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 297 of the program. Today is Friday, July 2nd and before we get started, I want to take some time as we usually do to thank all of the folks who signed up to support us just this last week, either through Patreon, Paypal, YouTube or swish.tv slash Humanist Report. That includes Amber Shoemate, D. Rocky, Dave Schmidt 311, D. Get Schwifty, Dree Weiss, Governor Kaw, Ireman42, Joey Bateman, K. Dreesey, Michael DeMarco, Mr. Anderson, Niku Banu, Rururiki, Sekmara, Surfer Girl Gritty, and Trev Issen 10. So thank you so much to all of these kind individuals. If you'd also like to support the show, you can do so by going to humanistreport.com slash support, patreon.com forward slash Humanist Report or by clicking join underneath any one of our YouTube videos. So this week, here's what we've got on the agenda. We'll remember the great legacy of Mike Gravel, an American hero and anti-imperialist. There's a major update to the Jillian Assange case that we're going to talk about. Also Biden bombed Iraq and Syria. Marjorie Greene calls for the imprisonment of political opponents. India Walton's former primary opponent launches a write-in campaign. Support for capitalism is on the decline. Joe Manchin is already trying to water down the reconciliation bill. Hakeem Jeffries launches a super PAC to protect incumbent Democrats against primary opponents. Trump supporters still believe that he'll be reinstated. And a Republican says the quiet part out loud when it comes to gerrymandering. That's what we've got on the agenda for today's episode. Let's waste no time and get right to it. I hope you all enjoy what I have in store for you. So by now, I'm sure that you are aware of the fact that an American hero and an anti-imperialist legend has passed away over the weekend. And I am, of course, referring to Mike Gravel, who ran for president in 2008 and 2020. And I am absolutely privileged to have had the opportunity to speak to him. I brought him on my show. He was incredibly intelligent and charming and insightful. And you know, I wasn't really sure how to process his death. You know, I didn't say much on Twitter about it. I just said Rip Mike Gravel. But I do really want to share, you know, some really nice words from other individuals that I respect who spoke out after they learned of his passing. Because, you know, when somebody passes away, I think that one of the most important things for healing is to kind of deal with it with other individuals. And that's what I want to do here in this video. So Bernie Sanders shared this. Jane and I are saddened by the passing of Senator Mike Gravel. He was dedicated to ending forever wars and bringing more Americans into the political process. His courage will be deeply missed. Our thoughts are with his loved ones. Yohan Omar said, Senator Gravel was a voice of moral clarity in pursuit of peace when he was in the Senate. And he kept that voice in the years after he left public service. Our politics desperately needs more people like him. My thoughts are with his family and with all of those who loved him. Mehdi Hasan writes, he didn't retire and become a K Street lobbyist like so many of his colleagues. He continued to speak truth to power. So tonight, Senator Gravel rest in power. Henry Williams writes, today I lost a man who shaped my life so profoundly that I've thought of him as a surrogate grandfather. Senator Gravel stood fast against the world for 91 brilliant years and pointed away for all of us. We have to honor his memory by achieving the world he dreamed of. And that's just beautifully put. I'm really thankful for the Gravel teens, for bringing him back into the spotlight and for allowing those of us who didn't necessarily follow him during the 2008 years to actually learn about everything that he did and his contribution to American democracy and his advocacy to end the wars that he really like it affected him on a really personal level. And we'll get to that here in a moment. But I do want to read some write ups on him that kind of give you a little bit of insight into what he stood for, what he fought for. Because I think that right now, you know, as Henry pointed out, we do have to take what he fought for and try to like make his dream a reality. So Andrea Germanos of Common Dreams writes, an outspoken critic of U.S. militarism and a two-time presidential candidate Gravel served Alaska as a Democratic senator from 1969 to 1981, during which time he helped bring the military draft to an end. In 1971, Gravel read over 4,000 pages of the Pentagon Papers, the classified documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg that revealed vast U.S. government lies about the Vietnam War into the congressional record. That action came a day before the U.S. Supreme Court lifted an injunction that had blocked the Post and the New York Times, which had already published excerpts of the documents from further publication of them. Columbia Magazine detailed earlier this month the scene on the evening of June 29, 1971. There was a clutch of microphones on the table before him and Gravel spoke into them. The people must know the full story of what has occurred in the past 20 years in their government, he said. The story is a terrible one. It is replete with duplicity, connivance against the public and public officials. I know of nothing in our history to equal it for extent of failure and extent of loss in all aspects of the terms. As he spoke, visions of maimed bodies flashed through his sleep-deprived mind. People, human beings, are being killed as I speak to you tonight, killed as a direct result of policy decisions that we as a body have made arms. Arms are being severed, metal is crashing through human bodies because of a public policy this government. Gravel overcome began to sob. He wiped his face with a handkerchief and composed himself. One may respond that we made such a sacrifice to preserve freedom and liberty in Southeast Asia. One may respond that we sacrifice ourselves on the continent of Asia so that we will not have to fight a similar war on the shores of America. One can make these arguments only if he has failed to read the Pentagon Papers that is the terrible truth of it all. And I just want to share a really quick clip of Mike Gravel tearing up as he read the Pentagon Papers. Someone who is that moved by the thought of human suffering and descriptions of people being massacred. That is someone who you absolutely want in our government because now you look to the US Congress and you see basically what are essentially, I mean, for lack of a better word, sociopaths who are cold. They don't care about the suffering of millions. They don't care how the actions of our government impact people around the globe or at home. So, you know, to see someone who genuinely cared to the point where it brought him to tears, that is such a rarity in US government. And it's why Mike Gravel is really one of a kind. Now, I want to get some more on what he did in his state. This is written up by Bronco Marcetic of Jacobin, who explains, if not for Mike Gravel, the military draft might never have ended. Gravel spent five months as a one-man wrecking ball trying to topple conscription for the war and succeeded in filibustering the extension of the draft to death in 1971, partly by reading the Pentagon Papers. Gravel played an important role in establishing what became Alaska's permanent fund dividend program, a kind of universal basic income funded off of Alaska's fossil fuel exploitation. And he had earlier experienced a meteoric rise to the Alaskan state legislature speakership where he presided over, among other things, the creation of a rural high school program that let indigenous kids get local education instead of being shipped off sometimes thousands of miles to other parts of the country. This doesn't make him a saint, of course. Gravel was indeed a fierce fighter for fossil fuel interests in the Senate in the 1970s and was not immune to fundraising off them. And all the sleazy pay for a place shenanigans that came with that. Yet, ironically, his stubbornness on the matter unwittingly spurred one of the major executive actions of environmental protection in presidential history. And by 2007, he had shifted dramatically on the issue running on what was then an aggressive climate platform to prevent what he later called planetary suicide. So I love this because throughout the years, you see Mike Gravel become even more radicalized than he already was. And someone like that, like I think looking at his flaws and how he was a fighter for fossil fuels is really important because it shows that you can convince people so long as they actually have a moral core and Mike Gravel had a moral core. He had strong, strong convictions. And not only that, one thing that I really admire about Mike Gravel, aside from his policy positions and what he advocated for, is he's kind of like Bernie Sanders in the sense that he hates the whole DC circuit, all of the pageantry around it, all of the cocktail parties that you're expected to go to if you're a senator. And this line about him attending the prayer breakfast from an interview that he gave in 2019 to Jacobin is one of my favorite quotes of all time from a former senator. So he said, I'm an atheist in point of fact, but the leaders were going to the prayer breakfast. So I thought that was a clever way to become ingratiated with the leadership. So I went to one prayer breakfast and realized that all these people sitting at the table praying were essentially the warmongering hawks who perpetuated the Vietnam War and I couldn't stomach it anymore. So that was my first and last prayer breakfast. And I love that so much because it's easy to play the game in DC once you get there. You know, the dynamic changes you can go from being an activist. And once you're elected, things kind of change because the people who you were formerly criticizing are not your colleagues. And you know, he realizes that it might be politically beneficial to kind of rub shoulders with them, get to know them on a more personal level to be a more effective legislator. But he thought I can't deal with these people. They're fakes. They're phonies. They're sitting here acting as if they believe in God and they're attending this prayer breakfast. But yet they support a Vietnam war that is ruthless and bloody. And I just I can't take it. So he checked out and, you know, till this day, he's not loved by the political establishment. But I think that people are going to realize that that's like the best feature about him, right? Not only what he advocated for, but the fact that he was hated by so many powerful people in DC. I think he wore that as a badge of honor and that's what makes him so cool. Right. So, I mean, Mike Ravel, his legacy is just incredible. And the impact that he's had on me has been profound. You know, I think that in 2020 he had one of the best platforms I've ever seen offering reparations not only to black Americans, but Iraqi citizens who were brutalized by our, you know, imperialism. Everything about him, you know, it just I really respect him and he will be sorely missed his integrity, his passion, his care for humanity and desire to prevent suffering. It's just it's so rare. And I really want to celebrate people who fought for the right thing. So having said that, we're going to leave us sharing my favorite clips of Mike Ravel, of course, it is of the 2008 debate and a bit of him sharing what we all found out with the Pentagon Papers. Thanks to Daniel Ellsberg. So we'll leave you with this rest in peace, Mike Ravel. At a forum earlier this year, I want to get this right. You said it doesn't matter whether you are elected president or not. So then why are you here tonight? Shouldn't debates be for candidates who are in the race to win the race? Ryan, you're right. I made that statement, but that's before I had a chance to stand with them a couple of three times. It's like going into the Senate. You know, the first time you get there, you're all excited. My God, how did I ever get here? Then about six months later, you say, how the hell did the rest of them get here? And I got to tell you, after standing up with them, some of these people frightened me. They frightened me when you have main line candidates that turn around and say that there's nothing off the table with respect to Iran. That's code for using nukes, nuclear devices. I got to tell you, I'm president of the United States. There will be no preemptive wars with nuclear devices. To my mind, it's immoral, and it's been immoral for the last 50 years as part of American foreign policy. Let's use a little moderator discretion here. Senator Gravel, that's a weighty charge. Who on this stage exactly tonight worries you so much? Well, I would say the top tier ones, the top tier ones. They made statements. Oh, Joe, I'll include you too. You have a certain arrogance. You want to tell the Iraqis how to run their country. I got to tell you, we should just play get out. Just play get out. It's their country. They're asking us to leave, and we insist on staying there. And why not get out? What harm is it going to do?  The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain. And they're dying in vain right this very second. You know what's worse than a soldier dying in vain is more soldiers dying in vain. That's what's worse. Other than Iraq, three most important enemies to the United States. We have no important enemies. What we need to do is to begin to deal with the rest of the world as equals. And we don't do that. We spend more as a nation on defense than all the rest of the world put together. Who are we afraid of? Who are you afraid of, Brian? I'm not. And Iraq has never been a threat to us. We invaded them. I mean, it is unbelievable. The military-industrial complex not only controls our government, lock, stock, and barrel, but they control our culture. When I came into possession of these papers, I looked around. And nobody in government had done anything. The only thing that was being done in government was an effort to stifle and hide this stuff. And it just downed on me that somebody, if we're going to have any faith at all in our institution, somebody from government's got to be got to have the same resolve, the same feelings for stopping the killing as Ellsberg did, as the Post did, as the New York Times did, as the St. Louis Post dispatch, as all these, I only myself, because the people who released this were bureaucrats. You know, bureaucrats, the people that we disparaged so often, they weren't elected officials. They were bureaucrats. And they have much less risk than I have. The risk that I have is being exposed from the Senate. Well, President Joe Biden has fulfilled another campaign promise during the 2020 Democratic Party primaries. He said that in the event he were to become president, nothing would fundamentally change. And he proved yet again that that is indeed the case, because he has chosen to bomb Syria once again and also Iraq this time. Now, this isn't the most surprising news in the world. If you follow Joe Biden's career, he's always been a liberal hawk. You know, so it's not like I'm shocked. Nevertheless, this news is still deeply disturbing. And he gives this justification that this action was necessary in order to protect American troops in the region. But that really kind of sidesteps the entire issue of U.S. militarism in general. And it avoids the question, why are we there in the first place? Because as many as on puts it, the easiest way to protect U.S. forces in Iraq is for there to not be any U.S. forces in Iraq. So as time goes on, that justification looks weaker and weaker. But nonetheless, let's get to the details here. So Eric Schmidt of the New York Times reports, the United States carried out air strikes early Monday morning in Iraq and Syria against two Iranian-backed militias that the Pentagon said had conducted drone strikes against American personnel in Iraq in recent weeks, the Defense Department said. At President Biden's direction, U.S. military forces earlier this evening conducted defensive precision air strikes against facilities used by Iran-backed militia groups in the Iraq-Syria border region, the Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said in a statement. Mr. Kirby said the facilities were used by Iranian-backed militias, including Kata'ib Hezbollah and Kata'ib Said al-Shahuda, to store arms and ammunition for carrying out attacks against places where Americans were located in Iraq. There were no immediate reports of casualties, but the military, after action review, is ongoing, Pentagon officials said. So there's that justification given to us by the Pentagon and the State Department, but also, I mean, it seems a little bit too coincidental if you ask me that this is happening right after Iran-Elexa Hardliner, who is anti-U.S., anti-West, and we also just so happen to block Iranian state TV. So, you know, the timing of this is incredibly sus if you ask me, but I mean, of course, this is all just mere speculation, but the United States government has been incredibly hawkish towards Iran, and that hasn't changed since Biden took office, even though he ran on getting back into the Iran nuclear agreement after our government unilaterally withdrew and violated the terms of that agreement. But I do wanna get to the response from Iraq. So they've condemned the airstrike, saying we condemned the U.S. air attack that targeted a site last night on the Iraqi-Syrian border, which represents a blame and unaccountable violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi national security in accordance with all international conventions, set a spokesperson for the commander-in-chief of Iraq's armed forces, Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadimi. Iraq renews its refusal to be an arena for settling accounts and clings to its rights sovereignty over its lands and to prevent it from being used as an arena for reactions and attacks, said the Iraqi statement. We call for calm and to avoid escalation in all its forms, stressing that Iraq will carry out the necessary investigations, procedures and contacts at various levels to prevent such violations, the spokesperson added. So the statement from the Iraqi government is only the most reasonable thing in the world. They're basically saying, hey, could you please not like use our territory as this proxy war between you and Iran? That'd be really great. I mean, if you want something to be investigated, we'll look into it, regardless if the U.S. government trusts Iraqi intelligence. I mean, what they're asking for is for you to not bomb them to settle scores with Iran. So this is predictable, but it's still unacceptable. And I'm really glad that Ilhan Omar actually decided to condemn this and she invoked the War Powers Act. She said via Twitter, this constant cycle of violence and retribution is a failed policy and will not make any of us safer. Congress has authority over war powers and should be consulted before any escalation. And she is exactly correct here. It is Congress's authority to make wars. Not the executive branch. And I'm sorry, but this justification that they keep using, it's, you know, as I stated, as time goes on, it gets weaker and weaker. Because you can't keep saying, well, you know, we had to do these bombings to protect American troops when we shouldn't be there. There's no legitimate reason to still be there. It's been two decades. Bring them home. Bring them home. Why are we still there? If you bring them home, then you won't need to worry about their safety. But this keeps happening. And the same justification will be used because it works. You know, American citizens who don't necessarily know about the complexities of what's happening there, they think, well, of course, I want to protect American troops. I don't necessarily like war per se, but I mean, would bombing, you know, these actors there, these Iran-backed militias be worthwhile if it saves American lives? Sure. So this is basically their way of manufacturing consent on that note. You know, when the New York Times reports what the Pentagon and State Department says, I take all of that with a grain of salt, but I just assume automatically that they're lying and until they provide me with evidence to the contrary, I believe that that's the case because the US government has proven time and again to be untruthful. I mean, the whole reason why we're in Iraq to begin with is based on a fabricated lie, right? So, you know, this is deeply, deeply frustrating to see happen time and again, but I can't even pretend to be shocked because, you know, this is exactly what we expected with Joe Biden. And it's not like if Bernie Sanders became president that US militarism would all, you know, come to an end like that because the military-industrial complex is sort of this like almost autonomous entity that operates by itself, but still, you know, to have a president that is so bloodthirsty and hawkish, it's just things like this are going to continue to happen. So we have a major update to the Julian Assange case. Specifically, the United States' case for extradition, their argument that they were using legally has basically completely fallen apart. And now it's unclear what's going to happen going forward, but having said that, of course, this is really good for Julian Assange and for press freedom in the United States if the United States government isn't actually able to extradite someone who's effectively a publisher of leaks. So for more on this, let's actually read the article which is an Icelandic publication that talked about an interview given by someone who purported to know Julian Assange. So a major witness in the United States Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the WikiLeaks founder, the witness who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundan where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justice and FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution. The man in question, Sigurdur Inge Thordorsen, was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In fact, he had volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for WikiLeaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organization. Julian Assange was visiting Thordorsen's home country of Iceland around this time due to his work with Icelandic media and members of parliament in preparing the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a press freedom project that produced a parliamentary resolution supporting whistleblowers and investigative journalism. The United States is currently seeking Assange's extradition from the United Kingdom in order to try him for espionage relating to the release of leaked classified documents. If convicted, he could face up to 175 years in prison. The indictment has sparked fears for press freedoms in the United States and beyond and prompted strong statements in support of Assange from Amnesty International, reporters without borders and editorial staff of The Washington Post and many others. US officials presented an updated version of an indictment against him to a magistrate court in London last summer. The veracity of the information contained therein is now directly contradicted by the main witness whose testimony it is based on. Wow, now we're not even scratching the surface as it relates to that article. It is very deep and comprehensive. So I will link to it down below and encourage you to read the whole thing. But there is a reason why you have outlets like The Washington Post coming out against the extradition case against Julian Assange. It's because in the event he were actually prosecuted under the espionage act. This could set a new precedent that actually stifles the First Amendment in the United States. It's a serious issue. Like, I don't care what your thoughts are on Julian Assange. This is about press freedom in the United States. If it is now the case that publishers can be prosecuted on very legally dubious and flimsy grounds because they published classified leaks that the government didn't want to get out, imagine what that means for, you know, government's accountability and the First Amendment. Outlets like The Washington Post, Reuters, any other journalistic outlet may have to fear for themselves if they publish something that the government doesn't want to get out. So this isn't just about Julian Assange. This case has broad, broad implications which is why I would highly encourage my liberal friends to try to get past Julian Assange here and whatever they may feel about him based on 2016 and try to think about the long-term repercussions if the U.S. government actually gets him extradited and prosecutes him under the Espionage Act.  You're not putting the cat back in that bag. You're not unringing that bell. It's dangerous territory and it's good that their case is falling apart. And, you know, simply put, as Edward Snowden says, this is the end of the case against Julian Assange. Yeah, well put. And he adds, if Biden continues to seek the extradition of a publisher under an indictment poisoned top to bottom with false testimony admitted by its own star witness, the damage to the United States' reputation on press freedom would last for a generation. It's unavoidable. Yeah, and he's exactly right because understand if the U.S. government continues their extradition case against Julian Assange, especially now that the evidence and the entire argument or the basis of their suit against him has fallen apart. I mean, they're tacitly admitting that they were pursuing Julian Assange for political purposes and not legal purposes. And that's a horrible look. It is deeply authoritarian. So, you know, we're not necessarily sure what's gonna happen next. Hopefully, you know, if we're being really, really optimistic, the Biden administration will drop their extradition case against Julian Assange. But I do wanna share a little clip from Democracy Now where Amy Goodman actually interviewed Assange's lawyer and she kind of gives us a little bit more insight into what's happening, what we could possibly expect. This is just the latest revelation of how problematic the United States case is against Julian Assange and, in fact, baseless. Of course, as you outlined at the introduction, the evidence from Thordassan that was given to the United States to form the basis of the second superseding indictment, including allegations of hacking has now been, on his own admission, demonstrated to have been fabricated. Not only did he misrepresent his access to Julian Assange and to WikiLeaks and his association with Julian Assange, he has now admitted that he made up and falsely misrepresented to the United States that there was any association with WikiLeaks and any association with hacking. So this is just the latest revelation to demonstrate why the U.S. case should be dropped. We have to begin, of course, with the free speech implications. Free speech groups, the Washington Post, the New York Times, mainstream media are unanimously against and have denounced this prosecution as a threat to freedom of speech in the United States. But leaving that aside, the factual basis for this case has completely fallen apart and we have been calling for this case to be dropped for a very long time and this is just the latest form of abuse demonstrated in this case that shows why it ought to be dropped. Jen Robinson, why do you believe Thorterson came forward now? He not only granted this exclusive interview to the Icelandic paper Stundan, but he also turned over never published before chat logs and new documents of his time as a WikiLeaks volunteer and talk about his actual prominence within the organization or lack of it. I can only speculate as to why he would choose to come forward now, but of course, as you know, in January, we won the extradition fight. The judge decided to refuse Julian Assange's extradition to the United States. Unfortunately, not on free speech grounds, but on humanitarian grounds associated with his mental health and the oppressive prison conditions that he would face if returned to the United States. The United States under the Trump administration sought to appeal that decision and we are still awaiting a decision from the British court as to whether permission to appeal will be granted. Pending that decision, Julian remains in prison in the United States. So this is just another indication. We have been calling for this case to be dropped. We have been asking the Biden administration to drop the appeal and allow Julian to return home to his family. And I think this latest revelation will only contribute to that appeal to the Biden administration to put an end to this case. So perhaps he was motivated on those grounds, but it's hard to say. So there it is. For now, we'll have to wait and see what happens. I genuinely hope that this gets the media attention that this story deserves because members of the media, for all this discussion about protecting the press throughout the Trump years, you have to understand that Trump was also against Julian Assange and Biden is just continuing that legacy. So it doesn't matter that Trump is no longer in office. What's being done is deeply authoritarian and members of the media actually have an obligation and I think it's in their own self-interest to speak up and cover this in an accurate way, regardless of how they may or may not feel about Julian Assange. For me, it's not about Julian Assange and his political preference. It's about press freedom in the United States and protecting the right of publications to be able to publish classified information brought to them by leakers. That is incredibly important for democracy and holding our government accountable. And we have to make sure that we preserve that right by fighting very hard to not set this new precedent. That would be deeply dangerous.  Take a look. Led by AOC, the little communist from New York City. Yeah, lock her up too, that's a good idea. She's not an American. She really doesn't embrace our American ways. You wanna know why she has something called the Green New Deal? Now, AOC responded to this by kind of laughing it off.   Again, I would like for Marjorie Greene just for once to define communism, but the reason why this is deeply troubling is because this is authoritarianism. She is calling for one of her political opponents to be imprisoned. What's the reason? Is she lodging any sort of accusation against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Is she saying that she's corrupt? Is she saying that AOC committed a crime? No, she's saying lock AOC up because presumably they have political disagreements. Sorry, but having political disagreements is not a reason to literally publicly call for the jailing of someone who you disagree with. As much as I loathe Marjorie Greene, I do not believe that she should be locked up. Why? Because I actually am a Democrat, a small D Democrat. I believe that in a free and open society, we should be able to have these disagreements without silencing and censoring others. So if Marjorie Greene says something stupid, my response is let's make fun of her for that. Let's fact check her and let's make her look foolish, not lock her up.  I don't care what you think she is.  She's basically a social Democrat. Even if she were a communist, guess what, we can be communists in America because it's a free country.  And it's not like the lock her up chants or anything new, but this is different because when Donald Trump chanted or instructed his audience at rallies to chant lock her up about Hillary Clinton, yes, that's problematic because you're saying this about your political opponent and that is inherently authoritarian. But there was this implicit assumption that he sang lock her up because he believes that she committed a crime. He was referencing her emails. Now, would he be able to articulate what law she broke in particular? No, would he possibly be locked up for the same crimes if we held him to the same standard as he wants to hold her to? Yeah, of course. But now they're moving it into territory where it's just like, okay, well, you know what? I don't even care if I think there's a crime. It doesn't matter how misinformed I'm here. It may not be about someone. If you are someone who I disagree with, lock her up. It's entirely different, entirely different.  I mean, I think that that's obvious, but the evidence that she gives as to why she's not an American or why she's anti-American is that she supports the Green New Deal. AOC is anti-American because she supports the Green New Deal according to Marjorie Green. First of all, we know that when you say that she's not a real American, you're saying that because she's not white. That's the subtext. But to say that she's anti-American because she supports the Green New Deal, hey, Marjorie, riddle me this. Where did she get the Green New Deal from? One of the most popular presidents in American history who did the New Deal. So it's absolutely preposterous. And again, I don't necessarily believe that Marjorie Green is aware of how deeply authoritarian her comments are. I think that it's ignorance, right? But still, to normalize calling to imprison your political opponents when you are not saying that they have done anything wrong, haven't committed a crime, that is so, so toxic and undemocratic that everyone should be condemning this. But it's something that I think people kind of let slip because little by little, the GOP has become increasingly authoritarian and really, we're inclined to focus on the big things, right? The January 6th insurrection, Donald from undermining the presidential election. So seemingly smaller things, just saying lock her up like from one lawmaker, it might fly under the radar, but little by little, they are normalizing this sort of rhetoric within the GOP's base who's already predisposed to want authoritarianism. I mean, we've talked about how General Flynn responded to a question that was asked, hey, why can't we have a Myanmar-style military coup here in the United States? And he said, you know, there's no reason why we shouldn't. So it logically follows that we'll now, of course, we should maybe also jail political opponents. It's horrifying. And she might not have power right now, the GOP might not be in control now, but they agree with her. They like her.  So I mean, we should never let this sort of behavior and rhetoric go under the radar and go unchallenged. What she's calling for here is authoritarianism. Regardless if she's doing this wittingly or unwittingly, you know, lock her up is just popular political rhetoric in 2021 for whatever reason, because Donald Trump made it popular, but still it doesn't matter. To say that we should jail someone merely on the basis because I disagree with them is so authoritarian that there should be mass calls for her to resign. CNN reporter Donio Sullivan attended a Trump rally. Yes, you heard that correctly. I said a Trump rally. They're still taking place in 2021, believe it or not. But anyways, he spoke with Trump supporters as he usually does at these types of events. And the rhetoric that they used was, I mean, it was predictably deluded and silly, but you're gonna see that there is this growing sentiment within, you know, Trump communities and Q communities where they are more open about their predisposition towards authoritarianism. They genuinely believe that Donald Trump won. And as time goes on, they believe that that makes it more justifiable that the military steps in and actually reinstalls Donald Trump as president. He did rally since he lost. He didn't lose. He didn't lose. I know he didn't lose. Your shirt here says Trump won. Yes, he did. Is this about 2016? It's about all of them and 2020 and the next one. But he lost in 2020, right? No, no. Do you think what happened on the 6th of January was a sort of stain on his presidency? This was all staged. I truly believe that. Conspiracy theories about the election and the insurrection are par for the course at Trump rallies. But now, another false notion is circulating among some Trump supporters that Trump could be reinstated as president later this summer. What are you hoping to hear from Trump today? I hope the hearing's coming back. Coming back in 2024? Sooner. He's coming back soon and you guys are going down. Trump has been falsely suggesting that the sham Republican audit in Arizona could lead to the election being overturned. Stay tuned for Arizona. We need two states. It's gonna be a very interesting time. How do you govern when you lost? How do you govern when you lost? You think the election's gonna be overturned in some way? Oh, absolutely. There's no constitution. The military already knows it was a fraud. He won by over 80%. Ron, you genuinely believe that he's gonna... He's coming back. That he could come back as soon as... Before the middle of August. And what if that doesn't happen? Huh? That doesn't happen. We're gonna be in a civil war because the militia will be taken over. Among Trump supporters at his rally in Ohio Saturday... Do you have a second to chat to us? We always want to talk to a proud boy. No. A man wearing a proud boy's t-shirt and a self-described member of the 3%ers militia group. Some people believed to be associated with the group were charged for their alleged involvement in the insurrection. Do you think, though, what happened on the 6th of January was a bit of a stain on his... All the violence, a bit of a stain on his presidency or...? No, I don't. I don't think so. I was there. Were you up at the Capitol? Yeah, we was there. Yeah. Didn't go in. Didn't do none of that stuff. I don't believe in tearing up the Capitol.  Yes. Some of your guys have been caught up in a conspiracy, right? Charged by the FBI? As far as I know, some of them are being held and a lot of them are just being questioned.  Yeah, I don't think anybody should have went inside.  Are you worried that we could see more violence? Yeah. I honestly believe it's coming. OK. I don't like a lot of CNN reporters. I think that they're hacks. But what CNN does to Donny O'Sullivan is so unfair. I mean, maybe he likes this in some way. But I think that if he were to apply for disability, citing brain damage is the reason why he's unable to work, the government would be obligated to grant him that request. Because, I mean, the people who he talks to, I mean, this is demoralizing. At this point, I think I've probably covered every single one of the rallies that Donny O'Sullivan has went to. And he doesn't necessarily insert his own opinion. He fact checks people. But he just kind of gets them to say what they want to say. And it's just it's deeply depressing to see so many people say things that are laughably wrong. And I mean, everyone who we talk to believe that Donald Trump won. So at that point, that's not even controversial within Trump circles and Q circles. But now they're taking it a step further. And they're explicitly calling for authoritarianism, for military coup and violence. And that's really, really bad. I shouldn't have to explain why this is bad. So that last guy there, the three percenter, when asked if he thinks there's going to be more violence, he said, yeah, I honestly believe it's coming. Okay. Why do you believe it's coming? Who's going to carry out said violence? Are we going to see more insurrection style events? Do we have to expect like a military coup of some sorts? Like, why do you say that? Why do Trump supporters who believe the election was stolen from him think that there's going to be violence? Like, do you understand why what he's saying there is so worrisome? On top of that, there was the other guy who said that he thinks the election is going to be overturned. Saying the military already knows it was a fraud. Trump won by over 80%. And if Trump doesn't come back before the middle of August, that we're going to be in a civil war because the militia will be taking over. Now, the subtext there is that that individual wants there to be a civil war if this means that Trump would be installed as president. Now, am I absolutely butt hurt about the loss of Bernie Sanders in 2020? Absolutely. Still bugs me till this day. I donated so much money, tried to do everything in my power to elect Bernie Sanders, but we lost. Would I feel better if the military decided, you know what, Bernie Sanders is the rightful president. Let's install him. No, because democracies don't work that way. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. And as a result of their loss that they refuse to accept, now they are actually yearning for and calling for a military coup. And that just really speaks to how extreme the modern GOP is. And it's not like the base is only full of crazies. I mean, at the highest levels of government in Congress, we have individuals who are part of these communities, part of QAnon, who tweeted out the location of Nancy Pelosi during the insurrection. We can only guess why Lauren Boeber did this. We have individuals like Marjorie Green also perpetuating this lie about the 2020 election and calling for her political opponents to be imprisoned simply because they're her political opponents and she disagrees with them.  This kind of sentiment is wide spread and far reaching. He's coming back soon and you guys are going down. I mean, what does that mean? When people are so deluded that they think that a military coup would be a good thing and implied that it's gonna happen and would be good. I mean, what does that mean?  Does that mean that your ratings are gonna tank or does that mean, you know, since I already support a military coup, I also support Donald Trump shutting down the media. It's just, at this point, how do we bring these people back to reality? I genuinely don't know. I mean, if you remove Trump from the situation and he says, look, I'm out of politics forever. I'm never running again. It's not like all of these people suddenly are going to become deradicalized like that because a vacuum will be created and some other kooky person, perhaps worse than Donald Trump, is going to fill that void. So the question is, is it possible to put the cat back in the bag? Is it possible to believe in democracy again after they've become so radicalized, after they have absolutely no faith in American electoral institutions? And there are reasons why people should be disappointed in our institutions, in our electoral institutions. I think that they are absolutely biased in favor of the two-party duopoly. I want to see electoral reform so we can get multiple parties in power. I mean, there are a number of reasons to be dissatisfied with our system. I mean, the electoral college is one of them, but that doesn't mean that you check out and you say, now I support a coup. You always fight to further consolidate democracy, fight to make the system even more fair. But that's not what these people are doing. And so this culture of, you know, pro-democracy and support for democracy and supporting the outcome of elections, even if the person who you want to win loses, that's going away quickly. In the span of a year, it's diminished, something that America has taken centuries to cultivate. So how do we move forward? That's a genuine question that I don't have the answer to, but right now just seeing this, it's soul crushing.  I understand why people are apprehensive to want to invest any amount of time into learning about the ins and outs of a particular bill or negotiations related to said bill when things change so frequently, you know, as it relates to Congress and deal-making. Having said that though, I will get you caught up to speed. If you haven't been following along, this is the too long didn't read version basically. Last week, Joe Biden, along with a lot of moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, I'm using moderate very charitably here, they announced that they've reached a deal. They have a bipartisan compromised version of the infrastructure proposal. Now, is it bad? Yes. If you're watching this and you're a leftist, it's bad. I went over some of the details last week, but basically it takes Biden's already woefully inadequate infrastructure proposal and cuts that by about three fourths. And on top of that, it essentially is a giveaway to Wall Street, which is why the moderates really liked it because they get to privatize this infrastructure package. And rather than making it a jobs program as it was initially intended to be, well, now it's a giveaway to Wall Street. Sounds great, right? So it was not good news for progressives because they were essentially left out of the deal making process, but we were assured that we shouldn't worry just yet because Biden wouldn't agree to support this infrastructure package, same with Nancy Pelosi, unless it was passed in tandem with a budget resolution. So in this budget resolution, they would pass this using budget reconciliation, which means they just need 51 votes. Now in this resolution, this is where progressives will finally get to get a couple of victories, a couple of wins. So in order to get the progressives to go along with this bipartisan infrastructure proposal, well, the goal was to get them to support that by giving them a lot in the reconciliation package. Now last week, I said that progressives have to be very, very cautious about supporting this because if it does not support any climate related policies or any good wins for progressives, then they've got to torpedo this legislation and in the lead up to the announcement of this bipartisan package, progressives such as Ed Marquis, Jeff Merkley, Ilhan Omar, they were all very loudly saying, if there's no climate, there's no deal. So in order to bring a board reluctant progressives, I think that it's obvious, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, they all know that this reconciliation package that's being put together currently by Bernie Sanders, it's got to have some really good tangibles for progressives. But my caution and why I really wanted progressives to look at the details here is because just because this is going to be where progressives get their victories doesn't mean that it's not also going to be watered down because even if you're passing this using reconciliation, you're still gonna need Joe Manchin, Kirsten Sinema. So he might still try to water this down even further. And if that's the case, you have to make some threats and some demands. You have to threaten to torpedo this legislation. And guess what? Predictably Joe Manchin is Joe Manchin-ing and he's already threatening to water down this bill. It's not an explicit threat just yet, but you can already see that the writing is on the wall. So as Truthouts Sharon Zhang reports, Manchin says he's open to reconciliation, but wants less than Sanders proposal. So before we even get to the article, let's just look at that headline. He already is saying, I know what you were promised progressives. I know that I already got to water down infrastructure, but I also kind of want to water down reconciliation too. It is infuriating because basically, Joe Manchin thinks that he's the king. He gets everything that he wants already, but he wants more. But let's get to the details here. Quote, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia said on Tuesday that he's supportive of Democrats plan to pass a reconciliation package, though he expressed reservations about its size and tying the package to the bipartisan infrastructure bill. We're going to have to work it through reconciliation, which I've agreed that that can be done, said Manchin on MSNBC. I just haven't agreed on the amount because I haven't seen everything that everyone is wanting to put in the bill. The West Virginia Senator's support is critical for the passage of the package in the evenly divided Senate and a no vote from Manchin could threaten the entire plan. Manchin tempered his support of the reconciliation package, saying he doesn't want Democrats to link the two bills together because we've never done legislation that way and he further emphasized that he wants to ensure the bill goes through the process. Okay, so I can already see where this is headed. We know what's going to happen. Basically, there's going to be a little bit of back peddling from Joe Biden. And after saying, look, I'm not signing the infrastructure plan unless I also get the budget resolution on my desk, he's going to say, all right, well, here's the deal. We'll sign infrastructure and I promise progressives will get that reconciliation package done and later on we'll pass that because this is already what we're seeing. If you watch the political commentary on MSNBC, particularly Morning Joe, there's already people saying, well, look, it seems as if progressives might be okay if we, you know, pass infrastructure and then later on tackle reconciliation. But no, no, no, that is not the way this is supposed to take place. Why would you expect progressives to support legislation that they've been essentially left out of and then think they're going to come on board later? If they did that, then holy crap, they are very, very weak and ineffectual, but thankfully progressives are being very vocal and they're threatening to withhold votes, which would torpedo this legislation. Bernie Sanders tweeted out, let me be clear, there will not be a bipartisan infrastructure deal without a reconciliation bill that substantially improves the lives of working families and combats the existential threat of climate change. No reconciliation bill, no deal. We need transformative change now. Also, Kyman Dreams reports, Ilhan Omar says, progressives ready to withhold votes from bipartisan infrastructure deal. The Minnesota Democrats said an internal survey found that more than 40 progressive caucus members would refuse to vote for the bipartisan bill if it's not accompanied by a bold reconciliation package. Okay, so for now, we just have to basically wait and see what happens. I'm glad that progressives have remained consistent and united here because they have to be united because in the event it appears as if there's only one or two progressives holding up talks or infrastructure, we know what the media is going to do. But if you're united as a bloc and you make the case and you've explained how it's not fair that Joe Manchin gets to dictate what goes into all policies, including the reconciliation bill, which is where progressives are supposed to get what they want, then I think that you're gonna be more effective as lawmakers. So it is infuriating to see Joe Manchin try to throw his weight around yet again, but this is to be expected. The attention, the spotlight, he is eating all of this up, but what's important is that progressives remain united and they do not buckle here. There's gonna be pressure from Joe Biden's administration. Joe Biden is weak, and in the event he starts to get a little bit too much pressure from Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin because the reconciliation package looks a little bit too progressive. Well, then I could see him getting worried about Joe Manchin withdrawing support for the infrastructure package and moving the goalposts, saying, all right, well, we'll do a reconciliation later, but that cannot happen. Progressives have to be united here and they have to put their foot down. If you're doing infrastructure, it is a complete waste to not tackle climate change and invest in clean, green, renewable technology. I'm talking wind, solar, hydro, and on top of that, there are other things that need to be addressed that Congress hasn't addressed. So that is what I'm expecting to go in the reconciliation package. So if Bernie Sanders comes up with a very bold package, and I expect that he will, then what gets taken out is going to be something that progressives really look to because if a bunch of their priorities get cut, then they should not support the reconciliation package or the infrastructure bill. Now, if I'm Bernie Sanders, I am stacking that reconciliation bill with everything, right? We're putting as much as we can possibly cram into that package knowing that it is going to get gutted. But what matters is at least a couple of giant victories for the left. If you don't get this, then this is really not a good look and it doesn't bode well for the next couple of years if you're not able to deliver as a progressive lawmaker. So, you know, again, we'll wait and see, but Joe Manchin is going to keep doing what he's doing. It's just a matter of how leftist lawmakers like Bernie Sanders and members, you know, in the progressive congressional caucus in the house navigate his duplicity.  So we'll see folks. So it seems like every single election cycle, there's at least one prominent Democratic Party lawmaker who gets successfully primaried by an insurgent progressive leftist.  They know that the writing is on the wall. They know that there is growing sentiment to actually take bold action when it comes to policy. So what they're doing is they're continuing to push back against the prospect of primary challenges. And they're basically creating a sort of defense force for incumbent Democrats. In the event they face, a primary challenge come 2022 and 2024. And the individual who is leading the charge, or one of them at least is Hakeem Jeffries, the individual who is next in line to be Speaker of the House. So for more on this, we've got Leanne Caldwell of NBC News who explains three senior House Democrats have launched a new political group to defend incumbents facing primary challenges according to the group's founders. The political action committee called Team Blue will fill a gap for members running for reelection who might not be able to get help from the official committees of the Democratic Party to fend off primary challenges. Democrats aren't taking any risks ahead of a difficult round of midterm elections as they try to hold on to their slim four seat majority in the House. Historically, the party of the president has lost seats in Congress in the midterm election. Those losses could be made worse by tumultuous primary challenges. Disagree with that. Some of those primary challengers enjoy well-funded support from outside groups. Justice Democrats encourage to change left-wing groups that enjoy support from well-known members like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been unafraid to pump money into races to oust Democratic incumbents. Adding to the risk for incumbents is the coming redistricting process when incumbent Democrats will find themselves making the case to new constituencies or possibly merged into a district with another member. The PAC is being established by three rising stars in the House Democratic Caucus. Representatives Hakim Jeffries of New York, Joss Gothheimer of New Jersey and Terry Sewell of Alabama. Now, the idea promoted in this article that if there's this really tumultuous and possibly divisive primary challenge, that's going to make the individual who prevails victorious weaker is nonsensical. I think that this is cause for a really strong and robust primary process where you actually put up the strongest candidate. But that's just, if you ask me, somebody who believes in democracy. And this is all funny to me because Democrats always scream at the top of their lungs about unity and they rightfully speak to the extremism of the GOP. But I mean, if that's the case, wouldn't the priority here be to fund Democrats after they win their primaries? So I mean, this is what you say to justice Democrats. You say, well, look, why would you be funding these primary opponents to incumbent Democrats when we should be supporting the strongest Democrat in the end over the Republican? But it's funny how like they're not taking their own advice and that's fine. Like do what you need to do. But then when push comes to shove, don't scream about unity. If you're going to be doing the same thing that you claim is leading to disunity in the Democratic Party primary. And look, there is a civil war in the Democratic Party primary. That is a thing and it needs to play out and it needs to be solved organically and democratically. But what we've seen is that the individuals who have power, have institutional advantages, incumbents, they try to make it easier for the incumbent to win already. So it's not necessarily like you need the funding because if you are an incumbent Democrat and you're like one of these establishment figures, you get millions and millions of dollars from special interests. I mean, I brought on probably over 30 candidates in the last cycle in 2020. And each time every single candidate I spoke with, they were outmatched like 10 to 20 to one against the incumbent, right? So there's already this advantage. It's not like justice Democrats encouraged to change back together are going to be this fundraising behemoth. They're going to help some primary challengers, I'm assuming, but to the extent that they're going to all of a sudden like be behemoth is absurd, like it doesn't matter what the district is that we're talking about here. There's going to be an advantage already built in for the incumbents. And to me, this is super disingenuous because they're basically trying to scream victim here. Oh my God, we're being targeted by these outside groups. And we're already, you know, fending off gerrymandering and we're going to have to make our case to new districts possibly with new constituents. So, you know, this is all just too much for us. No, if anything, now is the time when you should actually be expanding the primary process. And I think that every single incumbent Democrat should have a primary, just every single election cycle. And yes, I'm inconsistent. That includes people who I support. All of the squad should have primary challengers because I'm confident that they would win because they actually are trying to do a good job representing, you know, their constituents even if a lot of times they falter and I disagree with them strategically. But look, you know, there's not much left to be said about this. This is entirely predictable and this super pack isn't going to be the only super pack that's trying to stop progressive primary challengers from being successful, but let them, you know, to me, I think that what's going to amount to a victory for progressives is if they have a really, really strong ground game because money, yes, that does make a difference nine times out of 10, but you know, it's been proven now with Corey Bush, with Marie Newman, with AOC, that if you have a really strong ground game, you put in the time and the effort and get to know people in that district, build up really strong bonds within your community, you can win regardless of the, you know, the monetary advantage that your opponent has and we'll leave that there. So last week, Republican lawmaker from Texas, Ronnie Jackson said something that somehow flew under the radar and I think the reason why it didn't get picked up by the press is because it's not necessarily surprising, but still what he said was the quiet part out loud. He said that Republicans would effectively rig the elections in 2022 and take back the house easily. And I'm paraphrasing, this isn't his exact words, but basically he explained very clearly how gerrymandering is going to be used effectively by Republicans to give them power once again. And you'd think that this should further, you know, make the push for the For the People Act be that much easier, like Democrats can point to this and say, look, Republicans are already admitting that they wanted gerrymander their way to victory. Let's get the For the People Act passed, call mansion, call cinema, tell them to support it, but it's not because again, this kind of went under the radar and David Daley of The Guardian does a phenomenal report where he actually brings it into perspective and explains that this individual isn't lying. They don't have to do much gerrymandering to take back the house in 2023. In fact, given the Republican party's ruthlessness and willingness to do whatever to maintain power, they're gonna do that. So let's get to the article here. In Washington, the real insiders know that the true outrages are what's perfectly legal and that it's simply a gaffe when somebody accidentally blurts out something honest. And so it barely made a ripple last week when a Texas congressman and Donald Trump's former White House physician said it allowed what's supposed to be kept to a backroom whisper. Republicans intend to retake the US House of Representatives in 2022 through gerrymandering. We have redistricting coming up and the Republicans control most of that process in most of the states around the country, Representative Ronny Jackson, total conference of religious conservatives. That alone should get us the majority back. He's right. Republicans won't have to win more votes next year to claim the US House. In fact, everyone could vote the exact same way for Congress next year as they did in 2020 when Democratic candidates nationwide won more than 4.7 million votes than Republicans and narrowly held the chamber, but under the new maps that will be in place, the Republican party would take control. How is this possible? The Republican party only needs to win five seats to wrench the speaker's gavel from Nancy Pelosi. They could draw themselves a dozen or more through gerrymandering alone. Republicans could create at least two additional red seats in Texas and North Carolina and another certain two in Georgia and Florida. Then could nab another in Kansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and New Hampshire. They won't need to embrace policies favored by a majority of Americans. All they need to do is rework maps to their favor in states where they hold complete control of the decennial redistricting that follows the census, some of which they have held since they gerrymandered them 10 years ago. Now they can double down on the undeserved majorities that they have seized and dominate another decade. If Republicans aggressively maximize every advantage and crash through any of the usual guardrails and they have given every indication that they will, there's little Democrats can do. And after a 2019 Supreme Court decision declared partisan gerrymandering a non-justiciable political issue, the federal courts will be powerless as well. So if you're wondering why Republicans refuse to support the For the People Act, even Joe Manchin's compromise, it's because of things like this. They are counting on gerrymandering to be their ticket to victory come 2022 and beyond. And just think about this. If they are able to redraw district lines in this way, which they likely will be able to, that's 10 years of them being in control surpassing the IPCC's deadline to actually meaningfully tackle climate change. So I don't really know what to say. I think that the solution is obvious. If the For the People Act is not passed, Republicans are absolutely going to dominate the next decade or I should say continue to dominate because they've been pretty dominant in state legislatures and at the local level. But what the For the People Act would do, even if it isn't perfect, even if it isn't a panacea and it's not going to save democracy, it would create independent commissions that redraw districts on nonpartisan grounds. So it actually doesn't account for who's going to win this seat. It just looks at the populations and does it in a nonbiased way. Republicans don't want this to be the case because they're counting on gerrymandering to win. They're deeply, deeply anti-democratic and in everything that they do, it shows. And it's not just that they're anti-democratic. I mean, we've covered the videos of Republicans calling for Donald Trump to be reinstated with the military coup, Marjorie Green calling for her political opponents to be jailed. They're outright authoritarian at this point. The Republican Party is a threat to democracy and now they're not even hiding the fact that they don't care, that they are vocally antagonistic towards the prospect of democracy and enhancing democracy in the United States. So it worries me that a lawmaker can essentially say the quiet part out loud and admit that they want to gerrymander their way to victory and then like nobody pays attention to this. Democrats should be using this to further feel their push for the For the People Act. They should be blasting this quote on every single news network, screaming at the top of their lungs and the fact that they're not highlighting this is a failure on their part. And really it speaks to the fecklessness of Democratic Party leadership. But I mean, look, if we actually allow Republicans to effectively rig elections by redrawn districts so there's a lot more safe seats, then I mean, what does that mean for future generations and the planet? I mean, it may be the case already that we've passed the climate tipping point as some scientists are suggesting, but still it's not just about climate change. It's about all this time where Republicans will have a stronghold and the healthcare crisis will continue. The housing crisis will continue. Food insecurity will continue to be an issue and Republicans won't want to do anything about it. Not that Democrats are super willing to help out working people, but I mean, it just, things get that much worse when we have this party that has gone insane. That it's deeply authoritarian, taking control by any means necessary. So I mean, I don't know what else to say. If people don't see this as an issue, regardless of what team they're playing on, then there's no hope for American democracy. All right, folks, so I've got a little bit of a question for you. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, you are the four-term incumbent mayor of Buffalo, New York, and all of a sudden this insurgent socialist candidate comes out of nowhere, beats you in a Democratic Party primary and takes your job. At that point, what do you do?  The very ones who voted him out of office. For more on this, we've got a Sharon Zang of Truthout who explains Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown on Monday announced that he is launching a right in campaign to challenge socialist mayoral candidate, India Walton in November's general election. Quote, I am very proud to announce tonight that I will be a candidate for mayor as a right in in the November general election said Brown, saying that supporters have reached out to encourage him to launch the campaign to challenge Walton again. Though Walton won the Democratic primary last week by about seven points, Brown has refused to concede. Instead, Brown, an establishment Democrat, appeared to throw Walton's win into question when he announced the right in campaign. It is important to know that no election is completed. No election is completed until the general election takes place, said Brown. He also said that the primary isn't over yet either and there are still a number of absentee balance that have yet to be counted, though he acknowledged that the results were unlikely to change. After questioning the results of the primary, Brown continued to borrow directly from Republicans playbook, attacking Walton and fear mongering about socialism. There is tremendous fear that has spread across this community. People are fearful about the future of our city. They are fearful about the future of their families. They are fearful about the future of their children, said Brown. And they have said to me that they do not want a radical socialist occupying the mayor's office in Buffalo City Hall. Right, they're fearful about their futures and their city, hence why they elected someone different. You very clearly haven't been satisfactory.  They chose to go in a radically different direction and opt for someone who genuinely cares about working people, who wants to tackle poverty in Buffalo head on. So take the L.  I mean, the same thing was true with Joe Crowley after AOC defeated him in the primary. There was this whole kerfuffle about him being on the working family's party line and him refusing to remove himself. They wanted to remove him. He refused. He said, well, I can't do this because of XYZ reasons. But I mean, we all know he was clinging to hope that maybe there'd be some possibility that there'd be an upset in the end and he wouldn't actually lose his job. But I mean, we know exactly what's gonna happen here.   Decisively so.  Now you're fear mongering about socialism and truly, if you cared about the people, the best thing that you can do is assist the incoming mayor who is very likely to win, India Walton. But you're choosing to not do that. You're choosing to be divisive. You're choosing to launch a right in campaign off of this idea that so many people have talked to you and they're just really afraid about this socialist that's coming in. Look, if that were true, they wouldn't have elected her over you. You lost, let it go. But I mean, either way, all this is going to do is it's going to help India Walton win. And I say that because now people like myself who don't live in Buffalo, who technically have no stake in the race, I feel inclined to want to donate to India Walton because now she's dealing with the Democratic Party establishment who's refusing to accept her victory. And that makes me want to get involved. That makes me and people watching my show want to donate to her campaign and perhaps sign up to phone bank for her and canvas for her because every single time there's a victory, there's going to be this sort of sore loser campaign or pushback or attempts to delegitimize the win of a socialist or insurgent progressive. And I'm sick of it. So look, if you want to get involved, then I will put links below so you can contribute to India Walton's campaign because it's clear that the establishment isn't just going to give up that easily even after they've lost an election. So I mean, we have to make sure that India Walton does indeed win because this victory, even though it's highly likely, it's not yet a foregone conclusion.  I mean, you lost, just accepted the defeat, concede, and maintain whatever dignity you have left as a politician. So if you've been tuning into this program for a while now, you already likely know that capitalism is decreasing in its popularity. And I think that there are a plethora of reasons as to why that's the case. I mean, it has completely failed and it has brought society to the brink of extinction. So how can you be a young person strapped with student debt unable to purchase a car or pay for rents and support this economic system that put you in this predicament? I mean, the answer is you can't. So I mean, it's not necessarily surprising to think that younger people disapprove of capitalism and are more supportive of socialism in higher numbers. But this poll really is shocking to me because even people who I wouldn't necessarily expect to lose faith in capitalism are. And look, young people are driving this change on both sides of the political aisle. So let's talk about this poll. Laura Ronsky of SurveyMonkey writes, a majority of Americans continue to have a more positive than negative view of capitalism with 57% in a new poll from Axios and Momentov saying they have a positive view and 36% saying they have a negative view, a slight narrowing from the 61 to 36 split in January of 2019. But young adults' perceptions of capitalism have been the real driver of top-line change in the past two years. Today, 18 to 34-year-olds are almost evenly split between those who view capitalism positively and those who view it negatively, 49% versus 46%. Two years ago, that margin was agaping 20 points, 58% versus 38%. By contrast, views among adults ages 35 and older haven't budged with wide margins of 35 to 64-year-olds and 65 plus saying they view capitalism in a positive light. Among adults in Gen Z, ages 18 to 24, perceptions of capitalism are truly underwater. 42% have a positive view and 54% have a negative view. And more specifically, young Republicans have seen real movement in the past two years. In 2019, 81% of Republicans and GOP leaners, age 18 to 34, had a positive view of capitalism. Today, that number has fallen to 66%. Wow. Among Republicans 35 and older views haven't shifted as substantially. While perceptions of capitalism have changed rapidly among young adults, perceptions of socialism have changed more incrementally among all age groups. Slightly fewer young adults now than in 2019 say they have a positive view of socialism. 51% now versus 55% in 2019. But that dip is offset by slight increases in the number of adults ages 35 to 64 and 65 plus who say they have a favorable view of socialism. Overall, perceptions of socialism are still underwater nationally with 41% of Americans saying they have a positive view and 52% saying they have a negative view. Okay. There's a lot about this poll that is surprising to me pleasantly so, but two findings in particular really stood out to me. The first is that when it comes to Gen Z, capitalism is just, it's a goner. And what this tells me is that we are on the cusp of a paradigm shift in the United States. 54% of Gen Z 18 to 24 year olds have a negative view of capitalism. Compared to 42%, we have a positive view of capitalism. That means that when this generation takes power, their view of capitalism is going to drive policy in the United States in a substantially different direction. And that's not to say that we're gonna see some sort of like socialist or communist revolution. Of course, that's not the case. A lot of these folks are probably social Democrats, but the fact that capitalism in their view has such a negative view, that's really important to me because it's never been acceptable in the United States of America up until recently to really question capitalism. And we haven't seen anti-capitalist sentiment until recently, but it seems as if anti-capitalist sentiment is really growing exponentially because capitalism is failing to meet even the most basic needs of American people. But that to me, like knowing that young people are more open to socialism than capitalism, that's not necessarily what's surprising to me. What is truly shocking to me is the fact that young Republicans have seen real movement in the past two years according to this poll. So two years ago, 81% of Republicans and GOP leaners had a positive view of capitalism, but today that number has fallen to 66%. That folks is very, very interesting to me because if you are a Republican, their entire ideology is neoliberalism. It's market-based solutions to public problems, the privatization of public issues. So I don't even know why you'd identify as a Republican if you have a negative view of capitalism. I mean, that's not to say that most Democrats are pro-socialism, of course, that's not the case. You have a couple of social Democrats who are very vocal, but the majority of Democrats are neoliberal as well. But it's odd to me that even young Republicans have a negative view of capitalism to that extent. Now, I would like to pick the brains of these folks. Why are you a Republican if you have a negative view of capitalism? I mean, is it that you rank other issues higher on your scale of priorities? Do you think that social conservatism is more important than economic conservatism? Is it that you actually, you think capitalism is bad, but the GOP pushing for a wall in particular, that's the most important issue or you're anti-immigrant? Like I really wanna know, because this is truly weird. And I do think it's the case that we are on the cusp of political realignment in the United States of America. I don't know what that's gonna look like. Hopefully it doesn't end up worse than it is right now. But either way, something in America is happening. Things are changing rapidly and very clearly capitalism is failing to meet the needs of many and approval for capitalism is dropping and approval for socialism is increasing. So to me, as someone who is a socialist, I think this is good news, but we'll have to wait and see how views continue to shift because trust me folks, this might look good right now, but there's nothing a little bit of propaganda can do to change people's hearts and minds. So this is a really good positive development for me as someone who is an anti-capitalist, but we'll have to wait and see. But man, this next election that's coming up in 2024, primarily the presidential election, which is when most young people pay attention, it's gonna be really interesting to see what happens there, right? I mean, well, perhaps not necessarily 2024 because assuming Biden is the Democratic Party's nominee, like what the Democratic Party puts up, if moderates are going to be able to skate through as they did, I mean, they didn't necessarily skate through super easily in 2020, but if they're gonna be able to get away with making neoliberal arguments when it comes to healthcare and hawkish arguments when it comes to foreign policy, if so many people now are identifying as socialists. And that's not to say that you can't be socialist and be in agreement with Biden on foreign policy. I think that would be a little bit weird and you don't have to fit all of those views perfectly in a box, but basically what I'm trying to say is that like as presumably the Democratic Party electorate younger people, as more of them become eligible to vote and they shift to the left, like how is the Democratic Party gonna respond to that? It's gonna be really, really fascinating to see, but I would imagine that if Biden really doesn't deliver, then we're gonna see another situation like we saw in 2016 where people are hungry, especially young people, for a really strong change-making candidate. So look, I'm babbling at this point, but long story short, this is phenomenal news and I find this just incredibly fascinating. Well, folks, that is everything. Thank you all so much for watching if you've made it this far in the episode. I truly appreciate it and we're not gonna end the show without thanking all of the people who make the show possible. All of our supporters on Patreon, PayPal, YouTube and Twitch, I truly appreciate all of you so much. I hope you all have a fantastic Fourth of July weekend and on top of that, if you want more humanist support, as usual, you can tune in live every Wednesday at 6 p.m. PST, two dystopian times and additionally, you can also watch me live on Twitch TV slash Humanist Report, Twitch.tv slash Humanist Report, I should say, every single Thursday at 7 p.m. PST. So I will see you all next week. Take care, everyone. My name is Mike Ferriero. This has been The Humanist Report.


The United States Navy reveals the latest in rocket development at the proving grounds in the state of Virginia. Each 1,200-pound projectile used by America's land, sea, and air forces has the power of a large naval shell. The rocket gives the force of a battleship. Here is the latest rapid-fire launcher. Shooting two 5-inch rockets in salvo, the apparatus can be accurately aimed and reloaded without delay from below. The rocket launcher has become a mighty warship. Cleared for action, she has the firepower of five destroyers from Buenos Aires. Just three years after Argentina's military clique seized power, Colonel Juan Perón signs the book to become Argentina's 29th president. From General Adelmiro Farrell, retiring president, he receives the mace and sash of office. Looking on is Madame Perón, the president's wife, as her husband pledges unshakable maintenance of Argentine sovereignty. Forces pass in review before the new chief executive. Just two days after the inauguration came the news that Soviet Russia had resumed diplomatic relations with Argentina, moved by the liberal parties, but achieved large, popular support. Perón's largest aircraft leaves its hangar in California to begin the 24-mile overland journey to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. One wing alone measures 165 feet, and the huge seaplane, when completed, will be powered by eight 3,000-horsepower engines. On route to a special graving dock, linesman cut wires and shift poles to provide clearance for the huge plane. Perón will rest in this graving dock while the plane is assembled. As yet unnamed, the craft was designed as a cargo carrier, but it could be easily adapted to transport 700 passengers. The latest and largest transport plane opens new horizons in man's conquest of the sky. Luxembourg Palace in Paris, after a month's recess, the Council of Foreign Ministers of France, Britain, Russia and the United States meets in conference. French Minister Bidot is chairman, Foreign Minister Ernest Bevan of Great Britain, and representing the Soviet government, Foreign Minister Molotov. Although there was little agreement at the first meeting, United States Secretary Burns' motion to deal with the Austrian Peace Treaty has this time been carried. The ministers take their places. Recent strife in Italy presents new problems. Here in the Victor Hugo Salon of Luxembourg Palace, the Big Four Council begins to lay the foundations for the final peace treaties. And storm-center of world opinion, another shipload of refugees from Europe find a new home. Only 1500 Jewish immigrants a month may now enter Palestine. In the wake of disagreements over the Palestine question came fierce controversies and conflict. The question of Palestine must still remain on the world's agenda. And closely related news comes from nearby Transjordan. In its mountain capital, Amman, this country of some 400,000 celebrates its greatest holiday in a quarter of a century. Long administered by the British under a League of Nations mandate, today Transjordan gets word that Britain will establish its independence. At the King's Palace, dignitaries arrive for the ceremony. Though Transjordan's status is changing, Britain still maintains certain development rights in the country. The King, Amir Abdullah, who completed negotiations for the treaty, leads the way for a review of Arab troops. In Transjordan, new evidence of Britain's changing policies. New York City's Hunter College and the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission comes Bernard M. Baruch. As a figure in two world wars and advisor to presidents, the 75-year-old statesman brings his plan for the atomic age. Among those at the historic meeting are Major General Groves and other military and civilian experts. Mr. Baruch chats with Trig Bili, Secretary General of the United Nations. Now he outlines the position of the United States and calls for an international law to deal with the control and development of atomic energy. One, manufacturer of atomic bombs shall stop. Two, existing bombs shall be disposed of pursuant to the terms of the treaty. And three, the authorities shall be in possession of full information as to the know-how for the production of atomic knowledge. We are here to make a choice between the quick and the dead. That is our business. Behind the black portent of the new atomic age lies a hope which sees upon with faith can work our salvation.  Let us not deceive ourselves. We must elect world peace or world destruction.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we will discuss a question which says that make a void plot for the set of data which shows percentage of students in mathematics and the percentages are given as 85 and 88. Also write one or two sentences that analyze the data. Now before starting the solution of this question, you should know how to solve it. And that is, rank net with the graph that shows the frequency of the data along a number line. And it is best to use a line plot when comparing fewer than 13 numbers and it is a quick simple way to organize the data. Now let us discuss the steps to make a number line plot. Now once a data is collected, it is then the time to make a line plot. And the first step which we will follow is determine the scale to be used. Then in the second step, draw a horizontal line across the paper. Then in the next step, write the line into equal parts that will go into your scale. In the next step, list the data and place a star with the correct number. For each of the observations, a number is repeated when place the star over the other. Now this result will work out as a key idea by solving out the given question. And now we will start with the solution. Now in this question, we are given a data of percentages of students. And math says in order to make its line plot, we will follow the steps which we have discussed in the key idea. Now in the first step, we have to determine the scale. And here in the given data, we can see that the values of the percentages range from 75 to 95. So in the first step as the values range from 75 to 95, we will take, it means we will take a distance of 5 between two numbers. That is, we will take 75, 80, 85, 90 and so on. We will draw a horizontal line. So here we have drawn a horizontal line. Then in the next step, we will break the line into equal parts. We will take a difference of 5 between two numbers on a number line. As here we have taken 75, 80, 85, 90 and 95. The difference between the two numbers, that is the difference between two consecutive numbers is 5. Now here we have taken the numbers from 75 to 95 as the values in the given data range from 75 to 95. We will arrange the given data in order. So here we have arranged the given data in order. We will arrange this given data on the number 9 observation. We will put a star sign. Now here you can see that 75 is coming two times in the data. So as 75 is coming two times, so we will put for 75. Then 79 is coming once. Now here this is the line for 75. And the next line is for 76. Then 77, 78 and this is the line for 79. Now 79 is coming once. So we will put only one star for 79. Then 80 is coming twice. For 80 we will put coming twice. For 82 also we will put. Then 83 is coming once. So for 83 we will put one star. Then 85 is coming sixth. So for 85 we will put the stars for the other observations also. Now here from this number line plot we have plotted all the observations. Now here from this number line plot you can observe that there are two students who have scored 95 percent in mathematics test and three students have scored 90 percent in mathematics test and so on. So we have marked the entire percentage on the number line. We are getting the required graph. Now from the graph we can see that most of the data is concentrated between 80 and 90 and 85 is the centre of the data. So from the number line plot we analyze that the most of the data is concentrated between 90 is the centre of the data. This is the solution of the given question and that's all for this session. Hope you all have enjoyed the session.