ive money laundering schemes and probably in this case being used as some kind of disguise for moving in things that could be weapons, for example, maybe it's other terrorists. So it makes me wonder, has there ever been an NGO that was good or are all NGOs just automatically a signal for fraud and a signal for something you don't want to happen? I don't know. But I'll tell you, it does seem to suggest there's never been a good NGO and that every single time you hear about one, there's something sketchy going on probably.

All right. Well, here's a story that was just complicated enough that I don't fully understand it, but I'll try. So according to Jennifer O'Connell writing for Red State, Trump has already this year vetoed two things at least. And one of the things he vetoed was a decades-old legislation that was tied all the way back to John F. Kennedy 63 years ago where they had put together a deal where the federal government would pay for this massive pipeline project. But the way it was supposed to work is that the federal government would pay for it but then they would be paid back over time with interest by the state and local authorities. So on paper it sounds pretty good, right? The locals get a source of water. I'm sure they needed it and it's all funded. But that was 63 years ago. So apparently all they do is they keep kicking the can down the road. I think very little or nothing has been built. So it's a little bit like the allegations about the California high-speed rail. But Trump just canceled it. So I feel like that's the right play because if something has lasted 63 years and they haven't built anything and it probably doesn't have a good audit feature because, you know, one does, and there's probably no way that the feds would ever get paid back. I think Trump can cancel that. So that does make sense to me and it makes me wonder how many things are going to get canceled because they never really made sense or because it's been decades and the money just disappears. So how much of, I don't know how much money was ever allocated to it, but once again, no surprise, we learned that any big federal project or state project is probably just a way for somebody to rob us.

Speaking of which, the Trump administration has extended its ban on child care payments until the states could provide evidence of legitimate spending. I saw this on One American News Network. So the Department of Health and Human Services, which had already suspended these federal payments to one state, I think it was just Minnesota, has now made that a national thing. So do you think that's a good idea? Probably, because as far as we can tell all the payments of this type were massively fraudulent and it probably affected every state and it's perfectly reasonable to ask them for evidence that the money is going to the right place. So it's not that they can't get the money, it's that they will have to demonstrate with receipts and photo evidence and show that the funds are actually being used in the right way.

Now here's my takeaway from that. I'm trying to imagine any other president who could have done this. You know, even though we recently learned that all these things were giant fakes, do you think that a Democrat would have just said, all right, we're going to stop paying all of you until you can prove it's real? No. And I'm not even sure a Republican could have because there would just be so much pushback. But here's why a regular ordinary Republican and definitely a Democrat president could not have pulled this off, which I think will be an important move. The first thing you had to do was dismantle DEI. If you had not dismantled DEI, then cutting funding in this way would automatically be called racist. But Trump is the only one with enough balls to say, you could call me racist if you want to, but I'm still going to do it. So you had to have an anti-DEI president. No one else could have done this. No one else. Would you agree? I'm looking at the comments right now. Would you agree that no other person as president would have had the tools and the right personality and the guts to do this?

Secondly, and this is important, the only way this would get done is if he wasn't in on the scam. Now even if you say, well, no other president was in on the scam, but their supporters were, s