Will Cain Country - President Biden’s Deterioration With Rachel Campos-Duffy

Episode Date: February 7, 2024

Story #1: How many companies have violated the Civil Rights Act? A conversation with Commissioner of the U.S. EEOC Andrea Lucas Story #2: Two national anthems? Why is divisiveness being sold as unity? Story #3: The one trait that determines the United States President with Host of From The Kitchen Table Rachel Campos-Duffy   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, Disney, Amazon, racial quotas, Mark Cuban, and using race as a deciding factor in employment. How many companies are violating the Civil Rights Act, the conversation with the commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner. Two, separate national anthems, separate graduations, why is all of a sudden divisiveness sold as unity? Three, Fox and Friends weekend co-host, Rachel Campos Duffy on Uncanceling Bud Light and the one trait that determines the United States president. It is the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com and on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. You can always join us at 12 Eastern Time on any of those platforms and hang out live as the show unfolds. And then find it on demand at the Will Cain Show on YouTube.

Go subscribe and you can catch up on past episodes, explosive interviews, debates, panel conversations, and some of my monologues here on the Will Cain Show. show. And as always, you can listen to it on podcast at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. Last night, Mrs. Kane and I, we watched the biggest night in pop. It's a Netflix documentary about the making of We Are the World. We Are the World, the worldwide best-selling song from 1984. It's a fascinating documentary in that you are constantly bombarded with celebrity. And that is sort of the sparkle on what I think is actually some deeper and interesting observations about gathering 47 of the world's biggest musical talents in one room, literally on one night in one room in Los Angeles. What's fascinating about the making of we are of the world to me comes away, comes down to three different observations.

I want to share those observations with you. I want to start with this. Number one, this could not happen today. What you will see in this documentary is 47 of the world's biggest stars. Together in a room, my wife described it as a church lock-in. They scheduled it the one time they thought they could get everyone together. It was after the American Music Awards, which was that night hosted by Lionel Richie. We Are The World was the brainchild of Lionel Richie and one of the music industry's big managers in Los Angeles.

It soon became a project for Lionel Richie and Michael Jackson. But you simply couldn't not just get this collection of talent in one room, but you couldn't get a collection of talent to be present. There's my wife that noticed not a single cell phone. No one distracted. And as a result, what you saw was everyone present. And then the surprising interpersonal interactions of people that, yes, might have known each other a little bit,

but in that moment became fans. of each other. I told stories about how people came in and threw themselves on the lap of legend Bob Dylan. They talked about how when Ray Charles walked in, it was like the Statue of Liberty walking in. When they took an hour of break, all of a sudden, people started asking each other for their autograph. And today, everyone would be telling their own separate story through their phone. They'd be uploading Instagram live or they'd be getting this video.

clip and we'd be living in 47 different realities instead of this one shared experience. You literally could not have this happen today. And if you did, it's kind of fascinating to think about who would be involved. Like when you watch this, there are certain figures that are timeless, like Ray Charles, like Stevie Wonder, like Willie Nelson. But there are also stars of the moment. Yes, probably Cindy Lopper, but maybe more so Kim Carnes who sang Betty Davis eyes. So who would that be today?

You'd probably have Zach Bryan. You probably would have Taylor Swift. But would you have Duolipa? Would you have Doja Cat? Like, who goes into a room of the 47 biggest stars that night and sets their phone aside and makes something that lasts, well, for half a century? Make something where everyone is present there in that moment. in that room in Los Angeles.

Second observation, nothing is new. Yes, perhaps at times we lean in or things get exaggerated or certain issues are spotlighted, but nothing is new. There's a fascinating moment in the recording, which began basically at 10 p.m. that night after the American Music Awards and last until 8 a.m. that morning. And Lionel Richie, who was a bit of the conductor, said, you know, we had to be able to keep this a singular vision with 47 different stars if you allowed everyone to have an opinion you would have 47 different versions of we are the world but there was a moment where

one of the biggest stars in the room who's a unique character but where one of the biggest stars in the room stevie wonder decides that they need to do a verse in swahili and they start arguing and workshopping a verse in swahili the entirety of the rest of the song, of course, is in English. And they have arguments about, well, we're not speaking to the recipients of this USA for Africa Fund. We're not speaking to the people be the beneficiaries who are suffering from starvation. We're speaking to the people that would give money. That was the perspective of Bob Geldof, who was behind Band-Aid and helped them understand the purpose of We Are the World. But Wonder persisted with wanting to find a verse in Swahili. And I think this

probably resonate with me because he's one of my favorites of all times. wayland jennings i'm a huge fan of wayland jennings well waylan is in the room and who knows what's going on that night you have 47 different personalities and egos all clashing and who knows how long as it stretches into the middle of the night how many different disagreements there's a story at one point of michael jackson just having enough and going to the bathroom and curling up on the bathroom counter but i can imagine that it wears you down and at this time it's probably 3 a.m. in the morning and next thing, you know, their workshop in Swahili, and it divided the room. Apparently, you know, some people thought, this is ridiculous. We're not singing in Swahili.

Another thought, well, it's a great way to honor Africa. And Wayland Jennings, in a moment that has become somewhat notorious, outlaw country, gets up and leaves. He leaves, we are the world, with the line, no good old boy sings in Swahili. Now, people have. I tried to make the argument to think that that was racist of Wayland Jennings. Well, he was there raising money for starving children in Africa. Kind of hard to make the argument that he was somehow racist. And let's just be real for a moment. It's a little ridiculous for any star, much less a star of outlaw country,

to break out into a verse of Swahili. Can we just recognize that on his face? A little ridiculous to seeing Swahili. And Jennings wasn't the only one. Ray Charles was like, ring the bell, Quincy. Quincy Jones, the producer behind this that brought it all together, meaning stop the debate, this is over, we're not doing Swahili. Ray Charles made fun of it as well, and it divided the room, as I said. And because, again, nothing is new. It was pointed out, hey, this is a little silly

like we're mocking the people of Africa, especially when you consider Stevie. They don't speak Swahili in Ethiopia. The priority of this movement was to help people who were starving. If you'll remember anybody my age, we all remember the starving children in Ethiopia. They don't speak Swahili. It's an East African language. They don't speak it in Swahili. So you have all of this stuff that we deal with today. Cultural tone deafness, cultural ignorance, unwillingness to sing in a foreign language, all clashes together in this fascinating moment that leads to the one star that left for the night, who happens to be one of my favorites of all time, Waylon Jennings. And then the third observations from this making of We Are the World, the biggest night

in pop on Netflix, is just not so much the accumulation of celebrity, but the accumulation of talent. It's easy to say we have way too much celebrity worship in America, and it's true. But it's also, you can't come away from this without understanding and seeing it demonstrated an astounding level of talent. On the surface, obviously the musical talent. And Stevie Wonder is an absolute genius. In the documentary, there's a moment where Bob Dylan, who everybody in the room reveres, everybody.

The two biggest reverential figures, I don't know if the two biggest, because Wonder and Charles were up there, but people seemed to have a great amount of reverence for both Bruce Springsteen and for Bob Dylan. And Dylan withdrew into his shell because he knew, hey, I'm not a singer like the rest of these people. I'm a songwriter. I'm a folk artist. I'm certainly no vocalist. And he's given a solo part and he withdraws into his shell. And in order to get him out, they clear the room of everybody else. And they put him at a piano with Stevie Wonder. And Stevie Wonder is a mimic. Like they have the audio. They have all this documentary footage. He starts singing like Bob Dylan. It sounds like Bob Dylan and shows him how he thinks he should do it. Next thing you know, Bob Dylan's out of his shell and he does his line, which is Quint of

essentially Bob Dylan. The talent to arrange these voices physically and audibly in a room is it'll blow your mind. Like, okay, we're going to put this. They literally put them in a U shape. They didn't put them in separate sound studios. All in one room, a bunch of mics, three people to a mic, and who they put together. What an astounding level of talent to say, okay, we're going to go from Dionne Warwick to Willie Nelson. Dionne Warwick was like, I'm singing with Willie, but it works when you hear it and we are the world, which let's be real. isn't the best song in the world, but the collection of voices coming together. And then they would go from Bruce Springsteen to Kenny Loggins.

You remember Kenny Loggins from Footloose? And it went from sounding like you have glass in your throat, Bruce Springsteen to this smooth, soulful Kenny Loggins. Just an incredible amount of talent. But the talent that I wanted to point out applies to this, applies to sports, applies to politics. And that's this. I was blown away by two figures. Quincy Jones, the producer, and Lionel Richie.

This was Lionel Richie's baby. That night, he hosted the American Music Awards. So he pulled, I've hosted stuff, and let me tell you something. There's something about hosting that you have an adrenaline rush, and then when it leaves your body, you crash. So he hosts the AMAs and then goes and plays quarterback on We Are the World, which the whole thing together had to have taken 14 hours of his life to stay up and on it. But more than that, it was bringing these 47 people together.

Quincy Jones put up a thing on the door. It said, check your ego at the door. And as much as they did a good job of that, it didn't always work. I gave you the Swahili incident. There was other instances with Cindy Lopper or others. And you've got personalities and clashes and who's bigger and who gets a solo and who doesn't. And to watch Lionel Richie walk around the room and put his arm around this person or gather this group and honestly just bring 47 individuals onto one team is really amazing to

watch. Like as much as his musical talent and as much as anything else, he's, and so is the case with Quincy Jones, a psychiatrist. I don't know, I was as much about the musical talent, I was blown away by the talent of leadership. The biggest night in pop, the making of We Are the World. Amazon Disney

quotas, Mark Cuban, using race as a factor in hiring. Is this a direct violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Let's start this with story number one.

She is the commissioner of the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charged with ensuring that private corporations and, for that matter, governmental imprises don't conduct and contribute their business while implementing discrimination. It is Andrea Lucas, and she joins us now here on the Will Cain Show. Andrew, thanks so much for jumping on and helping us understand the lay of the land, not just the law, but what's happening right now in American hiring practices. And I would love to start with this. I know you can't address specific companies that are involved in litigation

or in cases. But I don't think I have to, or you don't have to in your answer, address perhaps certain corporations because it's so widespread what's happening right now when it comes to hiring. And I think I'll start with Amazon. And we can put it up on the screen. I want you to take a look at something Amazon has on their hiring practices. And they put specific quotas, Andrea. They say, the minimum aspirational goal for casting across speaking roles are 30% white men, 30% white women and non-binary people. I guess that's in the same quota group. 20% men from underrepresented races and ethnicities. 20% women and non-binary people from underrepresented races and ethnicities. It goes on. You can see other quotas underneath. 10% for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender. As I mentioned, Andrea, this is from Amazon's internal documents. There are many corporations doing this right now openly. Is this legal considering the Civil Rights Act? Well, thanks so much for having me. And like you said, while I can't speak to any specific company, you know, part of my practice is to review the landscape of what major corporations, what the widespread practices are, when it comes to hiring, as well as promotion, training, a whole host of employment-related actions, all of which are covered by Title VII. So that's a key thing to start with. It's not just hiring, firing compensation.

It's also access to a host of benefits and even access to interviewing. And I can say as a broad matter, it has become extremely widespread across much of the Fortune 100, maybe the Fortune 500 even. It's primarily large to mid-sized companies doing this, very routine to have hiring goals. And whether or not they're legal does vary. If they're quota, they're absolutely illegal. And then there's a whole host of risks that can come around having a hiring goal, depending on how it's structured.

So quite clearly, you're stating quotas are illegal. Yes. And it shocks me the number of times that I see a diversity activist or a DEI proponent missing that key point of law. There's no scenario in which you can do a quota. And also, you're not supposed to be doing racial balancing. So that's, you know, if you're just trying to mirror the general public, I see that frequently for many companies, they set these goals and the goals are, um, highly unrealistic. They're based on nothing other than looking at the general American population. That's also going to be a red flag. Because if you have a really unrealistic goal that you're hitting, let's be real, right? How do people respond to hitting an unrealistic goal? Especially when you put financial pressure, they're going to often take the easy route. And that route is unfortunately race or sex discrimination. You're forcing people into your recklessly forcing your managers into making illegal decisions if you're setting a goal that they could never

meet but for discrimination and then you're tying their compensation their viability at the company right a host of incentives to make sure that they hit those unrealistic goals so that leads to the obvious next question then why are they doing this what or rather why are they getting away with it and why are they so proudly violating title seven i think i'm correct here and i want to read from pertinent part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Andrea. And it is Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and is, from my understanding, what we're talking about is Section 2000. And it reads as follows, it shall be unlawful for employment practice for an employer to,

one, fail to refuse to hire any individual or otherwise discriminate against that individual with respect to his compensation terms, conditions, because of that individual's race, color, religion, or national origin. It goes on to say, number two, that it's illegal to limit, segregate, or classify employees, or applicants according to an individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Is that the operative part we're discussing here of Title VII? Yeah, those are the two key provisions.

I also note that there's a separate provision that covers training programs, and that's another big blind spot for a lot of companies. They, again, they get focused in on thinking this really only relates to hiring, firing, compensation. And they forget that if you're providing internal training, Title VII has a standalone provision that says that you cannot discriminate in a mission to training, including on-the-job training. So we see a lot of programs like leadership development programs, internships, things that people are thinking are something other than those big, tangible material decisions. but they have real implications for employees' prospects at a company. Okay, so that, as I mentioned, leads to the question of how are they getting away with it? You were on Fox and Friends Weekend with me this past Saturday, and we talked about that,

and you brought up why this hasn't become unenforceable mechanism, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Here's what you said on Fox and Friends Weekend. A lot of it's a matter of incentives. If people aren't suing about it or filing a complaint or speaking up, it's difficult to change things. So what you're telling me is you have no plaintiffs, you have no one making complaints, you have no one lodging violations of all these corporate policies that on their face proudly are talking about using race as a practice in hiring. Well, I do think in the last six to 12 months, we've seen a significant increase in people being willing to speak up about these practices, file EEOC charges, proceed to litigation. And we are starting to see across the legal landscape, many different challenges on this front. So some of it is a matter of things working through the administrative process and through the court system.

But historically, yes, I think there was certainly a period of time in which people, just were not making their way through the process. So in order to go to a federal court on a violation of Title VII, you first have to file an EEOC charge. If you don't do that, you can't proceed to federal court. So first you'll go through the administrative process, and then you'll go to federal court. So to be clear, Andrea, this needs to be brought by a complainant. So in other words, Elon Musk just tweeted out, and I know you can't speak directly to Disney, but he just tweeted out some of Disney's hiring practices, which reveals similar to Amazon, quotas on what, and by the way, Andrea, they, I don't think this gives them an escape valve, but what I think

doesn't matter, matters what you think, to say these are aspirational goals, you know, that seems to be their perceived escape hatch. But in order, say, for Disney, who says their aspirational goals is to fit these racial quotas, but also various identity-based quotas, The EEOC can't itself bring a complaint. It requires somebody within that corporation to complain about these discriminatory practices. Not quite. So the primary basis for doing it is, yes, you've got to be an employee or a former employee or an applicant. So if you interviewed and you didn't get an interview, you also have the ability to bring a complaint.

That's the primary way to deal with it. The other option is you could have a third party file a charge. So that's a situation where you have some sort of nonprofit or legal organization that will represent employees. They can remain anonymous in that matter. So that's a third party EOC charge. And then the third vehicle is a commissioner can bring her own commissioner's charge if she sees discrimination. But the primary basis is having a plaintiff bring it. I'm curious there, since the commissioner can bring her own charge if she sees it, are these types of quotas that we're seeing from various corporations not on their face violations of the Civil Rights Act that you could bring, according to what you just told us, you could bring an EEOC violation?

Well, I can't talk about any specific company about what I would conclude it was or was not a violation. but yes, I do have the power to bring a commissioner's charge. They have to remain confidential, so I can't confirm or deny whether or not I've brought anything to that front. We do public a report the number of commissioners' charges across the board that commissioners bring, but all charges are subject to confidentiality. How often do you publicly report the number of commissioners' charges of EEOC violations? Is that quarterly? Is that annually?

On an annual basis, we report how many commissioner's charges are brought, and we also report the number of charges that we're receiving on a host of things. So we have a whole stats on race discrimination. You can look at that. We also have other things on our website that will talk about some notable race discrimination cases. And I think, you know, one other reason that I don't think we sometimes get people filing lawsuits or pushing back on policies is there's just widespread perception that there's. the race discrimination laws and civil rights laws only protect certain groups. But the civil rights laws are colorblind. They apply to everyone of every race, color, national origin, and creed.

They're not only available for racial minorities. They're available to everyone. Whether they're under or overrepresented, all of these terms, it's not restricted. So you do have some people thinking, well, these are civil rights laws aren't for me. That's not what discrimination is. discrimination is taking action based on race or sex. It doesn't matter if you're white or black, Asian, Hispanic, in which direction it's going. If you're acting in whole or apart based on race, you're violating the law.

So I think a lot of people sort of counted them out, themselves out from pursuing claims. Just a few more questions here with you. But that being said, you still say you've seen an uptick in the number of claims over the past. I believe you said earlier in our conversation, six to 12 months of complaints of violations of the EEOC. I don't have your reporting in front of me. Does that bear out in your reporting, whether or not their commissioner violations or complainant violations. Does the reporting reveal that those numbers have gone up over the last couple of years? It's too soon to see for we haven't reported out our fiscal year, 2023 data on that.

So I can't just can't disclose that yet. But the other thing is there's more than one vehicle to sue about these things. Some and many plaintiffs are pursuing Section 1981, which is another civil rights law. That law relates to contracting, but employment decisions often fall under that. So there are a number of plaintiffs that are going straight to federal court under that vehicle, and we don't track that data. But, you know, I'm watching that constantly as a legal observer of these types of. of claims. All right, last topic.

We talked about direct quotas. We talked about some of these hiring practices that companies seem to be proud of. But then there's another approach, and that seems to be the approach of Dallas Mavericks, president of basketball operations, former owner Mark Cuban, who you had an exchange with on X. Cuban seems to be thinking he can use race as a tipping factor. In a statement that you ended up responding to, he said, I only ever have. hired the person that will put the business in the best position to succeed. And yes, race and gender can be part of that equation. I view diversity as a competitive advantage. To that, you responded

to him. Unfortunately, you're dead wrong on the black letter law of Title VII. As a general rule, race and sex can't even be a, quote, motivating factor, nor a plus factor, tiebreaker, or tipping point. It's important that employers understand the ground rules here. So if Mark Cuban were doing what he says he is doing in his companies, what you are saying to him is you are violating the Civil Rights Act. Any employer as a general rule that is admitting that they're using race or sex even in part, yes, they're admitting that they're violating the law. It's just very basic law. The general rule is you are not allowed to use race or sex or another protected characteristic in whole or part. A lot of people had confusion over this because in the University Admissions case, prior to the Supreme Court in June, overturning affirmative action in university emissions, you previously could use diversity for school admissions.

You could use it as a plus factor. So basically exactly what he's articulating, that used to be the old rule in university admissions. But it was never the rule in employment law. A lot of people just conflated the two. They thought what was okay in the university context was fine in employment law. It never was. It's also not the rule anymore in university admissions. The general rule across the board for civil rights laws is that you are not supposed to be

using race or sex as a component of your decision making. Last question, Andrea, and this is going to require a bit of conjecture on your part, but these companies and these CEOs are open to the point of. pride about these discriminatory policies. Is it your estimation that they are ignorant of the law under the Civil Rights Act? Or is it that they do not care what is the law under the Civil Rights Act because they do not fear punishment? I think probably 50-50. I think there's a portion of people who have a rudimentary understanding of what the laws are. And they've got those common misunderstandings, I think, like Mr. Cuban, that as long as it's just a little bit, right,

just a little bit of race discrimination is okay, right? Or they think that the racist, that race discrimination only applies if you're discriminating against a racial minority, right? Those, those are the two misconceptions I think a lot of people have. And then there's a portion of people who probably have heard from their lawyers that what they're doing is illegal, but there's very low practical risk. And so they choose to go forward because they think that a pursuit, Diversity at all costs is a business imperative, and they're not going to get sued about it. That after the last 12 months, I don't think that's a good risk assessment anymore. What an enlightening conversation, and that's what was needed here, is to shine a light on what the actual law may be and how we have gone so far away, so awry of something that was enshrined in 1964 when it comes to discrimination.

The Commissioner of the EEOC, Andrea Lucas, thank you so much for joining us today here on The Will Kane Show. Thanks for having me. All right, coming up, speaking of discrimination, how about two national anthems? The national anthem and the black national anthem. How about two graduations? How about three graduations? How about half a dozen graduations according to racial group? When did divisiveness get sold to us as unity?

That's coming up on the Will Kane show. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage. McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants price excludes flavored ice coffee and delivery on July 18th get excited for the summer's biggest adventure I think I just smurf my pants that's a little too excited sorry smurfs only in dinner's July 18th One Nation, under God, increasingly divisible. It's the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com and on the Fox News YouTube channel on demand at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. Hit subscribe or on YouTube at Will Cain Show. Hit subscribe.

News reports are that for the Super Bowl, we will once again have two national anthems. We'll, of course, have our national anthem. and we will once again hear the Black National Anthem. This year, the Black National Anthem is scheduled to take place after the National Anthem. This seems to be a response to lack of TV viewership or lack of TV coverage in the past when the Black National Anthem preceded the National Anthem and created a situation where people didn't stand for the Black National Anthem. By placing it after our National Anthem, it increases the likelihood for continuous television coverage,

and also puts people in a position of having to purposefully sit down after our national anthem. So once again, we will hear two, seemingly divided by race, national anthems. I say seemingly because one on its face is styled as the black national anthem. The other on its face is supposed to represent unity, but no more in America. Now divisiveness is unity. You know, I did a podcast yesterday for Texas Longhorns football. It was called Coffee and Football. I really enjoyed it because I got to indulge one of my passions that's talking about high school football recruiting to the University of Texas.

I'm like that. I dive down the rabbit hole. I can name for you high school kids in the 2025 commitment class that are considering the University of Texas. I'm a big fan. And I got to indulge talking about K.J. Lacey and Jordan Day. I got to talk about my fandom throughout my life of the Texas Longhorns and my outlook on them going into the SEC. I got a thousand dollar bet with my brother-in-law and whether or not they win the SEC within five years of joining. I'm feeling good.

But I noticed in some of the comments to that podcast, I noticed in some of the promotion on X that some of the people had a problem with my appearance on coffee and football. things like Will Kane is a fascist or accusations that, you know, there's a culture of black athletes at Texas and their families who watch this stuff and what would they think about you having someone like Will Kane on and that I am somehow, obviously, I don't know that it was directly accused, but implied that I am somehow racist. Interestingly, if I ever had the opportunity to interact with that person or people suggesting that, I would just simply ask a question. How? Please explain the incident. Please explain the position. Please explain what I hold, what belief or opinion that I hold that you would describe as racist.

And my time at ESPN, I noticed that this dividing line became something like this. If you were unwilling to embrace divisiveness, if you're unwilling to see society through the lens of race, if you're unwilling to literally do your best to always see color, well, then you're a racist. If you want to indulge in facts in any singular incident and don't jump immediately to the conclusion, of racism? Well, you're a racist. If you have a problem with someone kneeling during our national anthem, a symbol of unity for America, well, you're a racist. A little bit later this week here on the Will Cain Show, I have a big sit down with one of my former ESPN colleagues. You should check it out. It's going to be Friday's episode with a truly independent thinker, former defensive end in the NFL, Marcellus Wiley. And we talked about not just my experience at ESPN, but his, where he says, now he's called it. a sellout for daring to hold a positions that are a independent but more importantly be researched he's talked about the true tenets of black lives matter anti-family marxist and for that he's a sellout but the point is

the standard has been set that unless you embrace race consciousness unless you embrace seeing the america through its original sin and there was original sin it's not a denial of our history it's whether or not the best way to solve our problems going forward is an erasure of our history I would ask someone, I would ask anyone who is supportive of the Black National Anthem. Do you suggest that the best path forward for our country is to have separate national anthems, separate graduations, separate student unions, separate housing? Is the path forward a re-embrace of segregation? My home state of Texas and the University of System has complied with orders from the state to do away with DEI practices. So as such, they just did away with the black graduation, the Latino graduation, and who knows how many other graduations they had.

And it's just shocking on its face that we're at a place where it's not just the University of Texas, it's colleges all across this country. Think it's moral and just to have something where you segregate it by race. Something like a unifying moment for a university, one student body, that is graduation. But unless you embrace that divisiveness, unless you reject true unity, you're painted as the racist. Well, if the answer is, no, no, no, we don't need to have separate, you know, what we need to do is do away with the original racist versions of what you're selling as unity will. For example, I've heard the argument. Well, our national anthem, it talks about, you know, in its second or third stanza, the hiring and the slave, and it has.

racist words. Okay, okay, so let me ask you this. Your proposal is to erase. And I'm not going to get cut up on that. Trust me. I know that can become a Grand Canyon-sized divide in the conversation, but let's move past it for a moment. Your proposal is to erase the original history of the United States. And I would ask you this, with what would you replace it? Do you replace it with the black and national anthem? Are we all to presume that now? Is there a unifying? factor? Are unifying song? Something on its face is exclusionary in that it says it is the black national anthem? Or do you have some other idea? Some other singular song, some other singular statue, some other singular event that can represent unity. Or is it that unity no longer is aspirational?

Unity is no longer the goal. No, no, no. That's the vice, apparently, in modern day America. Now the virtue is divisiveness to divide us. One nation under God divisible. I don't think so. I happen to think I'm not the fascist. I happen to think I'm not the racist in this scenario. I happen to think you might be a neo-segregationist if you want to see us separated by skin color. I happen to think you don't want to find a unifying factor if all you can come up with is erasing the past.

I happen to think we are one nation under God indivisible. She is the co-host of Fox and Friends Weekend, and she's my friend, and she's Rachel Campos Duffy, and she is up next on the Will Cain Show. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking? By matching with the TD Small Business Account Manager, you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs. Ready to press play?

Get up to $2,700 when you open Select Small Business Banking Program. products. Yep, that's $2,700 to turn up your business. Visit TD.com slash small business match to learn more. Conditions apply. Should we uncancel Bud Light and what is the one trait that determines the United States presidency? It's the Will Kane Show streaming live at foxnews.com and on the Fox News YouTube channel on demand, on podcast, and on YouTube. will cane show go hit subscribe it's a modern day technological miracle but somehow we've pulled it off that somewhere on the other side of this internet is my co-host of fox and friends weekend it is rachel campos duffy it's my understanding rachel that it took the full first 40 minutes of this show

to get you squared away and on the air and i can see that even with that full 40 minutes of runway your background didn't seem to make it across the finish line. You're right. At some point, I just said, I have to leave, and I just left Sean with your tech guys, and they worked it out. I can't handle tech. You know that even on the show. The weekend show, every single day of the weekend,

Saturday and Sunday, one of us has to order breakfast. And if it's my turn, you two just hold your breath and hope it actually arrives because I struggle even with Uber Eats. So, yeah. It's actually like the perfect, you know how when you go out to dinner with people and there's alligator arms when the check comes?

It's actually the perth. And Rachel is very generous, so it's not calculated. But it's effectively the same as alligator arms. It's like we just go, no, no, you don't have to order breakfast because it won't happen. It won't come. And I go, no, no, I'm going to do it right. Yeah, right.

And you say that about 7.15 a.m. and by about 8.30, we're like, if it doesn't get ordered right now, we're not eating this morning. So you got it, Pete, I got it, Pete, whatever it may be, Rachel doesn't have it. You do have Starbucks down. That's the one you can order. You've got egg bites and coffee. Somehow that's in your technological bandwidth, but a breakfast sandwich is too much. Rachel, who's going to win the Super Bowl? You know? You're the big sports expert. You took your moment. You crowed Packers over Cowboys. So, I mean, I don't know where else to turn now, but to you, chiefs or Niners who's going to win the Super Bowl?

Well, I think the Chiefs are going to win, but with all the Taylor Swift hype, I'm sort of so sick of it too that I'm almost starting to go. I'm going to vote for the 49ers. But I haven't made any bets. Honestly, since the Green Bay Packers played the Dallas Cowboys,

my interest in football has really plummeted. It hasn't gone up. It hasn't gone up like everybody else is for the Super Bowl. I've kind of, I got one over you. I had Bobby Burrack helping me just really embarrass you and all your football knowledge. And it's just been downhill for me since then. That was the top of the mountain. Let's pick up on exhaustion.

I want to talk about that. Okay. Do you think that we should uncancel Bud Light, we being, many of the people that were outraged by their decision to put transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney on a Bud Light? can. Donald Trump put out a truth social recently, putting his arm around Anheiser-Bush. There are others out there in the conservative media sphere say that's a huge mistake. Do not back off. Don't uncancel Bud Light. What do you think? Well, I think this is one of those instances where Donald Trump goes one way in conservatives as much as they like them and they just go another way. I think you saw that with vaccines, right?

Donald Trump was all in on the vaccines. He wanted to take credit for how quickly they came out and how great they were. And there were a lot of us who liked Donald Trump who were like, no, thank you. And I think this is one of these instances as well. You know, the left is so good at, you know, boycotting conservatives. I mean, they're responsible for deplatforming so many people with their organized, Soros-funded, you know, groups that go and harass different, you know, if they, you know, have different types of points of view that they don't agree with,

and they get those people demonetized, et cetera, et cetera. And this is one of the few times that conservatives went, okay, that's it. Bud Light supporting, you know, drag queens and all this, you know, stuff that is actually filtering down to influence kids, which I think is like the line where people, you know, where a lot of conservatives are like, that's it. and we were you know effectively boycotting bud light and and then you know bud light said we're going to pay off a few conservatives i don't know if they was dana white one of them well is he Dana white and then i don't think he's conservative but it was a big moment he's not he's not a huge

lib either comedian shane mcgillis shane gillis yes and now i think with with uh with donald Trump, I believe there's some lobbying things going on, some raising of money for the presidential campaign. And so he said, oh, let's just be, you know, let's let's give them a second chance. And I didn't love it. Well, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. I kind of like that we were doing it. What? Say that again? Let me play devil's advocate for just a moment. Not that I think anything you just said is wrong. I think you're absolutely right that money is playing a big role in all of those characters that we just

talked about when it comes to Bud Light. But, you know, I know this is a big part, well, two things. This is a big part of your Catholicism, forgiveness, and secondarily, effectiveness. What about these two arguments? Bud Light has definitely reversed course from this moment. I mean, they're doing all kinds of things with the military. They're showing patriotism and their advertisements. They have done a course correction after this boycott, which shows the effectiveness of it. And then you say, well, I brought it the turn of exhaustion. I mean, Rachel, like, well, then why continue it? If a company learns its lesson or a company reembraces virtues, shouldn't you then go to number two in this point I'm making forgiveness? And this is

what I talked about. I brought up Catholicism. Like, do you not think at some point there is redemption and forgiveness even for a corporation if they course correct? Well, you brought up Catholicism, so let's just start with there. Catholicism, we have confession, right? And the idea of confession is that you confess your sin and then you promise to do your best to not, you know, commit that sin again, you know, go and sin no more. And so I would like to see not just how much money they gave to Donald Trump or how many, you know, much money they gave to veterans groups or how many military guys they put in their commercials, but did they fire the DEI, you know, department? Have they really disavowed themselves from this, you

know, did anybody pay any consequences for this? Was anybody fired for this besides that? Woki, you know, I think she was an Ivy League woman who came, you know, sort of like was the tip of the spear, was she even fired? Was she put somewhere else? What happened there? I guess that's where you start. And all of this seems like window dressing and cosmetically trying to, you know,

fix the problem without actually fixing the problem. And DEI is ruining America. I mean, you just had this conversation earlier in the show about these separate, you know, graduations and separate dorms. I just think what I'm worried about, Pete, I mean, I will, is I'm worried that people like you and I and Pete who go, why can't we go back to the way it was? Like, we still have that vision, that idea, that experience of having lived in America where we, were getting closer to that ideal of judging people by their character and their personalities and their values and not the color of their skins. And I'm afraid that this generation, Gen Z, you know, they don't know that kind of America. And so there's not even going to be a point

for them to go back to, you know. And so I think DEI is destroying this country and a company as powerful and as rich as Bud Light, I was enjoying that they were paying some consequences for it. And I'm kind of sorry that there are, you know, different celebrities, whether they're presidents or owners of comedians or whoever, who are willing to take money in order to, I guess, to allow them to paper over this. You know, you brought up, you and I are both Gen X.

Pete's like a older millennial. and I know that it's always the privilege of every generation to say, like, well, we were on the right path and we were going to do it right, but I do think there's legitimacy to Gen X. I mean, I don't think I'm just indulging in nostalgia. I don't think I'm just indulging in the good old days, but I do think Gen X got the closest to setting aside superficial differences. And now, to your point, we've done this like reembrace of superficial differences, which by the way, historically, is the mean that's that's that's the history that's the story of history like tribalism superficial difference racism that's par for the course over the big long arc of history and to arrive at a moment let's call it the 1990s through the early 2000s where people were like and by the way it's reflected in polling as well it showed racial harmony high during those times essentially before Barack Obama but it shows that it was somewhere along the path of achieving something really admirable and all we've done now is revert back to the mean of history yeah you know

last week when we were on the show well there was a segment that we did and you were like at the end of the segment we went to commercial you're like you said Barack Obama like seven times Rachel and I am a little obsessed with Barack Obama I have a few obsessions did you hear the bell Rachel did you what yeah did you hear hold on did you hear the bell we had a bell yeah now the first time you said Barack Obama, we were going to ring the bell. And I don't know if we had a timer on it, but I'm the one that brought him up. So I almost set you up there. But I think the over and under was two minutes before we heard the bell.

I would have brought up Barack Obama anyway. I remember when Barack Obama was running. And I remember that there were lots of people on my husband's side of the family who were just ecstatic, who fell for the hype and really thought that this was going to be the moment where we were going to be able to put all the racial stuff to rest and they jumped on board. Some of them have come back and gone more liberal

and went for Joe Biden and others have gone for Trump after they were like, oh, that didn't work out with Barack Obama. But I was raised in a family, a Hispanic family. My mom, my dad is Mexican-American, but my mother is from Spain, and so her family had a very direct experience with communism. And as soon as as Barack Obama was elected, my mom, and she wasn't the only one, you could talk to people from, you know, Eastern Bloc countries, a lot of Cuban Americans were

like, oh, no, we've seen this before. And I was one of those that was kind of holding off. Maybe this would work. Of course, I didn't vote for Barack Obama. I didn't like any of his policies, but I did have this hope that I knew he was going to win, and if he won, that maybe they would be right about this racial part. And it turns out that my mom and everybody who raised the flag about communism and just this really, this poison pill that I feel like Barack Obama put into America when it was, as you aptly described it, finally reaching some of these goals that we had had. of unity and sort of, you know, and then Barack Obama came and everything that has, that

has, everything you don't like about America right now, you can trace back to Barack Obama. So, you know, interestingly hanging out with you on the weekend, and I am this way, you are this, first of all, and I don't say this disparaging that I told you, you are one of the most political people that I know, but you are also interested in ideas and I'm interested in ideas. And we often gravitate towards debating, discussing, as does Pete as well, talking about ideas. But, you know, Rachel, I had a phone call the other day with a friend, and I think at the end of that phone call, I realized as much as we talk about ideas, and they are under the current, they are important, and you have to understand ideas. The way that people actually vote is fairly

superficial, and I don't mean to be dismissive of people, but I'm talking about the values. I'm talking about the vast majority. They vote on personality. Look, I don't think she, my mom says, I like him, I don't like him. I trust him. I don't trust him. You know, whatever may be. I had Dave Portnoy, the founder of Barcelona sports on this podcast a week ago, and he was like, yeah, I'm a people person. So what he's saying is, in the end, I'm judging their personalities. And I don't think we give enough credit. We talk about it. But like the real deciding factor in this election, I think in this phone call with this friend I had, yesterday, all he wanted to talk about was Joe Biden's capacity, his shuffling feet, his

inability to complete a sentence, his, you know, you could say decline of a CBS interview at the Super Bowl, just like the leader of the free world cannot be this incapable, but it will be, well, I think that's going to be a huge factor, balanced against all the people who hate Donald Trump's personality. And that really, despite all the ideas, is probably what it will come down to for president. Yeah, I mean, that's a fair assessment. But I also think a lot of people can remember when times were pretty good. You know, we also talked on the show this past weekend about that interview on MSNBC

with, it was a bunch of African-American men. Some of them were older. Some of them were really young. And they all said, you know, we had money when Donald Trump was in office. and everyone's broke now. And so that also will play into it as well. It's interesting. As a woman with Donald Trump,

I don't know, maybe I'm not your typical woman. I kind of like how brashy is. I like people because of my personality and the way I am. I like people who say it like it is. I know that I'm not like most women in that regard in that I find Donald Trump to be funny, even charming. I love seeing him sort of just take on the left, take on the media. It's fun to me.

I thought he brought energy and fun. I can remember the first time I ever saw him speak. I happened to be at a libertarian conference in Las Vegas. And I didn't really know much about Donald Trump. It was very early in the 2016 campaign. And he went up there and he had a father on whose son had been killed by illegal immigrants. The border issue, he made it an issue.

It really wasn't on the radar of any of the other candidates at that time. And it was like watching, it was like a tightrope, like you didn't know where it was gonna go because he was bringing up, he had no script, he was bringing up people to talk who were never, weren't really speakers so they could say anything. And it was so entertaining and I just,

I knew in that minute, I said this, and this is coming from somebody whose husband was in politics at that time, you know, I'd been in the political world and been to speeches and been to rallies and been, you know, on the inside of all of this stuff. And I thought, I have never seen anything like this in my life. And it is so exciting. It is a combination of, you know, both populism and political, you know, it was also entertaining. It was exciting. And I jumped on the Trump train at that point. I was like this, something has to change, and I felt like this was it. And my husband felt the same way.

He was the first candidate in a Republican candidate in Wisconsin to support Donald Trump. Every other elected official in Wisconsin was a Ted Cruz person except for Sean Duffy. And he and I both were just like, this is where this country needs to go. But I think I look at a lot of women I knew who even in 2016 were like, I cannot vote for this man. And if I think about why some of those women had, didn't like his, the whole of his affairs and, you know, the whole other, like, sort of sexual side of Donald Trump and the, and the cheating and all of that and the, you know, I was able to compartmentalize that because, you know,

I grew up under Bill Clinton, you know, when I was in the 90s. So, like, you know, whatever. I'm not going to get lectured to about, you know, sexual propriety by the left when they all said it was okay what he did because, you know, he was pro choice. I guess that made it okay. So I guess most women, my assessment is that a lot of women don't like that side. I don't think they'll ever get over it. And, yeah. Do you think it's that too?

I think that, no, I just think that whatever your opinion is on Donald Trump at this point, it's probably Crystal. it's it's in amber it will stay that way and right or wrong there's just a lot of people mostly i think you're gravitating toward this and your answer to me most of them women but not all um simply hate him just and that's the end of the analysis that's the end of it just simply hate trump period you could talk to him about you know the subversiveness of what they're doing to save democracy you could talk to him about foreign affairs you could talk to him about the It doesn't matter. Don't matter. Hate Donald Trump.

I think that's the depth of a huge chunk of America. And what I'm saying to you is on the other side, I think there's a huge chunk of America's going to go, you can't have an 82-year-old declining senile president. And I think that's going to be the Sophie's choice that swings this election one way or another. Do you think that some of it is that Donald Trump is so. like unapologetically masculine well i think it's i mean that is a positive way to to explain a lot of things that he does i think there are other things like look you and i talk about it and i said to you this weekend when it comes to these wars and stuff i said when it all ends up on the substance like

you know i may end up a bigger supporter of trumpism or uh make america great again than any of you guys who are more obviously supportive of Donald Trump with what you say. But it doesn't mean I don't recognize, like, okay, there is a crassness, and I think that it can also come off as funny to some, as you just described. I think the hit back thing, which he openly owns, you hit me, I hit you back, right? A lot of people think you should be above that. I think a lot of people don't actually know the true story of Donald Trump. Like, I think it's like you hear echoes, you know what I mean?

you heard CNN say he said this and I think there's a lot of that like the things that he actually said are often very different from what is reported that he said the obviously the most obvious example is very fine people right so I think you just start adding all that up and that's why people don't like him um and I don't think it would be fair to say it's just because he's too masculine well I think that you're you're right about one one of the things that I I I I I with you and having been in politics as long as I have been, is that there is a personality contest going on, you know, that some people, at some moment, they have a gut feeling about somebody. And I think the axiom that you hear, you know, who do you want to go have,

you know, a beer with? I think that's, that's a fair way of assessing what you're saying. But I think when you look at, and I think we're at a moment where, you know, maybe, maybe in 2016 we had the luxury of you know looking at some of these superficial things um you say i'm really political yeah you could say i'm political but i also am just somebody who's you know i'm 52 years old you know and i've lived through a lot and i just think that we're at this really critical juncture in america and and really globally because i think the forces that we're up against our global and so I think a lot of people will look at... I think you're political when you call me Chinese will

for getting my picture taken at TSA. That's when I think you're political. And because Pete opted out, he's Patriot Pete. That was the text. Patriot Pete will start the revolution, not Chinese will. Setting aside the fact that Patriot Pete gave them his government... But that's the kind of stuff we're talking about. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

But set aside that Patriot Pete gave them his government ID with his picture. on it to go into the database and then entered the MX Lounge, the MX D-E-I-C-B-D-C lounge and had French toast with me. The revolution was short-lived, Rachel. Yeah, especially because he had told us earlier in the day that he was not going to have French toast because he was on a diet. That went out the window as well. I just think we're at a critical juncture in America and in the world.

I mean, you see the farmer-wide. riots happening in, or the protests happening in Europe, the way they're trying to, you know, control land, control the way our food is distributed and who's in charge of it. And I just think there's a lot going on. And at this moment, I think we have to decide, do we want to be a country that is truly sovereign and run by the will of the people? Or do we want to be run by these globalist organizations like the World Economic Forum or the WHO? And do we want to be committed to these treaties that no one signed up for? Do we want weirdos like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab running our life? Do we want our food to be produced by, you know, small farmers here and we'll be able

to control or at least know where our food came from? Or do we want lab meat by Bill Gates? Do we want everything centralized by these? I'm sorry, these are sociopaths. These are people who think they are God. These are godless, soulless people. If you actually sit down and listen to the speeches and the panel conversations by all these sociopaths who think they're smarter and better than you in Davos,

you will be amazed. They have conversations with a straight face where they say things like, maybe we do have too many humans or maybe we need to figure out I mean like I mean these are strange things that are happening and yet these people are gaining more and more control over our lives and and so I look at that and I go who can stop that so it's okay yeah I think Donald Trump is really funny I think he's a remarkable political figure but I also think he's like the only one that can do that do I think Nikki Haley will get in bed with

those people so fast she probably already is yeah i was only going to push back on only one but it's donald trump that started the populist movement of hallier mali in argentina or uh bukele and el salvador or any other movements that now san diego in spain in spain yeah yeah yeah so in addition to being my co-host on fox and friends weekend she is also the host of from the kitchen Table, the Duffies. It is a very popular and increasingly popular podcast at Fox News Podcast. I'm just going to share with you some of the headlines of the kind of stuff you can get. Relationship non-negotiables and the importance of keeping it fresh. Kennedy dishes on MTV in the 90s and big butts. American young men are becoming more

conservative. Why are young women becoming more left? And fitness expert exposes the dirty ozimic secrets. All of that on from the kitchen table podcast. And I'm not going to ask you about big butts, but I am going to ask you about really quickly on our way out, really quickly, Ozympic, because my red flags are up. Everybody's taking this drug to not control, what is it, for diabetes originally, but they're using it for weight loss. I'm worried about Ozympic. Yeah, I am too, and we did both sides.

We did that episode with the fitness instructor who was sort of giving us the lowdown, she was against it, but we also had another episode where we talked to a woman, along with Dr. Sapphire, who was on it and is very hopeful and sort of gave us all the reasons why. I understand why people want to get on it. I think it's very dangerous. And it really, it goes back to kind of what we were talking about, you know, Big Pharma, this is a drug that they want

to put you on this for life. And we know that people who have been on it have stomach paralysis. It just really, it's so bad for your system, for your body. And what we need to do is not figure out, like, how do we take a pill to not be fat? We have to figure out what's making us fat. And it's really deep stuff. Well, it's about what's in our food. It's about, you know, genetically modified food. It's about ultra-processed food. And whoever, and just because I know you think I make everything political, whoever takes on

that issue, RFK Jr. right now is taking on big food and big pharma, and they are intertwined. Donald Trump has made a few forays, but not enough as RFK Jr. There's a lot of talk right now about how the abortion issue is going to kill it for Donald Trump in the suburbs. If Donald Trump was smart, Donald Trump would take on in a very overt way, big food, big pharma. And that is something moms really care about and deal with every single day with their children and with their own bodies. That is a huge issue. People are sick and fat in America for a reason, and those two industries are the reason. And we need to figure that out.

You know I'm with you on both of those issues, specifically on food. I mean, you can see, you can see. Pete, not so much. And Big Pharma. Pete, not so much. What's that? No, Pete not so much. Based on the...

Yeah. All right, go check out from the kitchen table podcast, subscribe at Apple, Spotify. I'm looking at it right now on Spotify. or at Fox News Podcast, hit subscribe, and check us out this weekend. The highest rated show on every Saturday on the Fox News channel and killing it on Sundays, blowing away the competition, Fox and Friends Weekend. Rachel, love hanging out with you. Thank you.

All right. Take care. There she goes. Rachel Campos stuff. Again, check out from the Kitchen Table podcast. They really are doing fascinating topics on relationships and other aspects of your life that no one else is doing. So it's a unique addition to anything you have out there that you're listening to.

That's going to do it for me today here on The Will Cain Show. Tomorrow, Douglas Murray, plus you, mailbag, tweets, comments from YouTube, from email, from everywhere, right here, plus your calls on The Will Cain Show. See you tomorrow. Listen to ad free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members, You can listen to this show, ad-free, on the Amazon music app. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites like his All-Star panel and much more.

Available now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts.