The Young Turks - Vigilantē Tears

Episode Date: November 10, 2021

Abby Martin confronted Nancy Pelosi at #COP26 for overseeing massive increases in the Pentagon budget - a bigger polluter than 140 countries combined - while touting "historic" leadership on climate change. Kyle Rittenhouse testified that he "didn't do anything wrong" when he shot Joseph Rosenbaum. OPEC and its oil-producing partners have rebuffed President Joe Biden’s calls for increased production amidst rising fuel prices. A Black principal of a majority-white Texas high school, who has been embroiled in a controversy over critical race theory, was forced to resign after months of accusations that he indoctrinated students. Host: Ana Kasparian Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. 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. We're going to be able to be. Hi everybody. Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm your host Anna Casparian. And yes, I am still doing the show from home today. But I should be back in the studio very, very soon. It's Wednesday, which means I'll be hosting the first hour solo. And we're going to get into a lot of interesting topics today, including Abby Martin, a journalist with the Empire Files. asking Pelosi an important question about how the defense industry is contributing to climate change. We're also going to give you some highlights from Kyle Rittenhouse's testimony during the trial, something that was pretty unexpected to be quite honest with you. It's not

very common for the individual facing homicide charges to take the stand. Usually that happens when they think it'll help the case. And so we'll get into some of the moments from his testimony, which last I was watching, he was still testifying. It's this entire day of testimony from written house. Later on in the show, we'll also talk about what is leading to the high gas prices that many of us have already experienced at the pump. Seems like a lot of people are frustrated and upset, understandably so as a result of those higher gas prices. But I do think it's important to look at market manipulation and why we're seeing the prices

skyrocket as they are. Later in the second hour, we're given John Iderola a little bit of a break, but have no fear, Wazni Lombre will be joining me to talk about other issues, including an opulent wedding that was officiated by Nancy Pelosi, furthering the narrative that she is a hypocrite, especially when it comes to issues related to the climate. Now before we get to all of that, as I always do, please I'm just definitely recommend. that you guys like and share the stream, get the word out about our show. And of course, as always, I appreciate that. And that's it. Let's get to our first story. Abby Martin from the Empire files got a chance to ask House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about how the

Pentagon contributes to the climate crisis during the COP 26 summit. Now, you can tell that Nancy Pelosi really had no idea who Abby Martin was because had she known who Abby Martin was and had she been familiar with Abby Martin's excellent reporting, she maybe wouldn't be willing to call on her to ask a question. But nonetheless, Pelosi saw it as an opportunity to provide the optics of caring about gender equality just by the very nature of calling on Abby Martin a woman to ask her a question. Let's hear how this all started out. Wait a minute, I want a woman, I want a woman, a woman, a woman. Gender equality, yeah.

I just, that moment is so indicative of what you can expect from the Democratic Party today, right? Just giving you the optics of inclusion and tolerance and caring about diversity and gender equality, you know, but again, when it comes to actual substantive policy, something I argue all the time. Democrats don't deliver. So it's cute when you kneel in a kente cloth because you want to provide the optics of caring about the African American community. But how about pass the police reform that the community has been demanding? It's cute when you pretend to care about women and equality for women or creating a better society for women to succeed in. But how about you fight a little more, you know, aggressively in regard to pay. family leave in regard to providing affordable child care. But of course, when it comes to fighting aggressively on those matters, Nancy Pelosi gives up quite easily. But nonetheless, that's not what this topic is about. I want to go to Abby Martin now who asks an important question. Speaker Pelosi, you just presided over a large increase in the Pentagon budget. This Pentagon budget is already massive. The Pentagon is a larger polluter than 140 countries

combined, how can we seriously talk about net zero? If there is this bipartisan consensus to constantly expand this large contributor to climate change, which is exempt from these conferences, military is exempt from climate talks. Now I wanted to kind of take that question separately and give you guys a little more context before we get to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's answer on it, which as you can imagine was a disappointing answer. But nonetheless, I think that the question asked there was, first of all, unusual given the conferences that typically take place the type of questions that are typically asked. You very rarely hear individuals hold Americans' officials' feet to the fire, especially when it comes to something as serious as our military

spending, our defense spending, and what Abby Martin mentioned there is 100% accurate. So I went back to look at some data regarding what she said, right, in the context of that question. Here's what we know. The U.S. military is one of the largest polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more climate changing gases than most medium-sized countries. If the United States military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world sitting between Peru and Portugal. But I'm not done yet. I really want to hone in on just how bad the military is when it comes to serving as a polluter, serving as a huge factor in the climate crisis. So for instance, in 2017, according to courts, the US military,

The US military bought about 269,230 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kilotons of carbon dioxide by burning those fuels. In fact, the US Air Force purchased $4.9 billion worth of fuel and the Navy $2.8 billion, followed by the Army at 947 million and the Marines at 36 million. So there's quite a bit of fossil fuel consumption by the Defense Department. And so the question is not only valid, it's an incredibly critical, important question to ask during a summit that's supposed to tackle the climate crisis. Now, Abby Martin mentioned the Pentagon being exempt. What did she mean by that? Well, the United States insisted on an exemption for reporting military emissions in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The loophole was closed

by the Paris Accord, but with the Trump administration due to withdraw from the accord in 2020, which of course he did, that gap did return, right? So this court's article is a little older. I believe it was published in 2018, but nonetheless, the data is still relevant. And the data is what Abby Martin is referencing in the context of her question. Now, to be fair, the military has attempted to get a little bit greener, but not by much. In fact, it's negligible when you look at the data. The military has invested in developing alternative energy sources like biofuels, but these comprise only a tiny fraction of spending on fuels. It remains the single largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world. It also, or it has also locked itself into hydrocarbon-based

weapon systems for years to come by depending on existing aircraft and warships for open-ended operations. And of course, when it comes to the topic of military spending, you guys don't need me to tell you, it takes priority over social safety net programs, it takes priority over providing paid family leave, takes priority over paying for childcare so parents can, you know, go to work and feel comfortable doing so. So just to give you the latest numbers in regard to the National Defense Authorization Act, the House, which of course Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of, voted 316 to 113 to pass a $77.9 billion defense policy bill.

That's for one year. That's for fiscal year 2022. In fact, the fiscal year 2022 NDAA included an amendment to add an additional $23.9 billion to the defense budget. Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican from Alabama, proposed the amendment, which was approved by the House panel in early September. Now, with all of that context, which again, I think is so important to really understand the gravity of the question being asked here, Why don't we go to the first individual who tried to take a shot at answering it? This is Representative Frank Pallone, and his answer, not good, very bad, let's watch. You know the sea level rise is an important part of, you know, what's happening to the climate.

And I am not a defense person, but I've had so many talks with the Defense Department, with the Navy in particular, about how they have to respond to what's going on. And so I really do think that there is no reason why what we're putting together, you know, with build back better and other things, can't respond to the Defense Department and have the same impact in terms of reducing emissions. And I do think that the Defense Department is very much aware of the fact that they have to play a major role, both from a strategic as well as, you know, for the good of the world. So I don't see what we're doing in any way or, you know, increasing the defense

budget as being something that's inconsistent with climate action. I really don't. Pallone's answer really failed to give any specifics. It was pretty vague. Really all you could do is speculate as to what he's referring to because he does say that the defense department is incredibly important in responding to the sea level rise. Now think about what sea level rise translates to. It translates to a migration crisis, certainly in parts of the world where people can no longer live as a result of flooding, extreme weather events, those kinds of things. And when you have these mass migrations, how do you think the United States intends to respond to that? So luckily, Nancy Pelosi did jump in later, and she got a little more specific.

Let's watch. National security advisors all tell us that the climate crisis is a national security matter. It is, of course, a health matter for our children, the water they drink, the air they breathe, et cetera. It is a jobs issue between clean, good, clean technologies being the future of our workforce and the training for all of that. It is a national security issue because of the, all of the conditions. that climate crisis produces, I won't go into all of them, but they do cause for

migration, conflict over habitat and resources. Oh, migration, conflict. We need the Defense Department, right? Rather than doing its part to respond to the climate crisis appropriately, the United States is doing exactly what the United States can be expected to do. Let's beef up military spending because we might need the military to provide national security when our behavior over decades has contributed to a planet that people have difficulty living on because of extreme weather conditions, because of flooding, because of extreme heat, drought, wildfires, all of those issues. Now, of course, we're experiencing some of that within our own borders. And she's not really focusing on that much, but she is focusing on the problems that will

arise and have already begun to arise as a result of the climate crisis. Our inaction, our unwillingness to respond to climate change appropriately is going to lead to all sorts of conflict, which is precisely why the Pentagon sees climate change as a national security threat. Instead of doing something to prevent those threats from taking place, the United States government has decided, we'll do some stuff around the edges, kind of maybe, not really. And then if things get really bad, we can rely on the military to close our borders, protect our borders, prevent, you know, migrants from trying to come in as a result of what we've contributed to in destroying their own homeland, and that's how we're going to respond to it.

So yeah, we need to increase military spending. It's a scary, scary world when we need to rely on private military contractors to save us from the damage that is done from climate change, right? Or the consequences that will come as a result of climate change. But that's what Nancy Pelosi is essentially saying there. Listen, when it comes to military spending, it's really a bipartisan issue. Democrats and Republicans love it. The National Defense Authorization Act passes without any trouble at all.

And really, the only solace I feel or get in talking about this story is that for once, we have an actual journalist, Abby Martin, asking a real question during the summit that purports to care about climate change, It purports to want to find real solutions to at least slow down the climate crisis. So good on Abby Martin. Everyone check out Empire Files. It's a great channel on YouTube. And they cover all sorts of foreign policy issues that I really think they deserve a lot more credit for doing. So definitely take a look at that. All right, we are going to get into the details of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. But we're going to take a quick break before we do so. So everyone sit tight in about four minutes.

We'll be back and we'll show you some highlights from Writtenhouse and his testimony in court today. Welcome back to TYT Anna Casparian with you. Thank you for watching. Hopefully you guys have liked and shared the stream. And I'll give you a minute to do that. All right, we got it. And now let's get to our next story because we've got some updates on Kyle Rittenhouse. do not take the stand unless the defense believes that it will help their case. Now here it's clear that the defense thought that Kyle Rittenhouse taking the stand will help his case.

And before we get to the moment that you just saw in more context, there were many notable moments from the trial today that I wanted to share with all of you, including this moment in regard to the weapon that Kyle Rittenhouse had, the weapon that he used to you know, shoot individuals, two of whom died, one of whom was wounded. Now under cross examination, Rittenhouse did acknowledge that it was illegal for him to carry an AR-15 rifle that was used in the shootings. So for me, the only thing that's an open and closed or open and shut case is the charge regarding his illegal weapon. He has already admitted on the stand that he was in possession of one. That charge, by the way, is a misdemeanor. So it's not nearly as serious as the other charges that he's facing.

But nonetheless, I wanted to give you guys some context and details into that moment. So Thomas Binger, the prosecutor, questioned Rittenhouse at length about the AR-15 he used in the shootings, despite being too young to legally own one. Remember, Rittenhouse was only 17 at the time. Rittenhouse confirmed that his friend Dominic Black purchased the gun on his behalf because he was a minor. And then he gave another reason why he chose that particular gun instead of, let's say, a handgun. So let's watch that moment in court. Is the only reason was because you felt you couldn't lawfully possess a pistol?

Correct. You didn't pick out the AR-15 for any other reason? I thought it looked cool, but no. You didn't pick it out because you wanted to go hunting with it, did you? No. You didn't pick it out because you were going to use it to protect your house, correct? Correct. You picked it out because it looked cool.

I thought it looked cool. Well, he's being honest there. He thought it looked cool. And that just kind of goes to show you how incredibly successful NRA campaigning has been in this country for decades. I mean, these are not seen as weapons that are dangerous, weapons of death. They're seen as weapons that are cool. So listen, that was a relatively small moment in court. I think that his admission of possessing an illegal weapon is important.

But there were other moments that are worth discussing. So there was a moment in the trial, actually multiple moments in the trial, where the judge and the prosecutor were really not getting along. The judge engaged in the shouting match to give you some more details and context before we go to video of that moment. Tensions boiled over in the courtroom when the judge Schroeder lashed out at Binger, the prosecutor, for appearing to reference a cell phone video that was ruled in admissible. during a pretrial hearing. The video purportedly showed Writtenhouse saying he wished he had a gun so he could shoot people.

He believed were shoplifting at a CVS two weeks before the events in Kenosha. So again, that video, that evidence that the prosecutors wanted to use was not allowed in court because the judge felt that it didn't have anything to do with the case. The prosecutor argues, Well, it kind of gives you a sense of the frame of mind that Kyle Rittenhouse had, but the judge

wasn't buying it. You'll hear more of that exchange in just a second. But again, Binger argued that the video could be used to impeach Mr. Rittenhouse and illustrate his state of mind when he killed two men on August 25th. Now, here is the moment that I'm referring to. Here's the video from the court. Just hours ago, I said I heard nothing in this trial. to change any of my rulings. So why? Testimony, Your Honor. Pardon me?

That was before the defense testimony. Don't get brazen with me. You knew very well. You know very well that an attorney can't go into these types of areas when the judge has already ruled without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so. So don't give me that. That's number one. Number two, this is propensity evidence. I said at the time that I made my ruling, and I'll repeat again now for you,

I see no similarity between talking about wishing you had your AR gun, which you don't have, so that you could take fire rounds at these thought to be shoplifters. And the incidents in these cases, which are not, there's nothing in your case that suggests the defendant was lying in wait to shoot at somebody. Now the judge is correct in stating that the prosecutor can't just willy-nilly bring up evidence that was ruled inadmissible in court, right? So the prosecutor, in my opinion, has made many mistakes and has kind of bungled his case. And this is a good example of that, right? If you want to make the case that the evidence should be used, you have to go through a process to make that happen. You can't just unilaterally decide that you're going to bring it up in the trial after the

judge has already ruled that it's inadmissible. Now with that said, the question of whether or not the judge made the right decision there, I think is up for debate. Because I would argue that that video is relevant to the case, right? What was his intention in wanting to obtain that weapon illegally, right? What was he intending on doing with it? So the judge has decided, no, I'm not allowing that evidence in court. It is what it is. But there were other moments with the judge that were, tends to say the least. He yelled at the prosecutor quite a bit. In fact, here's another example of that. I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendants post-arrest silence.

That's basic law. It's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years. I have no idea why you would do something like that. And it gives, well, I'll leave it at that. So I don't know what you're up to. May I respond? Yes. We filed another act's motion on this exact issue

because in my mind, and I argued this, it is identical to what was going on. on the night of August 25th, in the sense that the defendant was using this exact same weapon. He was using it in a manner to try and protect the property. No, he wasn't. Your Honor, with all due respect, I'm not going to rehash the motion. That's absolutely untrue. I mean, the video, if the video contains what the prosecutor claims it contains,

which is written house saying that, you know, he can't wait to shoot individuals that, are shoplifting at CBS, then the judge saying that it's untrue makes no sense, right? So the judge has had so many moments in this case that bring into question his own biases, right? And honestly, the judge really doesn't need to do much if he's on the side of written house already, because the prosecution has done an awful job in making its case. So I don't know, if I were the judge, I would maybe be a little more careful with how I respond to the prosecutor, with how I handle this trial, because we're all seeing the evidence. We're all seeing everything play out, right? The evidence, in my opinion, is so overwhelmingly in support of the self-defense argument that

Kyle Rittenhouse is making that we really don't need the judge to chime in the way he's been shining in lately. But nonetheless, he can't help himself. In fact, there were other notable moments. I want to go to B7. This is where the judge even swoops in to kind of like bail Kyle Rittenhouse out as he's being questioned by the prosecution. I didn't think I was going to be attacked and ambush. But you just said you had it for protection. What were you expecting you would need protection from? I thought we had covered much of this before. I'm specifically focusing in on the time period where he is heading down to the 63rd Street car source. I have not asked him about this yet, Your Honor.

Well, go ahead, but you need to pick up the pace somewhat. I mean, we already went over this and then the prosecutor responds with, no, I'm trying to get to this issue, this part of the night. All right, well, speed it up, speed it up then. The judge has kind of been a disaster. Okay, again, let me just be clear. The video evidence provided is pretty damning and not damning toward Kyle Rittenhouse. What I'm specifically referring to is there's enough there, in my opinion, that Kyle Rittenhouse can reasonably believe that his life was in danger and that he used his weapon in self-defense. That's the argument that I'm trying to make.

The judge is needlessly chiming in in a way that's making people question his own impartiality. And he doesn't need to do that. I don't know what he's doing, to be honest. But there was one other moment, people are making a big deal about it because of what you can hear. But the judge's phone goes off. And the ringtone is what people are calling into question. The ringtone is, God bless the USA, which was played at, I believe, nearly every Donald Trump rally. Now, there's a lot of speculation. He might just like that ringtone. It might not have anything to do with Donald Trump.

Even if he is a Trump supporter, I don't think it's necessarily that big of a deal. But nonetheless, the judge's phone going off in the first place, pretty ridiculous and unprofessional. Here's that moment. And if the court makes a finding that the actions that I had talked about were done in bad faith, then I think both elements. Can we just agree that the judge is not great? Not great. All right. So we're done with the judge. Now the moment that you've all been waiting for, I'm sure. So Kyle Rittenhouse did take the stand and at one moment he was explaining what he was experiencing from his perspective

when Rosenbaum, the first person he shot, was chasing after him. This is Joseph Rosenbaum who was chasing after him. I want to give you some details and context before we get to this video. So as defense lawyer Mark Richards was directing him to describe the moments immediately before he opened fire on Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse began sobbing uncontrollably, prompting Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder to call for a recess. So here you go, here's that emotional moment. I was cornered from in front of me with Mr. Ziminski. And there were, There were three people right there. That's what I've run.

That's what I run. That's what I run. We're going to just take time for our break. Anyway, you can just relax for a minute, sir. We're going to take a break about 10 minutes. So, of course, he's being accused of really acting up in a way that speaks to the emotional, like pulls on the emotional, you know, elements of the jury. And I get that, right?

To me, his crying, I don't care if he's sobbing for real or if he's making it up. I don't care about any of that, right? The acting, not acting, it's really irrelevant. Will it have an impact on the jury? Maybe, right? But what matters is what we see on camera. And for me, again, the homicide charge that he's facing, the burden of proof is very high. Right. So you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he fired his weapon with the intent, right? With this intent of murdering people. And he's arguing, no, my life was in danger. I was faced with an imminent threat, both with Rosenbaum and also with Huber and Gross Kreutz.

Okay, those were the, that was when he was on his back. And, you know, you have his head being kicked in. You also have someone hitting him with the skateboard. Those videos, I think, show that he reasonably believed he was under threat, that he was facing an imminent risk or imminent threat. And as a result, fired his weapon. Now, whether or not you think he should have been there, that's not something that he's on trial for. So we have to separate those two, right? What is he facing criminally? And then what's public opinion in regard to him being there? You guys know how I feel about him being there. He shouldn't have been there. And conservatives will cry and cry about me saying it. But to be quite honest with you, if the tables were turned and we were talking about,

I don't know, liberal activists showing up to a conservative protest and doing the exact same thing that written house did. if a 17 year old did the exact same thing that written house in, I would make the same argument. What are you doing? You're underage, go home, I get that you supposedly want to protect the community, fine, but that is not your job. We are not supposed to allow vigilantes to enforce the law. That is not the society that we live in. And to be honest with you, look, there were moments where the camera pans to his mother, his mother is sobbing uncontrollably, why would you allow your 17 year old son to be there with that weapon? No, it's inexcusable. I'm sorry, right? So, but that's my

opinion. He's not on trial for that. There's no law against Kyle Rittenhouse being in Kenosha, Wisconsin. But I'm allowed to have my opinion. And to be quite honest with you, if I had a child, If I had a 17 year old, I tell him to sit his ass down, you're not going anywhere. It's dangerous and I'd be concerned that my child would get hurt. Or if my child is armed, that he or she would fire that weapon and kill other individuals. Just think about it ahead of time. And what I find really fascinating about this, both in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse and other members of the militia groups that were there, they didn't trust the police to do their jobs.

Kyle Rittenhouse loves cops. He does. I mean, there were social media posts where it shows he wants to be a cop, he respects cops, he loves cops, great. Why didn't he trust cops to do their jobs in protecting the community from looters, protecting the community from people setting fires? It was not his job or the job of any other civilian to carry out justice or to enforce the law that day. And the nature of them being there unfortunately allowed that protest to devolve into a situation where people were shot and killed. So that those are my thoughts. But in terms of him standing trial, in terms of the charges he's facing, the only charge that I really see him being convicted of because he admitted it himself on the stand was being in possession of a weapon that he could not legally be in possession of. All right, that took a lot longer than I expected. And everyone's mad at me for how I've covered this story. Conservatives are mad at me because I corrected myself when I was wrong earlier. Sorry, I'm happy I corrected myself, it's the right thing to do. And some people on the left think that I'm being too generous to written house.

The evidence is the evidence, guys, I can't change the facts of the story. So do it without what you will. But for now, we got to take a quick break. We'll be right back. Welcome back to TYT. Let's get right to our next story. So our favorite CNN host, Wolf Blitzer, caught a little heat today because he put out a misleading photo in regard to the pretty high gas prices. We're all experiencing it, unless we're one of the lucky few in the country that get to enjoy public transportation that actually functions decently. But for most people who need to rely on long commutes, gas prices

have been killing us. And Wolf Blitzer put out this tweet, FYI, breaking news. I'm just kidding, you didn't say breaking news. FYI, gas prices today here in Washington, D.C., and then he has a photo of the gas prices with regular gas at $4.29, and then you get to Supreme at $4.79. Now, he got a lot of backlash because the price of gas per gallon varies depending on the state you're in, depending on the city you're in. So if you happen to be in an area where there's high demand for gas, places that are densely populated, metropolitan areas, places like DC, for instance, It is likely that you're going to end up paying a lot more for gas. There are other issues at play if you're living in a state like California.

There are additional taxes associated with each gallon of gas. So that's something to consider as well. So look, people were giving him a hard time about it, but considering all of the foibles we've seen from Wolf Blitzer and cable news hosts like him, I would say this is a mild offense. But I do think it's worth discussing what we're experiencing at the pump. Why are gas prices so high? Why are we experiencing inflation? You know, you'll see them talk about it and fearmonger about it in corporate press, but they never explain the forces at play. And I wanted to talk about that a little bit. So it's important to understand that the basics of supply and demand

obviously play a role in gas prices, right? So if the supply of oil is low, if the production of oil is low and the demand is high, which it has been lately as a result of things opening back up, people traveling more after the COVID pandemic and all of that. I mean, we're still experiencing the pandemic, but you get what I mean. Things are opening up. Demand is up, but supply is low. Why is supply low? Well remember during the pandemic in the early months, people just weren't really leaving their homes, they weren't traveling. And so there was an abundance of oil, abundance of gasoline available for people to fuel their vehicles, airlines to fuel their planes and all of that. But there was incredibly low demand. And so the countries that

produce the oil were hurt by that, especially if that's their number one export. And so then all of a sudden demand goes up. But here's the interesting part. So there are these countries that make up an organization known as OPEC, OPEC plus, as it's called today. And these are oil producing countries, right? And basically what they do is they work together as a cartel to to determine how much oil they produce. And the reason why they do that is because they wanna manipulate the market. And we're kind of seeing that right now.

It's playing out right now. So just to give you some more context, if OPEC plus countries are unsatisfied with the price of oil, it is in their interest to cut the supply of oil so prices rise. A pledge by OPEC plus to cut supply causes an immediate spike in the price of oil. Over time, the price reverts back to a level, usually lower, when supply is not meaningfully cut or demand adjusts. Those are the basics, okay? Those are the basics. If you guys can remember in the very beginning of the pandemic, when demand for oil was at record lows, the Trump administration actually decided to purchase oil specifically to artificially inflate the value of it.

And then the Trump administration decided to keep that oil in the U.S. reserves, okay? So we have reserves of oil that the Trump administration had decided to purchase. And again, that is a part of this manipulation that I'm referring to here, right? We talk about free market. And is it really free market when you have all of these various factors at play that specifically intend to manipulate the actual value or the price of oil? It's not really a free market. I mean, come on. And I'm not saying that as in, oh, there's all this regulation in place to protect the consumer. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the manipulation is meant to specifically benefit the oil producers or the OPEC countries or the countries included in OPEC. And that includes Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Sudan, South Sudan. A lot of countries that produce oil are part of OPEC Plus. Now, recently, OPEC plus countries had a conference,

and one of the topics at hand was this pressure from the Biden administration to produce more oil to provide more supply to meet the demand, right? That way oil prices, or I should say gas prices at the pump are lowered. And he got kind of a negative reaction from these oil producing countries. So here is a quick video explaining a little bit of that and the manipulation that takes place. The biggest takeaway from the press conference, as Prince Abdulaziz said, really nobody gets to tell OPEC plus what to do. The United Front showed at that press conference. He rallied every minister, OPEC and OPEC plus ministers from, of course, Russia, UAE, but Azerbaijan, Nigeria, everybody was there saying, look, this was a collective decision.

we are doing what we think is right for the market, nobody gets to tell us what to do, even if that person sits in the White House. Right. So they're going to do what's best for the market. And for them, they want to make up the money lost during the beginning of the pandemic when demand for oil was at record lows. This is what they're doing to ensure that they may that they make up those lost profits. Again, it's a manipulative tactic. There's no question about it. They've agreed to increase oil production a little bit to help with prices a little bit. But guys, I also want you to take a step back and think about what that means. Is that what we want?

Right? I mean, people are suffering, people are struggling with the prices. There's no question about it. But the United States should have been front and center in regard to investing in renewable energy and getting us off of this fossil fuel addiction. We're so reliant on oil, even at this late date. And we didn't need to be here. We didn't need to find ourselves in this position. But we do. So look, in a perfect world, we wouldn't be dependent on oil, but we are. And so now we're stuck in this insanely annoying cycle where all these countries that produce oil, all these countries that have a profit motive are very obviously, transparently, overtly manipulating the market. And that's translating to these high gas prices at the pump. That's what's taking place. Everyone wants to blame. things on Biden. I love blaming Biden when Biden is responsible for doing the wrong thing. But this isn't really an issue pertaining specifically to the White House. This is a problem that we've had for a long time with OPEC making decisions, not based on what's best for people,

but what's based or what's best for the profit motive that these oil producing countries have. UAE, Saudi Arabia, you know, what have you. So that's what's really taking place. All right, I want to move on to our next story because this really infuriated me. As much as I hate talking about the manufactured culture war issue of critical race theory, we do need to dive into this. So Megan McCain asked a simple question about critical race theory, and I thought maybe we'd answer. Let's watch.

I just thought it was very strange that there's a complete and utter denial that critical race theory exists and is being taught. There's ample evidence of it being taught in many states across the country. And if it's something that doesn't exist, why are Democrats so riled up with the idea of it being banned places? Well, even though critical race theory, a graduate level curriculum is not being taught in high schools or elementary schools, the reason why, Democrats are riled up, and I think everyone should be riled up, is because critical race theory has been used as a catch all phrase for U.S. history. Anything that might hurt the feelings of conservative parents is now up for debate in the curriculum of students throughout K through 12. And that is insane. Critical race theory is something very specific, but it's now just being used to refer to

to anything taught in schools that hurt the precious feelings of conservatives. And there is an orchestrated effort to oust educators, teachers, school board members, anyone that conservatives dislike. And we actually saw that play out in one school, in one school district in Texas, and I wanted to talk about that because this is now exploded into something more than just a manufactured culture war, right? And I just want to note that conservatives always find a way to repackage the same garbage in every administration. Because talking about manufactured issues is far better than allowing the American electorate to focus on the fact that the Republican Party has failed to provide any policy solutions

for the very real economic anxiety that Americans are facing across the board, regardless of their political identity. Doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, doesn't matter if you're a Republican. All we've seen from the Republican Party from GOP lawmakers is this concerted effort to defeat any attempt to better Americans' lives. They don't want you to focus on that. Instead, they find a scapegoat, they find some other boogeyman, and in this case, it's critical race theory. Again, a graduate level curriculum. I mean, Ben Shapiro said it during my debate with him. He's like, I learned critical race theory when I was in, you know, in law school.

So you're telling me that fourth graders are learning what you were learning in law school, really? We all know it's BS. being used as a phrase or a word or a curriculum that somehow has been expanded to include everything in American history that conservative parents don't want their kids to learn about. Which, by the way, you don't want your kids to learn about this country's history. Homeschool them. Why do all these other students have to suffer as a result of your feelings getting hurt? I just don't understand it. But anyway, moving on, I want to talk about what happened in Texas.

So the Grapevine Collieville Independent School District Board of Trustees voted this week on Monday to part ways with a principal, his name is James Whitfield. He's a black principal, by the way, who was suspended this year at the Collieville Heritage High School in the Fort Worth area. The school board had voted in September not to renew his contract. Now, why? Well, parents accused him of pushing critical rates. race theory or CRT, but of course there's no evidence that Culliville Heritage High School or Whitfield taught critical race theory. Now the trustees voted unanimously to vote against, you know, they voted against renewing his contract. And when they got a little bit of heat, once this became a national headline, they started making up all these excuses. Like no, no, no, no, no, no. It has nothing to do with critical race theory. No. No, we're just going to make vague accusations of insubordination. We're going to make some vague accusations of him deleting some emails that he shouldn't have deleted.

We're going to make some vague accusations of him refusing to comply with an investigation. What investigation? Give us some details. Now, I should also note that Whitfield was contacted by members of the group, right, the board of trustees who wanted him to take down photos that he had posted of him and his wife on social media. He's black, his wife is white. And he was like, I got to take down pictures of me and my wife. Why? Oh, those pictures are kind of inappropriate considering your principal. Why are they inappropriate? No, this had to do with the accusation that he's teaching or allowing the critical race theory to be part of the curriculum in the high

school that he was the principal of. Now, here's what the reality is with critical race theory for the Megan McCain's of the world who are just like so confused. I don't understand why it's a problem. Like if it doesn't exist, why is it a problem? Okay, well, here's why. Conservative organizations or organizers and parents have seized on the phrase turning it into short, for a suite of lessons or programs that they say are un-American. By the way, that's totally subjective. Something that might be considered un-American to one parent might be very different for another parent. But nonetheless, let me continue. No, let me also note, as parents, you might be

an expert in something else. But how about allow the educators who went through schooling and training and went through the process of getting credentialed to make the decisions about the curriculum. This era that we're living in where everyone thinks they're an expert on everything is nonsense. If you're a parent and you're not an educator, you don't get to be the arbiter of what every student learns in the school that your child is going to. You do get to make a decision of pulling your child out of the school if you're so uncons. comfortable that you don't want your child to learn the reality of U.S. history.

But subjecting all these other students to subpar education because your FIPIs get hurt is ridiculous. Let me go back to this graphic. Maybe I can get through it this time. Conservative organizers and parents have seized on the phrase turning it into shorthand for a suite of lessons or programs that they say are un-American. And that could make white students feel collective guilt or black students see themselves as helpless victims. Texas, by the way, is one of eight states with broad new laws banning the teaching of critical race theory, a decades old graduate level study that examines the relationship between the law and racial inequality. Let me state that again, a decades old graduate level study.

decades old graduate level study. But conservatives see that and they're like, no, this is a Pokemon game. Got to catch them all. Anything we dislike is critical race theory. It's just so sad and pathetic and a principal has lost his job as a result of this manufactured culture war. Absolutely manufactured nonsense that's funded by right wingers. that's funded by cope-backed organizations. I mean, you have people showing up to school board meetings whining about critical race theory

when they don't even have kids, when they don't even have kids going to a school in that district. Just boggles the mind. Now, I want to go to this video of Whitfield because he was speaking to MSNBC about what he's experiencing. And I think that he shed some more light on the whole situation. Let's watch. It has been shocking the events that have happened since July 26th school board meeting where you had people calling essentially for my job. You know, you had people, you mentioned this seems like somewhere far back in time, but here we are in 2021. You had people in the gallery yelling, fire him. And that behavior was tolerated and allowed.

And here's the thing. People want to, they've got this CRT boogeyman that they've got this CRT boogeyman that they, created. And essentially, the people talking about this have no idea what it's about. And CRT is not even our debate. What they really are against is essentially who I am as an educator. I'm about creating environments that are responsive and inclusive for all students. No matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, you name it, every student that walks through that door, they are my babies and I love them. casualty of the right wings manufactured culture war meant to distract you, meant to distract

their supporters from the reality that our lawmakers are failures. Our lawmakers do not serve us. Conservative lawmakers certainly do not serve their own constituents. Can't say great things about Democrats either, to be honest with you. But what we're seeing is just this attempt to point to a squirrel, any squirrel, any manufactured culture war to distract from their failures. That is what's happening. I mean, we're not talking about what happened in Texas with their privatized, deregulated energy grid, which led to 230 Texans dying during a winter storm. We're not talking about that anymore.

We're not talking about corporate rule in this country. We're talking about a made up boogeyman in grade school. Because guess what? Whether we want to believe it or not, the right wing knows how to pick a message, even if it's a repackaged culture war message that they've used for decades and decades. And get everyone to talk about that. What do the Democrats have? What are the Democrats doing?

Perfect example is how Terry McCullough just completely failed to respond. to the critical race theory issue in the state of Virginia. His response was, I'm paraphrasing, but essentially, no, parents shouldn't get to decide what their children are learning. Now, I actually agree with that. Okay, the parents are not experts, they're not educators. They need to sit down or take their kids out of school if they're so uncomfortable with what their kids are learning. But that's not the right message when you're running for elected office, when you're running for reelection. A far better message would be,

this is made up nonsense, and it's meant to distract you from the fact that my political opponent has nothing to offer you in terms of economic policy or anything substantive to better your life. Here's what I want to do. Dismiss it, mock it, have a better message in response. But Democrats don't have that. That's why they lose.

That's why they fail. And part of the problem is, when you have two parties that are beholden to corporate interests, It's kind of hard for Democrats to put out a message they're looking out for you that they have something better to offer. When you see them fail on a national level in passing policies that Americans overwhelmingly want, kind of hard to put out a message that you're going to offer the electorate something better. Anyway, we got to get to our second hour. So we're going to take a brief break, but have no fear.

Wozni Lombray will be joining me to talk about a whole host of other issues, including Eric Bowling, like just losing his mind over Sesame Street. We'll be right back. 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. Thank you.