Bill Maher calls for Democratic party to take action after Whoopi Goldberg's outrageous comments on The View
Bill Maher criticized Whoopi Goldberg and The View after the co-host compared life for Black Americans to the conditions faced by women under Iran 's oppressive theocracy.
The Real Time with Bill Maher host called for the Democratic party to 'do something' about the popular daytime talk show after the major media figure's controversial comments.
On the Friday episode, Maher, 69, initially praised what he called a return to 'sanity' by Democrats, pointing to a recent New York Times editorial that took a more measured liberal stance.
'We were talking about the trans[gender] issue before, and The New York Times really has come over on that to the sensible, liberal, not crazy woke position,' he said.
'A great first step to bringing the Democrats back to sanity,' he added before calling for a reform for the hit show.
'... and a second would be we gotta do something about The View,' the longtime comedian continued.
Goldberg, 69, initially sparked backlash during a heated exchange with co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin on Wednesday that saw her compare life for Black Americans to that of women in Iran.
The Real Time with Bill Maher host called for the Democratic party to 'do something' about The View (pictured) after the major media figure's controversial comments
Griffin, 35, outlined Iran's severe human rights abuses, including the execution of LGBTQ individuals and the imprisonment of women for appearing in public without head coverings.
Goldberg pushed back, saying, 'Let's not do that, because if we start with that - we've been known in this country to tie gay folks to the back of a car. I'm sorry, they used to just keep hanging Black people.'
Griffin responded, arguing that the situations in Iran and the US are not comparable.
Wesley Hunt, a US Representative from Texas who was a guest on Maher's Friday evening broadcast, rejected Goldberg's characterization, pointing to his own life as a sign of progress.
'My district in the great state of Texas is actually majority white and was carried by President Trump by 25 points,' Hunt said.
'I'm a direct descendant of a slave - my great-great-grandfather was born on Rosedown Plantation. I am literally being judged not by the color of my skin, but by the content of my character.'
Hunt emphasized the significance of his election: 'That's progress - because a lot of white people had to vote for me. A lot. So I don't ever want to hear Whoopi Goldberg conversation about how it's worse to be Black in America right now.'
He also pointed to his family's story as a reflection of how far the country has come, noting that his father, who grew up under Jim Crow, is now the parent of a US congressman elected in a majority-white district - as a Republican.
'That's America,' Hunt said.
During the segment, CNN contributor Paul Begala referenced Juneteenth - the national holiday commemorating the end of slavery - and questioned why President Donald Trump seemed reluctant to fully embrace the occasion.
'I don't want it,' Hunt replied. 'I don't want Black History Month. I don't want all these days designed to make everyone feel special. I'm an '80s baby - people are too sensitive nowadays. We're all Americans.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump news at a glance: President praises attacks on Iran as lawmakers divided on US involvement
Washington was in a flurry late on Saturday as Donald Trump announced that the US had completed strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran, directly joining Israel's effort to destroy the country's nuclear program. American politicians reacted to the news of the US bombing of nuclear targets in Iran with a mix of cheering support and instant condemnation, reflecting deep divisions in the country, as Washington grapples with yet another military intervention overseas. The strikes hit uranium enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, Trump said. He warned Iran away from retaliating against US targets in the region, promising that further US strikes would be even more deadly. Here are the key stories at a glance: The US directly joined Israel's effort to destroy the country's nuclear program in a risky gambit to weaken a longtime foe amid Tehran's threat of reprisals that could spark a wider regional conflict. The strikes hit uranium enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, Trump said. Later, Iran's atomic agency said that the country will carry on with its nuclear activities despite the US attacks on key facilities. Read the full story American politicians displayed a mixed reaction to the news of the US bombing of nuclear targets in Iran. Many democrat denounced the decision, while most Republicans praised the action. US Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat of New York, demanded of Senate majority leader and South Dakota Republican John Thune that he should immediately call a vote on the matter. Schumer said the US Congress must enforce the War Powers Act – intended as a check on the US president's power to devote the United States to armed conflict without the consent of the US Congress. Read the full story Mahmoud Khalil – the Palestinian rights activist, Columbia University graduate and legal permanent resident of the US who had been held by federal immigration authorities for more than three months – has been reunited with his wife and infant son. Read the full story The man charged in connection with the recent shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses was a doomsday 'prepper' who instructed his family to 'prepare for war' as he tried to evade capture, according to new court filings. Read the full story Thousands of Afghans who fled to the US as the Taliban grabbed power again in Afghanistan are in mortal dread of being deported back to danger in the coming weeks amid the Trump administration's anti-immigration crackdown. Read the full story Texas will require all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments under a new law that will make the state the nation's largest to attempt to impose such a mandate. Pakistan nominated Donald Trump for Nobel peace prize, for his work in helping to resolve the recent conflict between India and Pakistan. Federal health officials are seeking to launch a 'bold, edgy' public service campaign to warn Americans of the dangers of ultra-processed foods in social media, transit ads, billboards and even text messages. And they potentially stand to profit off the results. Catching up? Here's what happened on 20 June 2025
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Strikes on Iran mark Trump's biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble
WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, U.S. President Donald Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic U.S. strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump, who insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks, could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking U.S. military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against American and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. Such moves could escalate into a broader, more protracted conflict than Trump had envisioned, evoking echoes of the 'forever wars' that America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he had derided as 'stupid' and promised never to be dragged into. 'The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities,' said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Democratic and Republican administrations. 'But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond... This is not going to end quick.' In the lead-up to the bombing that he announced late on Saturday, Trump had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were 'the right thing to do.' Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a 'high probability of success,' the official said – a determination reached after more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities paved the way for the U.S. to deliver the potentially crowning blow. Trump touted the "great success" of the strikes, which he said included the use of massive "bunker-buster bombs" on the main site at Fordow. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes. 'In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy,' the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan U.S.-based organization that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. 'Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge. The strikes will set Iran's program back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities,' the group said. Eric Lob, assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, said Iran's next move remains an open question and suggested that among its forms of retaliation could be to hit 'soft targets' of the U.S. and Israel inside and outside the region. But he also said there was a possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table – 'though they would be doing so in an even weaker position' – or seek a diplomatic off-ramp. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its 'national industry' to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every U.S. citizen or military member in the region would not be legitimate targets. Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on X: 'Trump indicated this is now the time for peace. It's unclear and unlikely the Iranians will see it the same way. This is more likely to open a new chapter of the 46-year-old US-Iran war than conclude it.' 'REGIME CHANGE' Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking 'regime change' if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. That, in turn, would bring additional risks. 'Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratization campaigns,' said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. 'You'll find the bones of many failed U.S. moral missions buried in Middle East sands.' Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in 'disproportionate attacks' if it felt its survival was imperiled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential U.S. inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump, who faced no major international crisis in his first term, is now embroiled in one just six months into his second. Even if he hopes U.S. military involvement can be limited in time and scope, the history of such conflicts often carries unintended consequences for American presidents. Trump's slogan of 'peace through strength' will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. 'Trump is back in the war business,' said Richard Gowan, U.N. director at the International Crisis Group. 'I am not sure anyone in Moscow, Tehran or Beijing ever believed his spiel that he is a peacemaker. It always looked more like a campaign phrase than a strategy."
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Map shows full list of countries that want Israel wiped off face of the Earth or refuse to acknowledge it exist. No wonder Israelis have a siege mentality: PETER VAN ONSELEN
There are few nations on Earth whose very existence is up for debate. Fewer still where that debate is held not only in the United Nations General Assembly but on the streets of Sydney, London and New York. Yet that's the uncomfortable reality Israel has lived with every day of its modern existence. A state carved born from the ashes of the Holocaust and immediately met with war. Now, nearly 80 years on, Israel is still surrounded: geographically, diplomatically and ideologically by forces that don't just criticise its policies but question whether it should exist at all. And yet some people can't even fathom why Israelis feel under siege. You can't defend every Israeli decision. I don't. The country's response to Hamas sometimes shocks and appalls, and its handling of relations with Iran and the Palestinians can at times be counterproductive. But for those with short memories or selective sympathies, Israel's actions take place in a context that is unique in modern geopolitics: it's a state surrounded by enemies, some of whom don't just hate it but want it wiped off the map entirely. The states that want Israel gone Let's start with Iran given the current conflict. The Islamic Republic isn't remotely shy about its intentions. For decades, Iranian leaders have referred to Israel as a 'cancerous tumour' and 'the little Satan'. Iran has repeatedly pledged to wipe it from the face of the planet. Which is precisely why Israel is determined to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons. It's not just puffed up rhetoric either. Iran funds and arms proxies located right on Israel's borders, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran's nuclear ambitions, thinly disguised behind claims of civilian purposes, are rightly feared. Syria, despite the implosion of its own state, remains formally at war with Israel. It has offered safe passage and logistical support to anti-Israel groups. It has allowed Iranian military infrastructure to be set up on its territory. Every Israeli airstrike on Syrian soil counts as a pre-emptive act of self-preservation. While some Arab states have quietly stepped back from overt hostility thanks in part to the Abraham Accords, others remain diplomatically frozen. Saudi Arabia has toyed with recognition but still hasn't made the leap. Algeria, Iraq and Yemen remain openly hostile - with the Houthis in Yemen regularly firing rockets. These are not minor players in the Middle East. They are regional powers with long-standing ideological or religious opposition to Israel's existence. Terrorist groups committing genocide Right behind the hostile states are the armed terrorist groups that operate with their blessing. Groups whose founding charters demand the destruction of Israel. This isn't speculative or exaggerated, it's all there in black and white. Take Hezbollah for example, the Iranian-backed militia in Lebanon. Its 1985 open letter to the world doesn't mince words and has never been retracted: 'Our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated.' It has thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli cities and has provoked multiple wars. And then there is Hamas, which has long governed Gaza and fired thousands of rockets into Israel during the past few years, including before the slaughter on October 7, 2023. Hamas' charter literally calls for the destruction of Israel. It doesn't talk about peace or a two-state solution. Rather, it calls for Islamic rule 'from the river to the sea' - a euphemism for the end of the Israel state. Then there's Palestinian Islamic Jihad, smaller than Hamas but no less lethal or ideologically opposed to Israel's very existence. PIJ is bankrolled by Iran, is responsible for suicide bombings and rocket attacks and is committed to armed resistance as the only pathway forward. Coexistence is not on its agenda, yet in some quarters of the Western world these groups are not even regarded as terrorist organisations. They are referred to as 'freedom fighters', a form of Orwellian rebranding that should concern us all. Countries that still say 'no' to Israel's right to exist As of today there are more than two dozen countries that still refuse to recognise Israel as a legitimate nation. Not rogue states or banana republics but members of the UN. They include Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia, as well as states already mentioned. They have no formal diplomatic relations with Israel: No embassies in Israel, no Israeli embassies in their home states, nor any acknowledgement of its existence. A significant portion of the Muslim world, with hundreds of millions of citizens, therefore regards the tiny Jewish state as illegitimate. Not just in policy terms but in principle, and that's before you factor in the noisy rejections of Israel by the likes of North Korea and Venezuela. To be sure, the Abraham Accords - an agreement between Israel and Arab states struck under the first administration helped overcome some of the anti-Israeli sentiments around the world. The UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan all moved towards formal recognition. But the list of holdouts remains long and politically influential. It's also worth noting that some of the so-called moderate states have no love for Israel either. They might shake hands in Washington, but their schoolbooks, media and official rhetoric still often demonises Israel and legitimises the actions of its enemies. The campaign to delegitimise Israel Perhaps the most galling players in attempts to delegitimise the state of Israel can be seen in some Western universities, NGOs and parliaments: Lopsided outrage that erupts whenever Israel defends itself, but not so much when rockets fall on Tel Aviv or families are slaughtered by jihadists. The nuance to understand Israeli reactions is lost in the very institutions that are supposed to use nuance as a cornerstone of their approaches and thinking. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement claims to target Israeli policies, but in reality it aims to isolate and weaken the state entirely. Some of its founders are open about their end goal: not a two-state solution, but no Jewish state at all. And yet BDS continues to be embraced in Western cultural and academic circles writ large, particularly among those for whom context and consistency are optional extras. Then there's the protest movements. In the wake of Hamas's barbaric October 7 attack, which saw over 1,200 Israelis killed and hundreds taken hostage, university students across the West held rallies against Israel. Think about that for a moment. Civilians were butchered, babies beheaded and women raped, yet the global response in some quarters was not horror at the atrocities but outrage that Israel dared to respond. No other nation on earth would tolerate that kind of hypocrisy and nor should Israel. An understandable siege mentality So yes Israel has a siege mentality. But that's not paranoia, it's realism. Israel is a country surrounded by its enemies, some of them with large armies, others with well-funded terror networks, and still more with ideological purity that rejects Israel's very right to exist. Some with nuclear weapons, others trying to develop them. How would you feel if you lived in Israel? It's also a country that has each and every military response it makes dissected in the global media. Meanwhile its attackers are too often granted the soft bigotry of low expectations. When Israel makes a mistake, it's a war crime. When Hamas targets a bus stop, it's 'resistance'. Criticising Israeli policy is fair game. After all, unlike almost every single one of its enemies, Israel is a democracy, where leaders face elections and journalists hold them to account. But questioning Israel's right to exist, or pretending its strategic environment is anything other than hostile, is an abdication of intellectual honesty. And so is reflecting negatively on Israel's responses without the context it exists within. Sympathy without context is misguided sentiment There's no doubt the Israel Palestine conflict is messy, painful and very tragic. Innocents suffer, lives are lost and peace feels further away with every passing year. But if you claim to care about peace or justice you cannot ignore the basic fact that one side is trying to survive in a region where its very existence is considered provocative. Israel certainly isn't perfect. No country is, including democracies. But it is a democracy surrounded by autocracies. It is a nation born out of trauma, rejected by many the moment it arrived. Ever since it has been forced to fight for the simple right to live. Those who rush to condemn Israel while ignoring the threats it faces every single day reveal more about their prejudices than their principles. Israel feels besieged because it is, and no amount of slogans or campus activism changes that.
