A (2:45)

Well, I think it's Deeply concerning for two main reasons. The first, as a combat veteran myself, I'm concerned anytime we send America's sons and daughters into harm's way, which is exactly what it looks like. Right. This buildup is pretty undeniable to see. And my second deep concern as an American citizen is where is Congress? You know, where are the discussions with Congress? You know, the President does have some leeway as far as like, you know, an imminent threat. I'm not sure what that imminent threat is from Iran since apparently we, you know, had taken out all of their nuclear programs according to the Trump administration. So I'm looking at this going, where is congressional oversight? Where is the discussion in Congress? And so I'm not seeing that. And I find that deeply concerning.

C (3:29)

Yeah, even when we went to Iraq in 2003, which, you know, I look back on that, look, I think that was the wrong decision. But at the time I thought differently. At the time, I thought differently. But even at that time, the President went to Congress, Congress did authorize that. We had members of the Cabinet going out on the Sunday talk shows making the case for it. We went to the U.N. you know, there were other countries involved. I mean, this is just completely different. And we are, we are about ready to start a war in the Middle east, which would risk, I think, a much larger conflict there. And also Iran is three to four times the size of Iraq. So what are we doing here, really?

A (4:29)

I'm not exactly sure. Again, we, the American people, I think, need to be paying a heck of a lot more attention and need to be a lot more, I think, outraged and concerned that this is moving along, you know, without discussions with Congress. We, the American people, our voice and input is through Congress. I want to watch these next, you know, 24 hours and see what are our elected officials doing to represent us in this discussion, to represent us in this decision making process. I'm going to be on the phone today with my elected representatives asking those questions. And I hope, you know, our viewers will do that as well.

C (5:03)

Yeah, I mean, right now, anytime you start a war, obviously you're putting troops at risk. I'm not sure how this is making America safer by attacking Iran. And remember, our president bombed seven countries so far last year with really no objective, no plan for what's next, no explanation to the American people as to why I keep harping on the Congressional peace, as you just mentioned, no debate in Congress, no authorization to use military force. It's basically, it might be on the front page in the New York Times today. It's probably going to be on the back page tomorrow. This is reckless and dangerous. And remember, this president was elected on a platform to get us out of war.

A (5:47)

Exactly. Right. No more. No more new wars was the. Was the campaign thing. And obviously, like you said, we've already done kinetic strikes in seven different countries. Iran is a whole different level when it comes to, you know, kinetic action. So, you know, maybe this buildup is just for intimidation to try to force Iran's hand. I am hopeful that this isn't turning into some sort of, you know, major war. But have we not learned our lessons? Have we not learned the lessons of the past. Right. Decades spent, you know, our generation. Amy, the war you and I fought in, you know, with no clear objective, no clear end state. We saw how Afghanistan came to an end. And are we going to step into another pile of, you know, what a big pile?

C (6:33)

I mean, Iran process.

A (6:35)

This is why we have the process with Congress. Why aren't we using that?

C (6:40)

Iran is the size of Texas and Alaska combined. And if you start thinking, well, we'll. We'll just bomb Iran and that'll be it.

A (6:49)

Really like you.

C (6:50)

You and I, we. We were attack pilots. You know, there. There is a. A need if you're talking about regime change, if. If that's the objective. You know, bombing doesn't always change the regime. Now, are we going to put troops on the ground in a country that's four times the size of Iraq?

A (7:11)

Right. And our track record as a country on things like regime change is not good. And so the process is to have these discussions with Congress. The process is for we, the American people, to be represented in this discussion by our elected representatives. And none of that is happening. And most importantly, we are seeing sending Americans, daughters and sons into harm's way right now, today, just with the buildup alone, let alone if this goes to kinetic action.

C (7:38)

Yeah. And that leads me to the next thing. So while this buildup is happening and we're right about ready to possibly go to war, sending our troops in harm's way, the VA is now changing how it determines disability ratings. So they've come out with this new rule. I'm sure you're aware of this, Nicole, where the rating is now not based on your medical condition directly, but it's based on how your medical condition is after you take medication. And this is a huge change for the VA and so I'm going to get your take on this, But I just want to say this administration under Republican leadership, this. This is screwing over bets. All right? We're impacting 6 million veterans who currently receive disability compensation. And I just. Let me get your take.

A (8:40)

Yeah, I think the thing that is so, yes, absolutely. I do not understand what the VA is doing here. And I think I'm mostly shocked that this is all happening in the same 24 hour period, right? We are somehow sending America's sons and daughters overseas for this massive buildup for what looks like could be potential conflict in the Middle East. And on the very same 24 hour period, the VA is turning around and going, well, if you're a veteran, especially you future veterans, we're not going to take care of you after we send you to war. I mean, these two things are diametrically opposed to each other. We're going to send you into harm's way and then we're, we're not going to really take care of you. And there's a reason that every major veteran service organization and military service organization in the last 24 hours has come out vehemently against this decision by the va, which, by the way, was done pretty much in secret, which, by the way, wasn't done by bringing these VSOs and MSOs into the discussion table. You know, I look at this and I go, okay, just because someone is taking medication does not mean that their medical disability, you know, or their illness or disease or injury has gone away.

C (9:51)

Right?

A (9:51)

What happens when medications stop working? Are you then going to rate people for symptoms that happen as side effects of certain medications? What happens every time someone needs to change a medication? Are you now going to tell me that an American soldier who lost a limb and left it overseas in Afghanistan or Iraq somehow doesn't count as a disability because she can walk just fine with a prosthetic? This is ridiculous. And let's not stop and think about the significant impact this has on recruiting. You're a young American. Apparently, we're just going to deploy America's sons and daughters that are, you know, on a whim, without discussion with Congress. And if you're a young American person, do you want to be joining a military that turns around and says, well, if we break you, you know, we're going to. You're going to, you know, kind of, I don't know, be a little bit more, you know, precise and complex and all this on how we rate you? It's, it makes no sense.

C (10:45)

It doesn't. You're penalizing veterans for getting treatment. And so, you know, you talk about things like mental health issues or chronic pain conditions that may rely on medication. What the VA is doing here is saying you're going to have less of a rating. And so what that's going to do is a lot of veterans that are prescribed medication for their service related problems, medical problems, they'll cut off that medication. You know, then, then rather than lose compensation, I mean, you're, you're putting veterans, you're making veterans take a choice, make a choice here. Oh, you can either get compensated or you can get treatment, but not both.

A (11:26)

Yeah, the VA in this administration is like talking out of both sides of their mouths. Right. You know, we, they talk about the level of veteran suicide, they say that they care. We talk about this number of 22 veterans a day, which we know is probably higher than that. And now, like you said, I think the data, should we go this route? Should they be allowed to go this route? I think, unfortunately, the data is going to tell a sad story. I think you're absolutely right. And I think these rates of veteran suicides and stuff could very much potentially go up because of something like this. And so I really, I need every American out there, especially our veterans, to get on the phone today to get on the VA website to file our opposition to this, because this is absolutely, it's bad for current veterans and it is bad for, for those future veterans that we're going to send into harm's way. Bad for recruitment, bad for retention, 100%.

C (12:13)

Right now we are, we're looking at losing all these veterans, millions of us losing benefits. And how hard is it to get those benefits? You don't just snap a finger. And you know, people need to understand a lot of veterans, everybody has a different experience, but a lot of veterans fight for years, years to get the benefits that they earned and deserve from their service connected or service related disabilities. I mean, this is wrong.

A (12:46)

Absolutely. And I am one of those combat veterans. As you know, I served my country over 20 years as a fighter pilot. And at the end of my career, unfortunately, I came down with a pretty significant brain infection and that brain infection went misdiagnosed for too long by military medicine. Long story short, I spent essentially the last two years of my career bedridden and housebound, going through a medical evaluation board. And you know, when I read the articles this morning about what the VA was doing, I actually pulled up my air Force Form 356, which I have in my hand here that says 100% unfit for duty, Section 12 recommendation, permanent retirement. So my career came to an end very unceremoniously against my will and not the way I wanted it. Do you know how long, Amy, it took for me to get VA disability compensation, to just get rated by the VA for the very thing I was found 100% unfit for duty for? Take a guess.

C (13:41)

I mean, usually it takes a year or so.

A (13:45)

Four. It took me, a 20 plus year combat veteran, four years for the VA to find.

C (13:53)

And you had to probably fight every step of the way.

A (13:55)

I fought every step of the way. And even as tough as I like to think that I am, there were many times that I thought about giving up looking for this service connected disability and rating. And if not for the veterans service organizations and the military service organizations, in my particular case, the Wounded Warrior Project, I would not have been able to see that through to the end. So for people who act like this is an easy process or no big deal, they need to absolutely be rethinking that. And also, Amy, the thing I want to bring up is this. What they are doing is not a surprise to me. This was written into Project 2025. Okay. So this is the natural course of what this administration is doing. And it will never cease to amaze me the number of veterans who voted against their own best interest. And that is hurting my heart right now for the people that are going to be impacted by this decision. Yeah.

C (14:47)

And the other thing about this administration and these Republicans that are pushing this through is it's. They're disregarding clear court decisions that previously have said, you cannot do this. And this is just another way this administration is saying, we don't care about the law. We're just going to do our own thing. And of course, shutting out veterans from providing any input before they did it. I mean, this is bad for them

A (15:14)

not to bring the VSOs and the MSOs to the table for discussions prior to making this decision. Blows my mind. You may recall, at the end of my career, I worked at the White House. I worked with the VA consistently on issues like this. And during that time, there's no way they would have put out a decision like this without bringing the VSOs and the MSOs to the table to represent, you know, the veteran voice. So this is them testing the waters as they have done with Project 2025. The real question is, what's next? Right. Are they going to start means testing veterans with disability compensation? This is a. I hate to use the term slippery slope, but that's exactly what it is. They're testing the waters right now and we need to push back loudly and vehemently.

C (15:54)

Yeah. And they're already trying to gut the va. They they started last year. It's continuing process. I, you know, look, the last administration, the Biden administration, wasn't perfect, but that administration, along with Congress, gave veterans, in my belief, more benefits, better benefits. Because, you know, the burn pit legislation that was passed and now we have, you know, we have a Republican administration that, that wraps itself around the flag that, you know, says that they, they love veterans. And this, this is a perfect example of. That's just totally not true. I've seen it. I've seen it for years now, ever since I was a congressional fellow on the Hill. I saw it, you know, and I was just like, wow, there's. What they say is not what they do.

A (16:39)

And of all the things our country is spending money on. Money on. Right. Of all the money that we send to different things. Really, we're going to come after veterans.

C (16:50)

Yeah.

A (16:50)

At the exact same time that we've got this massive buildup going on in the Middle East. Make it make sense, Amy?

C (16:56)

It doesn't. It doesn't. Well, we have a lot to get through today. I want to move on here, Nicole. Congress is going into recess and DHS is, I guess, partially shut down. But the DHS secretary, Kristi Noem, is getting a lot of scrutiny for her leadership, of lack of leadership, I would say. And it's not a pretty picture at dhs. And with all the stuff going on in the forefront of our country, what's happening in the chaos at DHS sometimes takes a back burner. But I think it's a really important thing to talk about because this is a very large agency. It has a lot of power. We first started out in this administration with Kristi Noem firing the Coast Guard commandant and then moving into her house. And then the DHS secretary is using Coast Guard planes. And then now she's leased a luxury 737 Max jet. She has put on flak jackets and gone on ice raids, you know, dolled herself up with lots of makeup and toted large guns and gone to El Salvador and made videos in front of prisoners. And Meanwhile, she's fired 80% of the career leadership of DHS, particularly with immigration and enforcement. She's given polygraph tests to employees who she doesn't trust. And you hear all this and there's a lot more. But I want to get your take and your grade on the leadership of the DHS secretary right now.

A (18:42)

Well, I don't even know that I'd use the word leadership. Right. She seems to be somebody who is, I think, out of her depth in leading A massive organization like this, I think that she spends a lot of time concerned about her brand and her reputation and what that looks like, you know, on social media. And the sad part, right, is it comes at the expense of the people working hard at dhs, those career civilians, the folks that are in the Coast Guard that are just there trying to do their job, you know, trying to serve our country. And at the end of the day, I think that in my opinion, Secretary Noem should have been gone a heck of a long time ago. And again, I'm going to come back to Congress. Where is the oversight? Where is the accountability? Where is the backbone and spine that says, okay, you know, enough is enough. We literally have Americans, in my opinion, that are being murdered on the streets. And we have a lady standing up there making sure that her social media brand looks good.

C (19:30)

How about the story of shifting C130 off of search and rescue mission for a Coast Guard Coast Guardsman that was lost at sea and then shifting that and her saying, no, no, we've got to. We've got to do more deportation fights, flights.

A (19:49)

It's shameful.

C (19:51)

It is shameful. And then there's a story in the Wall Street Journal that says that she fired the pilots of her aircraft because, you know, when they had some maintenance problems, so they had to switch aircrafts on some flight, and the pilot, you know, who's not responsible, I guess, for her gear, she left her blankets on the first jet and reached the destination and then was so angry that they fired the Coast Guard pilot.

A (20:25)

Seriously, I don't understand that. Right? It's the behavior of a petulant toddler who lost their blankie. Give me. Give me a break. Right? I mean, I worked as an aide, and I worked, you know, serving multiple star generals, admirals. I served as an advisor to the first lady of the United States. I've flown on aircraft with these folks, and not one of them from either party would have behaved like this over a blanket that got left behind. Again, it's clear that the secretary and her staff are not focused on the things that actually matter. Right? I am not paying a secretary and having someone represent the American people like that at DHS to worry about a blanket.

C (21:07)

And honestly, all of the videos of her riding on horseback and all that stuff, it was kind of just funny to me. It didn't really bother me that much. And the stories of the blanket is kind of like, oh, my God, that's just terrible leadership. But you know what gets me, Nicole, is when Alex Freddy was killed, was Shot in the back like eight or ten times, right? And she got in front of that microphone and slandered him and said that he was a domestic terrorist. I lost my mind. I, I was in the kitchen. I was listening to that. My husband and I were in there. I think we were cooking or something. And I, I, I started yelling at the tv. I just, that, that to me was no more. That, that was the point where I said, she needs to be impeached. She needs to be fired. Because, I mean, you could do the videos of the horses. That's just kind of stupid. But this is, this is wrong.

A (22:08)

Absolutely wrong. My sentiments and feelings were exactly the same as yours at the time. They remain the same to this day about the murder of Alex Preddy and the fact that we would have folks stand up there, you know, within an hour of his murder and, you know, slander his name, and the fact that to this day we still haven't had a complete and full transparent investigation of that incident and the prior incident with Renee Gidd is. It's unconscionable. It goes against the rule of law. It goes against any kind of professional standard that we've ever had. And again, I think that we are definitely in need of a leadership change. But until Congress, who represents us, decides to do something, I think the status quo is going to maintain. And that's not good.

C (22:56)

People need to know about this stuff. And I'll tell you something that also came up this past week that, that may not have gotten to the front pages, but should is that DHS is now sending hundreds of administrative subpoenas to Google, Instagram, Facebook, all these social media companies. They want these social media companies to hand over to the government names, phone numbers, identification of people who are critical of ice. So, you know, these social media companies have, some of them have complied with these requests. Some of them have pushed back. But, you know, I remember when tech companies complained about government overreach in previous administrations, and now they're, you know, I guess they're just handing over this information. But to me, this is, this is a big deal.

A (23:50)

It's an, it's an absolutely big deal. So DHS is using this, I guess, power of administrative subpoena. But, you know, what's interesting is they're using it to a scale and a mass that's never been seen before. And also they're using it in places where there is no suspicion of a crime. It's one thing for maybe child trafficking to be happening on the Internet and for them to subpoena that information of that person suspected of a crime. They're literally subpoenaing people for utilizing their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. There is no crime there. And so this is what should be very concerning to people, is this infringement and this intimidation to try to stifle this free speech, to try to stifle, you know, the commentary that is critical, rightfully so, in my opinion, of what is going on at dhs.

C (24:43)

I mean, ICE has been running amok around the country and American citizens are angry. And you know what? Saying something bad about ICE is not a crime. Put it posting where they're patrolling and where they're operating. Guess what? That's not a crime.

A (25:00)

They're not only asking for names and addresses and telephone numbers, they're going after IP addresses. So now every time, you know, you're searching, you know, whatever that that might be, you know, looking up a solution for the flu that your family has or, you know, watching your favorite celebrity, they're tracking all of this. Now. I mean, that is, that is some scary stuff. And where is Google and Meta and Reddit? You know, right now they're hiding behind kind of that fancy corporate language. But the scale and the mass of the number of subpoenas is the thing that's deeply, deeply scary. And the question is, what are they doing with this information?

C (25:34)

Yeah, well, you know, ICE agents have warned protesters that they would be recorded and identified with facial recognition technology. Right. And, and the borders are like, Tom Homan has come out and said, you know, if you're impeding or interfering, which in their mind is, is pretty much anything, you're going to go into a database of people. I mean, this is like Chinese communist

A (26:00)

government stuff, mass government surveillance, and it's, it's, it's fundamentally un.

C (26:07)

American. Yeah, well, it's chilling and it's, it's also intimidating people. It's hurting, you know, your basic right of First Amendment free speech. And I think what's interesting here is the DHS spokesperson, her name is Trisha McLaughlin. And she said, well, this, this database doesn't exist. She just left her post this week.

A (26:36)

Ah, interesting.

C (26:37)

Yeah.

A (26:38)

And where is Congress asking the questions about these administrative subpoenas?

C (26:43)

Miles Taylor, who has been on the show before, he's, he's a great patriot who was in DHS during the first Trump administration. He was the DHS chief of staff. He wrote an op ed a couple of weeks ago, which I thought was really insightful. He basically said, look, I was a part of building dhs. You and I were in the military when that agency was formed. Right. Right after 9, 11. And Miles makes the case and he basically says, you know, it needs to be dismantled. It needs to be dismantled and rebuilt because right now it's being used to terrorize Americans. It was a young department. It didn't have the, how do I say this? It didn't have the history and the traditions of like the Department of Defense. And therefore it was susceptible to abuse and corruption. And you know, he said, look, FEMA is a disaster right now, you know, and all of these entities underneath DHS have become corrupt and more political. And he has come out and said, sort of what I've said is that some of these agencies, they need to have an apolitical future, meaning they have to be disconnected or at least their leadership has to have a tenure that does not associate itself with an administration.

A (28:15)

Absolutely. All of these agencies should be apolitical. There should be process and procedures, a standard of professionalism that's followed regardless of what your political party is. That's why we call it the profession of arms. Right. You know, it doesn't matter who happens to be the commander in chief or what party they're from. There's a profession, there's standards, there's expected behaviors and norms and we're seeing those just get completely ignored or else they're non existent.

C (28:39)

Just FEMA itself. There's reports that, you know, the White House has slow walked disaster relief to blue states. I mean, everything has become so insanely political and, and people don't trust these agencies anymore. And that's, that's a, that's a huge concern of mine.

A (28:58)

The example you just gave though, right, of withholding aid to blue states, that's not even, I mean that's beyond political. Right. This is where we start rolling into morals and ethics. It's immoral, it's unethical, it's not rooted in any kind of set of American values. I mean, we're beyond in some cases politics at that point. It becomes a fundamental like test of, of our country's integrity.

C (29:20)

Yeah, well, I've, I've watched DHS over my years in the military and you know, they shifted from being this sort of protect the homeland, maybe anti terrorists. Now it's, it's, it's, you know, the focus is on terrorizing Americans and going after our neighbors. I mean, it just really has shifted.

A (29:44)

Going after our rights. Exactly.

C (29:46)

Yeah.

A (29:47)

It's disturbing.

C (29:48)

Yeah. Well, I've never been a fan of presidential pardons. I don't know if you are but the reason I've never been a fan of this idea that the President can pardon, which, you know, it is true. I just never heard an argument that convinced me that the United States of America really needs to have the President be able to pardon anyone he or she wants. And honestly, if we got rid of the presidential pardon tomorrow, I think we'd be better off as a democracy. Right. But it's never, Nicole, been very high on my list of changes to our democracy because it's just never been something that was super heinously abused in the way that it is being abused now. And so now there's a push to reform it. There's a group of lawmakers in Congress who are actually trying to do something and they're trying to institute a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to block presidential pardons. So thoughts on that?

A (31:01)

So I am, I would say this is a piece of good news I woke up to this morning when I read what this bipartisan kind of group of representatives is trying to do to reform the presidential pardon process. I am fully in support of that. You know, I do think there may be circumstances where the executive branch and the President reserving the right, you know, to pardon not convicted criminals. Right. Like people who've gone through the process, like, for example, January 6th, insurrectionists who were convicted of assaulting police officers. Officers and then pardon. Like, that's, that's ridiculous. There may be some circumstances, and maybe I need to think more of this, where a president might need to be able to pardon somebody, but I don't think they should ever be able to pardon somebody without oversight. And so what I do love about this proposal coming out of Congress is that it requires 2/3 of support from both the House and the Senate that is in alignment with other process and procedures as far as approval. I think it's a great step in the right direction. So I don't necessarily think we need to get rid of all presidential pardons, but some kind of oversight that by the two thirds has to be, you know, just by numbers. Bipartisan is a great way to go, 100%.

C (32:12)

Well, I respect that. I actually think it doesn't go far enough. I, I would be for it, but I'd love to get rid of the pardon altogether. I mean, I think the pardon power has been abused by presidents. It's been abused by both parties. Alexander Hamilton wrote it into the Constitution, but both parties have abused it. You know, Ford pardoned Nixon after Watergate. George W. Bush pardoned folks after Iran Contra. We saw, you know, President Biden pardon members of his family in advance after he was worried that the Trump administration would, you know, have these politically motivated prosecutions against his family. So, I mean, it's there. But this current President Donald Trump has pardoned. He's basically pardons for sale. He's pardoned these cryptocurrency billionaires because they've given to his crypto stuff and his Trump family. He's pardoned disgraced politicians who he likes, reality TV stars, hundreds of political allies, the January 6 rioters, as you, you mentioned. And he's not pardoning just normal people. He's only pardoning people who are, like, powerful or famous to, you know, and help him. He pardoned a banker who gave him a million dollar donation to his superpower and he pardoned, you know, one of the biggest drug traffickers ever caught. You know, so I, I would love to see this reined in. I think it's way out of control. And if it were up to me, I get rid of the whole thing altogether.

A (33:56)

I think the pardon has been abused. I think it's being used unethically. I will do some more, you know, thinking about should the pardon be completely, you know, gone away. But I think you and I can agree that in the interim, this is a good step in the right direction.

C (34:12)

I want to talk to you about the SAVE act, talked a little bit about this last week, but it's really, the Republicans are really pushing this act and now recall, this is the Republican bill that would require proof of citizenship in order to vote. And they want to enact this, Nicole, prior to the 2026 midterms that it goes immediately into effect. The bill has been criticized as voter suppression because, you know, you would have to show a passport or a birth certificate when you register, and then you'd have to show a photo ID when you vote. And, you know, if your married name is different than your birth certificate, you would have to bring your marriage certificate or a newly issued Social Security card. I mean, it just, it's a lot. So. But I want to get your take.

A (35:07)

Yeah. So again, I think the biggest concern here, right, is the fact that they're trying to rush this through. Obviously, there's some problems with the way that it's written. There's some administrative and logistical hurdles that need to be overcome. I don't really know what the big rush is when you frankly, have to prove citizenship in order to register to vote. You know, the data already shows that the number of people who are undocumented who are voting our elections you know, you can count on, like, two hands. So, again, are we creating a problem, you know, that isn't there? But when I hear these folks talk on tv, it's no big deal. People just, you know, show your ID this and that. Well, that's coming from a place I think, of deep privilege. It's not cheap to get a passport. Right. It's not always the easiest process in every city, county, and state to get another copy of your birth certificate. These are logistical and financial challenges and hurdles that are very real for tens of millions of people, which means tens of millions of votes. And so let's get to this. This should be a very easy, bipartisan solution, and it's one that's just gonna take a little bit of time. So I'm more concerned that we're rushing it and that we're not coming up with a collaborative answer for this.

C (36:17)

Yeah, I agree with you. You know, I've never been opposed to, like, voter id, the concept. I've always felt like if you're going to require a voter ID because voting is a right, it's a right, not a privilege. If you're going to require it, then the government needs to pay for it. And that means the government's going to have to, you know, shell out all of that. All that. Because if you don't, then it's a poll tax.

A (36:44)

It does become a poll tax for those who can't afford the $150 passport fee. Absolutely.

C (36:49)

Yeah.

A (36:49)

And that's a very real burden for tens of millions of Americans, and people need to understand that.

C (36:55)

Yeah. And the new Republican talking point to really push this thing through is they're saying, well, it's insulting to complain about requiring women to show their birth certificate and their passport in order to vote because women are smart enough to figure it out. And I just want to take a step back a little bit. Okay. Because you and I have both had our careers in a very large bureaucracy, and it's not about being smart. Gentlemen, I think many men don't fully understand what it's like to change your name. Okay, I'm going to tell you a quick C story from my time in the military. If you don't think there's going to be problems with a massive change to voting in America with regards to people who have changed their names. You've never been to the DMV or the Social Security office. Okay. You've never tried to change your name while working in a huge federal government agency like we have. So when I was a Marine, I Was in probably, I don't know, 12 or 13 years when I got married. The Marine Corps is a small service, much smaller than the Air Force. There are pros and cons with changing your name. And so I, you know, I tried to weigh the pros and cons because I wasn't really sure, Nicole, whether I wanted to change my last name. I had built a reputation in the fighter community, which in the Marine Corps is a small fighter community. And your name means everything. Yes, there. And on the same side, though, I was very dedicated to my husband. I grew up Catholic, you know, pretty conservative families. I wanted to take his name. You know, that was sort of. I was struggling here. But what made me decide not ultimately not to change my name, my last name in the Marine Corps was when I went in to the admin, it was like a consolidated admin building. And I don't know, there was something like 50 or 60 Marines working there, all administrative Marines. And I showed them my marriage certificate, and I was trying to figure all the benefits and all that stuff out, as you know. And the staff sergeant, Marine Corps staff sergeant, female staff sergeant, walked right up to me and said, I'm just telling you, ma', am, don't change your name. It's a mess. Pay gets messed up, the GI Bill gets messed up. Your health records get messed up. They can't find your rifle range qualifications, and in six months, you're going to be back here trying desperately to change it back. Ma', am, I wouldn't do it if I were you. Don't do it. And that was what made me decide. I don't think I'm going to change my name. My husband loves me. Right. I know that I don't need to change this name right now, you know?

A (40:02)

Yeah, no, I understand. And it is a big hassle, let me tell you. I. In 2001, after being in the military, active duty for five years, when I married my husband, I did, in fact, choose to take his last name. I made my maiden name a second middle name. Now I'm thinking I'm, you know, I'm doing something really smart here. All the cool people have a few middle names, right? And so we will be married 25 years this year. And I can tell you that I still have problems pop up. It just happened the other day when I was trying to do some business travel, going through clearance. They didn't understand how I could have two middle names. And I had to pull out two other forms of ID just to prove to them that I had four complete Names and I was, in fact, who I was. This is 25 years later. So I think this is a little bit more complicated than they're making it out to be. But more importantly, the logistical and fiscal constraints are real barriers to this plan. Can they be overcome?

C (41:01)

You bet.

A (41:01)

Through a bipartisan answer and collaboration? I think so. It's going to take time. So let's stop trying to rush this before the midterms.

C (41:08)

100%. I mean, I think we just have to remind people how hard it is, you know, if you do change your name, it's going to take a long time to do this in a very large government bureaucracy, you know, and that also, as you mentioned earlier, they're sort of trying to solve a problem that's, that's really not a problem. Okay. I mean, since the 1980s, I think we've had less than 100 cases of voter fraud in this country, so. Right.

A (41:37)

And we have tens of millions of people that won't be able to afford a passport. So I can either have Those less than 100 or I can have tens of millions of people disenfranchised. To me, it's not even a comparison.

C (41:48)

Yeah. Well, I want to get your quick take on a few things as we wrap up here. This past week, a judge said that the Trump administration has to restore panels that are historical acknowledgments of our American history, history of slavery at national parks. And this happened on, on President's Day. The judge ruled that the, the Trump administration would have to restore immediately 34,000 slavery related exhibit panels to include videos. And, you know, the, the, the judge in this case compared the Trump administration's removal of these things as something out of George Orwell's famous novel 1984. So I'm glad that this has been restored.

A (42:36)

But when the judge actually did that and referenced 1984, I was like, dang. You know, like, that's, that was a very courageous, I think, and facts based and I think a good example. Remember the things that were being removed by the Trump administration, it's not like they're factually inaccurate. It's not like there's something that's being put out there that's not historically correct. I mean, we're removing things that exist, removing history, removing fact. And that's, that's disturbing. I, I was delighted to see this judge's ruling. I think it was very law based and facts based and historically accurate. And I look forward to seeing what the administration does.

C (43:17)

Yeah, well, unfortunately, this administration doesn't always comply with what the judges rule, but

A (43:24)

you know, back to Congress not holding that accountable 100%.

C (43:28)

Well, this week, President Trump announced that he was erasing the scientific finding that climate change endangers human health and the environment. So he's ending the federal government's legal authority to control pollution. This seems bad.

A (43:44)

Yes, look, I mean, you know, climate change, climate science, all of this has been decades, you know, in the making. There is consensus globally by the top scientists around the world. The fact that this administration just did that is taking us back decades, taking us back decades, harming our planet, it's going to harm people. There's nothing wrong, right, with saying, hey, we have new science, there's better ways of doing things, there's better ways of getting energy and slowly moving in that direction to just completely erase any kind of guardrails is going to take us back decades.

C (44:21)

And it's, it's wrong, it's wrong, it's

A (44:25)

bad, it's not good for the environment, it's got, not good for humanity.

C (44:29)

We will have less safe air, we will have more dirtier water. The whole country will suffer. And I remember running for Congress back in 2018 and my opponent said, well, you know, I don't think we need to have an epa, we don't need to have a national, any national standards. We could just do it from the states. And the problem, of course, is that, you know, rivers in air that goes from state to state, you know, I mean, it's like you could not have regulation in one state and pollute and then it pollutes downstream. I mean, come on, this is like

A (45:09)

the United States contributes to the pollution that goes around the globe. You know, we don't have states, you know, negotiating, you know, compromises and collaboration with international partners. You know, the federal government is the one, you know, that does that. Keep in mind, the United States is like the second, I think, behind China, you know, biggest polluter of the planet. And it, because of that, I think that we need to take a leadership role in this space to improving, you know, the climate. Not just for a state, not just for the United States of America, but because we're part of this global community.

C (45:40)

Yeah. Well, this past week, two very famous Americans passed away sadly. But I wanted to give a shout out to both of them. First was Reverend Jesse Jackson. He was born in 1941, civil rights icon, two time presidential candidate. He was somebody I had the privilege of being able to speak with during the 2020 race. He was just a great American and just cheers to him and to his Incredible life.

A (46:19)

Absolutely. American icon, you know, not just for African American rights, but just civil rights, social justice. Always sticking up. Right. For the minority, sticking up for everybody's voice. Right. Whether those were disenfranchised, those who are facing economic or educational, you know, access differences. I mean, he was. He was a. He was a fighter for all Americans. And it's definitely a huge, huge loss. But what a great legacy and example I think he leaves us.

C (46:50)

Incredible life. Incredible life. Also, who passed away was actor Robert Duvall. If you remember, he was in the Godfather, To Kill a Mockingbird, lots of other movies. The one movie that I remember, I'll ask you, what do you think is the movie that I liked the most?

A (47:11)

I'm gonna go with Apocalypse Now.

C (47:14)

Colonel Kilgore, good try, but have you ever seen the Great Santini?

A (47:19)

Oh, yeah, the great. Sorry, that didn't pop into my head. But yes, an iconic American actor as well. And the roles he played, just extraordinary.

C (47:27)

So memorable. Well, he was a military brat. He was raised in a Navy household. His dad was a rear admiral. And in 1953, just after the Korean War ended, he was drafted into the Army. He did a couple years in the army, left the service as a private first class, but used the GI Bill. And he studied in acting and theater with his classmates. There were Dustin Hoffman and fellow veteran Gene Hackman, who was also a Marine as well. But I always loved the Great Santini because he played a Marine Corps fighter pilot who was very arrogant. He was a decent commander, but the rest of his life was kind of a mess. And I think that we've all. I certainly have met guys like that along the way. And so that's, you know.

A (48:23)

Yeah. You know, I don't know.

C (48:25)

It's also.

A (48:26)

I'm sitting here thinking, you know, proof that the GI Bill is a good thing. Right. That GI Bill gave us, in the American arts, the gift of. Of Robert Duvall.

C (48:34)

Right.

A (48:34)

And the entertainment. And let's not forget, you know, even though he was only in the military for, like, you know, I think two or three years, he still served more than most Americans, first of all. But second of all, he stayed active in the veteran space. You know, he was the type of person that would go visit wounded warriors and veterans and, you know, he would shine a light on our service members and veterans, and so I thank him for doing that.

C (48:57)

Yeah, well, two great Americans sadly passed on, but we cheer them both. Jesse Jackson and Robert Duvall. This has been a great show. Nicole, I love having you on. I'm so Glad you made the time. There's so much going on as we talked about at the beginning. And so next time we gotta have you back on in a closer period of time because there's too much to talk about.

A (49:24)

Too much is changing every single day, you know, And I just hope that your listeners today remember that they have a role in this great country. So pick up that phone, get on your emails, and let's hold Congress to account.

C (49:37)

Amen. And I know you're going to. I think you're going to the Women in Aviation International Conference soon. I'm going to be talking there, so everybody should check that out if that's online. I think you're giving the keynote speech for that.

A (49:51)

I am looking forward to it. Thanks for having me.

C (49:53)

Amy. Awesome. Great to see you.

D (50:00)

Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn ad, go to libsynads. Com. That's L, I B S Y N Ads. Com Today.