This is the Humanist Report with Mike Figueredo. The Humanist Report podcast is funded by viewers like you, through Patreon and PayPal. To support the show, visit patreon.com forward slash humanistreport or become a member at humanistreport.com. Now enjoy the show. Welcome to the Humanist Report podcast, my name is Mike Figueredo and this is episode 294 of the program. Today is Friday, June 11th and before we get started, I want to take some time to thank all of the folks who make this show possible. All of our newest Patreon, PayPal, YouTube and Twitch subs, all of which either signed up for the very first time to support us this week or increased the monthly pledge that they were already giving us. And on Patreon, PayPal and YouTube that include Alexander Julien, Idawebs, Jameson, Natalie Freda Simon, Sarah Kim, Sebastian Simon and Sleeper Son of Spyro. And over on Twitch, we have Balthazar228, Crazy Hawaiian NPA, Creepy Chris66, Hyped Man Sam Gaming, Jason Dante, Radical Trav, Sandra T. Hees, Double Boy and X-AbbleX96. So thank you so much to all of these kind individuals. If you would also like to support the show and join the independent progressive media revolution, you can do so by going to humanistreport.com slash support, patreon.com forward slash humanistreport or by clicking join underneath any one of our YouTube videos. So this week we've got another great show for you. To talk about the Mitch McConnell of 2021, I'm of course referring to Joe Manchin who's choosing to torpedo even the most moderate things that other Democrats, even corporate Democrat support, and we'll also look at his disingenuous response to critics. Anthony Blinken face plants when asked about Palestinian rights and Biden's Justice Department is running a difference for Donald Trump. Milo Yiannopoulos received a sign from God that being ex-gay is good apparently. And on the subject of homosexuality, this week conservatives were outraged over Blues Clues and Nickelodeon and will also discuss the corporations that are larping as LGBTQ plus allies during pride. Caitlyn Jenner embarrasses herself on national TV once again and a new pro-public analysis details the extent to which American oligarchs are able to get away with not paying their fair share of taxes. That's what we've got on the agenda for today's episode. Let's waste no time and get right into it. I hope you enjoy what I have in store for you. Almost knocked off my iPad, but let's do this, folks. Well, it seems as if the For the People Act is dead. And the reason why I say that is because Joe Manchin, Senator from West Virginia, has decided that unilaterally he's killing it by choosing not to support it. Now, if you're unaware as to why the For the People Act is so important, well across the country Republicans in state legislatures have been introducing these draconian new crackdowns on voting rights. They want to explicitly suppress the rights of citizens, make voting more difficult so that way they can effectively rig future elections in their favor. Joe Manchin is saying, I am opposed to this. Now, if you're unaware how prevalent voter suppression laws are, this tweet from Bernie Sanders puts it into perspective. These are all of the states where Republicans have introduced legislation to crack down on voting rights. 48 states and the one piece of legislation that hasn't really been that controversial surprisingly within the Democratic Party is the For the People Act. It expands access to voting. It makes automatic voter registration a thing in all 50 states. It ends partisan gerrymandering. It's objectively a good thing if you care about democracy. Now, there are some criticisms with the bill as it relates to third parties and not treating them as fair as the Democratic Party and Republican Party. But putting that aside overall, the net positive of this bill is undeniable and Joe Manchin unilaterally is choosing to kill it. And the reasoning he gives as to why he's not supporting it is just absolutely insane. Even Kirsten Sinema supports the For the People Act. That goes to show you how unreasonable Joe Manchin is being by not supporting it. Now, as Jake Johnson of Common Dreams explains, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia penned an op-ed Sunday vowing to oppose the For the People Act when it hits the Senate floor later this month and reiterating his objections to eliminating the filibuster, effectively guaranteeing that the ambitious voting rights bill will fail to pass. Published in West Virginia's Charleston Gazette Mail, Manchin's op-ed comms as Republicans are pushing hundreds of voter suppression measures at the state level across the nation, attacks on the franchise that could be neutralized by passage of the For the People Act. According to the latest tally by the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 14 states this year have enacted 22 new laws that restrict access to the vote. Given the enormous implications of the ongoing voting rights battle, Manchin's article drew a furious response from fellow members of Congress and progressive activists. Manchin's op-ed might as well be titled, While I'll Vote to Preserve Jim Crow tweeted Representative Mondair Jones, We didn't need an op-ed to know you're unwilling to protect our democracy, Representative Mark Pocan added. The only Democratic Senator who has refused to co-sponsor the For the People Act, Manchin wrote Sunday that he will vote against the bill this month because it has advanced through Congress without Republican support. Yeah, so he's not supporting it because Republicans aren't supporting it, and its partisan and bipartisanship is everything, according to him. So since no Republicans are supporting it, he can't support it because it's too divisive. Now he explains his reasoning, or lack thereof, in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, and he also just hilariously tries to pretend as if he cares about democracy while opposing the one bill that fixes a lot of the issues with our democracy. Take a look and see what he has to say.  We used to go around the world and explain and show and observe voting procedures in a democracy. And now if we can't practice what we preach, and we're going to basically do an overhaul, an 800-page overhaul of the voting rights or what we call For the People Act, I think there's a lot of great things I agree in that piece of legislation, but there's an awful lot of things that basically don't pertain directly to voting. So the voting rights act, or now we... So let me just... Sure. So just to put a button on this, you will vote against that bill if it gets to the Senate floor. I think it's the wrong piece of legislation to bring our country together and unite our country, and I'm not supporting that because I think it would divide us further. I don't want to be in a country that's divided any further than I'm in right now. I love my country, and I think my Democrat and Republican colleagues feel the same. If we continue to divide it and separate us more, it's not going to be united. It's not going to be the country that we love and know, and it's going to be hard because it will be back and forth no matter who's in power. And that's why I've been protecting the process. So because it's supported along party lines, it's too partisan and therefore it's too divisive. The effort to rig future elections systematically that's occurring in 48 states, as that Bernie Sanders tweet pointed out, that isn't necessarily divisive. What's divisive is the effort to fix democracy. Rain in dark money in politics. Stop partisan gerrymandering. That is what's divisive to Joe Manchin. He's just a clown. And again, you can tell how unreasonable he's being because he's the only individual in the Senate who caucuses with a Democratic Party who's against this. Independence, Bernie Sanders and Angus King support this. Kyrsten Sinema even supports it. Even the most right-wing Democrats, John Tester, he supports it. It's only Joe Manchin who's choosing to side with his right-wing buddies who's against this. Now, I could say a lot about this, but I think that Jamal Bowman in an interview with John Berman on CNN put best. Joe Manchin has become the new Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell during Obama's presidency said he would do everything in his power to stop Obama. He's also repeated that now during the Biden presidency by saying he would do everything in his power to stop President Biden. And now Joe Manchin is doing everything in his power to stop democracy and to stop our work for the people, the work that the people sent us here to do. H.R.1 not only is a huge bill when it comes to voting rights. It's a huge bill in terms of getting big money out of politics, protecting our elections against fraud and ending gerrymandering.  And the Republican Party is aiding and abetting that. And Donald Trump is obviously doing that as well. So Manchin is not pushing us closer to bipartisanship. He is doing the work of the Republican Party by being an obstructionist just like they've been since the beginning of Biden's presidency. That's exactly right. He's the one who's being a partisan actor, but he's doing it in the name of bipartisanship so less people notice. They think that he's not being a partisan actor, but really he is a partisan actor because he's representing the interests of the party that he cares about the most, the Republican Party. I mean, his state of West Virginia, it went to Donald Trump. He contemplated voting for Donald Trump back in 2020 in the event Bernie Sanders was the Democratic Party's nominee. So this individual is more of a Republican than a Democrat. And so, you know, it doesn't really matter what excuse he wants to come up with. In actuality, what really this is about is him being a coward and unwilling to stand up to his corporate donors because even the most corporate Democrats support the For the People Act. But the thing that he probably doesn't like is the provision that would force super PACs to disclose their contributors, which to him is a bad thing because they want to be able to donate unanimously to both parties and they don't really want to out themselves.  And part of it is he just he loves the spotlight. Like it's not just corruption. Understand that this individual absolutely loves all the attention that he's getting. He loves being the lowest common denominator and he loves that every single piece of legislation has to be approved by him in order for it to get passed. Basically, this individual, this senator from West Virginia is the president of the United States. Joe Biden isn't doing much to rein him in. I mean, he made this like tepid condemnation of him kind of without naming him the other day. But this is going to keep happening unless Joe Biden puts his foot down. Now, Joe Biden can complain all he wants publicly privately. But the thing is that I think that Joe Biden actually likes what Joe Manchin is doing because it gives Joe Biden plausible deniability. He doesn't like the fixes that his party wants to implement and he's kind of being forced to at least pay lip service to some of the more progressive things. He's not standing up to people like Joe Manchin. He's not using his bully pulpit to condemn individuals like Joe Manchin because I don't think he wants to. I think that he likes that Joe Manchin is doing this. He's taking all the heat for Joe Biden. So Joe Biden doesn't necessarily have to look like the villain in saying, I don't actually support all of these things that I ran on.  It's unacceptable. And his constituents should absolutely be calling him and asking why he's siding more with the authoritarian party than the weak Democratic Party, who at least wants some fixes to our democracy. So back in March, the International Criminal Court announced that it'd be launching a probe into Israel over the occupation of the Palestinian territories as well as potential war crimes. Now, at the time, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the United States government is firmly opposed to this investigation and says that the ICC doesn't have the jurisdiction to actually investigate Israel over what is being alleged. So the question is seeing how biased the Israeli courts are against the Palestinian people. I mean, when they're being evicted from their homes, Israeli courts approve it like the chance that they're winning is almost zero percent. So the question is if they're not able to domestically advance their cause legally because the court system is biased against them and internationally, the US government is against that too, then what exactly are Palestinians supposed to do? Like what avenue are they supposed to take to advance their case legally? This is a question that Representative Ilhan Omar asked to Secretary of State Antony Blinken. And as you're going to see, his answer is incoherent. I know you oppose the court's investigation in both Palestine and in Afghanistan. I haven't seen any evidence in either cases that domestic courts can both can and will prosecute alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. And I would emphasize that in Israel and Palestine, this includes crimes committed by both Israeli security forces and Hamas. In Afghanistan, it includes crimes committed by the Afghan national government and the Taliban. So in both of these cases, if domestic courts can't or won't sue justice and we oppose the ICC, where do we think victims are supposed to go for justice? And what justice mechanisms do you support for them? Thank you. First, let me just say at the outset that it is impossible not to be profoundly moved by not just the loss of life in the recent violence and conflict, but especially the children whose lives were lost. And we all have a tendency to throw statistics and numbers out there, but we were talking about boys and girls, Israelis and Palestinians, as well as men and women. And I think none of us, from whatever perspective we come, can lose sight of that. So that's one thing that's very important. Look, you know our views on the ICC and its jurisdiction. We continue to believe that absent a Security Council referral or absent the request by the state itself that that's not appropriate. I continue to believe that whether it is the United States or Israel, both of us have the means. Mr. Secretary, I do understand that. I'm asking what mechanism is available to them. I believe that we have, whether it's the United States or Israel, we both have the mechanisms to make sure that there is accountability in any situations where there are concerns about the use of force and human rights, et cetera. I believe that both of our democracies have that capacity, and we've demonstrated it, and we'll need to continue to demonstrate it going forward. That was an abysmal response. I'm sure that the Palestinian people are super relieved to hear that the answer to the alternative for the Israeli court system for them is just the Israeli court system. Oh, what's that? The Israeli court system isn't working for you? Well, just use the Israeli court system. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you so much for answering that for me. I was really confused about what to do, but that really clarified it for me. After me asking you, what can I do because the Israeli court system isn't working for me because it's biased against Palestinians?  Oh, well, why didn't they think about this? Do the Palestinians know that it's that easy?  Save it, because as Israel is bombing Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, you're giving them more bombs. You're defending them. So save it. You don't care. You're lying.  In fact, that you actually support what Israel was doing. Because, I mean, if you're giving a country that's committing war crimes, more weapons, what else are we supposed to take away from that? So I mean, this is a short video because I think that the video speaks for itself. It's a great question from Ilhan Omar, but this is an issue with the U.S. government failing to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. You see, no president wants to join the ICC. Bush was against it. Clinton was against it. Obama was against it. Trump was against it. Biden's against it. Now ask yourself, why do U.S. presidents vociferously oppose our government joining the ICC and recognizing their jurisdiction? Well, it's because in the event we actually joined the ICC, how many U.S. officials would be tried for war crimes? Henry Kissinger, Cheney, Trump, Bush, Obama? I mean, by agreeing to join the ICC, essentially presidents are in a way opening themselves up to investigations. Because many U.S. presidents do very terrible things that I think are clearly violations of international law. And yes, they meet the criteria for war crimes, crimes against humanity. So in the event they signed on to the ICC, they're opening themselves up to a future investigation. So this is why every single U.S. president has opposed this because they want to be able to commit crimes and get away with it. So it's just, this is really frustrating, but I'm glad that somebody asked the question because you can see how foolish a public official looks when they try to answer it. The answer is that he doesn't believe that Palestinians should have any avenue to pursue their cause legally speaking. They're just supposed to shut up and take it. That's literally effectively what the U.S. government is saying. As many of you know by now, right wing grifter, Milo Yiannopoulos, his latest thing that he's doing is he's going around telling everyone that he is an ex-gay. Now, I think it's obvious that he's lying. I very much believe that he is still a practicing homosexual for lack of a better word. But the reason why I think he's doing this is twofold. One, I think that he's doing this to elevate his profile once again because he's basically irrelevant now. And second of all, more importantly, I think he's doing this to be accepted back into right wing circles. You know, he wasn't accepted into all circles on the right because he was very flamboyant, very openly homosexual. And they very much still are homophobic even if they haven't been as vocal about it lately. Although that's kind of changing again as they embrace the conservatism of the 2000s. But regardless, he's claiming that he's an ex-gay now and he has definitive proof that he is on the right path because he got a sign from God that this is the right thing to do. And that sign from God came in the form of dogs not barking at him anymore. This is what he claims. When I made my announcement, the first thing that happened, which will make you laugh, but it's true, is dogs stopped barking at me. I am one of those people. You know, everyone's got that friend that dogs always go nuts around. You're familiar with this, right? You got pets? Yes. There's always somebody that dogs... My dog doesn't bark at you. That's so cute. You bark at me. He's crazy. But that's okay. He barks at people. You must have some work left to do. But he doesn't bark at my dog. That is true. But I was always one of those... I know this sounds so stupid, but this is just how I think that God reveals himself to us, right? This is just my experience of it. I was somebody who invariably, without exception, always used to make dogs go crazy. So we have a friend who's a political candidate down here, right? And her campaign manager has two of these little yappy dogs and they would not stop. In her house for more than 20 minutes because it would drive everybody crazy. Even growing up, we had Alsatians, we had black Labradors. They just didn't like me at all. The dogs don't bark at me anymore and it happened almost overnight. Now they seem to quite like me. And that sounds like the stupidest thing in the world. Oh, it sounds that way because it is. I mean, this is why, to me, religion is so silly. If God wanted to give you a sign, why would he have to do that through dogs? Why would he have to be that subtle?  Good job. Why doesn't he just do that? Why does he have to communicate with you through these weird measures? This is the most omnipotent being in the universe. Why does he have to use dogs to communicate with you?  This is delusional. And I would think that Milo Yiannopoulos is mentally unwell if I believe that he believed what he was saying. But I think it's clear he's just pandering to right-wingers. And I have to point out that he looks like Bruno when he was going through his ex-gay phase in the movie Bruno as well. Look like a straight guy. How's that? Everyone is so fooled. Now listen, this should go without saying by now, but there's no such thing as ex-gay. That's not a thing. And I know that to a lot of my usual viewers, that's common sense. But to a lot of people, they don't necessarily understand homosexuality. They think it's kind of something that's different than heterosexuality. But you can't just change your sexual orientation by sheer force of will, by hoping or wishing and praying enough. That's not the way that it works. So Milo Yiannopoulos can choose to try to repress his same-sex attractions. He could choose to not engage in sexual activity with men.  And if you don't believe me, if you disagree with that premise, then you can test it right now. If you're heterosexual, just stop being straight. Force yourself to be attracted to the same sex and like it.  Enjoy it. You can't do that because you can't just force these feelings on yourself. Like this is something that is very clearly innate.  So the concept of ex-gay in 2021 is so absurd that anyone who says that it's a thing should be laughed out of the room. But when you have right-wing grifters like Milo Yiannopoulos who are desperate, I mean he'll say anything to be relevant and remain relevant.   Dogs love gay people. And I have proof of that. You love me? You love me, don't you? Okay, you love me. I love you too. Dogs love gay people.  Representative Jamal Bowman said that you're the new Mitch McConnell. I understand what you're thinking. I understand what you're thinking.  It's tough business for you. That was Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia assuring his biggest critics that he understands how frustrating it is to watch him single-handedly torpedo one of the most important pieces of legislation in recent history knowing that there's not a single thing you can do to stop him. I mean, look at him. He loves all of this attention that he's getting. But lucky for all of us, you know, contrary to popular belief, he's a reasonable guy. At least that's what he wants us to think about him because he did meet with some civil rights leaders, the president of the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and he had with them what he calls a constructive conversation, which is actually pretty encouraging to hear. So how did that go? Well, he described the meeting as a listening session where everyone described their position telling reporters that it was a very, very good meeting. I'm very honored that we all got the chance to speak, listen to each other. That's really what it's about. We learned and we listened, he said. We had a constructive conversation. I think everybody pretty much knows the importance of what we're doing. And I think I'm very much concerned about our democracy protecting people's voting rights, Manchin added. Wow. Okay, that actually sounds pretty fantastic. So the question is, did he have a change of heart? Well, that would be a big no. Because asked if the meeting changed his position on S1 known as the For the People Act, he added, no, I don't think anybody changed their position on that. In other words, after he met with civil rights leaders who explained the importance of voting rights to him, he still was unmoved. But look, he's in a really difficult position. Like this is one of the few Democratic senators who comes from a very deep red state that went overwhelmingly to Donald Trump in 2020. So what he has to do is he has to walk this fine line and he has to do things, make these hard decisions, go against his own party to appease his constituents. Except that's not actually a valid excuse because people in West Virginia overwhelmingly support the For the People Act, including the overwhelming majority of Donald Trump voters in 2020. So that's not actually a viable excuse, but this time he's not using that excuse to be fair. This time he's saying he can't support the For the People Act, something that he actually co-sponsored back in 2019. Because this time it's just too partisan. Last time it was still partisan, it was supported along party lines. But this time he just, he feels a little bit different about this. So the question is, why is he all of a sudden having a change of heart? This is something that his constituents support, his party overwhelmingly supports it, and on top of that he supported it before. So he changed his mind at some point. Why? Well this article should clear it up. Quote, Joe Manchin is opposing big parts of Biden's agenda as the Koch network pressures him. Author Brian Schwartz explains the political advocacy group backed by billionaire Charles Koch has been pressuring Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia to oppose key parts of the Democratic agenda including filibuster reform and voting rights legislation. That lobbying effort appears to be paying off. Manchin, in a recent op-ed, wrote that he opposed eliminating the filibuster and that he would not vote for the For the People Act, which advocates say would limit the influence of big donors on elections. CNBC reviewed an episode of a Koch policy group, Americans for Prosperity's video series, along with ads crafted by the organization. The network specifically calls on its grassroots supporters to push Manchin, a conservative Democrat, to be against some of his party's legislative priorities. Americans for Prosperity launched a website titled West Virginia Values, which calls on people to email Manchin to be the voice West Virginia needs in D.C. reject Washington's partisan agenda. So it's interesting to me that they're specifically yelling at him right now. Reject the partisan agenda in Washington D.C. and he's literally rejecting the Democratic Party's agenda on partisan grounds. He's actually copying the rhetoric that they're using. So I mean obviously the lobbying has been effective, but that's what it is. He's corrupt. He's being influenced by the Koch network and as a result of their lobbying, he's buckling to that pressure. He doesn't care about what the people of West Virginia wants. He doesn't care about what the people in America overwhelmingly want. This is all about the Koch brothers because part of the For the People Act would ensure that super PACs have to disclose their private donors. And the Koch network, it operates. The reason why it's so effective is because it does all of this through these covert methods, right? Anonymous donors, dark money. And so the For the People Act, it's not the end all be all, but it would solve some of the issues with our democracy. And the Koch network doesn't want that to happen, which is why they're putting all of this pressure on one of the most spineless senators knowing that he'd be pretty easy to break. And they were right about that. So the media needs to stop pretending as if Joe Manchin is some maverick who is above the fray and he's rejecting this hyperpartisan culture in D.C. And he's just doing what's right for his constituents. He's making a decision based on his own opinion. No, this is a stooge who represents large multinational corporations and whoever is in his ear the loudest. That's how you can predict the behavior of Joe Manchin. And it doesn't hurt that he's getting all of this attention, which you can tell he's enjoying it. He's soaking it in. But it's disgusting. This is why he's doing what he's doing. People in media need to stop pretending as if he's operating on the basis of principle. This individual has no political ideology. He has no principles. He's corrupt. Period. End of story. Occam's razor. That's the easiest explanation. I mean, if you're wondering why he changed his position so quickly in 2019 supporting the For the People Act and in 2021 single-handedly torpedoing it. It's because he's quite literally a sellout. I know that word gets used a lot and gets thrown around a lot, particularly in leftist circles online. But he is like the definition of a sellout and everyone who lives in West Virginia should be furious. They should be calling his office, emailing him, letting him know that he's not representing their interests.  He's siding with the oligarchs and not the people of West Virginia and he should absolutely be shamed and named until he breaks. So I want to take some time to examine some headlines because when you look at all of these headlines in total, I think it tells us a really important story that a lot of folks, particularly on the left, are missing. So this is back from February. It was published in Politico. It reads, Biden administration backs DeVos and fight over testifying about loan forgiveness. The Justice Department joined with DeVos to fight a subpoena as part of a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of some 160,000 former for-profit college students. And more recently, Biden DOJ will defend excluding Puerto Ricans from disability payments. And finally, the grand finale, Biden Justice Department defends Trump in suit over rape denial. The new administration is pressing on with a controversial stance in a defamation case brought by writer E. Gene Carroll. Yeah, that's going to be a big yikes for me. Now you can argue that it's a longstanding practice. It's basically a tradition for administrations to defend the constitutionality of federal laws, even if that administration doesn't necessarily agree with the federal law that they're defending. They're just doing this because this is what they've always done. This is basically the reasoning that Biden's administration gave for why they're defending legally the exclusion of Puerto Ricans from disability payments. But this isn't always the case. There have been times where president has broken with tradition. For example, we've seen countless times. Donald Trump refused to defend the Affordable Care Act from multiple right-wing legal challenges. We've seen Obama refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. So there have been times where administrations have broken with tradition. But if there's any time where you definitely want to break with tradition, you'd think it'd be here where Biden's administration wouldn't want to defend Trump over allegations of rape. But they're choosing to defend Trump when they don't have to. So the question is why? Why is Joe Biden's administration doing this? What's the justification that they're giving for this? Because it seems like this is really unjustifiable. Well, Politico breaks it down. In the filing with the New York-based Second U.S. Court of Appeals, the Justice Department insisted that it was not endorsing Trump's conduct toward writer E. Gene Carroll, even as it argued that a law governing suits against federal officials justified the government's move to take over the former president's defense in the case. Boynton, who's the acting head of the DOJ's civil division, by the way, also adhered to the stance that Justice Department adopted in the case last September that Trump was acting in the course of his official duties as president when he denied Carroll's rape allegations from more than two decades ago. Doesn't really make it any better. So in essence, what they're saying is that there is a level of immunity that courts grant to government officials, and the DOJ is simply granting that same luxury to Donald Trump here, even if, you know, the accusations are egregious, even if Donald Trump is very clearly a fraud and there are numerous allegations of sexual misconduct against him. Well, like other government officials, he also gets the same privilege as Biden or Obama or Bush would get. Now, this is a bad argument, just to put it mildly. But we're not even scratching the surface because if you're shocked at this here, then if you just dig a little bit, you'll see how terrible the Department of Justice has been under the leadership of Merritt Garland, who was appointed by Joe Biden. This is all part of a larger trend that speaks to how terrible Merritt Garland is. The New Republic reports, on several key matters, Garland's DOJ has concealed the full extent of Trump's wrongdoing. Garland has kept thousands of immigrants from obtaining green cards while flooding the immigration system with Trump-selected judges, expanded the scope of police power, insured oil and gas profits for decades to come, and explicitly protected one of Trump's most hated cabinet secretaries from accountability. Indeed, Garland has quietly emerged as Donald Trump's unwitting hatchet man, doing almost everything in his power to protect the lawless former president's legacy. Late last month, the Justice Department urged a federal judge to dismiss lawsuits against Trump and former Attorney General Bill Barr over their decision to tear gas black lives matter protesters near the White House last summer so that the president would be able to take a photo near a church holding the Bible upside down. While Garland repeated throughout his confirmation process that he'd prioritized tackling white supremacy almost six months into the administration, no part of the federal government has a plan for rooting out white supremacists who serve in federal law enforcement roles. Meanwhile, Garland's DOJ is actively defending a new oil project in Alaska that was cleared under Trump's shams of environmental tests and may generate new oil for 30 years. In its filing, the DOJ explicitly said that the Trump administration adequately considered the new sites' effect on wildlife and greenhouse gas emissions. Garland is also maintaining support for a new oil pipeline in New Jersey and isn't rescinding Trump-era briefs that made it harder for states to sue big oil over downplaying the risks of climate change. Oh, and Garland still shielding Trump's tax returns from Congress. Why is Garland doing all of this? To be clear, he is not secretly a devout Trumpist who's wiggled his way into the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Rather, Garland is doing exactly what his most ardent supporters said he would upon his nomination, leading the Department of Justice the way he remembers it from his first DOJ stint in the 1990s. So basically, the reason why Merrick Garland is so terrible in a nutshell is because it's tradition for an administration to maintain all of the same legal positions as their predecessor. It doesn't matter that the last president used the DOJ as his own personal wing of government to defend himself from allegations of corruption, fraud, and alleged sex crimes. I mean, the last administration did all of these things, so we have to maintain tradition and do exactly what they did. You see, this is why nothing changes and gets done in America, and this is why each administration continues to get worse and worse. Why we see the president being built upon when it comes to, you know, spying on Americans, warrantless wiretapping, and other violations of civil rights and civil liberties. Because, well, the last administration did it, so let's do that same thing. This is also basically the ratchet effect in action, because even if Donald Trump, more often than I think other presidents, you could argue, was willing to shun traditions to benefit himself, well, Democrats, they adopt all of the terrible legal positions that the Trump administration took, and they're going to do that going forward, and the next Republican administration is probably going to adopt some pretty terrible legal positions, and then the next Democratic administration subsequently will adopt those terrible legal positions, and then slowly but surely we keep gradually shifting to the right. It's just, it's deeply frustrating, but this explains why Merrick Garland is so goddamn terrible. And it's frustrating because there's no reason for Biden to even nominate someone like Merrick Garland in the first place, but the reason why he was nominated, I think, is because, well, this individual was nominated by Obama to be a Supreme Court nominee, and Republicans stole that seat, so this is his kind of like, gotcha to Republicans.  I mean, that's probably an overly simplified reading of the situation, but long story short, Merrick Garland is absolute trash and individuals who try to follow this like really rigid traditionalist view of the American legal system. All they're doing is moving us backwards. ProPublica has obtained lots and lots of documents from the IRS, and they conducted an analysis, and basically the conclusion of this analysis is that we need a wealth tax yesterday. And of course, I'm paraphrasing a little bit, but when you read the details here and you look at some of the information that they provide us with, it is absolutely clear that there's no way we're going to solve the issue of income and wealth inequality unless we take drastic action and introduce legislation like a wealth tax. So they explain ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of internal revenue service data on the tax returns of thousands of the nation's wealthiest people covering more than 15 years. The data provides an unprecedented look inside the financial lives of America's Titans, including Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, and Mark Zuckerberg. It shows not just their income and taxes, but also their investments, stock trades, gambling winnings, and even the results of audits. Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the American tax system that everyone pays their fair share and the richest Americans pay the most. The IRS records show that the wealthiest can perfectly legally pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year. To capture the financial reality of the richest Americans, ProPublica undertook an analysis that has never been done before. We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest Americans paid each year to how much Forbes estimated their wealth grew in that same time period. We're going to call this their true tax rate. The results are stark. According to Forbes, those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows. That's a staggering sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%. Now, let's look at the four richest Americans and what they claimed their income was, what they paid in taxes, but most importantly, how much their wealth grew in this four-year period. Warren Buffett, for example, reported $125 million in income and he paid $23.7 million in federal taxes over that same four-year period. So it sounds reasonable at first, right? However, when you look at how much his wealth grew by, $24.3 billion in four years, making what they call his true tax rate 0.1%. Yeah, Jeff Bezos reported $4.22 billion in income and paid $973 million in taxes, but his wealth grew by $99 billion, making his true tax rate 0.98%. Michael Bloomberg reported $10 billion. He paid $292 million in taxes, but his wealth grew by $22.5 billion, making his true tax rate 1.3%. And finally, Elon Musk reported $1.5 billion, paid $455 million in taxes, but saw his wealth grow by nearly $14 billion, making his true tax rate 3.27%. So in effect, this is why the gap between normal Americans and the richest Americans continues to grow. Now, I want to show you an image that really, I think, perfectly demonstrates how unfair this system is. While Bezos' wealth has grown astronomically over the last decade, and he's paid a miniscule fraction of it in taxes, a typical American household paid more in taxes than it accumulated in wealth. So they might argue that we're paying our fair share. I paid millions of dollars in taxes. And that's technically true. I mean, if you look at their tax rate in comparison with their income for a particular year, sure, maybe they pay like 14% to 18%, as is the case with that chart we just saw. However, when you look at their wealth and how fast their wealth is growing, the rate at which they're able to accumulate wealth seemingly exponential, I mean, that's when you get the full story. But still, like, this is a lot of numbers, and I think that the article did its best job by providing us with this visualizer that tries to put everything into perspective and lets you see point blank just how egregious this is. Wealth and income work very differently for the ultra-wealthy than they do for most people. This represents $100 of income for a typical wage-earning American household. The federal government taxes income. A typical American household might pay something like 14%. For many households, the rest of their income goes toward expenses every year with maybe a small amount left over for savings. A typical household might also own a home, which often grows in value over time. Such asset gains make up much of that household's wealth growth for any given year. This proportion of wealth growth versus taxes has been typical for middle-aged Americans since the mid-2000s. However, it's inverted for the ultra-wealthy. This represents $100 of income for Bezos. From 2006 to 2018, his taxes were about 21% of its income. But for people in this stratosphere, income doesn't really matter. Bezos' Amazon shares have skyrocketed in value since 2006. In most years, his wealth grew far more than what he reported in income to the IRS. Between 2006 and 2018, Bezos' wealth shot up by over $120 billion, while he paid a minuscule proportion in taxes. Meanwhile, typical Americans, his age, paid more in taxes than they saw in wealth growth over that period. That is, for every $100 of wealth growth over that period, typical Americans paid $160 in taxes. Bezos paid only $1.09.  Confiscate that wealth that they stole from their workers. We need a wealth tax. And it might not necessarily be politically feasible at this time in the current shape of American politics. But understand that the issue of income and wealth inequality isn't actually going to get better unless we take drastic action. And anyone who purports to be against the widening gap between the rich and the poor, if they're not proposing something like a wealth tax or confiscatory measures, literally, then they're not serious about alleviating this problem. Caitlyn Jenner desperately wants to be taken seriously after polls from California show that she doesn't really have a shot, but she's not backing down. So she went on national television and, yet again, made a fool of herself. Take a look. Joining me now is the Republican candidate for governor of California, Caitlyn Jenner. Caitlyn, good to see you. Often that's all I get. Uh-oh. We might not have any audio in Caitlyn Jenner's ear. Do we have any audio, guys? Okay. Oh, wrong video. This is the video that I actually wanted to play for you. Landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day and was awarded the blond star and the purple heart. He served until the end of the war and was honorably discharged in 1945. Caitlyn Jenner's running to replace Governor Newsom in California and joins me now. Caitlyn, great to have you with us. Thanks for being here. What's your response? You know, does this seem like an innocent mistake to you or is this a significant wonder? I'm so disappointed in the direction that our country is going right down, down this socialist road, trying to destroy this country's history. I'm very proud of our country's history. From the 1619 project we're teaching in schools to the President of the United States of America. Not even acknowledging what happened on June 6th. To me, that is absolutely devastating. My father was 19 years old and he wanted to go fight. He joined the 5th Ranger Battalion. Went over-trained. The 5th Ranger Battalion was the first boats on Omaha Beach. There was 364 guys in his division and 60 came back alive to fight for my freedom, this country's freedom. They are truly the greatest generation. And to see the President of the United States not even acknowledge that. My father is buried at Arlington with all his war buddies. If you could see what's happening to this country right now, it'd be devastated. I hear that a lot from veterans and thank you for your father's service. We have a wonderful picture of him up on the screen right now.  The President did the next day on June 7th, he tweeted to transgender Americans across the country, especially the young people who are so brave. I want you to know your President has your back. I'm sure I would imagine that that's a sentiment that you are pleased to hear from the President, but the fact that he talked about their bravery the day after day and never mentioned your dad and the others, what do you say about that? I'm certainly not running as a trans candidate for Governor of the State of California. I am running because I just, I love this state. I moved here in 1973, 48 years ago, a long time ago, when gas was 39 cents a gallon. Today, taxes are over 50 cents a gallon. I have watched over the last 48 years this state decline because of Sacramento has been ambushed by the socialists for a lot longer than the United States. We've been going down this road for a long time and the decline is only accelerated under Gavin Newsom's rule. And I thought to myself, because of my father, he served, maybe this is my time to serve. Maybe this is time to stand up. Can I be an example to other people if you don't like what's going on in this country right now? Stand up. Run for your local school board. You don't like what's going on in your town. Run for mayor. It's time to stand up. We have to change things. I don't even know where to begin. There's so much about that clip that was just silly. First of all, notice that the Fox host tried to bait her into attacking transgender people and basically get her to downplay the importance of transgender issues as a trans woman because that's what Fox News tries to do.   So they're trying to do this with Caitlyn Jenner, trying to get her to say, yes, actually, I do believe that Biden speaking about D-Day is more important than him speaking about transgender issues. But she didn't take the bait and it's not because she's super savvy and she was on to the games that the host was trying to play. It's because she's an airhead and she didn't get what she was on there for and then she went on some weird side tangent. Listen, Caitlyn, I'll make this easier for you. Whenever you're on Fox News, they want you to just attack trans people. Period. End of story. I know that that seems like super reductionist, but that's literally the only reason why they're bringing you on. Republicans, for whatever reason, have chosen to make transgender issues their number one issue. They've introduced so many bills in 2021 alone to not only ban gender-affirming care to trans youth, but ban transgender high school girls from school sports. So if they're bringing you on, just assume that they want you to say something terrible about trans people. But she went on some weird tangent about how California is socialist. But before we get to that, I just have to say she literally cried because Joe Biden didn't acknowledge D-Day. I just, I don't understand how people get this offended by things. Like she literally, on national television, cried because the president didn't make a particular noise with his mouth that she wanted him to make. I mean, if this is a scandal, then I mean, the threshold is really, really low. You know, to me, I would be more offended with other things that Joe Biden doesn't do. For example, he doesn't support Medicare for All, as thousands of people die in America, and he even backed away from a public option. I would be more offended at him not acknowledging the healthcare crisis than just paying lip service to something that you already know about, right? I mean, if you're going to cry on national television over something that Joe Biden doesn't say or address, wouldn't it be something that affects people right now? I mean, sure, you can expect the president to speak on the anniversary of D-Day, but it's really obvious that this is a manufactured scandal that all of the right-wing networks collectively are talking about. And it's like, it's like they're all this hive mind. Is this really something you care about that much? Is this really that important to you? If it is, okay.  But she then goes on to say that, you know, this is her time to serve, her grandfather served, but now it's her time to serve, and she wants to prove that socialism is not the route. I mean, a lot of you are worried about socialism now, but they've been doing socialism in California for a lot longer. And Gavin Newsom is a socialist.  I wish that what they said about Democrats what they believed to be true about Democrats was actually true because in reality, Gavin Newsom, ideologically speaking, is closer to her than he is to me. He's not a socialist, Caitlyn. First of all, define socialism and then explain specifically why you think the policies that he's implementing are socialist, but he's not a socialist. He's a capitalist. Most Democrats, the overwhelming majority of Democrats, 99.99% are neoliberal. Do we know what a neoliberal is, children? It's a capitalist economic ideology. Rather than proposing public solutions to public problems, we propose private solutions to public problems. We privatize governance. Rather than having the government, for example, improve our education system, we simply defund education, for example, and we outsource that to private corporations who profit off of education. Rather than just guaranteeing healthcare to every single American, well, we allow insurance companies to rip us off. That's called neoliberalism. The Democratic Party is in lockstep with that ideology. To not be neoliberal is an exception if you're a Democrat. So when she says things like, oh, well, Gavin Newsom is a socialist, no, he's quite literally a capitalist.    If you say, I don't like the sandwich, the sandwich is pretty socialist.    She's like three times my age so you'd think she'd have more wisdom. She'd know at least a little bit about basic public policy, but she knows nothing. She thinks that Gavin Newsom, a milquetoast neoliberal Democrat is a socialist and I mean like what she doesn't realize is that the people who you can point to who self-identify as socialists like AOC and Bernie Sanders, if you look at the policy positions that they're advocating for, most Americans agree with those policies. So it's like all of America, socialists, are they just like brainwashed into this socialist cult? I would love to ask Caitlyn Jenner these questions but she'll just continue to make a fool of herself on national television and we can only speculate but this is not someone who's very bright but I'd say she is exhibiting a level of intelligence that's probably pretty average if not above average for Republican policymakers so there's that silver lining I guess. Well it's a brand new week so that means of course that there's something new that all of conservatives are collectively outraged over.  Well, I for one am thoroughly convinced there's no other explanation she's just magnetic and look as someone who's been fully vaccinated I would kind of view this as having a superpower I think it'd be awesome to be magnetic so I'm going to give it a try because she convinced me so let's see if it works I have a spoon here and I'm going to try to stick it to my body because I should be magnetic according to her so here we go it's touching my skin and on a kind of three I'm going to let go one, two, three let's try it again nope, didn't work that time okay, let's try sticking it to my arm it's not working but there's got to be an explanation why did it work on her but it's not working on me it's almost as if there is actually a scientific reason for that well a very polite chemistry teacher chimed in and said hi, I a chemistry teacher can explain this it can't be magnetism because the key is brass which isn't attracted to magnets the answer is likely surface tension and capillary action flat objects stick to damn surfaces which is why it doesn't work on your neck yeah, this has to be explained to grown adults now throughout the course of the video I love the reaction from the lady who was very very confused and was seemingly horrified as the lady was trying to stick the key on her neck and look as someone who's been at public events with lawmakers town halls and what not who has seen anti-vaxxers do their little like demonstrations and give their spiel it is that horrifying although I lost a little bit of respect for that lady who was reacting because she was wearing a shirt that's pro house bill 248 you are very clearly weirded out by her but this is the crew who you're running with if you are going to be anti-vaxx then this is your people now so don't act horrified, own it you should be embarrassed like hopefully that is a wake up call for her that I don't want to be associated with these kinds of people it's already a choice I'll just sit this one out but you know look I'm so sick of these pro-pandemic individuals and I'm tired of pretending as if these individuals are just uninformed and you know they're trying their best but they're just misguided I'm sick of it at this point in time with all of the data and information that's available if you don't know that the vaccines are safe and effective then that's a choice at this point and if you're trying to stop these incentive programs then I can't come to any other conclusion than your pro-pandemic so that's what this is but I mean look it's dangerous I want the vaccine to come to an end or I want the pandemic to come to an end rather and the vaccine is specifically how we're going to do that and guess what it's already working look at the numbers they are dropping rapidly as vaccinations take up now vaccines they've slowed a little bit because vaccine hesitancy is an issue in the United States of America which is sad considering many people around the world would kill for these vaccines that are just widely available here in the United States in North America but understand that the vaccines work because COVID cases are going down and that's a really good thing let's keep that up let's not stop let's not slow the momentum let's keep vaccinating everyone I got the vaccine I'm fine spoons don't stick to me unfortunately because that would be cool let's stop with the stupidity please America I understand from what's been testified to the Forest Service and the BLM you want very much to work on the issue of climate change I was informed by the media pass director of NASA that they have found that the moon's orbit is changing slightly and so is the Earth's orbit around the sun and we know there's been a significant solar flare activity and so is there anything that the National Forest Service or BLM can do to change the course of the moon's orbit or the Earth's orbit around the sun obviously they would have profound effects on our climate I would have to follow up with you on that one Mr. Gohmert yeah well if you figure out a way that you in the Forest Service can make that change I'd like to know that was a Republican lawmaker asking seriously whether or not we can forcibly change the orbit of the Earth Louis Gohmert is someone who probably literally believes that P is stored in the balls this is the level of intelligence that we're dealing with here like the lady laughed so maybe he's just cracking a joke right he's being intentionally hyperbolic because he wants to get a reaction out of her he just wants everyone to get a little bit of a chuckle not so much if you think that he's joking there I mean sure that's plausible but he also said this he claimed Obama was helping to build a second Ottoman Empire he was vocally anti-mask he then subsequently caught COVID-19 and then he questioned whether or not he got a second mask and then there's also this but the Attorney General failed to answer my question yeah do you honestly believe that that guy wasn't being serious when he asked that question I just want to know the thought process when he thinks about these questions like if he's asking the question I mean obviously he believes that doing that is within the realm of possibility so in his mind what would it take to pull something like that off like would we get the shrink ray from Honey I Shrunk the Kids and change it to enlarge and then just like make somebody really really big and then have them just like ever so slightly tweak the orbit of the earth is that how he thinks it works would be like I don't know put rocket ships on one side of the earth assuming it doesn't spin and just like propel us to like a different orbit I just like I want to know the thought processes like what goes through his mind when he thinks about things like this and furthermore he didn't even have the self-awareness to ask should I be asking this question because sure maybe we all have beliefs that are uninformed and downright idiotic but there's also this mechanism in our brains that gets us to kind of self-censor and think should I be asking this question as an adult how would this make me look but he does and he just like lets it all out hey can we just like change the orbit of the earth um yeah Louis we can do that definitely we can do that how do you propose we do that I just look and if he's like joking and this is all for a laugh okay great but he shouldn't be making these kinds of jokes because even if we're extra charitable he is kidding about this based on the questions he's asked previously the things that he said terror babies look it up I mean this is pretty much within the realm of something that he would ask seriously so there's nothing left to be said we have lawmakers in DC now within the republican party literally asking if we can change the orbit of the earth if we could do something like this don't you think like the possibilities would be endless and we wouldn't even be worrying about things like climate change because if we're able to actually change the trajectory of our planet like we would be able to at this point harness our sun's energy create dyson spheres um you know actually control the weather this is too much like I'm giving him too much credit like he's not thinking about it this far and he's not that deep of a thinker that's the question he asked so I'm assuming he's serious unless he says otherwise um he's never like come out before after saying something stupid and uh tried to play the oh I was just kidding after people say that he's stupid like he's admitted before that he knows people think he's the dumbest member of congress so I mean I just I don't know this is the state of American politics in 2021 lawmakers are literally asking questions like this back in 2017 a lot of the left was so excited to see a socialist lawmaker get elected to Virginia's house of delegates and that individual was Lee Carter and you know seeing him in power it really sent a message to leftists across the country that if he could get elected anything is possible this is not someone who was being accused of being a leftist as many democrats are by republicans this is someone who self identified as a leftist and it was really exciting to see him in a position of power now he ran for governor and unfortunately he lost that race Terry McAuliffe who was the governor previously won the Democratic Party primary so he lost that race and now he's done so he decided to take to Twitter to kind of share his experience over the course of the last couple of years and he really confirmed something that I suspected was true that even if it's getting better in American society to identify as a socialist and to espouse socialist views and rhetoric in the real world especially if you're a lawmaker it's really really difficult to exist as an out and proud socialist so he writes via Twitter this job has made me miserable for the last four years I made a lot of people's lives objectively better but the constant assassination threats and harassment were terrible for my family and my health I'm relieved to say that I've done my part and now it's someone else's turn I helped get health insurance for half a million people I helped thousands of diabetic people pay for insulin I helped legalize cannabis I helped end the death penalty I helped workers own their cooperative businesses I helped people unionize I'm gonna sleep well and he should what he accomplished is just incredible and he's one of the socialist lawmakers around the country that proved that their politics is incredibly effective I mean him, Shama Sawant these folks are showing that when you have people powered behind you you can actually govern in an effective manner even if you have big business and your colleagues against you and there were so many times where he was taunted by his own colleagues in the governing body in Virginia I mean there was a time when somebody held up a hammer and sickle sign to taunt him and this is not a republican who's doing this this is a democrat and also he shared a boomer meme that republicans made and shared about him they were basically trying to attack him bullshit it's just he faced this constantly and I'm sure that he's not even sharing all of it and to me it's it's discouraging right because it feels as if it's getting more easy for people to come out as a socialist for lack of a better word and socialism is becoming more popular you know more far-left ideologies like anarchism, communism they are getting increasingly popular in the United States and that's gonna continue as capitalism fails but we're still not to the point where it's easy to govern as a socialist and part of this is I think reason why individuals like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib Ilhan Omar over time they kind of get a little bit more or I should say less radicalized seemingly and they kind of learn to play the game in DC as it is and they're not as firebrand as when they got elected because I think that the system just like beat you down I mean AOC even said that she felt like she wasn't even sure that she wanted to run for a second term because the Democratic party was just so unwelcoming to her and that's putting aside all of the threats that she gets from Republicans so I mean the system itself is designed to beat you down this is what capitalism does so the fact that you know Lee Carter was there he put up with so much bullshit for multiple years and he was still this effective I think it really speaks to you know the spirit of so many people around this country who are fighting to make the world a better place so Lee Carter nothing but love and solidarity for you brother I think that what you did was just incredible you created a blueprint and a lot of people will look up to you for decades to come for inspiration because what you pulled off I mean that's the blueprint that's the map that's what we have to do and maybe you know you might not be able to have a long career as a socialist on maker maybe it'll beat you down but if you get in there for a couple of years and you improve people's lives in a really concrete way as Lee Carter did that's still something that's totally commendable that should be applied so I absolutely am thankful for Lee Carter you know what I have loved to see him become the governor and one day president of the United States obviously yes but still what he accomplished should not be minimized it should be celebrated because it is really damn hard to be a socialist in the United States of America still till this day red-baiting smears are going to continue to exist but with time things will change they just haven't necessarily changed as much as we would have hoped to this point but still hats off to you Lee Carter you did excellent and you absolutely should be proud of yourself you all are absolutely the lifeblood of the show you help us not just to survive but thrive as well and I absolutely appreciate you so thank you all so much that's everything as usual if you want more of the humanist report you can tune in every single Thursday at 7pm PST to watch me you know talk shit on Twitch play video games just kind of hang out and coming soon on June 23rd you can catch me live every single Wednesday right here on our YouTube channel for dystopian times it's going to be awesome so I'll see you all next week I'm done talking I'm rambling my brain is fried yeah I'll see you all next week take care everyone my name is Mike Figurado this has been the humanist report peace


Banking should be painless, easy, fast, it should just assist you in doing whatever you want to do. So actually it's our strategy to empower people to take a step ahead in life and in business. If you look at our company we have all this different IT landscape in all the countries. Still we want to be able to share and that's when we start to look at web components and web components solve that for us because when we use Polymer and web components as the standard underneath we can suddenly create components which will work in any country. So you can just take that components and start delivering a feature. So now when I'm in that shop looking at that bike I'm not only checking my balance I'm also pressing the button let's look ahead. And what it will tell me next month your mortgage will be deducted from your account so maybe this is not the best time to buy that bike and that's what we're doing it for for features and not for the UI part. We are starting to see this all developer community which is moving to one technology and we are seeing more and more people working together from all the countries. When this translates to results anything can happen.