It's time. From Newport Beach, California, the sun is shining, the beaches are packed, and the waves are rolling in. Oh, while the Last Gate Conservative prepares to share more truth with America. He's America's binary brother, the holiest homo, and the gayest conservative of all time, working to restore common sense conservative politics in the American household. Welcome to the Last Gate Conservative Podcast. Here's your host, Tad Lauff.

I'm your host, Chad Law, America's binary brother, the holiest homo and the gayest conservative of all time, sending truth on the airwaves along the only rainbow that matters. The red, white, and blue rainbow. I love hearing from you folks. Don't forget the phone number, 866 LastGay. That's 866 LastGay. Call and leave a message on the voicemail or send a text. That's too much. Grab your device right now. In the description of this episode, there's a link that says text the show. Click it and let me have it. We're going to do things a little differently today, as instead of our usual three-segment program, I'm only going to do two. With the first segment being me taking rapid-fire questions and responding to feedback from the audience. You see, you ask and I give. For me, we're missing much of the larger, scarier, and most important part of this conversation around Venezuela. No matter how we spin it, folks, we've been in a Cold War or something very similar for the last 20, 30 plus years. Sadly, we allowed the access of power in the world to shift back to where communists, socialists, fascists, and these oppressive regimes pose an existential threat to our democracy and freedom and safety, the same way they did before the end of the Cold War. And while globalists in America last Uniparty losers got rich, Russia and China became more powerful, more influential, and more dangerous. And they never tried hiding their intentions to use their newfound wealth, power, and military for evil and oppression. The tactics may be different, and the technology may be more advanced, but the Uniparty, America last globalists, reignited the Cold War when they abandoned the checks of power we installed after Reagan broke up the USSR and tore down the Berlin Wall. Period. Maduro's capture and the return of power to the people of Venezuela represent the need to keep these regimes on the wrong axis of power and in control with limited influence and limited resources. That's why I think many of the semantics on the left people are getting caught up on are irrelevant. Even if Maduro wasn't a narco-terrorist, which we know he is, even if Venezuela was not sending criminals, which we know they are, even if Venezuela poses no serious direct threat to American national security, which we know it does. But even if every assertion Trump is making was found false today, the drugs, the criminals, the misinformation, et cetera, the indirect threat based on location ties to Russia and China and Iran was significant enough to justify this operation. It's about restoring balance of global powers and limiting the influence of oppressive regimes. But rather than walk you through most of what you already know, when we come back, I'll give you my take on this global situation in Venezuela, what I believe the domino effect it will have around the world. That and rapid follow-up questions and feedback from the audience when we're back. Well, folks, we finally made the switch. We're now shooting this show primarily for YouTube out of our 8K high-definition supermodern studio in Scottsdale, Arizona. You'll see all kinds of new fun clips and shorts all over social media. We're getting great press coverage, and most importantly, the channel is growing the same way that this show grew in the very beginning. Head over and check out the YouTube show, folks. Or you can just keep listening. Either way, the show might sound a little different, but we want to encourage you to head over to the YouTube show, subscribe to the channel, watch a show or two, like and share so we can continue our movement, spreading truth and restoring common sense, conservative politics in the American household. Again, you guys are the best audience. I wouldn't want any other listeners. You are the best. So check out the YouTube channel, check me out on video, and let me know what you think. Most importantly. Welcome back, America. I want to give you my take on Venezuela and my monologue today about restoring the global access of power. For decades, the world was defined by a clear ideological divide, a global access of power rooted in the contest between democracy and communism. The Cold War was not merely a contest of arsenals, but a fight for the very soul of humanity. Freedom versus repression, self-determination versus totalitarian control. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 seemed to herald an irreversible victory for democracy. As Francis Fukuyama wrote in The End of History and The Last Man, quote, liberal democracy may constitute the end point of mankind's ideological evolution. But unfortunately, in the decades since, complacency has allowed authoritarian regimes to rebound. China's GDP has soared from 361 billion in 1990 to over 17 trillion today, making it the world's second largest economy. Its military budget has increased 590% since 1995, reaching 293 billion in 2023. Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative now spans more than 140 countries, binding emerging economies to Chinese political and economic orbit around the globe. Meanwhile, Russia has reversed its decline with aggressive military modernization, annexing Crimea in 2014, and waging war against Ukraine since 2022, resulting in over 500,000 deaths and the largest refugee crisis in the world since World War II. As historian Timothy Snyder warns, quote, authoritarian regimes thrive on our indifference. Their power grows in the shadow of our complacency. Folks, restoring the global access of power to the West and democracies is not a question of nostalgia. It is an urgent imperative for stability and security. We have to begin to recognize that certain regimes, those that oppress their own people and destabilize entire regions, are not only threats to international order, but also vulnerable to change, as their populations are overwhelmingly discontent. I mean, let's take Venezuela as an example. Under Nicolas Maduro, hyperinflation has exceeded 10 million percent since 2017, according to the International Monetary Fund, and their economy has shrunk by over 75% since 2013. Over 7.7 million Venezuelans, one in four citizens, have fled the country in the world's second largest refugee crisis. In 2022, a survey revealed that 81% of Venezuelans want Maduro to leave power. As former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated, Maduro's illegitimate regime is a relic of a failed socialist experiment. The Venezuelan people deserve to live in freedom and democracy. Yet our response has been tepid. Diplomatic efforts, especially the use of American tax dollars, have failed to deliver real change. Just in 2021, under President Joe Biden, U.S.AID provided$52 million to Venezuela's opposition in an attempt to bolster democratic institutions and civil society, according to USAID. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, Maduro remained firmly entrenched, having used repression, rigged elections, and military loyalty to hold on to power. The promise that, quote, democracy assistance alone could peacefully dislodge one of the world's most unpopular regimes never materialized until Donald Trump. Similar, Iran's supreme leaders preside over a population that is restive and yearning for change. In 2022, anti-government protesters erupted in over 160 cities following the death of Masa Amini, leading to more than 500 deaths and 20,000 arrests, according to Amnesty International. Only 15% of Iranians favor the Islamic Republic's current system, while a majority support secular democracy. The regime spends billions on funding regional militias and nuclear pursuits, while inflation hovers above 40% and youth unemployment exceeds 27%, according to the World Bank in 2023. These regimes, isolated, unpopular, and propped up by force, are the weak links in the autocratic chain. Supporting the aspirations of the Venezuelan and Iranian people is not just strategic, it's also our moral obligation. Ronald Reagan reminded us famously that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. We did not do that. If our diplomatic and financial interventions, millions of dollars funneled into democracy promotion, have failed to unseat these autocrats, then it was time for us to rethink our approach. By helping remove these easy targets like Maduro, leaders whose legitimacy has evaporated, whose populations are overwhelmingly dissatisfied, we make a powerful statement. The access of global power will return to democracy, but not through half measures, but by empowering people who yearn to be free. The world is watching. The future of democracy demands that we will not turn away when the moment calls us to act like you just saw with Nicolas Maduro. History will judge us by whether we stood up for liberty and stability or let the darkness advanced unopposed. The time to restore balance and help free people reclaim their destiny is now. And that's exactly what Donald Trump delivered in his historic removal of the illegitimate dictator Nicholas Maduro. China, Russia, Iran, you are all on notice. The globalists, the Democrats, the leftists, and the elitists that have largely allowed you to regain unfathomable wealth, power, and influence in the globe are largely gone. Americans are dissatisfied with the results. And now your days are numbered. The access of power needs to return to democracy. And if removing some low-hanging fruit like Maduro and Iran help rebalance that power, then that's exactly what we should do. However, I'll be taking bets on which idiot Democrat in Washington will waste time drafting impeachment articles for Trump over the lie that he didn't have the constitutional authority to remove Maduro. Funny enough, cartel mouthpiece Ruben Galego from Arizona sure showed his kind of stupid, claiming we're now in illegal war with Venezuela. But there have been zero casualties, some more, huh, Ruben? I'm not surprised. Ruben Galego is one of the most anti-Venezuelan operation voices out there because he's propped up, funded, and supported by the cartels in Arizona. But really, folks, are we surprised that Democrats are upset that an evil socialist has been captured and no one was killed and the people of Venezuela can finally rule their own country? Not really. No. Their solution is to throw your money at a problem. Having sent$52 million using USAID in 2019 to support Maduro's opposition, to, I quote, end the rampant corruption, brutal repression, and vast political and economic mismanagement of the illegitimate Maduro regime, which has caused the largest external displacement in the history of the Western Hemisphere. That is by U.S. aid and the Biden administration. What we do know for sure, folks, is by improving the lives of Venezuelans in Venezuela, Trump just cut off another DNC voter pipeline. He also just embarrassed the Chinese and their air defenses who have serious egg fuung on their face after their inability to protect Maduro. Much of their posturing has been shown globally to be very weak, and countries that have been sworn to be protected by China and Russia should be scared. Remember, Uniparty globalists of the 90s essentially allowed the decimated, once powerful Red Bloc to regain strength and reverse the axis of power, which finally culminated under Biden when he returned Nord Stream 2 and gave Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and Chinese the ability to regain, reestablish a global position of extreme wealth, power, and influence. But the funny thing about most of these people on the left that are screaming about this, they've probably never been to Venezuela. Because whenever I'm judging the success of an operation like this, I look at the people. And there's not one news organization that can say the people of Venezuela, the majority of the people of Venezuela, are not happy with what just took place. That's how you should assess an operation. The Democratic Party, which is claims to be the party of the repressed, the oppressed, the people, are now upset that Venezuelans have regained their freedom. But really, the Democrats are just mad it wasn't them that did this because, as you know, they haven't had a winning foreign policy since Bill Clinton. Folks, the Bush Clinton, Bush Obama foreign policy has failed us so miserably. And we should all be thrilled that we're reversing course back to a common sense America-first foreign policy. And for those of you who write in and say, saying America first foreign policy is an oxymoron, no, you're just a moron. I'm sorry, but pretending like there are no global implications around everything we do today is ignorant. And unfortunately, isolationism, as nice of an idea as it is, cannot work in today's global structure. It doesn't work. I wish we could have a closed loop, totally nationalist, 100% non-global American existence. But unfortunately, we're way past that. So now we have to find ways to remain in power, continue our success, and grow as a nation while ensuring that oppressive regimes and threats to our democracy, security, safety, and our future success are controlled responsibly. And that's my take on Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and the historic victory of the U.S. military and Donald Trump in restabilizing and re-giving power back to the nation of Venezuela. I'll come back to answer rapid fire questions and respond to audience reactions right after these words. Folks, does your dog have stinky breath, itchy skin? Maybe they chew at their paws or have that icky brown color around their feet. Chances are your dog's having an allergic reaction to the kibble they're on. I've told you this a million times. Get your dog off the toxic kibble. 99% of health issues with dogs can be traced back to their nutrition. Do yourselves a favor right now, go online, go to darwinspet.com. It's what I feed my pets. And Ron, who is the healthiest Frenchie you've ever seen, is a walking, living, breathing testament to the power of this dog nutrition. It's an American company based in the state of Washington that uses American sourced ingredients to create the only biologically formulated raw diet that's delivered to your door and is relatively inexpensive compared to premium kibble. Again, folks, it's darwinspet.com. The second you put your pet on this food, you will see the itching stop. The breath gets better. The poops get firmer and less frequent and smaller. Everything gets better with your dog, which in turn gets better for you when they're on the right nutrition. Again, folks, it's darwinspet.com. That's darwinspet.com. You can go on, or they have the best live human customer service I have ever experienced in an American company. Call the number, talk to someone, and they'll walk you through everything your pet needs. Most importantly, don't forget to let them know the last gay conservative sent you when you check out. Welcome back, America. It's time to have a little fun, as I'll be in the hot seat answering rapid fire questions and comments from the audience. Our newest team member, Evan Lucas, assistant producer and studio administrator, will be asking me the questions as I respond in real time. I haven't prepared for these questions and my responses are unscripted, so bear with me. All right, Evan. Hit me with question number one.

Okay, Chud, your first question is what's your favorite news source?

I love this question. I get it all the time. Most of my news comes from uh an aggregated news uh site called the Daily BS. It's owned and operated and run by Bo Snerdly, who's the uh old executive producer of the Rush Limbaugh show. Uh he's a he's a great conservative, a great guy, and they aggregate most of the best and top stories. Um that's where I get most of my news. Now, for breaking news and big breaking stories, I would say uh my two biggest sources are either the Gateway Pundit or the Daily Caller News Foundation, especially Hudson Crozier, who's done uh an incredible job of unearthing some of these uh deep dark secrets with a lot of the liberal and uh leftist elitists that are out there today. So uh Daily uh the Daily Caller News Foundation and the Gateway Pundant both break the best stories, and I think the Daily BS aggregates the news in the best way.

Next one is how's Ron doing?

Ron is good. Ron had a birthday on the first of January, and he's largely the same as he was when he was a puppy. Anyone who has a Frenchie knows it's a constant battle of gas, snoring, weird bodily noises, and all. Sorts of antics, but I wouldn't have it any other way. He's uh he's doing really, really well. Thank you for asking.

What is the conservative slash Chad solution for universal health care?

Uh, first thing we have to do is establish that universal healthcare as a notion is a fallacy. Uh, it doesn't exist. Even in places like England and Canada, where they claim to have universal health care, still experience huge disparities and inequity gaps between the top and the bottom. You know, the concept or the thought that the poorest people in England and Canada receive the same level availability and access to care as the richest people in England and Canada is a lie. It just doesn't happen. In countries like France, for example, if you get pregnant and you don't report your pregnancy into the hospital or in whatever their medical system is called immediately, it's only a matter of a few days from the time that you learn that you're pregnant. Chances are you'll end up having your baby in the ER and not in a maternity ward because the slots and the availability are so uh hard to come by. I mean, those so universal health care doesn't exist. There's no way to equally apply healthcare to everyone. Uh, anything that's based on a concept that's largely impossible, like equity or equality or fairness, is never going to work. As much as it's hard to say, and I'm sure even harder to hear, the only real solution to healthcare is to apply free market principles to health care. And the reason why I know this is because healthcare in America is really split into two main categories: elected and non-elected procedures. It's the way that we look at uh the cost, implications, availability, uh uh satisfaction rates, et cetera, of patients in our healthcare system. Elected procedures would be things like LASIK eye surgery or the lap band or plastic surgery and rhinoplasty or a boob job, for example. Whereas non-elected procedures would be responses to body conditions like uh going in for a cold, getting an inhaler for asthma, uh, much of our regular healthcare routine. Our insurance system, government meddling, and uh removal of any free enterprise principles from the non-elected procedures has caused pricing to go up, doctors and technologies to flee, uh, huge, massive amounts of denials of care from insurance. Satisfaction of American patients in those procedures has largely gone down. Competition has gone down when people can't even choose their own doctors, or they have one or two insurance providers to choose from. And so largely, the more we've removed free market principles from our healthcare industries, uh the more expensive, the more unattainable, and the more limited access to top life-saving technologies has become a reality. Whereas on the flip side of that, in elected procedures like LASIK, weight loss surgery, and plastic surgery, most of those that aren't meddled in by insurance companies, et cetera, um, have largely come down in price. They've increased in customer satisfaction. Technologies have gotten stronger and better and more effective in plastic surgery markets, for example, recovery rates have been slashed in half. Uh, their non-invasive procedures have grown uh by tenfold, and people are largely satisfied and doing more of these elected procedures. Weight loss drugs are another perfect example. Before the insurance is now starting to get involved and Medicare is starting to get involved, but largely prior, most of these people on exem on OZEMPIC or these GLP1 semi-glutides were cash paying because the only reason insurance is covering it is if you're diabetic or morbidly obese, where it's causing an existential threat to your health. These people who've wanted to lose 20, 30, 40, 50 pounds have had to pay for Ozempic and some of these drugs out of pocket. What's happened is we've seen the creation of compounding pharmacies. We've seen online medical centers pop up, which has largely driven the cost down, made the product more available, and also given millions of Americans uh largely satisfying results. That's what happens on the cash pay elected side of our medical industry here in this country. And then on the flip side, when you look at the insurance-managed, government-managed, hospital-managed levels of care, costs have skyrocketed, availability has decreased, and most Americans are largely dissatisfied with the level of care they're receiving, with the uh medical procedures and medical uh treatments that they're receiving through their insurance and through these government-metdled systems. I understand that we can't have a 100% free market healthcare system in this country. But what I'm trying to say is that we've largely abandoned every single free market principle within the healthcare industry that's made it more expensive, less competitive, less available, and uh less effective as far as treatments are concerned. Whereas in cash pay, non-metaled sectors, you're seeing the exact opposite. So something has to give. I'm not a healthcare expert by any means, but something has to give where we get back to a sense of normalcy and some free market competition that drives innovation, price, and availability in the right direction when it pertains to healthcare for Americans. That's just my take on it.

Who is your inspiration for doing this podcast?

Oh, I've talked about this a lot. I I kind of have two motivations uh for this podcast. Uh the my inspiration, my largest driver is Rush Limbaugh. Uh, you know, Gavin Newsom tells that stupid story he made up about the stack of wonder bread and being a latch key kid, like that was so special. I I think we were all latch key kids uh in the 80s and 90s for the most part. There's nothing special about it. We all had the stack of wonder bread. We all had defend for ourselves between the hours of 3 and 5:30 or 6, for example. There's nothing special about it. The difference is he sat and vegged and watched whatever was on television. And uh my parents left Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, and John and Ken on KFI 640 a.m. talk radio on. And so Rush largely was responsible for developing my belief system and uh and my patriotism and and uh and largely what you hear on this show is what I grew up learning from Rush on the radio, as well as John and Ken. Uh, the inspiration for this program, though, is to establish some non-failing, well-principled, smart, gay, conservative leadership in this movement that's been largely taken over by people like Milo Yanninopoulos and George Santos that lie and perpetuate an image of gay men that I'm just not comfortable with, um, that are largely, you know, materialistic, uh, lying, dishonest, self-promoting, egotistical, uh salacious in nature, and just not good people. And so my inspiration is also to uh hopefully set an example for gay youth in this country that you can live a well-principled Christian and conservative life and be gay and not fall into all the liberal guilt trips and um and hopefully uh that message will resonate with with some young people and it will allow people to not will allow conservative gays to be more free and truly.

What's your opinion on eliminating property tax?

Well, I think we should eliminate all tax form of taxation if we can. Um, but I always go back to democracy, which is it's up to the voters. Um, again, taxation is no different than paying for a product. If the government, the government's products that they provide for our payment of taxes is infrastructure, education, um, you know, fire, police, essential services. However, I think property taxes are one of these uh scams, again, perpetuated by the idea that this country has a problem with revenue, um, largely based on the notion that there wasn't enough money for education. And people have a tendency to vote yes on any taxable measure when it's tied somehow to education, and property taxes were largely part of that scam. Looking back, if we could say, okay, we we we implemented these property taxes and our literacy rates went up this rate, um, graduation rates went, you know, or sorry, dropout rates went down, graduation rates went up, job placement, skills, whatever, if there were actual indicators that showcase the positive effects of taxing property for education, I don't think anyone would have a problem writing that check every year. I think the problem becomes when you write the check and you see horrible uh literacy rates, uh crippling dropout rates in high school, terrible GPAs, terrible test scores. And you have to wonder what the point is of paying into the system. The other fallacy with property taxes as it's tied to education is that some people want to send their kids to private schools. And this is largely tied into the public education system. However, it's up to each community and voter base to establish whether or not they can justify property tax. That's why you're gonna see places like Florida, where they're largely eliminating it, might have no property tax. They might come up with the revenue in other ways, they might not need to. Um, and maybe places like Arizona, they maintain a very small minimal property tax in a way to fund the public school system here, but it's 100% up to the voter, not anything else. And it's certainly not up to politicians to try to ram these concepts down people's throats. Uh, you the people have to decide if they're seeing the value for where their money is going. Um, and after that, make a decision on whether or not the tax is worth it. But I again, I think property tax is one of these things that's been tied to a virtuous cause that's fallen flat. Like we see with the California Lottery and some of these other bond measures in throughout California and through the West Coast that assess additional fees on top of the standard state property taxes for education, but have done nothing to benefit education. And that's why when you have these big calls to remove these taxes like income tax, property tax, sales tax, it's simply because people aren't seeing the fruits of their labor return to them in the product of infrastructure education, protection, and essential services. So that's my take on that.

Did Bush hurt the conservative movement?

Uh yes. I uh look, Bush destroyed the Republican Party, Bush destroyed the conservative movement. It wasn't just Bush, it was Bush, it was Clinton, it was Obama, it was Biden, um, all through the 90s. Bush, Bush's dad, Bush Sr., most people, when they ask me about Bush, they're talking about W. But if we go back to Bush Sr., um, he was largely responsible as the culprit and the leaderhead that started our departure away from Reagan's Republican Party and perpetuated these concepts like compassionate conservatives, for example, uh, which was just a way to justify conservatives supporting social programs, but uh perpetuated these lies and convinced Republicans and the GOP at the time to depart from Reagan and Milton Friedman's economy that was largely successful and move more into this sort of global standing within the Uniparty, which was, like I say, when you look at Clinton and Bush, both Bush's and Bill Clinton, there wasn't very much difference in their policies, the way they managed the government. They were all big government, they were all big spenders, they were all globalists, they all sold us out actively in their own way to China and Russia. So when we talk about how Bush injured the conservative movement, Reagan was the current conservative movement that you're seeing. Reagan represents that movement. The Republican Party of Reagan and Lincoln is the conservative movement. The Bush Republican Party is the Uniparty. And as they departed away from Reaganism and Lincoln and Reagan's party and moved towards this Uni Party globalist crap, the conservative part that existed within the Republican Party disappeared. That's why so many people like me and people that were involved in the Tea Party movement, for example, or people in Trump's first term were largely calling for a new party because the Republican Party had basically abandoned the original conservative values that were established by President Reagan. And Trump has come back in now and redefined the GOP as Reagan's Republican Party, which is why so many of us conservatives are now back in alignment with Republicans. But my fear and many fear that once Trump leaves and some of his allies have dissipated, as just naturally as time occurs, that someone else will come in and largely force a departure from conservative principles and values within the GOP again, and we'll have to go back to this same cycle. So uh it especially scares me when I hear things like the Bushes want to come back into the fold. Um, that would be the absolute worst thing that could ever happen for this country. And as much as people don't like all the division and the fighting that occurs uh now that we didn't necessarily see during the Uniparty when everyone was friends, at least there's some forms of progress happening. And we know that no matter how small, there's still people in America's corner where for 20 years, largely uh America was put last. And it was Republicans and Democrats on both sides. And I think Bush's father was the figurehead that largely was responsible for initiating that departure from Reagan's Republican Party. And that's how they disturb destroyed the conservative movement. They etched all the conservative parts of the party out and replaced it for with globalism and basically uh big government democratic principles in a Republican outfit. Why are you against wealth redistribution? Wealth redistribution stands for getting something for nothing. That's what I have a problem with. That's largely un-American. And if you've ever been around 16-year-olds or people who just get their license, there's a big difference that demonstrates people who get something for nothing and people who work for what they have. My friends who are wealthier that have handed keys to brand new BMWs without any sort of GPA requirement or work requirement to their kids, mainly just for merely existing, giving them a brand new car, those cars largely end up destroyed. Either totaled, or I don't have to tell you, because when kids get something for free, they don't take care of it. It's the same, the same principle applies to wealth. Parents who force their kids to either earn enough and they do a dollar match to save up for their car, or kids that have worked, or parents that put their kids in something crappy, or a hand-me-down until they can work and save enough to get it something nicer, generally respect, appreciate, and take care of those assets a lot more than the other example, which is getting it for free. That's what wealth redistribution represents to me. It's a something for nothing scam that doesn't stimulate anything because when people don't have to work for what they have or people haven't earned what they have, it largely goes wasted. And we've seen that in the history of the world and modern economies.

How do you distinguish between socialism and tax-funded services like firefighters, police, and ambulance, ambulatory services?

Fire, police, and ambulance are essential services. They're not social services, they're essential. That's the first thing you need to understand. The second thing you understand is that those services traditionally are best served through the public sector. They've tried to privatize firefighting ambulance services, jails, and police. And for whatever reason, those specific functions don't fare well under the private management. They just don't. So because they're managed by the public, the public pays a tax in the form of sort of a group insurance policy that when and if they need those services, they'll be available based on the tax they pay. Socialism is when a disproportionate number of people start tapping those services without paying for them first. And then when those services are unavailable for the folks who have paid and they're servicing people who haven't paid, that's when the inequity, that's when inequities are created, and you begin to see the fundamental flaws with wealth redistribution. The other thing we have to understand is that unlike socialism, these essential services that are managed in a public sector in our democracy are still technically managed by people. We still have voting rights and the power of the purse to control those services, where in a social environment, firefighting, police, et cetera, would largely be sort of handpicked by a dictator or the small centralized amount of power without any input from the populace. And that's the biggest difference, is that we still manage and own and operate these people as the taxpayer, whereas in socialist conditions, that doesn't happen. But these are essential services that are paid for in a group fashion. We pay our taxes with the understanding that these services will be available for us when we need them, and just like car insurance. That's the biggest difference. But that's a really interesting question.

You said you're currently in Scottsdale. What's your favorite part about it? And what's your least favorite part?

Hey, I think Arizona, Phoenix Metro, is where it's at. I think it's the new capital of the West Coast. A lot of California transplants like myself, who grew up in California in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s in Los Angeles and places like Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco when it was cool. There were a good mix of Republicans and Democrats. There was a good mix of all different races and socioeconomic backgrounds. People were largely happy and healthy, but something shifted, something changed, and we can place the blame however. We want, but at the end of the day, California is not the same. And I believe Arizona largely represents what it was like in California back then because many of the people who missed that re-established it when they moved over here in some of the first waves, like 25 plus years ago. So I think Phoenix is cool. I actually just read an article that a lot of companies that are starting on the East Coast are skipping their second big popular Los Angeles rollout locations and opening in places like Phoenix and Scottsdale now because of the atrocious business implications in the state of California. There's an ice cream shop I saw in Manhattan that's a boozy ice cream store. And usually, you know, they do a New York opening and an LA opening. That's generally been how it's gone in the history of the two metropolitan cities, East Coast, West Coast. And now Phoenix is largely taking that business from LA. And I think it's really cool. What I don't like about it is all the Canadian snowbirds that come down and don't know how to drive. That's kind of a problem. But they do represent a huge part of our economy. So I probably should be a little bit more patient. What do you think of EVs and EV mandates? I drive an EV. I drive the EV Hummer. Um, I resisted EVs forever. And the reason why I resisted them is because I don't believe the government should be in the business of creating a demand for a product using taxation or economic incentive tools. What Obama did based on, you know, whatever think tank told him that Americans care about climate change is he's set us up for complete failure by establishing standards around EVs under the lie that they're somehow environmentally more friendly than traditional gas cars. When actuality, all EVs do is sandbag pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant. That's it. The mix of power comes from the same place. However, the reason why Tesla is so successful is because they didn't focus on all the virtue-signaled crap that the government tried to use to push these uh, you know, false creation of demand on EVs. They just said, here's a really cool product. It's faster, it's quieter, it's smoother, and you don't have to get your hands dirty when you're pumping gas every day. I largely avoided EVs because I didn't want to get put in that trap. But now that I drive one, I can't imagine driving a combustion engine around town again. My EV is quieter, it's more comfortable, it's faster, it's more powerful, and I don't have to go to the gas station, I can charge at home. But I understand I represent a very small niche of people who can afford to live like this. And it's not uh it's it's not a reasonable practice for most people who have a standard commute of, you know, 25, 30, 40 miles and can't set up chargers with big power lines, et cetera, at home. I get that. All EV mandates are is the government trying to create demand on an unpopular product. And we know that doesn't work. And anytime they've ever done that in the past, the product ends up falling flat. And the companies who have perpetuated the government's demand, like Ford, who's now writing down$31 billion of their EV business and closing their EV plant in Kentucky, those are the people who largely suffer. And then the shareholders and all the retirees that own Ford stock from their 401ks, eventually suffer that way as well. So any mandates or any sort of false creation of demand in the market from the government is going to fail. However, if we launched EVs as a separate powertrain option with the end goal of fixing air pollution or changing the mix of power, whatever it is, I think it would have been largely more successful. Imagine just being able to walk to a Chevrolet dealer, say you want a new Tahoe, and picking out either the diesel, the regular gas, or the EV. And to me, that's how it should have been introduced in this country is just a secondary powertrain option for the people that it works for. Unfortunately, we made spaceships and went all so far away from what American consumers wanted based on facts and figures from the government and think takes that never really existed. And now we have uh we and now this false demand has created a vacuum where we're gonna have tons of stock write downs and losses based on a product that most Americans largely can't use because it just doesn't work from them for them. The technology's not there yet. So that's my take on EVs and EV mandates.

Would you are you happy the solar and EV tax credits are gone?

Yeah, again, it's the same thing. EV and solar tax credits are the government trying to create demand for a product that people either don't need, don't want, or don't work. Had we not meddled in the solar market, we wouldn't have all these banks that are now refusing to mortgage houses that have these leased solar panels on them, leased backup batteries. We have all these third-party solar companies now that are in leases that are now trying to coordinate the sale of power back to the grid while taking the profits and still charging customers for their mix of power. It's a mess. And this is what happens when we abandon the free market.

Would you consider yourself a part of the MAGA movement?

That's a great question. I think this whole thing with MAGA, of course, MAGA stands for Make America Great Again. I was part of the MAGA movement, well, when I was born, uh, because MAGA comes from Reagan. Reagan is the original MAGA, and Trump took that baton and ran with it. Uh, this whole concept that MAGA's failing or MAG is this, MAG is that Trump is MAGA, Reagan's the OG MAGA, Trump, who's largely mimicking all of Reagan's successes because he lived through it, has taken the MAGA baton and run with it. So, yes, in the case of the way MAGA should be and is defined as a conservative movement, no different than the Tea Party movement or the movement of convention of states, yes, I'm part of the MAGA movement. Am I part of the Magna movement that's largely defined by the left and the left media that that paints MAGA to be racist bigots like Tucker Carlson and Nick Quentas? No, that's not my MAGA movement. But the OG, the real MAGA movement, is the Trump movement, and it comes from Ronald Reagan.

Okay, Chad, your last question. What do you think about Sir Ron Mont Domini doing what looks like a Nazi salute that looks the same exact way that Elon Musk did?

You know, I like this question. I mean, it's surprising. I see some of the meltdowns. Oh, the media, you know, but look, I appreciate anyone who calls out the media double standard. I really do. But are we surprised by this at all, folks? Just like Elon wasn't making a Nazi salute, Zoran wasn't making a Nazi salute. We know that. I think if I have a problem with anything, it's the fact that we've been, we've become so complacent and comfortable calling everyone Hitler and Nazis. At the same time, we see a disgusting rise in anti-Semitism, and I think the two are correlated. I think we've normalized the term Nazi, we've normalized the term Hitler, which is largely offensive to the few Holocaust survivors we have left on the globe. God bless them. But I think it's offensive that we've we've become so comfortable using the term Nazi in Hitler as a disparaging remark, which has then made the anti-Semitic remarks and everything that goes along with it even more comfortable as well. But what I'm most proud of with all of it is that when I look at the Daily Wire, I look at the Daily Caller News Foundation, I look at the good conservative publications, the good conservative journalists, influencers, radio hosts out there, they attacked Zoran's message, not his wave. And that's the big difference. It's a big difference between people who uh get mad at Elon Musk and go blow up Tesla dealerships and cause violence in the streets, and conservatives that instead of going out in the streets and blowing people up after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, took clips of people celebrating death and sent it to their employers. That's largely who we are. So I'm proud that our media organizations didn't run uh and cause a huge meltdown over the fact that the corporate left DNC arm of the media didn't call out Zoran for the same wave as Elon, because we need to maintain a semblance of class and poise and attack his message and his policies and his programs and not try to go salacious because I know, you know, that he wasn't doing a Nazi salute either. So why run with it and perpetuate that negative message? But I think we're gonna look back in history and be really embarrassed of the way that uh Nazi and Hitler and uh concentration camps and these references that we make in modern culture. Uh, I think we're gonna be really ashamed of how it's become so normal to use those terms. And coincidentally, a massive rise in antisemitism occurs at the same time. Um, when you're calling people Hitler, it makes it very easy for then people to turn around and say the same thing about Jews, in my opinion. But um, that's my take. With that, folks, I'm all out of time for today, but let me leave you with something Reagan once said. One of the greatest contributions to the United States can make to the world is to promote freedom as the key to economic growth. A creative, competitive America is the answer to a changing world, not trade wars that would close doors, create greater barriers, and destroy millions of jobs. We should always remember protectionism is destructionism. America's jobs, America's growth, America's future depend on trade, trade that is free, open, but most importantly, fair. That was his State of the Union address, January 25th, in 1989. That could not be truer today in response to all these isolationist, neofascist conservatives that seem to think we can go back to a time where global influence isn't part of our everyday life. Just sadly, as wonderful of an idea as it is, is not possible in the fabric of today's global society. God bless you, President Reagan, and may God save America.