The Young Turks - Corporate Rule

Episode Date: November 4, 2022

Here’s everything you need to know about the Supreme Court Case that could cut Medicaid. Obama is over the hecklers and he’s starting to fire back. Dunkin Donuts has resolved its child labor law violations. An insane “white racism” is circulating around the internet and the reactions are mixed. An LAPD Captain has been exposed for covering up a sexual harassment case. Host: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Woo! It's up! We're going to be able to be. Welcome to the Young Turks, Jane Cougar and Experian with you guys.

Good to be back in the studio for me. In the bonus episode for the members today, I'm going to tell you guys a story from Florida about the don't say gay bill. That is, it's harrowing. It's real. Fascism is here. And unfortunately, there's a lot of stories in today's rundown that talks about that. But hey, mainstream media.

I know. We can't tell. We can't tell who's right and wrong. Nazis or non-Nazis, it's super hard to tell. Anyway, you'll be able to tell them tonight's show. Anna, let's do it. So I wanted to start off with a bit of a complicated story, but it is one of the most important stories that I don't think is getting enough attention.

And it has to do with a Supreme Court case that will begin oral arguments next week. And it could completely gut Medicaid. So let's discuss. Next week, the conservative Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case that could end up gutting Medicaid. Medicaid, of course, is the state health care program that is given to low-income individuals covering up to 76 million low-income Americans across the country. Now, the case that the Supreme Court will be making a ruling on is known as Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion, County versus Telefsky. Now, this is a case out of Indiana, Indianapolis, to be specific, Tevlevski, George Tevlevski, to be specific, was a patient at this nursing home who was found

to have been given all sorts of drugs to sedate him, which goes against Medicaid regulations, right? So this was a Medicaid recipient going to a nursing home that was operated by the state. And it turned out that, you know, according to the accusations, this nursing home was giving him all sorts of drugs to sedate him that they weren't supposed to give him, right? Now, before we get to the details of this case and why it's so important as it pertains to Medicaid, it's important to understand how Medicaid works. Medicaid is administered by the states based on funding that has been provided to the states by the federal government and the state enters a contract with the federal government, meaning it agrees to the regulations and the rules pertaining to that funding. In order for the states to get that funding from the federal government, they have to agree

to abide by these regulations. Now, according to the lawsuit that was filed by Tevlevski, who has since passed away, he was given drugs which violated the regulations and the rules for the funding as it was given from the federal government to the states. Now, in 2020, total federal Medicaid spending was more than $670 billion, but the federal government offers money to each state only if the state agrees to use this money to provide health care to eligible recipients and to comply with certain other conditions. Now, this is relevant to the case that the Supreme Court will hear because of this reason.

Now, the plaintiffs in Tavleski accused the defendants, an Indiana health system operated by local government officials and a private company that manages nursing homes of violating several provisions of federal law governing nursing homes, including one that prohibits those facilities from using psychotropic drugs for purposes of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. Currently, at least one of these legal requirements can be enforced through, this is important, private lawsuits, meaning that a patient who believes that their rights under federal Medicaid law have been violated can sue the alleged violator. In this case, the state,

through the federal courts, okay? Now, the defendant in this case, the hospital, the health and hospital corporation of Marion County, what they are arguing in this case is that the plaintiff's right to sue should not be a right at all. That should be thrown out. Their ability to sue the state over the way they administer the Medicaid funds should not happen under the

federal courts. So let me give you the details on that. The plaintiffs in Tovlevski accused the defendant, I already read that. Currently, at least some of these legal requirements can be enforced through these private lawsuits, right? There's a specific law in place that allows that to happen. So let's actually talk about that law. Section 1983 is the law that permits state officials and in certain circumstances, private individuals implementing state programs to be sued in federal court if they deprive someone of any rights privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and laws. But going back to the Tvleski case, rather than litigating whether they did or didn't violate

the laws protecting nursing home patients, the defendant, again, the health and hospital corporation of Marion County, is asking the Supreme Court to strip Medicaid recipients or patients of their ability to bring such lawsuits entirely. So think about what this means. This means that there's really no way to enforce the regulations pertaining to that federal funding that is given to the states to administer for their Medicaid programs, right? And the federal government can actually go after the state if they're not using the money properly or if they're not abiding or complying with those regulations.

But what would the end goal be, taking federal funding away from those states, which would only exacerbate the problem and take important Medicaid funds away from low income individuals within the state? So it's a little bit of a mess. And I'll get to the details in a moment, but it does appear that this pro-corporate conservative Supreme Court is poised to side with the defendants here. Okay, so let me break down a number of things here. Let's start with the Supreme Court.

So I hate activist judges and you may think, wait, I mean, I've heard conservatives say that the liberal justices are activists, nonsense. It's actually not nonsense, to be fair to them, right? In the past, liberal judges, justices have been activists, and if you watch the young church regularly, you know, I'm actually fairly conservative on judicial issues. I don't even think Roe was decided correctly. I think Roe's great law, but the justices shouldn't have done that. So in this case, are the justices being conservative if they do what Anna has suggested here?

No, it is not the conservative position at all. They're being activists. And they're saying, yeah, there's 50 years of precedent, let alone over 100 years of precedent on the issue of state versus federal that is at the core of this case. But we don't care about precedent at all. We don't care what happened before. This case is not close, guys. I'm telling you, judicially, I'm pretty conservative. This is not at all conservative.

This is right wing judges going, we don't care about judicial philosophy. We don't care. We just want the Republicans to win. We want to end Medicaid if they go in that direction. Remember, they haven't ruled yet. But there's some strong evidence to suggest that they're certainly considering it. Okay, now let's talk about the impact on Medicaid, as Anna alluded to, right? So number one, if people sue, then there's a good way to get redress.

And then those states are worried about losing money. they actually do follow the rules in the current system. Republicans don't want them to follow the rules. They want them to discriminate on Medicaid and hopefully destroy Medicaid, right? So now if the justice has overturned the current system, what would have to happen is the federal government would have to come in and go, okay, you're doing it wrong. So either we're gonna cut all of your Medicaid funding to punish you. But wait a minute, that defeats the whole point.

That means everybody in that state isn't gonna get Medicaid. The Republicans are very happy. They're like, oh, good, we crushed the poor even more. more and we'll give more to the rich, right? So that's a terrible outcome. If they come medicate a little bit to punish them, well, here's an example that Vox used. I thought actually was an excellent example. What's the first thing Florida's going to do?

They're going to say, oh, you know what? We don't think that trans citizens should get any Medicaid at all. We're worried that they're going to use it for hormone therapy, whatever they're going to make up. But they're going to strip them of all of their Medicaid privileges. By the way, that's barely a hypothetical. It's almost guaranteed that they'll do that. And then they'll expand it to everyone who's an LGBTQ community. They'll deny people who are gay of being able to get Medicaid, et cetera, guaranteed, lock it in, write it down in stone.

There's the Supreme Court rules this way, DeSantis, and almost all other red states will begin to do this, okay? So once they do that, and the federal government, if it is held by a Democratic to presidency, We'll then say, okay, we're going to cut part of your Medicaid to punish you for applying it wrong, right? And you said, great. Before we were denying just trans people, now that you cut part of my Medicaid, I don't have the money for gay people either. Or, hey, look at that, I don't have the money for black people. I don't have the money for poor people. Poor people is the whole point of Medicaid is to make sure they don't die in the streets, right?

So this will definitely, definitely allow Republicans that gut Medicaid and maybe even completely ended. And did they ever vote on it? No. And that's why I hate activist judges. The Supreme Court has been ruling in favor of corporations and robbing us of our democracy for over 50 years now. And here comes the same conservative activist judges, not conservative judicially, conservative politically, to come in and rob us of our rights without a single goddamn vote again. Yeah, that's exactly right. And they have no problem breaking with established precedent or anything like that. And remember, the main goal here is to gut Medicaid. And when the Affordable Care Act was passed and it would actually enhance the amount of federal money that could go to states for Medicaid,

Republican governors rejected it. They decided, no, we'll just allow our low income constituents to suffer with no health care coverage, just to make a point about how we're rejecting this federal money for Medicaid. Okay, so with that said, let's talk about why I'm arguing that it appears the Supreme Court is poised to side with the defendants here. It's not simply because they're pro-corporate conservative judges, it's because of some signs, some signals we've seen from them in the not so distant past. So let's talk about some of the other cases that have been involved in this and how

Supreme Court justices have kind of commented on it. So alarmingly for Medicaid beneficiaries, three current justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, joined Antonin Scalia's opinion in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, that was in 2015, which argued that the modern jurisprudence permitting Medicaid beneficiaries to sue does not generally apply to contracts between a private party and the government. So let me give you a little more of that, and then we can kind of decode what the argument is here. There is a little bit of hope. So Armstrong was not a section 1983 case, right? Remember, section 1983 is that reconstruction era law that would allow

for these Medicaid recipients to sue in federal court, right? Now let me continue. So it's unclear if the justices who joins Scalia's opinion and Armstrong intended to cut off suits filed under the reconstruction era law. Okay, so what do I mean by reconstruction era law? And what was the whole point of section 1871? So in the Civil Rights Act of 187, I'm sorry, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress created such a trigger, a broadly applicable private right of action for individuals who have had a federal right violated by the state. Okay, so that's like the gist of what the law is. And the argument here is, well, it's a contract entered between the federal government

and the state. And so since it's between the federal government and the state, the private citizen doesn't have the right to sue in federal court over the state breaking the contract. Okay, that actually is by far the most important part. it's even more important than the fact that this would destroy Medicaid. How could it be more important than that? Because then the states can do whatever the hell they want and the federal government can't do anything about it. If you take away section 1983, we're back to Jim Crow years, whether it's the South or anywhere else,

they could just massively start discriminating. And there's not a goddamn thing the federal government can do about it. Right. And so the Supreme Court, well, we're going to see it. We're gonna say how radical they are. And by the way, on the Medicaid issue, if it's, you got a Democratic president, you're in that conundrum that we talked about earlier. If you cut the Medicaid, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If you do nothing, by the way, well, then you're gonna let the Republicans just rewrite any part of the Medicaid that you like. But what if it's a Republican president? Well, the Republican president is gonna say to the states, yeah, gut it, destroy Medicaid, and I won't, I won't do anything about it. Okay, well, then there goes Medicaid. And one of our members just wrote, and I love our members. And he explained, yeah, Mitch McConnell's been, now that they have the Supreme Court,

they're hurry up and trying to destroy every part of the government that actually helps individuals. So security, Medicare, et cetera, right? And that's exactly right. And so the final piece of this is, like I said, if they get rid of that section 1983, we're back to the worst period in American history where the state's rights guys will use that as excuse. to discriminate against anybody and everybody that likely isn't white or straight. Yeah, I mean, and more importantly, the one thing that's clear about the conservative Supreme Court justices is how much they despise the administrative state, how much they

despise social spending programs, and the whole reason why the federalist society chose them on their list as potential Supreme Court nominees is because they would dismantle the administrative state. Yeah, and guys, understand why that's so important, why that's part of an enormous part of corporate rule. So we say Federalist Society picks these judges, because that's the organization they go through and they just literally hand it to Trump and the other Republican presidents. And then they go, yes, sir, of course, sir, and they do what the Federalist Society tells

them. But who is the Federalist Society? All the federal society is, is a front group for corporate rule. So it's corporations that fund federalist society. And then they tell them, hey, you're to pick the most brutally pro-corporate judges and make them Supreme Court judges. We've told you this many times, both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch ruled in cases where they said corporations are allowed to kill their employees and have no consequences. That is unbelievable. They're the most awful, horrific judges in the whole country.

And that's why they were picked. Yeah, and by the way. That's specifically why they were picked. What Jake is saying isn't even hyperbole, the case of the truck driver who was told to continue working during a winter storm after his truck broke down or something like that? His truck broke down on the side of the road. He used to ask for permission to go home and they said permission tonight. He said, I'm freezing to death.

I think I have frostbite, which by the way, he did have frostbite. If I stay out here, I'm going to die. And they said, stay out there and die if you have to. You're not to drive that truck because it might hurt the wheel of the truck and cause a couple of dollars. So when he, and they did fire him because he drove home and didn't die, but he did that frostbite, Gorsuch was the only judge out of all the judges that saw through all the different layers that it went through that said, yes, he should have stayed out there

and died. Insane. And so, that's who they are though, that's who, that's why they picked them. That's why they picked them. So when they get rid of the quote unquote administrative state, what are the two things that happens? That means you're a lot to deregulate all the corporations. So that means there's no cops on Wall Street.

There's no cops overlooking corporations. corporations will then go about killing us more systematically. And like for example, Heather's just companies cause a death of 45,000 Americans every single year. Oh, you didn't pay enough, you're dead, okay? You don't have insurance, you die in the streets. Now if you cut Medicaid, a lot more people are going to die in the streets, and why are they doing it?

So you force them into private insurance. So now a lot more won't be able to afford private insurance, but we'll make an extra couple of dollars from the people that we squeeze while all the rest of the die and Gorsuch and Cabinot will be like, yes, and let alone Alito Thomas, et cetera. So guys, this is barbaric corporate rule. And the Supreme Court is their number one weapon in doing that. Look, I wrote about a giant chapter in this in my book. On that alone, Justice is Coming book.com.

It's coming in about September or so. But these guys took over our government and handed it over to corporations. The deregulation, and of course, if you can't get guys. government help, you're going to be more indentured servants of corporations, and that's exactly what they want. This is as extreme a case as it gets, except one other Supreme Court case they're considering, which would allow the state's legislatures just to decide who won elections, no matter who they vote, the people voted for.

Those two cases, if they go in the activist direction, we're totally screwed. Democracy's gone, and we live under the most brutal corporate rule you'll ever see in your life. All right, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, Obama keeps getting heckled as he rallies for Democratic candidates across the country. We'll also talk a little bit about child labor and just how many companies keep getting caught breaking child labor laws. That and more coming right up. All right, back on TYT, Jane Huber, Anne Experian, and Derek Lopez. Derek just joined.

So God bless, thank you. We appreciate it. He hit the button below the YouTube video. You guys can do it at t.com slash join. All right, Casper, what's thanks? Lopez, part of my family. I thought about saying he's part of the Lopez family. Yeah, didn't take my husband's last name, but still, I am part of the Lopez clan.

So, good to meet you, brother. There you go, kind of literally. All right, let's do it. Well, things are getting real rowdy when Obama speaks. Let's go right to it. An economy that's very good for folks at the very top, but not always so good for ordinary people. Like you, Obama, why do you? Communities where too many kids, are you going to start?

Are you going to start? You have to be polite and civil. You have to be polite and civil. Obama keeps getting heckled as he travels across the country to attend rallies on behalf of Democratic candidates. In this particular case, he was in Arizona, rallying on behalf of Senator Mark Kelly and Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive? by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus,

IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. Arizona. Now, I think this is one example of the heckling where the person actually makes a point that, you can follow along with, and there's even some truth to it. There were other examples that were laughable, including one heckler on October 30th, who decided to blame Obama for pushing us closer to nuclear war because of what's currently

going on between Russia and Ukraine. I mean, Obama's like not president right now, and also when Crimea was annexed by Russia, I gotta say, I think the Obama administration luckily showed important restraint. So that didn't make much sense. But this is what any in-person political event has turned into. Shouting matches, anger, nonsense. And I think what we're seeing with the repeated heckling of Obama is like a concerted effort by conservatives. Because they film it, they post it on social media, that guy, Benny Thompson or something like that. I notice that he's been regularly tweeting this stuff out immediately. The video we showed you is from turning

point USA. It's just, it's all a big game to them. It's hilarious. So look, when Democratic voters, but not even just Democrats, but just a lot of independents, et cetera, showed up in Republican town halls when they were looking to kill Obamacare when Trump first won, the Republicans were flummoxed by it. And they were like, what? They just didn't see it coming because they didn't realize that people actually use Obamacare. And if they don't have it, they, you know, they're worried about their family and they're worried about their health, et cetera, right? And you know what the line of attack was against those protesters? They're like, oh, they must be fake. Now, they didn't have any evidence of that at all. Like, but why did

they assume that they were fake? Because that's what the right wing does every time. Okay. So when they were originally protesting Obamacare when Obama was trying to pass it, the Koch brothers would send buses to pick up protesters, grassroots protesters, tea party guys, and then drive them over. They'd feed them, they'd give them food, they would hand them signs. It was all fake. It was all fake. Okay, this is even more fake because these are all staged, right?

This is not even taking like grassroots dudes who are mad at banks and they're redirecting them to be mad at health care, right? So in this case, every one of these guys is a total fraud. Most of them are these fake leftists and pretending that the Democrats are pro-war and the Republicans are peace-loving anti-war guys. So peace-loving. So peace loving. And the reason they're doing that is because in their stupid heads, and who knows, maybe it'll work with a tiny fraction of people, they think, oh, we'll convince the dumbest people in the Democratic Party that the Republicans are nice and don't want war, and they love peace so much.

And it's really Obama and AOC that's, and Bernie, that's the problem. They're the war hawks. And so they're trying to peel off that piece of the electorate. That's what the strategies. Now, the way Obama responded, I didn't love at all. So I'll get back to that in a second. Oh, yeah, I know, because you use the word civil, especially. That's why I kept that in the clip.

But before we get to that, I didn't think there was going to be a lot to say about this, but you brought up a lot of interesting points that I want to reply to. So while I agree that specifically going after someone like Bernie Sanders as being pro-war is ridiculous, I have noticed that the Democratic Party has taken on elements of the Bush administration that made me despise the Bush administration. I became politicized during the Bush administration as he and all his cronies were planning to do the preemptive war in Iraq. And I just remember everyone banging the war drums

and the only people who were pushing back were in the Democratic Party. Now, I would have liked to see more of them, but the only pushback was from Democrats. Okay, now fast forward to 2020, when you have a massive group of never Trump Republicans, namely those from the Bush era, kind of going along with the Democratic Party because they hate Trump so much. I think the Democratic Party in a lot of ways has moved to the right on certain issues. I think a good example is the insane freak out and reaction to the progressive letter asking

Biden to like, hey, we're not saying pull aid away from Ukraine, but like we should also try to, you know, push for diplomacy and peace negotiations. The fact that the Democratic Party freaked out about that the way they did. And then the weak behavior from the progressive caucus pulling that letter, retracting it. It's just, I don't know, like there's this weird realignment happening. I'm not saying at all that Republicans are anti-war. A lot of the actions that we hated under Obama were expanded under Trump, foreign policy wise, including drone strikes. So I'm not buying the GOP talking point that they're anti-war at all. But I do think there is a problem with the Democratic Party beating war drums and not thinking a little more carefully about, hey, maybe we shouldn't increase tensions with China.

Maybe we should question whether or not sending more and more military weaponry to Ukraine is helping to bolster the possibility of peace negotiations. No, but okay, look, so Anna, all those things are correct to the point of being obvious. But what I can't stand and don't want to feed into here is the BS political trick that's being played. If you say, for example, you say progressive leadership shouldn't have crumbled on that letter. Well, I mean, progressive leadership is a joke, total utter joke. The only person weaker in the country than Nancy Pelosi is Primalognegeyapal, who's just constantly like, oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'll do whatever leadership says. Get out of here, man. And then they want us to, oh, yeah, well, you guys should kiss their ass, okay?

No, no, hard no, okay? So now the Democrats, are they, a lot of them war migrants? Of course they are. Joe Biden and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton all voted for the Iraq war, okay? And they're craving, and why did Polozo go to Taiwan to needlessly start conflict so defense contractors can make more money, okay? But that the fake left doesn't just say that. If they said that, we obviously agree, I just told you that, right?

But then they pretend that Republicans are better. at this, that the Republicans are anti-war. Total, massive, complaint lie, and they lie on purpose for money, because they're grifters. The Republican Party is awful on war, awful. You can name one or two times that, hey, Matt Gates said, hey, we need congressional authorization before war. Great, look, when it's real, I'm happy to give them credit. If a big portion of the Republican Party wants to come over to be anti-war, I would love it, okay? But it's a mirage that hasn't happened at all.

The Republicans are the ones that started every war. Then Trump tripled a number of drone attacks, yet you never hear that from the fake left. And stopped reporting on the number of civilian casualties as a result of those drone attacks. Of course, he said let's kill their family members, and he did kill their family members. And these guys pretend that Trump's pro peace guys last two things on that and then get back to Obama. Trump tried to start two gigantic wars in the Middle East by killing the top military leader in Iran. He was hoping that that would start a conflict that actually swallowed up the entire Middle East in a gigantic war.

And moving the embassy, the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was another attempt to start a war. Now, did Trump know that? He's an idiot, I don't know what he heard, what he believed, or who bribed him. Okay, well, I do know, Sholid Allison is part of the people who bribed him to move the embassy. But the people who orchestrated that wanted a giant, giant war in the Middle East. So oil companies, defense contractors and banks can make more money. So when the fake left liars pretend that the Republicans are angels, you have to know what you're getting into.

So you criticize the Democratic Party, I love it, I'm here for it, I've been doing it for 20 years. You pretend the Republicans are innocent, you're a goddamn liar. One other thing I want to just quickly mention about Trump's foreign policy, remember, he was so obsessed with starting a war with Iran that after he tore up the Iran nuclear deal. He had ordered a missile strike against Iran and luckily last second called it off. Think about what a disaster that would have been. I mean, he had already assassinated Qasem Soleimani, the top general in Iran. That alone could have sparked a full out hot war with Iran. Luckily it didn't.

But yeah, I mean, everything that you're saying is absolutely correct. I want to get to Obama's, you know, be civil comment, because I knew. that that would set you off. Yeah, so look, the whole way that he handled it, and it goes on and on, is he keeps asking for a guy who's an purposeful agitator who's trying to ruin the rally to be civil and polite, as if he's talking to a normal person. Like, oh, it's a citizen showed up. And you know Obama. Obama loves Republicans. Obama's like, this is probably a holy, wonderful, saintly Republican, he's just forgetting to be civil. If I tell him to be civil, like when I was in charge, the Republicans were very civil. We would make all sorts of deals

that helped corporate America. And we both, I mean, we high-fived over it. We would say bipartiship. The corporate media would kiss all of our asses. They declared me as sane. So I guess this is my beloved friend here, who's a Republican who just got a little on civil. No, you're not getting it. And the fact that you're not getting it is hurting the country. The Republicans are not good guys. They're not good guys. They're your goddamn opponents. If you're on the campaign trail and you're trying to help Democrats, you should make

that clear. But Obama doesn't. I know I'm the only one. Everyone else in media is like, Obama, Obama, oh, he's on the campaign trail. It's going to make such a big difference. Is it? Why? Have you heard anything that Obama has said that is resonating with voters?

Yes. That's sticking with voters. There is one thing. Really? I'm very curious what it is. you might have been out when we covered this story. But the, so he was giving a speech, I forget which state he was in specifically, but he was talking about how Republicans have this plan to gut Social Security, which is absolutely accurate. They're planning on holding

the debt ceiling hostage after they take over the House to force Democrats and the Biden administration to agree to privatizing Social Security in return for lifting the debt ceiling. Yeah, so that one doesn't hurt his corporate friends, so he's willing to do that. But I'll take it, I'll take it. And it was powerful. And by the way, the Biden administration turned around. I tweeted about this when I was out. Biden administration finally figured out, hey, we should attack on Social Security and Medicare.

And they started running ads on that. And I said, good, good, that's positive, right? But again, it's super safe. And also remember that Obama is the one who wanted to cut Social Security. I'm keeping it real. He offered it to Mitch McConnell. He wanted to do the grand bargain. Okay, and everybody in media reported that it's true.

And then, but if I say it, they'll say, oh, that's out no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Obama's the state. Obama's the state. He would never do that. That's not true. He offered it because of Social Security. He would have done exactly what the Republicans are saying. So do you get this sense? Do we look pro-democrat to you guys?

No, we're fair and honest about the faults of both parties. But these guys that are interrupting the rallies are obvious frauds. And to my overall point about Obama, you have to say Democrats are good. Just as politics, forget policy. When you're trying to win an election, in order for you to be helpful, you have to say Democrats are good guys and Republicans are bad guys, okay? He does it on Social Security and good point Anna, and everything else, oh my beloved Republican friends, they're so wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, I just happen to disagree with them on this. Meanwhile, the Republicans are ripping Democrats face off. We're gonna see later in the show they're running ads about Democrats are anti-white racist.

Democrats are going to come after your children, right? Meanwhile, Obama's playing patty cakes. Well, please be civil, please be civil. Now, you don't get it, man. All these guys, him, Biden, every one of them, Pelosi, they all love Republicans, and they cannot get it through their thick head that the fascists are coming. The fascists are coming. They're within inches of power.

But he's fine in his mansion and Nan Tucker or wherever the Martha's Vineyard, wherever he is. Well, we are going to take a brief break when we come back. We'll finally get to that child labor story. that I was referring to, and we'll talk about the race baiters in the right wing. Stephen Miller's latest political ad is full of disgusting and vicious lies. We'll debunk all of them coming right up. All right, back on CYT, Jake and Anna with you guys. Also April Malone, April, thank you for signing up.

We appreciate it. All right, Anna. I want to talk a little bit about child labor in America because there are a lot of companies breaking laws and we're also learning that there are a lot of young people who are working because they have to. Dunkin' Donuts will have to pay a $145,000 settlement for 1,200 child labor law violations. Let me just repeat that again.

1,200 child labor law violations in Massachusetts specifically. And this is according to an announcement that was recently made by the state's attorney general. Now, what were the violations? What were they up to? Well, according to the press release, violations included failing to obtain a work permit for minor workers, failing to supervise minor workers, failing to supervise minor. past 8 p.m. employing a 16 or 17-year-old to work before 6 a.m. or after 10 p.m., employing a minor

under the age of 18 for more than 9 hours in a single workday, and employing a minor under 16 before 6.30 a.m. or after 7 p.m. And one of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones too. When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. Hormone Harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle

sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves. A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. More than eight hours in a single workday. You see, children, minors still have to do this thing called go to school. And so Massachusetts adds on to the current federal child labor laws to make them a little more robust in their state.

And clearly, as you can tell, based on the settlement, Dunkin' Donuts had violated those state regulations. So under Massachusetts state law, minors may not work more than nine hours per day or 48 hours per week. children ages 14 and 15 may not work later than 7 p.m. And children ages 16 and 17 can't work later than 10 p.m. on school nights or later than midnight on non-school nights. Now, the investigation revealed more than 1,200 violations involving more than 50 employees across 14 stores in the last year and a half. In fact, this investigation ended up getting launched after a minor employee filed a complaint with the Attorney General's office in Massachusetts and said that they were working more than 10 hours a day.

So that's what sparked the investigation. Luckily, the Attorney General did her job, investigated this, and found, yes, there were violations. This year, other Dunkin' Donuts franchisees in Massachusetts have been issued citations from the AG's office for child labor violations, wage an hour law violations and not allowing employees to earn or use sick leave. And this is an ongoing issue, guys. This isn't a one-time thing. This isn't an isolated event. For instance, in 2020, Chipotle was cited for more than 13,000 violations and was ordered to pay $1.8 million in their settlement in states with Republican legislatures, they are, there are currently efforts to even further weaken child labor laws if they haven't done so already.

So just to give you an example of something that was done in 2011, probably got no attention. In 2011, Wisconsin eliminated limits on the number of hours and days that minors aged 16 to 17 could work and even replace the phrase child labor with a nice euphemism, employment of minors in 2017. Huh, I thought it was just the left that was interested in sanitizing things and using euphemisms. So it looks like the right wing engages in that quite a bit themselves. Now, the most recent changes have attracted support from a number of powerful service industry lobbies, of course, such as the Wisconsin Restaurant Association who say it will help to solve businesses, staffing issues, and teach teenagers a healthy work ethic. And final thing I'll say,

Jank, I'll give you the numbers in a little bit, but there's an ever-growing person. of high school students who drop out of high school to enter the workforce because their families need the income, meaning their parents need the income. In some cases, the minimum wages that they're earning accounts for as much as a quarter of the annual income in that household. It's insane. Yeah, so first let me tell you what this isn't, and then I'll tell you what this is. So what it, what it isn't is 1955.

So what the Republicans do every time when they talk about issues like this is, is Oh, look, you know, we're just bringing in Johnny and Sally to work in the summer and teach them the work ethic. And they're going to work with their mom and dad. And they're going to be busboys at their local diner that the mom and dad are running. And hey, that's great. You know, and they're going to get that experience that they need, etc. No, no, no, that's just mythology, man. And what this isn't is 16, 70 years old's working a summer job under the normal rules.

They're violating the normal rules here, the employers, right? But what this is is companies going, I pay the kids a lot less. They got no experience. And if I have them work before 6 in the morning, after 10 o'clock at night, I have them work more and more hours. And I replace my actual workers with kids who are desperate for money, either for themselves or to help with the family. Well, I drive the kids into the minds.

I make more money. I keep my costs low. And then I'll trick the American people with this mom and pop BS that we throw out there. And the Republicans will sell it. Democrats won't do anything. And we'll have corporate rule now extend to 14 year olds and have them work their ass off. Just like we got their dad and their mom to work their ass off. Right.

No, that's exactly right. And what's even scarier is how we already know that a household with adults earning minimum wage, even if they're working full time, they're not bringing in enough money to simply live. You're not making enough money to pay your rent. You're not making enough money to put food on the table for your family. So when families get desperate, they end up relying on their teenage children to bring in income. And so this is a piece that was actually written in 2015. And I would venture to say that the problem that I'm about to describe has only gotten worse. But back in 2015, there was actually a really great piece written in the Washington

Post about the ever-growing percentage of high school students who drop out of high school just to work because their families depend on it. So using data from the 2008-2012 American Community Survey, researchers at the Urban Institute found that nearly a third of the 563,000 teenage dropouts left school to work. These 16 to 18-year-olds were disproportionately male and Hispanic and ended their education either at the beginning of high school or nearing the end. Roughly 75% of them are native born Americans. Now let's get to how much their families rely on them for their income. Six out of 10 of the teenagers identified in the study earned less than $10,000 a year working in restaurants on construction sites, cleaning

buildings, among other things. A third of the kids contribute more than 20% of the total annual income of their households. A 10th contributed more than 50% according to this study. Again, it was done by the Urban Institute. I would like to see an updated version of this study because I'm curious. I mean, LAUSD right now is having trouble with enrollment. A bunch of students never came back when they reopened schools. And I'm scared that those students just left school permanently dropped out to go work. Yeah, well, obviously according to the numbers, a lot of them did. And so look, guys, one more time, Massachusetts is not going after any small business owners. And any time you hear a Republican or a right winger, say small business, substitute

the word giant multinational corporations instead, okay, or the words. And so in this case, whose Massachusetts is going after? Only giant companies, Dunkin' Donuts, Chipotle, Wendy's, etc. They're all using this systematically to make sure their costs are lower. This is only about corporate rule. That's the only thing this is about. And so, by the way, give credit to Democrats in Massachusetts that are actually going after these giant corporations abusing kids. And give credit to that teenage Dunkin' Donuts worker who had the wherewithal to report how he or she was being treated at Dunkin' Donuts, which sparked the investigation. 100%. And by the way, so then Republicans will say, can't you

believe what the Democrats are doing who are kids in the schools? They're teaching them that gay people exist. They shouldn't do that at all they're terrible what they're doing our kids. Meanwhile, they're like, let's send the kids back into the minds, okay? And make sure they work at 5 in the morning and at 11 at night, okay? And by the way, that's if they didn't get murdered by guns that we love so much in their mass shootings in school. And unsurprisingly, by the way, another poll shows 53% of young people in this country

say they don't feel represented by Congress at all. Because they're not. Because they're not. Of course they're not. The only thing that Congress ever represents, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, good cop, bad cop, is corporate interests because those are their donors. You think they're listening to these 16-year-olds that are barely surviving by working at Wendy's at 5 in the morning? They're not listening to that. And 70% of them also say that their generation is underrepresented in Congress.

And again, underrepresented undersells it. You have almost no representation. Well, let's move on to something that's just as infuriating. An insane ad that was put together by, I believe it was Stephen Miller. Yes, Stephen Miller, let's go. When did racism against white people become okay? Joe Biden put white people last in line for COVID relief funds. Kamala Harris said disaster aid should go to non-white citizens first.

Liberal politicians block access to medicine based on skin color. Progressive corporations, airlines, universities, all openly discriminate against white Americans. Racism is always wrong. The left's anti-white bigotry must stop. We are all entitled to equal treatment. under law. America First Legal paid for this ad. America First Legal, airing that insane ad in parts of Georgia and Florida, Stephen Miller, one of Trump's advisors and a well-known white supremacist is behind this particular ad, which if you know anything about Stephen Miller,

it's the most unsurprising thing in the world. But of course, it is full of lies. We like to provide the receipt, so we'll go ahead and debunk, decode everything that's in there. Before we do though, I want to give you an opportunity to just knee-jerk reaction to that ad, Jake. Yeah, three quick things. One is, none of it is true. But you need a press that is willing to be honest and say, these things are true and these things are not true. If you hear this ad, you understand that you're listening to a goddamn liar. So, hey, I guess the Republicans have decided to lie to you on purpose. So that's what reaction number one. Reaction number two is, I've never seen an ad that stokes racial fear and racial hatred as much as that ad does all with lies.

And then third thing I realize is like all the ads now are relatively diverse, right? So whether it's an ad for Coke or Nike or most political ads, even the Republicans will put in actors who are black or Asian, et cetera, pretending that those groups support them. That ad was all white, 100% white, obviously because of the topic, right? But the second thing that it's showing you is white people, the Republican Party is for you and you only. And so it's as bad as it gets. And will it get the kind of coverage we're giving it here overall? Will people realize, hey, if I see this ad, I understand that the Republicans are the racist lying party? No, they won't get that at all.

Tons and tons of people will believe this act. Yeah, I mean, look, I remember any time we covered a story involving police brutality or a story involving, let's say, a black family getting their home appraised for far less if, you know, the appraiser knew that they were black versus getting a praise for far more if the appraiser had no idea and thought the owners were white. Anytime we would cover those stories, right wing would get vicious about it and they would accuse us of race baiting. When we're just reporting the news, like this is what is happening in the country, this is what you should know about. No, but they project every time they speak. Because race,

is what they do. This is race baiting, and it's based on complete lies. So let's go through each lie one by one. So the first part of the ad says, Biden's restaurant relief program excludes white male owners. And then they have this poor guy, poor Schlep, you know, he's being denied, obviously. He's not getting any of that relief program money, right? Except, as we know, based on where all the small business money went to during COVID, a lot of wealthy white business owners got that money. But it doesn't matter, right? Like, this is a lie.

So let's tell you what actually happened. So they cite an article from Daily Wire, which was written in May of 2021. On October 8th of 2021, Joe Biden did discuss potentially prioritizing COVID aid to small businesses owned by people. of color and women. But again, they're excluding important context, okay? This is what Biden actually said, the exact statement. Our focus will be on small businesses on Main Street that aren't wealthy and well connected, that are facing real economic hardships through no fault of their own. Our priority will be black, Latino, Asian and Native American own small businesses, women own businesses, and finally having equal access to resources needed to reopen

and build. So I think the full context is important. It wasn't Biden saying like, no, we're not going to offer any aid to white business owners. Yeah. Okay, so two things about that. Yeah. Remember the ad said it excludes all white male owners. Right. Excludes them completely. So first of all, that's a hundred percent lie. And it's a lie on two fronts. As Anna pointed out, other than PPP, which actually went to generally speaking small to midsize companies, the first round of relief actually went to giant corporations that are run almost exclusively by white males, right? Now, there's some minorities in there, but not a lot, okay? So, but the idea that they were excluded is hilarious.

They got the overwhelming percentage of the money. They got a lot more money that small business owners did. And then when you go to the small business programs, PPP, et cetera, we've looked at those rules a thousand times. Can white people apply? Of course. Can males apply? Of course.

Did whites and males apply? Did they get FPP? Yes, 100%. So it, but it doesn't have to be true. It just has to be like, hey, Biden said half a sentence that could be misinterpreted, good enough, let's go. Yeah, then that's exactly what they did. And look, the reason why Biden wanted to prioritize the specific small businesses that he was referring to there is for good reason. According to data from the National Bureau of Economic Research, African American businesses saw a 41% drop in business activity. from February until April of 2020, Latino businesses saw a 32% drop and Asian businesses

dropped by 26%. Female owned businesses saw a similarly disproportionate effect with 25% decrease in business activity. That is in contrast to a 17% decrease white business owners have faced. But even so, Biden was just saying that rhetorically. This is what we say about the Democrats all the time. They never mean anything anyway. So he didn't actually prioritize. them in any way, shape or form. I'm positive. The PPP forms and every other aspect didn't even mention race. It wasn't like you can check on, I'm white male. Okay, you go to the bottom of the list. It has nothing to do with it. This whole thing is invented, including Biden's rhetoric about how he's going to help blacks and women first. They never did that.

They never did that. Okay, now let's get to the second one. Because actually, before we get to the second lie, I need to give you some recent history. Okay, so there was a devastating hurricane that took place in Florida, a hurricane Ian, if you can recall. I was on vacation when that happened, but I was following it very closely. The reason I was following it closely is because it hit a place called Fort Myers where me and my family visit regularly, almost every year. And that was that, it was completely devastated. And I was very happy to see how fast Biden was in responding to Ron DeSantis. declaring a state of emergency and providing upward of 70 billion dollars in federal funding

meant to help Florida recover from that devastation. That's important to keep in mind. With that said, with that said, here's the second lie. They alleged that Kamala Harris wanted disaster aid to go to non-white citizens first following hurricane. Not true at all, at all, not true at all. The assertion is also missing context, in reality during a conversation on September 30th of this year, Harris was asked about climate justice generally and mentioned distributing resources equitably to help vulnerable populations.

Okay, so here's their exact comment. It is our lowest income communities and our communities of color that are most impacted by these extreme conditions and impacted by issues not of their own making. And so we have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity, understanding that we need to fight for equality, but also equity. Not everyone starts out at the same place. And sometimes we have to take into account those disparities and do that work. I don't, I don't, so what did they want her to say?

I believe that the federal money should further bolster the finances of the wealthiest people in the country. That's where I think the age should go to first. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if Stephen Miller genuinely thought that. Okay. So what she's saying is, hey, let's not leave behind poor people, generally speaking, and unfortunately disproportionately minorities in this country, when things like this hit. So she's not saying, you know what, finally poor people are ahead of white people. Wouldn't that be amazing in America?

But if you're poor, it doesn't matter if you're white or black, you know that's never going to happen, right? So when she asked for a little bit of equity and equality for everyone concerned, they're like, how dare you? Which white people should be first. I want to clarify something because this is important. When she made that statement, she wasn't even referring to Hurricane Ian either. She was just talking about the climate emergency generally, which does disproportionately impact the lives of low income communities. We know that. Yeah, and oftentimes they're the first to get wiped out, as you if you remember, the hurricane

Katrina of course in New Orleans. Exactly. It wiped out the poorest areas first that were disproportionately African American. And she's saying don't leave those people behind. Let's go for equity and equality. They're like, how dare you say equality? That means you hate white people. White people should get something first. Now they didn't say it like that in the ad instead they lied in that. That's exactly right. All right. Let's do one more real quick. So the ad also has this portion that reads, whites may not be eligible for antibodies and antivirals while non-whites are. And they cite the Wall Street Journal on January 7th of 2022. Let's all recall when Ron DeSantis ensured that the rollout of the vaccines in his state went to his wealthy

donors first before anyone else. Obviously, that wasn't mentioned in the ad. But what was mentioned in the ad was in fact a lie. The group has taken some legal action on this claim. Earlier this year, America First legal filed a lawsuit in the state of New York against a Department of Health Guideline for COVID-19 treatment that stated non-white race or Hispanic Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor as longstanding systemic health and social inequities or inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19. It's just demonstrably true.

It's just demonstrably true. But Stephen Miller took that and twisted it in a way that would stoke more hatred, more tensions, more, you know, more of this divisive racial stuff in the country on purpose, because that's what they do. Divide and conquer, divide and conquer, that's it. So here, let me clarify this too. So contributed to a risk factor doesn't mean you only give it to people of color, okay? It never says that as always.

So let me give you an example that is removed from COVID at all. So I happen to get a skin disease that mainly affects Jewish people in the world. I happen to get it randomly, okay? It doesn't exclusively affect Jewish people, but it predominantly affects Jewish people. So being Jewish is a risk factor for that particular skin disease. So the government's saying, hey, remember that and take that into account because we don't want you to forget that that it's more likely to affect those particular people. It doesn't say Jank Ugar who isn't Jewish shouldn't be treated.

It doesn't say that at all, if it did, I'd be livid, right? It just says, remember that it's a risk factor and it is more likely to affect this group. And in the case of COVID, unfortunately it's devastating, but for blacks and Latinos, it affected them more. It was a risk factor. By the way, later, you could say that, hey, being a Republican was a risk factor because they're more likely to be dumbasses that didn't take the vaccine, and they're a much greater danger. And I would have told doctors, be careful. If you're seeing a Republican, you should pay more attention to them because they're more likely to be idiots who didn't take any precautions and have greatly endangered themselves. Okay, by the way,

of course, they would be livid about that. Okay, but there are a risk factor. But they're at itself saying like, oh, white people won't be able to be treated in hospitals. Of course, 100% fabrication. The hospitals were like overwhelmed with Trump supporting patients who refused to like mask up and get the vaccine. Every surge, every single search. I just anyway, all right. So there it is. I mean, I don't know what good us debunking the ad will do.

I don't know if any of the people who saw the ad are ever going to come across this video. But this is how politics is done. You have the right wing engaging in the most vicious form of lies and deceptions, and then you have Democrats who just want to play patty cakes and be civil. We got to go to break, we're out of time. When we come back, a pretty explosive story involving how the LAPD helped provide cover for former CBS executive Les Moonvez, who had been preying on people he was working with. We've got that story and more coming right up. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks, support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com at apple.combe. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.