Gavin Newsom makes big admission to Sean Hannity
Admission to Sean Hannity
Welcome back to Hannity so with a declining population it is no secret that Americans are now fleeing California and droves despite its vast natural resources great weather beautiful Coastline now California is shrinking rapidly but it's not just people businesses also are leaving the state look at this according to one CBS report approximately 65 000 have left since 1990 and that Exodus continues to this day and is especially palpable in San Francisco the city's Fame Union Square neighborhood is Now quickly turning into a ghost town with 19 major store closures since 2020. so what's going on in the Golden State and will the state's Governor take any responsibility here's part two of my interview with Governor Gavin Newsom let me ask about quality of life issues when you have I'll give you these back by the way I'm well aware of these things I think if you put them around the governor's mansion this is going to be a classic interview you know listen it may seem and you're very I appreciate your passion for your state I love it I appreciate the fact that you fight for your the things you believe in yeah you know and this goes back to the original premise of not only this discussion because this really is a friendly discussion no I know there's no personal animus between us it's just I don't agree with your your views you're very good at giving reason rationale for losing population and higher state income tax and and now I'm going to ask you about the homeless population but you have stores now in San Francisco because of Smash and grab robberies they're leaving yeah you know Walgreens is one I think target is the other there's at least three Whole Foods is another you're leaving San Francisco okay so my question to you is between taxes bureaucracy crime homelessness and the homeless numbers are not really good no uh for you in your state versus I acknowledge that and no I mean I wouldn't compare ourselves to anyone it's a disgrace the homeless issue in 2008 you had a 10-year plan yeah I got the tape let me play it for you do it San Francisco We Believe fundamentally that food solves hunger that shelters soft sleep and that housing solves homelessness and if we're to solve the problem of those that are out on the streets that we Define as homeless we better solve the housing problem if we're going to have an impact and that's why we established this framework what we call a 10-year plan to end chronic homeless in San Francisco it's in San Francisco okay now here we are you want to know the results after 10 years okay I don't need to look at you don't like my charts I know the charts I know these charts so well after 10 years we've reduced the street population by 33 you know what I'm proud of the fact we established the goal we did it with the with the Bush Administration with Republicans we did it with a framework where we actually identified by Georgia W bush is one of the leaders in terms of establishing not only a framework of a plan but delivering on what we promoted in promise and I agree with you you know Michelangelo said it best biggest risk in life is not that we aim too low and reach it so we aim too high and miss it rather the opposite my point being we have to be audacious and in so doing we actually made progress this state has not made progress in the last two decades as it relates to homelessness why because housing costs are too high are regulatory thickets are too problematic localism has been two impactful meaning people locally are pushing back against new housing starts in construction I've been here four years I can't make up for the fact in 2005 we had an historic number of homeless under Republican right now there's 171 thousand that's crazy okay it's graceful and all right I'll compare to Florida again 26 000. of course okay same weather similar State I mean I've lived in both Dynamics are very different that said we own this Sean I'm not I'm not here to defending it but here's the difference you're going to build 1200 homes this year I read that's not true you have a proposal sixty eight thousand people off the streets last year and by the way that's been politifacts 68 000. we had we had I have a 15.3 billion dollar homeless plan when I got here was half a billion dollars the state of California was not involved in the homeless issue we got involved we're holding cities and counties accountable I'm suing cities and they're not producing housing housing we actually have a 15-year high and new housing starts in the state of California we're actually seeing programs produce Real Results but I want accountability I'm not the mayor of California I'm governor of Six States larger than 21 States populations combined and the difference between me and most politicians is I own I take responsibility for this this is personal on me I love this state I don't like what's happening with the encampments I like what's happened the streets and sidewalks I don't like the bashing of mild City San Francisco all foods did shut down one business but there was a bad location to begin with they're opening a new one we have two point sisters out here recently with their team and I said don't go to the wharf certain parts are bad and we own that and I just put the National Guard and the CHP down there hundreds of millions I know and by the way you mentioned defund police don't accuse me of that I've never been part of that say yeah I'm saying you didn't want to build any more border wall that court I have because it was it was sort of farcical this notion that somehow you're gonna have a physical structure that's 2 000 miles long why not with all due respect I sit here watching the former president say he did it and somehow Mexico paid for it it's laughable those assertions you got a better trade deal with Mexico and Canada I'm not here to take cheap shot on that flight and coming up next you are an open Sanctuary State you should why don't you Embrace about dealing with the cards that are dealt and for comprehensive immigration reform I'm proud of our president for putting a strategy out and you guys have been silenced on it you haven't even discussed it yet a sanctuary State why don't you embrace them and say thank you for sending them I wasn't we Embrace everybody here we deal with the cards a date in a human way hey Sean Hannity here hey click here to subscribe to Fox News YouTube page and catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis you will not get it anywhere else
About the Creator
The Reality of the Illusion of Time
Recently, as I strolled along the short stretch to my strength training session, I aimlessly took in the row of tatty shops and shabby buildings along the route and passed an off-street, in which one of my sisters used to live, around thirteen years ago.
By Chantal Christie Weiss5 days ago in Earth
Supreme Court to Review Monsanto’s Bid for Immunity in Roundup Lawsuits
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Monsanto’s appeal seeking immunity from lawsuits related to its popular herbicide, Roundup. This decision marks a critical moment for both the company and individuals claiming health damages from the chemical, which contains glyphosate—a substance under scrutiny for potential links to cancer. The review could have wide-reaching implications for corporate accountability, public health, and the legal landscape surrounding chemical products. Background on Roundup and Legal Challenges Roundup, a herbicide produced by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), has been a staple in agriculture and home gardening for decades. Glyphosate, its active ingredient, was introduced as a highly effective solution for weed control. However, in recent years, scientific studies and lawsuits have raised concerns about its potential carcinogenic effects. Thousands of plaintiffs have claimed that exposure to Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other health issues. Numerous state and federal courts have seen extensive litigation, with some plaintiffs receiving multimillion-dollar verdicts. Monsanto has consistently defended the product, emphasizing that regulatory agencies worldwide have deemed glyphosate safe when used as directed. Monsanto’s Bid for Immunity Monsanto is appealing for legal immunity, arguing that its use of Roundup was regulated and approved by federal agencies, and therefore the company should not be held liable in civil lawsuits. The company contends that federal oversight should preempt individual claims, a legal doctrine known as federal preemption. In essence, Monsanto is asserting that because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evaluated and permitted glyphosate use, states or courts should not hold the company personally accountable for alleged harm. Why the Supreme Court’s Review Matters The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case is significant for several reasons: Corporate Accountability: A ruling in favor of Monsanto could strengthen corporate defenses in cases where products are federally regulated, potentially limiting lawsuits against companies producing similar chemicals or pharmaceuticals. Public Health: Plaintiffs and advocacy groups argue that a corporate victory could undermine accountability for harmful products and reduce incentives for companies to rigorously test safety. Legal Precedent: The case could set a nationwide precedent regarding federal preemption, influencing how courts balance regulatory approval with civil liability. The Supreme Court’s interpretation could reshape the legal landscape for product liability and consumer protection in the United States. Stakeholder Perspectives Plaintiffs and Advocacy Groups For those affected by Roundup, the Supreme Court review is a critical opportunity to hold a powerful corporation accountable. Many plaintiffs argue that Monsanto failed to adequately warn users of the potential risks associated with glyphosate exposure. “People shouldn’t have to choose between using a product as intended and risking their health,” says Laura Mitchell, an attorney representing multiple plaintiffs in Roundup lawsuits. “A ruling that shields Monsanto from liability could leave victims without recourse.” Advocacy groups, such as environmental and cancer prevention organizations, emphasize that transparency and accountability are essential, particularly for chemicals widely used in agriculture and landscaping. Monsanto and Bayer Monsanto, now part of Bayer, maintains that Roundup is safe when used according to label instructions. Bayer has publicly stated that legal challenges have cost billions but that the company continues to stand behind its products. The firm argues that courts must respect federal regulatory authority to avoid creating conflicting standards between federal law and state-level lawsuits. “If companies could be held liable despite following federal regulations, it would set a concerning precedent for innovation and regulatory compliance,” a Bayer spokesperson said. Broader Implications The Supreme Court review has implications far beyond Monsanto and Roundup: Agricultural Industry: Glyphosate and similar herbicides are widely used in crop production. Legal outcomes could influence labeling, usage guidelines, and liability risk for other companies in agriculture. Consumer Products: The ruling could affect cases involving pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and other regulated products, particularly when federal agencies approve them. Regulatory Authority vs. Civil Liability: The decision may clarify the balance between federal oversight and state-level tort claims, potentially shaping how courts interpret the limits of corporate immunity. Previous Court Decisions Lower courts have issued mixed rulings in Roundup lawsuits. Some courts awarded substantial damages to plaintiffs, while others limited awards or found in favor of Monsanto. These inconsistent outcomes underscore the complexity of balancing scientific evidence, regulatory approval, and legal responsibility. Federal appeals courts have previously sided with both sides in separate cases, making Supreme Court intervention necessary to establish uniform legal standards nationwide. Public and Media Reaction Media coverage of Monsanto’s legal challenges has been extensive, reflecting public concern over chemical safety and corporate responsibility. Many reports highlight the tension between regulatory approvals and individual health claims, questioning whether federal endorsements automatically protect companies from lawsuits. Public sentiment is divided. Supporters of corporate immunity argue that companies need protection to operate and innovate without fear of excessive litigation. Opponents worry that such immunity could prioritize corporate interests over public health. What to Expect The Supreme Court will now evaluate key questions: Does federal regulatory approval preempt state-level claims of harm? Can companies be held liable even if they followed federal guidelines? How should courts balance scientific uncertainty with civil justice? The decision, expected within the next year or two, will be closely watched by lawyers, plaintiffs, corporations, and advocacy groups alike. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s review of Monsanto’s bid for immunity in Roundup lawsuits represents a landmark moment in American legal history. The case has the potential to redefine corporate liability, influence public health policy, and set precedent for future disputes involving federally regulated products. For plaintiffs, the stakes are deeply personal—seeking justice for alleged health impacts caused by widespread chemical exposure. For Monsanto and other corporations, the outcome could determine the limits of accountability in a regulated marketplace. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the nation watches closely, recognizing that the ruling will resonate far beyond Monsanto, affecting consumers, companies, and the broader debate over safety, regulation, and responsibility in the United States.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in Earth
My New Book is Finally Here
My poetry collection Beautiful and Brutal Things is done. It's actually done and finally published over 270 pages. Over a year of my life went into this book. More than a year, really. Long days at my computer, sometimes seven days a week because I couldn't stop even when I probably should have. Then two months of editing that felt harder than the writing itself. But it's finished, and I'm still standing, and the book is real.
By Tim Carmichaela day ago in BookClub
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.