Speaker 1: Lately.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Late pay.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us on a Thursday night.
Speaker 4: I'm James Macpherson with Liz Thorer and Caleb Bond coming up.
Speaker 4: You know how local governments are always banging on about
Speaker 4: health and safety. You won't believe what one Sydney council
Speaker 4: has put smack bang in the middle of footpaths. Will
Speaker 4: show you that a little later. Plus, when we look
Speaker 4: at the papers, should police have the power to monitor
Speaker 4: the phones of domestic violence offenders? And the act government
Speaker 4: has blown its budget. What's new in this country. But
Speaker 4: you'll be shocked by just how much they've blown the budget.
Speaker 4: It's quite staggering. We'll get to all of that when
Speaker 4: we look at tomorrow's news. But first now, I've always
Speaker 4: thought the best way to stop racism is to stop
Speaker 4: talking about race. I've got a couple of African sons
Speaker 4: and I always say to them, while we honor your
Speaker 4: African heritage, to be honest, that's the least important or
Speaker 4: least interesting part of you. Far more interesting is your personality,
Speaker 4: your gifts, your talent, your character. And it's true you've
Speaker 4: got an African heritage, but it's not that important. It's incidental,
Speaker 4: not essential to who you are as a person. So
Speaker 4: it always surprises me when authorities in this country say
Speaker 4: the only way we can unite people is by continually
Speaker 4: dividing everybody according to ethnicity. One Sydney council in a
Speaker 4: West has decided they've got to fight the scourge of racism.
Speaker 4: So they've decided to fight racism by spending two hundred
Speaker 4: and eighty thousand dollars focusing everybody on racial differences. The
Speaker 4: Inner West Council has developed the first ever anti racism
Speaker 4: strategy by a new South Wales council.
Speaker 1: Here's what it entails.
Speaker 4: Tell me how this builds unity amongst people in the community.
Speaker 4: The key features of the strategy include investing one hundred
Speaker 4: and twenty thousand dollars toward an evidence based, bespoke anti
Speaker 4: racism training program to be developed over two years with
Speaker 4: Western Sydney University. Let me pause for a moment just there,
Speaker 4: or come back to the rest of it in a second.
Speaker 4: What they're going to do is they're going to spend
Speaker 4: two years developing a training course that they're then going
Speaker 4: to run through with hundreds of people in the Inner West,
Speaker 4: teaching them to spot racism and then to intervene when
Speaker 4: and if they see it. I got to tell you,
Speaker 4: when you see racism, you know it when my kids
Speaker 4: are playing on the football field and someone calls them
Speaker 4: a black so and so. In that instant, all of
Speaker 4: their teammates are right beside them having a go at
Speaker 4: whoever made the comment. Because when you see racism, it's
Speaker 4: pretty obvious. You don't need a training course that's taken
Speaker 4: two years to develop for you to know what racism is,
Speaker 4: unless you're looking for microaggressions, in which case you're teaching
Speaker 4: colored people to be hyper sensitive and you're teaching everybody
Speaker 4: else to walk on eggshells.
Speaker 1: It's rubbish. They shouldn't be doing this. It goes on
Speaker 1: to say.
Speaker 4: Another key aspect is fifty thousand dollars annually allocated toward
Speaker 4: artists and community leaders from diverse backgrounds to showcase and
Speaker 4: develop their cultures. Other funding commitments include fifteen thousand dollars
Speaker 4: towards identifying and alleviating the cultural load of Aboriginal and
Speaker 4: torrestrate under staff, with the same amount allocated towards commemorating
Speaker 4: the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on
Speaker 4: March twenty first, but doesn't stop there. The Council are
Speaker 4: going to erect thirty racism not Welcome signs around the
Speaker 4: Inner West, as though somehow a racist will see the
Speaker 4: sign and then think, oh, I'm not allowed to be
Speaker 4: a racist here. I'll have to go somewhere where the
Speaker 4: sign does not exist. They're going to erect three Aboriginal
Speaker 4: survival monuments to create cultural safe spaces, in other words,
Speaker 4: to try to bring us all together. They're going to
Speaker 4: spend rate payer money dividing, dividing, dividing. If you want
Speaker 4: to unite the country, a much better way would be
Speaker 4: to take the two hundred and eighty thousand dollars and
Speaker 4: spend it on Australia Day, put on a massive barbecue
Speaker 4: and invite everybody from the community, no matter what the
Speaker 4: color of your skin or what your ethnic background. They
Speaker 4: put this anti racism strategy online to get feedback from
Speaker 4: the community, and wouldn't you know it, forty percent of
Speaker 4: the community said they liked it.
Speaker 1: The rest didn't like it.
Speaker 4: So even the anti racism strategy divine to bring everybody together,
Speaker 4: has divided the community. We have this thing called a
Speaker 4: national anthem. It's not very popular among anti racists, but
Speaker 4: maybe they should take notice of it.
Speaker 1: It begins Australians.
Speaker 4: That would be a good place to focus on Australians.
Speaker 4: All that's pretty good. Let us rejoice for we are
Speaker 4: one and free. If you want an anti racism strategy,
Speaker 4: I reckon that's about as far as you need to go.
Speaker 1: And that's about all you need to know.
Speaker 4: This attitude that to bring us together, they've got to
Speaker 4: keep dividing us up, Liz, is absolute rubbish and entirely counterproductive.
Speaker 4: They wonder why we've got social cohesion problems because even
Speaker 4: in trying to solve the problem, they.
Speaker 1: Make it worse.
Speaker 5: Well, it creates way more resentment.
Speaker 6: Who enjoys going to these workshops in their workplaces? In UNI,
Speaker 6: you get a module being like you must complete this
Speaker 6: module along with all the sexual harassment.
Speaker 5: And don't do this and don't do that type stuff. Nobody.
Speaker 6: Maybe go ahead with the sexual harassment stuff if you
Speaker 6: find that's the problem on your campus. But in terms
Speaker 6: of race, they are making this a thing, and what
Speaker 6: it creates is resentment. I've heard it said several times before,
Speaker 6: and I'm genuinely starting to believe it's true that the
Speaker 6: coming generations, and indeed those already born are going to
Speaker 6: be way more racist than their grandparents ever were. Because
Speaker 6: notice in the West, as our countries have been flooded
Speaker 6: with people from different parts of the world, that is
Speaker 6: when all this anti racism you can't be racist, you
Speaker 6: can't be racist, has started being pummeled into the indigenous populations,
Speaker 6: whether you're talking the UK, America, Canada, Australia, because they
Speaker 6: know that by creating a melting pot of cultures, people.
Speaker 5: Are going to start noticing other.
Speaker 6: People's differences and all that's racism. You can't even acknowledge difference.
Speaker 6: Nowadays it's considered racism. Once upon a time, we used
Speaker 6: to laugh at each other's differences and get along just fine.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 6: We'd be like, oh, these are the wogs, these are
Speaker 6: the greats, these are the winging ponds.
Speaker 5: Nobody cared.
Speaker 6: Nowadays we've lost that, like, oh, let's all just get along.
Speaker 6: And it's due to a lot of these kinds of initiatives.
Speaker 3: It's the if you push someone far enough, they will
Speaker 3: eventually revolt against you, which is basically what we saw
Speaker 3: with the Voice to Parliament, right. I mean, you went
Speaker 3: with a piece of policy that was originally about sixty
Speaker 3: forty in support and ended up being roughly sixty forty
Speaker 3: again against it because people were lectured all the time, oh,
Speaker 3: you're racist if you don't support this, and people start
Speaker 3: to go, well, if you're telling me I'm racist because
Speaker 3: I'm even questioning the validity of this thing, then I'll
Speaker 3: vote no because I'll do what you're telling me not
Speaker 3: to do, which is essentially what you're suggesting happens here.
Speaker 3: And I think that's correct. You mentioned the national anthem.
Speaker 3: I think the second verse isn't. It goes on to
Speaker 3: say for those who come from foreign lands have boundless
Speaker 3: planes to share. So we've already ticked that one off.
Speaker 3: But as someone who lives in the Inner West Council
Speaker 3: and has for the entire time I've lived in city, No,
Speaker 3: I did not vote in this poll because I wasn't
Speaker 3: to where it existed, just like ninety nine point nine
Speaker 3: nine percent of other people in.
Speaker 2: The inn A West Council.
Speaker 3: But as someone who's lived there the entirety of my time,
Speaker 3: I've been in Sydney and it's a place that is
Speaker 3: very left wing. Our state member, the member for Balmain,
Speaker 3: is a Green. The federal member. Depending on where you
Speaker 3: are in the council is Anthony Albanizi your tenure pliver six.
Speaker 3: So we know how people think in the Inner West.
Speaker 3: I'm just glad that the Inner West Council has now
Speaker 3: admitted that the people of the Inner West are racist,
Speaker 3: because if the people of the Inner West were racist,
Speaker 3: you wouldn't need to be training them to be anti racist,
Speaker 3: would you.
Speaker 2: And of course I'm in my.
Speaker 3: Local booth where I lived before. I've moved suburbs, but
Speaker 3: I'm just up the road from where I was my
Speaker 3: local booth during the Voice, I think voted seventy percent
Speaker 3: in favor of the Voice. So I think we're probably
Speaker 3: quite right to say that there are a bunch of racists.
Speaker 4: In You could be chosen, Caleb for some of this
Speaker 4: bespoke anti racist in training.
Speaker 3: Well, they would think I need it because I voted
Speaker 3: against the Voice. I would say they need it because
Speaker 3: they voted for the Voice. While we're talking about racism
Speaker 3: and such things. You might have seen today, though perhaps
Speaker 3: not because it didn't actually receive a great deal of coverage,
Speaker 3: but new hate speech laws passed through the Federal Parliament.
Speaker 3: Now this happened with barely an hour's discussion in the Senate.
Speaker 3: It started in the Lower House, yes that I passed there,
Speaker 3: then went through to the Senate today where it was
Speaker 3: eventually passed. So this will now become law. Now there
Speaker 3: are certain parts of it with which I agree and
Speaker 3: others with which I am really worried. It means that
Speaker 3: there will be mandatory minimum sentences of six years for
Speaker 3: terror offenses, three years for financing terror and twelve months
Speaker 3: for displaying terror symbols. But it then goes on to
Speaker 3: talk about inciting violence essentially, and the means by which
Speaker 3: someone incites violence and the rules by which you have
Speaker 3: to meet if you are in court being accused of
Speaker 3: inciting violence.
Speaker 2: Now they have watered this down to the point where
Speaker 2: you would question whether the things you.
Speaker 3: Might just say in a normal conversation joking halfheartedly could
Speaker 3: essentially now be called inciting violence here in Australia. If
Speaker 3: you go to the Criminal Code, what they've changed is
Speaker 3: in section eighty point two A. Now it previously said
Speaker 3: that a person can it's an offense if the first.
Speaker 2: Person, which is how they refer to it in the.
Speaker 3: Act, intentionally urges. Remember that intentionally urges another person or
Speaker 3: a group to use force or violence against a group.
Speaker 3: That has now changed from intentionally urges to advocates, right,
Speaker 3: so there doesn't necessarily have to be intention anymore. The
Speaker 3: wording changes to advocate to water it down. You then
Speaker 3: get to the next bit, which says that the person
Speaker 3: does so intending that the force or violence will occur. Ie,
Speaker 3: you say kill this bunch of people, et cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 3: because you want people to do that. That now changes
Speaker 3: from intending that it will happen to reckless as to
Speaker 3: whether it will happen. So you could say something perhaps jokingly,
Speaker 3: not meaning that it will happen, but if.
Speaker 2: You are reckless to the fact that it could.
Speaker 3: Happen, you have by the law now in violence and
Speaker 3: the groups that we are talking about have also expanded.
Speaker 3: It used to be race, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin,
Speaker 3: or political opinion, will now they insert into that sex,
Speaker 3: sexual orientation, gender identity, into sex status and disability. Now
Speaker 3: we all know there has been a scourge of anti
Speaker 3: Semitism in this country and we want something to be
Speaker 3: done about it. But this is being used as a
Speaker 3: vanguard to water down free speech and add in other
Speaker 3: protected groups like the ones I just read out there
Speaker 3: sex sexual orientation. Speaking of sexual orientation. A Llegras Vender
Speaker 3: was talking about this legislation last night on seven point thirty.
Speaker 3: Now she is talking here about a sign that was
Speaker 3: held up at an the.
Speaker 2: On Nazi rally.
Speaker 3: As she says, but that's not really pertinent to the
Speaker 3: sign that was held up. She'll explain the sign she
Speaker 3: thinks should be made illegal.
Speaker 2: Take a listen.
Speaker 7: I support where the government is going with this legislation,
Speaker 7: but I want to go further. And that is the
Speaker 7: question I'm really trying to address, is those people who
Speaker 7: are promoting and really pushing hate in our community. So
Speaker 7: currently under the current legislation, things like some a neo
Speaker 7: Nazi protests which had destroy pedo Freaks as a banner
Speaker 7: that wouldn't be covered under the current legislation.
Speaker 3: Out I want to destroy pedo freaks to be speech
Speaker 3: that is now considered a crime in Australia. I understand
Speaker 3: the idea that you know, basically no one has been
Speaker 3: charged under hate speech laws, and I don't think that's
Speaker 3: a problem with the law necessarily. I think that's been
Speaker 3: an unwillingness for at least to try the laws out
Speaker 3: I mean, we're fiddling with laws here without really knowing
Speaker 3: the bounds of what can be done with them, because
Speaker 3: they haven't actually been tested in court.
Speaker 2: So we jumped the shark and now say that if
Speaker 2: you say something that is reckless or without reckless knowledge
Speaker 2: of what might happen, you could be up on a defense.
Speaker 3: I just wonder if, for instance, because sex is now included, right,
Speaker 3: Clementine Ford, a feminist commentative, any of you would know
Speaker 3: used to quite frequently say kill all men. Now sex
Speaker 3: is now a protected group under this legislation. You say
Speaker 3: kill all men. She means it as a joke or
Speaker 3: ironically when she says it. But is she saying that
Speaker 3: without reckless as to weather, someone might go and then
Speaker 3: kill a man?
Speaker 2: So does that mean that sentence.
Speaker 3: Which is from her a joke, is now a crime
Speaker 3: in Australia.
Speaker 2: Is this where we've gone?
Speaker 4: So let's take that as a rhetorical question. Here's the
Speaker 4: bigger problem we've got in this country. As you pointed out,
Speaker 4: the Senate took all of one hour to review this legislation,
Speaker 4: which is not exactly simple. It's quite complicated in some
Speaker 4: of its detail. Our senators spent more time debating whether
Speaker 4: or not Donald Trump is a threat to the world
Speaker 4: than they did debating this legislation, which then has direct
Speaker 4: impacts upon things you post on social media, things you
Speaker 4: say to a mate over a beer at the pub,
Speaker 4: something you say outside your church or whatever. And so
Speaker 4: the Senate, which is meant to be a place of
Speaker 4: reviewing legislation, saying is this good? What are the unintended consequences,
Speaker 4: has just become all about rubber stamping legislation according to
Speaker 4: which senator, which which party each senator belongs to. It's
Speaker 4: quite derelict in their duty of our senators to wave
Speaker 4: through legislation which you've so brilliantly described, has got all
Speaker 4: sorts of problems with it.
Speaker 1: How do you interpret it?
Speaker 4: What does it mean to wave it through without doing
Speaker 4: due diligence?
Speaker 6: And these things are never tested until it's before a court,
Speaker 6: until someone brings the case, and then of course the
Speaker 6: judge in control of that simply is held by the
Speaker 6: bound and then you've got a precedent set because either
Speaker 6: the judge said it applies or it doesn't apply. Hence
Speaker 6: the case is build up, and then lawyers have precedents
Speaker 6: to rely on. It's utterly insane. I've said it, be
Speaker 6: all said again. I'm a free speech absolutist, I really am.
Speaker 6: You can't have free speech without hay speech. You either
Speaker 6: have both or neither.
Speaker 5: And as we know, anything.
Speaker 6: That's even incitement, how do you measure incitement? Now that
Speaker 6: they've taken intent out of it, one would think, because
Speaker 6: that lowers the bar, intent is very hard to prove.
Speaker 6: I can say I was joking, you can say I
Speaker 6: was dead serious and my intent was to cause you
Speaker 6: grievous bodily harm. Who's to say so They've removed that now,
Speaker 6: and all that matters is that I said it, and
Speaker 6: the rest is.
Speaker 5: Up to the judge. I mean, it's just a can
Speaker 5: of worms.
Speaker 6: I genuinely find it disgusting that we have any of
Speaker 6: these kinds of bills, well now laws in our country
Speaker 6: at all. It does not belong in a free democracy.
Speaker 6: And I know that that means O people will be
Speaker 6: able to.
Speaker 5: Say very vile things.
Speaker 6: But for centuries this has worked for us because people
Speaker 6: say vile things and society rightly revials them.
Speaker 5: And you said that.
Speaker 6: No one's been convicted for a hate speech crime in Australia.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not aware of anything. This happened recently.
Speaker 6: Now there was the case of this absolutely stupid kid,
Speaker 6: Jacob Parsons in Victoria just last year he was sentenced
Speaker 6: for one month to jail for doing a siege hile.
Speaker 6: So that takes it to even another level where you've
Speaker 6: got this judge who said it was a.
Speaker 5: Display of hate speech.
Speaker 6: Well, actually I could contend that this particular fellow had
Speaker 6: actually said hate speech, but the case itself centered around
Speaker 6: this Nazi salute that he'd done just weeks after Victoria
Speaker 6: had made it a crime to do so. And so
Speaker 6: I don't think that got enough media attention because that
Speaker 6: is definitely the first of its kind in Australia where
Speaker 6: someone is doing jail time while his lawyers are appealing
Speaker 6: because of a gesture.
Speaker 5: So then looking at this kind of.
Speaker 6: Legislation, it's just an absolute cannib Wait this is and
Speaker 6: once you start, you can't stop.
Speaker 3: We can point to one case, right, but there's been
Speaker 3: plenty of other hate speech happening in Australia. Have any
Speaker 3: of these cases been tried?
Speaker 2: And that's the thing.
Speaker 5: How we say, does this capture the hate preacher?
Speaker 2: How can we Kuran?
Speaker 6: Can you now not quote that part of the Quran
Speaker 6: as the man that we.
Speaker 5: Played countless times. You probably remember him.
Speaker 6: I can't remember his exact name, because unfortunately there's too
Speaker 6: many of them.
Speaker 5: I can't remember which it was.
Speaker 6: But he was reading from an Islamic script when he
Speaker 6: was quoting, saying there's a Jewish person behind me, come
Speaker 6: get him. Basically, will that be captured by this legislation
Speaker 6: because we know that so far to our knowledge, no
Speaker 6: one's been prosecuted.
Speaker 1: And that's the point you made.
Speaker 4: They haven't tried to even use existing laws. Now they're
Speaker 4: making new laws. And the other thing that gets me
Speaker 4: about this is the premise for we need new laws
Speaker 4: is antisemitism. Right, But we heard the Victorian premier justinto
Speaker 4: Allen's say the other night, you know, antiseism is really bad,
Speaker 4: and then she said next breath, you need to be
Speaker 4: able to love who you love, marry who you want
Speaker 4: to marry, and pray to who you want to pray to.
Speaker 4: So all of a sudden, antisemitism was thrown out, and
Speaker 4: all we came about all these other identities that are
Speaker 4: now protected, which makes you think, is it really about
Speaker 4: dealing with antisemitism, or is antisemitism just a very convenient
Speaker 4: crisis right now for people who want to limit free
Speaker 4: speech to take action, and.
Speaker 6: They don't seem to have taken into account at all.
Speaker 6: What say a case were to be bought against, say
Speaker 6: one of these hate preachers, then what of religious freedoms
Speaker 6: and the laws around that?
Speaker 5: So then you've got your own laws having a face
Speaker 5: off in court.
Speaker 6: God help whoever that judge turns out to be, because
Speaker 6: I'm sure it's just a matter of time to the
Speaker 6: States now where you may have heard of Politico. It's
Speaker 6: not that big here in Australia, but it is in America.
Speaker 6: And we've just found out why the Biden administration was
Speaker 6: sending this media outlet during its tenure over twenty seven
Speaker 6: million dollars.
Speaker 5: What a rot?
Speaker 6: This isn't supposed to be a government funded media organization whatsoever.
Speaker 6: DOGE has found this out, but it was brought to
Speaker 6: their attention when all of a sudden, when the USAID
Speaker 6: payments were put on hold, because DOGE was going line
Speaker 6: by line through every single expenditure saying, excuse me, what
Speaker 6: is this?
Speaker 5: For that week, Politico did not pay.
Speaker 6: Its employees, and the employees even joked amongst themselves is
Speaker 6: this because USAID payment.
Speaker 5: Have been frozen.
Speaker 6: Here's a tweet from Elon Musk when it was brought
Speaker 6: to his attention that the Biden administration had at one
Speaker 6: point paid half a million dollars for just thirty seven subscriptions.
Speaker 6: And that graph you can see on your screen right
Speaker 6: now is where their money came from over.
Speaker 5: The course of the Biden administration. Look at all the
Speaker 5: different departments.
Speaker 6: Biden really put his hand in the pocket for these guys,
Speaker 6: and if you go over the years of media that
Speaker 6: they pumped out during the Biden administration's term, you can
Speaker 6: see that it was actually very well spent because Politico
Speaker 6: made sure to absolutely give these guys a tongue bath
Speaker 6: every single chance it got, whether it was.
Speaker 5: Covering up Hunter Biden laptop.
Speaker 6: Story, all the fact that this was a presidency that
Speaker 6: started with denying the Hunter Biden story even existed, much
Speaker 6: less had any credit to it, and ended with the
Speaker 6: President hardening his son for the very thing that had
Speaker 6: started out saying wasn't legitimate in the first place. So
Speaker 6: a lot of questions have been asked, but here is
Speaker 6: Press secretary, the White House Press Secretary, Carolyn Levitt telling
Speaker 6: Politico to their face in the press conference room. Your
Speaker 6: big payday, your big cash cow ends today.
Speaker 8: Upon coming out here to the briefing room, I was
Speaker 8: made aware of the funding from USAID to media outlets,
Speaker 8: including Politico, who I know has a seat in this room.
Speaker 8: And I can confirm that the more than eight million
Speaker 8: taxpayer dollars that have gone to essentially subsidizing subscriptions to
Speaker 8: Politico and the American taxpayer's dime will no longer be happening.
Speaker 8: The DOGE team is working on canceling those payments.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 6: What makes this revelation even worse is the fact that
Speaker 6: due Toltico's fake subscription numbers being pumped up so high,
Speaker 6: they were able to sell themselves to.
Speaker 5: A German company.
Speaker 6: So all these millions of American taxpayer dollars were actually
Speaker 6: going into the pockets of people oceans away who were
Speaker 6: then benefiting from them pumping out propaganda into the American public.
Speaker 5: This is just extraordinary.
Speaker 6: And on top of this, we've discovered that BBC got
Speaker 6: over three million dollars. New York Times got over three
Speaker 6: million dollars. These are supposed to be independent, well, not
Speaker 6: the BBC that's supposed to be funded by the UK government, So.
Speaker 5: What's going on there?
Speaker 6: You're paying for a few favors from them as well.
Speaker 6: This is horrendous and really opens up the door to
Speaker 6: question marks over the legitimacy of every story written during
Speaker 6: the Biden administration tenure.
Speaker 5: That was just a big rate.
Speaker 3: It's pretty good going, isn't Because the one you quoted
Speaker 3: before four hundred and forty three thousand, nine hundred and
Speaker 3: ninety eight dollars for thirty seven subscriptions to Politico Pro. Now,
Speaker 3: Politico Pro I went on their website and I couldn't
Speaker 3: find what a subscription cost, so I can't ten thousand. Well,
Speaker 3: we'll see they've paid twelve thousand per person if you
Speaker 3: divide that number by thirty seven thousand, thirty thirty.
Speaker 2: Seven people, I should say.
Speaker 3: But it's some sort of like public policy platform where
Speaker 3: it colates legislation that's currently going through the House or whatever,
Speaker 3: and it's got news pertinent to those pieces of legislation. Like,
Speaker 3: if you're paying twelve thousand dollars per person a year
Speaker 3: for that service, you're telling me you couldn't get someone
Speaker 3: internally to go and do that. Now, I had no
Speaker 3: problem in principle with the government paying for subscription to
Speaker 3: news services so that members of the government can read,
Speaker 3: because it's only fair that they pay the same as
Speaker 3: every other member.
Speaker 2: Of the public.
Speaker 3: But compare and contrast through the entirety of the Biden administration.
Speaker 3: You know how much money they spent on News Corp.
Speaker 3: And news Corp has as well as Sky News of
Speaker 3: course in Australia, and all the newspapers here. They've got
Speaker 3: Fox News one of the biggest cable news networks in
Speaker 3: the United States, the New York Posts one of the
Speaker 3: biggest newspapers in the United States, the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 3: one of the most important business newspapers in the United States.
Speaker 3: You know how much money the Biden administration spent over
Speaker 3: four years on news Corp. Zero until October the first
Speaker 3: last year. They had spent zero dollars on any News
Speaker 3: Corp publication until October the first, when they decided just
Speaker 3: before they left office that they would spend thirty seven
Speaker 3: five hundred dollars on one hundred and fifty.
Speaker 2: Subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 3: So in all that time they spent all that money
Speaker 3: on Politico and all these other to wing outlets, and
Speaker 3: not once did they spend dissent until the dying days
Speaker 3: on the Wall Street Journal of all the newspapers, So
Speaker 3: it seems pretty clear that they were using this money
Speaker 3: to give it to outlets that they thought would give
Speaker 3: them favorable coverage.
Speaker 2: Either that or they couldn't be able to read the
Speaker 2: coverage that.
Speaker 3: Biden was getting in the rest of the media because
Speaker 3: they knew how bad it was.
Speaker 2: But that's clearly the decisions they were making with that month.
Speaker 6: Twenty seven million over the course of four years mag.
Speaker 5: How many subscriptions is that.
Speaker 4: I think clearly they understood the only way they're going
Speaker 4: to get positive coverage for Joe Biden is to pay
Speaker 4: for it and pay through.
Speaker 1: The nose for it.
Speaker 4: And of course you mentioned the story Politico did dismissing
Speaker 4: the Hunter Biden Lapstock laptop store and trying to bury that.
Speaker 4: Do you remember Politico Also they reported a leak from
Speaker 4: the US Supreme Court when they were deliberating over what
Speaker 4: to do with Roe v. Wade, Yes, and a draft
Speaker 4: decision was leaked by Politico and it ended up with
Speaker 4: conservative judges having death threats have guards outside judges' homes
Speaker 4: because this decision, which of course the Democrats hated. This
Speaker 4: decision was leaked by politicos. So the Democrats got value
Speaker 4: for money.
Speaker 1: But yeah, you're right.
Speaker 4: They didn't invest in Fox, they didn't invest in The
Speaker 4: Daily Wire, they weren't giving money to Joe Rogan, none
Speaker 4: of those things.
Speaker 5: They knew where to go, they knew where their.
Speaker 1: Bread was buttered.
Speaker 4: But I'll tell you who is starting to get the message.
Speaker 4: The big tech companies Google, for instance, have got the
Speaker 4: message that DEI under Donald Trump is now dead and buried.
Speaker 4: You know, in twenty twenty four, five point seven employees
Speaker 4: at Google were black and seven point five Google employees
Speaker 4: were Latino. I know that affects you Google searchers greatly,
Speaker 4: doesn't It makes no difference at all. But Google knew
Speaker 4: because ever since George Floyd died in twenty twenty, Google,
Speaker 4: along with most other corporations in the US, were very
Speaker 4: focused on diversity and increasing the number of underrepresented people
Speaker 4: in their organizations. From twenty twenty one through to twenty four,
Speaker 4: Google every year announced in their annual report that they were.
Speaker 1: Committed to DEI.
Speaker 4: It was one of the vital things that they did because,
Speaker 4: of course, we all know diversity is our strength. Will
Speaker 4: this year, for the first time since George Floyd's death,
Speaker 4: Google didn't bother in their annual report to Mention DEI
Speaker 4: at all. In fact, they sent out an email saying
Speaker 4: they will no longer set hiring targets for underrepresented groups.
Speaker 4: They're going to focus entirely just on people who are
Speaker 4: you know, good at their job. What a novel idea.
Speaker 4: But Trump's only been in the White House.
Speaker 1: What is it now?
Speaker 4: Coming up to three weeks and already we're seeing massive
Speaker 4: shifts right across the US. God willing it will start
Speaker 4: to come to places like Australia, you know, see some kind.
Speaker 6: Of So far no movement here, but it has been extraordinary.
Speaker 6: We've had Meta, we've had Starbucks, We've had even these
Speaker 6: massive brands that we're familiar over here in Australia. There's
Speaker 6: many others in the States who have joined this long
Speaker 6: growing list. They now know it's on the nose. People
Speaker 6: aren't remotely interested. There was a day that by flying
Speaker 6: all the different flags, etc. You were encouraging everyone through
Speaker 6: your doors. Now you're actually discouraging people. They don't like it,
Speaker 6: and they've had enough. Something else that they don't like
Speaker 6: is biological men playing in women's sports and true to
Speaker 6: his word, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order
Speaker 6: banning it.
Speaker 5: Here he was, you know, if you'd.
Speaker 9: Like to gather around me, I think I'm going to be.
Speaker 9: You come, secret services. Worried about them? If we have
Speaker 9: to worry about them, we have big problems.
Speaker 10: Are you ready? What a nice picture of this is?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 1: Governor?
Speaker 9: You ready?
Speaker 1: We'll do a good.
Speaker 10: Joby a lett impress that.
Speaker 9: I want to make this a really good signature because
Speaker 9: this is you know, this is a big one.
Speaker 1: Right oh, I think we.
Speaker 10: Have a ten.
Speaker 1: We have a ten.
Speaker 6: And speaking of hoping these things will translate into Australian politics,
Speaker 6: dunt't wasted no time with an exclusive on the Credlin
Speaker 6: this evening, backing Donald Trump right in.
Speaker 11: I think it's one of those debates that we have
Speaker 11: to be honest in and it's not about discriminating against anyone,
Speaker 11: including young girls. And young girls want to be able
Speaker 11: to compete on a fair basis, and I think that
Speaker 11: is a perfectly reasonable position to hold or young girls
Speaker 11: not to be able to achieve their Olympic dream, their
Speaker 11: pathway to a World Cup, or to be displaced from
Speaker 11: a team because you know, somebody has a physiological advantage
Speaker 11: over them. I just don't think that is that's not
Speaker 11: in the spirit of sport.
Speaker 5: And will you commit to banning it? Will you commit
Speaker 5: to banning it?
Speaker 1: Goods?
Speaker 6: He was Trump saying the war on women's sports is over.
Speaker 5: A bit more emphatic.
Speaker 10: Than that, And we will defend the proud tradition of
Speaker 10: female athletes. And we will not allow men to beat up,
Speaker 10: injure and cheat our women and our girls. From now on,
Speaker 10: women's sports will be only for women. With this executive order,
Speaker 10: the war on women's sports is over.
Speaker 5: Hallelujah.
Speaker 6: So many women and across the States have missed out
Speaker 6: big time, and it ends now. And it's thanks to
Speaker 6: the tireless work of those brave ones who were reviled
Speaker 6: by their schools, reviled by their universities, refused to play,
Speaker 6: therefore missed out even before they had a chance to compete,
Speaker 6: because they simply said, I will not compete against a
Speaker 6: biological man.
Speaker 4: It's so common sense it almost defies logic that it
Speaker 4: has to be done.
Speaker 1: But the reaction was quite astonishing.
Speaker 4: I mean, The Guardian reported on Trump's decision, thus saying
Speaker 4: it's the latest in a series of moves rolling back
Speaker 4: the rights of trans people. So the Guardian were not
Speaker 4: at all about way we need to protect girls, we
Speaker 4: need to protect female sport. It was rolling back the
Speaker 4: rights of trans people. But could you imagine, Caleb, how
Speaker 4: confused lefties would have been watching that press conference that
Speaker 4: Trump did because he was surrounded, did you see by
Speaker 4: a group of people, and leftives would have been looking
Speaker 4: at the group of people trying to.
Speaker 1: Figure out what are they?
Speaker 3: They?
Speaker 1: Are they girls? Are they non binary? Gender neutral?
Speaker 4: Are they boys trapped in girls' bodies?
Speaker 1: Because, of course, this is the.
Speaker 4: Difference between Donald Trump and the Democrats. Trump knows that
Speaker 4: there are two genders, male and female, and he can
Speaker 4: tell them apart. The Democrats had a nominee for Vice
Speaker 4: president who was putting tampons.
Speaker 1: In boys' bathrooms.
Speaker 4: It's obvious, which is why Liz, I thought your point
Speaker 4: about Peter Dutton's interview was well made. It would have
Speaker 4: been nice to see Peter Dutton, our future Prime Minister.
Speaker 1: Not say it's entirely reasonable.
Speaker 4: I think to make sure that we don't have boys
Speaker 4: in girls' sports entirely reasonable, it's common sense, it's basic logic.
Speaker 4: It's an outrage that we've got to a point where
Speaker 4: it needs to be said. It would have been nice
Speaker 4: to see Peter Dutton. I appreciate what he said, but
Speaker 4: he could have said it with a bit more.
Speaker 6: You're waiting for that line, Caleb of in a coalition government.
Speaker 5: And do the same.
Speaker 2: And this is the trouble.
Speaker 3: He's trying to walk a tight rope at the moment
Speaker 3: where he doesn't want to upset the left of his
Speaker 3: party and he doesn't want to alienate people in these
Speaker 3: tlcs because they want to get those works back, et cetera.
Speaker 3: But it doesn't have to be and it shouldn't be
Speaker 3: a controversial issue because it's not fundamentally about I hate
Speaker 3: transgender people. It's an issue of fairness and that's the
Speaker 3: way in.
Speaker 2: Which it should be sold. That look, we all send out.
Speaker 4: It's not even an issue of fairness, it's an issue
Speaker 4: of biology.
Speaker 2: Well, of course it's an is fairness.
Speaker 3: You can debate it's an issue of biology when we're
Speaker 3: talking about you know, broader stuff when it comes to
Speaker 3: transcender issues.
Speaker 2: But we're talking specifically about sport. The reason it is
Speaker 2: an issue.
Speaker 3: Is because biologically, yes, men have more strength than women.
Speaker 3: That's where the foenus issue comes into it right, and
Speaker 3: so surely it's not hard to prosecute the argument that
Speaker 3: if you're sending little Sarah or whoever it is, to school,
Speaker 3: the chi should have just as much opportunity to excel
Speaker 3: in sport as little Johnny when you send him off
Speaker 3: to school. It's an issue of fairness, and particularly here
Speaker 3: in Australia, we say we're the country the fair go. Right,
Speaker 3: if the fair go is an Australian value, it should
Speaker 3: be the easiest thing to possibly sell. And if you
Speaker 3: want to watch the rest of that interview, if you
Speaker 3: didn't catch it earlier to night, or you want to
Speaker 3: watch the extended excerpts of it, you can get a
Speaker 3: Sky news dot com dot au and stream that exclusive
Speaker 3: interview with Peter Dutton conducted by Peter Kredlin this evening.
Speaker 3: And he also says in that interview that he likes
Speaker 3: to Clint Eastwood film on that count. Mister Dutton, I
Speaker 3: am with you. Now let's go down to the saga
Speaker 3: of Victoria's bail laws. We've been talking about this all
Speaker 3: week here on the Late Debate. It started on Monday
Speaker 3: night when we showed you the front of Tuesday's Herald
Speaker 3: Son where premierges Cinta Allen said there will be a
Speaker 3: review into bayl laws. Then last night we talked about
Speaker 3: the fact that the Police Minister Anthony Carby and stood
Speaker 3: up at a presser yesterday and said, look, there is actually.
Speaker 2: No review going on.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't even call it a review, he said, And
Speaker 3: in fact, I have in my bottom draw at least
Speaker 3: ten things I could do right now to fix the
Speaker 3: bail laws here in this state. Jacinta Allan's response to
Speaker 3: that was quote unquote, well that's terrific.
Speaker 2: Well, Aga, it's even better because the other.
Speaker 3: Minister, of course involved in all of this is the
Speaker 3: Attorney General Sonya kill Kenny. Now, we hadn't heard from
Speaker 3: her all week, and journalists had been asking for miss
Speaker 3: kill Kenny to come out and address the media about
Speaker 3: this report that apparently isn't a report into the bail laws.
Speaker 3: In this morning, she at least twice said no to
Speaker 3: doing a presser until one little problem popped up. See
Speaker 3: just cent her Alan stood up in Parliament today and
Speaker 3: said there are currently eight criminals who are on bail
Speaker 3: walking around Victoria and we don't know where they are
Speaker 3: because there was a private company called bail Safe that
Speaker 3: was employed to monitor these people, and a week ago,
Speaker 3: without telling the government, bail Safe shut down. So now
Speaker 3: we have no idea where they are. Well, Miss Kilkenny thought,
Speaker 3: oh god, I can't get out of it now, I
Speaker 3: must go and do a press conference where she filled
Speaker 3: us with so much confidence by letting us know that
Speaker 3: It wasn't until the media asked her about fail safe
Speaker 3: that she was even aware that private companies were monitoring
Speaker 3: people in Victoria. Take a look, how many pies are
Speaker 3: in this operating Victoria.
Speaker 12: Well, we know of bao Safe, and what we also
Speaker 12: know is that that bailsafe has failed to alert state
Speaker 12: agencies of these developments. I also find that the use
Speaker 12: of bow Safe, in fact, the use of any private
Speaker 12: company for these purposes, is not appropriate whatsoever.
Speaker 6: Sotatifically, you don't know how many other companies there are
Speaker 6: other than.
Speaker 5: I'm not responding to that.
Speaker 3: She's not responding to that because she doesn't know the answer.
Speaker 3: I mean, this has to be the greatest cockup I've
Speaker 3: seen in quite a while.
Speaker 4: Yeah, as we said the other night, there's a by
Speaker 4: election on Saturday in Werribee, and so in preparation for
Speaker 4: the by election.
Speaker 1: The Premier Victoria grab a cigar, put it in her.
Speaker 4: Mouth and lit it and it's exploded in their faces.
Speaker 6: I love Michael O'Brien, the shadow Attorney General's response to this.
Speaker 6: He said she might be a part time Attorney General
Speaker 6: because she's got her planning portfolio, which is clearly more
Speaker 6: interested in. But the Attorney General is the first law
Speaker 6: officer in Victoria. She's obligated to come out and answer
Speaker 6: questions about her government's absolute failure to regulate this industry,
Speaker 6: which has led to this collapse, which means Victorians are
Speaker 6: less safe when a politician responds to a question like
Speaker 6: that simply saying I won't be responding.
Speaker 5: To that one. Then what are we paying you for?
Speaker 1: I just love.
Speaker 4: They're going to have a review of bail laws as
Speaker 4: soon as they can find all the people who are meant.
Speaker 1: To bail who has disappeared.
Speaker 4: Unbelievable, all of those people in Victoria watching, we love you,
Speaker 4: were praying for you. We're going to go to a
Speaker 4: break when we come back. Look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 4: including the act government have blown their budget big time.
Speaker 1: We'll tell you how much by it In just a
Speaker 1: moment welcome back.
Speaker 4: Let's take a look at what's making news tomorrow. We'll
Speaker 4: start with the Canberra Times and on the front page
Speaker 4: they've got a photograph of what must be the most
Speaker 4: unlucky man in the country. That's the former Transport Minister
Speaker 4: of the Act, Chris Steele. In November, he thought he
Speaker 4: was getting a promotion. Calebin Liz, the first Minister, Andrew Barr,
Speaker 4: said to Chris Steele, how would you like to be
Speaker 4: the treasurer? Andrew Barr had been doing it for quite
Speaker 4: some time. Chris Steele thought he was getting a prize.
Speaker 4: And as I said, he's only been doing it a
Speaker 4: couple of months and he's had to update Camberians on
Speaker 4: the state of the finances. Daddy of all deficits, reads
Speaker 4: the headline. The Act's new Treasurer has warned of tough
Speaker 4: and challenging to see heead of balancing the Act's budget,
Speaker 4: with the territory now on track to post its highest
Speaker 4: deficit in history. Here's the interesting part and maybe the
Speaker 4: reason Andrew Barr was so keen to give Chris Steele
Speaker 4: an opportunity to take the limelight. The definitis is expected
Speaker 4: to reach nine hundred and seventy one point seven million
Speaker 4: dollars in twenty twenty four to twenty five, more than
Speaker 4: three hundred and forty seven million dollars larger than was
Speaker 4: predicted in the budget just last year. That is a
Speaker 4: fifty nine point nine percent budget blowout in less than
Speaker 4: twelve months, and Chris Steele is left there holding the
Speaker 4: can on behalf of his first minister. I wonder how
Speaker 4: warm that relationship between those two politicians now is. He's saying,
Speaker 4: and I love this quote, he says, there are tough
Speaker 4: decisions that had to be made and we're prepared.
Speaker 1: To work through those.
Speaker 4: Well, it's good you're prepared to work through the tough decisions.
Speaker 4: Since you're blown the budget by sixty percent in less
Speaker 4: than twelve.
Speaker 3: Months, I suspect it's as warm as North Pole right now.
Speaker 3: But I mean, and they're saying that two hundred and
Speaker 3: twenty seven million dollars of it was on the health system.
Speaker 3: How do you just miscalculate spending on the health system
Speaker 3: by two hundred million?
Speaker 2: Really?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: A lot of come on?
Speaker 3: And then there's another one hundred and twenty odd that's
Speaker 3: been spent hell swear that they didn't know was going.
Speaker 3: How does that happen? What is no one actually in
Speaker 3: charge of the budget in the act?
Speaker 2: I know, public servant.
Speaker 5: They still have a slim surplus.
Speaker 6: Oh that's could still have a sim It's going to
Speaker 6: be fine, Ken Barns hang in there to the Courier mail.
Speaker 6: Now cops want to monitor phones of DV thugs password protect.
Speaker 6: The splash reads domestic violence offenders would be forced to
Speaker 6: share the device passwords with the police and have their
Speaker 6: movements tightly controlled under sweeping changes proposed by the Queensland
Speaker 6: Police Union. The article goes on to say that control
Speaker 6: orders for high risk offenders would restrict associations, where they
Speaker 6: went and who they communicated with.
Speaker 5: They would also be banned.
Speaker 6: From online dating apps and from going to nightclubs.
Speaker 5: Now this sounds.
Speaker 6: Fabulous maybe on first read, but I have some serious
Speaker 6: questions about this because there's all kinds of criminals that
Speaker 6: have more freedoms than that. Why is it if you
Speaker 6: have a history of domestic violence, that me having access
Speaker 6: to your passwords and all your online activity, your text
Speaker 6: messages per se, you can't go to nightclubs.
Speaker 5: I'm just not sure how this creates.
Speaker 6: Someone who's less likely to offend or even prevent them
Speaker 6: from offending.
Speaker 3: Do not using dating apps and going to nightclubs. Bit
Speaker 3: maybe makes sense from their perspective. The only thing I
Speaker 3: can glean from it really is that it means that
Speaker 3: a copper could inspect their phone without having to go
Speaker 3: to a court for an order to do so. But
Speaker 3: presumably you would only be doing so if you had
Speaker 3: suspicion that they might have committed an offense that were
Speaker 3: likely to commit an offense, in which case in cases
Speaker 3: of DV, it's usually because someone's breached an apprehended violence order,
Speaker 3: which means they've already fallen foul of the law, and
Speaker 3: so that the law should be.
Speaker 2: Dealing with them anyway.
Speaker 3: And if you are that bad a repeat offender to
Speaker 3: the point where they're that worried about you, create laws
Speaker 3: that put them in the clink, but keep them in
Speaker 3: the clink. I mean, I've argued this about repeat Peter
Speaker 3: files before, people who are just constant dangers, who cannot
Speaker 3: be reformed and have proven themselves to be unable to
Speaker 3: be reformed, and we let them out and then they
Speaker 3: go and offend again, and then we go through this
Speaker 3: every ten years. They get out and they reoffend again,
Speaker 3: and we go, oh, well, you know, that's just how
Speaker 3: the cookie crumbles. Ought not be how the cookie crumbles.
Speaker 3: You can go through their phone. But if this is
Speaker 3: someone who continually reoffends with domestic violence, just put them
Speaker 3: in jail and leave them there.
Speaker 4: I think a lot of people would have sympathy for
Speaker 4: doing whatever we can to keep domestic violence offenders from reoffending.
Speaker 4: I mean, we've seen some horrific murders over the last
Speaker 4: couple of years of women who and and authorities had
Speaker 4: fair warning that things were going in the wrong direction.
Speaker 4: So anything they can do to crack down on this
Speaker 4: they should do. But this does seem a little odd.
Speaker 2: It's talking of crime.
Speaker 3: Go to the Herald Sun tomorrow where we're talking about prisoners. Here,
Speaker 3: they're not getting it as good as.
Speaker 2: They'd like it.
Speaker 3: Apparently, King Pinn's food fight, It says, exclusive from Anthony
Speaker 3: Dowsley dows I hope you will mate. One of the
Speaker 3: nation's most volatile inmates is on a hunger strike over
Speaker 3: a lack of meal choices. Convicted drug trafficker George Morogi
Speaker 3: wants bar and prison to offer more hosher dishes. Well,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry to inform you mate. But when you traffic
Speaker 3: in drugs and all the other sorts of things that
Speaker 3: go on in organized crime, and we send you off
Speaker 3: to the clink to pay your penance to society, you
Speaker 3: don't get to choose the food that you receive, and
Speaker 3: good luck to you go on a hunger strike. I
Speaker 3: hope you stay on the hunger strike forever and that
Speaker 3: finishes you off. If you are literally that stupid that
Speaker 3: you feel that you can go on a hunger strike
Speaker 3: to get whatever food you want while you're in prison,
Speaker 3: then I think you probably deserve to suffer the consequences
Speaker 3: that come at the end of a hunger strike.
Speaker 5: Don't you think there's not no kosher options?
Speaker 2: He just went forward more.
Speaker 1: Prison.
Speaker 2: It's not a bloody days back.
Speaker 4: Before you go to prison, do you get an opportunity
Speaker 4: to peruse the menu and see what's on offer?
Speaker 3: Is that well, I will be choosing the steak fruits
Speaker 3: with a glass of read if favored up in that position.
Speaker 4: Let's go to the front page of Sydney's Daily Telegraph.
Speaker 4: Golf course cover up to spark property crash and cost
Speaker 4: two hundred million dollars more madness, reads the headline, slashing
Speaker 4: More Park golf course in half. That's the proposal by
Speaker 4: the state government and backed by the City Council. Will
Speaker 4: cost the cash strapped state government two hundred million dollars
Speaker 4: and one of Australia's top witters, State Agents predicts nearby
Speaker 4: property values would also crash by twenty percent. Now that
Speaker 4: two hundred dollar figure has been billion dollars, sorry, two
Speaker 4: hundred million dollar figure.
Speaker 1: I'm sounding like the Treasure of the eighty.
Speaker 6: It's what happened with the Burney General of Victorias.
Speaker 1: I will not the.
Speaker 3: Treasure of Victoria who doesn't use economic terms.
Speaker 4: That two hundred million dollar figure has been put down
Speaker 4: by a golfing consortium, so you know you've got to
Speaker 4: take that into consideration. But if that is true, or
Speaker 4: even remotely true, the New South Wales government have put
Speaker 4: aside two point five million dollars to divide up the
Speaker 4: golf course.
Speaker 1: That money is tight.
Speaker 4: If that's going to be the price, then that would
Speaker 4: be a good reason to leave the golf course intact.
Speaker 5: Why is it I feel like we have one of
Speaker 5: these stories. At least every six months.
Speaker 6: There's a golf course story, and everyone's like, save the
Speaker 6: golf course, and the Premier who or whoever's in charge
Speaker 6: of being like, look, we've crunched the numbers.
Speaker 5: We've got to do this every single time. Is it
Speaker 5: just me?
Speaker 1: This one has been going for a while, this argument.
Speaker 3: I think it's because Greenies hate people using open groups.
Speaker 6: Last time it was the one in New South Wales
Speaker 6: and everyone was like save the golf course and Min's
Speaker 6: was waiting in on it.
Speaker 2: This was the way park.
Speaker 4: In fact, there was a Hollywood star Why the same one.
Speaker 1: We're going to go to a commercial break.
Speaker 4: When we come back, we'll talk about a council that
Speaker 4: I mean, they're always going on about health and safety.
Speaker 1: Right, wait till you see what this council has put
Speaker 1: smack bang in the middle of for paths. That's coming
Speaker 1: up in a moment.
Speaker 4: Welcome back, well, Liz, the new US continues to provide
Speaker 4: endless entertainment.
Speaker 5: They do.
Speaker 6: He is Carolyn Levitt telling the public even more ridiculous
Speaker 6: projects that USAID has been splurging their heart earned dimes on.
Speaker 8: And I would just say a strong message to Democrats
Speaker 8: who are out there pretending to be outraged about the
Speaker 8: long list of crop that this administration is cutting. Federal
Speaker 8: waste and funding like two million dollars for sex changes
Speaker 8: in Guatemala, six million to fund tourism in Egypt, twenty
Speaker 8: million on a new Sesame street show in Iraq, four
Speaker 8: point five million to combat disinformation in Kazakhstan. Democrats are
Speaker 8: outraged that the American people want to be They want
Speaker 8: their taxpayers going to good uses, not stuff like this.
Speaker 8: But then they're very quiet about the fact that there
Speaker 8: are still North Carolinians and people in California who have
Speaker 8: lost everything and in the last four years, this federal
Speaker 8: government did nothing to help them.
Speaker 6: Every day by telling them more of the stuff that
Speaker 6: they're cutting, more of these ridiculous projects that they're finding,
Speaker 6: so much so that comedians are now taking to socials
Speaker 6: to do their own parodies of this daily ritual.
Speaker 13: Hi, Welcome to the Department of Government Efficiency. We were
Speaker 13: looking over last year's budget and we found some anomalies
Speaker 13: that we wanted to address. Okay, if you're talking about
Speaker 13: the military budget, if you want a safe country, that's
Speaker 13: how much we Oh, we didn't even start looking at
Speaker 13: that yet, get ready for that. No, we were looking
Speaker 13: at this list here. We wanted to start with the
Speaker 13: National Pillow Fluffing Initiative. I mean, don't you want your
Speaker 13: pillow to be fluffy? Also, the Bureau of Elevator Music Standards.
Speaker 13: Explain yourself, forgive me if you're trying to set the
Speaker 13: vibe bro eight hundred thousand dollars a year, the National
Speaker 13: Velcrow Noise Study.
Speaker 1: What's the problem here.
Speaker 13: You don't have to spend a million dollars a year
Speaker 13: to know that velcrow noise is annoying.
Speaker 1: Now, the Federal Kazoo Orchestra Grant.
Speaker 13: It's amazing what they could do with those things, honestly.
Speaker 13: The Federal Bureau of Traffic cone counting two hundred and
Speaker 13: fifty six three hundred and forty three. You're welcome now,
Speaker 13: that's what I call eight hundred thousand dollars while spent.
Speaker 3: And forget about traffic cone counting. The yay of the
Speaker 3: day goes to Bayside Council in Sydney, which managed to
Speaker 3: do this in the middle of their footpaths. Yes, that
Speaker 3: is an electricity box. They have literally built the footpath
Speaker 3: right around it.
Speaker 2: How much better can you get?
Speaker 1: Unbelievable? Well done, guys, that's.
Speaker 4: It from us stick around. Coming up is the Reader
Speaker 4: Penalty Show good night,