Hello, America, and welcome to another episode of the Last Gay Conservative Podcast. I'm your host, Chad Law, America's binary brother, the holiest homo and the gayest conservative of all time, restoring common sense conservative politics in the American household. We do things a little differently here. We send our truth through the airwaves on the only rainbow that matters: the red, white, and blue rainbow. Don't forget, folks, this show runs on your feedback, and I love to hear from you, negative or positive. The number for the show is 866 LastGay. If you're like me and still prefer talking on the phone, call and leave a voicemail. You can also send a text. But if either of those is too much, pick up your device right now. Go to the description of the show. There's a link that says text the show. Click it and let me have it. Please. And folks, if you're looking for another reason to make the switch to our YouTube show, it's commercial free. I just found out. You notice that I say right after these words, well, on the radio, that's a commercial break. However, on YouTube, they manage and place advertising and videos, and we're not big enough yet. So as of now, you can watch here on YouTube with no commercial breaks. Hopefully that incentivizes you to make the switch. And thank you so much to those of you who have already made the switch and those of you who are engaging with us online. I'm telling you folks, my last episode on the radio had 342,000 listeners, and I'm at 60 subscribers here on YouTube. So it's a little bit of a bruise to my ego. However, I haven't invested any dollars other than building out the new studio. So the ramp up is coming. In the meantime, check out the shorts and reels on Instagram or X. And if I say something you like, don't forget to share it. Let's see if we can at least get a hundred people subscribed by next week. And I always, always appreciate your help. You're the best audience. Happy Thursday, everyone. It's been an insane week getting back into the swing of things after the holidays. I don't know about you, but I used to always feel a little slump in January. There's been none of that this year. Seems like everyone has just hit the ground running, and it's been insane, but also awesome. There's a lot of exciting things are coming up. Today, for example, President Trump announced the historic exit from multiple anti-American global climate change programs, including the UN's Al Gore Committee, whose main job is to spend American dollars telling people they're all going to die and the world is ending. This is again a massive win for America as we pull out millions of wasted dollars from global initiatives that largely run counter to American interests and American policy. More driver's license drama is erupting as the United States Postal Service will no longer accept these phony migrant driver's licenses that deep blue states have been issuing to asylum seekers, aka parolees. The crashes associated with these drivers are piling up, for lack of better words. And the fact that USPS was hiring and using these drivers in the first place is concerning. But Sean Duffy is withholding billions in federal funding from California for its policy of issuing licenses to anyone with a pulse without language or comprehension requirements. This is another example of deep blue leadership trying to buy new votes through programs that put American safety and security last. Speaking of people who put America last, AOC, the defender of all women, champion for equality. It's making false sexual harassment claims against Jesse Waters at Fox News. Hey folks, this language is so dangerous as it totally works against real victims. She, of course, has every right to criticize and personally attack members of the media, but using terms like harassment, sexual expletives, and horrific behavior, you better make sure it's factual. Turns out Jesse's never done anything even close. And AOC's definition of sexually horrific harassing behavior was a one-time joke when someone mentioned she might want to sleep with Steve Miller. This is the same as a woman getting her bra strap snapped and calling it rape. AOC doesn't care about women or victims or victims of sexual harassment or assault. Sexual harassment and Nazism are her two knee-jerk responses to explain her refusal to have meaningful conversations with anyone that has differing opinions. So where are all the Me Too movement supporters calling her out for this and misusing terminology that waters down real victim statements? In more not-so-surprising news, trans terrorists win in Mirabelli vs. Bonta, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted California's emergency motion for a freeze suspending a class-wide permanent adjunction against the state's gender secrecy policies in schools. Trans terrorists and their supporters, like pervert Scott Wiener, believe they know better than you for you and your children and your family. And to keep this trans movement going that is lining the pockets of super nonprofits like Glad, Trevor, and Planned Parenthood, they have to paint pictures as villains. Why? Because gender conversations, when they happen at home and children are given the right mental health resources and support, nine times out of ten, their desire or confusion around gender dissipates. It goes away. So in order to keep convincing young people who are going through natural bodily changes that those feelings, changes, and curiosities are a function of gender identity crisis, they have to remove the kids from their support systems and their families. I'll break down the failures of the Ninth Circuit's decision as well as some of the crazy figures around transgenderism and these policies that have got to stop. Putting parents last will never work. When we come back, I'll break down each one of these stories, give you my take and more right after these words. He's looking at them, looking at results, looking at dollars, and saying, again, what do I always say? What's the name of the song? What have you done for me lately? What I don't understand is the hysteria around this. I don't get it. Because again, as Americans, don't we want our leadership quantifying our dollars? I mean, are you really comfortable with money that you earn that comes out of your check? I think a lot of that is because it's become so automatic and we just get it out of our check and then we go and we do our tax return. You know, it's a lot different when you have to sit down at the end of the quarter at the end of the year and write out a check to send to the IRS than something that just gets taken off the top of your W-2 or your payroll check, if you will. So that's one thing. I don't think people are as actively invested in those dollars because they don't really see how much is leaving, how much is going, and they get their little return check every year. And that seems to satisfy what should be outrage based on where that money is going and what they could be doing it with it on their own, whether that's charity, tithing, spending it on stuff they like, you know, having more money in savings or investing. But I don't think people realize that the affordability crisis or the amount of money they have is directly tied to how much the government takes from them. And when they don't realize that, then they don't understand why it's so important for our leaders to quantify those dollars. You see, in any private practice, any private enterprise, every dollar you spend has to be tied to something, or it's what we call waste. Now, in every business, every organization, any auditor could come in and find waste. I'm sure you could find it in my businesses, for example. There are always examples of waste and things people could be doing more efficiently. That's not the point of this conversation. We expect some waste in government. It happens. It's no different than a retail store that has to write down every year the amount of theft or what they call LP or loss prevention, money they've had to spend to prevent loss and the losses that they sustain from theft. Sometimes it's accidents. People grab two things, the checker only scans one, sometimes it's actual theft. But inventory losses from prevention is expected. We know some theft or loss will occur. That's why private companies generally project what they expect it to be, track those numbers, and if it's way higher, they can add more security or whatever, or if it's way lower, they can pull back some of the efforts. That's how they manage it. So we should have a small percentage of waste happening in government. There should be loss, there should be write downs. But we're looking at figures like 40, 50, 60 percent. One dollar goes into the federal government and only 40 cents actually makes it to something that can be quantified to benefit the American people. 60% of that dollar is going to waste, which in turn is fraud, whether it's legal fraud or not. It's fraud perpetuated on the taxpayer. So it's either getting sucked into that, it's going into the bureaucratic state. You know, another way you can look at it is with not like nonprofits. You look at, you know, companies like Goodwill, for example. They're supposed to be a company that is clothing the homeless. That's how it started. And their CEO takes home millions of dollars in salary, and only about 10 cents on every dollar you spend or donate to Goodwill actually makes it to homeless people and clothing homeless people. Because it gets sucked into a bureaucracy. I don't think most people know that. And I think if they knew where their dollar was going, they would be a lot more susceptible to some of these quantification conversations that are being had with our leadership. So what Trump's done with the UN is he's gone in and said, okay, show me what we've been able to accomplish. Because again, here's the problem. When you set standards in a group, any group, any group of people, countries, businesses, whatever, again, something that you're going to hear on this program all the time, is that fairness can never be achieved unless 100% participation is adopted. And so when there's countries that aren't participating, it doesn't matter because as one country is polluting more, even if we crank down, the little bit that we save gets gobbled up by another country. It is basically that we've created cap and trade, but there's no capping and trading happening. It's just what we're doing is we're trading our savings for the increased pollution, greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, or the deterioration of the environment, whatever we're saving just gets eaten up by the aggression of India and China. So it's not fair. So it's wasted dollars. It's dollars that could be going towards something else to impact the environment here. So there's nothing wrong with looking at these groups. And so I've got some statistics. I mean, it's really interesting. Do you know that since global carbon emissions have been such a focus, like since the early 2000s, that there is absolutely no quantify measure that we've made any dent in carbon emissions globally? All we've done with EVs is offset the emissions to the coal and fossil fuel running power plants and put more pressure on the grid. However, it says right here, according to the Global Climate Project, global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels peaked around three point 36.4 billion metrics tons in 2019. Now they saw a drop to about 34 billion metric tons in 2020. Why? COVID-19. So when we heard all this stuff around, oh, emissions are going down, the Paris Climate Accords are working, when Trump in his first term came out and said, I don't think any of this money's going anywhere. They used COVID numbers when people weren't driving, businesses weren't active, factories were closed, especially in China. They used those numbers to try to show progress based on their efforts, but they're just natural numbers. The only thing that they can tout is that renewable energy growth has occurred, which again, if you ask any economist, if you ask any market expert, they will tell you that would have happened naturally. Things like solar in California, Arizona, on the West Coast, where there's a lot of sun, those prices and accessibility were already going way down before the government got involved. EVs would have occurred the same way. We have reduced our coal usage, but it did have very little impact. At 20% in global coal generation had very little impact on the CO2 emissions avoided. Again, because other countries aren't participating. But the problem is these standards are largely made up because we don't have substantial historical historical data to back up or understand what's really happening. And I want to be very clear. So I was listening to a show yesterday on CNN, and they were arguing about the Palisade fire in California, and these people continually say that these fires are caused by climate change. And that's the thing is cause and effect is very important that we look at these things. So even if you could say that climate change has made things hotter, drier, created a better environment for fire, then that doesn't explain the lack of efforts to counteract that. Putting goats and sheep to take down brush. You know, why would Democrats have any problem with proper forestation management in order to avoid, even if the cause is climate change, it's affecting the environment to make it more available, to make it burn faster. So we have to respond accordingly. Okay, so it's still our fault. It's not climate change's fault. Even though now Maui fire in Hawaii, Palisade Lockman, Eastman fires, all have been tied to arson, and there are ATF investigations that have pinpointed exactly where and how these arson fires started. Some of the other wildfires in California that they try to blame climate change have now come to find out it's faulty equipment out of power plants and power companies like PGE and SoCal Edison. So they haven't been able to quantify these natural disasters, which they're using, but they haven't been able to quantify anything. There's no quantifiable reduction in global temperatures, there's no quantifiable reduction in carbon emissions, there is a quantifiable reduction in coal usage, which was happening naturally. Why? Because it's not a sustainable resource, it's dwindling down. So of course, as things dwindle, sure, maybe the help and dollars in investing in some of this green science might have helped get to that 20%, but it would have happened natural because human beings innovate as supply dwindles. That's just the way it's always been. Before the government got involved and created false demand and false supply on these products. I mean, you have to look at the fact that China owns 95% of the extraction, manufacturing, intellectual property of everything that goes into these green technologies. And on the same side, they're refining more gas for the Middle East and pulling up more coal and more oil around the world than any other country. So they're it's genius what they're doing. They're serving the Western countries by owning and controlling the supply of green technology, and then they're also controlling developing nations by controlling the fossil fuels. Because a lot of these developing nations don't have the resources to start making these infrastructure adjustments to become more green, so they're still heavily reliant on these fossil fuels, which China is also controlling. So that's another part of it is that these standards that are not quantifiable have been around for a while, 20 plus years. Nothing they said was going to happen happened. So at what point do we step back and say, could these funds be better used? Now the argument here isn't do we need to be investing money in climate change initiatives? I would say probably. But we do that through science, weather studies, you know, polar ice cap, etc. But sending money to a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians who set global standards and then can't quantify any results, that makes no sense. And so for these people that are so pro-Paris climate agreement, I just want to ask, what has it achieved? And it's right here. I mean, I have all the information right here. The only quantifiable results from Paris Climate Agreement targets are a 20% drop in coal generation due to increased renewable energy that barely touched the CO2 emissions. Because again, any drop we make, it just gets eaten up by the aggression of China and India, who do not recognize these standards, recognize UN climate change at all. It says right here, while these numbers reflect significant efforts and commitments made globally, challenges were made in fully achieving the ambitious climate goals set by UN and international communities. Why? They're ambitious because they're literally made up. They have no idea whether or not we can control the temperature of the globe from rising a Celsius degree or two Celsius degrees. There is no way they know how we can stop that from happening. The science doesn't exist because we don't have the historical data to show. Remember, folks, we've been through an ice age on the planet. The planet is thousands and thousands and thousands of years old, and we have a very little amount of data to quantify these actions. And all Trump is saying is not that, and again, whether or not you agree with his stance that the whole climate thing is a scam. Okay. My personal opinion is I agree the climate is changing totally. I mean, you you you have to be an idiot to not see that things are hotter and colder and weather is weird. However, I also grew up in California, which is uh historically extreme weather. We go through large droughts and then El Niños and pouring rain. You know, there's all of that thing. So my I have no argument that the climate is changing, weather patterns are changing, temperatures are changing. My challenge is the blame and the reasoning because they still can't quantify greenhouse emissions and carbon to all of these changing conditions. So how much of it is natural, how much of it isn't. But again, I'm not here to debate the science of climate change. What I'm trying to explain is that everyone should be very happy that we're bringing back these dollars that can be managed domestically. And if you're upset about the fact that it's your perception is these dollars are being taken out of climate initiatives that may or may not save the planet someday, I'm thinking not, when have bureaucracies ever accomplished anything like that, but may or may not save the planet someday, and you're worried about climate change, then your conversation should be okay, Trump, take the dollars away from the UN, but put them some put them in something domestically that helps. And so when I see things like when Trump is calling for cuts, the weather and science programs here, that is an area where largely these dollars that are being taken from these global bureaucrats and politicians could be put into something like that. And I would be 100% supportive of that. Again, it's about what have you done for me lately? And if you can't answer the question, then you can't have our money. But why does everyone have a problem with that? What is going on in people's heads that makes them think that pulling funds from something that isn't performing is a bad thing? Is it the optics of job loss? Because that's not happening globally. So I really am having trouble understanding people's problems with us retreating or controlling the funding that's going towards places that aren't achieving any results. The results that they have achieved, they can't quantify to their efforts. They could be natural, they could be market-influenced. But all these standards have done is shifted the reliance on fossil fuels to the reliance on green technologies that aren't nearly as environmentally friendly as they're being touted, and that come out of China and India, which are the largest producers, anyways. So buying the technology from China and India, who is making green technology, but they're manufacturing it in a totally non-green way, it becomes totally counterproductive. So you've got the Chinese dependency that these standards have created. You also have no quantifiable results on global temperatures, greenhouse gases, the ozone layer, et cetera. None of these studies can back up and say, oh, since we did this at the Paris Climate Accords, this has gotten better. It hasn't. And the same goes to the EPA, and the same goes to all of these places. So again, my take on this story is Trump is doing what he said he was going to do. He was going to look at every single dollar and quantify results against the benefits to the American people. And it shouldn't matter if it's climate change, starvation, you know, as noble as some of these causes sound, how noble are they if they're just lining pockets of bureaucrats and not actually helping the original intended good positive purpose of these coalitions, these groups, these programs. Isn't that worse? To send money and then have it either not affect the problem that it was created to impact positively at all, or even if those numbers get worse. Why look at the EPA? We have given the EPA so many billions and billions of tax dollars, and they've had largely no impact on keeping water cleaner, air cleaner. The results aren't there. Needless to say, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop, we should stop giving EPA all this money. It should mean that we should ask them to become more efficient with the funds and only put money into things that's going to directly benefit the original intention of the organization. And if you can't do that after a certain amount of time, you should be willing to try something else, right? I mean, again, these people have their heels in the sand without any quantifiable results. And the EPA is a lot more complicated. I'm not trying to get into that, but the point is that Trump has now removed us from all of these alarmists, which Bill Gates already come out and said, it doesn't work. These predictions aren't working. And I believe a lot of these places have spent most of their money creating false science and studies that are accelerated, dramatic, salacious in nature to breed more fear rather than inspire and influence actual change. I mean, even something as silly as if the Paris Climate Accord said, okay, yeah, we went to the top school districts around the world and we we put money into educating kids on how to recycle. Okay. And recycling numbers went up and waste and landfill numbers went down. Okay. I could definitely get behind something like that. I think most people could. But to say you've given us a billion dollars and 90% of it has gone towards salaries, benefits, and pensions of bureaucrats, and 10% of it has gone to science alarmist activities, funding protests, and flaming more misinformation. And again, it's not necessarily misinformation. I'm not saying science isn't backing up that the climate is changing. It is. But they've yet to prove and tie it to humanity or any sort of human creation, which could be which again, greenhouse gut carbon isn't even a human creation, it's a natural occurring substance. They can't tie it to humanity. Technically, they can't. They're very, very fractured dotted lines. And so I think what people are saying now is look, we know the climate is changing, but we want smart science to understand why. And we want to see realistic things that are going to help, not money towards hiring and maintaining a group of people in an office who then can't turn around and quantify their own position. And Americans should be pissed that their tax dollars go to stuff like this. To know that every dollar that goes out of your check, only 40 cents of it goes towards something you care about. So the story broke out of the Daily Caller News Foundation, Audrey Strebb, another fantastic journalist. These guys do the best work there. That says the White House announced Wednesday that the U.S. is exiting 66 international organizations, including landmark climate change agreements, entered in 1992. Again, so 1992, 10 years, 2002, 2022, right? So now we're at 23 years later, 24 years later, no quantifiable results. And they want to go, how dare you pull all this money? And every year they've gotten more. The Trump administration found that the listed international organizations, conventions, and treaties did not serve America's interests. Notable exits pertaining to global efforts to combat climate change include two United Nations entities, the UN Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Both joined under, guess who? Daddy Bush, Bush Sr., in 1992, with zero quantifiable results and millions, hundreds of millions of dollars sent. Secretary of State Mark Rubio said today, President Trump announced the U.S. is leaving 66 anti-American, useless, or wasteful international organizations. Review of additional international organizations remains ongoing. Quote, these withdrawals keep a key promise President Trump made to Americans. We will stop subsidizing globalist bureaucrats who act against our interests. The Trump administration will always put America and Americans first. What they're missing here and what Marco Rubio isn't saying is American dollars first. All this talk about affordability, the main conversation here should not be that these programs are anti-American, because I believe that that could probably be argued pretty well on both sides. The argument should be X amount of dollars have been funneled into these programs and zero or worsening results occurred. So therefore, we have a better use for this funding, these contributions that come out of hardworking American tax dollars. We have better use domestically for it. That's why I believe we're asking the wrong questions. Instead of saying, well, why are these organizations anti-American? Well, that's largely subjective to the leadership. It might not be anti-American to the Biden administration, which it wasn't to them. So that's not what we should be looking at. What should be looking at is this is how many dollars came out of your check to support these things since 1992. And the world and the environment and the planet is worse off. Do you want to keep sending money? Article goes on to say notably, Trump signed an executive order to exit the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC on his first day back in the Oval Office. The UNFCCC is a key global climate change agreement marked by a pledge to lower emissions. But again, people say, Well, what's the wrong with being part of the pledge? The pledge comes with standards. Standards, if you don't meet, there's punishment. To be part of the pledge, you have to pay in, which America, again, is 75% of the backing because the other two biggest polluters will not participate. So these people that are melting down over this are asking the wrong questions. You can melt down if you are passionate about the environment and you believe in climate change initiatives. There is nothing wrong with that. You and I could sit and debate the merits of that belief all day and have a very meaningful conversation. But don't ask or freak out about the withdrawal of these programs. Ask where the money that we save is going to go to make up for the lack of results that these programs had. That's common sense. That's American. That's taking a true concern for what you believe in, rather than just regurgitating talking points of global bureaucrats about climate alarmism. Ask the questions. How many dollars have they gotten? And how many lives have they saved, or how many gases have they removed? Come on, ask. The presidential memorandum read quote, I have considered the Secretary of State's report, and after deliberating with my cabinet, have determined that it is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support to the organizations listed. He also announced the U.S. will be leaving the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development, the International Energy Forum, UN Energy, and UN Entity for Gender Equality Empowerment of Women. This is very important. It says, quote, for the United Nations entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding those entities to the extent permitted by law. Again, it's not being said here, but if I had to make an argument or a case for this, it really has very little to do with climate change, mining, sustainability, gender equality, and all these feel-good talking points, and more to do with respect, appreciation, management, and usage of our tax dollars being tied to quantifiable benefits to the American people. So this is a great example. And we'll see if Congress finds little sneaky ways to legislate more funding into these global bodies. Because they'll do that. They'll find ways to work around the president. As much as they complain about how the president uses executive orders to try to work around legislators, they will do the exact same thing. They do it against Supreme Court rulings, they do it against executive orders, they will do the exact same thing, especially if we lose the midterms and the Democrats get back in power. They'll say, well, we have Trump, but we can fund all of these climate change organizations. And you should be more concerned about where your dollars are going and what it's doing to actually help climate change. That's my take on this story and why I believe the meltdowns are largely based on misinformation because it is common sense to ask for results based on dollars given, period. When I come back, talk about some more driver's license drama in California and the United States Postal Service. Furthermore, AOC having a couple meltdowns in typical liberal lifeguarding fashion. She creates the environment that she doesn't like, criticizes it, and then uses it as an excuse. So that'll be fun to go over when we're back after these words. Welcome back, America. Couple of stories about these crazy migrant driver's licenses that are coming out of California. There is a lot of misinformation and false information around this practice that I want to clear up to make sure that you understand what has to change in order to see the impact that we want to see and the safety results to go up. Again, I promise on this program, folks, I don't just go into the politics of the situation, but we have to be looking for solutions and we have to blame and factor in every single culprit. And I'm telling you, these trucking companies need to answer for a lot of this stuff as well, just like the employers of these illegal aliens need to answer as well. We're focusing on the drivers. We're also focusing on the politicians that largely allowed this legal fraud to happen through undercutting federal law and avoiding the supremacy clause and creating ordinances or emergency orders, however, they've done it. They've created an environment where this can happen. And then we've imported the people that don't mind fraudulently obtaining these licenses. Second of all, we can no longer have these locales and states and counties constantly second-guessing federal rule of law and then crying when they don't get the dollars they want. Part of receiving federal money is that you have to follow federal guidelines. That's the way that they've managed to get the states to follow certain agendas since the history of this country. So states that sit back and feel that they're owed this money, regardless of federal guidelines, are largely mistaken. That's not how it works. So another, again, Daily Caller News Foundation, Jason Hopkins, breaks the story. Trump administration is pulling millions in federal funding from California over the state's purported failure to revoke unlifeled, unlawfully issued driver's licenses, commercial driver's licenses. We're talking about the truck drivers. And then on top of that, the next story is that the United States Postal Service did a review and an audit, found that there were tons of these illegal commercial drivers that were assisting the Postal Service, and they've largely pulled those licenses and fired those people as well. So that's good. But before you jump to California's defense and say, well, they're, you know, their sovereignty and blah blah blah. No. Because they agreed to fix the problem by January 5th. And when they didn't, Sean Duffy had to come back and pull the money. So 17,000 illegally issued commercial driver's license have been located. So they need to remove those and clean those off the record and let these people know that they are not legally allowed to drive. Sean Duffy said it is reckoning day for Gavin Newsome in California. Our demands were simple. Follow the rules, revoke the unlawfully issued driver's licenses to dangerous foreign drivers, and fix the system so it never happens again. Gavin Newsome has failed to do so, putting the needs of illegal immigrants over the safety of the American people. Well, Gavin may not care about protecting you and your family on the roads, the Trump administration does. We're pulling the funding to ensure federal tax dollars don't fund this charade. And of course they go largely silent because they will never tell you that they agreed to do this to get the money and then backed out of it. The other thing that again I'm waiting to see is this huge uptake in mail carrier theft. How many of these people attain these illegal driver's licenses and the ones that are stealing mail out of the routes? How many of these people are illegal? I want to know. But 17,000 truck drivers on the road, potentially, illegally? And you gotta ask, how does that happen? Does California really issue these non-domicile driver's licenses? The answer is yes and no. Okay, so California does not give commercial driver's licenses, technically, to people that have questionable immigration status. However, they also don't do their due diligence to double check, and the fraud is insane. So here's what's happening. The federal government wants California to do real-time identity verification because most of these driver's licenses are tracked back to fraudulent applications. What does that mean? Someone is using someone else's identity. What about the vetting? Well, these third world countries don't they don't have records and they vetting is a is a joke. There's no vetting. Okay? So the Fed is saying, look, just do real ID checks. No different than when you go to buy a gun. California is very good at controlling, issuing gun licenses. Very good. You go in, you have to wait 10 days. They have a slew of other things, you have to take a test. I mean, they make it so difficult for people to obtain a license that it's almost damn near impossible to get a gun license in California or become legally able to purchase a gun and go through the waiting period if you're not who you say you are. Why can't they do the same thing with driver's licenses for commercial truck drivers? While fatality accidents are going up and all sorts of safety standards have largely gone out the window. I mean, folks, do you remember taking road trips with your parents and your mom or your dad that was driving would largely sort of take hints and follow the truck driver's activity on the road? Because at one time, 18-wheeler long-haul truck drivers were the best, safest, most effective drivers on the road. These guys were the best. They were the gold standard of driving. And that's all gone out the window. As again, we haven't held any of these employers accountable either, which these trucking companies are worse or no different than the construction, food, and agriculture companies that import illegals. These trucking companies do, and they make it easy for them to defraud the system. Another thing not being shared is that California is not closing these schools. Out of the 17,000 illegal driver's licenses, a large majority of them come from just a handful of these commercial driving schools that are obviously in the fraud business as well. Why isn't Newsom shutting them down? Again, all the Fed is asking is for very simple, common sense adjustments. Audit and shut down corrupt commercial driver's license schools that are perpetuating the fraud. Do real-time federal identity verification the same way for a commercial driver's license, which again, legally, is considered a deadly weapon. Vehicular manslaughter. Guns are considered a deadly weapon. Why can't they implement a similar system? They do these ID checks for guns, do it for commercial drivers. That's what they're saying. Another thing they want them to do is enforce English proficiency at roadside inspections. When they do go through the way stations, when they go through or get pulled over by the CHP, they have to be able to speak, read, understand English, understand safety procedures, understand the road signs, because there already are federal laws on the books that require functional English for commercial drivers. And they can pull and put those drivers on out-of-service orders in those trucks if when they go through the way station they can't demonstrate functional English. No, I'm accents are okay. Really broken English is okay. For me, I think for most of you, common sense people, but just a basic grasp of understanding safety procedures. There is also a lot of responsibility with these truck drivers as it pertains to logging their hours and regulations on how they can work, etc. There's a lot of fraud around that. But my question then becomes: how are they logging their hours if they can't write English? And then how is the CHP and the regulators able to even understand their logbooks? The only reason why California doesn't enforce this is because they are afraid to be accused of discrimination. The Fed also wants California to permanently revoke commercial driver's licenses from people who have been proven of identity theft. They won't do it because there's a stigma around lifetime bans that they believe breeds discrimination. Again, not true. Using political correctness, wokeness, race guilt trips to justify not following federal guidelines. It just doesn't work. They're putting the protection of migrant communities, which is noble in its in itself, but it's not noble when you put the protection of migrant communities over road safety. So really, is that that big of a deal, guys? One of the things that I'm reading about that has to happen, and this has to happen on the federal level, is that Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which is the who manages the uh employers and the people who uh like brokers and freight lines, etc., they need to be criminally liable if their drivers are found to have fraudulent commercial driver's licenses, period. They can do the due diligence as well. And so for California, when they sit there and say, oh, we're so backlogged, we can't get to these 17,000, then put it back on the trucking companies to do it. Force the trucking companies to audit their roles and their books and turn anyone in who's proven of fraud. It's not hard. And then they're gonna waste California taxpayer dollars issuing these lawsuits against the federal government. And again, all they're asking for is real-time federal identity, English proficiency, actually banning people who get caught of the fraud. Because the misconception is that California just hands out commercial driver's licenses to illegals. No, there is fraud and crime involved in obtaining these on the migrant level, on the school level, on the employer level, and then California, in its bureaucratic mess, and they do this on purpose, they will use backlog and disorganization and administration, you know, and funding cuts as an excuse. But just like they did with unemployment during COVID, what they do is when they want to hand out and be more liberal with things like dollars or licenses, they just take down the checks, the security checks that would normally catch these people. So they say normally they'd run it through a federal system, maybe they stubb, they, oh, we're so backlogged, we can't do that, or it costs us X amount, we can't afford that anymore. When actuality, it's just to pump out more licenses. The same with COVID during unemployment. They want, they say, Oh, we got to get people their money faster. There's all these people in the streets. And what happened? Scott Peterson. Long story short, folks, it's not backlogs or lack of information. These are little check boxes on the internet that they can either put up the security flag or not, do the verification or not. And for political purposes, they remove those to get everyone money or to get everyone driver's licenses to create political loyalty. That's all it is. I don't know how it helps because you got a bunch of legals who can't vote and then people on death row who can't vote that are winning, but supposedly they've found a formula that works because there's no other explanation for this. Again, if you can do it with guns, you can do it with driver's licenses. You're just choosing not to. So, no, the federal government is not trying to impede on California's commerce by controlling how they issue commercial driver's licenses. Because the next thing you're going to hear is California politicians saying, well, now we don't have enough drivers on the road, which is why the supply chain screwed up or the grocery store shelves are empty. Just now Newsome's saying that the reason the Palisades or the fires in Los Angeles haven't been rebuilt is because we've deported all the workers. These are the arguments these people make when all they have to do is verify ID, keep people from driving who have been proven of ID fraud, close the commercial driver's licenses that are perpetuating this mess, and hold employers accountable. That's all the federal government wants. But it's too much for Newsom. It's too much for Rob Bonta. And then they spin it. So the people in California and American people that are a little more susceptible to their lies think that this is just anti-discrimination, more tied to these unpopular ICE operations and deportation, more tied to attacks on immigrant communities that are largely made up and perpetuated by the media. But they tie all this stuff in when in reality this is a very simple, easy request that I think 99% of Americans would like to know that the 18-wheeler drivers on the road are federally verified. They don't come out of crazy schools. If they break the law, they get punished. And they can read, write, and speak English functionally to do their job. That's it. You know, because the conservative colleagues of mine will take it to that. They should be shouldn't have any accent. You know, it's like, no, we can't do that. This is a global nation. Okay, people have different language skills. As long as they can have the language skill functional enough for them to be able to be good or adhere to the safety laws, policies, regulations, that's the only requirement that needs to be met, in my opinion. But now the United States Post Office will no longer be accepting these licenses from California because they haven't been able to demonstrate how they've counteracted this fraud. And why California doesn't come out and say, look, Sean Duffy, it's not us handing these out. We are handing this out, these out, but they are still meeting the burden of proof when they come into the DMV with these applications. But those proof documents are fraudulently created, fraudulently signed off on, come from fraudulent schools or whatever. Then let's have that conversation instead of just blaming leadership back and forth. But they don't, because it's easier to make it about Trump and Sean Duffy and going after migrants than cleaning up what you need to clean up to make things safer and easier. It just doesn't make any sense. So pockets are getting lined. Something's happening here. Because at the end of the day, it really isn't California just handing everyone licenses. It's California not doing their due diligence, which is resulting in these illegal migrant commercial licenses. So laws are being broken, they just don't want to enforce them. And that's what's so strange. They're just asking them to enforce laws that have already been on the books for many, many years. But they resist and they make it about discrimination and race and try to use the generosity of the American spirit and the genuine feelings of empathy that we have for these migrants against us. When really they go to fake schools, they get hired by these phony employers, they make up papers, they say they're someone that they're not, and all of those systems have already been created to check them. California is just refusing to enforce those regulations. And I think that's what's really odd. But like I try to do on this program, guys, is when these stories come up, is to tell you the bigger underlying message, which is not about Trump and newsome fighting back and forth, and not about the Trump administration trying to use funding to manipulate how illegal immigrants get driver's licenses in California. There is some of that going on. But actually, what this story highlights is that we have a major fraud issue and how people are obtaining licenses. And for whatever reason, in California, they're slipping through all the checks and the systems that's not happening in other states, and they want that loophole closed, and they just refuse to do it, even though they agreed to do it by January 5th. Now they're saying they need until March. But the systems are already in place, they largely exist. But we saw the same thing with unemployment. They took down all the due diligence systems and checks. And that's how people on death row, like Scott Peterson, were on unemployment during COVID. I guess technically he was unemployed. But that's money people have paid into unemployment. So when they do lose their job, it's available for them. And all these people don't pay into the system. He's not paying into it on death row or tapping into it. This is the craziness that I'm talking about. It's not political, folks. This is not political. This is basic driver safety and using the due diligent security check systems that have been put in place for residents to obtain all sorts of things: guns, commercial licenses through the DOT, pilot licenses, ATF stamps, and ATF controlled uh weapons. You got to go through other checks. I have an ATF stamp. So I'm just saying the system already is there. They're just refusing to enforce it, and then they're making it about race, migrants, discrimination. When I don't think it's too much to ask for the government to say, do actual background, federal background checks the same way you do with guns. Make sure that you're enforcing English proficiency for make sure you're enforcing English proficiency. If you do catch someone in fraud, ban their license, don't allow them to keep driving like they often do. None of this is out of the ordinary, should even be controversial. But this is how Democrats distract from doing what they need to do and excusing, in my opinion, criminal behavior because, again, their lack of checks have led to the death. So they're that's called criminal negligent homicide. They're criminally negligent by not making sure these people are who they say they are, they have the functional basic English skills to do their job safely. That's criminal negligence. But they make it about racism and discrimination. And because people are genuinely concerned, like me, about these populations, it's easy to go, uh, well, what do you do? That's not fair. But when you actually look at what's being required, it's very black and white basic information that has been on the books for many years. Tell you, folks, we're gonna see more and more fraud perpetuated by these race-bated gambits than we've ever seen. This Somali thing is the tip of the iceberg. But Rush Limbaugh called it in the 90s when he said political correctness would be the destruction of this country. I didn't think that would mean financially, but that's what's happened. The financial ruin that we've experienced as a nation is largely perpetuated by waste and fraud and crime, which was largely allowed because of the fear of being perceived as racist or discriminatory or non-empathetic towards minorities or migrant groups. It's interesting when political correctness equals billions, maybe even trillions of dollars in waste. We'll see. But soon enough we'll be able to make that correlation. When we come back, folks, we'll talk about AOC's calling Jesse Waters a pervert and her history of using terms like rape, sexual harassment in dramatic, salacious fashions without any consideration of victims and people who are really experiencing this sort of trauma because she cares so much. All that more when we're back after these words. Welcome back, America. I want to talk a little bit about Alessandria Asassio-Cortez's assertion that Jesse Waters sexually harassed her, is perverted and uses sexual expletives on his program. We know all of that is not true. And actually, AOC, who claims to be a champion of women, a sexual assault victim herself, by using these terms incorrectly, is doing irreparable harm to actual victims and people who are experiencing sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. As a victim, she should know not to use these terms incorrectly, as it is detrimental to the due process, prosecutions, and criminal investigations of these types of acts. Sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape, AOC, are not dramatic adjectives. These are real crimes. And so someone on air saying, Oh, I think AOC wants to sleep with Steve Miller, that is not sexual harassment. Misuse erodes meaning, AOC, and you are misusing these terms constantly, spitting in the face of victims who have actually been harassed, raped, and assaulted. And I would never question someone's claim that they are a victim of sexual assault, because I am of the mindset that perception is reality. If AOC has perceived herself as a victim of sexual assault, fine. But the irony of when it came out has to be noted. AOC came out and admitted she was a victim of sexual assault only after the January 6th unarmed insurrection when she was locked in a panic area that has no access to the public, protected by guards, where she had claims, even though she was protected by armed guards and locked behind bulletproof doors and keypad access, that she experienced PTSD during January 6th from her sexual assault, which by the way, we'd never heard of, talked about, and no one in her life can confirm that she's said it before. I wonder if this is yet another case of her misusing terminology for salacious headlines against her opponents at the expense of real victims. She perceives herself as a victim of sexual assault. That's fine, she is, but using it for political purposes after January 6th is just as irresponsible as either not reporting in the first place or lying about a crime that occurred that maybe never occurred. Either way, it's deplorable, it's disgusting. So she sits here this week and talks about Jesse Waters and says he's a pervert, he's sexually harassed, and then we go look for it. And it was just one little remark about Steve Miller. But then I start thinking and I'm like, God, this woman is really all about this. This is her thing. When anyone questions her inability to engage in meaningful conversation with the opposition, like someone like Jesse Waters, she won't do it. So what she did, her knee-jerk reaction is either Nazism, Hitler, or rape, sexual assault, harassment with zero consideration of Holocaust survivors, the true meaning of Nazism, as it is directly associated with mass murder and the gassing and killing of a race of people. Okay, Nazism isn't just some authoritarian political party like Tucker Carlson. It's so weird because Tucker and AOC are like the same now. But, anyways, that all these people wonder, oh, it's just a political party, no different than Republicans. No, built into the Nazi platform was mass murder. So by calling someone a Nazi, you are making the assertion that they believe in mass murder. Words matter, folks, and I'm not the vernacular police. But you can't sit there and say you're a champion for women, you're a victim of sexual assault, you've had all this PTSD, and then time after time misuse and dramatize terms like rape, assault, and harassment. The double standards of these people are astonishing, and we should expect more of our elected representatives. Then what she does, I just saw recently, she's on X criticizing. Same with John Fetterman, her and John Fetterman are on ex criticizing the pro-Hamas. Yes, you heard me correctly, pro-Hamas, not free Palestine, you know, not for people of peaceful Palestine, not for uh two-state solution protesters. No, pro-Hamas, a designated terrorist organization by the UN and a million other countries, not just us. So pro-terrorism protesters marching through Jewish communities saying uh their version of we're here, we're queer, we're not going anywhere. Which was uh, we support Hamas here. In other words, we support attacks on sovereign nations and the killing of people based on their religious preferences in the communities of those people who are victims of those attacks. It's sick. So she says, Well, I mean, that's so anti-Semitic and disgusting. Of course, she has to say something, even though it's so clear the anti-Semitism that comes out of Mandami's close-knit circle. But she has to say something because she's got Jews in her voting block. So she has to say something supportive. But just like her calling out for harassment, it's no different. She calls in 2019 to abolish all jails and says justifies it when someone asks her about these people that are uh in jail for sexual crimes, makes light of the situation. You fast forward to that, then there's a Republican in Congress in 2021 who called her a bitch, and she goes on this whole tirade about hate speech. She says migrant camps are like concentration camps. She calls Trump Hitler, and then she wonders why this anti-Semitic march is occurring next to a Jewish school. You created it. When you call people Nazi and Hitler and use uh comparisons to concentration camps, you completely water down the meaning of those things and make it totally easy for these crazy groups to come along and say, this is why we support Hamas, this is why we hate Jews. One leads to the other. I mean, and and you know, this is misacademia, miss study. Science. I mean, there are a million studies starting, I mean, from 1987 to today, there have been one, two, at least 26 different studies that break down why words matter. I mean, this study from 2008, constructing sexual violence, media language and rape myth acceptance in the Violence Against Women Journal. Key finding media narratives using sensational or distorted language, increased rape myth acceptance, and skepticism towards victims. Another study right here. Experts do warn that misuse of Nazi analogies can contribute to anti-Semitic harm by enabling distortion. The World Jewish Congress and ADL note that drawing parallels between current policy and Nazi actions can itself be a form of anti-Semitism, especially when it involves Holocaust inversion, which shift blame from anti-Semites to Jewish people and can normalize extreme analogies. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum warns that reducing Nazi atrocities to generic metaphors forfeits the ability to learn from history and recognize genuine anti-Semitic danger. I mean, again, you're supposed to be woke, you're supposed to be progressive, you're supposed to care about women, you're supposed to care about people, minorities, like Jews. But you don't. You care about the talking points, what's going to get you in the headlines? And the only reason, if you look, if this was a junior congresswoman from New York and that's where I thought she was gonna stay, I wouldn't even touch this story. But this is someone who has presidential ambitions and doesn't have the wherewithal to control her speech that injures victims. Real victims. And she wants to be president. You can't be a champion of women, a champion of women's rights, a champion for minorities, a champion for poor, a champion for Jews, you know, a champion for disenfranchised communities, and then use language that deteriorates all the work that people have done to stop this stuff from happening. It's irresponsible, it's deplorable, and more and more people, especially people involved in me too, who are actually harassed, should be speaking up against this dangerous rhetoric. But no, only conservatives and Republicans get accused of dangerous rhetoric. And that's the point that I'm trying to make here, folks. No one else analyzes the verbiage. And the video where she's talking to this guy on the steps and accusing Jesse Waters of being a pervert and selectually harassing her. Everyone's talking about that and sort of the drama between the two, but no one's really looking at the dangers of this kind of rhetoric and language. I mean, as a gay man, she said the same thing in 2021, I believe it was. A political advisor of Trump's mentioned how ironic it was that she was so pro all these draconian measures about COVID. And then they got pictures and videos of her down in Florida unmasked in public, and they laughed because her boyfriend was in sandals. I think it was her boyfriend at the time, her husband, I can't remember. And you know what her response was? Oh, all these perverted guys are projecting their sexual ambitions on my husband's feet, which could be funny as a joke at first, but then she went on and on to talk about how all these conservative men are perverts and gay and projecting, again, very, very dangerous rhetoric. Excusing perversion. It's disgusting. And I'm the only one talking about it. And this is her pattern, this is her history. Misuse verbiage that's detrimental to victims and not care, and in the same breath, pretend like you care about those victims. It doesn't work if you want to be president or vice president or even a senator someday. This sort of behavior is par for the course for people in what I call high school ASB, which is our House of Representatives, just a big dramatic mess of a bunch of loser bloodsuckers. But when people start having national ambitions towards the Senate and the presidency or secretary positions, we have to look at things like this and say, this person is so callous, has no wherewithal about terminology and language, and in the same breath pretends to champion these causes. Sorry. Your words, your mouth have to match your actions if you want to be taken seriously as someone who can lead this country, which you have proven time and time again. This is yet just another example out of dozens I could list of you dramatizing, misusing terminology like Nazism, concentration camps, Holocaust, rape, assault, with zero consideration of victims and survivors. It's callous, it's nasty, and it just shows that all of this social progressive, virtue-signaled crap she tends to support, she doesn't put her money where her mouth is. And she might talk the talk, but she certainly doesn't walk the walk. I mean, at least Trump, for all his challenges, is very much Trump. He walks the walk and talks the talk. I mean, that should be the very basic requirement for someone who wants to lead this country in a Senate secretary, president, or vice presidential position. Do your words and actions match? And if they don't, then they should never be taken seriously. Hers don't. So she causes anti-Semitism, and then she goes and critiques the anti-Semites just to appease the small Jewish community in her district. It's sick. And more Jews, more Holocaust survivors, more rape survivors, victims of sexual assault, victims of perversion should be speaking out against using this language for headlines and dramatic effect because of the 25 different studies that I listed here that demonstrate and have proven the detrimental effects this has for people trying to win these cases, prosecute these cases, investigate these crimes for future victims as well. It's disgusting. She should be ashamed of herself, and more people should be calling out this rhetoric as it is very, very dangerous and the total antithesis of woke and progressive. Period. All right, folks, with that I'm out of time, but allow me to leave you with something Reagan once said. The United States gives terrorists no rewards and no guarantees. We make no concessions, we make no deals. Nations that harbor terrorists undermine their own stability and endanger their own people. Terrorists, be on notice, we will fight back against you in Lebanon and elsewhere. We will fight back against your cowardly attacks on American citizens and property. He was uh announcing the release of hostages from the TWA hijacking incident, June 30th, 1985. Boy, if only we had leadership after Reagan that stayed true to those words. Things like 9-11, October 7th, when Hamas attacked Israel, and a lot of other terrorism would have been largely capped, but we refused to heed his words. God bless you, President Reagan, and may God save America.