NYT ACCUSED of discrimination (Plus: AOC doesn’t deny 2028 presidential ambitions) | RISING

0:11 Good morning and welcome to Rising.

0:13 Happy Monday.

0:14 Great to have you back with us to start off the week.

0:16 Hello Lindsay.

0:17 How you

0:18 how you doing?

0:19 I'm doing great.

0:19 I was just saying I had a weekend of significant revalry.

0:23 uh went to a lamb roast, a champagne tasting,

0:26 and many other just fun and elaborately

0:30 staged events involving copious amounts of libations.

0:34 That is beautiful.

0:34 That sounds like I was like, what do you do?

0:36 I was expecting you to say like quick dinner, some drinks.

0:39 You're like, no, a lamb roast.

0:40 It was an event about this.

0:41 That's an all day thing.

0:43 Delicious.

0:43 Well, that's awesome.

0:44 I'm happy for you.

0:45 I had a nice relaxing weekend myself.

0:46 So glad to hear it.

0:47 No complaints for me.

0:48 So, let's get started with the show.

0:50 What's on your radar today?

0:52 I think we'll have to fight about this one.

0:54 Well, I've had a closer look at that lawsuit that we discussed

0:57 last week against the New York

0:58 Times for alleged racial and gender discrimination.

1:01 The interesting wrinkle in the case

1:03 the harmed person supposedly is a white male.

1:06 So, let's dive in.

1:07 Now, federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination

1:10 on the basis of race and also sex.

1:12 Quite obviously, these protections have to apply to people

1:15 of all races and sexes, even white males.

1:17 Someone alert the gray lady.

1:19 Now, the Times stands accused of discriminating

1:21 against a white male employee seeking a promotion.

1:24 The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that's the EEOC,

1:28 has filed a lawsuit on the employees behalf, contending that the Times quote,

1:32 chose not to promote a well-qualified white

1:34 male employee because of his race and/or sex.

1:37 In a statement, the Times denied the charge.

1:39 The Times writes, "The New York

1:40 Times categorically rejects the politically motivated

1:43 allegations brought by the Trump administration's

1:45 EEOC." That's according to a spokesperson,

1:48 quote, "Our employment practices are merit-based and focused

1:51 on recruiting and promoting the best talent in the world.

1:54 We will defend ourselves vigorously." End quote.

1:58 Now, given President Donald Trump's contempt, shall we say,

2:01 for the mainstream media and his track

2:02 record of suing media companies for crossing him,

2:05 critics of the administration will undoubtedly conclude this is

2:08 a politically motivated attack on a disfavored foe.

2:12 But even so, the EEOC does present information within

2:15 the suit that to my mind is highly suggestive of discrimination.

2:20 If the races of the involved parties were reversed,

2:22 I think it would probably strike many people as a slam dunk.

2:26 Now, the employee, a white male and an editor at the Times,

2:29 had applied for a more senior position as a deputy real estate editor.

2:34 He did not get the job despite having extensive relevant experience,

2:37 including with real estate news.

2:38 That's according to the lawsuit.

2:40 Now, this is not just positive on its own, of course.

2:42 However, the lawsuit also claims he did not

2:45 even make it to the final round of interviews.

2:47 He lost out to the following people.

2:49 Quote, "A white female, a black male, an Asian female,

2:53 and a multi-racial female." The candidate who

2:56 did receive the position was the multi-racial female.

2:59 Uh she did not meet the stated qualifications for the position

3:02 since she did not actually have experience in real estate journalism.

3:06 Nevertheless, the hiring manager sent an email to herself signaling

3:09 an intent to choose that person before even interviewing her.

3:13 That's according to the lawsuit.

3:15 Now, these facts become more concerning in light of the Times stated

3:18 desire to increase the number of minority

3:20 and female employees in leadership positions.

3:23 The lawsuit cites various diversity, equity, and inclusion,

3:27 that's DEI, plans, as well as the Times 2021 proposal,

3:31 a call to action, which lamented that quote,

3:34 "People of color and particularly women of color,

3:36 remain notably underrepresented in its leadership." The proposal

3:40 explicitly endorsed the idea of gradually replacing

3:43 existing leadership with women of color

3:45 to the specific exclusion of white and unspecified ethnicities.

3:50 leaders at the times would be judged quote by how well they create pathways

3:54 for a divi diverse group of deputies to succeed them according to the proposal.

4:00 So basically the times published a manifesto announcing

4:03 that hiring managers would face pressure to promote underrepresented minorities.

4:07 The paper took the position that senior leadership would be

4:10 evaluated on the basis of their success at hiring black,

4:13 latino and female applicants.

4:15 So then when it came time to hire a deputy real estate editor,

4:18 the Times did not really consider the white male applicant despite

4:22 the fact he possessed quote considerable experience with real estate news,

4:25 multiple news platforms, and innovative content.

4:28 The hiring manager only considered diverse candidates and selected the maximally

4:33 diverse candidate despite questionable qualifications.

4:37 Again, that's the contention of the EEOC and the Times denies it.

4:41 New York magazine, which revealed the alleged

4:43 identity of the employee who made the complaint.

4:46 Well, they think the whole story is totally ridiculous.

4:48 And they write that Joe Khan, the PAP's executive editor,

4:52 well, he's a white male, so that disproves the whole thing.

4:55 Um, that's a total nonsequiter.

4:57 Obviously, the EEOC is not saying the Times has

5:00 refused to hire any white males for senior leadership positions.

5:03 The government is claiming that the Times

5:05 discriminated against this specific employee,

5:09 passing him over for promotion due to his race and sex.

5:13 The existence of other white males in leadership says nothing

5:15 about what went de with the deputy real estate editor position.

5:19 Also, it's all about replacing

5:21 the existing white editors with diverse candidates,

5:23 according to the Times own memo.

5:25 Now, speaking for myself,

5:27 I'm not sure how high the burden of proof has to be in such cases.

5:31 Perhaps the Times can plausibly allege that there

5:33 was some other reason to pass over the candidate.

5:35 Maybe he really screwed up his interview.

5:37 Of course, they decided not even to give him one.

5:39 I tend to think private employers should have a free hand, however,

5:42 in hiring and firing decisions and not be overly encumbered by the government.

5:47 That said, federal civil rights law prohibits private

5:50 employers from engaging in racial discrimination and sex-based discrimination.

5:55 As long as discrimination is illegal,

5:57 these protections should and must extend to white males as well,

6:01 even if that's not who civil rights attorneys usually have in mind.

6:06 All right, that's an interesting case.

6:08 Civil rights law covers white men.

6:09 Exactly.

6:10 I I keep we keep talking about this.

6:11 So, if he has a real complaint, we have to intent is really hard to prove here.

6:15 So, if he actually just didn't get a job

6:17 because the hiring manager had somebody in mind,

6:20 uh, you know, that's the name of the game with going for a job.

6:22 So, let's just be honest here.

6:23 Let's peel back the actual what's supposed to happen

6:25 in workplaces and talk about what usually happens.

6:28 If somebody sends your resume through somebody that has some kind of power,

6:32 then you might be higher on the docket

6:34 than the person no matter what you look like

6:36 because you came through the right pipeline.

6:38 And so unfortunately, it's not always equal.

6:40 Some of that is why the DEI practices were even put

6:43 into place so that unintentionally exclusionary practices would stop like that.

6:47 So it wouldn't be a good old boy club.

6:49 And so if this man really did get discriminated against,

6:52 then let's look into it.

6:53 He has a case.

6:53 This is an allegation.

6:54 This is not proven.

6:56 This is an allegation.

6:57 But if not, and he just didn't get a job.

6:59 Well, he didn't get Okay, I wrote for real estate magazines.

7:02 You know how many times I wrote for politics and I don't I

7:05 didn't get a job and I felt that I was the most qualified.

7:07 So, is everything a lawsuit?

7:09 I can't say that with definitive proof.

7:11 You're right.

7:12 So, the intent is really hard to prove here.

7:13 That's all I'm saying.

7:14 Not that a white male can't be discriminated against.

7:16 Civil rights law says they can.

7:18 Those are all completely valid points.

7:19 I don't disagree at all.

7:21 The issue though, what will get the times in trouble

7:24 and why DEI I find more suspect than you do.

7:28 I'm fine with the again make opportunities known to people

7:32 who traditionally have been represented or might not know about opportunity.

7:36 That's all fine.

7:36 Outreach is fine.

7:38 But the Times put out memos, several of them, year after year, saying,

7:42 "We feel that we have too many white male senior editors and so we are going

7:48 to consciously try to have fewer of those." And I don't know how what you can

7:53 I'd like to see the wording specifically

7:55 for that and we'll see this lawsuit play out.

7:57 But if the wording if you have the print out of the memo,

8:00 you saw the memo specifically that said that or you're

8:02 talking about reporting of said memo from this lawsuit.

8:04 Oh, I've seen the memo.

8:05 Okay.

8:05 So, it says the memo exists.

8:07 not powering white guys.

8:09 That's what they said.

8:10 We need to replace existing senior management with more

8:14 diverse people and that does not include white males.

8:18 So now a position opens up in senior leadership and

8:22 this I mean this is arguably not leadership.

8:25 This is a a high level reporting job which is

8:27 an excellent job but senior leadership you know exactly what that means.

8:30 That means all the decision makers at the top

8:32 crop of the company that report directly to the seauite.

8:35 And so come on, this is this is arguably doesn't even fall in that category.

8:38 So I think there's going to be a lot of new

8:40 voice to employers is stop publishing your open

8:43 intentions to engage in discriminatory hiring practices.

8:46 You can't say I mean if we're if we're going to apply the law even

8:50 though you can't say we want there

8:52 to be fewer white male editors that is discriminatory if people if

8:56 in the same way you couldn't say I we have

8:57 too many black female editors and we want few of those.

9:00 You can't say that.

9:01 If historically initiatives or people have made

9:03 decisions that unintentionally exclude certain groups, right?

9:06 Like I said, you're getting sent somebody your way.

9:09 Usually they look like you.

9:09 You're hiring people from your hometown or your community,

9:12 people that went to school, Harvard, whatever that look like you.

9:15 This is unintentionally exclusionary.

9:17 So if we are trying to avoid that and they're sending out memos like, hey,

9:20 go outside of your normal range to look

9:23 for candidates that you wouldn't necessarily talk to.

9:26 Go to the National Association of Black Journalists.

9:28 Go to the Asian Journalist Society.

9:30 look at all the journalists, then decide on your candidates.

9:32 That's why these organizations exist, right?

9:34 And then make a decision.

9:35 The memo doesn't say we would like we would

9:38 feel like there are communities who are we we

9:41 are not receiving applications from and we would like

9:43 to make sure they know about the opportunities to work.

9:45 That is literally what Yes, it is.

9:47 At certain companies there that's why the people

9:49 recruiters from Nextstar from NBC from every

9:52 go to journalism conventions specifically in our industry

9:55 to go find the best and brightest and that's fine.

9:57 They can do that.

9:58 What they can't do is say,

10:01 "We are only considering a black female

10:04 for this opportunity not considering a white male."

10:07 Only you named him multi-racial.

10:08 Okay, let's see.

10:09 What does that mean?

10:10 Like what what's her race?

10:13 Is she Italian?

10:13 She could be multi-racial.

10:14 Does that mean Well, that's multi silliness of it.

10:18 Exactly.

10:18 So, what does that mean?

10:18 I want to make sure I understand what does multi-racial mean.

10:21 Non white.

10:21 It means non-white.

10:22 That's how they're describing it as non white.

10:23 Okay.

10:24 So I'm I'm interested to see how this who counts as white is also

10:27 and I know that articles will lay out they already explained who this guy is.

10:31 Italians white.

10:31 It's it's all nonsense to me which is why you should

10:34 not even have the option to select a race when you apply.

10:38 It should be completely race.

10:40 The problem is once you get to the interview,

10:42 which that guy could have bombed, people see your face.

10:44 And unlike Jewish people or Italian people who

10:46 could sit in a meeting and just say,

10:48 "I'm fully American white." A black person can't do that.

10:51 can't have an interview with you and say, "Oh,

10:52 I'm fully American white." That doesn't how that's not how that works, right?

10:55 The color of your skin matters to people.

10:57 Federal law says it can't.

10:59 Yeah.

10:59 But you can't decide what makes somebody look

11:01 at you and hire you or not hire you.

11:02 They could say it was your experience and they could have looked at me and said,

11:05 "I like the other guy better.

11:06 I relate to him." But if the hiring manager has a plan

11:08 to specifically include members of one race,

11:11 then because they've written that in a memo and published it,

11:14 the plan is to include them before they get sued.

11:17 The plan is to exclude them in the hiring practice, not to mandatory hire them.

11:21 You have to be inclusive in looking at candidates.

11:24 That's what I think the whole point of this thing is that you're missing.

11:28 Okay.

11:27 All right.

11:28 President Trump taking aim at his predecessor.

11:31 Former President Barack Obama.

11:33 We'll tell you about this right after the break.

11:38 President Trump tore into former President

11:40 Obama on Truth Social over the weekend.

11:43 I thought it was glorious.

11:44 Trump wrote, "Iran has been playing games

11:46 with the United States and the rest of the world

11:48 for 47 years and then finally hit

11:50 pay dirt when Barack Hussein Obama became president.

11:54 He was not only good to them,

11:55 he was great, actually going to their side, jettisoning Israel,

11:59 all other allies and giving Iran a major

12:01 and very powerful new lease on life." President called

12:04 Obama the greatest sucker of them all as well

12:07 as weak and stupid and continued in part.

12:09 For 47 years, the Iranians have been tapping us along, keeping us waiting,

12:13 killing our people with their roadside bombs

12:16 and laughing at our now great again country.

12:19 They will be laughing no longer.

12:21 Meanwhile, the laughter ends, Lindsay.

12:23 Yeah, I guess so.

12:23 He's been saying that for five weeks now.

12:25 Meanwhile, Trump rejected the latest counter offer from Iran to end the war.

12:29 That proposal reportedly focused on lifting

12:31 the blockade on the Straight of Hormuz,

12:33 but did not address Iran's nuclear program,

12:36 one of the president's key demands in the negotiations.

12:38 The country's leaders say that any decisions that would be left until

12:42 quote the time or would be left until the time is right.

12:45 That's a quote.

12:46 Well, if there's no deal on nuclear, then there's no deal.

12:49 So, okay.

12:50 Well, we're not going to skip over Trump.

12:52 No, go back to the top of the story.

12:54 President Trump is obsessed with Obama.

12:56 He needs to move on.

12:57 He knows that he's not getting what he needs right now out of this deal,

13:01 and he's looking kind of silly because of the skyrocketing prices

13:04 across the board for Americans and the disdain within his own party.

13:08 So, he's pulling into, let me finish.

13:09 He's pulling into the old playbook to say, "Well, it's not working.

13:12 I can't blame Biden for this one." Let me blame Obama.

13:15 JCPOA, even though I'm going to create something

13:17 that looks exactly like the Obama Iran nuclear deal.

13:20 Yeah.

13:21 That that looks like what's on the agenda

13:22 now because they're not talking about a plan.

13:24 He literally is trying to say,

13:26 "I want to remind you this is Obama's fault." Because he knows that he's

13:29 not getting the political capital he thought

13:31 he might get from having a ceasefire here.

13:33 He knows that even with the straight of Hormus

13:35 closed and asking 87 countries to ship their boats

13:38 through there and send the supplies and play Russian

13:40 roulette with their life is not a winning tactic.

13:42 So now he's back to the old tactic and saying listen we don't have a deal.

13:45 We have a ceasefire.

13:46 We're still kind of fighting.

13:47 And also it's Obama's fault.

13:49 Trump's perspective and Republicans perspective is

13:51 that uh Obama's deal was not good enough.

13:54 It unfroze their assets.

13:55 that gave them huge sums of money which they were going to use to continue

14:00 funding Hamas and Hezbollah to attack

14:02 our allies to attack uh pro-f freedom people

14:05 in the Middle East and uh that was not good enough and so Trump tore it

14:10 up and now he's in pursuit of a better deal one that will uh maybe more

14:14 permanently halt their nuclear uh capabilities or we

14:17 will halt them for them by bombing

14:19 them back into the stone ages that's what Trump will do so they can come

14:22 to the table we can put up Trump's view is that we'll put up with higher

14:27 prices for a little bit and destroy

14:29 their entire country if that's what it takes.

14:31 So, they should have that in mind and negotiate.

14:33 The reported proposals that we've seen so far

14:36 uh not only lift sanctions just like Obama did,

14:38 which would be the money that Iran was getting.

14:40 Uh they also willing to do that in

14:42 Okay, so we're willing to do the same exact thing that Obama did.

14:44 No, we're not willing to do the same

14:45 exact thing because that was not good enough.

14:48 Okay,

14:48 that was a pause.

14:49 The deal that the president is suggesting has been 20 years.

14:52 There hasn't been any movement from Iran.

14:54 We're moving past five years.

14:56 Uh I mean has been 20 years to hold um making uranium.

15:01 Iran suggested five years.

15:02 There's been no movement on either end that I've seen in reporting

15:05 about Iran moving closer to 20 or the US backing down from 20.

15:09 So either way, may I may I finish?

15:11 Stay on the topic.

15:13 The deal if it's anywhere between less than

15:16 20 and between five looks like the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal that Obama had.

15:21 I'm saying that's so but that's what I'm saying.

15:23 That's what's on the table right now.

15:24 He said never again.

15:25 The president started with no nuclear capabilities, no uranium whatsoever.

15:29 We're going in and taking it all and we

15:31 hear that's not on the table either anymore.

15:34 So no one knows the difference and he's trying to remind folks this is

15:37 Obama's fault before it gets out of control and nobody likes this policy.

15:41 Obama made that deal.

15:42 And what happened in the wake of that deal?

15:45 funding of uh what Hezbollah is doing,

15:49 what uh the Hamas attack on Israel uh October 7th.

15:53 Think of all the terrorism, all the murder,

15:56 all the destruction that allies of the Iran proxy groups for the Iranian

16:01 regime have conducted on America's friends in the wake of that deal,

16:06 which unfroze their assets.

16:08 You forgot a line in that sentence.

16:10 In the wake of that deal getting torn up by President Trump.

16:13 So after 2018 when these terrorist attacks

16:16 started increasing and uranium stockpiling started increasing

16:19 that was a direct response to there being

16:21 no agreement in place with the international community.

16:26 So the president starts a problem and wants to end the problem.

16:30 There was no need is what experts are saying

16:32 as they're looking at this for a whole war to start

16:34 to go back to square one where we were

16:37 with the Iran nuclear deal that Obama had in place.

16:39 So explain to the whole world why we went to war.

16:43 And that was a good thing.

16:43 And he unfroze Russia's assets to have this war.

16:46 So what are we talking about?

16:47 Like we freeze one country that we're having problems

16:50 with and unfreeze another country that's also a problematic country.

16:53 Like what is the plan?

16:54 I Russia is being unreasonable and I have changed my mind about that.

16:59 So I don't What do you want me to say?

17:01 All right, let's go.

17:01 Meanwhile, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

17:04 seemed to tell 60 Minutes this weekend that he doesn't believe the war will

17:08 be over until Iran gives up nuclear ambitions.

17:11 But he did say this about his country's dependence on the US.

17:15 I want to draw down to zero the American financial support,

17:20 the financial component of the military cooperation that we have

17:24 because we receive we receive uh $3.8 billion a year.

17:29 And I uh I think that it's time

17:32 that we weaned ourselves from the remaining uh military support.

17:38 He's right.

17:39 And this has long been his position,

17:40 which I know is a surprise to people who have not heard it,

17:42 that he is in support of uh getting rid of the US military aid.

17:46 Uh he's right.

17:47 I fully agree with that.

17:49 U Israel should be able to must stand on its own two legs

17:54 and uh if they want to purchase weapons from us, I'm fine with that.

17:57 But they need to purchase them at whatever we would sell them to anyone else.

18:00 Not this kind of subsidized thing, which is where there's some then there's

18:05 demand for it from our subsidized industry.

18:08 they can do what they want to defend themselves a and they remain

18:11 our allies but um this uh this relationship is not it's inspiring resentment

18:17 of Israel uh and frankly of Jewish people among the American people who

18:20 are saying why are my tax dollars going overseas to finance um wars

18:24 that look aggressive uh in nature they should fund their own wars

18:28 that are aggressive in nature they decided to have a country there not where

18:32 I would have put the country they are having it there have sec

18:35 serious security problems they have to pay

18:36 for it Netanyahu understands that so good.

18:38 I'm I'm obviously a frequent critic of his.

18:41 I don't see eye to eye with him very much so at all.

18:44 But uh this would be the best thing for Israel

18:46 and the United States for them to pay for it themselves.

18:48 I think the timing is interesting because um I think we give Israel 3.8 billion

18:53 a year plus after October 7th and any

18:56 other emergency we agree to up to 9 billion.

18:58 And so I think that um people since the response to uh that war

19:03 beginning and the terrorist attack and some criticisms has gone much too far.

19:09 Uh there's been a conversation that's developed since then.

19:12 He talked about that in this interview that he thinks social media is the reason

19:15 that people have a bad outlook on him

19:17 specifically because it's being programmed that way.

19:20 And the interviewer pushed back and said,

19:21 "Is it any of the actions that Israel you have

19:24 taken on behalf of Israel that you think are the reason

19:26 that people are looking at you anyway?" And he would

19:29 not say that it was any action that he's taken.

19:32 And so I think that he probably wants to distance himself from this Democratic

19:36 Republican back and forth about whether or not

19:38 the US should support Israel or change

19:40 its level of support because he knows that at this point it's very fluid

19:44 in as we talk about who's going to be the next candidate on the Democratic side.

19:48 One of the biggest Chris critiques of Kamla was

19:51 that she wouldn't break away from Biden in policy,

19:54 specifically when it came to the economy, but also when it came to Israel.

19:57 So, people are going to start to demand that different

19:59 candidates have nuance approaches to however they respond to Israel.

20:03 And I don't think that he wants the fate of that funding

20:05 and how he moves forward dependent on people's position in the US.

20:08 I mean, on the social media side, that's correct to a degree.

20:13 Uh look, whenever one I mean,

20:15 think how much pictures of atrocities being committed in Vietnam

20:19 changed the American people's perspective on that war, right?

20:24 So yes, our social media site has uh Twitter and Facebook and Instagram have

20:29 the images of innocent people in Gaza

20:33 dying because it is just a conventional war,

20:36 but we have never before had such granular

20:39 and accurate photos of everything going on there.

20:42 and Israel has overwhelming military superiority versus, you know,

20:47 the opposition, this this terrorists embedded among the civilian population.

20:50 So the optics of it are just very bad and and and in fact,

20:53 it's not just the optics.

20:54 It is bad that so many people have died as a result of the IDF going in there.

20:59 And and that is yes,

21:00 that is souring Israel's perception on the world stage and among Americans.

21:04 And it's something the Israeli government, I don't think,

21:06 is taking seriously enough because they seem very committed to, you know,

21:11 come hell or high water, this is what we're going to do.

21:14 But weaning weaning them off, um,

21:16 American financial aid would be a would be a very good first step in my view.

21:20 All right.

21:21 Well, coming up on Rising, ABC News is pushing back against the FCC.

21:25 Don't go anywhere.

21:26 We're going to talk about that.

21:32 Lindsay, what is in your lens today?

21:34 Let's discuss.

21:35 So ABC is now pushing back against

21:37 the Trump administration trying to police broadcast television content,

21:41 arguing in a new filing that the FCC is

21:43 crossing a constitutional line and violating the First Amendment.

21:47 This comes after the agency questioned whether The View should still

21:51 qualify as a legitimate news program under federal equal time rules.

21:56 Now, let's be clear.

21:57 People can love The View, hate watch The View, or avoid the show altogether.

22:01 That's not really the point here.

22:02 The bigger issue is whether the government gets to decide

22:04 which political viewpoints deserve protection and which ones deserve scrutiny.

22:09 ABC says the FCC's actions quote threaten to upend decades

22:13 of settled law and practice and chill critical protected speech.

22:17 The network also warned about

22:18 quote viewpoint discrimination and retaliatory targeting,

22:23 especially because the scrutiny appears focused

22:25 on programs openly critical of President Trump.

22:29 Now, the FCC recently opened an unusual review of ABC's broadcast licenses,

22:33 really shortly after the president and the first lady,

22:36 Melania Trump, publicly called for Jimmy Kimmel,

22:39 to be fired over a joke they didn't like.

22:42 At the same time, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has openly questioned whether

22:46 The View deserves its long-standing exemption as a quote bonafide news program,

22:51 despite the fact that the FCC already granted

22:53 that exemption to the show more than two decades ago.

22:56 ABC pushed back hard, writing, quote,

22:58 "Some may dislike certain or even most

23:01 of the viewpoints expressed on The View or similar shows.

23:04 Such dislike, however,

23:05 cannot justify using regulatory processes to restrict those views.

23:10 And honestly, that principle should matter no matter where you fall politically.

23:14 The government should not trigger investigations, license reviews,

23:18 or retaliation because people are critical of the president.

23:22 should concern all of us if networks,

23:24 comedians, journalists, even local stations start asking,

23:27 "Will this bring some political consequences before deciding

23:30 to discuss something on air?" That should concern conservatives,

23:34 liberals, independents, libertarians, everybody.

23:38 Some of the same conservatives now warning about liberal media bias

23:42 were once among the loudest defenders

23:44 of protecting speech from government interference.

23:47 ABC's filing even points out that conservative broadcast

23:50 voices have not faced similar scrutiny under these rules.

23:55 Now, free speech protections are tested mo most when the speech is unpopular,

24:00 provocative, or politically inconvenient.

24:03 None of this means the networks are above criticism.

24:06 They absolutely are.

24:07 The press should be challenged, fact checked,

24:09 and held accountable every single day.

24:12 But accountability from viewers is totally

24:14 different than pressure from the federal government.

24:17 And I'll say this, after watching so many corporations

24:20 bend under political pressure over the last few years,

24:23 I for one am glad Disney appears to be choosing courage over capitulation.

24:30 Uh well, this is a I agree.

24:33 This is why we need uh the government

24:36 federal government has have less regulatory power.

24:40 I would begin by abolishing the FCC.

24:42 I would close the press division of the DOJ solve this.

24:47 This is why we need our president to stop pushing

24:50 Brendan Carr to do things and saying things out loud.

24:53 We'll close the FCC entirely.

24:55 You call for the whole Okay.

24:56 Well, since that's not happening right now,

24:58 don't you think the timing is suspect?

25:00 That's the only solution to this problem because you naively,

25:05 you liberals naively assume that we can just have good faith bureaucrats

25:11 in charge who have no political views of their owns and just make decisions

25:15 and just regulate these things in accord with the public good and they have

25:20 no agenda and no independent political views

25:22 and that describes no bureaucrat on earth.

25:25 In fact, that describes no human being in this entire country.

25:28 These will this is just like redistricting.

25:30 These decisions for how to draw the lines will always

25:33 be done by partisan actors because everyone is a partisan

25:36 actor particularly the people who get into government work

25:38 for the people to whom government service appeals are idologues.

25:43 So it will always be done in some politically not neutral way.

25:47 And so Brendan Carr is just doing it in the proTrumpian MAGA- conservative way.

25:52 And if you had some liberal, you know,

25:53 you had Walter Mow going back to the 1960s,

25:57 it was the same way from a different perspective.

25:59 So there has been Democrat and Republican presidents and this show

26:02 has been on for a slew of each of them.

26:04 And so this show has been a bonafide news program for 20

26:07 years and people on the View have been critical of presidents.

26:11 It's been mostly the same format, like four or so women that are left-leaning,

26:15 one on the right for that most of that time.

26:18 I mean, unless you're talking about Barbara Walters's time,

26:20 which is more than 20 years ago.

26:21 Okay?

26:22 And so therefore, if everyone else accepted

26:25 the criticism and accepted the FCC's agreement

26:28 that this was a bonafide news program that didn't

26:30 have to abide by this equal time rule,

26:32 then why would Brendan Carr specifically be targeting this show on the heels

26:37 of the president making all the decisions that he's made in the last year?

26:40 I'm not disagreeing with you.

26:41 It it's politically motivated.

26:43 It's absolutely politically motivated.

26:44 But what I'm saying is always politically motivated.

26:46 I know, but everyone else who's in office didn't do this.

26:48 So, there's other shows that if if Brendan Carr wants

26:50 to be politically motivated and get certain shows off air,

26:53 he also has to look at the Glen Beck show.

26:55 He has to look at other shows that are on radio and television airways.

26:57 My dear, those things have been looked at by Democrats

27:01 who've been trying to destroy them for years.

27:04 Elizabeth Warren sent letters.

27:06 Elizabeth Warren is not the president.

27:08 We're talking about the president urging the FCC to make moves.

27:11 Have held have convened.

27:12 They've called for they've threatened to remove the section

27:15 230 liability protection for internet

27:18 companies that platform conservative speech.

27:20 They harassed Verizon and AT&T for offering Newsmax as a channel

27:25 because it was platforming vaccine disinformation and election disinformation.

27:28 The Democrats are at war with the concept of free speech for conservative news

27:32 and conservative influencers and conservative broadcasters.

27:35 They they've desperate to sink their teeth into these into these platforms.

27:39 They are playing this game already.

27:40 So now conservatives are playing it as well.

27:43 Lena Khan was just praising uh Mark Ruffalo calling for this the merger

27:48 of I can't even which companies are trying to merge right now.

27:51 Every one of them.

27:52 Param.

27:53 So this is Netflix and you know what we're talking about.

27:56 Yes.

27:56 The Paramount merger.

27:57 Yes, that one.

27:58 And again that's political because they don't want it to be too much um uh

28:04 of the same company being run by someone

28:06 uh Paramount who's sympathetic to the administration.

28:09 So that's a political decision decision too.

28:11 The way to make it not never be a political decision is either do it your way,

28:16 which is impossible, which is, oh, we'll just have neutral people.

28:18 It's not about neutral people.

28:20 Just take away the power.

28:22 Take away the government's power.

28:23 It's not about neutral people.

28:24 It's about people.

28:24 And you can have whatever political affiliation you want, right?

28:27 You can do that.

28:28 But you can go in and follow the book of your job, right?

28:31 So you have a listing of things that you need to do.

28:33 This is how we govern.

28:35 This is how we review cases.

28:36 This is how we give people the uh autonomy to broadcast.

28:39 Here's how we make make our rules.

28:41 Your opinion should not overlap.

28:42 On top of that, people can do their job

28:44 every single day without allowing their opinion to overlap.

28:47 Right.

28:47 People can make I do believe that they can do that.

28:49 If you have So, can Supreme Court justices not look

28:51 at the You said people look at the text and say, "Oh, look at the tariffs.

28:55 Everyone has But they have their opinions and they have their ideology." Yes.

28:59 But they're looking at the law of the land,

29:00 which is why I still believe in the Supreme Court.

29:02 And they're going by the law.

29:03 And so why do you think no one can do

29:04 that if you believe the Supreme Court can do that?

29:06 They just handed Trump a huge L and the court is a large majority conservative.

29:10 So even if you mix their political opinion that they have at home,

29:13 saying they're neutral, they they have I mean tech originalism is a is

29:18 an ideology is is a philosophy that the correct

29:20 way to interpret the law is to consider what

29:24 the people who wrote that law were thinking at the time.

29:26 That's originalism.

29:27 Textualism is a different ideology.

29:30 somewhat related but different that says not not not consider what they

29:33 were thinking but literally what it says the plain exact meaning what does

29:37 that word mean that's what the law says then there's the more progressive

29:41 living breathing document that says we should

29:43 not specifically narrowly interpret it we should

29:46 update it for how we live now so we're not going to apply

29:49 it exactly the way it was meant at the time because we're under

29:51 new circumstances those are those are three different ways to interpret the law

29:55 that are all they're all val they're

29:58 all just different ideological ways to apply.

30:00 Do you know what I'm saying?

30:00 And they're all valid.

30:01 That's an opinion, right?

30:01 They're all valid.

30:02 Like, but it's totally different.

30:04 I'm saying there's no neutral way to do it because choosing totally different

30:07 than the president and Melania Trump saying

30:10 something and you acting the next day.

30:11 It's totally different than you sending a true

30:13 social message to Pam Bondi that he that she needs to do some prosecutions

30:17 and telling the world they need to move forward.

30:18 You could say the DOJ has acted in a way

30:20 that looks like it lent itself towards the favor of Biden.

30:23 PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD YOU OUT LOUD, do this right now,

30:26 Pam Bondi, or you're making us look crazy.

30:28 PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID out loud, "The view needs to be cancelled.

30:31 Jimmy Kimmel should be off the air." He said

30:34 these things out loud and then actions have followed.

30:36 President Trump is actively suing the New York Times.

30:38 President Trump has sued ABC.

30:40 President Trump has sued CBS.

30:42 He is attacking the media every single day.

30:44 He does what the other side has done via cloak and dagger for decades.

30:51 He is just more vocal and more obvious about it.

30:54 But it is the same campaign to silence dissenters that the Biden administration

31:00 waged during COVID and during uh 2020 and during that whole news cycle.

31:05 Okay.

31:05 The FCC is supposed to be an autonomous

31:08 organization and I wish that they would operate.

31:10 Is it possible?

31:10 We should close it down.

31:11 Right.

31:11 But that's not going to happen.

31:12 So tell me a realistic response to this.

31:13 Close it down.

31:14 Tell me a realistic response to this.

31:16 It's not going to close.

31:16 So tell me a realistic response.

31:18 Is that Brendan Carr needs to leave his position.

31:20 Maybe the place doesn't need to close.

31:21 somebody who knows how to do their job

31:22 should perhaps take that role on who's not just

31:25 going to attack outlets that specifically criticize the president

31:28 but won't attack outlets on the other side doing it and

31:31 like attack the Mark Leven show, attack the Glenn Beck show.

31:34 He's not looking at it if you're talking about shows that sway one way.

31:37 He has a long list of shows that on both sides

31:39 of the aisle that he's going to have to shut off the airways to.

31:43 He Lindsay, he's not looking to apply the law evenly.

31:45 He's looking to hurt critics of the president.

31:48 And so he should not be in that role if he cannot next guy,

31:51 the Democrat appointee, will do it the other way around.

31:54 So, we just need to shut down the agency and move on with our lives.

31:57 That's the correct answer.

31:58 No more Republicans are going to do exactly what Democrats do.

32:01 Democrats are going to do exactly what Republicans do.

32:03 It's the same with there's no fair correct way

32:05 to draw there's no magic way to draw the lines.

32:08 This all these decisions will be made by partisan

32:10 actors unless you actually just abolish these agencies.

32:15 That's my view.

32:16 Next up, AOC is potentially gearing up for presidential run in 2028,

32:20 but she says her ambitions are bigger than the White House.

32:23 Oh, dear me.

32:24 Stick around.

32:26 Representative Alexandria Okasio Cortez has been

32:29 facing questions for months about her plans

32:31 for 2028 and beyond with many people expecting her to run for president.

32:36 She was asked once again at an event on Friday and her response went viral.

32:39 Take a look.

32:40 They assume that my ambition is a title

32:43 or a seat and my ambition is way bigger than that.

32:51 Um my ambition is to change this country.

32:54 Presidents come and go, Senate, House seats, elected officials come and go.

33:02 But singlepayer healthcare is forever.

33:08 A living wage is forever.

33:10 Workers rights are forever.

33:12 Women's rights.

33:15 Okay.

33:15 In terms of polling,

33:16 AOC is currently near the top of potential Democratic nominees,

33:19 but most polls show her trailing Kla Harris,

33:22 Gavin Newsome, and also Pete Buddhajed.

33:25 Uh, what an arrogance she has.

33:27 She wants to be a a messiah of some kind.

33:30 A bigger than a president, transformational.

33:34 Just come on.

33:34 Come on now.

33:35 Uh, I take it for what she's saying.

33:37 No, she did.

33:38 That's not arrogant.

33:39 She said, "I have bigger goals than one role.

33:41 If my job is to help change the trajectory of people's lives for decades

33:45 to come by putting laws in place in her current role or in future roles,

33:49 that's more important to her than receiving the title.

33:51 So, if another person was running

33:53 in a position that became president that she supported,

33:55 that pushed the agenda forward that she thought

33:57 was good for people's healthcare and other things,

33:59 she probably would support them because she's for the betterment of the average

34:03 American that can't afford healthcare." What's hard to understand about that?

34:06 Yeah, all those policies are bad ideas though.

34:08 So, in some ways that's I guess she has uh she

34:11 has a vision but it's a very it's a bad vision.

34:13 Tell me what uh the the Republican agenda is

34:15 on healthcare again because I don't remember it and I

34:17 remember President Trump has very vague health care plan

34:20 called like the big healthare plan that has no details.

34:22 So tell me what the alternative is.

34:24 I'd love to know.

34:25 the rep I agree that the Republicans have been a little

34:28 incoherent on this, but um I think uh the most important

34:33 thing to do would be to be Medicare reform so that uh

34:38 we're not having insurance companies gobble up so much public money.

34:43 Uh I've talked at so much every time

34:45 this comes up about the price confusion in the industry.

34:48 nobody knows what they're paying for and uh we direct so much money

34:51 to middle managers in the health care field because it's not a true market.

34:56 But AOC doesn't want to make it more of a competitive market where where

35:00 medical services companies and insurers need to lower

35:03 their prices because they're competing with others.

35:05 She wants to do the opposite.

35:06 She wants to just turn it wholesale over to government

35:09 that any medical thing you want will be covered by government.

35:12 that will uh make it dramat that will first of all

35:15 the experience that every other country that tries this has had is long

35:18 lines and shortages and eventually rationing of care that you want very

35:22 serious care in Canada you come here and get it so I

35:25 don't have laid out critique and suggested responses to how you might

35:30 fix healthcare as Robbie the libertarian you have not told me how

35:34 Republicans have laid out anything in response to this criticize they criticize

35:38 AOC daily about the things she's saying but again she's doing something.

35:42 If you don't like her saying everyone has health insurance,

35:45 lay out the alternative that makes health insurance affordable.

35:47 And it sure is not prescription drug

35:49 prices that just are upped in other countries.

35:52 Health insurance, but will they have health care is the question.

35:55 The point is I'm not hearing any policy.

35:56 So when people criticize her, she's saying things.

35:59 It's the same thing we to bring it back to my favorite person, Mom Donnie.

36:02 When we criticize him, he's actually trying something out.

36:05 He's not just sitting back while the economy balloons uncontrollably.

36:09 He's trying something out over there in New York.

36:11 Okay, he I guess is at least likable or something.

36:14 AOC is a doctrinire Marxist farable.

36:19 She's one of the most effective communicators in the Democratic party,

36:22 but also doesn't have the kind of I don't

36:25 know likable gets along with workingclass people that Bernie has.

36:29 And maybe she has authenticity.

36:31 She has grassroots appeal.

36:32 You'll see her at rallies.

36:33 She traveled the country with Bernie Sanders at the oligarch tour last summer,

36:36 a stop oligarch tour, and it went swimmingly.

36:39 I saw the crowds were packed all over the country.

36:42 So I don't think that I mean Robbie might

36:43 not like her but there's a slew of people

36:45 who genuinely like her so much that she's made

36:47 it what you say number four on the list.

36:48 I don't like her for people to run for president.

36:51 And she also commands attention.

36:52 I mean every time that she travels somewhere in an international space

36:55 or a forum speaking we're discussing it and we're not the only show.

36:58 You know who else commanded attention?

37:01 Who?

37:00 Joseph Stalin.

37:02 Come on.

37:03 On another note AOC also drew some criticisms

37:05 for comments that she made about the Revolutionary War, the American Revolution.

37:09 Let's watch.

37:10 The American Revolution was against the billionaires of their time.

37:17 And we are declaring independence from such

37:20 an extreme marriage of wealth and power

37:24 and the state that the voices of of everyday people did not exist.

37:34 That is such a f You're laughing because you know it is.

37:38 That is just a wildly false version of the American Revolution.

37:43 The American Revolution was not a revolution

37:45 against the billionaire class or the wealthy people.

37:48 It was a revolution against a government.

37:51 It was conducted by people in some cases who were very wealthy.

37:54 George Washington was extremely wealthy even for the time.

37:58 It was for people who had wealth and wanted

38:01 less of it confiscated by a foreign government.

38:04 That was the revolution.

38:05 It was not against the wealthy.

38:07 It was not is not really even people against

38:09 elites because there were elites among the colonies too.

38:12 It was against it was it was a freedom revol it was a revolution

38:17 for freedom for more control over people's

38:20 lives and destiny against a foreign government.

38:22 It was revolution literally against taxes,

38:23 the thing she loves and wants to raise on everyone.

38:26 So that I mean her understanding of history is so juvenile it is embarrassing.

38:32 Remember she was saying no the criticism about her was the foreign

38:36 policy piece when she was on an international stage.

38:38 Well yeah and but well the thing I found most ridiculous was when she

38:41 was denying the uh Spanish uh influence of uh of uh the cowboys and everything.

38:48 She was saying that was came from black people.

38:51 I don't even remember.

38:51 It was so incoherent.

38:52 But I think God lover not a bright

38:56 let's take the revolution the word revolution out.

38:59 Let's just talk about move.

39:00 I dare you to defend what she said right there.

39:03 You're not even going to try cuz you know I want to discuss the word revolution.

39:07 10,000 times smarter than she I want to take discuss the word revolution.

39:10 Maybe she wants a revolution in this country as she discusses the ways to um

39:15 implement her strategies and ideas to revolutionize

39:18 the way that we take care of one another.

39:20 She wants to that is so weak.

39:23 Listen, AOC is really she's

39:27 she's on she's on a bunch of different platforms that we haven't seen her on.

39:29 So, and I don't mean like television platforms.

39:31 I mean like on international stages talking about

39:33 foreign policy and there's a microscope on her.

39:36 She's on stages talking about her plans forward

39:38 historical context and there's a microscope on her.

39:41 So, she's going to have to do better at just really

39:44 combing through exactly what she's going to say and what her intentions

39:46 are and be really calculated when we know she's very grassroots

39:49 and very with the people and just goes with the flow.

39:52 She needs to like calculate herself a little

39:54 bit because as she runs towards this presidency,

39:57 if that's what she wants to do in 2028,

39:59 people are going to take every one of these clips um and say,

40:03 "Do you want somebody who doesn't understand history?

40:05 Do you want somebody who doesn't understand foreign policy?"

40:07 And it's going to be a problem for her.

40:09 and she's setting up problems that don't have to exist because right now,

40:12 like I said, not to Robbie, but to a large swath of Democratic people.

40:16 She's likable.

40:17 She touches the grassroots working class.

40:19 She speaks to a group people that felt

40:21 they were left out by the Democratic party.

40:23 And so, she's doing all the things that would

40:24 make her look like a candidate that cares.

40:26 And so, some of this other stuff um is distracting, I think,

40:29 for her, and she has to recalibrate about how to communicate.

40:32 But, I think, like I said, she has things that are working really well for her.

40:36 And so as she goes on these new

40:38 stages and expands her her reach to different part

40:41 places we haven't seen her and her discussion talking

40:44 points she needs to make sure that she's just

40:46 spot on with how she wants to communicate

40:47 because even the billionaire's comment people um we Erin

40:51 and I talked about it on Friday she said

40:52 no one can actually earn or become a billionaire remember

40:55 right we should talk about that too that was also an

40:58 I didn't get your perspective I I would say idiotic I I understood her point

41:01 and I combed through it and tried to get to the actual root of the

41:03 look people can people can gather gather wealth illegitimately.

41:08 Um, people can gather wealth legitimately.

41:11 So, it's not it doesn't mean just because you're

41:13 wealthy that you came by, you can rob other people.

41:16 You can take advantage of uh of of policies that I

41:20 think shouldn't exist and you can become wealthy that way.

41:23 You can also become very wealthy and is the more

41:25 normal and typical experience by offering something of great value.

41:29 Whether that's in the realm of entertainment and the arts,

41:32 uh JK Rowling's a billionaire.

41:34 She didn't steal it from anyone.

41:35 She made something people love.

41:37 Taylor Swift made something people loved.

41:40 And then or you and you you can make something in the tech sector.

41:42 You can invent something that people value at a billion dollars.

41:45 To them it's they would pay you for it that much money.

41:48 So even if you don't literally have the cash

41:50 on hand because you still have the thing,

41:51 if you were to sell it, you would get that money people,

41:56 this actually does go to something very philosophical, right?

41:58 If you if you make some let's say the this is the Wilt Chamberlain example.

42:03 Have you ever heard this?

42:04 Everybody in society, let's we start from a standpoint everyone's equal.

42:08 Everyone in society has an equal amount of money.

42:09 So whatever you think the equal distribution of resources have,

42:12 let's start from that.

42:14 Well, now Will Chamberlain comes along uh and people will pay, you know,

42:19 a thousand bucks or whatever it is to watch him play basketball.

42:22 So now he collects a thousand bucks from everybody and he

42:24 has a gazillion dollars and everyone else has $1,000 left.

42:27 So now the distribution of wealth in society is no

42:30 longer equal because he's got way more money than everyone else.

42:34 Is there anything wrong with that?

42:35 It was arrived at fairly.

42:37 It was arrived at where people consented to give him that thing.

42:39 I know we have.

42:40 So the point being if people consent to give

42:42 someone their money in exchange for something they value more

42:45 than their money because the money has no actual

42:47 value unless you can exchange it for something you want.

42:51 So that's not wrong.

42:51 Yes.

42:51 So when we pay for she thinks it's wrong.

42:53 Look, when we pay for services like buying our phones

42:56 that are expensive or Amazon or all these things,

42:58 she's not talking about the portion where the Americans pay.

43:00 She's talking about if you dig deep into this tunnel of wealth for some

43:04 of these big companies specifically in the tech center se sector that you

43:08 have to understand that it's on the backs of a lot of people usually

43:10 internationally that are being severely underpaid child

43:13 labor mining for certain minerals that are

43:15 used for our phone like people are being killed over these kind of things

43:17 and we use them at leisure so she said to become a billion

43:20 dollar apple or any technological device that we're staring at you are people

43:25 are dying to find the minerals to make these things so she's talking about

43:29 countries are desperate for No, look at watch Joe Rogan's episode about

43:32 the mineral they mined for to make the iPhones.

43:34 And we'll talk about it.

43:35 We'll revisit this maybe.

43:36 You want to take away those people's jobs,

43:38 you'll get crippling poverty, starvation.

43:40 You'll they'll be child prostitutes on the streets if you take away those jobs.

43:44 Those jobs, those countries want those jobs so they can

43:48 begin to have the living standards that we have, right?

43:50 It's a it's an child labor process to make fast fashion and things like that.

43:54 I don't It starts with that and then the country improves and then it

43:57 it develops standards and then it normalizes

43:59 and then they don't have that anymore.

44:01 But you have to you can't just abolish that and say

44:04 everything's going to be great in this the third world country.

44:06 You abolish that then everyone starves.

44:08 I completely disagree but we have to park it there.

44:11 Next up, California Governor Gavin Newsome under

44:14 fire for what some say is corruption.

44:16 That's coming up next.

44:17 Stay with us.

44:20 California Governor Gavin Newsome is facing new allegations of corruption after

44:24 an initiative involving baby diapers gave reportedly $20 million to a nonprofit.

44:29 That initiative called Golden State Start aimed to give

44:32 free diapers to newborns through hospitals across California.

44:36 The governor's partner, Jennifer Seivil Newsome,

44:38 co-founded the California Partners Project,

44:41 which helped facilitate the LA based company Baby Toby to provide those diapers.

44:46 But one of Baby's co-CEOs, Norah Weinstein,

44:49 sits on the board of the California Partners Project.

44:51 And some in the state says, "Well,

44:53 it's no coincidence that Weinstein's company got

44:55 the contract." Newsome's press office fired back on X.

44:59 It referenced the New York Post's article detailing the alleged corruption,

45:03 writing in part, quote, "This is false.

45:05 Fact, it's a $6.2 million contract, not 20 million.

45:09 Fact: Baby was chosen through a rigorous competitive procurement process.

45:14 It is a national nonprofit based in California

45:17 with strong experience in delivering diapers for families in need.

45:20 This program is a gamecher for new

45:22 moms providing 400 free diapers for all newborns.

45:26 Why is MAGA anti-family?

45:27 It's sick.

45:28 Babyto baby is a huge organization.

45:30 I mean I I would just know because I had a baby and it was huge for all the moms

45:33 that were involved that I saw that were celebrity

45:35 moms that helped raise awareness and raise money for it.

45:38 So the rigorousness of the process,

45:39 obviously they might have proof or combing through or emails

45:42 of different vendors that apply to do this role.

45:45 But I mean just because someone sits on the board of his wife's organization,

45:48 does that mean money is going to his wife?

45:49 I mean there's no direct line here that proves

45:52 that he put money in his wife's pocket, which is what's being alleged?

45:56 Seems smelly to me.

45:57 You know how many people sit on a board of companies that doesn't mean like how

46:01 does the board membership have to do with baby to baby and connect to his wife?

46:04 Connect the dots for me on how that makes

46:06 his wife and him in some kind of cahoots for corruption.

46:09 Did she get a dime from this?

46:10 Because that should be easy to trail.

46:12 If not, what are we talking about?

46:14 Well, it's a kickback to a friend of theirs.

46:18 Oh, like a kickback for the drone that President Trump's

46:21 son is buying millions of a company that he's invested in.

46:24 That's not made any rules any

46:26 No, I'm just saying like that's a total obnoxious kickback about going to war.

46:30 No, I'm asking.

46:31 That's not a problem for you.

46:32 the kickback that his sons will get from investing in the drone

46:35 industry as they buy billions of dollars in drones in the US.

46:37 That's totally different than giving babies diapers.

46:40 Is this the criticism?

46:41 Is this the apples to apples you want to do?

46:43 Okay, so Gavin Newsome is getting cheap diapers.

46:46 400 diapers per newborn that couldn't afford it.

46:48 Let's buy.

46:49 Trump is buying up drones to blow up other

46:51 countries for a war the US doesn't want to be.

46:53 It's not a function of government to get diapers for newborns.

46:57 I'm sorry.

46:57 It's just not.

46:58 So, it shouldn't be done.

46:59 Period.

46:59 I'm against it.

47:00 I don't care if it's a kickback.

47:02 I don't care if it's the result of a rigorous prospect.

47:06 You taking care of your baby is your responsibility.

47:10 Moreover, if I let me finish, if I was just going to give some

47:14 kind of direct wealth transfer to lower income people.

47:18 It should not be product specific or industry specific.

47:22 they should just give them because what if

47:25 a low-inccome person they have plenty of diapers

47:27 but they don't have uh milk or they don't have what just give them money.

47:32 Don't say what it's for.

47:33 Just direct cash payments are a much more uh uh because people know what

47:38 they need and they might not need

47:39 that thing that happens to be enriching someone.

47:42 You know, it's it's the worst way to go about welfare

47:46 in my in my view and the government shouldn't be doing it anyway,

47:49 but if it's going to do it, just give them money.

47:51 As you said, let me finish.

47:52 I thought about Scott Jennings and how I could react like him when

47:55 somebody's hand goes close to their face like he did the other day.

47:58 My hand go close to your face.

47:59 No, I'm not.

48:00 He's He went crazy on CNN even though he points at people's face all the time.

48:03 He went crazy the other day.

48:04 Yes, exactly.

48:05 I met that kid, too.

48:07 Well, and he just said, "I'm acting exactly as Scott Jennings." But let's let's

48:10 get back on to uh the topic at hand.

48:12 So, governments often partner with nonprofit

48:15 organizations even if you don't like it.

48:17 This happens for food assistance.

48:18 This happens for child care, disaster relief.

48:20 What does the government have to do?

48:21 Why can't they just have the diapers?

48:23 Your answer can't be like we should live in a different society.

48:27 That's not going to happen right now.

48:28 Here we are.

48:29 And so as governments partner with organizations,

48:32 if everyone wants to criticize working with Babyto Baby,

48:34 then Newsome could partner with a different organization.

48:36 But if he has budgeted Wait,

48:38 if he has budgeted the money to help families through working with a nonprofit,

48:43 why are people upset about that?

48:44 Kids got diapers.

48:45 because it's not my tax dollars don't need shouldn't be going to it.

48:50 If do you think wealthy people are lined up to get 400 free diapers?

48:53 No.

48:53 I think people who really need the assistance are lined up to get the diapers.

48:56 Okay, then why don't you write a check?

48:58 Okay, why don't you buy someone who needs help some diapers and instead

49:02 of forcing other people to do it like this is just so annoying.

49:05 The liberal world we need to help people.

49:08 Oh, but who's we?

49:09 By we you mean you.

49:11 This is the liberal worldview saying someone else.

49:13 I would I would be happy to buy diapers.

49:15 Well, then go ahead.

49:15 And I'm sure this nonprofit does a good job.

49:18 Coercive charity is not charity and it's not

49:20 the taxpayers of California's job to handle this.

49:23 Quite obviously, I would say they can buy do that for people if

49:28 they want to do that and it's a very nice thing to do.

49:30 I certainly encourage it.

49:31 Participate in any fundraising drive we do.

49:33 Not the government's job.

49:34 Next up, oh, actually that does it for us on Rising Live.

49:37 Thanks for watching.

49:38 Look out for more YouTube exclusive content coming

49:40 your way and we'll see you back here tomorrow.

49:43 Bye-bye.