Hello, and welcome back 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. I'm also the true leader of the Common Sense Conservative movement, and we send our truth along the airwaves on the only rainbow that matters: the red, white, and blue rainbow. Folks, don't forget the phone number. I want to hear from you. It's 866 LastGay. That's 866 LastGay. You can call, leave a voicemail, or send us a text directly to that number. If you can't remember that, just click the description of the show on your device. Inside, there's a link that says text the show. Click it and let me have it. Folks, this show runs on your feedback, and I'm merely a messenger of the collective common sense, normal folks like you and I. So let me know, and I'll talk about it on the air. Good morning. We're back in the studio after a week of construction, and boy, is it nice. It looks so good in here. Uh, I still have loads of emails asking for my take on three major stories from last week. So I'll be in catch-up mode today and tomorrow, and then slowly ramp into the most current news. There is lots to cover today as the meltdowns and hysteria seem to be happening everywhere you look. You ever notice the timing of these meltdowns, folks? These are essentially call to arms of these quasi-militia groups. Not even 48 hours after the DOJ announces a new deputy AG position to investigate and prosecute fraud that's being perpetuated on us, the American people. The frustration, anger, and broken trust that people should be feeling towards the waste, abuse, and blatant theft of their money, of our money that could have otherwise been used to effect real change and help really needy people, has now shifted falsely towards ICE and federal immigration enforcement. Now, folks, I certainly have my opinion on the shooting in Minneapolis, but I always prefer to stay a little quiet in situations like this at first because things change and the story develops over time. Some people in journalism call it the three-day rule, but I'm not a journalist. And I always have to remind you of that. I'm a pundit. This isn't news, this is my take on the news. And with pundits like me, before we give our take on an event of this nature, we must let the dust settle so we can report and act responsibly. And I'll tell you why. When I first saw the video, I bought into all the hype. Given the emotionality and the angle, the situation, I immediately jumped to the conclusion that the ice agent was guilty. Then I saw the real footage and the release statements and the witnesses and went, oh my gosh, this whole thing is twisted. So if I can get sucked in, I can't imagine what you all felt at home. It's devastating. And as Christians, protecting life should be our number one concern. So I get how hard it is. The challenge becomes legality versus public perception versus public public feelings. Now it's time to give you my take on the situation. The media claiming this woman who was shot as some sort of martyr, mother on her way to school and was doing everything right and happened to get shot. Well, let me stop you right there. Folks, although accidental shootings do happen, generally speaking, when you get shot in the face, there's a reason. Cases of friendly fire and accidental shootings are very low. So first we have to dispel the myth that this person bears no responsibility. Secondly, let's look at some of her very odd behaviors leading up to her death. And lastly, the most important piece I think most people are missing, let's talk about her wife. Man, do I know this type of person, her wife. She's the same type as these gun nut friends that I have. And I don't get me wrong, I'm a gun nut too. But you know who I'm talking about. These people who have guns, but they're just dying to use them. Like they're literally itching for someone to break into their house or a brawl to break down the street so they can arm up and go get involved. It's hilarious. And these angry lesbians are the exact same way. They have so much anger and self-hatred. They're dying to get involved in these conflicts. I mean, you can just see how the wife she postures and speaks to the ICE agents, almost daring them. She wants so badly, you can see, to be a victim and have a story, and she got one, but instead she got her wife killed when it probably should have been her. But when we come back, I'll talk more about these two and why I think looking at the person is just as important as looking at the crime. Intent is a big part of law that seems to escape the minds of these protesters after these tragedies occur. We have to look at it. Moreover, in perfect Stalin-esque fashion, Gavin Newsom delivered his state of the state address for the last time as governor. If you have not seen his speech, folks, we're gonna go through it and I will offer you my point-for-point rebuttal of the speech. The tactics he uses are so obvious and the words, they truly are so believable. However, the facts contradict almost everything he said. We've done the research here, folks, so you don't have to because he's so good at the cool guy, Tony Robbins style delivery that makes you want to like him. He's a proper cult leader. However, it's so offensive to the millions of Californians facing all of these challenges, stemming from his agenda, to stand up and act like there's nothing wrong, and California is a beacon. A beacon of what? A beacon of nope, dope, a beacon of broke. Additionally, and not so surprising news, the ideological woke Ninth Circuit Court has removed an injunction placed by a lower court judge in California that blocks California schools from enforcing their new secrecy and gender policies that would remove the nuclear family and all conversations around gender and empower educators and administrators to make serious and detrimental decisions regarding a child's well-being without their family involved. Folks, I keep saying this, but if you want to know what this trans stuff is really all about, just follow the money. Huge nonprofits like Trevor and Planned Parenthood and GLAAD are taking tons of grants, private donations, tax dollars, and more around the trans issue. I mean, Planned Parenthood is a perfect example. Gender affirming care is now one of their most profitable services while abortion numbers in this country hit record lows. Trans are just the newest fad in the get rich off victim scams perpetuated by ideologues on the left and the politicians that they donate to. I will talk about it in depth, but what the Ninth Circuit Court has done is unforgivable. It goes against at least seven Supreme Court rulings on parental rights that have happened within this century. Those gaily news stories and more with my take when we come back right after these words. I mentioned in the intro, one of the things that I always like to focus on when I look at crime and tragedy like this is intent. What was the intent of this person? If you listen to the mainstream media, all you'll hear is that her intent was merely to drop her kids off at school and go home. But we know that's not the truth. I'm not going to repeat all of the other stories and spin that you've heard on all the other channels, but I will give you my direct take. I don't think neither of these women were very good people. I think both of these women sought out conflict, engaged in very high-risk behavior, and when it didn't turn out in the way that they wanted, they decided to play the victim. However, they knew what they were doing, and their intention the entire time was to obstruct law enforcement, period. Whether it's immigration or not is irrelevant. Law enforcement is law enforcement, and nothing the ICE agents were doing was illegal. So let's get that out of the way first, because we have to be able to separate our personal opinion from public perception and legality. The legality of this shooting, I don't think there's an example of a cleaner shoot, personally. Why do I know this? Because for years since the invention of the automobile, courts in this country have declared and ruled that with improper use, whether intentional or not, a vehicle is considered a deadly weapon the same way as a gun or a knife. If you don't mean to strike someone with your car, let's say you're looking at your phone or you're being negligent or uh someone jumps out in front of you, it doesn't really matter. If you strike someone with your car on accident or not, you can be charged with vehicular manslaughter, or you can be charged with use of force with a deadly weapon with a vehicle. Anyone can be. Okay? In the eyes of the law as it pertains to law enforcement shootings, the only necessary piece of law you need to understand is that if an officer can prove that there's a threat to his life beyond reasonable doubt, he has a right to neutralize that threat using force. So a car, we have years and hundreds years of precedent of a car being deadly weapon, of people being charged and jailed for using their vehicle as a deadly weapon, regardless of intent. A lot of people being drunk have a couple glasses of wine, they drop something, they look down, they hit someone. So the courts have made it very clear that a car is a deadly weapon and your intent doesn't matter. Okay, it might matter with the actual charge, but it doesn't matter for the weapon itself. The other thing the courts have done is they've made it very clear that if there is a justifiable reason beyond doubt for an officer to eliminate a threat, they can. So if you put those two and two things together, this is a clean shoot. It doesn't look pretty, it's awful. No one's happy about the loss of human life. No good Christian is. We don't want any human lives lost. However, we have to look at the law, and the law clearly makes this shooting a clean, justified, and proper use of force from the ICE agent. Okay, so there is no avoidance like the mainstream media and all these left politicians are trying to suggest that they're investigating the protesters over the shooter. Well, you all saw the video. The laws are black and white on the books. There's really nothing to investigate. Although, with every civilian casualty, every firearm shooting in any law enforcement, there is a third-party investigation, which is happening as we speak. So if something does come up, we'll hear about it. But at this point, there is nothing that shows me that this ICE agent is guilty of anything. Whether you like his decision to pull the trigger or not, in the eyes of the law, it was legal. But these people, the calls of victimhood for these people are ridiculous. You should have a reasonable expectation that you can take your kids to school and not get shot. However, when you begin putting yourself in between guns and criminals, your chances of getting shot go from zero to like 90%, 95%. Part of not being a horrible, degenerate human being is that when you make decisions, you always have to weigh the risk. And generally, what people say is risk against reward. My question for all these obstructionists are what is the reward? Do you think you're gonna let that immigrant get away? They're just gonna find them later. Wouldn't your time and energy be better spent at migrant detention centers, making sure that there's due process for these people if that's something you're passionate about? What about um lobbying the legislators to get more immigration judges so we can get these people processed quicker? If they really are here seeking asylum, we can get them through the system. Many of the challenges with the detention centers and with this call for due process is that we're holding hundreds of thousands of people while we only have a handful of judges that can process these cases. Okay. So their efforts are stupid, anyways. Okay, going and blocking people from getting arrested is silly. But then you have to wonder here's a mother of three. Her two younger kids are uh from one dad, and then she has another kid from another dad. Now that dad is dead, so one of her children is now orphaned. Now, let me ask you is somebody who married two men and then a woman, and if you look at the video, the woman is taunting, aggressively, verbally abusing, and attacking the ice agents. She had combat boots on, short cropped hair and flannel, and she looked like she could pull a knife out at any second. I would have been more threatened by the wife coming at me than the vehicle, in my opinion. However, the wife was making matters so much worse. Okay. They didn't just pick up their kids. They went there and they had a meeting with a militia group called Ice Watch. These are unarmed militia groups that give people whistles. They train them how to block their, use their car to block. They also train them on how to avoid getting arrested. They also train them on how to block ice officers from arresting and detaining immigrants. So, and it says right on social media, Renee Good was also on the board of a school, a magnet school, a public school where they did this ice watch and meagra watch training. She was on the board of that school that then passed out information to parents about how to be civilian ice obstructors. She was part of a militia group, unarmed militia. And you can't tell me that January 6th was an insurrection when everyone was unarmed, and then tell me that these same types of protesters that are storming churches, blocking arrests, using their vehicles, putting themselves in between firearms and strangers because she didn't know the immigrants she was trying to protect, you can't tell me that that's not one in the same. See, this is where the arguments always fall flat. The other reason why I know these people are pieces of crap is because she took her dog in the car with her. And again, if you truly believe that she was just on her way to school, why did she turn that way on a one-way street? Why was her car maneuvered in the exact way that she had been trained and that the exact way the training manual that she passed out as a school board member outlines? Tell me, answer these questions, okay? Her intent was to put herself between a stranger, the illegal, and an ICE agent and his weapon. She didn't know if the illegal was a pedophile, could have been running a human trafficking ring. She didn't know. So when people write me and say, Well, you know, yeah, she took her dog and she didn't expect no one has a reasonable expectation to get shot. No, not when you're just walking around and taking your kids to school. But the second you move yourself in front of a gun, your expectation of getting shot can get raised to about 90%. Period. I mean, that that that's statistically what happens. So she puts herself in front of the eyesage with her dog in the car. And again, they say, well, there should be no expectation. These people should be able to protest peacefully. Yeah, you're right. They should be able to protest peacefully. But this was not a peaceful protest. This was an obstruction. There's a big difference. Now, wife says to her, Go gas it, drive, drive, drive. She drives, hits the ICE officer, and gets shot. It's the wife's fault. Really. She was yelling at her uh at Renee Good to drive. And I will say the wife seems very aggressive. She seems domineering. She definitely wears the pants in the family for lack of a better term. But the wife is largely responsible for this. I can just tell. The other thing to remember is that, like I mentioned, they brought their dog. Well, Chad, they should be able to bring their dog in the car. Well, no, again, what kind of piece of shit person knows that they're going to enter an environment? Now, in the same breath, you can look at her social media postings, you can look at the wife's postings, you could look at the materials that were passed out at school, you could look at the groups that they followed on social media. All of those things all say ICE is arresting people illegally, committing assault. Some went as far as to call them murderers, saying that they're violent, they're untrained bullies and thugs. In the same breath of saying that, you can't turn around and say, well, she didn't know it was going to be dangerous. She didn't know that it was it there was a risk of getting shot. Really? But these are untrained bullies that just fire on command, right? So the argument just doesn't add up anytime. People say, you can't call them militia groups, they're unarmed. Well, then you can't call January 6th an insurrection. So her intention was to put herself in between a gun and a person. Should she have gotten shot? No. I don't think anyone should get shot. But did she decide to engage in very, very high-risk behavior at the risk of orphaning one of her children? I mean, again, what kind of wife who knows that she's the last living blood parent of a child says, hey, let's go put our car in front of all these guns. No, it's irresponsible. She wasn't thinking of her kids. She wasn't thinking of her dog. She was thinking about how to get on social media clips, how to obstruct ice, and she allowed her righteousness and her woke ideology to put herself in high-risk behavior without thinking about how it would affect anyone else around her. At the encouragement of her angry, militant-like wife, and she went to run into an ICE agent who had been drugged by a car previously. Now you might be saying, well, he should have never been cleared because he probably had PTSD. That is a conversation I'm willing to engage in. But I'm not willing to allow this person to escape any responsibility for getting shot. Everyone plays their role in everything in life. Why aren't we talking about the role she played? And why aren't we talking about the fact that she clearly had no problem risking the life of her dog, risking orphaning her kids, risking leaving two other kids with a dad, a single dad. I mean, no one in no smart person who thinks about their behavior, engages in this behavior, and then cries foul and martyr and victim. And when she did get shot, the wife fell on the ground and said, It's all my fault. I told her to do this. I told her to come here. It is all your fault. 100%. And it's interesting because all of these people look the same. They're all angry lesbians with flannel combat boots. If you look at Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, there is a giant angry lesbian recruiting drive somewhere for these people that go out and agitate, obstruct, and do nothing of any positive benefit. Look, for those of you who are saying that civil disobedience is a fundamental part of this country, it is. And I agree for people, if you want to silently watch ice and record on your phone, that's fine. But the second you step in front of a gun, that's your right. Apparently, that's your right. According to all these legal experts, you have the right to step in front of a gun, but you're not a victim if you get shot. That's the difference. You're no longer a victim. You made the decision. So let's talk about responsibility on all sides. Let's talk about the psychic review of this ICE agent, make sure they weren't released back on duty too soon and it wasn't a result of PTSD. But even if it was, the shooting from legal terms is clean, cut, and justified. I mean, I don't think I've seen an example, a better example of a cleaner, justified use of force case, honestly, in my whole life. The car went right towards him. You can see whether it struck him or not, what it's irrelevant. Anyone would be able to argue that beyond a reasonable doubt, he feared for his life, using the notion that tons, thousands of courts have affirmed over the last hundred years that a vehicle is a deadly weapon, regardless of intent. However, we have to look at intent as what was going on in these women's minds before they left. They put their dog in the car, probably for protection or something. You know, a lot of people use dogs in order to avoid getting their cars towed and stuff. It's disgusting. So for me, good riddance. Anyone who's willing to risk the life of their dog or risk orphaning their children for a stranger when she could have been at migrant detention centers or raising money, doing bake sales for attorneys to get these people due process. You know, Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement, they didn't go stand in front of guns in the middle of ICE operations. No, they got pummeled by water hoses. And yes, there were a lot of wrongful deaths and shootings, and those were not justified. However, they didn't obstruct law enforcement, they protested the discrimination and the abhorrent conditions that blacks were living in during the time. But the difference is that they were organized, they had goals, and they knew exactly how they were going to accomplish those goals, and they just stayed true to their message, peaceful, and they grew in strength and numbers. These are largely fragmented groups, paid players, and what I call little mini unarmed militias. You know, I heard one activist on the news say, well, they had guns, we had whistles. But again, whistles. This is the same thing gang members do when the police are in the neighborhood. They have whistles and all the people whistle at each other to let them know the cops are there, so the legal activity goes down. You could say this is the same thing. So a whistle is still part of this militia. Using a vehicle is still part of using this militia group. Any group that promotes, trains, and advertises obstructing law enforcement using your body, using your vehicle, or using any other means, is a militia. And if you say that you can't be an unarmed militia, well, then January 6th was not an insurrection. You get one or the other. And that's the problem with these politicians. On one hand, they say all of these groups are justified obstructing ice. And then on the other hand, they say January 6th, even though all those people were unarmed, was an insurrection. Can't have it both ways. But it's the you see how they use semantics and definitions and strange categories to tailor their message? It doesn't work. It's very black and white. It was a justified shooting. It was horrible to see. Whether or not it had to happen, I think is still up for debate. But the bottom line is this we can't absolve this woman and her wife of responsibility. When you engage in high-risk behavior, it's your job as a good person to analyze the risk against the reward. And I want to ask the wife and her, was it worth it? What happened to the immigrant they were trying to detain, or this person that you were supposedly trying to protect? I mean, in one news article, I read that the ice agents were actually there because one of the ice vehicles was stuck in the snow and they were trying to dig it out, and that they weren't actually even going after an illegal alien at the time. She was actually just blocking ice from going to a car and helping their colleagues get out of the snow. Now, again, I don't know if that's true. It's not verified, but my point is did they even know what or who they were protecting from, what they were doing, or were they just obstructing to obstruct because they've bought into a woke ideology and all of these inflamed notions from politicians that ICE for somehow or for some reason, again, unproven, never been charged, but is illegally kidnapping, assaulting, murdering, and all of these other accusations that are being flung around. And when you look at these two, you can tell they have screws loose. You can tell obviously there's something wrong with this woman. You can just tell. I mean, she's not bright enough to brush her teeth. She had bright yellow highlighter buck teeth, and the wife can't get a real haircut. I mean, again, these are all things you have to look at. These are degenerate people that engage in high-risk behaviors and then want the whole country to feel bad for them. I'm sorry. That's not how this works. That's not how the world works. When you engage in high-risk behavior and put yourself in front of a gun, you are now accepting responsibility for the outcome, whether justified or not. So look at their intention. Look at the kind of people they are. And for those of you who say it's dangerous to talk about that, no, it's not. It's very, very important to note that this person was not just on her way to school. And then until we start coming back to a place of personal responsibility on both sides, had the shooting not been so clean cut and not as justified, there should be calls for personal responsibility on ICE as well. But instead, we play the political blame game. And I understand these politicians. I mean, this is the big difference of me growing up and now. Back in the day, when things like this used to happen, it didn't matter what party you were on, people would come on, at least call for a semblance of calm and to cool down the rhetoric. But what happens now is like everything, there's gaps in the story because we're relying on uh eyewitness testimony, cell phone footage, which is shaky and doesn't capture every angle, and then statements from uh extremists on one side and statements from extremists on the other side, right? And then we have to determine all of that. Well, responsible people in power don't narrate the gaps. And that's what Tim Walls and the mayor of Minnesota did, is they narrated these gaps by adding context, like she's just dropping off her kids at school, or uh she had no involvement in these group militia groups, or uh she had no intention of obstructing ice. She was just making a U-turn. All not true. It was a one-way street. The way the car angled is literally mapped out in the same material that she handed out to the parents of her students as a school board member. So she's trained to do these things. So let's look at personal responsibility. Let's mourn her death as any loss of life is sad. But let's not act like this was just some innocent person who didn't deserve what she got. No one deserves to die. But what I'm saying is that the action and the risks that she took were perfectly aligned, making it no one else's fault but hers and her wife's, who encouraged her to press the gas and also admitted that she encouraged her to be part of these obstructionist movements. The politicians don't do themselves any favors by narrating the gaps and facts. And that's when you see churches stormed and people like Don Lemonhead calling for the storming of private churches during services and other uh media people in the media calling for now these militia groups to start arming up and fighting ICE. It's ridiculous. If we could all just take a step back and look at personal accountability and responsibility on both sides in every application of instances like this, we would be able to avoid all this hysteria. But hysteria, guess what that leads to? Democratic political donations, votes. And again, because we know people vote with their hearts, not with their heads. It leads to votes and it leads to power. And they have found a way to distract from all of this fraud that's happening now and refocus on ice. When really Renee Good and her wife would have been much better off trying to find out where billions of their tax dollars went and this Somali buy-a-vote scams for Elon Omar and Tim Waltz and all these other leftists in Minnesota. And folks, Minnesota is bluer than blue. It's blurple. And it's been blue for a very long time. So this is not some new thing. And Tom Emmer should be talking about this, and he's responsible for the Somali fraud as well. It's a complete systemic breakdown that starts and stops at welfare programs, including open borders, which was just an indirect welfare by a vote program under President Obama and Biden. So let's look at personal responsibility, is my take on this. And let's acknowledge the fact that she took a risk by putting herself in front of a gun. And she got shot, and it was not an accidental shooting. And whether she meant to run over the ice agent or not is irrelevant. She improperly used a deadly weapon, a vehicular deadly weapon, and got herself killed at the encouragement of her angry, self-hating lesbian wife, who seems to be perfectly matched in this kind of core group that's leading these militias. The last thing that I will mention and end with is that the only surprising part of this story was that they weren't furries. That is the only thing that shocked me. Because every time this stuff comes out, there's some link to furries with these freaks. And so far, no luck on finding out whether or not these two were furries. But I wouldn't be surprised. I'm surprised they're not. Folks, we've got a serious issue with self-responsibility and accountability in this country. And until this is a perfect example of people, common core millennial monsters, worried more about chicks with dicks and illegal criminals than about their own children and dogs. Good riddance. I'm not shedding a tear for Renee Good. I don't shed a tear for anyone who brings people and things into their world like kids and dogs who are totally dependent on their decisions to have their best life and throw them out the window while they go and chase some ideological dream of saving someone who's in this country illegally. It doesn't make sense. That's a degenerate, that's a nasty person, and that's someone sucking up oxygen and air that we don't really need. So good riddance to her. And I seriously hope there's some serious self-reflection in the girlfriend's approach and to her life because she is largely responsible for all of this and now an orphaned child as well. So uh it's disgusting and it needs to stop. That's my take. When we come back, I'll give you my point-for-point rebuttal on Gavin Newsom's last state of the state speech as governor of California, and we'll talk a little bit about the Ninth Circuit, telling parents in California they have no rights to know what their kids are up to in schools. All that and more when we come back after these words. Welcome back, America. I'm here to give you my reality check on California's State of the State by Governor Gavin Newsome and my rebuttal to some of his crazy ridiculous facts while he stood before Californians and said, I quote, and I quote, California remains a model for the nation. When in fact, really the only thing that it models is poverty, poverty, addiction, and fraud. But it's a powerful line that California is a model. But it collapses even under basic scrutiny. Because since 2020, more than 1.5 million people have left California, according to the U.S. Census and California's own Department of Finance. That's the largest population decline of any state in American history. People don't leave a model in those numbers unless something is deeply wrong, period. And these aren't just retirees or cashing out. They're working families, middle income earners, small business owners, the people who make a state function. Model state doesn't hollow out its middle class and call that leadership. California used to have the strongest middle class in the country. One of the big points he touts was about homelessness. And I quote, we are bending the curve on homelessness now. Keep in mind that in 2025, Gavin Newsom, as the mayor of San Francisco, claimed to end homelessness, which he hasn't in 25 years. And I'm not saying any reduction isn't welcome, but here's what the governor didn't say about his homelessness. California still accounts for roughly one-third of the entire homeless population in the United States, despite having only 12% of the population. That comes directly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Since 2018, California has spent over$24 billion on homeless programs. And remember, as mayor of San Francisco, he was going to end homelessness as well. And according to the state audit report, they can't consistently track outcomes. They can't clearly measure effectiveness, and they cannot identify which programs are actually working. If a private company spent$24 billion and couldn't explain the results, executives would be fired and they'd probably be out of business. The government should not get a lower standard of accountability. And that's exactly what Californians have done to Sacramento. He talked about the cost of living, but his words don't match the life of Californians. The governor acknowledged affordability challenges and he said, quote, we are taking on the cost of living crisis. But Californians don't experience affordability in speeches. They experience it when rent is the highest in the nation, according to Zillow. Electricity rates are nearly double the national average, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Gas prices are anywhere from 30 to 100% higher than anywhere else in the country, according to AAA. If affordability were truly improving, people wouldn't be downsizing, commuting farther, delaying families, or leaving the state. Affordability isn't a feeling, it's basic math. The governor also touted, and I quote, California's economy is strong. He loves to quote that it's the seventh largest economy in the world. True, it is massive, but massive and strength are not synonymous. The legislative analyst office, nonpartisan and blunt, has warned repeatedly about structural budget deficits driven by heavy reliance on capital gains taxes. That's all California survives on. So when the markets rise, revenue floods in. But when the markets fall or flatten, it disappears. That's not resilience. It's called volatility. A strong economy doesn't just perform in good years, it survives bad ones. Like having no cash reserves or relying on a credit card. It's the same thing. He continually blames Washington for these problems. When he said, quote, Washington dysfunction is holding states like California back. But housing laws are written in California. Zoning rules are written in California. Permitting delays happen in California. Environmental reviews are enforced and happen in California. Even research from the Turner Center at UC Berkeley and analysis from the legislative analyst's office make this clear. California's housing shortage is self-inflicted. It's not the government's fault. If we control the rules, we control the outcomes. Blaming Washington doesn't build housing. Changing California policy does. His socialism hasn't worked. He loves to tout education. Record spending, he says. Terrible results. The governor said, and I quote, we've made historic investments in education. That's true. They are spending more per student than anywhere else in the country. Guess what's also true? California ranks near the bottom nationally in reading and math proficiency, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Achievement gaps persist. Many students never recovered academically after the pandemic when he forced everyone out of school and into their homes while he enjoyed dinners and traveling with his billionaire friends. Parents don't care how much you spend, they want to make sure their kids can read. Budgets don't educate children. Teachers and classrooms do, which have largely been abandoned. He wants education to be controlled by the state, saying it would streamline and modernize the system. That's socialism. Everyone, from educators to parents, want more involvement, not less. They don't want more centralized, strong, large educational government. They want it smaller and more local. It'll create reduced transparency and less local input. This country was built bottom up, not top down. Rearranging bureaucracy is not the same as helping kids. Furthermore, he loves. To tout how he's a leader on climate change, but he doesn't mention energy costs. The governor said, and I quote: California is leading the world on climate, but Californians are also paying some of the highest rates in the nation while facing ongoing grid reliability concerns, according to the queso and federal energy data. When prices spike, the state sometimes quietly rolls back its own rules to manage the fallout. So people think they're being climate friendly, but they're not, only when it's convenient. The policy sounds good until it hits reality. And leadership can only work if people can afford the policies themselves, which they largely can't. He loved to tout about reductions in crime with crazy segments and weird categories. Public safety is improving. And that's good. Some numbers are down. However, it's largely because we've removed money of the criminals from this country. But surveys from the Public Policy Institute of California show many residents still feel unsafe in transit, downtown, and running small businesses. Public safety is not a spreadsheet, it's a lived experience. If people don't feel safe, charts and reductions or by 1956 doesn't work. This was a presidential announcement. This wasn't a state of the state. The tone was framed as a national statement. But polling from PPIC and the University of Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies shows Californians are focused on four things housing, cost of living, schools, and safety. They want competence, not confrontation, results, not rhetoric. It's insane the advantages we have in the state of California. But that's also why the frustration runs so deep, because we've seen how well the state can perform and how wonderful it can be for people of every class, income, race, religion, etc. But Californians have the right to demand better. It's not negativity, it's called accountability. And accountability was the missing ingredient in Gavin Newsom's state of the state last week. People want results. Touting a 9% reduction in homelessness when you've been fighting homelessness for 24 years is insane. Trying to take credit for a new mayor of San Francisco's crime reduction because he's actually enforcing laws on the books is also insane. He had nothing to do with the San Francisco reduction in crime or in Los Angeles. I actually think it has a lot to do with the criminals that we've deported. Interesting, we deport all these criminals that have records for murder, sexual assault, and those are the figures that are down. But domestic crime like robbery, carjacking, etc., are all up. Violent crimes by violent immigrants are down because those people have largely been deported thanks to the Trump administration. Furthermore, touting a 9% reduction when 20% of the people surveyed on the street are asking for help means that you've failed half, essentially, of people ready to accept help. One of Gavin Newsom's programs in the year 2005 was called Homeward Bound. They go out into the streets of San Francisco and offer homeless people tickets home. Well, funny enough, all the other states have adopted that. So states like Illinois, New York, Indiana, they all have homeward-bound programs that buy tickets. Well, guess where they send them to? California, where they can live through the winter and not die like they largely do in other states. So now his own policy of homeward-bound has been used against him. And they're only sending about 400 people a year out of state. But guess what? The new mayor of San Francisco is also sending most of the homeless up to Portland to get the numbers down to give Gavin Newsom point to give Gavin Newsom some good talking points for his political run for president. So we're going to watch the homeless numbers go up in Portland and down in San Francisco and Los Angeles. That's all they're doing is moving things around because they've been able to accomplish no structural positive change, a 9% reduction in unsheltered homeless, when 20% of the homeless surveyed in California were willing to accept help, shelter, and rehab. Yet billions and billions of dollars have gone missing. Folks, I'm telling you, in 25, 50 years from now, when our children look back, we are going to look so foolish as they see that all of these welfare programs have done nothing but perpetuate theft, crime, and made politicians and nonprofit leaders rich, while they vilify people like Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel and Rick Caruso, billionaires who have made their money the old-fashioned way by working hard, creating products that have changed the world, changed your life for the better. But Bezos and Caruso and Thiel are the enemy, while nonprofit leaders take millions home and service very few people. And the politicians are taken and skimming off the top, getting really wealthy. We're seeing this all the time. I mean, how many city council members or local politicians in the state of California have to go to jail before the electorate wakes up? There's either some serious cheating going on, or the people of California have fallen for this Tony Robbins style speech that sounds really good and he looks really cool, but it falls flat when it's held up against any quantifiable standards or results. That is not okay. We have to ask our government for more. And Rick Caruso announced just the other day he won't be running for mayor of Los Angeles. He's not running for governor, he's out of politics. Why? Because of what Democrats put people through in these majority states, supermajority states like Illinois, California, and New York. That's why Elise Stefanik won't run in New York either. It's not worth it. Who would ever want to run? And then they get up there. Say they get a couple common sense people, they get up into Sacramento or they go into downtown Los Angeles, into City Hall, and they're exposed to the level of fraud, theft, corruption, and it's just a total rat's nest. And then they end up even looking worse because they can't achieve what they said that they would achieve on the campaign trail because it's way worse because it's been hidden and papered over and papered over and papered over by Newsome and his elk and Bass and her elk and everyone else around that is in the business of perpetuating fraud and getting rich off welfare programs. And this is nothing new. The Somali stuff in Minnesota was merely the tip of the iceberg. This has been happening since the beginning of welfare. Since we shifted as a nation from allowing people to receive handouts or what I call handops for a temporary amount of time that's difficult to get, impossible to cheat, and reserved for the neediest folks in the world or in the country, temporarily while they get back on their feet, to making welfare comfortable, easy, easy to fraud, easy to access, sound really good, but line the pockets of people that turn around and then re donate those funds back into the political campaigns. I mean, it's been happening with Planned Parenthood for years. HHS, under that tranny HHS leader under Biden, she gave them billions in grants, or millions, don't quote me on the billions, but millions in grants. And they turn around, they're one of the largest private donors to the DNC. Just with your tax money. That's what U.S. aid was. And California has such a stronghold on judges, the electorate, you know, these investigations are going to take much longer. They're not as blatant. And Newsom is much smarter than Tim Waltz. He knows how to get away with this stuff, and he knows how to throw people under the bus to make sure that he's always in the clear. But until people start having realistic rebuttals of these nonsense statistics and facts and categories like I just did, these people are going to get elected over and over and over again. But I also want you to remember one thing. As these California politicians vilify billionaires and claim all these fake stats and false numbers and strange categories, you have to ask. These people demand more taxes from us, higher bills from us, more higher gas, adding taxes to gas, taxes to products, manipulating the energy market, and then vilifying billionaires. And you have to ask, what have these people who are asking for more of our money actually done? Do they employ anyone? No. Have they ever had a good idea? Have they ever been innovative? Have they ever been entrepreneurs? Largely, no. Rokana's a perfect example. Calling for these billionaire tax levies is worth$150 million that he's gained by insider trade in Congress. But yet Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, all these people that employ thousands of people and work very hard, they're the enemy. But because Gavin Newsom is, and when I talk about him like Tony Robbins, I'm not, I love Tony Robbins. Don't get me wrong. I think Tony Robbins is a great guy. What I'm saying is, is Gavin Newsom compared a Tony Robbins who's one of the most effective public speakers of our time. And people are enamored by people who know how to read a teleprompter. Okay, everyone used to say, oh, Obama, he's so eloquent. He's such a good speaker. But again, much like Newsom, everything he did fell flat. And most of what we're suffering from now are the basic socialist fundamentals that Obama put into practice and Biden carried through the finish line. So it's important that we rebut, discuss, and converse these statistics and understand what these people are actually saying between the lines. If not, Gavin Newsom will certainly be president, and we can't rely on the primary process or the DNC to hold him accountable, as he literally has a worst record of death, destruction, I mean the deaths from drugs, the deaths from crimes, the amount of people who have lost their homes, the bankruptcies, the financial ruin. Gavin Newsom has a worse human rights record than Vladimir Putin because his policies and the 20-year reign of his impact in California has created and decimated any sense of normalcy and positivity that the state once had. It's been ruined. Went from the strongest middle class, best wages, best employers, bless employment, great industry, perfect weather, cool people, to now a state literally a state that has turned into an asane asylum being run by the inmates. And this state of the state address surely crosses the T's and dots the I's on that Asane asylum. That's my rebuttal and take on Gavin Newsom's last state of the state. When we come back, I'm going to break down the dangerous ruling of the woke ideologues on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and what they've done to just destroy and impact the lives of so many of California's children that will get sucked into the trans conversation that largely don't need to be, and now be groomed and managed by educators and administrators over their actual families. This is an actual court, people, a court people ruling that families in California have no right to gender conversations with their own kids. We'll talk about that and how dangerous it is when we come back after these words. Welcome back, America. I want to talk to you a little bit about this terrible decision of the woke ideological Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to remove an injunction that a lower judge had placed in California, barring school officials, administrators, educators from practicing what is largely known as the secrecy in gender in schools policy, which blocks the nuclear family from having any part of gender or other psychological conversations when it has to do with their child's well-being. People like Scott Wiener, proven pervert, fulsome street fair nudist, wants parents to be left out of conversations around gender, largely because a lot of his financial support comes from woke ideological nonprofits that have made millions in their trans efforts. Again, folks, we always have to follow the money and understand why this rhetoric is so strong to the point that we'd be putting policies in school that go actively against the science and studies in front of our faces, and for courts to actively go against a previous precedent ruled by the Supreme Court over seven times in the last hundred years, affirming parental rights over all else when it comes to children. But the bigger picture is why family must be included and what this Ninth Circuit ruling means. Let me be open with something that should feel obvious, even beyond politics and ideology. When we talk about significant issues in a young person's life, identity, mental health, medical decisions, we should be talking about it with the people who live with the consequences most of all. The families. A young person's family is not an optional stakeholder. In most minors' lives, the family is the bedrock of stability. It's where they sleep, who pays the bills, drives them to appointments, decides insurance, covers their health care costs, and who has long-term responsibility for their welfare. That's why the recent federal court fight in California schools matters so much. Again, California is the petri dish for the country. In the case called Mirabelli vs. Bonta, a federal district court judge in San Diego ruled that California's policies, which in many districts restricted school staff from informing parents about their children's social transition or gender identity unless they personally consented. The child consented, because you know, child consent is a thing, apparently in California, was unconstitutional. That judge's opinion recognized that parents have a constitutional right to be informed about their minor child's gender expression, and that teachers have free speech and religious liberty rights not to be compelled into secrecy, according to Education Weekly. But that victory for parental rights was very short-lived. By the way, folks, this is a class action lawsuit with thousands of plaintiffs against the state. On January 5th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted California's request to stay that injunction while the state appeals, effectively allowing the secrecy policy to resume during the appeal. Of course, the woke and ideological Ninth Circuit expressed skepticism about whether the lower court had authority to issue such sweeping relief across the entire state. It's a state court. They're federal. It's a state court, Superior Court of California, and whether the original ruling correctly applied constitutional protections. Again, semantics. Yes, he had the right to affirm parents constitutionally supersede schools. So for now, many schools in California once again interpret state guidance to withhold information about a child's gender presentation from parents unless students ask that it be shared. This is a very scary situation. And it places educators in the position of enforcer of state policy rather than a conduit between school and family as it's intended, as it's supposed to be, and as it always works. And this decision is not an abstract legal technicality. It's happening in the real lives of children with real consequences for mental health, safety, and family stability. I mean, let's just look at the research. You guys know I'm big on research. And this isn't research about rights, but quantifiable outcomes. It's the theme of this show. Family support matters, period. I don't know why every any idiot knows that. And it matters a lot. When organizations like the Trevor Project and Human Rights Campaign survey large numbers of LGBTQ and gender diverse youth, they show consistent patterns. Guess what? Early onset cases of gender dysphoria often disappear when the family's involved. About 63% of LGBTQ youth report at least one experience of parental support. Two-thirds of parents support the kid. That's largely in contrast with the numbers you hear on the left. On the flip side of that, 57% report one parental form of rejection. And that makes sense to me as well, because sometimes parents aren't aligned. I mean, it's a very complex matter. Many families are supportive in some way or fearful and confused in other ways. None of that makes it bad. Now, when the rejection is severe enough to destable a child's life, like being kicked out of a home, etc., that's when appropriate authorities can get involved. But these numbers are low. Very, very low. Like 8% of LGBTQ youth report being forced to sleep away from caregivers because of family conflict or abandonment. So I say it's probably closer to 1%. But about 40% say it was because of their LGBTQ identity. I don't believe that. A lot of times there's drugs and other factors and behaviors involved. So about 5% experience rejection enough to affect their stability and shelter and housing. That's not high. You don't legislate based on a 5% number. You legislate based on the 95% number. Most families are not wholly rejecting, and most families show at least some support. Excluding them by default is not only counterproductive, it removes one of the most powerful protective factors for mental health in youth. Family. But when the family gets involved, the numbers drop, and when the numbers drop, the dollars drop. So my point is adolescents often question their gender identities, have overlapping mental health needs. It's never just gender dysphoria. I talk about this all the time. I went through a very bad breakup and toxic relationship in my early 20s. This was largely before I knew about my mental health issues and I hadn't seen a therapist. I went to my doctor. I couldn't get out of bed. I said, I need medication. He said, Okay, well, I'm going to send you to a psychiatrist because uh I don't want to diagnose you with something you don't have. So I went to a psychiatrist. You know what he said? He said, You're not depressed. You're sad over a breakup. You need talk therapy. You need to surround yourself. You need to go on vacation. You need to do And then once you've tried all that, if you still can't get out of bed, I'll put you on antidepressants. What was wrong with that approach? I don't understand. It saved me from being dependent on something that costs money and affects my brain chemistry for many years. So again, what is wrong with that approach? Looking at things like the situation, conditions, the family environment, etc., and having more people involved in the conversation. Strength is in numbers, but not for these nonprofits who rely on this trans conversation. They inflate the number of trans people, they inflate the number of trans violence, they inflate the rejection numbers, they inflate everything to make it look like there's a large group of people in this country that are facing daily dangers, daily adversity, daily discrimination in the same way that gays faced largely before Prop 8 and gay marriage went through the Supreme Court and some of these other massive victories for the LGBTQ community. They're claiming that trans are experiencing the same. It's just not true. Because as this nation's become more accepting of gays, we've become more accepting of trans. But again, what they're asking for is legislation, decisions that impact everyone based on a very, very small 5% figure. I mean, it's well documented in peer-reviewed literature that gender questioning youth have higher rates of anxiety, depression, suicidality, and experience of trauma or bullying than their cisgender peers. So many of them have co-curring conditions like autism or internalizing disorders. This complexity is not a reason to withhold support. It's quite the opposite. Trans is the only place where they have one little rejection figure, but in every other category of mental and emotional health, family has to be involved. It's the number one prescription. We have to be careful, multiply multidisciplinary, and evaluating ongoing mental health support during any transition-related steps, even the initial conversation. Leading clinical frameworks like WPATH, Standard of Care, and Endocrine Society guidelines embedded this multidisciplinary supportive approach into their recommendations. So there are companies out there that support the transition process that are saying this law is scary. That's when I know it really is scary when people on the left are actually saying it. Because there are principled ethical people on the left who do this research and are following the research. And the research on what happens when care is given without adequate assessment and counseling is incomplete still, but it points towards a cause for pause. I mean, the evidence continually, every year, as we get deeper into this stuff, emphasizes structured long-term support and monitoring, not rapid escalation to irreversible decisions. And teachers, for whatever reason, love to think they're doctors. Recent systematic reviews have graded some evidence around puberty blockers at very low certainty, precisely because of study limitations and the need for more data. There's not enough information to make these decisions. In other words, that means clinicians and families should not approach it as the science is settled, no matter where you are at politically. Again, why excluding families and putting schools in the position of hiding information from parents is so dangerous. But I feel like I'm talking to a group of crazy people because they really do have convinced themselves that there's this real danger out there that doesn't exist. School administrators and teachers, as good as they are at educating and nurturing, are not trained clinicians. They never were. They thought they were when ADHD was such a hot button, too. They're not trained to diagnose psychiatric conditions or to weigh the long-term implications of medical decisions. I mean, as noted, constantly, there's multiple cases by professional associations for school counselors and nurses that educators should not diagnose or treat mental health conditions. They can provide referral, support, and crisis management, but no long-term clinical care. They don't have the time, resources, or training. So when policy tells teachers that they need to act like the child's primary mental health authority, it sets them and the kids up to fail. But these big donor groups to the DNC can't survive without removing trans kids from the nuclear family. So this stay on the injunction means that at least for now, the policies prompted to suit remain enforceable while the appeal moves forward. But it is a step backward from what the California Superior Court saw as constitutional baseline for parental rights and open communication. Why would the Ninth Circuit go against the Supreme Court? I mean, folks, I'm looking right here. Seven notable rulings in the last century. So for the, you know, they're woke ideological pieces of crap because the Supreme Court has been so clear, multiple Supreme Courts have been so clear that parents trump all. Period. Pierce versus Society of Sisters in 1925. Decision affirmed the rights of parents to choose private or parochial education. Stating that a state could not mandate public schooling only. Wisconsin versus Yoder, 1972. Amish parents could withdraw their children from public schools after the eighth grade to provide religious education. The court emphasized that parental rights are fundamental and the state cannot override these rights without compelling interest. Ninth Circuit. These idiots in black robes on the Ninth Circuit. What compelling interest does the state have to take away parents' rights from this trans youth? None. Meyer versus Nebraska, 1923. The case highlighted parents' rights to determine the educational conduct and methods they deemed best for their children. By the way, other basic thing that should be said is the parents are paying this stuff. Their tax dollars are paying to educate their own kids. It's not like it's coming out of these teachers' pockets. It's coming out of their pockets. So shouldn't the sponsor of the education be involved? Well, according to the Supreme Court, yes. Troxel versus Gainville, year 2000. This case focused on the rights of parents to make decisions concerning the care and upbringing of their children. The court held that parental rights are fundamental and that any state interference in those rights must meet strict scrutiny standards. Again, where are the strict scrutiny standards for policies of secrecy in gender and social transition? None. Loving versus Virginia, 1967. It was about racial, but it also says a state cannot interfere with a family relationship without compelling justification. No justification in this case. Number six, flyer versus doe. And again, I need to emphasize this again. This is a class action civil suit from thousands of plaintants, California taxpayers, against Rob Bonta, who's the attorney general, against the state. All right, a certified class action lawsuit would have never been certified as a class action if it didn't have merit. And the lower court judge was merely following precedents set by the Supreme Court of the United States seven times in the last hundred years. Last one, Snyder versus Phelps, 2011. While not directly about parental rights and education, this case discussed the rights of parents regarding speech and advocacy. It reaffirmed that citizens have a right to speak freely on public matters influencing how parents may choose to engage in educational issues. Every single time parents step up to bat at the Supreme Court, they knock the ball out of the park, regardless of how left-leaning, right-leaning, or centrist the court is at the time. Okay, the Ninth Circuit spit in the face of the Supreme Court, spit in the face of California taxpayers and parents, and said, educators and administrators know better. And that's why in the early throughout the 90s and the early 2000s, we had so much overdiagnosed ADHD, and so many kids drugged up on Adderall and Ritalin and Concerta because teachers took it amongst themselves to tell parents that their rowdy kids had ADHD when in actuality they just didn't know how to discipline and they weren't being trained correctly on new modern children that didn't behave the same way that they were used to. More and more kids didn't fit the mold, so they blame ADHD. Now they're using this trans thing as a way to empower teachers and administrators as doctors. But again, I will go back to this. Same with my argument about taxes. Don't ask for more until you can fix the problems that you've already had the money to fix. Teachers in California can't even get kids to read or write, graduate fluent in English, graduate high school, even. They have largely failed the populace there, and then they want to be empowered to make mental health and emotional health decisions for youth. Show us that you can teach people how to read and write, and you have all this extra time with all these great GPAs and all these high test scores that now you have so much time on your hands that you can help the tiny little number of trans kids without their parents involved. But no, that's not the case. They suck at everything they do, and then they want more responsibility as they're failing in the main responsibility they have, which is preparing kids for the future. Can't get them to read, can't get them to write, can't get them to do math, can't get them to graduate high school, but yet you think you're gonna be the ultimate authority on their social transition. Get a grip. And I know there's many, my mom was a teacher for many years. Many of her friends are teachers. There's many, many teachers that don't want to be involved, that want the families involved, but they can't say anything because the unions are largely aligned with all these woke nonprofits and NGOs. And I'm telling you, it's all about the money that comes from advocating for trans rights. And it's all about making up money from lost services in the medical field because abortions, like I said, guys, every year we're hitting low record numbers of abortion. I've talked about it on many episodes. And so when you're charging the state or the county or the person or when you're charging for medical abortion services and birth control services, and that's your number one form of revenue, and that's going down, you got to diversify. So it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to start chopping off dicks and gluing on fake vaginas and blocking puberty. So you can make sure that all those administrators and VPs and regional directors of sales and middle management take home their six, seven, eight-figure incomes at the expense of the taxpayer and stupid private donors. But man, I've seen a lot of bad decisions out of the Ninth Circuit. This is probably the worst. You cannot remove the nuclear family. Because just as I mentioned, there are overlying conditions when it comes to gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder, which was what it was called for many, many years before they rebranded it in the DSM. And we can see it, the writings on the wall, folks. And again, young girls are the huge number of transitioners now. All young girls, preteens, going through emotional and hormonal turmoil that we all have. If anyone who has a sister or grew up around any girls in school, it's a rough time. Not period 11, 12, 13, all the way to 16 for some, it is rough for women. I do not envy them. It's rough. So, of course, when they put them on testosterone and uh hormone replacement therapy, they're gonna immediately start feeling better. It's just basic endocrinology, and then they run with it, and then they go on social media and talk about how much better they're feeling, and this is the situation that we're in, and it's made a lot of people rich and a lot of nonprofits healthier. So, of course, they're gonna fight to keep the cash cow. That's what all of this is about. People who get rich, like the CEO of GLAD, the president of Trevor, Planned Parenthood, people who get rich by pretending to care about victims, but really all they're doing is perpetuating ideologies, falsifying and padding numbers, and creating a false reality for people so they can pretend to be saving them. You know the name of the game, folks. Liberal lifeguarding. Let's throw them into the pool, pretend that they're drowning so we can jump in, save them, and be the hero. That's all. They're creating victims, problems, and vilifying families so they can stay rich and empower. That's it. Has nothing to do with the kids. It never really does. Unions don't care about the kids either. Now, there are many, many teachers that do, and I don't want my tone to be misinterpreted as anti-educator because I love educators. I love teachers. I love what Sarah Huckabee Sanders did for teachers in Arkansas. I'm a huge supporter of public schools as well. But what I don't support is rogue judges making asinine rulings based on woke ideology and fake numbers that hurt parents and kids. It's so dangerous. It is so dangerous now to think that there's kids in schools. Parents have no idea what's going on, and when they're home, they're acting one way, and in their school, they're asking to be called a different name, use a different bathroom, etc., without the access to the healthcare, medication, talk therapy, psychiatry, any alternative methods, church involvement, whatever. All of those different factors that could be helping go out the window when the nuclear family and the parents are left in the dark. And that's when kids start committing suicide. And that's when bad things start happening. But hey, when things when the numbers get worse and more trans people are getting beat up and more trans people are committing suicide, man, it sure lines the pockets of Trevor Project, GLAD, and Planned Parenthood. You do the math, folks. All right. And for today, I'm out of time. And that's my take on the Ninth Circuit's appalling ruling against parents. And I know the Supreme Court will reverse their decision, just costing millions of dollars, a lot of time, and detrimental impacts to kids while we wait for the Supreme Court to take this case. And I really hope they do, uh, because parental rights are really been a non-starter in the Supreme Court for the last 100 years. And with that, folks, I'm out of time, but let me leave you with something Reagan once said. America's best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our glorious achievements are just ahead. God bless you, President Reagan. And as always, may God save and bless America.