February 16, 2025 • 57 mins
What if the liberal playbook is stuck in the past, oblivious to lessons from electoral losses? Join me, Chad Law, from the sunny shores of Newport Beach as we dissect the current political climate, drawing unexpected parallels between my competitive spirit in golf and the world of politics. With a focus on Trump's approval ratings, we illuminate the stark contrast between the robust support for his domestic policies and the lukewarm reception of his international stance. As we scrutinize government inefficiencies, taxpayer-funded programs like USAID find themselves in the spotlight, begging for transparency and accountability through rigorous external audits.
The judiciary is under the magnifying glass in this episode, fraught with controversy over perceived overreach and a departure from constitutional adherence. Discover the historical influences and landmark cases that add fuel to the debate about the judiciary's role in American politics. Listen as I express my frustration over the lack of bipartisan action against government waste and explore the politicization of judges who appear to be making decisions based on ideology rather than law. The episode ventures into the realm of constitutional crises and the pressing need for reforms, urging a return to first principles and accountability.
Finally, we dive into the heart of ideological divides, exploring potential constitutional amendments that could radically shape the future. From abortion rights and gun control to the portrayal of women in media, we dissect how these contentious topics reflect deeper societal rifts. Drawing from the American Family Survey, we question why young conservative women seem more satisfied with life compared to their liberal counterparts. As we confront issues like toxic masculinity and traditional male roles, we reflect on President Reagan’s wisdom, seeking to understand what truly holds value in our ever-evolving society.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's time.
From Newport Beach, california,the sun is shining, the beaches
are packed and the waves arerolling in, all while the last
gay conservative prepares toshare more truth with America.
He's America's binary brother,the holiest homo and the gayest
conservative of all time workingto restore common sense
(00:20):
conservative politics in theAmerican household.
Welcome to the Last GayConservative Podcast.
Here's your host, chad Law.
As your president, I will doeverything in my power to
(01:04):
protect our LGBTQ citizens fromthe violence and oppression of a
hateful foreign ideology.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Believe me, hello America, it's another big day in
politics and Trump landLiberals are melting down left
and right.
You know, it's interestingbecause I've played some sports.
I'm super competitive but I'mnot athletic.
So I play golf, as you know,and we get super competitive.
I play in contests andtournaments, I'm on a couple of
leagues, et cetera.
(01:38):
But the funny thing is is thatwhen I play with with good
people and I'm fairly matchedand I lose, I immediately find
out or try my best.
Sometimes you just have a badday, but I immediately look in
or look retrospectively at whatI did.
Was it just a calamity oferrors?
Was my swing off?
Is my shoulder sore, you know?
Figuring out what it was thatmade me lose and making
(02:01):
adjustments for the next game.
So I stupidly thought, maybe,just maybe, these liberals could
learn something from theirmassive loss across the board.
And so I knew the chaos wouldbe there.
But I didn't know that theywould just go back to the same
old playbook Impeachment, nazi,racist, authoritarian.
(02:24):
I mean, come on, guys, don'tyou have anything new?
You have any marketers in yourwar room?
What happened?
All those fun, little cool,little quirky names that the
biden camp came up with.
So these liberals arehysterical and I've never seen
anything like I mean.
I thought the first trumpadministration was bad.
I think they're worse.
They're emboldened and theykeep going and the polls are all
(02:45):
showing that on most of theissues, trump's overall approval
rating is above 50.
And most of his major executiveissues that he signed they have
full support of.
You know which ones they don'tsupport, which is weird.
And again, these are polls,guys.
So you take it with a grain ofsalt.
Uh, the Panama canal talk,greenland, canada being the
first state, and the Gulf ofMexico, anything like that.
(03:08):
All the international stuff isgetting low approval ratings on
the polling.
But the trans issue, the girlsin sports, all the cutting doge
everything else is like 70 to 80percent approval.
I mean that's massive, that'sbipartisan.
I mean there's Democrats outthere that are going, yeah, and
(03:29):
that's what I don't understandtheir hatred of Elon Musk and
Doge.
And that's why this reaction isreally telling me something.
This is really bad guys, likewhat they've created in
Washington through the last 50,100 years.
This is really bad.
I mean the court institutionthat they've created and the way
(03:49):
that they've learned to enrichthemselves and enrich their
comrades with our tax dollars.
They can hide and sneak andcreate agencies and do things.
I recently saw I think Politicoput up a post of Rubio saying
how much he values USAID backwhen he was a senator, and
Lindsey Graham as well.
(04:10):
Well, a lot of people valuedUSAID.
I mean, it started in the 60sand just like everything else,
it started very well.
It started good, it startedwith positive intentions.
It just didn't become that withpositive intentions.
It just didn't become that.
So when Graham and Rubio andpeople are out in the past
talking about the benefits ofUSAID, they're speaking off of
(04:32):
whatever marketing speak orwhatever the chairman of that
agency has jammed down theirthroats or an internal memo.
They don't really know what'sgoing on.
They read these manufacturedreports that look good on paper
and they're good talking points.
I mean it's so funny.
It's like my friend used thisexample and I don't agree with
(04:54):
it, but I think it's a funnyexample.
So I have a gay friend who'svery much in the middle and I
was talking to him about thatstupid Politico clip, because
he's the one that sent it to me,and I said kind of what I just
said to you and he goes.
You know what?
That does make sense he goes.
I used to really likeChick-fil-A, but then when I
found out how homophobic andChristian they were, I hated
Chick-fil-A and I said exactly,usaid.
(05:15):
There was no reason not to likethem or support them, because
no one knew what the hell wasgoing on.
That's why this stuff was sucha surprise.
Well, some people knew, andthose are the ones that are
giving you the big reaction.
So I think we're uncovering liketrillions of dollars worth of
fraud here, and I think we'veonly sort of touched the newly
(05:35):
fresh powder on the tip of theiceberg of the kind of fraud and
theft and abuse andmismanagement that we're going
to find by auditing.
If you think about it, this isthe first time an outsider,
third party agency has come inand audited every single agency.
See, the agencies are primarilyworking in silos, other than
(05:59):
the leaders that are appointedby the Senate or the president,
and the president they work insilos.
So if the EPA wants an audit,they go get their own auditors
different from defense,different, and that's why they
can always kind of fudge thenumbers and the results.
And then all these inspectorgenerals they're just as guilty
because what they've been doingis reporting on a lot of the
(06:20):
waste but not really offeringany sort of solutions, and
that's what Doge has been doingis they're auditing and making
recommendations to the presidentat the same time on the entire
executive branch of thegovernment, or the entire
federal government, if you will.
So because of that, we're goingto start to see the way that
these different bureaucracieshave learned to sink their teeth
(06:43):
in and hide money and do allthe weird things that you saw at
USAID.
I think USAID is just a tinylittle example of what we're
going to pull out of humanhealth and defense, some of
these other places.
We're going to start to see allkinds of weird financial
transactions and legaltransactions happening around
(07:05):
Washington DC, where all theplayers, the recipients of some
of these bogus contracts, are infederal employees that have
worked magic in order to getcertain people paid, et cetera.
We're going to see all of thissort of house of cards come
crashing down and it's obviouslyfreaking them out.
Yeah, wikileaks, believe it ornot, actually tore the story
(07:28):
apart with basic Google trendsdata.
Uh, over time, searches haveexploded for Swiss bank account.
How discreet is a Swiss bankaccount?
How to open offshore banks at3am.
Fastest way to wire moneybefore an audit?
Do you need a passport for theCayman Islands?
All these searches in the DCarea are 400 percent above their
(07:52):
normal trend levels.
The search for the word lawyerhas increased 400 percent,
according to Google Trends andWikiLeaks.
So it just comes to show youthat there's a lot of people in
DC right now that are trying tofigure out a way to hide their
money, hide their assets, notget fired, avoid taxes.
And it's because they know thejig is up, because the deeper we
(08:14):
dig, the more apparent it'sgoing to get.
And I, like I said, I thinkwe're just barely touching the
dusting of snow on the tip ofthe iceberg.
I actually predict that wecould probably find 20 to 25
percent of our entire deficit inwaste, and I think what drives
(08:35):
me most crazy is that allthey're doing is throwing the
same playbook that they usedagainst Trump the first term
anti-Trump just block everything, block everything, block
everything.
And they're just doing it toElon.
And it's just ridiculous because, first of all, elon doesn't
need to steal money from thegovernment.
That's your first mistakehiring all these people who are
(08:56):
desperate for money and havefull access to all this taxpayer
dollars in the treasury, but,aside from that, nothing is
being done without Trump's stampof approval and nothing is
being cut off that is imperativeto the health, safety or
wellness of people here in thiscountry and outside of this
(09:18):
country.
So I just wanted to give youguys a little doge rant and let
you know that what they're doingis they're really getting.
This is exactly what's supposedto be happening.
This is the reaction that wewant and this is how it should
be, and I'm not going to do thewhole show on doge, but I'll
tell you what.
These guys are smart, they'renon-biased and they really just
(09:41):
want to save American peoplemoney.
That's it, the problem that Ihave.
I always have a problem.
One thing that we need to kindof take a step back at is for an
agency of any kind to come inand find and again, these
numbers aren't the actualnumbers, I'm just using it as an
example but before I get myfact checkers texting me while
(10:02):
I'm on the air oh, you did, ok,sorry, alyssa's telling me that
the fact checkers are blockedwhen I'm on the air, so I don't
get the messages.
Okay, that's good.
Well, thank you.
No, what I was saying was isthat if any agency comes along
and finds $50 million in thefaltering, horrible social
(10:22):
security administration orSocial Security program that we
have and they say, wait a minute, there's 50 million or 50
billion or whatever you want tocall it even $1 going out to
someone without a SocialSecurity number or someone who
hasn't paid in to SocialSecurity, that's all you're
doing is getting your money back, which, if they invested it
properly, they could have grownthe balloon so big we'd never
(10:42):
have to worry about it.
But that's a different story.
Every single person in Americashould be outraged about that,
and I don't know if it's becausethese people who are these
liberals don't pay taxes or theydon't work really hard, or they
just really don't care aboutmoney.
I don't know what the reason is, but anyone who's ever given a
(11:04):
dollar of their own money thatthey worked for to the
government in order to receivethe protections and policies and
programs that we want.
And then you hear about wastegoing to these shadow accounts
forget feeding people, forgetany humanitarian aid.
This is literally just socialsecurity dollars going to people
.
Chuck Schumer, everyone shouldbe on their feet clapping oh my
(11:27):
gosh, thank you so much, becausethat is money that should be
left in the program and willhelp it from going bankrupt.
But they're screaming about it.
They're saying that we'retrying to shut off Social
Security, steal data andinformation.
No, we're not.
Why are you so upset thatthey're finding waste?
Why Could it be that a lot ofthis waste is lining your
(11:47):
pockets or your constituentspockets?
I honestly don't exactly knowhow to tie a lot of these
dollars, like the socialsecurity thing.
How do we tie that back to apolitician?
I'm sure there's a way, but inthe meantime we should be
celebrating any money we cansave the people who are enrolled
and who have paid into thesocial security program.
We should also feel the sameway about medicaid.
(12:08):
You know if there's a bunch ofmedicaid waste.
Also, when they find all thesecontractors that are still
getting paid but they're notdoing any work anymore.
Their contracts have expired.
But because of oversight orwhatever, someone oh no, you
can't stop.
Oh, my god, and it's just onoverdrive, freak out.
And all I can sit here and sayto myself is who in God's name
(12:29):
wouldn't be happy about this?
Who in God's name would fightsaving people money and whether
or not they're stealing orenriching themselves or whatever
it is, at least it says onething that we already know, but
it confirms it for us, democratsdon't care about your tax
dollars.
They feel they own that money.
(12:51):
They also feel that they aresmarter than you to make
decisions about where that moneygoes in order to keep you and
your family safe, supported andcomfortable, and all the other
things that come along with iteducation, roads, et cetera.
Isn't that weird?
Just found the whole thing alittle strange.
Only in today's Democrat party,with these left elitist
(13:13):
liberals, could you makeidentifying and removing
government waste tax dollarwaste a partisan issue.
Only them.
I'm going to take a quick break.
I'll be back after these words.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Why do couples choose a Sleep Number Climate 360
smart bed.
Can it keep me warm when I'mcold?
Wait, no, I'm always hot.
Sleep Number does that?
The Climate 360 smart bed letsyou adjust up to 30 degrees
cooler to warmer.
Speaker 5 (13:37):
Can I make my side softer?
Speaker 3 (13:39):
Can I make my side firmer?
Sleep Number does that.
We know 80% of couples sleeptoo hot or too cold.
Our smart bed cools and warmseither side so you both sleep
comfortably sleep bettertogether on the climate 360
smart bed.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
Shop now at sleepnumbercom I know, I know
all right, and we're back justbeing scolded by my awesome team
about how I said I didn't wantto talk about Doge today because
everyone else was, and then Ispent 10 minutes on it this
morning.
So I apologize to that point.
It is a little bit of a doubleedged sword because I purposely
try to not do the same contentand everyone else's.
(14:16):
I used to get so frustratedwhen I was younger and I'd
listen to KFI 640 am in LA andit would.
You know, glenn Beck wouldusually start, and then Rush,
and then Mark Levin and theseguys, john and Ken that I loved,
but nonetheless the days wherethey just all talked about the
same stuff were terrible for me.
(14:36):
Yeah, they all had their sortof unique opinion, but it just
got repetitive and boring and Inever want to do that to you
guys.
I want to give you guysoriginal content.
However, if there's somethingyou want me to talk about and
you want my opinion on amainstream issue or something
that's being covered elsewhere,just text 866 last gay, just
send us a text.
(14:56):
Well, I can tell you one thingI am really pissed off at our
judiciary system and I mentionedit a bit last episode and I've
talked about this for yearsthese men in black.
It's.
Mark Levin's first book wascalled Men in Black and it was
about the Supreme Court, but nowit applies to the entire
judiciary.
These judges think they're God.
(15:17):
It is really scary and theybelieve they have more power.
And these are like regionalfederal judges that live in like
Seattle or the Supreme Court.
These aren't Supreme Courtjustices, ok, these are rinky
dink judges all over the country, hundreds of them that want to
use their bench to legislateinstead of actually analyzing,
(15:40):
bipartisanly analyzing cases andruling based on the
Constitution's originality.
In other words, if there's agun control lawsuit, if Congress
comes out with a new law, whichCongress writes the laws, and
it gets challenged in court,it's not up to the judge to
write a decision that includesher opinion about firearms,
(16:03):
which happens.
It's up to the judge to say theSecond Amendment clearly states
X, y, z.
If limits need to be added tothe Second Amendment, that is up
to Congress.
And the same thing comes to theexecutive branch.
Now we know Donald Trump isoverreaching.
This is how he used executiveorders last time Get them early,
(16:24):
get them out, let them block itand scale it up to the Supreme
Court, or at least they have togo against the court of public
opinion, which everyone knows.
All this stuff is good.
Only an idiot, like I said,only an idiot can get mad about
catching and stopping wastedmoney.
Catching and stopping wastedmoney, I mean, I just don't
(16:48):
understand this.
I mean, if someone finds money,it's so crazy.
No, these judges, no, leave it.
You can't touch the funds thathave been going to non-people in
Social Security, people with noSocial Security number, never
paid into the system, gettingmaximum Social Security benefits
for years.
However, these judges think thatthey're entitled to legislate
(17:10):
from the bench.
And this is our constitutionalcrisis, folks.
This is our constitutionalcrisis because now we have a
political and it's on both sides, but we have a political
judiciary that was neversupposed to be political.
How do we know that?
How do we know that thefounders never intended the
(17:30):
judiciary to include politics?
Because it's the only branch ofgovernment that isn't elected
or accountable to the Americanpeople, because, at that time,
judges were scholars,philosophers, legal experts,
constitutional experts.
There was a time when judgescould put their robe on and take
(17:51):
their personal shit out andactually judge based on the
Constitution.
The founders could have neverpredicted or assumed the
judiciary would get infestedwith wannabe congressmen that
have on black robes.
It's just like this guy inSeattle that just blocked
Trump's executive order about nochild trans surgeries.
(18:13):
You can't do that.
That's not up to you.
You can push it back toCongress, maybe, but you don't
get to listen to a case for 45minutes or an hour and then just
send out these rulings andexpect it to be law.
It's insane.
And so now we were all excited.
You know, we were the guys withthe hot chick Trump and his
(18:34):
stuff was our hot chick andunfortunately we started making
out in January and then theywent home for their early
meeting and left us high and drybecause the judges did that.
Essentially, if you'reunderstanding my metaphor for
blue balls, that's what'shappening.
We can't move forward if thesejudges think that they can
decide whether something islegal or not, and then that is
(18:57):
that they're the God law signedoff.
I don't know if you guys knowmuch of you know I always talk
about Reagan and um.
It's interesting because Ibelieve this accelerated
politicizing of the judicialsystem was based on Reagan's
(19:17):
executive orders and what he wasable to do through Congress,
through the American people, asa president in his first term.
Democrats vowed to never letthat happen again.
The judges that legislate fromthe bench are the same judges
that voted for slavery to keepslavery.
That protected the KKK.
Jim Crow, reagan's attorneygeneral, really led the fight of
(19:41):
originalism with theConstitution within the
judiciary, ed Meese, and hetalks about cases, major Supreme
Court cases where they did notanchor their decision in
constitutional law.
And always it comes back up,just like Roe v Wade, just like
Brown versus education.
So I want to read you thispassage from him when he was
(20:05):
giving a speech.
I think it was 1986.
When the Supreme Court andBrown versus Board of Education
sounded the death knell forofficial segregation in the
country.
It earned all the plaudits itreceived.
But the Supreme Court in thatcase was not giving new life to
old words or adapting living orflexible constitution to new
(20:26):
reality.
It was restoring the originalprinciple of the constitution to
constitutional law.
The Brown Court was correctingthe damage done 50 years earlier
when Plessy v Ferguson, anearlier Supreme Court, had
disregarded the clear intent ofthe framers of the Civil War
amendments to eliminate thelegal degradation of blacks and
(20:50):
had contrived a theory of theConstitution to support the
charade of separate but equaldiscrimination.
Similarly, the decisions of theNew Deal and beyond that freed
Congress to regulate commerceand enact a plethora of social
legislation were not judicialadaptations of the Constitution
to new realities.
(21:11):
They were, in fact, removals ofincrustations of earlier courts
that had strayed from theoriginal intent of the framers
regarding the power of thelegislator to make the policy.
It is amazing how so much ofwhat passes for social and
political progress is really theundoing of old judicial
mistakes.
(21:31):
Mistakes occur when theprinciples of specific
constitutional provisions, suchas those contained in the Bill
of Rights, are taken by some asinvitations to read into the
Constitution values thatcontradict the clear language of
other provisions.
In other words, the provisionsof the Constitution do not
(21:54):
outweigh the values of theConstitution, which are
democracy, freedom, rights andlimited government.
All right, on that note, I gotto take a quick break.
I'll be back after you knowwhat.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
You've got too much on your plate to worry about
what to put on it next.
That's where we come in.
We're Factor, your one-stopshop for fresh, fully prepared
meals packed with premiumingredients and ready to heat
and eat in two minutes flat.
Did we mention, delivered rightto your door?
Yeah, we got that covered too.
Looks like eating well just gota whole lot easier.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
All right and I'm back.
I went to church yesterday.
It was a beautiful service.
I go to the Mariner's Church inNewport Beach.
I was actually sort of aseparate part of the church and
for whatever reason I never do,but I decided to kind of hang
out.
Know me, I usually hateeveryone so I don't stick around
(23:07):
.
But I did for some reasonyesterday morning and I got to
chatting with some people andpolitics came up, et cetera.
And you know I use a termthat's called religious or
spiritual materialism and it'swhen someone, I believe, is
using their religion or theirspiritual knowledge to acquire
things or services from someoneor whatever.
(23:29):
They're using it to benefitthemselves in a non-spiritual
way.
Those people and I'm sayingbecause there was a group of
these people and they were beingvery, very judgmental, and of
course I can't keep my mouthshut so we get into this debate
and what do they start doing?
But just cherry picking piecesout of the Bible that are
(23:51):
contradicted by other pieces, orare puzzle pieces that have to
be put in the context of theentire story in order to
understand.
And I said to them this is theproblem that people have with
many of us Christians,especially Christians that
consider themselvesfundamentalists.
The problem that many peoplehave is that they pick and
(24:12):
choose parts of the Bible andthe religion that appeal to them
, like Westboro Baptist, thechurch that's got all the signs
that says God hates fags, andall the horrible church that's
got all the signs that says Godhates fags, and all the horrible
, horrible, horrible things.
But that's exactly what theDemocratic Party is doing right
now.
I mean, if you think about it,since George W Bush even, but
(24:39):
again going back, obama reallycreated this, but since Obama,
which is where we saw the birthreally in the pushing of the
1619 project on top of MichelleObama and all of their minions
for years claiming that ourconstitution was too white, only
written for men, needsmodernization.
It creates a wealth disparity.
(24:59):
I mean every single criticalpoint.
For years my liberal friendshave told me that the
Constitution needs to be gutted.
They have been anti-originaloriginalists is what we call it
but they've beenanti-Constitution since I can
remember the Democratic Partyhates the Constitution.
So when I look at the news andI see these guys waving the
(25:22):
Constitution around, I'm likewhat are you even doing?
You're an idiot.
And they're just picking andchoosing pieces that they think
helps their case, but it doesn't.
And I think what really iscrazy is all they're doing is
shooting the messenger, elon andthe other leaders that are
finding this fraud.
Elon didn't do the fraud or thecorruption, neither did Donald
(25:45):
Trump.
Congress created it.
They created a system socomplex and so empowered to
legislate because they're toolazy and stupid.
So they've empowered all thesebureaucracies, but guess what?
The bureaucracies roll up tothe executive branch.
Ok, so I just want to clearthis up because I think this is
(26:07):
very important and the judgeshave said things so strangely.
But the Constitution is veryclear.
The power of the purse is withinCongress, more specifically,
within the House ofRepresentatives.
They have what we call thecongressional appropriations
power.
They appropriate where themoney goes on from approved
budgets.
However, the line items aregenerally pulled from big pots
(26:34):
of what they call discretionaryspending, and then that
bureaucracy agency, whatever youwant to call it can, at their
discretion, spend those fundsthe way they want to.
But once the discretionaryfunds get to that bureaucracy,
those funds are then managed bythe executive branch.
So for a judge to say, oh, youcan't access that, you can't
(26:55):
access information that's notconstitutional, how You've
already given the money to thebranch.
And hey, we didn't create thisbureaucratic nightmare.
This is Democrats all the waysince the beginning of time.
And hey, we didn't create thisbureaucratic nightmare.
This is Democrats all the waysince the beginning of time.
I mean since FDR, before FDR.
Democrats created thisbureaucratic mess and they've
done it so they can protectwhatever it is they're
(27:17):
protecting either indirect ordirect benefits.
And, like I said earlier in theprogram, any fraud or waste
should be celebrated, and MarkLevin said it this week at some
point.
He said look, there's two typesof spending the one that I just
said, which is discretionaryfunds that have been
appropriated by Congress, andthen there's waste and fraud and
(27:38):
corrupt spending.
So even if we remove the USAIDargument or we remove any sort
of political argument aroundspending, there's still probably
a trillion dollars infraudulent payments that we need
to address.
Every single person should behappy about that in the world.
(27:58):
So if they're not, then what'sgoing on?
You know, it reminds me of thecheating boyfriend.
Let me see your phone?
No, why, why, if you havenothing to hide?
Let me see your passcode no.
And it blows up into a hugeargument and of course, the
cheating boyfriend always saysoh my God, you don't trust me.
It's always like that and theydig deeper and deeper into the
lie Psychology 101.
(28:19):
And so that's what theDemocrats are doing.
I mean, there's obviouslysomething going on, because I've
never seen any reactions likethis.
And you would think a couple ofthem you know a couple of the
ones that aren't so crazy, likeSchiff or Warren, but you would
think a couple of theseDemocrats would come out and say
you know what?
I'm not against finding fraud,I'm not against fighting
(28:40):
corruption, finding corruption.
I am against cutting theseprograms.
Fighting corruption, findingcorruption.
I am against cutting theseprograms.
We would just like a seat atthe table to make this an
organic conversation amongst usin order to feel heard and to
make sure that the programs thatare most important to their
constituents stay put.
But they don't, they don't.
They keep freaking out, andwhile they're freaking out,
(29:00):
they're literally saying F youto you and me.
How can you not care about atrillion dollars of wasted money
that we've worked hard for?
And it's got to be becausethese people have really not had
to work very hard in their life?
I don't get it.
I mean, I think about when I wasyounger my parents split up my
blood dad, who I have norelationship with.
(29:20):
But my stepdad is like my dad.
But my mom for a few years wasa single mom on a teacher's
salary.
It was not fun.
I actually didn't know that wewere broke because my mom did
such a great job of keeping ushappy and supported and I don't
know what we would do withouther.
But in conversation, since youknow she's confided in me how
(29:43):
hard it was, how difficult itwas to make the mortgage payment
and keep us fed and there's allkinds of things.
And I think to myself here's mymama teacher.
She's already forced to payridiculous union dues, even
though she doesn't agree with it.
Taxes come out of her check,say $100 a week or whatever it
is.
I mean that is, especially atthat time, like two weeks of
(30:06):
groceries, tons of gas.
So these people are so out oftouch they don't realize that
even if a trillion dollars onlyequals $10 per person in the
entire country back in ourpocket, it still makes an impact
.
They want to say, well, it'sonly 1% of the federal.
But oh, these numbers are sosmall.
(30:26):
Oh, 50 million here, 50 millionthere, what the fuck?
What's 50 million here fortrans?
What's the?
What planet do these peoplelive on?
I don't get it.
And so if there's no indirectand direct benefit, then the
only other explanation for theway they're acting is they're
just ramping up their behaviorso bad.
(30:47):
So Americans refocus on this andnot on their epic failure from
before, and they're wavingaround the Constitution talking
about appropriations, whichCongress is still limited.
It's not a lot, but they havelimited appropriation power.
Once it becomes discretionaryfunding in an agency, it's
therefore considered executivemanaged, executive branch
(31:09):
managed, because all thosebranches roll up to the
president.
I mean, if you think about itkind of like in a corporate
setting, oftentimes the annualfinancials and budget are
decided by a team of executivesor the board of directors.
Okay, and they'll set aside themoney for digital or whatever
after they get the inputs fromeveryone around.
(31:31):
I've worked for these companiesfor a long time, so I know.
However, once that money isallocated from the board, they
expect then the executive, who'sthe CEO, to be responsible for
the day-to-day of those funds,and he has the discretionary
power to move funds from onebucket to the other.
That's essentially what happenswith us.
(31:52):
The Congress decides on buckets.
They send it over to theagencies Now, if they are line
items and they say a milliondollars for a tank, you know,
$10 million for toilet paper forevery federal office in the
world.
I don't know.
But if there are lined items,that's not discretionary
spending.
That's spending you have to usefor that item that's been
(32:14):
allocated from Congress.
That can't be touched from theexecutive branch, in my
understanding of limitedappropriations or unlimited
appropriations from Congress,depending on how you look at it.
But for a judge then to turnaround and say no, it's
unconstitutional, without anyreal sources or backup, these
(32:36):
judges are activists and what'shappened is is the Democrats
have created a fourth branch ofgovernment, which is the
bureaucracy.
The Democrats have created afourth branch of government,
which is the bureaucracy, but inorder to protect the
bureaucracy, they engage withunions, judges and lawyers to
keep their schemes going.
And all you're going to see inthe media is one or two stories
(32:56):
about how someone's socialsecurity check showed up two
weeks late because of Elon.
It's baffling to me that theycan run around with a
constitution and I know you allsee right through it.
I know you see that it's BS andI know you can see more so that
it's giving us political blueballs.
But these judges have got to bestopped, these activist judges
(33:21):
who are trying to legislate fromthe bench.
It has to stop.
The Constitution is very clearabout how this works and you
know there's nothing in theConstitution about district
judges.
This is all something that'sbeen set up through Congress.
They put together this judicialmess, if you will, and they
(33:42):
realize that they could use itto their advantage, when it's
very clear in the Constitutionthat the judicial branch is not
supposed to be political, and weknow that because they're not
elected.
The framers.
If they wanted politicsinvolved in the judicial process
, they would have had judges beelected officials, not
appointees.
And when you have people likeElon Musk, I mean he's
volunteering his time.
So the other day I saw a tweetfrom him and he said that they
(34:03):
were going to, in the treasury,immediately act on like three or
four new steps and I guess someof them aren't even that new,
these steps.
And so basically, what he saidwas from now on going forward,
when treasury makes a payment orany of the agencies that have
discretion to make thosepayments through the treasury
system, one, it must have acoded category.
(34:26):
This is like accounts payable101, guys.
The fact that we're having thisconversation on Twitter and I
think most of us have beenwrongly assuming these things
are happening and we say well,there's no accountability.
How do we know what's goingwhere?
Well, there's inspectorgenerals.
Well, the inspector generalshave been installed for many
years and they're not findingthis stuff, so obviously they're
(34:48):
not doing their job.
If Doge can find hundreds ofbillions of dollars in the first
three weeks of a presidency andinspector generals have been
around for even one presidentialterm and not been able to dig
up a few dollars or alerteveryone of the potential fraud,
they deserve to get fired.
They're not doing their job.
(35:09):
You can't fire us.
Why?
Your job as an inspectorgeneral is to make sure this
stuff doesn't happen, and it'shappening on your watch.
Get the hell out, because guesswhat?
These people can be greased.
Their palms can be greased.
They can also benefit.
That's all.
It is is a big power grab onCapitol Hill in Washington.
(35:30):
It's not about results.
It's all about how you dothings, not about what you do.
But not one Democrat has comeand said hey, I'm not against
cutting spending.
I'm certainly not againstcutting fraud.
I mean, the champions ofMedicaid and social security
talking about the Republicanswant to take away everyone's
social security.
(35:50):
Social security and Medicaidare the lifeblood of the United
States.
All the crap they say.
And then here comes Elon, who'sfound probably a hundred
billion dollars in falsepayments going to people with no
social security number.
You would think that socialsecurity champions would say, oh
my God, thank you so much.
You're validating that ourprogram does work.
(36:12):
There's just problems and fraudinvolved where we can make it
whole again.
Maybe.
I doubt $100 billion is enoughto do that, but you understand
what I'm saying.
Notice the double standard,notice the media.
This is really scary.
This is the constitutionalcrisis we're in.
Anything else they're talkingabout the constitution.
(36:32):
Tell them to go back to 1619,where they belong, because 1619
is how they really feel.
Like they talked to us aboutthe 2025 project, 1619 is how
they really feel about theConstitution.
Okay, so they can wave itaround, talk about it all they
want and talk about the powersthey've given themselves, but at
the end of the day, they're notbeing American.
(36:54):
They're not helping anyone bybeing obstructionists.
Come to the table withsolutions.
All you're doing is complaining, blocking, complaining,
blocking.
Where is the solution?
Elizabeth Warren, you don'twant your little consumer credit
agency to go bad.
Before Trump took office, youshould have had a plan to
(37:14):
discuss with him how you'regoing to work to address some of
the fraud and some of theblatant regulations that they've
put out there that have hurtAmericans, lost them money, but
she didn't.
Usaid could have gotten aheadof the blatant regulations that
they've put out there that havehurt Americans, lost them money,
but she didn't.
Usaid could have gotten aheadof the ball too, but they just
thought it would be business asusual and no one would ever have
the audacity to look into aconsumer protections or an aid
(37:37):
agency the names crack me upUSAID.
There wasn't any aid happening.
There were training journalists.
Last episode I put a clip ofSamantha Powers who ran it.
She said I'm trainingjournalists and saving people
from Ebola coming to America,give me a break.
So yeah, I'm pissed off atthese judges.
I'm pissed off at thesecongressmen and senators,
because you're blocking Trump'selectoral mandate and all you're
(38:01):
doing is obstructing progress.
And if you were that passionateabout some of these programs,
you would come to the table withsolutions.
Listen, I know Donald Trump.
I'm not his best friend, butI've been studying and watching
the guy for a very long time.
He appreciates innovation,ingenuity.
(38:22):
He appreciates negotiations.
So it's like all these peopleat education come to the table
and have a conversation.
I have a friend who's amortgage broker and he's having
a really hard time with theinterest rates right now and his
company was talking aboutending the arm of the mortgage
his type of mortgages that heruns and laying him off and five
(38:42):
other people because the volumeof transactions isn't there.
So my friend could have easilysat back and started to look for
another job or whatever.
But he said to the owner look,this isn't fair, because this is
what's happening with oursystem and this is where we need
our leads to come from.
And so they work together tomake some adjustments.
He didn't go in and go well,it's your fault, I'm not making
(39:04):
sales.
He said look, you know there'sthis thing and blah, blah, blah.
And so they work together.
They fixed it and noweveryone's job is saved and
everything.
They're getting a lot morevolume because they fixed the
direction of the leads.
Why aren't any of these peoplecoming forward and say look, we
(39:25):
know education is is fucked up.
We just can't figure out how toget around it.
Maybe Doge can help.
They're always talking aboutworking across the aisle and
working with runs.
They just won't, and so they'reback to the same old game plan.
But what's happening is is thatnow they have the judicial
system on their side to propthem up and block things that
need to happen.
Not all executive orders aregoing to be constitutional,
however.
There has to be a realchallenge to an executive order
(39:48):
or to a law in order for it tobe in federal court.
These challenges are allpre-written because they knew
what was coming, so theypre-wrote these lawsuits already
.
That's why Trump literallyfinishes the signature of the
pen and then the lawsuit getsserved to the clerk Really weird
.
But these are all pre-writtenlawsuits the trans, the
birthright citizenship all of itpre-written, ready to pull the
(40:12):
trigger, from a team of hundredsof lawyers to cherry-picked
regional judges that have beenactivists and not judges their
entire political and legalcareers, and that's how they get
away with it.
That is the system that they'vecreated and we've got to stop,
because they're saying we, theDemocratic Party, not even just
people, but we, the DemocraticParty, are more powerful than
(40:35):
the American people.
We, the Democratic Party, withour judges and our lawyers, are
more powerful than the Americanpeople.
Really, think about that.
Folks Think about that.
They do not care how you'redoing, they do not care about
you know.
They talk about the prices andinflation and Putin's price hike
and all this stuff and they actlike they care.
(40:56):
But here is actual, notmarketing speak, but actual
solutions, actionable items, keyperformance indicators,
physical work happening to fixsome of these things that they
like to rave about and they'reblocking it why.
There is something really wrongwith this picture, really really
(41:19):
wrong.
The sooner the Supreme Courtcan intervene, the better.
And you know for the Democratsto say, well, trump's just
holding out for the SupremeCourt because they're all
conservative?
No, they're not.
They are non-conservative.
They're not all originalistjudges.
Not all of them follow the sortof Ed Meese doctrine we talked
about.
Amy Comey Barrett's one of them.
She's a rhino, so is the headjustice.
(41:42):
So, no, it's not a shoe in forsome of these things.
And, as I shared earlier, allthese judicial decisions that
they're making right now,they're all just going to end up
being undone, if not by theSupreme Court this year, more so
down the road, like Roe v Wade,because ultimately they're just
not constitutional.
They're provisions of theConstitution that are being
(42:05):
massaged to supersede thegeneral principles or value of
the Constitution.
That is the crisis we are in,folks.
All right, I'm going to switchgears a little bit when I come
back and talk about a fun newsurvey I just saw about liberal
women.
Try to end on a little bit moreof a fun note.
I'll be back after these words,hey guys, this is Justin from
(42:28):
Collars Co.
Speaker 5 (42:28):
And today I want to talk to you about the Dress
Collar Polo.
When we conceived of the ideafor this brand, the Dress Collar
Polo was the ultimate launchproduct.
It gives you the comfort ofyour favorite t-shirt or polo
shirt, but gives you the look ofa traditional dress shirt.
But but gives you the look of atraditional dress shirt, but
with an English spread collar.
It's made from a lightweight,super comfortable six-way
stretch fabric that is sure tokeep up no matter what you're
(42:49):
wearing.
Whether you wear it under asuit, under a sweater or even by
itself.
The dress collar polo is superversatile and sure to be your
go-to shirt.
Speaker 4 (42:59):
All right, we're back .
Let's talk about liberal women.
You know me, I've always had anopinion about them being very
homely.
Cat lady-like Want to listen toa little clip of montage of
someone talking to liberal womenon the streets, and then let's
get into the gut of why they'reso miserable.
Speaker 5 (43:17):
So if you guys could change the Constitution in one
way, how would you change it?
Speaker 6 (43:21):
Perverse Gov Major.
I was literally going to saylegalize abortion, Maybe
abortion laws?
You know Rights to abortion,like transgender rights to have
surgery without necessarilyparental consent.
Yes, you have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you have
a right to sit there and screamat someone because they choose
to change their gender or theylove the same sex, things like
(43:42):
that.
Speaker 1 (43:42):
So should we add trans rights to the Constitution
?
Speaker 6 (43:45):
Absolutely Definitely adding in policies that make
health care more accessible forimmigrants as well as people in
low-income communities.
I just think we need to get theold white fucks out of power.
But that's not really aConstitution issue.
Speaker 7 (44:00):
Putting that in the Constitution amendment.
Get rid of the old white people.
Speaker 6 (44:03):
Yes, well, second Amendment needs to be altered
because it was written at a timewhen there weren't assault
rifles that kill hundreds ofpeople Gun issues we're having
right now.
I feel like those definitelyneed to be changed.
Anybody shouldn't be able topurchase a firearm.
It just that shouldn't be thecase.
We are very behind as far asespecially firearms.
I don't think everyone has theright on them anymore.
(44:24):
I mean violence, and thiscountry has the most mass
killings.
I think that definitely needsman.
Speaker 4 (44:29):
Someone's moved far from her country roots.
So I play this because this isthe kind of stuff that these
liberal women want to see in theconstitution nothing about
finance, nothing aboutempowering other women.
They immediately default totrans, illegal immigration, gun
control, and so I just thinkit's funny, because there's
(44:49):
really nothing positive aboutwhat they're saying and they're
all ugly.
I don't know why they all wearcostumes of.
If they have gray in their hair, they let it sit, which you
know I don't like that from mybeauty background.
But whatever, horn-rimmedglasses, yellow teeth I mean the
one representative from Oregonright now that's running around,
(45:10):
I mean it looks like she's gotabout 10 extra teeth in her
mouth.
Interestingly enough, we justgot the 2024 American Family
Survey and it revealed a widegap in how women between the
ages of 18 and 40 feel abouttheir lives, depending on their
ideology.
Young liberal women aremarkedly less satisfied with
their life than conservativepeers.
(45:31):
Specifically, we found that 37%of conservative women reported
being completely satisfied withlife, whereas only 12% of
liberal women did.
The study found it continues tosay young conservative women
are three times as likely toreport being very satisfied with
life compared to young liberalwomen.
Moreover, liberal women are twoto three times more likely to
(45:52):
report they are not satisfiedwith their lives compared to
conservative women, and the piecharts and all the research is
very interesting.
I'm definitely going to popthat up on the website after the
show, but it's really crazy.
Conservative women are 20percentage points more likely to
be married, 43 percentagepoints more likely to be
(46:14):
churchgoing.
And so what they're saying isI'll read you this quote from
Brad Wilcox, who's part of thefamily survey.
He said we've seen in theresearch that conservative women
tend to be more likely toembrace a sense of agency and to
have the sense that they arenot in any way the victim of a
larger structural realities orforces.
(46:34):
He's a sociology professor atthe University of Virginia.
They are also much less likelyto over-dramatize public events
and concerns, more likely tothink of themselves as captains
of their own faith.
Conservative women the surveywas 3,000 Americans found that
women ages 18 to 40 are muchmore likely to report feelings
(46:55):
of loneliness, with 29% feelingthey feel lonely few times a
week or more, compared to theonly 11% of the conservative
women 29%.
Miserable Goes on to say thesurvey concluded that the
ideological divide does notappear to just be a consequence
of negative thinking.
It also seems to flow from thefact that liberal young women
(47:15):
are less likely to be integratedinto core American institutions
, specifically marriage andreligion, that lend meaning,
direction and a sense ofsolidarity to women's lives.
I mean study after study afterstudy shows people who go to
church, people who read theirBible, have a better life than
people who don't.
They make more money, they havehealthier lives, they have
(47:36):
better relationships.
It's a non-debatable issue.
I personally did not know thecorrelation between happiness,
satisfaction and marriage.
I thought it would be the otherway around.
All my married friends arefreaking miserable.
But it's true.
These core institutions ofAmerica are part of our success.
The liberals want you to believethat we've all been born and
(47:56):
conditioned to be religious andconditioned to get married and
marriage is just a way tocontrol women.
It's just another misogynistic,sexist institution in America's
widespread sexism andanti-women policy.
It's crazy.
It's all a lie.
We are not conditioned intothose institutions.
(48:18):
This is not something that ourparents have sort of raised us
to automatically feed into theseinstitutions.
This is not something that ourparents have sort of raised us
to automatically feed into theseinstitutions.
Plenty of people have extremelyreligious parents and end up
being non-religious adults.
Plenty of people have greatmarried parents who end up not
getting married.
When you study toddlers andchildren in groups, they all go
(48:40):
towards, without any sort ofpush, if you will, in a right
direction.
They all flock towards theseinstitutions and social
groupings in sort of child formthat we see as adults.
So this is why I believe thatliberal women are struggling
right now, because they've wagedwar against freedom and choices
(49:04):
.
I know they say they'repro-choice, but they're only
pro-choice about one thing, andso they're miserable because
they've convinced themselvesthat the way that we do things
is wrong.
But there's so many other womenwho have done those things and
are happy and refuse to buy intothe propaganda, and that upsets
them.
You can see it on TV.
You can see Rachel Maddow.
(49:25):
She's got to be miserable inher life.
She just looks miserable.
They all look miserable.
So not only are liberal womenugly, but they're also
completely miserable in theirown lives, and a lot of these
female liberal journalists arethat way.
I mean, listen, we just had theSuper Bowl last week.
We all saw Taylor Swift getbooed, and before I get into
(49:46):
detail, I'm going to take aquick break and be back after
these words.
Speaker 7 (49:50):
As a pet owner, we understand that your pets are
part of the family and you doanything to help them if they
got sick or injured.
Unfortunately, many pet parentswill find themselves caught off
guard by an expensiveveterinary bill, and that's
where Pets Best comes in.
We provide pet insurancesolutions for dogs and cats that
can be used at any veterinarianin the US, including emergency
(50:13):
and specialty clinics.
Pets Best offers one of themost flexible products in the
industry, with a wide range ofcoverages, including optional
wellness coverage, exam feecoverage and more.
When something happens, we payyour claims fast.
Filing a claim is as easy assnapping a photo of your vet
bill from your smartphone.
Our online portal gives youeasy access to see your claim
(50:36):
status, manage your policy,check your benefits and more.
You'll also have access to 24-7live veterinary help through
phone chat or email.
Over 125,000 pets are protectedfrom unexpected vet bills by
Pets Best.
Are your pets ready to join?
Get a quote today.
Speaker 4 (50:58):
Let me just put this in a realistic perspective for
you guys.
Okay, I've talked about this somany times.
What do I say about Eagles fans?
They are the most cutthroat,gnarly barbaric, animalistic
fans you could ever see for anNFL team.
Okay, vaseline power polesthat's how excited they get.
They have to climb up thetelephone poles.
(51:20):
Taylor Swift is basicallywearing a Chiefs jersey.
She's dating the number twoplayer on the entire Chiefs team
.
She was getting booed by Eaglesfans who just don't want the
Chiefs to win.
That's all.
It wasn't a big thing.
But of course, stephanie McNeil,who's the senior editor for
Glamour magazine, was at theSuper Bowl and she believes that
(51:42):
Taylor Swift getting booed atthe Super Bowl means that toxic
masculinity is back.
Fox News covered it.
I also read her full story, butone of the things she said was
Since Donald Trump took office,there have been several times I
felt chilled by the rapidincrease in misogyny sleeping in
our culture.
Why Taylor Swift getting booedat the Super Bowl was even more
(52:03):
chilling than you think is theline that opens the article.
According to McNeil, watchingTaylor Swift at the Super Bowl
get booed by a crowd ofthousands on Sunday night was a
new low, again blaming DonaldTrump for the fact that Taylor
Swift gets booed.
It's not his fault.
She has spoken, said what shehas to say and she's getting a
(52:23):
response from people.
The craziest part about this andagain it's just this liberal
woman her, probably the friendshe was with.
They all look like they hadseen a ghost.
They were so shocked that therewould be any negativity towards
Taylor Swift.
And it's only because she's awoman.
We can't boo women.
It's misogynistic.
But if it was someone else likeJoe Biden and it's only because
she's a woman, we can't boowomen, it's misogynistic.
(52:43):
But if it was someone else likeJoe Biden, it's OK, right?
No, because when Joe Biden getsbooed and FJB and all the
things that happened while hewas running for president and in
office, that was ageism andracism and billionaire elitists
trying to silence him.
You know, whatever they alwayshave something.
(53:04):
So now the booing of TaylorSwift was an attack on women.
According to these liberalwomen who, by the way, are
miserable and ugly TaylorSwift's probably the only good
looking liberal woman I've everseen.
To me, they all look like kindof Katie Hobbs is sort of the
poster child for that look.
In my opinion, she says to me,the disparate reactions felt
(53:29):
like a message that the SuperBowl, one of the biggest
cultural events in the country,has been reclaimed by Trump and
the toxic type of masculinity heappears to be the beacon of,
and he and his supporters seemto be living for it.
Now, remember, when Trump won,they invented a new category of
voter.
They call it the bro vote, andthat's how they disparage Joe
Rogan.
Many of you most of mylisteners are, you know, in
(53:52):
their mid-20s, early 30s,college-educated males.
But just like you, you guysaren't bros.
I'm not a bro.
I love Joe Rogan.
I'm not a bro.
I've been listening to himsince he started his podcast.
I mean this whole concept thatthey can group people in
together to try to justify theirscreams of racism and sexism.
Let me tell you somethingTaylor Swift's booing had
(54:15):
nothing to do with sexism orracism or white privilege or
billionaires or anything.
They take any phenomenon insociety and mold it and shift it
in a way that they can stuff itdown our pipes to make us feel
guilty and worried that feminismis out the window and women are
having their rights taken away.
(54:35):
No, if it's not one, it's theother.
This woman is the epitome ofhow awful liberal women have
created a culture of their owndemise.
What she did say and I do wantto read this quote, as an image
of the president, stone facedand standing in a salute was
shown to the crowd during JohnBatiste's national anthem
performance.
(54:55):
The roar of approval and cheerswas deafening.
But she says in parentheses ofcourse there were those in the
crowd who booed the presidentand cheered for Swift as well,
but from my vantage point it wasclear that the overall
sentiment was again misogynistic.
This is a reach, people, this isa reach.
This is football, this issports.
(55:18):
If you're going to come out andyou're going to root for a team
, you're going to get hammered.
The same thing happens to MattMcConaughey when he goes to away
games for Texas, the other team, you don't think Alabama booze,
matthew McConaughey.
You don't think Oklahoma booze,matthew McConaughey.
I mean, give me a break.
When you come out and support ateam, you're going to get
hatred from the opposing teams.
(55:40):
But no, no, it's misogynisticand all the bros and the bro
vote are coming to take away thewomen's rights and breed this
toxic masculinity.
Toxic masculinity meaning uh,we work, we want to marry, we
want to have sex, but all thebiological sort of programming
we have.
If we want to use that to ouradvantage, work, grow.
(56:04):
We're misogynistic.
They just want a bunch ofspineless boobs that sit around
and let their women tell themexactly what to do.
The concept of stay at homedads and all these other idiotic
just completely reverseevolutionary ideals and it's
only hurting society.
But it all comes from the factthat these women are miserable,
(56:25):
and the survey we just talkedabout it proves it.
Well, I think that's all fortoday, folks.
I'm Chad Law, reminding you ofwhat Reagan once said Education
is not the means of showingpeople how to get what they want
.
Education is an exercise bymeans of which enough men, it is
(56:46):
hoped, will learn to want whatis worth having.
Speaker 8 (56:50):
God bless you, president Reagan, and may God
save America you've justlistened to the last gay
(57:14):
conservative podcast hosted bychad law.
Please like, subscribe andshare.
The views and opinionsexpressed in this program are
those of the speakers and do notnecessarily reflect the views
or positions of any entitiesthey represent.
This episode and others areavailable on
LastGayConservativecom oranywhere you listen to podcasts.
The Last Gay Conservative isrecorded and published in
(57:36):
Newport Beach, California.
All rights reserved 2025.
It's time.
From Newport Beach, california,the sun is shining, the beaches
are packed and the waves arerolling in, all while the last
gay conservative prepares toshare more truth with America.
He's America's binary brother,the holiest homo and the gayest
conservative of all time workingto restore common sense
(00:20):
conservative politics in theAmerican household.
Welcome to the Last GayConservative Podcast.
Here's your host, chad Law.
As your president, I will doeverything in my power to
(01:04):
protect our LGBTQ citizens fromthe violence and oppression of a
hateful foreign ideology.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Believe me, hello America, it's another big day in
politics and Trump landLiberals are melting down left
and right.
You know, it's interestingbecause I've played some sports.
I'm super competitive but I'mnot athletic.
So I play golf, as you know,and we get super competitive.
I play in contests andtournaments, I'm on a couple of
leagues, et cetera.
(01:38):
But the funny thing is is thatwhen I play with with good
people and I'm fairly matchedand I lose, I immediately find
out or try my best.
Sometimes you just have a badday, but I immediately look in
or look retrospectively at whatI did.
Was it just a calamity oferrors?
Was my swing off?
Is my shoulder sore, you know?
Figuring out what it was thatmade me lose and making
(02:01):
adjustments for the next game.
So I stupidly thought, maybe,just maybe, these liberals could
learn something from theirmassive loss across the board.
And so I knew the chaos wouldbe there.
But I didn't know that theywould just go back to the same
old playbook Impeachment, nazi,racist, authoritarian.
(02:24):
I mean, come on, guys, don'tyou have anything new?
You have any marketers in yourwar room?
What happened?
All those fun, little cool,little quirky names that the
biden camp came up with.
So these liberals arehysterical and I've never seen
anything like I mean.
I thought the first trumpadministration was bad.
I think they're worse.
They're emboldened and theykeep going and the polls are all
(02:45):
showing that on most of theissues, trump's overall approval
rating is above 50.
And most of his major executiveissues that he signed they have
full support of.
You know which ones they don'tsupport, which is weird.
And again, these are polls,guys.
So you take it with a grain ofsalt.
Uh, the Panama canal talk,greenland, canada being the
first state, and the Gulf ofMexico, anything like that.
(03:08):
All the international stuff isgetting low approval ratings on
the polling.
But the trans issue, the girlsin sports, all the cutting doge
everything else is like 70 to 80percent approval.
I mean that's massive, that'sbipartisan.
I mean there's Democrats outthere that are going, yeah, and
(03:29):
that's what I don't understandtheir hatred of Elon Musk and
Doge.
And that's why this reaction isreally telling me something.
This is really bad guys, likewhat they've created in
Washington through the last 50,100 years.
This is really bad.
I mean the court institutionthat they've created and the way
(03:49):
that they've learned to enrichthemselves and enrich their
comrades with our tax dollars.
They can hide and sneak andcreate agencies and do things.
I recently saw I think Politicoput up a post of Rubio saying
how much he values USAID backwhen he was a senator, and
Lindsey Graham as well.
(04:10):
Well, a lot of people valuedUSAID.
I mean, it started in the 60sand just like everything else,
it started very well.
It started good, it startedwith positive intentions.
It just didn't become that withpositive intentions.
It just didn't become that.
So when Graham and Rubio andpeople are out in the past
talking about the benefits ofUSAID, they're speaking off of
(04:32):
whatever marketing speak orwhatever the chairman of that
agency has jammed down theirthroats or an internal memo.
They don't really know what'sgoing on.
They read these manufacturedreports that look good on paper
and they're good talking points.
I mean it's so funny.
It's like my friend used thisexample and I don't agree with
(04:54):
it, but I think it's a funnyexample.
So I have a gay friend who'svery much in the middle and I
was talking to him about thatstupid Politico clip, because
he's the one that sent it to me,and I said kind of what I just
said to you and he goes.
You know what?
That does make sense he goes.
I used to really likeChick-fil-A, but then when I
found out how homophobic andChristian they were, I hated
Chick-fil-A and I said exactly,usaid.
(05:15):
There was no reason not to likethem or support them, because
no one knew what the hell wasgoing on.
That's why this stuff was sucha surprise.
Well, some people knew, andthose are the ones that are
giving you the big reaction.
So I think we're uncovering liketrillions of dollars worth of
fraud here, and I think we'veonly sort of touched the newly
(05:35):
fresh powder on the tip of theiceberg of the kind of fraud and
theft and abuse andmismanagement that we're going
to find by auditing.
If you think about it, this isthe first time an outsider,
third party agency has come inand audited every single agency.
See, the agencies are primarilyworking in silos, other than
(05:59):
the leaders that are appointedby the Senate or the president,
and the president they work insilos.
So if the EPA wants an audit,they go get their own auditors
different from defense,different, and that's why they
can always kind of fudge thenumbers and the results.
And then all these inspectorgenerals they're just as guilty
because what they've been doingis reporting on a lot of the
(06:20):
waste but not really offeringany sort of solutions, and
that's what Doge has been doingis they're auditing and making
recommendations to the presidentat the same time on the entire
executive branch of thegovernment, or the entire
federal government, if you will.
So because of that, we're goingto start to see the way that
these different bureaucracieshave learned to sink their teeth
(06:43):
in and hide money and do allthe weird things that you saw at
USAID.
I think USAID is just a tinylittle example of what we're
going to pull out of humanhealth and defense, some of
these other places.
We're going to start to see allkinds of weird financial
transactions and legaltransactions happening around
(07:05):
Washington DC, where all theplayers, the recipients of some
of these bogus contracts, are infederal employees that have
worked magic in order to getcertain people paid, et cetera.
We're going to see all of thissort of house of cards come
crashing down and it's obviouslyfreaking them out.
Yeah, wikileaks, believe it ornot, actually tore the story
(07:28):
apart with basic Google trendsdata.
Uh, over time, searches haveexploded for Swiss bank account.
How discreet is a Swiss bankaccount?
How to open offshore banks at3am.
Fastest way to wire moneybefore an audit?
Do you need a passport for theCayman Islands?
All these searches in the DCarea are 400 percent above their
(07:52):
normal trend levels.
The search for the word lawyerhas increased 400 percent,
according to Google Trends andWikiLeaks.
So it just comes to show youthat there's a lot of people in
DC right now that are trying tofigure out a way to hide their
money, hide their assets, notget fired, avoid taxes.
And it's because they know thejig is up, because the deeper we
(08:14):
dig, the more apparent it'sgoing to get.
And I, like I said, I thinkwe're just barely touching the
dusting of snow on the tip ofthe iceberg.
I actually predict that wecould probably find 20 to 25
percent of our entire deficit inwaste, and I think what drives
(08:35):
me most crazy is that allthey're doing is throwing the
same playbook that they usedagainst Trump the first term
anti-Trump just block everything, block everything, block
everything.
And they're just doing it toElon.
And it's just ridiculous because, first of all, elon doesn't
need to steal money from thegovernment.
That's your first mistakehiring all these people who are
(08:56):
desperate for money and havefull access to all this taxpayer
dollars in the treasury, but,aside from that, nothing is
being done without Trump's stampof approval and nothing is
being cut off that is imperativeto the health, safety or
wellness of people here in thiscountry and outside of this
(09:18):
country.
So I just wanted to give youguys a little doge rant and let
you know that what they're doingis they're really getting.
This is exactly what's supposedto be happening.
This is the reaction that wewant and this is how it should
be, and I'm not going to do thewhole show on doge, but I'll
tell you what.
These guys are smart, they'renon-biased and they really just
(09:41):
want to save American peoplemoney.
That's it, the problem that Ihave.
I always have a problem.
One thing that we need to kindof take a step back at is for an
agency of any kind to come inand find and again, these
numbers aren't the actualnumbers, I'm just using it as an
example but before I get myfact checkers texting me while
(10:02):
I'm on the air oh, you did, ok,sorry, alyssa's telling me that
the fact checkers are blockedwhen I'm on the air, so I don't
get the messages.
Okay, that's good.
Well, thank you.
No, what I was saying was isthat if any agency comes along
and finds $50 million in thefaltering, horrible social
(10:22):
security administration orSocial Security program that we
have and they say, wait a minute, there's 50 million or 50
billion or whatever you want tocall it even $1 going out to
someone without a SocialSecurity number or someone who
hasn't paid in to SocialSecurity, that's all you're
doing is getting your money back, which, if they invested it
properly, they could have grownthe balloon so big we'd never
(10:42):
have to worry about it.
But that's a different story.
Every single person in Americashould be outraged about that,
and I don't know if it's becausethese people who are these
liberals don't pay taxes or theydon't work really hard, or they
just really don't care aboutmoney.
I don't know what the reason is, but anyone who's ever given a
(11:04):
dollar of their own money thatthey worked for to the
government in order to receivethe protections and policies and
programs that we want.
And then you hear about wastegoing to these shadow accounts
forget feeding people, forgetany humanitarian aid.
This is literally just socialsecurity dollars going to people
.
Chuck Schumer, everyone shouldbe on their feet clapping oh my
(11:27):
gosh, thank you so much, becausethat is money that should be
left in the program and willhelp it from going bankrupt.
But they're screaming about it.
They're saying that we'retrying to shut off Social
Security, steal data andinformation.
No, we're not.
Why are you so upset thatthey're finding waste?
Why Could it be that a lot ofthis waste is lining your
(11:47):
pockets or your constituentspockets?
I honestly don't exactly knowhow to tie a lot of these
dollars, like the socialsecurity thing.
How do we tie that back to apolitician?
I'm sure there's a way, but inthe meantime we should be
celebrating any money we cansave the people who are enrolled
and who have paid into thesocial security program.
We should also feel the sameway about medicaid.
(12:08):
You know if there's a bunch ofmedicaid waste.
Also, when they find all thesecontractors that are still
getting paid but they're notdoing any work anymore.
Their contracts have expired.
But because of oversight orwhatever, someone oh no, you
can't stop.
Oh, my god, and it's just onoverdrive, freak out.
And all I can sit here and sayto myself is who in God's name
(12:29):
wouldn't be happy about this?
Who in God's name would fightsaving people money and whether
or not they're stealing orenriching themselves or whatever
it is, at least it says onething that we already know, but
it confirms it for us, democratsdon't care about your tax
dollars.
They feel they own that money.
(12:51):
They also feel that they aresmarter than you to make
decisions about where that moneygoes in order to keep you and
your family safe, supported andcomfortable, and all the other
things that come along with iteducation, roads, et cetera.
Isn't that weird?
Just found the whole thing alittle strange.
Only in today's Democrat party,with these left elitist
(13:13):
liberals, could you makeidentifying and removing
government waste tax dollarwaste a partisan issue.
Only them.
I'm going to take a quick break.
I'll be back after these words.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Why do couples choose a Sleep Number Climate 360
smart bed.
Can it keep me warm when I'mcold?
Wait, no, I'm always hot.
Sleep Number does that?
The Climate 360 smart bed letsyou adjust up to 30 degrees
cooler to warmer.
Speaker 5 (13:37):
Can I make my side softer?
Speaker 3 (13:39):
Can I make my side firmer?
Sleep Number does that.
We know 80% of couples sleeptoo hot or too cold.
Our smart bed cools and warmseither side so you both sleep
comfortably sleep bettertogether on the climate 360
smart bed.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
Shop now at sleepnumbercom I know, I know
all right, and we're back justbeing scolded by my awesome team
about how I said I didn't wantto talk about Doge today because
everyone else was, and then Ispent 10 minutes on it this
morning.
So I apologize to that point.
It is a little bit of a doubleedged sword because I purposely
try to not do the same contentand everyone else's.
(14:16):
I used to get so frustratedwhen I was younger and I'd
listen to KFI 640 am in LA andit would.
You know, glenn Beck wouldusually start, and then Rush,
and then Mark Levin and theseguys, john and Ken that I loved,
but nonetheless the days wherethey just all talked about the
same stuff were terrible for me.
(14:36):
Yeah, they all had their sortof unique opinion, but it just
got repetitive and boring and Inever want to do that to you
guys.
I want to give you guysoriginal content.
However, if there's somethingyou want me to talk about and
you want my opinion on amainstream issue or something
that's being covered elsewhere,just text 866 last gay, just
send us a text.
(14:56):
Well, I can tell you one thingI am really pissed off at our
judiciary system and I mentionedit a bit last episode and I've
talked about this for yearsthese men in black.
It's.
Mark Levin's first book wascalled Men in Black and it was
about the Supreme Court, but nowit applies to the entire
judiciary.
These judges think they're God.
(15:17):
It is really scary and theybelieve they have more power.
And these are like regionalfederal judges that live in like
Seattle or the Supreme Court.
These aren't Supreme Courtjustices, ok, these are rinky
dink judges all over the country, hundreds of them that want to
use their bench to legislateinstead of actually analyzing,
(15:40):
bipartisanly analyzing cases andruling based on the
Constitution's originality.
In other words, if there's agun control lawsuit, if Congress
comes out with a new law, whichCongress writes the laws, and
it gets challenged in court,it's not up to the judge to
write a decision that includesher opinion about firearms,
(16:03):
which happens.
It's up to the judge to say theSecond Amendment clearly states
X, y, z.
If limits need to be added tothe Second Amendment, that is up
to Congress.
And the same thing comes to theexecutive branch.
Now we know Donald Trump isoverreaching.
This is how he used executiveorders last time Get them early,
(16:24):
get them out, let them block itand scale it up to the Supreme
Court, or at least they have togo against the court of public
opinion, which everyone knows.
All this stuff is good.
Only an idiot, like I said,only an idiot can get mad about
catching and stopping wastedmoney.
Catching and stopping wastedmoney, I mean, I just don't
(16:48):
understand this.
I mean, if someone finds money,it's so crazy.
No, these judges, no, leave it.
You can't touch the funds thathave been going to non-people in
Social Security, people with noSocial Security number, never
paid into the system, gettingmaximum Social Security benefits
for years.
However, these judges think thatthey're entitled to legislate
(17:10):
from the bench.
And this is our constitutionalcrisis, folks.
This is our constitutionalcrisis because now we have a
political and it's on both sides, but we have a political
judiciary that was neversupposed to be political.
How do we know that?
How do we know that thefounders never intended the
(17:30):
judiciary to include politics?
Because it's the only branch ofgovernment that isn't elected
or accountable to the Americanpeople, because, at that time,
judges were scholars,philosophers, legal experts,
constitutional experts.
There was a time when judgescould put their robe on and take
(17:51):
their personal shit out andactually judge based on the
Constitution.
The founders could have neverpredicted or assumed the
judiciary would get infestedwith wannabe congressmen that
have on black robes.
It's just like this guy inSeattle that just blocked
Trump's executive order about nochild trans surgeries.
(18:13):
You can't do that.
That's not up to you.
You can push it back toCongress, maybe, but you don't
get to listen to a case for 45minutes or an hour and then just
send out these rulings andexpect it to be law.
It's insane.
And so now we were all excited.
You know, we were the guys withthe hot chick Trump and his
(18:34):
stuff was our hot chick andunfortunately we started making
out in January and then theywent home for their early
meeting and left us high and drybecause the judges did that.
Essentially, if you'reunderstanding my metaphor for
blue balls, that's what'shappening.
We can't move forward if thesejudges think that they can
decide whether something islegal or not, and then that is
(18:57):
that they're the God law signedoff.
I don't know if you guys knowmuch of you know I always talk
about Reagan and um.
It's interesting because Ibelieve this accelerated
politicizing of the judicialsystem was based on Reagan's
(19:17):
executive orders and what he wasable to do through Congress,
through the American people, asa president in his first term.
Democrats vowed to never letthat happen again.
The judges that legislate fromthe bench are the same judges
that voted for slavery to keepslavery.
That protected the KKK.
Jim Crow, reagan's attorneygeneral, really led the fight of
(19:41):
originalism with theConstitution within the
judiciary, ed Meese, and hetalks about cases, major Supreme
Court cases where they did notanchor their decision in
constitutional law.
And always it comes back up,just like Roe v Wade, just like
Brown versus education.
So I want to read you thispassage from him when he was
(20:05):
giving a speech.
I think it was 1986.
When the Supreme Court andBrown versus Board of Education
sounded the death knell forofficial segregation in the
country.
It earned all the plaudits itreceived.
But the Supreme Court in thatcase was not giving new life to
old words or adapting living orflexible constitution to new
(20:26):
reality.
It was restoring the originalprinciple of the constitution to
constitutional law.
The Brown Court was correctingthe damage done 50 years earlier
when Plessy v Ferguson, anearlier Supreme Court, had
disregarded the clear intent ofthe framers of the Civil War
amendments to eliminate thelegal degradation of blacks and
(20:50):
had contrived a theory of theConstitution to support the
charade of separate but equaldiscrimination.
Similarly, the decisions of theNew Deal and beyond that freed
Congress to regulate commerceand enact a plethora of social
legislation were not judicialadaptations of the Constitution
to new realities.
(21:11):
They were, in fact, removals ofincrustations of earlier courts
that had strayed from theoriginal intent of the framers
regarding the power of thelegislator to make the policy.
It is amazing how so much ofwhat passes for social and
political progress is really theundoing of old judicial
mistakes.
(21:31):
Mistakes occur when theprinciples of specific
constitutional provisions, suchas those contained in the Bill
of Rights, are taken by some asinvitations to read into the
Constitution values thatcontradict the clear language of
other provisions.
In other words, the provisionsof the Constitution do not
(21:54):
outweigh the values of theConstitution, which are
democracy, freedom, rights andlimited government.
All right, on that note, I gotto take a quick break.
I'll be back after you knowwhat.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
You've got too much on your plate to worry about
what to put on it next.
That's where we come in.
We're Factor, your one-stopshop for fresh, fully prepared
meals packed with premiumingredients and ready to heat
and eat in two minutes flat.
Did we mention, delivered rightto your door?
Yeah, we got that covered too.
Looks like eating well just gota whole lot easier.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
All right and I'm back.
I went to church yesterday.
It was a beautiful service.
I go to the Mariner's Church inNewport Beach.
I was actually sort of aseparate part of the church and
for whatever reason I never do,but I decided to kind of hang
out.
Know me, I usually hateeveryone so I don't stick around
(23:07):
.
But I did for some reasonyesterday morning and I got to
chatting with some people andpolitics came up, et cetera.
And you know I use a termthat's called religious or
spiritual materialism and it'swhen someone, I believe, is
using their religion or theirspiritual knowledge to acquire
things or services from someoneor whatever.
(23:29):
They're using it to benefitthemselves in a non-spiritual
way.
Those people and I'm sayingbecause there was a group of
these people and they were beingvery, very judgmental, and of
course I can't keep my mouthshut so we get into this debate
and what do they start doing?
But just cherry picking piecesout of the Bible that are
(23:51):
contradicted by other pieces, orare puzzle pieces that have to
be put in the context of theentire story in order to
understand.
And I said to them this is theproblem that people have with
many of us Christians,especially Christians that
consider themselvesfundamentalists.
The problem that many peoplehave is that they pick and
(24:12):
choose parts of the Bible andthe religion that appeal to them
, like Westboro Baptist, thechurch that's got all the signs
that says God hates fags, andall the horrible church that's
got all the signs that says Godhates fags, and all the horrible
, horrible, horrible things.
But that's exactly what theDemocratic Party is doing right
now.
I mean, if you think about it,since George W Bush even, but
(24:39):
again going back, obama reallycreated this, but since Obama,
which is where we saw the birthreally in the pushing of the
1619 project on top of MichelleObama and all of their minions
for years claiming that ourconstitution was too white, only
written for men, needsmodernization.
It creates a wealth disparity.
(24:59):
I mean every single criticalpoint.
For years my liberal friendshave told me that the
Constitution needs to be gutted.
They have been anti-originaloriginalists is what we call it
but they've beenanti-Constitution since I can
remember the Democratic Partyhates the Constitution.
So when I look at the news andI see these guys waving the
(25:22):
Constitution around, I'm likewhat are you even doing?
You're an idiot.
And they're just picking andchoosing pieces that they think
helps their case, but it doesn't.
And I think what really iscrazy is all they're doing is
shooting the messenger, elon andthe other leaders that are
finding this fraud.
Elon didn't do the fraud or thecorruption, neither did Donald
(25:45):
Trump.
Congress created it.
They created a system socomplex and so empowered to
legislate because they're toolazy and stupid.
So they've empowered all thesebureaucracies, but guess what?
The bureaucracies roll up tothe executive branch.
Ok, so I just want to clearthis up because I think this is
(26:07):
very important and the judgeshave said things so strangely.
But the Constitution is veryclear.
The power of the purse is withinCongress, more specifically,
within the House ofRepresentatives.
They have what we call thecongressional appropriations
power.
They appropriate where themoney goes on from approved
budgets.
However, the line items aregenerally pulled from big pots
(26:34):
of what they call discretionaryspending, and then that
bureaucracy agency, whatever youwant to call it can, at their
discretion, spend those fundsthe way they want to.
But once the discretionaryfunds get to that bureaucracy,
those funds are then managed bythe executive branch.
So for a judge to say, oh, youcan't access that, you can't
(26:55):
access information that's notconstitutional, how You've
already given the money to thebranch.
And hey, we didn't create thisbureaucratic nightmare.
This is Democrats all the waysince the beginning of time.
And hey, we didn't create thisbureaucratic nightmare.
This is Democrats all the waysince the beginning of time.
I mean since FDR, before FDR.
Democrats created thisbureaucratic mess and they've
done it so they can protectwhatever it is they're
(27:17):
protecting either indirect ordirect benefits.
And, like I said earlier in theprogram, any fraud or waste
should be celebrated, and MarkLevin said it this week at some
point.
He said look, there's two typesof spending the one that I just
said, which is discretionaryfunds that have been
appropriated by Congress, andthen there's waste and fraud and
(27:38):
corrupt spending.
So even if we remove the USAIDargument or we remove any sort
of political argument aroundspending, there's still probably
a trillion dollars infraudulent payments that we need
to address.
Every single person should behappy about that in the world.
(27:58):
So if they're not, then what'sgoing on?
You know, it reminds me of thecheating boyfriend.
Let me see your phone?
No, why, why, if you havenothing to hide?
Let me see your passcode no.
And it blows up into a hugeargument and of course, the
cheating boyfriend always saysoh my God, you don't trust me.
It's always like that and theydig deeper and deeper into the
lie Psychology 101.
(28:19):
And so that's what theDemocrats are doing.
I mean, there's obviouslysomething going on, because I've
never seen any reactions likethis.
And you would think a couple ofthem you know a couple of the
ones that aren't so crazy, likeSchiff or Warren, but you would
think a couple of theseDemocrats would come out and say
you know what?
I'm not against finding fraud,I'm not against fighting
(28:40):
corruption, finding corruption.
I am against cutting theseprograms.
Fighting corruption, findingcorruption.
I am against cutting theseprograms.
We would just like a seat atthe table to make this an
organic conversation amongst usin order to feel heard and to
make sure that the programs thatare most important to their
constituents stay put.
But they don't, they don't.
They keep freaking out, andwhile they're freaking out,
(29:00):
they're literally saying F youto you and me.
How can you not care about atrillion dollars of wasted money
that we've worked hard for?
And it's got to be becausethese people have really not had
to work very hard in their life?
I don't get it.
I mean, I think about when I wasyounger my parents split up my
blood dad, who I have norelationship with.
(29:20):
But my stepdad is like my dad.
But my mom for a few years wasa single mom on a teacher's
salary.
It was not fun.
I actually didn't know that wewere broke because my mom did
such a great job of keeping ushappy and supported and I don't
know what we would do withouther.
But in conversation, since youknow she's confided in me how
(29:43):
hard it was, how difficult itwas to make the mortgage payment
and keep us fed and there's allkinds of things.
And I think to myself here's mymama teacher.
She's already forced to payridiculous union dues, even
though she doesn't agree with it.
Taxes come out of her check,say $100 a week or whatever it
is.
I mean that is, especially atthat time, like two weeks of
(30:06):
groceries, tons of gas.
So these people are so out oftouch they don't realize that
even if a trillion dollars onlyequals $10 per person in the
entire country back in ourpocket, it still makes an impact
.
They want to say, well, it'sonly 1% of the federal.
But oh, these numbers are sosmall.
(30:26):
Oh, 50 million here, 50 millionthere, what the fuck?
What's 50 million here fortrans?
What's the?
What planet do these peoplelive on?
I don't get it.
And so if there's no indirectand direct benefit, then the
only other explanation for theway they're acting is they're
just ramping up their behaviorso bad.
(30:47):
So Americans refocus on this andnot on their epic failure from
before, and they're wavingaround the Constitution talking
about appropriations, whichCongress is still limited.
It's not a lot, but they havelimited appropriation power.
Once it becomes discretionaryfunding in an agency, it's
therefore considered executivemanaged, executive branch
(31:09):
managed, because all thosebranches roll up to the
president.
I mean, if you think about itkind of like in a corporate
setting, oftentimes the annualfinancials and budget are
decided by a team of executivesor the board of directors.
Okay, and they'll set aside themoney for digital or whatever
after they get the inputs fromeveryone around.
(31:31):
I've worked for these companiesfor a long time, so I know.
However, once that money isallocated from the board, they
expect then the executive, who'sthe CEO, to be responsible for
the day-to-day of those funds,and he has the discretionary
power to move funds from onebucket to the other.
That's essentially what happenswith us.
(31:52):
The Congress decides on buckets.
They send it over to theagencies Now, if they are line
items and they say a milliondollars for a tank, you know,
$10 million for toilet paper forevery federal office in the
world.
I don't know.
But if there are lined items,that's not discretionary
spending.
That's spending you have to usefor that item that's been
(32:14):
allocated from Congress.
That can't be touched from theexecutive branch, in my
understanding of limitedappropriations or unlimited
appropriations from Congress,depending on how you look at it.
But for a judge then to turnaround and say no, it's
unconstitutional, without anyreal sources or backup, these
(32:36):
judges are activists and what'shappened is is the Democrats
have created a fourth branch ofgovernment, which is the
bureaucracy.
The Democrats have created afourth branch of government,
which is the bureaucracy, but inorder to protect the
bureaucracy, they engage withunions, judges and lawyers to
keep their schemes going.
And all you're going to see inthe media is one or two stories
(32:56):
about how someone's socialsecurity check showed up two
weeks late because of Elon.
It's baffling to me that theycan run around with a
constitution and I know you allsee right through it.
I know you see that it's BS andI know you can see more so that
it's giving us political blueballs.
But these judges have got to bestopped, these activist judges
(33:21):
who are trying to legislate fromthe bench.
It has to stop.
The Constitution is very clearabout how this works and you
know there's nothing in theConstitution about district
judges.
This is all something that'sbeen set up through Congress.
They put together this judicialmess, if you will, and they
(33:42):
realize that they could use itto their advantage, when it's
very clear in the Constitutionthat the judicial branch is not
supposed to be political, and weknow that because they're not
elected.
The framers.
If they wanted politicsinvolved in the judicial process
, they would have had judges beelected officials, not
appointees.
And when you have people likeElon Musk, I mean he's
volunteering his time.
So the other day I saw a tweetfrom him and he said that they
(34:03):
were going to, in the treasury,immediately act on like three or
four new steps and I guess someof them aren't even that new,
these steps.
And so basically, what he saidwas from now on going forward,
when treasury makes a payment orany of the agencies that have
discretion to make thosepayments through the treasury
system, one, it must have acoded category.
(34:26):
This is like accounts payable101, guys.
The fact that we're having thisconversation on Twitter and I
think most of us have beenwrongly assuming these things
are happening and we say well,there's no accountability.
How do we know what's goingwhere?
Well, there's inspectorgenerals.
Well, the inspector generalshave been installed for many
years and they're not findingthis stuff, so obviously they're
(34:48):
not doing their job.
If Doge can find hundreds ofbillions of dollars in the first
three weeks of a presidency andinspector generals have been
around for even one presidentialterm and not been able to dig
up a few dollars or alerteveryone of the potential fraud,
they deserve to get fired.
They're not doing their job.
(35:09):
You can't fire us.
Why?
Your job as an inspectorgeneral is to make sure this
stuff doesn't happen, and it'shappening on your watch.
Get the hell out, because guesswhat?
These people can be greased.
Their palms can be greased.
They can also benefit.
That's all.
It is is a big power grab onCapitol Hill in Washington.
(35:30):
It's not about results.
It's all about how you dothings, not about what you do.
But not one Democrat has comeand said hey, I'm not against
cutting spending.
I'm certainly not againstcutting fraud.
I mean, the champions ofMedicaid and social security
talking about the Republicanswant to take away everyone's
social security.
(35:50):
Social security and Medicaidare the lifeblood of the United
States.
All the crap they say.
And then here comes Elon, who'sfound probably a hundred
billion dollars in falsepayments going to people with no
social security number.
You would think that socialsecurity champions would say, oh
my God, thank you so much.
You're validating that ourprogram does work.
(36:12):
There's just problems and fraudinvolved where we can make it
whole again.
Maybe.
I doubt $100 billion is enoughto do that, but you understand
what I'm saying.
Notice the double standard,notice the media.
This is really scary.
This is the constitutionalcrisis we're in.
Anything else they're talkingabout the constitution.
(36:32):
Tell them to go back to 1619,where they belong, because 1619
is how they really feel.
Like they talked to us aboutthe 2025 project, 1619 is how
they really feel about theConstitution.
Okay, so they can wave itaround, talk about it all they
want and talk about the powersthey've given themselves, but at
the end of the day, they're notbeing American.
(36:54):
They're not helping anyone bybeing obstructionists.
Come to the table withsolutions.
All you're doing is complaining, blocking, complaining,
blocking.
Where is the solution?
Elizabeth Warren, you don'twant your little consumer credit
agency to go bad.
Before Trump took office, youshould have had a plan to
(37:14):
discuss with him how you'regoing to work to address some of
the fraud and some of theblatant regulations that they've
put out there that have hurtAmericans, lost them money, but
she didn't.
Usaid could have gotten aheadof the blatant regulations that
they've put out there that havehurt Americans, lost them money,
but she didn't.
Usaid could have gotten aheadof the ball too, but they just
thought it would be business asusual and no one would ever have
the audacity to look into aconsumer protections or an aid
(37:37):
agency the names crack me upUSAID.
There wasn't any aid happening.
There were training journalists.
Last episode I put a clip ofSamantha Powers who ran it.
She said I'm trainingjournalists and saving people
from Ebola coming to America,give me a break.
So yeah, I'm pissed off atthese judges.
I'm pissed off at thesecongressmen and senators,
because you're blocking Trump'selectoral mandate and all you're
(38:01):
doing is obstructing progress.
And if you were that passionateabout some of these programs,
you would come to the table withsolutions.
Listen, I know Donald Trump.
I'm not his best friend, butI've been studying and watching
the guy for a very long time.
He appreciates innovation,ingenuity.
(38:22):
He appreciates negotiations.
So it's like all these peopleat education come to the table
and have a conversation.
I have a friend who's amortgage broker and he's having
a really hard time with theinterest rates right now and his
company was talking aboutending the arm of the mortgage
his type of mortgages that heruns and laying him off and five
(38:42):
other people because the volumeof transactions isn't there.
So my friend could have easilysat back and started to look for
another job or whatever.
But he said to the owner look,this isn't fair, because this is
what's happening with oursystem and this is where we need
our leads to come from.
And so they work together tomake some adjustments.
He didn't go in and go well,it's your fault, I'm not making
(39:04):
sales.
He said look, you know there'sthis thing and blah, blah, blah.
And so they work together.
They fixed it and noweveryone's job is saved and
everything.
They're getting a lot morevolume because they fixed the
direction of the leads.
Why aren't any of these peoplecoming forward and say look, we
(39:25):
know education is is fucked up.
We just can't figure out how toget around it.
Maybe Doge can help.
They're always talking aboutworking across the aisle and
working with runs.
They just won't, and so they'reback to the same old game plan.
But what's happening is is thatnow they have the judicial
system on their side to propthem up and block things that
need to happen.
Not all executive orders aregoing to be constitutional,
however.
There has to be a realchallenge to an executive order
(39:48):
or to a law in order for it tobe in federal court.
These challenges are allpre-written because they knew
what was coming, so theypre-wrote these lawsuits already
.
That's why Trump literallyfinishes the signature of the
pen and then the lawsuit getsserved to the clerk Really weird
.
But these are all pre-writtenlawsuits the trans, the
birthright citizenship all of itpre-written, ready to pull the
(40:12):
trigger, from a team of hundredsof lawyers to cherry-picked
regional judges that have beenactivists and not judges their
entire political and legalcareers, and that's how they get
away with it.
That is the system that they'vecreated and we've got to stop,
because they're saying we, theDemocratic Party, not even just
people, but we, the DemocraticParty, are more powerful than
(40:35):
the American people.
We, the Democratic Party, withour judges and our lawyers, are
more powerful than the Americanpeople.
Really, think about that.
Folks Think about that.
They do not care how you'redoing, they do not care about
you know.
They talk about the prices andinflation and Putin's price hike
and all this stuff and they actlike they care.
(40:56):
But here is actual, notmarketing speak, but actual
solutions, actionable items, keyperformance indicators,
physical work happening to fixsome of these things that they
like to rave about and they'reblocking it why.
There is something really wrongwith this picture, really really
(41:19):
wrong.
The sooner the Supreme Courtcan intervene, the better.
And you know for the Democratsto say, well, trump's just
holding out for the SupremeCourt because they're all
conservative?
No, they're not.
They are non-conservative.
They're not all originalistjudges.
Not all of them follow the sortof Ed Meese doctrine we talked
about.
Amy Comey Barrett's one of them.
She's a rhino, so is the headjustice.
(41:42):
So, no, it's not a shoe in forsome of these things.
And, as I shared earlier, allthese judicial decisions that
they're making right now,they're all just going to end up
being undone, if not by theSupreme Court this year, more so
down the road, like Roe v Wade,because ultimately they're just
not constitutional.
They're provisions of theConstitution that are being
(42:05):
massaged to supersede thegeneral principles or value of
the Constitution.
That is the crisis we are in,folks.
All right, I'm going to switchgears a little bit when I come
back and talk about a fun newsurvey I just saw about liberal
women.
Try to end on a little bit moreof a fun note.
I'll be back after these words,hey guys, this is Justin from
(42:28):
Collars Co.
Speaker 5 (42:28):
And today I want to talk to you about the Dress
Collar Polo.
When we conceived of the ideafor this brand, the Dress Collar
Polo was the ultimate launchproduct.
It gives you the comfort ofyour favorite t-shirt or polo
shirt, but gives you the look ofa traditional dress shirt.
But but gives you the look of atraditional dress shirt, but
with an English spread collar.
It's made from a lightweight,super comfortable six-way
stretch fabric that is sure tokeep up no matter what you're
(42:49):
wearing.
Whether you wear it under asuit, under a sweater or even by
itself.
The dress collar polo is superversatile and sure to be your
go-to shirt.
Speaker 4 (42:59):
All right, we're back .
Let's talk about liberal women.
You know me, I've always had anopinion about them being very
homely.
Cat lady-like Want to listen toa little clip of montage of
someone talking to liberal womenon the streets, and then let's
get into the gut of why they'reso miserable.
Speaker 5 (43:17):
So if you guys could change the Constitution in one
way, how would you change it?
Speaker 6 (43:21):
Perverse Gov Major.
I was literally going to saylegalize abortion, Maybe
abortion laws?
You know Rights to abortion,like transgender rights to have
surgery without necessarilyparental consent.
Yes, you have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you have
a right to sit there and screamat someone because they choose
to change their gender or theylove the same sex, things like
(43:42):
that.
Speaker 1 (43:42):
So should we add trans rights to the Constitution
?
Speaker 6 (43:45):
Absolutely Definitely adding in policies that make
health care more accessible forimmigrants as well as people in
low-income communities.
I just think we need to get theold white fucks out of power.
But that's not really aConstitution issue.
Speaker 7 (44:00):
Putting that in the Constitution amendment.
Get rid of the old white people.
Speaker 6 (44:03):
Yes, well, second Amendment needs to be altered
because it was written at a timewhen there weren't assault
rifles that kill hundreds ofpeople Gun issues we're having
right now.
I feel like those definitelyneed to be changed.
Anybody shouldn't be able topurchase a firearm.
It just that shouldn't be thecase.
We are very behind as far asespecially firearms.
I don't think everyone has theright on them anymore.
(44:24):
I mean violence, and thiscountry has the most mass
killings.
I think that definitely needsman.
Speaker 4 (44:29):
Someone's moved far from her country roots.
So I play this because this isthe kind of stuff that these
liberal women want to see in theconstitution nothing about
finance, nothing aboutempowering other women.
They immediately default totrans, illegal immigration, gun
control, and so I just thinkit's funny, because there's
(44:49):
really nothing positive aboutwhat they're saying and they're
all ugly.
I don't know why they all wearcostumes of.
If they have gray in their hair, they let it sit, which you
know I don't like that from mybeauty background.
But whatever, horn-rimmedglasses, yellow teeth I mean the
one representative from Oregonright now that's running around,
(45:10):
I mean it looks like she's gotabout 10 extra teeth in her
mouth.
Interestingly enough, we justgot the 2024 American Family
Survey and it revealed a widegap in how women between the
ages of 18 and 40 feel abouttheir lives, depending on their
ideology.
Young liberal women aremarkedly less satisfied with
their life than conservativepeers.
(45:31):
Specifically, we found that 37%of conservative women reported
being completely satisfied withlife, whereas only 12% of
liberal women did.
The study found it continues tosay young conservative women
are three times as likely toreport being very satisfied with
life compared to young liberalwomen.
Moreover, liberal women are twoto three times more likely to
(45:52):
report they are not satisfiedwith their lives compared to
conservative women, and the piecharts and all the research is
very interesting.
I'm definitely going to popthat up on the website after the
show, but it's really crazy.
Conservative women are 20percentage points more likely to
be married, 43 percentagepoints more likely to be
(46:14):
churchgoing.
And so what they're saying isI'll read you this quote from
Brad Wilcox, who's part of thefamily survey.
He said we've seen in theresearch that conservative women
tend to be more likely toembrace a sense of agency and to
have the sense that they arenot in any way the victim of a
larger structural realities orforces.
(46:34):
He's a sociology professor atthe University of Virginia.
They are also much less likelyto over-dramatize public events
and concerns, more likely tothink of themselves as captains
of their own faith.
Conservative women the surveywas 3,000 Americans found that
women ages 18 to 40 are muchmore likely to report feelings
(46:55):
of loneliness, with 29% feelingthey feel lonely few times a
week or more, compared to theonly 11% of the conservative
women 29%.
Miserable Goes on to say thesurvey concluded that the
ideological divide does notappear to just be a consequence
of negative thinking.
It also seems to flow from thefact that liberal young women
(47:15):
are less likely to be integratedinto core American institutions
, specifically marriage andreligion, that lend meaning,
direction and a sense ofsolidarity to women's lives.
I mean study after study afterstudy shows people who go to
church, people who read theirBible, have a better life than
people who don't.
They make more money, they havehealthier lives, they have
(47:36):
better relationships.
It's a non-debatable issue.
I personally did not know thecorrelation between happiness,
satisfaction and marriage.
I thought it would be the otherway around.
All my married friends arefreaking miserable.
But it's true.
These core institutions ofAmerica are part of our success.
The liberals want you to believethat we've all been born and
(47:56):
conditioned to be religious andconditioned to get married and
marriage is just a way tocontrol women.
It's just another misogynistic,sexist institution in America's
widespread sexism andanti-women policy.
It's crazy.
It's all a lie.
We are not conditioned intothose institutions.
(48:18):
This is not something that ourparents have sort of raised us
to automatically feed into theseinstitutions.
This is not something that ourparents have sort of raised us
to automatically feed into theseinstitutions.
Plenty of people have extremelyreligious parents and end up
being non-religious adults.
Plenty of people have greatmarried parents who end up not
getting married.
When you study toddlers andchildren in groups, they all go
(48:40):
towards, without any sort ofpush, if you will, in a right
direction.
They all flock towards theseinstitutions and social
groupings in sort of child formthat we see as adults.
So this is why I believe thatliberal women are struggling
right now, because they've wagedwar against freedom and choices
(49:04):
.
I know they say they'repro-choice, but they're only
pro-choice about one thing, andso they're miserable because
they've convinced themselvesthat the way that we do things
is wrong.
But there's so many other womenwho have done those things and
are happy and refuse to buy intothe propaganda, and that upsets
them.
You can see it on TV.
You can see Rachel Maddow.
(49:25):
She's got to be miserable inher life.
She just looks miserable.
They all look miserable.
So not only are liberal womenugly, but they're also
completely miserable in theirown lives, and a lot of these
female liberal journalists arethat way.
I mean, listen, we just had theSuper Bowl last week.
We all saw Taylor Swift getbooed, and before I get into
(49:46):
detail, I'm going to take aquick break and be back after
these words.
Speaker 7 (49:50):
As a pet owner, we understand that your pets are
part of the family and you doanything to help them if they
got sick or injured.
Unfortunately, many pet parentswill find themselves caught off
guard by an expensiveveterinary bill, and that's
where Pets Best comes in.
We provide pet insurancesolutions for dogs and cats that
can be used at any veterinarianin the US, including emergency
(50:13):
and specialty clinics.
Pets Best offers one of themost flexible products in the
industry, with a wide range ofcoverages, including optional
wellness coverage, exam feecoverage and more.
When something happens, we payyour claims fast.
Filing a claim is as easy assnapping a photo of your vet
bill from your smartphone.
Our online portal gives youeasy access to see your claim
(50:36):
status, manage your policy,check your benefits and more.
You'll also have access to 24-7live veterinary help through
phone chat or email.
Over 125,000 pets are protectedfrom unexpected vet bills by
Pets Best.
Are your pets ready to join?
Get a quote today.
Speaker 4 (50:58):
Let me just put this in a realistic perspective for
you guys.
Okay, I've talked about this somany times.
What do I say about Eagles fans?
They are the most cutthroat,gnarly barbaric, animalistic
fans you could ever see for anNFL team.
Okay, vaseline power polesthat's how excited they get.
They have to climb up thetelephone poles.
(51:20):
Taylor Swift is basicallywearing a Chiefs jersey.
She's dating the number twoplayer on the entire Chiefs team
.
She was getting booed by Eaglesfans who just don't want the
Chiefs to win.
That's all.
It wasn't a big thing.
But of course, stephanie McNeil,who's the senior editor for
Glamour magazine, was at theSuper Bowl and she believes that
(51:42):
Taylor Swift getting booed atthe Super Bowl means that toxic
masculinity is back.
Fox News covered it.
I also read her full story, butone of the things she said was
Since Donald Trump took office,there have been several times I
felt chilled by the rapidincrease in misogyny sleeping in
our culture.
Why Taylor Swift getting booedat the Super Bowl was even more
(52:03):
chilling than you think is theline that opens the article.
According to McNeil, watchingTaylor Swift at the Super Bowl
get booed by a crowd ofthousands on Sunday night was a
new low, again blaming DonaldTrump for the fact that Taylor
Swift gets booed.
It's not his fault.
She has spoken, said what shehas to say and she's getting a
(52:23):
response from people.
The craziest part about this andagain it's just this liberal
woman her, probably the friendshe was with.
They all look like they hadseen a ghost.
They were so shocked that therewould be any negativity towards
Taylor Swift.
And it's only because she's awoman.
We can't boo women.
It's misogynistic.
But if it was someone else likeJoe Biden and it's only because
she's a woman, we can't boowomen, it's misogynistic.
(52:43):
But if it was someone else likeJoe Biden, it's OK, right?
No, because when Joe Biden getsbooed and FJB and all the
things that happened while hewas running for president and in
office, that was ageism andracism and billionaire elitists
trying to silence him.
You know, whatever they alwayshave something.
(53:04):
So now the booing of TaylorSwift was an attack on women.
According to these liberalwomen who, by the way, are
miserable and ugly TaylorSwift's probably the only good
looking liberal woman I've everseen.
To me, they all look like kindof Katie Hobbs is sort of the
poster child for that look.
In my opinion, she says to me,the disparate reactions felt
(53:29):
like a message that the SuperBowl, one of the biggest
cultural events in the country,has been reclaimed by Trump and
the toxic type of masculinity heappears to be the beacon of,
and he and his supporters seemto be living for it.
Now, remember, when Trump won,they invented a new category of
voter.
They call it the bro vote, andthat's how they disparage Joe
Rogan.
Many of you most of mylisteners are, you know, in
(53:52):
their mid-20s, early 30s,college-educated males.
But just like you, you guysaren't bros.
I'm not a bro.
I love Joe Rogan.
I'm not a bro.
I've been listening to himsince he started his podcast.
I mean this whole concept thatthey can group people in
together to try to justify theirscreams of racism and sexism.
Let me tell you somethingTaylor Swift's booing had
(54:15):
nothing to do with sexism orracism or white privilege or
billionaires or anything.
They take any phenomenon insociety and mold it and shift it
in a way that they can stuff itdown our pipes to make us feel
guilty and worried that feminismis out the window and women are
having their rights taken away.
(54:35):
No, if it's not one, it's theother.
This woman is the epitome ofhow awful liberal women have
created a culture of their owndemise.
What she did say and I do wantto read this quote, as an image
of the president, stone facedand standing in a salute was
shown to the crowd during JohnBatiste's national anthem
performance.
(54:55):
The roar of approval and cheerswas deafening.
But she says in parentheses ofcourse there were those in the
crowd who booed the presidentand cheered for Swift as well,
but from my vantage point it wasclear that the overall
sentiment was again misogynistic.
This is a reach, people, this isa reach.
This is football, this issports.
(55:18):
If you're going to come out andyou're going to root for a team
, you're going to get hammered.
The same thing happens to MattMcConaughey when he goes to away
games for Texas, the other team, you don't think Alabama booze,
matthew McConaughey.
You don't think Oklahoma booze,matthew McConaughey.
I mean, give me a break.
When you come out and support ateam, you're going to get
hatred from the opposing teams.
(55:40):
But no, no, it's misogynisticand all the bros and the bro
vote are coming to take away thewomen's rights and breed this
toxic masculinity.
Toxic masculinity meaning uh,we work, we want to marry, we
want to have sex, but all thebiological sort of programming
we have.
If we want to use that to ouradvantage, work, grow.
(56:04):
We're misogynistic.
They just want a bunch ofspineless boobs that sit around
and let their women tell themexactly what to do.
The concept of stay at homedads and all these other idiotic
just completely reverseevolutionary ideals and it's
only hurting society.
But it all comes from the factthat these women are miserable,
(56:25):
and the survey we just talkedabout it proves it.
Well, I think that's all fortoday, folks.
I'm Chad Law, reminding you ofwhat Reagan once said Education
is not the means of showingpeople how to get what they want
.
Education is an exercise bymeans of which enough men, it is
(56:46):
hoped, will learn to want whatis worth having.
Speaker 8 (56:50):
God bless you, president Reagan, and may God
save America you've justlistened to the last gay
(57:14):
conservative podcast hosted bychad law.
Please like, subscribe andshare.
The views and opinionsexpressed in this program are
those of the speakers and do notnecessarily reflect the views
or positions of any entitiesthey represent.
This episode and others areavailable on
LastGayConservativecom oranywhere you listen to podcasts.
The Last Gay Conservative isrecorded and published in
(57:36):
Newport Beach, California.
All rights reserved 2025.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie is America's hardest working grassroots activist who has your inside scoop on the biggest news of the day and what's really going on behind the headlines. The founder of Turning Point USA and one of social media's most engaged personalities, Charlie is on the front lines of America’s culture war, mobilizing hundreds of thousands of students on over 3,500 college and high school campuses across the country, bringing you your daily dose of clarity in a sea of chaos all from his signature no-holds-barred, unapologetically conservative, freedom-loving point of view. You can also watch Charlie Kirk on Salem News Channel