Hello, America, 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. Hey, I'll take it. Love it. This podcast is focused on restoring common sense conservative politics in the American household. And the way we do this is by sending truth on the airwaves through the only rainbow that matters, the red, white, and blue rainbow. Our hope is to engage in meaningful conversations about what it means to be American today, while we embrace all the new technology and advancements and cultural evolution without forgetting our foundations and our fundamental history. That's the point. In order for me to do this, I need your input, as I am merely a messenger of the common sense collective of folks like you and me. So don't forget our phone number, 866 LastGay. Folks, that's 866 LastGay. You can call, leave a voicemail, or text that number. If that's not enough, just go to the description on your device of this episode of the show. Click the link right on top. It says text the show. Click it, let me have it. We always listen. Unless it's just awful and stupid, which rarely, rarely happens, believe it or not. Folks, if you could also do me a favor, don't forget to subscribe to the new YouTube program. Like, share, and comment and find us everywhere. Our show is still largely popular on audio, and our numbers are just ticking up on video. So any help you can give us is greatly appreciated. Don't forget, I have a very popular Substack. Our Twitter is one of the best sources of verified and vetted news. And our website, lastgayconservative.com, is filled with all sorts of fun stuff, which is all free, principled, and transparent. There's no salacious reporting or clickbait crap here at all. Just good, solid opinions rooted in truth and real American values delivered through my lens of common sense. It is merely that simple, folks. And you are a huge part of it. You're the best audience a pundit could ever ask for. You're beautiful, smart, and well informed. And again, that's all any political pundit could ever ask for. It's Monday, and boy, it's another manic Monday for sure, on top of today's monologue, which I will break down some of the amazing benefits largely missed by the media that we're seeing directly correlated to Trump's immigration enforcement efforts. Folks, you don't have to tell me. I know how hard and awful it is to watch these deportations going on. I mean, being from Southern California, some of my closest friends are affected by this, truly. But we can't ignore the facts. It's working, folks. From schools to crime to healthcare to wages, the impacts of mass illegal immigration that have been plaguing us are slowly but surely reversing. And ICE deserves a lot of that credit. And it's time someone stands up and talks about the positives that have come out of these efforts that the mainstream media just simply refuses to report on. Top of that, I'm going to do a little catch-up as I didn't have time on Friday to give you my take on Michael Michelle Obama, America's first lady tranny. That's a double first. She's the first lady and the first tranny. She painted a bleak and sad picture of America for women and girls on the Call Her Daddy podcast last week. She's so out of touch, folks, and of course has no idea about real women and girls because we know she has a penis. Folks, remember Joan Rivers lost her life, sadly, for exposing the truth. And we cannot let her death be in vain because we all know Michael Michelle was a man. And that's a conspiracy I fully support. True or not, doesn't matter. I think it's hysterical. On top of that, huge story out of the federal court system in Arizona, as the sexual rape, misconduct, harassment, et cetera, case against Uber by plaintiffs who were essentially raped or sexually assaulted by their drivers commenced. The discovery that was just released, that was received from Uber, shows a huge discrepancy in numbers as from 2017 to 2024, over 500,000 cases of sexual misconduct were made within Uber's internal system, while their public data only shows a fraction of that while they define their own version of what a serious claim is. You're not going to hear anyone else talking about this correlation. But folks, we all know the number of people driving from Uber are majority foreign-born. Okay, under the Biden, anyone can claim asylum policy. Anyone could get a driver's license and drive for Uber. And Uber refuses to release demographic information of their drivers because it would be too obvious. But if you've ever been in an Uber or you know anyone who's ever been in an Uber, they'll tell you most of these drivers barely speak English and reign from other countries. I'm telling you, the increase in foreign drivers seeking asylum and these sexual complaints will go hand in hand. I'm saying the quiet part out loud here, folks. And as a brother and a son and an uncle of young girls, all of which use Uber, I am so pro-driverless taxi now, it's not even funny. Even if only 10% of these cases are serious or true, that's 50,000 cases of varying sexual crimes perpetrated against women in cars from entitled immigrants. Period. Folks, this is going to be a huge thing on the left and the mainstream media will try and keep it under wraps. But I promise when the numbers come out, most of these assaulters will be foreign asylum seekers. Period. That came in under Biden. Just another gift that keeps on giving from mass illegal immigration. Lastly, Trump took to social media yesterday to blast Prime Minister Kearney in typical Canadian fashion. Instead of embracing confrontation and standing up for his own national interest, it was easier for the spineless snake to slither down the path of least resistance and cozy up to the CCP in what Kearney calls a new world order. Well, folks, we already know Canada is a huge Chinese sellout already. This will just make it official. The only reason why they haven't been bigger is because the United States has largely kept them from having to run to China. But this deal, if he pulls the trigger, will destroy the Chinese economy just the way the Chinese destroyed our economy and continue to. However, it completely reminds me of one of my favorite jokes, which is how do you get a hundred Canadians out of a pool in an emergency? Well, you just have to ask. Folks, Canadians in general are very weak, non-confrontational people, which is why it's such a wonderful place to visit. No fighting, no conflict, everyone's generally polite and happy. However, real leaders don't take the path of least resistance to avoid necessary fights. And if Carney actually does this, we're gonna watch Canada lose every little last bit of sovereignty, Western values, and national security. They're already barely holding on to after Trudeau decimated that country. I'm gonna take a quick break. When I come back, we'll do Monday's monologue and get right into the gaily news right after these words. The optics of these operations are horrible. They're emotionally charged, they produce difficult images, and they test our instincts for compassion. And in a country built up by legal immigrants, that discomfort is real and totally understandable. I feel it every single day. Unfortunately, public policy cannot be judged by optics alone. It must be judged by outcomes. And when we look at the outcomes this year, crime, wages, and strain on public services, we're forced to confront an inconvenient truth. A real inconvenient truth, not Al Gore's version. Immigration enforcement, including deportations, is producing measurable positive effects, even if we don't like how it looks. Let's start with crime. This year, crime rates across much of the United States have fallen sharply. Violent crime, property crime, and homicides. Some of the largest cities are seeing double-digit percentage in major crime declines. Even the New York Times has acknowledged that the drop is real and historically significant. According to the New York Times, no one knows why it's happening, but we know. Their quote unquote uncertainty cuts both ways. If critics want to argue that enforcement has nothing to do with falling crime, they have to explain why, which they can't. Tell me why removing tens of thousands of repeat offenders, gang-affiliated individuals, and non-citizens with active criminal records would somehow have no public safety effect at all. It defies common sense, which is what this show is all about. Immigration enforcement does not target immigrants broadly, it disproportionately targets individuals already in the criminal justice system. Removing a subset of people with documented criminal histories reduces recidivism by definition, period. You cannot re-offend in a community if you're no longer there. And they're not. And the rates reflect the removals. This doesn't mean immigrants as a whole are all criminals. We know that. You guys know I've been saying that forever. But it does mean enforcement against criminal non-citizens has a direct incapacitation effect and pretending and pretending otherwise is ideological and not analytical. Now look at wages, especially for working class Americans. For decades, years for myself, economists across the political spectrum have acknowledged that large inflows of large-skilled labor suppresses wages at the bottom of the income ladder. That effect is modest in the aggregate, but acute in the specific sectors: construction, food, service, warehousing, agriculture, and custodial work. This year, as Trump enforcement increased and unauthorized labor availability tightened, something else happened quietly. Wages rose fastest at the bottom. Not for hedge fund managers, not for tech executives, but for hourly workers. Folks, I've been telling you for years this is what would happen. When labor markets are flooded, workers compete against desperation. When labor markets tighten, employers compete for workers. That is not cruelty. It's basic economics. Higher wages are not an accident. They are a predictable result of enforcing the law in a labor market that had been allowed to operate outside it for years. They created a secondary labor market that tethered down all of our wages. Next, let's look at schools and hospitals this year. Public schools in many districts were already overcrowded, which we're seeing a decline in that across the country. Emergency rooms were overwhelmed. Housing shortages already exist. When large numbers of new residents often suddenly and without coordination enter our systems designed for finite capacity, we know what happens. Quality declines for everyone. Quality of life declines for everyone. Classes size grow. ESL resources are stretched thin. Emergency rooms become primary care clinics because they have to accept the illegal immigrant. Wait times increase, costs rise. You've all felt it and experience it and see it in your lives every day. Reducing that pressure is not anti-immigrant. This year, jurisdiction saw reduced migrant inflows and increased removals also saw less congestion in classrooms, more manageable caseloads for teachers, and reduced uncompensated care burdens in the hospitals. Again, these are not abstractions. They are real improvements felt by mostly low-income Americans who rely on these public services the most. The poorest Americans are the ones getting the best benefits from this immigration. But in order to really explain that, we got to talk about the elephant in the room here, folks, which is sanctuary cities. Sanctuary policies have been sold to us as humanitarian shields, but in practice, they create parallel systems of enforcement avoidance that makes communities less safe and governance more chaotic. You notice the shootings, the crime, all this stuff that you see is only happening in sanctuary cities. Because when local law enforcement is barred from cooperating with ICE, even in cases involving repeat offenders, it creates gaps. Why local police don't want to go after people who are criminals is bizarre to me. Criminals learn these gaps quickly. Jurisdictions become magnets, not for families seeking asylum, but for individuals seeking jurisdictional immunity. And that's exactly what's happened. That's why we see the worst of the worst in these places. Here's the irony: Sanctuary cities experience way worse optics, not better. The deportations look way worse in these areas, and they are way worse. They experience tent encampments, they experience emergency declarations, overrun shelters, budget blowouts, public backlash, and yes, high-profile crimes that erode trust. By contrast, jurisdictions that cooperate with ICE don't see midnight raids and chaotic standoffs. They see routine transfers, coordinated custody, and due process, period. And all they're doing is handling the removals and the transfers using existing law enforcement channels that have been on the books for over 50 years. This work happens quietly, professionally, and without any spectacle. That's why we don't see it happening in other places. When local police are involved, enforcement looks like law enforcement, not crisis management, which is what all of these unarmed militia groups are reacting to. And that matters because the goal is not punishment. The goal is order. A nation without borders is not compassionate, it is negligent. A system without enforcement is not humane and it's exploitative. It exploits migrants by encouraging dangerous journeys. We know this. It exploits workers by suppressing wages, and it exploits taxpayers by shifting costs downward. The uncomfortable truth is this, folks: clarity is kinder than chaos. If you want kindness, remove the chaos, get rid of these sanctuary policies. When laws are enforced consistently, incentives change. Fewer people make the trip, fewer smugglers profit, fewer communities are overwhelmed, and fewer people, citizens and non-citizens alike, become collateral damage of a system pretending it doesn't have limits. We have limits. So yes, these deportations are very uncomfortable. But the disorder and the negative implications of mass illegal immigration is much worse. What we're seeing this year isn't cruelty, folks. It's course correction. Crime is down, wages are up, public services are stabling, and the jurisdictions working within the law are experiencing fewer crises than those trying to circumvent it. And that is common sense. That doesn't mean our system is perfect. It isn't. And it doesn't mean compassion is irrelevant. It isn't. We must be compassionate. But it does mean we can no longer ignore outcomes because we don't like processes. And that's where the left goes wrong. In the end, the question is not whether enforcement feels good, the question is whether it works. And this year, the evidence is increasingly clear. It does work. Period. So learn the stats, watch the improvements, and give ICE a pat on the back. Because although we're overwhelmed and bombarded by images and narrations from politicians, that ICE is some unruly agency of thung of thugs that pull triggers first and ask questions later, their efforts have largely benefited us in ways that no one is talking about, and everyone should be. And that's Monday's monologue. We'll be back after these words. Welcome back, America. In case you missed it, I wanted to talk a little bit about Michelle Obama's appearance on the Call Her Daddy podcast. She had a lot to say, as the podcast was over an hour, but a couple things that she said I had I've taken serious issue with. I mean, the bottom line is that she's everywhere right now going on these sort of non-political things, and it's not accidental. Uh, it's a strategic choice as the left is trying to reach out to younger women through culture and not campaigns. We've seen this is going to be their big focus is focusing on cultural podcasts instead of speeches and podiums. So now that we know that they're going to be focusing on culture, then we have to understand that tone matters. Her tone really, really matters. I mean the picture she painted of womanhood in America was bleak, heavy. I mean, womanhood she framed as pressure, as imbalance, as constant sacrifice, which I would say that a lot of women do experience constant sacrifice. However, she also made it seem like the systems are all stacked against you, women. Your efforts are rarely rewarded. And folks, that might resonate with you or with some women, but it's not the full story. Because we know that validation without agency isn't empowerment, it's just intimidation. That's all it is. She's trying to intimidate young women into stepping into this mold that is completely relative to how they compete with men instead of empowering personal choice. I mean, younger women have to be sitting there asking themselves today, and Pew Research and Brookings and all these other. Places affirm this, women are asking, what am I fighting for? What choices do I have? Because the modern women today they value flexibility over this constant struggle that feminism and the left has always relied on comparison over autonomy because they're not looking for a battle plan, they're looking for options. You know, this whole concept of empowerment that sounds exhausting that doesn't inspire. It completely alienates people, and it's not true. She makes empowerment feel like burnout and makes her own experience sound like it was the most difficult hill in the world to climb. Meanwhile, she's worth over$150 million for doing nothing. She's got houses all over the world, Netflix deals, radio deals, simply because of her last name. She also took a step back to raise kids. But no. Then she gets on and suggests that Barack Obama won in 2008, largely because Americans didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because she was a woman. And I am so tired of this crap. America's not ready for a woman president. America's not ready for a black president. None of that's true. We're ready for common sense, real candidates. When you put up Hillary Clinton as an example of a woman candidate, it doesn't work. And what she's saying is largely sexist. I mean, we all know Hillary Clinton is the least, most popular or favorable woman on the planet, pretty much. She had trust issues, and her campaign was just like Swiss cheese of holes of weaknesses. Obama ran a better campaign and he built a very unique coalition. I mean, he just did better. Period. That's why he won, not because he was a man. Explaining every loss is sexism flattens reality and totally insults female voters. Period. Her gender may have mattered a little bit, but it was a very small factor, if anything. Definitely wasn't the main factor. And I don't believe this notion that women will vote for women just because they're women. That's not true. The women that I know are strong, have their own opinions. And that's why Gen Z women are resisting being told if you lose, it's because the system wouldn't let you win. Well, that's not true either. And women know that. It's way more complex than that. Women want to understand that the strategy, the numbers, the choices, because they matter. And that's why they're such an important part of our electorate. Being told that the system decides everything doesn't feel empowering. It feels totally limiting. And the way that she's talking just gives hope to me that more of these young, single, college-educated women are going to move over to the right because constant grievance doesn't build confidence. And that's all these people do is complain and paint a picture that women are born into an uphill battle. Now, they there might have different, more unique and stronger challenges than some men, but it doesn't mean that the system is rigged against women. I mean, another moment that stood out is the suggestion that women shouldn't pause their careers for children. Again, now, her statement included that kids don't appreciate the sacrifice. Well, apparently her little brats don't, but I certainly appreciate my mom didn't give up her career for us, but I certainly know and acknowledge all the sacrifices she gave for us. I mean, it's always constant. Kids don't say thank you, but that's true even when kids are five. And it doesn't mean that the lifetime rewards and benefits of spending time with a family over career is more meaningless or has less meaning or positivity than someone who focuses on their career. I mean, all research shows that appreciation from children comes later in life, period. Many women choose career pauses intentionally. And again, what's the name of the game here, folks? Choice. All these women that are pro-choice when it comes to abortion, oh, but you shouldn't have a choice when it comes to your career. Telling women their sacrifices are pointless isn't liberation. She's just being a judgmental, out-of-touch brat who wants to point the finger at all these women who've decided to stay home with their kids. You know why they stay home with their kids? Because illegal immigration perpetuated by Obama has kept wages so down, which then which disproportionately affects women as well, who are paid less than men. So you have a group of people that are already paid less, tethered down by illegal immigration, they can't afford childcare. Period. So a lot of this has nothing to do with whether or not women have a choice of staying home. They don't have a choice because the economic conditions that Michelle Obama's husband created that we're trying to reverse. No woman asked for this new mold or playbook that is completely centered around comparing themselves against men. It's about choice. It's about whether they want to put their family, career, both, or neither first. You know, and for all of these people that are going to write me and say, she's just sharing her own personal experience. Well, that doesn't apply when you're Michelle Obama. Because A, we know it's not her lived experience. But B also, when you're Michelle Obama and you have the platform that she has, your experience by default becomes instruction, especially on a platform like Call Her Daddy that's built on emotional absorption and not nuance. And that's what makes me so sick about these people. It's like when you have that kind of influence, experience becomes expectation. So therefore, they don't need to hear any disclaimers or truth. They just hear the values and the lies being spewed by people like this. And she's taking a huge political risk. It doesn't spark outrage, it triggers something a lot quieter. And I'm seeing this happen amongst women all in my life, which is called disengagement. And they have no longer any respect for feminism. It's being rejected across the board. And it's not because they're anti-feminist, but because Gen Zers are tired of the pessimism. They're anti-pessimism. They're rejecting narratives define womenhood by burden and comparisons to men. And empowering optimism by embracing personal choice and personal pursuit of happiness. Empowering women doesn't require competing with men. It does not require constant struggle or comparison. And her life largely contradicts the picture she's painting as she is a multi-multi, hundred times over millionaire. Empowering women doesn't require fitting into a single approved mold of success that Michelle Obama paints either. Progress isn't about beating men, it's about choosing your own individual pursuit of happiness. Because we know real empowerment is choice. The freedom to pursue individual happiness on your own terms is what real feminism is and what real women want. But the left continually wants to push these moles because it's how they control people and win elections. To build a life that fits for you, no one else dictated by cultural pressure is the real freedom and real empowerment. For some women, fulfillment means career ambition. But for others, that means family flexibility or something else totally entirely. And for many, this changes over time. I've seen it with my nieces, my sisters, my mom. But when empowerment is framed as endurance or sacrifice without any joy or success, only if it looks a certain way, according to Harvard grad elitists on the left, it's no longer empowering. It's just judgment, criticism, and simply out of touch. Because women don't care about outworking men anymore. People don't care about competing against other groups anymore. Largely seen amongst Gen Z, it's about self-competition. It's about confidence to choose without apology. Because remember, folks, empowerment isn't pressure, it's permission to choose the life you want. Stop with the guilt trip, stop with the judgment, stop with these out-of-touch, broad painted pictures of bleak and disgusting rigged systems against women that don't exist. And that's why Gen Z females are running from the left in these elitist talking points because they want to do whatever they want without being pressured into being a certain type of woman. Just like I want to do whatever I want without being pressured into being a certain type of gay, because we know they use categories, stereotypes, and large demographic groups to control their narrative and elective. Control their narrative and elections, gays and women are two of those groups. So I see it. I see how they've used women. And this posturing and this type of language from Michael Michelle Obama, a man herself telling women how bleak it is. If it's so bleak, how did you become so successful? That's what I want to know. And that's the question we should all be asking. Folks, I'll be back right after these words to talk about Uber and their 500,000 claims of sexual misconduct that go up and up every year with limited public safety disclosures and standards implemented. This is scary stuff, folks. We'll talk about it when we're back right after these words. Welcome back, America. Disgusting numbers have been released from discovery that was received by Uber by plaintiffs that are suing the rideshare platform for multiple cases of sexual misconduct, largely rape, assaults, and harassment. The plaintiff released this shocking information that basically shows that between 2017 and 2024, 555,000 complaints were made to Uber about sexual misconduct. Although Uber's public data only shows a small fraction of that number, it seems they've largely shielded the public from understanding what's actually happening in these Uber rides with overly aggressive, sexually criminally minded drivers. Now I'm making the argument that I believe that these numbers directly correspond with the fact that the percentage of foreign-born drivers has gone up in some cases, like in New York City, to 86%. And there is a cultural disconnect between a lot of these places these foreigners are coming from that are driving from Uber and sexual conduct, or what we call appropriate sexual conduct in this country. See it all the time. Difference between Uber and taxi, a taxi cab driver medallions a million dollars and requires all sorts of background checks. And Uber has created a false sense of trust with drivers through marketing campaigns and tons and millions of dollars in PR that have led the public to falsely assume these drivers are safe, vetted, background checked, and not criminals. Well, we have to understand, first of all, that how can Uber tell us that if our own U.S. customs and immigration can't tell us that? But it is scary. This discovery that's come out of court is scary stuff. Folks, it's very clear to me that Uber knew exactly what was going on and essentially did nothing. Their heavy reliance on independent contractor label labor and accepting asylum seekers that have received driver's licenses under the Biden border boondoggle. But in the recent litigation, court documents and investigative reporting revealed that the company logged in an excess of hundreds of thousands, folks, hundreds of thousands of sexual misconduct and sexual assault reports in the United States between 2017 and 2024. Far more than what was publicly disclosed, which was only like 3,000. These figures have been cited repeatedly now in shareholder proposals and congressional inquiries because they contrast sharply with limited public disclosures by Uber. So Uber has been sheltering us from understanding how severe this problem is and hiding it behind what they call what are serious issues, what I call selective reporting. It's not just in the statistics, folks. There is a total lack of accountability within Uber that needs to be addressed. And many of you are saying, well, those reports include minor complaints, not serious offenses. It's not for Uber to decide what's serious or minor. Even if a subset or less severe, the company's own internal logs documenting hundreds of thousands of reports, many of which involve serious allegations like rape. It underscores a major issue in safety oversight and procedure, period. And Uber just wants to say, well, we're not responsible. These are just uh independent contractors. We can't control the crimes that they commit. Are you joking? It's obvious to me that this platform, in all of its glory, has been modeled for rapid onboarding and growth without any of the protections required that we've seen in other transportation industries. And as much as I support drivers being classified as independent contractors to maintain the sovereignty of our gig economy, background checks are name-based. Most of the states, Uber doesn't require fingerprints. That's a huge thing. All taxicab drivers have to be fingerprinted. They have no follow-up screening. So, for example, if your Uber driver goes out and gets a DUI, Uber doesn't constantly recheck to see these background checks or to see if there's any additional crime from the time that they get onboarded. And then international people, we can't even vet international people because these records don't exist. And so it was designed for expansion with a total disregard for passenger safety. I had no idea. I will never take Uber again. And we, oh, what do they mean? Minimum background requirements. Well, meeting regulatory minimums mean nothing if there's 500,000 women that have been sexually abused while riding in your program that you've touted as being safe. It's not safe. Legal compliance sets a floor, okay? That doesn't mean you only do the bare minimum, and placing strangers alone together in private moving spaces while saying that you've done everything you can to ensure these people aren't criminals is not enough. And that's the thing, is what we knew and what we were told and what was happening does not align. It's shocking. If you're not shocked by this, I don't know what will shock you. Uber focused on his tiny little narrow subset of sexual assault categories, although they were receiving huge numbers of complaints. Now, not all complaints were associated with police reports, but again, even if we start to slowly but surely filter out some of these complaints, none of them have been reflected in public summaries. We had no idea that Uber was a bunch of rape mobiles. That's what this is. It is a fleet of foreign rapists. Period. They said, well, the public numbers improved over time. Again, false sense of trust, false sense of confidence. They change the categories, they change the nomenclature, and they don't even address misconduct reports hiding behind opaque frameworks. You know, it's all about strategy, not safety. And the driver comes first, so they can earn money, and the passenger comes last. Clearly, should be the other way around. And the here's the real problem is that when Uber in this discovery details its own rules, you come to find out that if I take Uber, my driver pulls off to the side of the road and reaches behind me and starts touching me, that does not require automatic suspension. I go file a complaint, even with a police report. Uber's policy relies on a human review before action. And that can take days. And obviously, the machine is deciding what's serious and what's not. So things are following through the cracks. That means a driver can remain active on the platform while he's raping and assaulting women. Period. Waiting for a human review. Why not suspend first? Pause pending investigation. And you know, for own personal gain. Okay, that is a risk. But back to common sense, wouldn't it be safer to just have a zero-tolerance policy? It's a huge window of risk that they've exposed us to that we had no idea about. Because sexual misconduct is not a mechanical defect, it's a repeatable behavior. These people don't stop. We know this. Psychology tells us that they're driving sexual satisfaction from this behavior, and it's like a drug. Review first and suspend second, knowing that there's a possibility of continued criminal activity, sexual misconduct? Uber, are you kidding me? A driver accused today can pick up another passenger tonight. A second complaint can occur before the first one even gets a human review. And the patterns are detected after harm and then swept under the rug in these weird categories. This is huge stuff, folks. And it's not hypothetical. That's how repeat offenders risk works in any system that prioritizes continuity over precaution. It's always better to be safe than sorry with interacting strangers in public. Why wouldn't they just suspend a driver automatically and then do a review? They do they think they're law enforcement? I mean, are we relying on Uber to be law enforcement and deciding what's serious crime and what's not? And with millions of trips per day, I mean, this is a huge math problem for them. When complaint numbers come in hundreds of thousands over the years, even a short review window multiplied across thousands of active drivers creates predictable exposure. I mean, again, any statistician could tell you that these numbers show this will continue to happen over and over and over again. And Uber's choice not to automatically suspend pending investigation is not neutral. It's pro-criminal. You can't do it, folks. You can't do it. Their policy creates risks for writers. Writers have no idea the risk they're taking. Convenience preserved for the platform, but not for us. Liability, again, managed through process and changing names and categories and stats, not prevention. And I can't tell you the amount of people I've Discuss this with that say automatic suspensions would be unfair to drivers. I don't care. Unfair safety is better than fair sexual crimes. Period. And temporary suspension pending investigation is not punishment, it's risk management. Airlines ground planes for quick inspections, hospitals sideline clinicians pending review, financial institutions freeze accounts on fraud. Why does Uber think they're any different? Because they're greedy and they could care less about women and safety, and they care more about onboarding as many drivers as they can, regardless of their criminal past. And again, if our government can't vet these people, how do we expect Uber to vet these people? Which is why no one seeking asylum in this country should be able to work forever as an independent contractor, period. Until they're completely vetted and go through their immigration process. That's why Remain in Mexico was so successful. And every major U.S. city surveys and labor research indicate a high share of immigrants among app-based ride hail drivers. So we know that most of these people driving these Ubers are immigrants, and a lot of them are illegal immigrants. A reflection of labor dynamics in urban economies, not an indictment, shows substantial immigrant participation in ride hailing work. But guess what? Uber doesn't publish data on drivers' country of origin, immigration status, or how these intersects with complaint patterns. Of course, the writing would be on the wall. They purposely ignored hiring potentially dangerous, illegal immigrants that were here waiting for asylum under Biden, which resulted in hundreds and thousands of sexual misconduct claims. I mean, they've completely destroyed public trust, and it's only little tiny local news outlets that are covering this. Come on. We have to talk about the makeup of their workforce, period. I mean, it has to be transparent. The government has to force them to release information, demographic information, on these criminals. It's a legitimate public interest, especially when safety reporting is not complete. I mean, they should, the DOJ should be up their ass so far right now about these little measly numbers in comparison to what really happened. And if they can't vet, because we can't vet, because a lot of these people come from third world countries that don't have the digitization, don't have the records, or their criminal histories have been erased on purpose because they've sent here to spread seeds of discontent in this country from places like Venezuela. So Uber can't thoroughly vet what the U.S. government hasn't first vetted. And domestic background checks have access to what they've done here, federal and state data, not what they've done in other countries. And foreign records are never complete. I mean, it's just it's insane. Vetting. It's ridiculous. The Biden administration wants us to believe that they vetted all these asylum seekers. It doesn't work. U.S. immigration work authorization processes do not require comprehensive, globally interlopable criminal record verification before granting lawful authorization to work here for asylum seekers. Private companies like Uber are therefore limited to what data is available to them domestically, of course. And they don't care either way, they just want the drivers. And for everyone who's going to say, oh, I'm just being racist or anti-illegal. No, show me the numbers. That's all I want to see. Because our vetting system here, folks, you have to understand it's focused on eligibility and security screening, but not criminal history. And a rideshare platform can't conduct comprehensive worldwide background checks when they don't even do fingerprints most of the time. So what's the solution? One, fingerprints have to be required. Two, no more work authorization if you're sitting here waiting for a court date seeking asylum, period. Especially in areas of transportation. And this is the problem. And this is why I get so frustrated because I stand up here every day and I fight for the sovereignty of private enterprise and American companies to be able to make these decisions. And then look what they do. They lie, they cheat, they distort the numbers, all for the purposes of capital at the expense of the safety of women writers. I mean, I have friends in LA whose kids have Uber accounts and they get picked up and taken to and from school. That is insane. Do you think if they knew these real numbers, that would be happening? No. Government compliance standards, doing the bare minimum, is not a safety shield. And we should not, as passengers, be expected to absorb the gap as risk, period. And I always say these private companies have the ultimate responsibility. And they do have the ultimate responsibility. With sovereignty, with freedom comes immense responsibility and immense responsibility to your customer. If your system is producing blind spots, the regulatory and safety framework needs fixing, starting with data sharing between governments and platforms. I mean, give me a break. So I didn't realize that this big focus on independent contractors of drivers wasn't just about money. It was actually about keeping people out of jail and keeping people from being suspended after they've committed sexual misconduct or sexual deviance. And guess what? From 20 to 24, when Biden was in office, the platform scaled faster than it ever had before, and their safety architecture remained unchanged. They had more foreign drivers and they made no adjustments to their safety vetting pol safety, security, and vetting policies while complaints continue to accumulate and grow. So all we know at this point is rapid scaling of vetting drivers outpaced safety improvements and measures, period. I hope this case takes them out of business. I cannot believe the level of irresponsibility, criminal negligence here to allow kids, women, men, children, handicapped people, pets in cars that could be pending human review investigation of sexual criminals. 555,000 complaints, folks, not three five 3,500, like their public data says. And for years I have been so scared. I've been here, you know, in Scottsdale here, we have Waymo, the driverless taxis. And they scare the crap out of me. I don't want to be in a car that's driverless, but now, guess what? This is the only thing that's gonna keep people safe until we deport these asylum seekers that are perpetuating sexual crimes as Uber drivers. Period. There's no opportunity for assault when there's no driver on board, there's no coercion, there's no grooming. So bring it on. I'll take the risk of mechanical failure of a computer over the risk of now it's it's being said that one in every 18 Uber trips, there's some complaint about sexual deviance or sexual misconduct happening in this country. So as scary as it is to seem to be in a car being driven by AI, it's even scarier to be driven by a foreigner who thinks pulling over and having sex with the rider in the back seat is their entitlement. But if you look at the numbers, there's a much higher chance of you falling victim to sexual misconduct or a sexual crime in an Uber than there is of you getting in a car accident in a driverless Waymo. I think driverless ride sharing is the only answer, as our transportation industries have become largely infected with criminal immigrants that are here seeking asylum that were before Biden came into office forced to remain in Mexico while they waited for their case. And the bottom line is that we can no longer trust Uber's data. And Congress must get involved and regulate because they have lost the opportunity to self-regulate. They have lost their private sovereignty. And they created a false sense of trust by telling people that they had all these measures in place when they didn't. So next time you take Uber, be careful. And I highly suggest that you discourage any single woman riding in an Uber, especially in major blue sanctuary cities where there are huge, disproportionate numbers of criminal asylum seekers driving for these ride sharing platforms. Folks, this is a huge story. It'll continue to grow, and we're gonna keep an eye on it. I'm gonna take a quick break when we come back. I'm gonna talk about Prime Minister Carney and what he calls the new world order as Canada begs China to help them escape the evils of Donald Trump. We'll be right back after these words. Welcome back, America. I want to break down Mark Carney's recent China deal and talk about the negative implications this is going to have on the Canadian auto industry, foreign car manufacturers in Canada like Nissan and Subaru, and also our auto supply chains that are heavily reliant on Canadian vendors, not to mention the geopolitical concerns I have with basically China taking over the country above us. Because what Mark Carney's doing is simply sacrificing national interests of Canada to avoid confrontation with Trump. And that's a pretty typical Canadian way of doing things. They're very non-confrontational, anti-conflict people. But last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney traveled to Beijing and announced a new strategic partnership with China. And basically the way he did that is he reduced tariffs between the two countries. So basically, they cut Canada's 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles to about 6.1%, capping the total vehicles at 50,000 with an increase to 70,000 over five years. Okay, that seems like very few cars. That's a ton of cars in Canada. Remember, that's the population of it less than California, the whole country. And in exchange, China agreed to lower their tariffs on Canadian agricultural exports, which is basically corn, canola oil. So now Canada can sell their corn to China, and China can sell their cars into Canada. According to Carney, he says this is a strategic partnership aimed at diversifying Canada's trade relationships and recalibrating economic policy in light of changing global dynamics. In other words, F you Trump, I'm going to go to China. But what he's really saying is F you all Canadian residents. But he had to be very careful to make sure that this wasn't a full trade agreement. This was still going to work under the Canadian-United States-Mexico agreement, the replacement of NAFTA, Clinton's boondoggle. He wants to call this a mutually beneficial agreement, but it's not mutually beneficial. It benefits the Chinese and the Chinese only. I mean, the first thing that it does is it totally risks the destruction of the Canadian automotive sector. Because Canada's been able to grow a strong automotive sector using the United States free trade. So by cutting tariffs and allowing tens of thousands of Chinese EVs into Canada at a reduced flow rate, the deal effectively reduces protection for Canadian EV producers and suppliers. Because Canada's auto sector has relied on tariff and regulatory barriers that kept lower-priced imports at bay and supported domestic production. So even though it only limits it to 50,000 vehicles, it represents a huge shift because the auto market there has been propped up by not allowing these cheaper cars. And remember, folks, all of these Chinese EVs are built on stolen intellectual property from Tesla, BYD, XPang, NEO. And because they're state sponsored, they can make the same technology for way cheaper. So they're going to siphon demand away from Canadian-based production lines, Canadian suppliers integrated into North American supply chains. Because if you think about it, a lot of the GM cars import their seats, buttons, levers from Canadian manufacturing plants just right across the border from Michigan. Foreign automakers that operate plants in Canada like Honda, Toyota, Nissan, again, is deeply integrated with the U.S. market. So when they bring in Canadian cars and we have to retaliatory tariff for that in order to keep those cars from trickling down into us, it's going to completely stop those Canadian vehicles from freely being accepted in the U.S. from companies like Subaru and Toyota. Canadian-based suppliers that produce our parts, like I mentioned, could see a downward pressure on orders if finally assembly shifts towards Chinese vehicle imports. So take this for instance. So when final assembly imports rise, demand for the parts can diminish, right? So if cars that are already made are taking up spots for cars that need to be put together using that supply chain, it will lower the demand on those factories and completely sclerose local supplier competitiveness, period. Because China, given to by Biden, has scale and cost advantages when it comes to EVs and new green technology. Now, what about foreign operating, uh, what about foreign automakers operating in Canada, like Nissan and Subaru, which produce vehicles and Canadian facilities to supply to all of North America. They largely can do what they do because of low tariffs and the free trade between the United States and Canada. That will go away with this Chinese deal. And Subaru and Nissan will be sitting on factories that make cars for the U.S. population that won't be able to produce those numbers anymore, and all those people will lose their jobs. We know what human nature is. If they can get the same for less, they will. Look at the chunk that Genesis, a Hyundai's luxury brand, has already taken from Mercedes market share. And Genesis doesn't rely on slave labor and human rights violations and all the disgusting tactics that the Chinese use. South Korea is very much a clean, constructive, private enterprise marketplace that produces beautiful vehicles. But Genesis can offer essentially what Mercedes can for 20 to 25% less, and a ton of people have adopted Genesis over Mercedes. You don't think that's going to happen with Tesla and BYD in Canada? So take the supply chain barriers, take the manufacturing barriers out of it. Just the elimination of competition it will have for American cars to be sold in Canada that already struggle will be completely eliminated and replaced. And guess what? When sales drop in other countries, cuts don't happen in other countries. They happen here. And so when our sales drop there, because they're replaced by these BYD knockoff Teslas and Tesla sales drop there, guess what? Manufacturing slows here, jobs get cut here, wages go down here. So we must understand the implications. So that's you sitting around saying, oh, who cares what Carney does? Well, we do. Because this is an area where we share a border. In Europe, it doesn't matter. And the biggest thing is that what can't what China is hoping to do, which they've largely already done, and exactly what Donald Trump said is that they're trying to establish Canada as a drop-off port for their cheap knockoff crap to get siphoned down here. And I believe what he said was China will eat Canada alive, which they will, because guys, they've already eaten us alive. The Bush Clinton, Bush Obama sellout to China decimated us. Even without a direct tariff threat, market adjustments could shift final assembly of certain EV platforms toward China, reducing U.S. automaker competitiveness there. We just said that. I just talked about it. That's exactly what he said. You know, something Trump's done is he's exposed these world leaders as being totally unable to negotiate without running away to the path of least resistance. Just like our congresspeople can't negotiate without quid pro quo. Basically, what Carney did was he reduced tariffs to Chinese benefit before he accepted any of their terms. And while the cap on EVs is just political posturing, they will completely ignore that cap. When has China ever respected trade deals? Can someone tell me? Hello? Anyone? Anyone there? Never. It's going to entangle Canada in dependencies without corresponding guarantees and key access to critical minerals and EV-related IP transfers. Again, Canada is facing the same challenges with China as we are, yet, Carney wants to give them a free pass on all that stuff and sell them their corn for really cheap. And in return, China gets to flood the market with their EVs and all sorts of other stuff that's going to detrimentally impact the U.S. The Chinese don't care about the Canadian market. There's not enough people or industry there to make a difference to China. The Chinese care about influencing and destroying the U.S. And instead of negotiating specific protections or quotas for domestic Canadian auto investments, the deal primarily provides tariff reductions to Chinese exporters and tariff relief for China, period. China's like, oh, well, reduce your corn and you can have our IEVs. Wow. Carney should get the dumbest negotiator award of the year. Again, you can go to foreign adversaries, you can go to other countries, but not if it's not for your own country's interests. And this is just commentary, gossip, and political posturing, so he can look like he's pushing back against our economic pressure. And then he goes to Davos and he calls for a new global order of middle powers instead of superpowers. No, guess what the middle powers are going to be? They're just going to be client states of China, period. I mean, the bottom line is you all you have to do is look at the deal to see it doesn't strengthen Canada's position relative to the US, relative to Europe, relative to China, relative to Russia. These were concessions, not gains at all. But this is what Canadians do they don't fight, and then they want to wonder why their country is filled with Chinese police stations. Single Chinese immigrant men all over the place, unaccounted for. And they're isolating themselves economically from their most important trading partner. And Canadians rely on us way more than we rely on them. So this has nothing to do with Canadian national interests. It's very scary. And if this deal goes through, not only should we implement 100% tariffs, but we need to close that border. Because the other conversation that's largely not being spoken about is that there are tons of reports and allegations of informal Chinese police or security outposts operating in China, particularly in cities like uh Vancouver in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Toronto, where there is huge amounts of Chinese immigrants. And these entities are literally operating and installing their social credit system, etc. I'm telling you, it's almost like China already knows that they're gonna take over Canada. I mean, it's like China looks at Canada like Taiwan almost. I mean, it is crazy the amount of surveillance and underground military that's already in China. Now you bring in trade and you cozy up to the CCP. It's only a matter of time. And the Canadians don't view it as government interference. They just allow the Chinese to operate uh independently within the country. That largely stems from the secular migration they've embraced as well, which is another concern. You know, sovereignty, foreign influence, law enforcement cooperation with authoritarian states. This is gonna open a can of worms that I don't think Mark Carney has the experience, strength, or resolve to address. I mean, the potential for extra legal intelligence activities on Canadian soil is already huge. This is gonna make it even worse. And the deeper economic engagement with China, like the Kearney deal, is gonna magnify all these non-economic risks, especially if China gains more leverage over Canadian markets, because economic leverage turns into political capital, political capital turns into intelligence, intelligence turns into control over the populace. It's that simple. And all we know is that if it goes through these barriers or just to not scare people, 50,000 cars doesn't sound that bad, Chad. When again has China ever respected trade barriers, trade deals, trade limitations, and when has Canada ever been able to enforce its own policies effectively and fight for its own national interests? It never has. They are a default free country based on their location to us. But if this deal goes through, not for much longer. Folks, that's all the time I have left for today. Be sure to tune in tomorrow and for Wacky Wednesday this week. And allow me to leave you with something Reagan once said. You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us, we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done. Again, that's all that we're asking. Is our government doing the best they can do? Are we doing everything that can be done to protect American interests, Americans, and furthermore, protect our investment in this country? As people, as funders, as taxpayers, that's all we want. Is for them, the government, to do their best as we do to ensure the future of this country for generations to come. And with that, God bless you, President Reagan, and as always, may God bless and save America.