote no.
They're liars.
And to be fair, that applies to most politicians, right?
So that's the talking point smokescreen that we've been talking about.
But there's a couple others.
One is this is a solution where they don't have to take from fossil fuel companies.
Because remember, all these guys donate to them.
So they're never, ever, ever, ever going to touch them, right?
Those are their bosses.
But this solution goes, oh, so we give to big oil, they still give $20 billion of subsidies to fossil fuel companies every year, which is insane.
That's our money, right?
But we can now also give the big lumber.
And so I solved it by giving more of the American taxpayer money to those two industries and getting even more donations from them.
So that's why they structure it that way, even though they're not even going to do it, right?
And then finally, to the points that Anna was making, politically, the younger voters have turned on them completely.
And I don't mean just generally, I mean on this issue, young Republicans are saying, no, guys, climate change is definitely real, it's definitely manmade, and we definitely have to do something about it.
Not Democrats already agree with that, but young Republican voters in overwhelming numbers.
But there's a last reason why they've got in this direction, because some of the rich donors, both on the Democratic and Republican sides, have started to notice that we don't have a second planet.
And that there are billions of dollars isn't going to make any goddamn difference when the planet heats up.
And so tons of rich donors are now saying to both parties.
And by the way, that's why one of the few things we got passed in the Inflation Reduction Act was some climate change legislation.
Why was it in there?
Because the rich donors are going, do that, do that.
I need this planet.
My money doesn't do me any good if we're all dead.
Yeah, I mean, great point.
While they're proposing the smoke screen of planting the trees, what they're also doing simultaneously is carrying out the bidding of their corporate donors, right?
So they have also proposed something known as the Real Emergencies Act.
Wow, great name.
It makes it seem as though they're taking this very seriously.
They're calling it a real emergency.
Last month, the group of Republicans in the House and the Senate introduced the
Real Emergencies Act, which would prevent Joe Biden from doing something that he's actually
not even interested in doing anyway, but just to preemptively put a stop to it just in case,
they want to stop Joe Biden from declaring a climate emergency.
And if he were to do that, you know, when a president declares a state of emergency,
that kind of cuts through some of the red tape, some of the checks and balances, and it allows
the executive branch to act unilaterally in some cases.
And they're concerned that if Biden were to do that, were to claim or declare that there is a
climate emergency, then he would, you know, actually ensure that fossil fuel companies were
rained in a little bit. But here's what the Biden administration could do, okay, specifically,
if he were to declare the emergency, reimposed the ban on crude oil exports, freeze oil and gas
leasing, invest in public transportation, and require private companies to manufacture renewable
energy. Those are some of the things that he could do unilaterally, should he declare an
emergency. The fossil fuel companies that fund the politicians, in this case the Republican lawmakers,
do not want that to happen.
So like think about how they think ahead.
They don't just think about short-term wins.
They think about and strategize ways to prevent any regulation from cutting into their
bottom line.
And they have the Republican Party helping them out with that with this proposal,
the Real Emergencies Act.
And so the bill is being led by Representative August Fluger and also Senator
Shelly Moore Capito.
Flueger is the House's second highest recipient of oil and gas donations, only after Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and is a director at Gensry Creek Energy LLC, an energy company engaged in pipelines and infrastructure, according to his personal financial disclosure.
How is that conflict of interest allowed?
No, no, guys, it's crazy.
Now the politicians are cutting out the middle then, because Capito is from West Virginia, and she's invested into the Mountain Valley.
pipeline, mansions from West Virginia.
He has his own coal mine and they are passing laws.
They're making sure that Biden passes laws that help their minds and their pipelines.
How is this not a conflict of interest?
And the corruption is so gigantic, nobody's even bothering to deny it.
So in this article, great job by the lever, as usual, in exposing that the Republicans are blocking Biden from doing this and talking about the money in politics angle and how much money they're getting and they have all the different stats for the different politicians.
And in my book, I explain that the people who are fighting climate change in Congress, on average,
are getting over $450,000 in donations, each one of them, okay?
Now, if you're getting half a million dollars in bribes, gee, I wonder why they don't want to do anything about climate change.
Because the minute you sign onto a climate change bill, that half a million dollars goes away like that.
And that's what controls all of these politicians.
In fact, the bills, seven sponsors have received a combined $3.1 million in contributions
from the fossil fuel industry and its executives and its political action committees
between 2017 and 2022, 3.1 million to just seven lawmakers.
So look, I wrote about that too in my book, Justice is Coming because, look, everyone watching
this knows, it doesn't matter if you're right wing or left wing, that the $3.1 million buys
these politicians. And by the way, some of the politicians they're buying are Democrats,
okay? So the only people in the country who don't know it are the mainstream media
reporters. When they're discussing, hey, should Biden do an executive action? They don't mention
that the senators who are pressuring him got paid $3.1 million in bribes. You don't think
that's relevant? That's crazy. Of course it's relevant. That's why we respect the lever so much,
because they actually talk about what actually drives the legislation and the policies.
But I want to make one more point.
So the Republicans are monsters that in the middle of the literally record breaking heat on this planet ever,
ever since human beings have been around, okay?
They're going in the exact wrong direction.
But let's also acknowledge Biden isn't doing it.
I know, totally.
They haven't passed the bill blocking his executive action yet.
He can take the executive action today.
He's choosing not to.
How much does Biden love this?
Look, okay, look, I'm being a little unfair to him.
I am speculating.
But there was no indication that Biden wanted to declare a climate emergency.
There was no indication that he was planning on engaging in any executive action.
And now he doesn't have to worry about pressure to do so should they pass this bill, right?
He isn't fighting at 1%.
And by the way, look, we talk about gridlock in Congress.
But even with the so-called gridlock in Congress, this is the kind of bill that I can see passing both the House and the Senate.
Yeah, because they're corrupt.
They're all getting paid by these guys.
This is all one giant joke on the American people.
And the number one people covering your eyes and making sure you don't see it is mainstream media.
They're like, what money?
Oh, my God, they are having a legitimate debate.
Is it trees or is it executive action Biden should take?
Well, golly, gee, none of them took executive action.
Look, guys, we know Biden's disingenuous.
They had all these progressive proposals, and they were like, oh, he's going to do them all.
I said, no, he's not going to do any of them that don't help corporations.
Now, the only thing that was progressive, that met really progressive, that was in the
inflation and reduction act, was fighting climate change a little bit, right?
So why did he do that?
Because of the giant donors that I told you about.
They put enormous, he doesn't care about public pressure.
He cares about donor pressure.
So he does that for them, but he doesn't do anything about.
health care prices, he doesn't do anything about minimum wage, doesn't do anything else to hurt
corporations, right? But then he turns around and helps the fossil fuel donors by going
Mountain Valley pipeline, now you could drill in Alaska, because he doesn't mean it. He doesn't
give a goddamn about policy. Any mainstream media reporter telling you Biden cares about policy
and his progressive is on the left is a joke. He's been a conservative his entire career,
and his track record proves it. And by the way, he can prove me wrong today. Super easy to prove me
me wrong. Take executive action. The Republicans have not blocked you yet. You could do it right now.
He's not going to do it because he's in the pocket of the same donors that the Republicans are.
Finally, I have to add a few of the other details in this bill. So the bill proposes taking an axe to the nation's largest environmental agencies,
including a whopping 39% cut to the EPA's budget, three agencies within the Interior Department,
the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service
would see 18%, 13% and 13% reductions in funding, respectively.
The Forest Service would see an 11% cut.
Let's pause for a second.
The Forest Service under this bill would be cut by 11%.
Didn't Kevin McCarthy, who's by the way a sponsor of this legislation, didn't Kevin McCarthy
argue that we need to do better forest management?
Yeah, how do you propose to do that by cutting the very department that would do that?
No, look, guys, that's why I said in the beginning, you can't, all Republican politicians
are liars. I mean, almost all the politicians are liars to begin with. But these Republicans
are just, they're on a different level. So you remember when Trump blamed the fires on
California because they didn't do it, it rake the force enough?
Look, he put it stupidly, honestly, he did. But there is legitimacy to the point that.
that California and the federal land within California should do a better job in maintaining
forests. When Native Americans were here and they were taking care of the forests, they would
do controlled burns on a regular basis. So there was legitimacy, it's just that he's an idiot.
He didn't state it correctly. But that's exactly where I'm going because at least
there was some nugget in there where like, oh, you could do better forest management.
So what do the Republicans do? Now they turn around and go, don't worry about what Trump said,
We're gonna pay less for forest management.
Yeah.
So there's gonna be less raking in the forest.
It's not raking, okay?
But so they just got forest management.
They say mental health after the shootings, and they caught mental health.
So when they say, oh, we're gonna plant trees now, and they don't have any plan to plant trees.
I got news for you.
100% lie, they don't even mean one word of it.
All right, we're gonna take a break.
And when we come back, a fascinating lawsuit that's currently taking place in Texas over their six-week abortion ban.
what does it mean and what is this lawsuit trying to accomplish?
They're not trying to repeal the bill.
So I'll tell you what they actually want when we come back.
Anna and Serena Not Williams, that is their handle, has just joined us, and hence does the show
with us. We appreciate all of our members. And speaking of that, Thailand Dell 73, gifted
10 young Turks memberships on YouTube, American Hero, and help it out the community. We love it.
Casper. First, I have to just draw attention to how I'm bad at math, and I made a mistake
in the last story we covered. When I mentioned that Trump proposed to plant
833 million of the one trillion trees. I think I said it was like one third. I misspoke.
It's not one third, obviously. It's less than 0.1%. But I wanted to clarify that.
Matt has been corrected. By the way, I am really bad at math. So, but I didn't misspeak there.
Yes. All right, let's move on. We love to correct mistakes. We do, we do. All right,
let's, this next story is really difficult. I'm just going to be honest with you all. It has to
do with something very serious. But without further ado, let's talk about it.
And then I had to give birth to an identical version of my daughter without a skull and without a brain.
And I would have had to hold her until she died.
That woman was one of 14 women and two doctors who are now suing the state of Texas over their six-week abortion ban.
the women are suing not to attempt to repeal the law, but to clarify what the law actually
entails because the vague and broad wording of that bill essentially leads to doctors being
so terrified to perform abortions on women who do not have viable fetuses, meaning they
will deliver stillborns or they will deliver infants that will die hours after the delivery.
I mean, it is tragic, traumatic to say the least.
And so in this lawsuit, you see women take the stand to testify about their personal experiences
and how, you know, what they went through was not only traumatic because of what they had to
experience in seeing, you know, their baby born with all sorts of issues.
baby die hours after it was born, but also put their own health and their own lives at risk.
And the reason why the doctors aren't performing the abortions is because they don't want to
make a mistake and then get prosecuted under what the current laws in Texas happen to be.
Now what are the laws? Under the law in Texas, doctors who perform abortions risk life in prison
and also fines of up to $100,000. Opponents say that has left some women with providers
who are unwilling to even discuss terminating a pregnancy.
Again, even a non-viable pregnancy.
So although Texas's ban narrowly allows exceptions when the patient's life is in danger,
again, the providers here, the abortion providers don't want to take the risk.
One of the women who testified ended up becoming physically ill during her testimony.
I want to give you some details about who she is before we go to the video.
Samantha Cassiano testified she was halfway through her pregnancy when she found out during an appointment that her daughter had a rare diagnosis of encephaly where much of the skull and brain is missing.
Doctors told her they could not provide her an abortion in Texas and when a caseworker was called into the room, Cassiano was handed funeral home information.
So with that context in mind, let's go to her testimony.
Another plaintiff recalled the moment that she learned her pregnancy was not viable.
And I can see her pain in her eye.
She told me that my daughter has been diagnosed with anisephalate and that means that her
school and her brain is not fully developed and that she was sorry and I didn't have any
option.
I was pregnant.
She then called in a caseworker, caseworker came in.
And they added me a paper that said funeral holds on top of it.
She told me that I didn't have any options because there was a law that the Texas abortion law prohibited.
I wasn't able to get one.
So I felt like I was abandoned.
Yes.
woman grew so distressed on the stand.
You see her there.
She started to vomit.
Her baby gasped for air for four hours after she was born and then she died.
And she said this.
All she could do was fight to try to get air.
I had to watch my daughter go from being pink to red to purple, from being warm to cold.
I just kept telling myself and my baby that I'm so sorry that this had to happen to you.
Okay, so this is what happens when big government comes in and takes decisions out of the hands
of doctors and parents.
How would the government know what the status of that fetus is?
How?
Is it a doctor?
Is it in every room as they're doing the medical tests?
Of course not.
No, Republicans told us they were against big government our whole lives and then they
have big government intrude in the most personal decisions that people make.
And it's not just about women's freedom.
And by the way, again, this is a party that told us they were in favor of freedom.
Does this look like freedom to you?
But it's also for all parents.
The parents are making the decision together very oftentimes.
And they say, oh, I trust the doctor.
This isn't a pro-life issue.
This baby is not going to be born alive anywhere or is not going to survive.
And the government says, we don't believe you, we don't care.
We don't care, suffer.
And by the way, most of these women want the baby.
And they say, well, if you want a baby,
you're gonna have to suffer through this miscarriage.
You're gonna have to suffer through your baby dying.
You're gonna have to suffer through all of this.
And you're gonna have to wait till the fetus is dead inside of you.
I mean, what a sick, sick thing for the government to say?
And Republicans, what happened to parents' rights?
When you're attacking people who are LGBTQ, all of a sudden,
you're all about parents' rights.
And when parents say, I would like to make the most
crucial decision for our family.
You go, no, I don't give a goddamn about parents' rights.
You'll do what big government tells you to do.
So look, the response to your question, Jank, from conservatives who consider themselves
or fancy themselves pro-life is no, but the bill says that there are exceptions for medical issues,
right?
But the lawmakers heard the complaints ahead of time about how the wording of the legislation
was too broad, it was too vague, it was going to create a chilling effect in the state
where providers were going to be too terrified to take any chances.
And they ignored that feedback, they ignored that critique because it's not about, by the way,
look, I get it, some are going to argue that I'm being unfair, but like let's just keep it
real.
For months, that was the argument, and they ignored that argument because they don't care.
For a lot of these politicians, they're doing what they think is gonna help them get
reelected.
They don't actually care about the issue.
Are there some genuine pro-life politicians?
Sure.
But if you're genuinely pro-life, how do you account for the fact that there was legitimate
critique about how this bill was written that puts the mother's life at risk in a lot of cases?
If you're pro-life, do you not care about the life of the mother here?
Wouldn't you want to ensure that the wording of the legislation is clear enough to ensure that
But the woman's life is not at risk because of a provider refusing to provide an abortion
for a non-viable fetus.
So look, they, critics of the bill argued that it was gonna have a chilling effect,
and it did.
So who was right and who was wrong?
So if you're a Republican and you say, well, yeah, it did have a chilling effect, but
I was lying, I don't really care that it has a chilling effect, I want them to go through
this.
Okay, or that's at least clear and honest, right?
If you're a Republican who say, no, I don't want women to go through this, isn't what I bargained for,
well, then why don't you pressure your law?
They're not our lawmakers, they're your lawmakers.
Why don't you pressure them to it, at a bare, bare minimum, it's still, the law would still be against abortion.
But at least to clarify it, so you don't have this monstrosity, right?
And right now, I don't see any effort in that direction.
And part of the problem is what Anna mentioned, because politicians are not really.
people, they have different incentives.
Their incentive is not to pass the best law, is to get reelected.
And how do they get reelected?
Sure, in most of the cases about money.
In this case, there's some grassroots money that comes in and some billionaire money,
but that's not the main thing here.
The main thing in this case is they're going to get graded by special interest groups.
And that's how the NRA bullied both parties for a long time and now just the Republican Party.
In this case, the maximalist groups, the special interest groups that want maximum for that
He goes, oh yeah, they're dying inside the womb. Love it. Don't worry about it. If you vote
against this bill, we're going to grade you an F. And then we're going to tell everybody
that you're pro choice and that you respect women's freedom. You'll never get elected
in a Republican primary. And they get scared to death of the grade. So they go, okay, you could
get maximum, maximum. Don't take away all their rights. We don't care. Endangered their
lives. Who cares? I just want the right grade so I could do misleading advertising when I'm
running.
Yeah, and you know, the people who are caught in the middle are mothers, patients.
And look, this is why it makes sense to keep abortion legal in all stages.
Even though I myself, I am against, and most people in this country are against aborting
a healthy pregnancy in the third trimester.
But abortions in the third trimester of healthy pregnancies very rarely happen.
And providers don't provide abortions for that.
I give you that because if there is a problem with the pregnancy and you live in a state that has banned the abortion for even the third trimester, let's say it's legal all the way up to the third trimester.
Okay, but then what happens when the doctor realizes, okay, this is a risky pregnancy?
Yeah.
Okay?
Do you have to prove it?
Is there a government official you go to?
You know, they should take an oath to ensure that they're only performing this on a non-viable fetus, you know, in the third trimester.
But again, the main point here is that this has to do with health care, and it has to do with the most intimate and personal decision a woman and her family can possibly make.
And it should be left to her and her doctor.
I want to be absolutely clear about this.
A lot of people now have the misimpression, both on the right and the left, that Roe v. Wade, meant that you could have an abortion.
all the way through your pregnancy.
And now the Republicans have this insane,
like mental claim that it allowed for post birth abortions,
which is not even a thing.
You guys just made that up 100%.
It's unbelievable that you would say something post birth abortion.
It doesn't even make any illogical sense anyways.
But you cannot go up to nine months according to Roe v.
Wade.
And so the distinction that Anna is making is between,
how do we make it super clear that a doctor and a woman
have a right to do life-saving,
surgery in the last trimester, as opposed to an elective abortion.
And so Roe v. Wade and most of the blue states, if not all of them, actually do not allow
you to do a third trimester abortion if it's elective.
And so that was the law of the land, and now that has been reversed, and that's why you're
seeing all these laws.
But don't, don't buy into the hype that the blue states or that the Democratic position,
the left wing position.
But the mainstream left wing position.
Or Roe v. Wade meant that you could have an abortion at any time.
No, it prohibited in the third trimester for elective abortions.
So final thing I have to add is now that this anti-abortion law has been in effect,
we're starting to see an increase in infant mortality.
And it's because providers are unable and unwilling because they're terrified to
perform the abortions on a non-viable fetus.
So in these cases, women have no choice but to deliver a stillborn.
or an infant that dies hours later.
And so I want to give you those numbers.
Some 2,200 infants died in Texas in 2022,
and that's an increase of 227 deaths or 11.5%
over the previous year.
And that's according to preliminary infant mortality data
from the Texas Department of State Health Services.
What part of that is pro-life?
Infant deaths caused by severe genetic
genetic and birth defects rose by 21.6%. That spike reversed a nearly decade long decline
between 2014 and 2021. Infant deaths had fallen by nearly 15%. And look, there are, there is one
caveat that I want to add, just to be completely fair. So apparently the increase in deaths could
partly, partly be explained by the fact that more babies are being born in Texas because
abortions are not available in Texas at this point. One recent report found that in the final nine
months of 2022, the state saw nearly 10,000 more births than expected prior to its abortion
ban, an estimated 3% increase. However, doctors in the state who focus on high risk
pregnancies are saying that the law absolutely has had an impact on increasing infant
mortality in the state. Erica Werner, who is with Tufts Medical Center, says this.
We all knew the infant mortality rate would go up because many of these terminations were
for pregnancies that don't turn into healthy normal kids. It's exactly what we were concerned
about. And that is exactly what the critics of the bill repeated over and over again. But
the lawmakers didn't care, didn't listen, didn't change the wording of the legislation,
and moved forward with it.
All right, that does it for the first hour.
We're going to take a break.
When we come back, Trump has a threat for you.
Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks.
Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing
to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t.
I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you.
soon.