July 13, 2026 • 38 mins
Two of the most influential conservative heavyweights join Joe Pags for a hard-hitting, no-holds-barred look at the economic and constitutional crises destroying America from within.
First, Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, exposes the hidden tax traps Washington is quietly laying for everyday citizens. From Elizabeth Warren’s massive $3 trillion tax proposal to a quiet legislative push that could fundamentally change how your vehicle is taxed, Grover breaks down the math they don't want you to see. Plus, he dives into the massive financial reality of Social Security—and why a private citizen would go to prison for running a similar system.
Then, former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli joins the show to drop truth bombs on the ongoing border crisis, national security threats, and the absolute failure of leadership in Washington.
This is an essential, deep-dive episode packed with insider information you won't hear on the mainstream news.
Support the show, share this episode, and visit ATR.org for more insights from Grover Norquist.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You or I would be in prison in orange jumpsuits
if we did a financial scheme like the Ponzi scheme
that is social security. Washington is doing it on purpose.
And now there are some like Elizabeth Warren that want
to raise our taxes to the tune of three to
four trillion dollars the Ponzi scheme that is social Security,
that might not be there when you need it. Right
(00:21):
now with Grover Norquest, before we started, you mentioned something
that Elizabeth Warren is trying to do a trillion, three trillion,
four trillion. It came on throwing around the number trillion
like it's just nothing. It's a gigantic number. She thinks
she's going to raise trillions of dollars a how and
what is she promising to use that money for?
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Okay, well, Elizabeth Warren very left wing out of the
Massachusetts I'm a little sympathetic. Before I moved to America,
I lived in Massachusetts. I'm familiar with us. But she
managed to sucker a Republican nominal Republican Bernie Marino, Senator
from Ohio. No. So she just took advantage of it,
(01:00):
and he signed onto a three trillion dollar tax increase
now it's supposed to help social Security. But when the
Democrats raise taxes under Clinton and social Security was going bankrupt,
they never put any into so they just spend it all,
didn't put anything in soci security. When Obama raised taxes
quite a bit, you didn't put any of it in
social Security. He had new welfare programs. And then when
(01:21):
Biden came in and wanted to do the ninety trillion dollar,
ninety trillion, t trillion dollars global warming stuff, and none
of it went into sociecurity. So the idea that she's
going to put anything sob security as Joe, she wants
three trillion dollars over the next decade, which would almost
wipe out the Trump tax in tech tax cuts. And
(01:43):
unfortunately Bernie Marina, who's a Morano, who's a Republican signed on,
just got took advantage of. And he's new and he
doesn't understand. He just agreed to a three trillion dollars
tax increase for nothing. And by the way, what it'll
do is it's a massive tax on self employed people,
small businesses. It'll make Oh, Bernie's from Ohio. Bernie Marina,
(02:05):
he's from Ohio. He'll make the small businessman there pay
six fifty six percent rate tax higher than people in Britain. Pey,
we went, we started shooting at the British when they
wanted us to pay more on income taxes. Now we're
going to be paying more than them. In Bernie Marina's
tax increase, tax increase world.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
No, I think it's ridiculous, Bernie Marino. I think those
watching and listening probably would know him because he was
the one questioning Keith Ellison from Minnesota and did a
very good job in the questioning. But you're right, he's new.
I don't think he gets what the gig is. Elizabeth
Warren will lie to your face to get what she wants,
which is more of your money. In mind and everybody
watching and listening, let's go into the weeds a little bit,
if you don't mind grow over. When it comes to
social Security, what was the plan? Because I have a
(02:49):
four oh one K, I do very well. I don't
think I'll need Social Security, I hope not. Was it
supposed to go to everybody? Were they supposed to take
as much money as they possibly could, pretend like it
was in a lockbox somewhere as al Gore would say,
and then they wouldn't touch it. Is that what the
plan was.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
When Franklin delan and Roosevelt put it forward, he thought
he was setting up something like the Germans had. It
was a German idea. Under before World War Two, the
Germans had this idea, We're going to give you some
money when you retire. This is when all jobs were physical,
and that was the theory, and they weren't thinking of
(03:28):
the world we live in today. Six Back in nineteen sixty,
only six percent of Americans had a four or one
k or an ira or the equivalent, okay, something where
you actually own stocks, and they increased in value it
every year. You could put some in, but it got
more and more and more, and you could have a
lot of money to retire, and you didn't take any
money from anybody else. And it wasn't a government program.
(03:49):
It's just you. Today that number sixty five percent of
Americans are in the stock market, and when the stock
market booms, there's a reason why they announce how the
stark market's doing earlier in the TV shows than they
used to. There's a number of people who care and
for who's their life really depends on it. It matters.
(04:11):
What we should do is what countries like Chili and
others have done, which is turn the government program into
four one k and ira so that you're saving real money.
And that's why the Trump accounts for young people for
He's willing to have the federal government put in a
thousand dollars when a child is born in the United
(04:31):
States for the next four years just to get it going.
But the founder of doll and his wife are putting
about six seven billion dollars into the accounts for twenty
four million low income kids to get them started. And
now they can put more money in. Foundations can put
money in, the parents can put up to five thousand
dollars in. Kids can start their life with actual assets.
(04:56):
And can you imagine ten and twelve year olds in
high school and stuff talking about how their stocks are doing.
We're going to have a better educated collection of eighteen
year olds than we right now have in Congress in
terms of how the economy works.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Well, I think you're absolutely right, But what I'm wondering
is what was I know what the plan was, now
they put it in place because most people were not
self invested. I understand that many of us now the
majority is self invested. But what was that money supposed
to do? Why is it broke? Did they just not
collect enough? Has government spent the money promising to give
it back and never does? Why is it running out
(05:29):
of money?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
People were led to believe that this money was being
put somewhere and perhaps invested in quite in fact, your
taxes were taken and given to your grandparents, so there's
nothing ever saved.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
It's a pyramid screme. It's a pyramid scheme.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Yeah, it's called palmsy scheme. People, mister Palmsey went to
jail for this, or I did this? You go to prison? Yes,
And in Chile, which one of the number of countries
have done, said okay, here's what we're going to do.
We're going to go from the where there's no savings
to when there is safe and there's a transition. It's
not very important, but we need more people that have
(06:05):
four or one k's iras, health savings accounts, Education savings US.
These are starting up all across the country, where people
can save for their kids' education and college, where they
can save for their own healthcare, where they can save
for their retirement and not rely on the government, which
hasn't in this case, actually saved the money for us.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Imagine that government didn't do a good job with their money.
There's no way, Grover. Why is it law? Why is
it compulsory? Why can't I say I'm opting out, I've
got my own savings, I'm good for retirement. Why does
the government get to, just before I even see the money,
take money out of my out of my hard work,
and just keep it. Why can't I just shut that off?
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Well, they take it rather than let if you choose
to do it, you put your money into a four
or one KO mutual fund. So whereas what they do
is they say there'll be no savings, there's no increase.
The stock market goes up, there's nothing for you. The
economy grows, there's nothing for you. They don't have a
product they could sell, which is why it's mandatory. And we,
(07:06):
as you point out, we need to make it easier
and easier for people to invest in for themselves. I
don't know how the government's going to fix the problem
they created, but we need to let the American people
solve it for themselves. And sixty five percent of Americans
have begun to do that. And many in a very
serious way. We just need to keep at it.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
I just like to opt out. I mean, it's my money.
I don't get it. If I don't work, they don't
get the money. But if I go to work and
get punished by them taking the money, it's very strange.
Grover Norquiz, president of Americans for Tax Reform atr dot org.
Make sure you go there, Groover. Why are they messing
with our cars? I'm a car guy. A little while
ago they were going to put a breathalyzer in every
car to make sure I wasn't drunk before I drove.
I haven't had a drink since I was twenty two,
(07:47):
so that doesn't make any sense. Why are you alleging
that I'm drunk until I prove to the government that
I'm not. Then they wanted to take out AM radio,
which made no sense. Then they said every car has
got to be electric, it can't be internal combustion engine anymore.
And the latest one we want to put a national
car tax on. Go over. Why are they messing with
my wheels?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Well, because they want more money, not for roads. By
the way, twenty percent or more of the money that
you pay in your gasoline taxes or other taxes for
cars goes to five or six big cities their metro system,
and those metro systems have very nice pay and very
(08:25):
nice pensions, and people who are driving cars are paying
for that. And then they turn around and go, since
we looted the gas tax to do other things, build
parks and do subways and bicycle paths and so on,
everything except your car, everything except your roads to drive on.
They kept looting that. At the state level they do
(08:48):
that too, And one of Governor Walker got elected governor
in Wisconsin, he found that a billion dollars, which is
a state levels a lot of money had been taken
out of the gas tax and spent on there's stuff.
The legislature had looted the gas tax, which were supposed
to be for highways. Well, they loot the highway system.
And then they turn around, go, we don't have any
(09:08):
money because we stole it all. And then they say,
so you, the American people, have to pay for it.
We can't raise the gas tax because you're already pissed
as hack about our gas tax. So here's what we'll do.
We'll have a car tax. I had guys from the
US Chamber of Commerce, come say, we've got this great idea.
We're gonna have a huge car tax to replace the
gasoline tax. And then they told me to make when
(09:29):
I suggested this wasn't a great idea. People will hate
your car tax. They hate you already when it's just
at the state level. They said, well, but the but
the fl CIO, the unions like it. The union take
a living driving running the subways. Yes, they like it
because they're going to get the money, not you and me,
and not the roads. So they backed off and said, okay,
(09:52):
we're just going to have a starter kit. We'll just
have one on things that are at electric vehicles. We
started on electric vehicles because they don't pay gasoline taxes.
And then later but their goal, their original goal was
everybody pays a huge car tax, like once a year.
I don't think this is going anywhere good. It was
(10:12):
strong on people, but people should be aware of it.
If you see your congress and her senator, stick your
finger up their nose and say, are you really going
to try and stick a car tax on me? And
don't tell me it's not on me yet, because we
know where it's going.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Well, what's interesting is you said something in passing that
was very, very important. They were pushing electric cars down
our throats for years, but if you drive an electric car,
you don't pay a federal excise tax for gas. So
now we were forced you not to do what was
giving us the money, and now we're going to make
you give us the money some other way because you
did what we told you to do. Grover, what am
I looking at? It's like bizarro world.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Every day is a good day for a tax increase
if you're a positive, but not all politicians. Look, raising
taxes is what elected officials do rather than govern. Yes,
it's a lot of work to govern, to make decisions,
to say yes, to say no, to.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
Say cut spending, hello, cut spending maybe.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Yeah, yeah, reform maybe even keep the looting down to
a doll roar. You know the fraud that goes on.
I was talking to Oz, that doctor Roz who works
at AKHS, and he said, the amount of misspending, fraud,
whatever you want to call it, money that's going places
is not supposed to go and where they didn't claim
(11:27):
it was going is rather significant. And they would rather
raise taxes, some of these politicians, than fix the problem.
They had because look, if you fix a problem now
that's been going on for ten, twenty, thirty, forty fifty years.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Yes, what was wrong with you?
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Why now?
Speaker 1 (11:42):
Right?
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Right? So kind of almost better to go. I don't
see a problem.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Let's raise taxes atr dot org is the website. It's
Grover norquiz go and check that out. When the country
was founded, were there taxes in place? How did they
pay for government?
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Ah, before the government. If the country was founded, when
we were thirteen colonies, we were paying one to two
percent of our income in total taxes. Okay, one to
two percent. The British, our oppressors, the ones who lived
in London, were paying twenty percent because you run an umpire,
it's expensive. And so the British said, hey, Americans, why
(12:18):
don't you pay something closer to twenty because you're only
paying one to two and you're getting rich, you're getting
more successful than we are. This sucks. And we started
shooting at them until.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
They left, right.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
And the problem is, and we did one to two
percent up until turn of the century. I mean they
went up during the Civil War, but then back down
again when the war was over. And then we get
in one two percent until they invented the income tax.
Why did they get why do we get the income tax?
Several things. One the prohibitionists who didn't like alcohol. About
(12:49):
a third of all the taxes in America were on alcohol.
So they said, if you ban alcohol, you can't pay
the bus.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
It's like a fuel excise tax. Right, yeah, So.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
They said, okay, So all the guys, she said, let's
not let's make alcohol illegal. They said, let's have an
income tax. Then you had the people who hated the tariffs,
because that was the big tax, and everyone hated the tariffs,
and so they said, get rid of the tariffs with
much more, I have an income tax. And then there
was a third group, which is the hate and envy group.
I hate people who work on Saturdays. Let's have an
(13:18):
income tax on them, thinking that it won't come on you.
At some point, of course it does. So they did
all of that stuff. Now we still have taxes on liquer,
we still have tariffs, and all the hated envy people
still envy the guys who were there. And when they
put the income tax in nineteen thirteen, it was only
seven percent was top rate top rate. That's half of
(13:39):
the bottom rate. Now seven percent was a top rate,
and you had to be making eleven million dollars eleven
million dollars in today's dollars to pay the seven percent.
Now half the country's paying the income tax, and seven
percent is half of the bottom rate, not the top rate,
but the bottom rate. We got sold a bill of
good and because they had the income tax there, it's
(14:03):
probably why we got into World War One. We wouldn't
have gotten into World War one if they hadn't had
this money machine.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
What's interesting is when they put it in, wasn't there
a promise I guess it wasn't a real legal promise
that we will never raise it higher than this.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Yeah, they always say that. Okay, they say, well, look
I got this great tax. You won't pay it. It's
just on a few people. It's just on the rich,
for instance, or maybe on foreigners, or maybe on big businesses,
but not you. They haven't finished the sentence. We're going
to tax the rich first, then you. They put in
(14:40):
a tax to pay for the Spanish American War, which
one hundred and thirty years ago or so, and it
was on phones, long distance phones. Phones cost four thousand
dollars in today's dollars. Not very many people had phones.
They were very now nobody had long distance because nobody
knew anybody in another state. It was too difficult to
get there. So only really rich people who had really
much friends in another state would ever pay it. Pretty
(15:03):
soon everyone had a phone and everybody was paying that tax.
It lasted one hundred years. Now. I went to public school,
but I recently on TV saw that the Spanish American
War has been over for some time.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Wow, Now I wasn't sure about that. I was going
to ask Grover, let me ask you one question. That's
it's kind of loaded, but I'm sure you could answer it.
Are we ever going to get to a place where
we could start rolling some of this stuff back? Because
you and I, I think could agree that if you're
thirty thousand feet up, the United States of America is
a socialist country right now because they're stealing everybody's money
who's working hard and giving it to people that aren't
(15:37):
working hard. How is that not socialism? Can we ever
dial this back? What is it going to take to
do it? If we can?
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Yes, we can, And the answer is we are doing
it in a number of states. Okay, there are eight
states with no state income tax. I live in a
fine Florida is paying half as much in tax as
total taxes, half as much per person as New York,
same number of people New York at Florida. Florida pays
(16:05):
half as much. Why well, because they just don't spend
as much as New York and many They have not
raised spending. I don't mean with inflation, I mean at all.
In last four years in Florida, they keep the spending down.
I would like to have more of the decisions, more
of the programs, maybe all of the welfare programs. Let
(16:28):
the states handle them, because some states do it really
well and some states do it really bad. And two
things happen. Either people keep leaving California and New York
and Chicago and go to red states that are spending
less money, or the blue states decide to grow up
and govern instead of raising taxes. So it's win win
(16:50):
either way. The more decisions that are made at the
state level, the more you see competition. Fifty states. Some
people get it right, some people get it wrong. It's
not always the same states. Everyone's in a while. A
blue state has a good idea, and you learn from it.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Grover with the people fleeing New York to go to Florida,
to come here to Texas, people leaving Illinois, people leaving
New Jersey, people leaving California. Will those states, by a
matter of fact, just to survive budgetarily have to lower
taxes or they're going to keep on being stupid like
mom Donnie, who's like, we'll just take over the buildings
and will be the landlord. He would like to make
full communism in New York. But will they be forced
(17:25):
budgetarily to change something or else they're going to lose
their entire populations.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
They will have to change. And once you took down
the Berlin while East Germany had to change. Okay, yes,
And the more you let people leave, that's why in
California they're talking about wanting to export their taxes to
people who flee California. This sounds like something that Rhodesia
or or East Germany would do. People are leaving, we
must tax them before they get out the door. Yes,
(17:51):
that level of competition really does change things. People really
are they leave California and move to Texas. If you've
ever been to California and ben to Texas, it's not
the weather, right, nobody leaves California because of the weather,
and nobody else to Texas because of the weather. Yes,
but that our government less cost leaving you alowe people move.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Are you on Medicare? Listen up? Are you on the
right plan? Your quick answer might be yes, I'm on
the right plan? How do you know? Think about that question.
How do you know if you're on the right plan?
How do you know you're paying the right amount of money?
How do you know you're getting the right services or
the right doctor that you want? Get with my friends
at Chapter right now. Ask Chapter dot org slash PAGs
(18:35):
is the website. What Chapter does is it goes in
and finds that exactly what you need, what's right for you,
and then it checks the plan that you're on. They
tell me tens of thousands of plans are available through Medicare,
so it's a good change. You're not on the right one.
By the way. If you are on the right one,
they're going to tell you you're on the right one
and then leave you on your merry way. Doesn't cost
anything to you. Get with them right now. Here's the number.
(18:57):
Write this down six four to six six zero zero
four ninety three twenty four six zero six four six
six zero four ninety three twenty four. Ask them all
the questions you've got. They're going to be there to
answer it for you. On average, guess how much people
are saving once they get with Chapter eleven hundred dollars
a year. Don't take a chance of paying too much.
(19:19):
Don't take a chance of not getting the services you want.
Get with Chapter right now sixty four six six zero
four ninety three twenty four, or ask chapter dot org
slash PAGs. It is a grovernorquest atr dot or great information.
I said, last question, Have you got it? Just a
minute to tell my audience whether or not we can
through reconciliation do the Save America Act? Is that not
(19:41):
possible because reconciliation is really about policy changes on budget
on budgetary items, and the Save America Act doesn't fall
them into that basket.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
Yes, the reconciliation allows you to pass something in the
Senate with fifty one boots, not the two thirds or
sixty right mark. But it's limited to quest of more
or less spending or more or less taxes. You can't
reform welfare. You could cut it, you could reduce taxes.
You could spend more or less on welfare, but you can't.
(20:11):
You can't change the laws. And that's uh. There's a
lot of interest in the Save America Act. It's a
great piece of legislation. You just can't do it on reconciliation.
The way the rules are written. You need sixty votes,
and we need to get there. But that means vote,
get more people willing to pass these laws.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Less than getting rid of the filibuster. There's no way
to do this then.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
No, there isn't. Right now, I understand everybody's frustration. I'm
very frustrated because even things that I think are budgets
that we want to move through the parliamentarian guys, no,
this is it's a budget issue, but it's mostly policy.
And maybe she's right at the time, but it gives
us a lot of flexibility. It's the only way we've
(20:58):
ever gotten tax cuts recently is because of reconciliation. So
it's a wonderful thing. It's much better than getting if
you have to have sixty votes, there wouldn't be any
tax cuts in America because there are no Democrats willing
to vote for tax cuts.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
It's Grover norquiest President Americans for Tax Reform go to
atr dot org and follow them everywhere online. Grover thanks
a million for the time today and Happy Independence Day.
Joe ute again atr dot org. Go check out everything
that Grover does atr dot org. Now little PAGs extra
will give you Ken Kuchinelli. Ken is the former Deputy
Secretary of the DHS. It's got a lot to say
about the Supreme Court rulings that just happened, also about
(21:34):
what's going on the border and voting integrity. Enjoy.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
The SAVE Act includes a baseline one proving citizenship. Washington
screwed that up. Federal court screwed that up. Only Washington
can fix it. States can't fix that. States can stop
ballots from coming in after election day, but they can't
fix the confirmation of citizenship. Only the federal goal can
(22:00):
do that. That has to come in the Save Act.
You know, I certainly hope we'll see a reconciliation package
that includes a little bit of funding. You'll never hear
me Joe talking about funding things. I always want to
cut everything right, me too, But you've got to fund
it for it to be in reconciliation. And I hope
they go about doing that so that at least by
(22:21):
the presidential election of twenty twenty eight, we can be
confirming citizenship and everybody using voter IDs, which even CNN,
those radical right wingers at CNN, even their polling finds
over seventy percent of Democrats support voter ID and citizenship confirmation.
The only place that isn't supported is the United States Senate.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
You know, it's interesting because reconciliation is for but is
not to change budget items. It's to change policy on
things that are already on the books. I could say,
no tax in overtime, no tax on tips. You can
change sort of some things that do revolve around money.
But if it's a money issue, if it's not a issue,
like the Same America Act isn't, how do you make it?
(23:03):
So do you say we've got to add some funding
to pay for the governments? I mean, can you do that? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (23:10):
So one way you could do that is you set
up one of the complaints the other side makes, and
it's a bit of a false complaint, is oh, poor
people can't afford IDs. Really, how they get on planes
and trains and going to movies and doing everything, getting
a tattooed, doing everything else you gotta do. But let's
use their argument. Let's put some funding in there so
that the states can draw on the funding so poor
(23:33):
people who can't afford IDs, both of them can get IDs.
But that makes it, Joe about money, and that makes
it a monetary expenditure instead of a change to fundamental law.
I would note there are very minimalistic federal ID requirements
(23:53):
on the books. And I would also note it's already
federal law that non citizens can't vote. It's just the
states that no way of enforcing it. This gives them
a way of enforcing it, so they're not making new law,
which is important, or the parliamentarian of the Senate will
rule against you. Right, And it involves spending, which is
(24:13):
what a reconciliation bill is supposed to be about. So
that's how you'd go about doing that, Joe. It's a
question really of whether the Republicans in the Senate fifty
one of them or fifty if the Vice President participates,
we'll support that, and certainly a lot of them have
been talking big about it. But it's literally time to
(24:33):
put our money where your mouth is.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
Yeah, it is, I said John thun problem. I mean
if you had Mike Lee, and there would have gotten done.
Probably Rick Scott might have gotten it done. There's some
other centers that I think would have gotten it done.
The fact that you can't rally fifty out of the
fifty three members that you have on your side really
shows me that there's a problem with poon. I don't
know John Thun, but I feel like he's been very weak.
Mike Lee wants to do the talking filibuster. Do you
agree with him? Let's just keep on talking about it
(24:57):
until we get the cloture.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
Yeah, no, absolutely, I mean everybody gets to talk twice.
It's a matter of a willingness to do it, staying
in town and holding the floor and working through it. Look,
the Civil Rights Act back, you know, just before I
was born, got through a philibuster. The filibuster then was
sixty seven. That was the threshold, not sixty and they
(25:20):
talked right through it. By the way, a higher percentage
of Republicans voted for that than Democrats. And the way
they got through the filibuster was they talked and debated
their way through the filibuster, just like Mike Lee describes.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
Well, I think it was nineteen seventy five something like
that where they changed it to sixty. But you don't
actually have to filibuster. You can say I'm gonna go
to lunch. I philibuster. That's it. You're done, and that
just locks up the Senate and they keep on complaining. Well,
it gives the minority party a voice. You had a
voice when there was a talking filibuster. If you want
to be able to pass legislation, don't be in the minority.
It's kind of that simple, ken do you do? You
(25:53):
fear like I do that as soon as Democrats take over,
and I hope they don't, but if they should take
the Senate back, they'll just blow the filibuster out and
doing it they want.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Yeah, someday they'll get it back, and they are talking
about doing that. And look who's winning Democrat primaries now,
I mean, this is the communist wing of the Democrat
Party is now the predominant wing of the Democrat Party
in America. And forget this socialist stuff. They're communists. And
(26:23):
just because they don't know what a communist is, you
and I do, and everything they say is absolutely and
completely consistent with communist ideology. And I don't think it's
a coincidence that a lot of these folks are first
generation immigrants from very left wing parts of the world,
and they're importing that politics into the Democrat Party in
(26:46):
the United States. And when Hikeem Jeffries is too right
wing for you, you know that you are barely clinging
on to the left end of your flat earth.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Well, how do we here ken where we were actually
dying to stop communism? Four hundred seven thousand Americans died
in World War Two. We are globally we've been trying
to shut down communism for over one hundred years. Yet
somehow they're getting elected to our Congress, They're getting elected
to mayor's offices, they're getting elected to state representatives and
comptroller's offices. I mean, how did that? I get it?
(27:20):
We're free, we're liberated. Everybody can run for office. But
my god, they're literally saying out loud, we are the
reason why nine to eleven happened. There's some woman that
just won a primary who literally has said that in
the DSA right in Colorado. So you've got people who
are saying, I hate the country. I'm in office at
elon Omar to support the Somali community. That's why she's
(27:41):
in Congress in the United States. Don't we have any
common sense where we say, listen, we fought these people
abroad to stop it from coming here. We're not gonna
let you take office here. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
And I think the way this is unfolding with the
America Last being voiced by these people. The Constitution speaks
to the requirements to be in Congress, and there's three
of them, and allegiance to the United States isn't one
of them, because I think the founding fathers rather assumed that, Yes,
(28:14):
now two thirds of them can throw these people out,
but they're not going to do that because the Democrats,
what we'll call regular Democrats. I'm not sure there are
many of those left, but they're afraid. They're just flat
out afraid anymore. And the strategy of the communists is
to take over the Democrat Party, whether they're a minority
or a minority. And I would point you back you
(28:35):
mentioned one hundred years, Joe, go back to the Mensheviks
and the Bolsheviks. Folks, look it up. If those words
don't ring a bell to you. The Bolsheviks did not
take over the Soviet Union than Russia. It was the
Mensheviks who did it, and then the Bolsheviks, the more
radical and smaller group, killed, purged as in purge to
(29:01):
death the Mensheviks and took over the Soviet Union. Hello Lenin, Stalin, etc.
The Mensheviks used the Bolsheviks used the Mensheviks in the
same way the communists Democrat socialists of America are using
the Democrat Party today, the Democrat Party that most people
(29:23):
listening to you and me, Joe knows, are the Mensheviks
in this play. And the new folks coming in are
the Bolsheviks. And make no mistake, folks, they would put
your head on a guillotine if they thought they could
get away with it, because they would say that in
their lead opinion, it's for the greater good. And you
asked where this came from, Joe, it came from the
(29:45):
most successful progressive undertaking in the history of America, and
that is the takeover of our educational system.
Speaker 1 (29:53):
One hundred percent. It's Kane Kuchinelli. He is the national
chairman Election Transparency Initiative. Go and follow him everywhere. Also,
former acting Pity Secretary of the DHS. Let's talk about
allegiance for a second. I'm glad you used that word
because allegiance should have been taken. It should have been
in the fourteenth Amendment. Instead of saying subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, it should have said without any allegiance to
another foreign country. If they would have said that, it
(30:14):
would have been very simple. In fact, when Senator Howard
from Michigan said you have to put in subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, he meant allegiance. He met, you can't
have an allegiance to another country. Again, Ammy Cony Barrett
and also the Chief the Chief Justice John Roberts get
this wrong on the fourteenth Amendment in my opinion, and
that they alleged that the baby is subject to the
(30:35):
jurisdiction thereof and the allegiance of the parents doesn't matter.
I think it was a really bad ruling. You said
on a state level, we can fix the mail in
balloting stuff. I agree with you, Ken states do anything
to fix what they just got wrong. Mike Lee says,
let's get a constitutional amendment to fix how wrong they
were on this, And I'm like, Mike, you can't pay
the past the Save America Act. What can happen now
to fix this?
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (30:57):
I mean the technical solution is a constitutional but I
agree with you, Joe, and the practicality. And by the way,
I authored a brief in this case on behalf of
the Center for Renewing America, and we focused on the
concept of allegiance that you just raised, Joe. And it
is in the common law that the Chief Justice here,
this is his second Obamacare.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
That is the.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
Scale of how bad his opinion is in this case.
And so we literally this is one of his two
worst of all time, along with Obamacare. And in Obamacare,
he said Obamacare was a tax, even though Barack Obama
said it wasn't a tax, and no court or judge
anywhere had said it was a tax until the Chief
(31:43):
Justice alone said it was a taxed.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
Well, if it remained define, as you know, if it
remained defined, it would have been illegal. They couldn't do that.
They can't find you for not buying something, they can
tax you.
Speaker 3 (31:52):
Though this birthright decision now is on the level with
that Obamacare decision for the Chief Justice, it is that
bad and it sacrifices the value of American citizenship. It
puts at risk our sovereignty. It isn't that there are
no there's nothing we can do. For example, the president
(32:14):
has the power to not let women who are pregnant
or who don't have a negative pregnancy test come into
the country that you use the same rules we used
in COVID. The president has two to twelve that authority
is the statute, and he can do that. But you know,
the next Democrat who comes in there, even if this
president does it, isn't going to do that. And you know,
(32:37):
you've got Chinese folks running or operating into birth tourism
industry in the United States, largely out of California. Right,
You've got Mexican mothers, women come across the border to
give birth for this very purpose. That's the single largest country.
The most dangerous is China. But the single largest is
(33:00):
for obvious reasons, right, And it exposes us to a
permanent bleeding out of the value of our sovereignty and
of the citizenship that is the greatest gift of being
an American.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
It is ken Kuchinelli Election Transparency Initiative. You know, everything
you just said makes perfect sense. The president can do
those things. We'll call him a misogynist, they'll call him
an anti Chinese person, or right, it's not going to
change anything. But Mike Davis, when I had them on yesterday,
made a really salient point that I hadn't thought about.
You probably have because you're smarter. The Chinese communist tourism,
(33:36):
the citizenship tourism. They're doing the come here, have the baby,
go back to China, and that child is raised as
a subject of the CCP. And at eighteen guess what,
they can start voting in our elections, Ken, I mean literally,
you've got some as to say, one point five million
Chinese babies have been born here as American citizens. That's
going to change a lot of elections if they're allowed
to vote in eighteen years.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
Yeah, it certainly will. And let's make no mistake. Every
law of the CCP is ultimately that you have to
obey the state. That's what communism is. And they are
politically communists, even if they've grown themselves economically by allowing
a certain amount of capitalism. It's not in their politics
(34:21):
or their rights. It's only in the economy.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
And so.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
Go vote this way or we'll kill your family. They
can and do say things like that to gather intelligence.
Every corporation, every Chinese corporation is subject to having any
information that they have access to demanded by the CCP,
and they have to turn it over. Corporations that work
in China have to do this, which is a major
(34:47):
security concern for the United States today, just in the
business front. And then you throw in this voting piece.
And look one thing about totalitarians like the Chinese communists,
They're going to be there a long time. They can
exercise and execute long term plans. They've been doing it
against the United States, and as strong as they are
(35:09):
now and as threatening as they may seem right now,
twenty years from now, China is gonna be well on
its way to a collapse, to an absolute collapse. And
then what happens Their one child policy is going to
catch up with them. And I guarantee you that in
about fifty years there will be more people in the
United States of America than in the communist China as
(35:30):
we know it today. It's gonna flip that fast. And
so what are all those millions of Chinese Americans gonna do,
and how are they going to vote? And what sort
of leverage will China try to exercise over that time.
I don't know the answer to that. Time will tell,
but we scary proposition.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
No, we have. We met ourselves very vulnerable to It's
keneku cheneli. Let me let me finish with this and
put on your DHS cap if you can, but we'll
stay with China. Are we doing enough to stop the
Chinese Party? I mean, the Chinese Communist Party is buying
land adjacent to military installations and military basis, and Chinese
tourists are getting lost in their rent a car mere
(36:12):
military basis. We had a Chinese balloon, for God's sakes,
traverse our entire contiguous United States. Are we doing anything
on the DHS side to stop this from happening? Why
can't we just say you can't own land. Look, I
went and adopted my daughter Gia in China. I couldn't
buy land while I was there, Ken they wouldn't have
let me. Why are we letting them do it here? Well?
Speaker 3 (36:33):
Because we apply our own Western freedoms to everybody, including
Islamis and the communist Chinese who come and take advantage
of it. There are states that don't allow it. Florida
is an example, and we could block it at the
national level. I frankly don't understand why we don't block
it at the national level. I don't understand why that
(36:56):
surveillance balloon wasn't shot down the minute it was spotted
by President than Biden. I don't understand that we make
ourselves very, very vulnerable. I I back to my previous point.
I would note that as competitive and dangerous as China
looks to us today, and it is and it will
be for the next ten fifteen years or so, their danger,
(37:20):
their their period where they can stand up to us
as a peer, is about as close as it's ever
going to be right now, Right now, we are going
to outrun China in the years ahead if we maintain
our freedom and keep our keep the kind of economic
growth that Trump has brought alive and well, and and
(37:41):
we keep having children. I'm doing my part. I have
seven six grandchildren.
Speaker 1 (37:47):
Part right there we go because of that.
Speaker 3 (37:53):
And they've already they've already effectively killed themselves with their
one child policy. They can't mathematically recover. So yes, they're
a threat, But I believe the longest term existential threat
is the Islamist threat and uh and this birthright citizenship
opens the door there too. Though they're not as organized
or strategic as the communist Chinese are It.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
Is Ken Kuchinelli. Go and follow him an election transparency initiative.
What is the website?
Speaker 2 (38:20):
Ken?
Speaker 1 (38:20):
Is there one? Hey?
Speaker 3 (38:22):
Election transparency dot org And I'm at the free bird
at Ken Kochinelli.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
Go and check him out right now, Ken, thanks for
the knowledge and thanks for the time. Happy Independence Day.
I appreciate the early fireworks. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
I don't know if we can get that thing going.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
I don't know how that works. I have no idea.
Speaker 3 (38:38):
We appreciate itent, my man.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
Let's talk again very soon, Okay, glad to do it.
All right, I appreciate you. We're back after this. Stay
right here.
You or I would be in prison in orange jumpsuits
if we did a financial scheme like the Ponzi scheme
that is social security. Washington is doing it on purpose.
And now there are some like Elizabeth Warren that want
to raise our taxes to the tune of three to
four trillion dollars the Ponzi scheme that is social Security,
that might not be there when you need it. Right
(00:21):
now with Grover Norquest, before we started, you mentioned something
that Elizabeth Warren is trying to do a trillion, three trillion,
four trillion. It came on throwing around the number trillion
like it's just nothing. It's a gigantic number. She thinks
she's going to raise trillions of dollars a how and
what is she promising to use that money for?
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Okay, well, Elizabeth Warren very left wing out of the
Massachusetts I'm a little sympathetic. Before I moved to America,
I lived in Massachusetts. I'm familiar with us. But she
managed to sucker a Republican nominal Republican Bernie Marino, Senator
from Ohio. No. So she just took advantage of it,
(01:00):
and he signed onto a three trillion dollar tax increase
now it's supposed to help social Security. But when the
Democrats raise taxes under Clinton and social Security was going bankrupt,
they never put any into so they just spend it all,
didn't put anything in soci security. When Obama raised taxes
quite a bit, you didn't put any of it in
social Security. He had new welfare programs. And then when
(01:21):
Biden came in and wanted to do the ninety trillion dollar,
ninety trillion, t trillion dollars global warming stuff, and none
of it went into sociecurity. So the idea that she's
going to put anything sob security as Joe, she wants
three trillion dollars over the next decade, which would almost
wipe out the Trump tax in tech tax cuts. And
(01:43):
unfortunately Bernie Marina, who's a Morano, who's a Republican signed on,
just got took advantage of. And he's new and he
doesn't understand. He just agreed to a three trillion dollars
tax increase for nothing. And by the way, what it'll
do is it's a massive tax on self employed people,
small businesses. It'll make Oh, Bernie's from Ohio. Bernie Marina,
(02:05):
he's from Ohio. He'll make the small businessman there pay
six fifty six percent rate tax higher than people in Britain. Pey,
we went, we started shooting at the British when they
wanted us to pay more on income taxes. Now we're
going to be paying more than them. In Bernie Marina's
tax increase, tax increase world.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
No, I think it's ridiculous, Bernie Marino. I think those
watching and listening probably would know him because he was
the one questioning Keith Ellison from Minnesota and did a
very good job in the questioning. But you're right, he's new.
I don't think he gets what the gig is. Elizabeth
Warren will lie to your face to get what she wants,
which is more of your money. In mind and everybody
watching and listening, let's go into the weeds a little bit,
if you don't mind grow over. When it comes to
social Security, what was the plan? Because I have a
(02:49):
four oh one K, I do very well. I don't
think I'll need Social Security, I hope not. Was it
supposed to go to everybody? Were they supposed to take
as much money as they possibly could, pretend like it
was in a lockbox somewhere as al Gore would say,
and then they wouldn't touch it. Is that what the
plan was.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
When Franklin delan and Roosevelt put it forward, he thought
he was setting up something like the Germans had. It
was a German idea. Under before World War Two, the
Germans had this idea, We're going to give you some
money when you retire. This is when all jobs were physical,
and that was the theory, and they weren't thinking of
(03:28):
the world we live in today. Six Back in nineteen sixty,
only six percent of Americans had a four or one
k or an ira or the equivalent, okay, something where
you actually own stocks, and they increased in value it
every year. You could put some in, but it got
more and more and more, and you could have a
lot of money to retire, and you didn't take any
money from anybody else. And it wasn't a government program.
(03:49):
It's just you. Today that number sixty five percent of
Americans are in the stock market, and when the stock
market booms, there's a reason why they announce how the
stark market's doing earlier in the TV shows than they
used to. There's a number of people who care and
for who's their life really depends on it. It matters.
(04:11):
What we should do is what countries like Chili and
others have done, which is turn the government program into
four one k and ira so that you're saving real money.
And that's why the Trump accounts for young people for
He's willing to have the federal government put in a
thousand dollars when a child is born in the United
(04:31):
States for the next four years just to get it going.
But the founder of doll and his wife are putting
about six seven billion dollars into the accounts for twenty
four million low income kids to get them started. And
now they can put more money in. Foundations can put
money in, the parents can put up to five thousand
dollars in. Kids can start their life with actual assets.
(04:56):
And can you imagine ten and twelve year olds in
high school and stuff talking about how their stocks are doing.
We're going to have a better educated collection of eighteen
year olds than we right now have in Congress in
terms of how the economy works.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Well, I think you're absolutely right, But what I'm wondering
is what was I know what the plan was, now
they put it in place because most people were not
self invested. I understand that many of us now the
majority is self invested. But what was that money supposed
to do? Why is it broke? Did they just not
collect enough? Has government spent the money promising to give
it back and never does? Why is it running out
(05:29):
of money?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
People were led to believe that this money was being
put somewhere and perhaps invested in quite in fact, your
taxes were taken and given to your grandparents, so there's
nothing ever saved.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
It's a pyramid screme. It's a pyramid scheme.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Yeah, it's called palmsy scheme. People, mister Palmsey went to
jail for this, or I did this? You go to prison? Yes,
And in Chile, which one of the number of countries
have done, said okay, here's what we're going to do.
We're going to go from the where there's no savings
to when there is safe and there's a transition. It's
not very important, but we need more people that have
(06:05):
four or one k's iras, health savings accounts, Education savings US.
These are starting up all across the country, where people
can save for their kids' education and college, where they
can save for their own healthcare, where they can save
for their retirement and not rely on the government, which
hasn't in this case, actually saved the money for us.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Imagine that government didn't do a good job with their money.
There's no way, Grover. Why is it law? Why is
it compulsory? Why can't I say I'm opting out, I've
got my own savings, I'm good for retirement. Why does
the government get to, just before I even see the money,
take money out of my out of my hard work,
and just keep it. Why can't I just shut that off?
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Well, they take it rather than let if you choose
to do it, you put your money into a four
or one KO mutual fund. So whereas what they do
is they say there'll be no savings, there's no increase.
The stock market goes up, there's nothing for you. The
economy grows, there's nothing for you. They don't have a
product they could sell, which is why it's mandatory. And we,
(07:06):
as you point out, we need to make it easier
and easier for people to invest in for themselves. I
don't know how the government's going to fix the problem
they created, but we need to let the American people
solve it for themselves. And sixty five percent of Americans
have begun to do that. And many in a very
serious way. We just need to keep at it.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
I just like to opt out. I mean, it's my money.
I don't get it. If I don't work, they don't
get the money. But if I go to work and
get punished by them taking the money, it's very strange.
Grover Norquiz, president of Americans for Tax Reform atr dot org.
Make sure you go there, Groover. Why are they messing
with our cars? I'm a car guy. A little while
ago they were going to put a breathalyzer in every
car to make sure I wasn't drunk before I drove.
I haven't had a drink since I was twenty two,
(07:47):
so that doesn't make any sense. Why are you alleging
that I'm drunk until I prove to the government that
I'm not. Then they wanted to take out AM radio,
which made no sense. Then they said every car has
got to be electric, it can't be internal combustion engine anymore.
And the latest one we want to put a national
car tax on. Go over. Why are they messing with
my wheels?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Well, because they want more money, not for roads. By
the way, twenty percent or more of the money that
you pay in your gasoline taxes or other taxes for
cars goes to five or six big cities their metro system,
and those metro systems have very nice pay and very
(08:25):
nice pensions, and people who are driving cars are paying
for that. And then they turn around and go, since
we looted the gas tax to do other things, build
parks and do subways and bicycle paths and so on,
everything except your car, everything except your roads to drive on.
They kept looting that. At the state level they do
(08:48):
that too, And one of Governor Walker got elected governor
in Wisconsin, he found that a billion dollars, which is
a state levels a lot of money had been taken
out of the gas tax and spent on there's stuff.
The legislature had looted the gas tax, which were supposed
to be for highways. Well, they loot the highway system.
And then they turn around, go, we don't have any
(09:08):
money because we stole it all. And then they say,
so you, the American people, have to pay for it.
We can't raise the gas tax because you're already pissed
as hack about our gas tax. So here's what we'll do.
We'll have a car tax. I had guys from the
US Chamber of Commerce, come say, we've got this great idea.
We're gonna have a huge car tax to replace the
gasoline tax. And then they told me to make when
(09:29):
I suggested this wasn't a great idea. People will hate
your car tax. They hate you already when it's just
at the state level. They said, well, but the but
the fl CIO, the unions like it. The union take
a living driving running the subways. Yes, they like it
because they're going to get the money, not you and me,
and not the roads. So they backed off and said, okay,
(09:52):
we're just going to have a starter kit. We'll just
have one on things that are at electric vehicles. We
started on electric vehicles because they don't pay gasoline taxes.
And then later but their goal, their original goal was
everybody pays a huge car tax, like once a year.
I don't think this is going anywhere good. It was
(10:12):
strong on people, but people should be aware of it.
If you see your congress and her senator, stick your
finger up their nose and say, are you really going
to try and stick a car tax on me? And
don't tell me it's not on me yet, because we
know where it's going.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Well, what's interesting is you said something in passing that
was very, very important. They were pushing electric cars down
our throats for years, but if you drive an electric car,
you don't pay a federal excise tax for gas. So
now we were forced you not to do what was
giving us the money, and now we're going to make
you give us the money some other way because you
did what we told you to do. Grover, what am
I looking at? It's like bizarro world.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Every day is a good day for a tax increase
if you're a positive, but not all politicians. Look, raising
taxes is what elected officials do rather than govern. Yes,
it's a lot of work to govern, to make decisions,
to say yes, to say no, to.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
Say cut spending, hello, cut spending maybe.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Yeah, yeah, reform maybe even keep the looting down to
a doll roar. You know the fraud that goes on.
I was talking to Oz, that doctor Roz who works
at AKHS, and he said, the amount of misspending, fraud,
whatever you want to call it, money that's going places
is not supposed to go and where they didn't claim
(11:27):
it was going is rather significant. And they would rather
raise taxes, some of these politicians, than fix the problem.
They had because look, if you fix a problem now
that's been going on for ten, twenty, thirty, forty fifty years.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Yes, what was wrong with you?
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Why now?
Speaker 1 (11:42):
Right?
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Right? So kind of almost better to go. I don't
see a problem.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Let's raise taxes atr dot org is the website. It's
Grover norquiz go and check that out. When the country
was founded, were there taxes in place? How did they
pay for government?
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Ah, before the government. If the country was founded, when
we were thirteen colonies, we were paying one to two
percent of our income in total taxes. Okay, one to
two percent. The British, our oppressors, the ones who lived
in London, were paying twenty percent because you run an umpire,
it's expensive. And so the British said, hey, Americans, why
(12:18):
don't you pay something closer to twenty because you're only
paying one to two and you're getting rich, you're getting
more successful than we are. This sucks. And we started
shooting at them until.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
They left, right.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
And the problem is, and we did one to two
percent up until turn of the century. I mean they
went up during the Civil War, but then back down
again when the war was over. And then we get
in one two percent until they invented the income tax.
Why did they get why do we get the income tax?
Several things. One the prohibitionists who didn't like alcohol. About
(12:49):
a third of all the taxes in America were on alcohol.
So they said, if you ban alcohol, you can't pay
the bus.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
It's like a fuel excise tax. Right, yeah, So.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
They said, okay, So all the guys, she said, let's
not let's make alcohol illegal. They said, let's have an
income tax. Then you had the people who hated the tariffs,
because that was the big tax, and everyone hated the tariffs,
and so they said, get rid of the tariffs with
much more, I have an income tax. And then there
was a third group, which is the hate and envy group.
I hate people who work on Saturdays. Let's have an
(13:18):
income tax on them, thinking that it won't come on you.
At some point, of course it does. So they did
all of that stuff. Now we still have taxes on liquer,
we still have tariffs, and all the hated envy people
still envy the guys who were there. And when they
put the income tax in nineteen thirteen, it was only
seven percent was top rate top rate. That's half of
(13:39):
the bottom rate. Now seven percent was a top rate,
and you had to be making eleven million dollars eleven
million dollars in today's dollars to pay the seven percent.
Now half the country's paying the income tax, and seven
percent is half of the bottom rate, not the top rate,
but the bottom rate. We got sold a bill of
good and because they had the income tax there, it's
(14:03):
probably why we got into World War One. We wouldn't
have gotten into World War one if they hadn't had
this money machine.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
What's interesting is when they put it in, wasn't there
a promise I guess it wasn't a real legal promise
that we will never raise it higher than this.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Yeah, they always say that. Okay, they say, well, look
I got this great tax. You won't pay it. It's
just on a few people. It's just on the rich,
for instance, or maybe on foreigners, or maybe on big businesses,
but not you. They haven't finished the sentence. We're going
to tax the rich first, then you. They put in
(14:40):
a tax to pay for the Spanish American War, which
one hundred and thirty years ago or so, and it
was on phones, long distance phones. Phones cost four thousand
dollars in today's dollars. Not very many people had phones.
They were very now nobody had long distance because nobody
knew anybody in another state. It was too difficult to
get there. So only really rich people who had really
much friends in another state would ever pay it. Pretty
(15:03):
soon everyone had a phone and everybody was paying that tax.
It lasted one hundred years. Now. I went to public school,
but I recently on TV saw that the Spanish American
War has been over for some time.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Wow, Now I wasn't sure about that. I was going
to ask Grover, let me ask you one question. That's
it's kind of loaded, but I'm sure you could answer it.
Are we ever going to get to a place where
we could start rolling some of this stuff back? Because
you and I, I think could agree that if you're
thirty thousand feet up, the United States of America is
a socialist country right now because they're stealing everybody's money
who's working hard and giving it to people that aren't
(15:37):
working hard. How is that not socialism? Can we ever
dial this back? What is it going to take to
do it? If we can?
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Yes, we can, And the answer is we are doing
it in a number of states. Okay, there are eight
states with no state income tax. I live in a
fine Florida is paying half as much in tax as
total taxes, half as much per person as New York,
same number of people New York at Florida. Florida pays
(16:05):
half as much. Why well, because they just don't spend
as much as New York and many They have not
raised spending. I don't mean with inflation, I mean at all.
In last four years in Florida, they keep the spending down.
I would like to have more of the decisions, more
of the programs, maybe all of the welfare programs. Let
(16:28):
the states handle them, because some states do it really
well and some states do it really bad. And two
things happen. Either people keep leaving California and New York
and Chicago and go to red states that are spending
less money, or the blue states decide to grow up
and govern instead of raising taxes. So it's win win
(16:50):
either way. The more decisions that are made at the
state level, the more you see competition. Fifty states. Some
people get it right, some people get it wrong. It's
not always the same states. Everyone's in a while. A
blue state has a good idea, and you learn from it.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Grover with the people fleeing New York to go to Florida,
to come here to Texas, people leaving Illinois, people leaving
New Jersey, people leaving California. Will those states, by a
matter of fact, just to survive budgetarily have to lower
taxes or they're going to keep on being stupid like
mom Donnie, who's like, we'll just take over the buildings
and will be the landlord. He would like to make
full communism in New York. But will they be forced
(17:25):
budgetarily to change something or else they're going to lose
their entire populations.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
They will have to change. And once you took down
the Berlin while East Germany had to change. Okay, yes,
And the more you let people leave, that's why in
California they're talking about wanting to export their taxes to
people who flee California. This sounds like something that Rhodesia
or or East Germany would do. People are leaving, we
must tax them before they get out the door. Yes,
(17:51):
that level of competition really does change things. People really
are they leave California and move to Texas. If you've
ever been to California and ben to Texas, it's not
the weather, right, nobody leaves California because of the weather,
and nobody else to Texas because of the weather. Yes,
but that our government less cost leaving you alowe people move.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Are you on Medicare? Listen up? Are you on the
right plan? Your quick answer might be yes, I'm on
the right plan? How do you know? Think about that question.
How do you know if you're on the right plan?
How do you know you're paying the right amount of money?
How do you know you're getting the right services or
the right doctor that you want? Get with my friends
at Chapter right now. Ask Chapter dot org slash PAGs
(18:35):
is the website. What Chapter does is it goes in
and finds that exactly what you need, what's right for you,
and then it checks the plan that you're on. They
tell me tens of thousands of plans are available through Medicare,
so it's a good change. You're not on the right one.
By the way. If you are on the right one,
they're going to tell you you're on the right one
and then leave you on your merry way. Doesn't cost
anything to you. Get with them right now. Here's the number.
(18:57):
Write this down six four to six six zero zero
four ninety three twenty four six zero six four six
six zero four ninety three twenty four. Ask them all
the questions you've got. They're going to be there to
answer it for you. On average, guess how much people
are saving once they get with Chapter eleven hundred dollars
a year. Don't take a chance of paying too much.
(19:19):
Don't take a chance of not getting the services you want.
Get with Chapter right now sixty four six six zero
four ninety three twenty four, or ask chapter dot org
slash PAGs. It is a grovernorquest atr dot or great information.
I said, last question, Have you got it? Just a
minute to tell my audience whether or not we can
through reconciliation do the Save America Act? Is that not
(19:41):
possible because reconciliation is really about policy changes on budget
on budgetary items, and the Save America Act doesn't fall
them into that basket.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
Yes, the reconciliation allows you to pass something in the
Senate with fifty one boots, not the two thirds or
sixty right mark. But it's limited to quest of more
or less spending or more or less taxes. You can't
reform welfare. You could cut it, you could reduce taxes.
You could spend more or less on welfare, but you can't.
(20:11):
You can't change the laws. And that's uh. There's a
lot of interest in the Save America Act. It's a
great piece of legislation. You just can't do it on reconciliation.
The way the rules are written. You need sixty votes,
and we need to get there. But that means vote,
get more people willing to pass these laws.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Less than getting rid of the filibuster. There's no way
to do this then.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
No, there isn't. Right now, I understand everybody's frustration. I'm
very frustrated because even things that I think are budgets
that we want to move through the parliamentarian guys, no,
this is it's a budget issue, but it's mostly policy.
And maybe she's right at the time, but it gives
us a lot of flexibility. It's the only way we've
(20:58):
ever gotten tax cuts recently is because of reconciliation. So
it's a wonderful thing. It's much better than getting if
you have to have sixty votes, there wouldn't be any
tax cuts in America because there are no Democrats willing
to vote for tax cuts.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
It's Grover norquiest President Americans for Tax Reform go to
atr dot org and follow them everywhere online. Grover thanks
a million for the time today and Happy Independence Day.
Joe ute again atr dot org. Go check out everything
that Grover does atr dot org. Now little PAGs extra
will give you Ken Kuchinelli. Ken is the former Deputy
Secretary of the DHS. It's got a lot to say
about the Supreme Court rulings that just happened, also about
(21:34):
what's going on the border and voting integrity. Enjoy.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
The SAVE Act includes a baseline one proving citizenship. Washington
screwed that up. Federal court screwed that up. Only Washington
can fix it. States can't fix that. States can stop
ballots from coming in after election day, but they can't
fix the confirmation of citizenship. Only the federal goal can
(22:00):
do that. That has to come in the Save Act.
You know, I certainly hope we'll see a reconciliation package
that includes a little bit of funding. You'll never hear
me Joe talking about funding things. I always want to
cut everything right, me too, But you've got to fund
it for it to be in reconciliation. And I hope
they go about doing that so that at least by
(22:21):
the presidential election of twenty twenty eight, we can be
confirming citizenship and everybody using voter IDs, which even CNN,
those radical right wingers at CNN, even their polling finds
over seventy percent of Democrats support voter ID and citizenship confirmation.
The only place that isn't supported is the United States Senate.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
You know, it's interesting because reconciliation is for but is
not to change budget items. It's to change policy on
things that are already on the books. I could say,
no tax in overtime, no tax on tips. You can
change sort of some things that do revolve around money.
But if it's a money issue, if it's not a issue,
like the Same America Act isn't, how do you make it?
(23:03):
So do you say we've got to add some funding
to pay for the governments? I mean, can you do that? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (23:10):
So one way you could do that is you set
up one of the complaints the other side makes, and
it's a bit of a false complaint, is oh, poor
people can't afford IDs. Really, how they get on planes
and trains and going to movies and doing everything, getting
a tattooed, doing everything else you gotta do. But let's
use their argument. Let's put some funding in there so
that the states can draw on the funding so poor
(23:33):
people who can't afford IDs, both of them can get IDs.
But that makes it, Joe about money, and that makes
it a monetary expenditure instead of a change to fundamental law.
I would note there are very minimalistic federal ID requirements
(23:53):
on the books. And I would also note it's already
federal law that non citizens can't vote. It's just the
states that no way of enforcing it. This gives them
a way of enforcing it, so they're not making new law,
which is important, or the parliamentarian of the Senate will
rule against you. Right, And it involves spending, which is
(24:13):
what a reconciliation bill is supposed to be about. So
that's how you'd go about doing that, Joe. It's a
question really of whether the Republicans in the Senate fifty
one of them or fifty if the Vice President participates,
we'll support that, and certainly a lot of them have
been talking big about it. But it's literally time to
(24:33):
put our money where your mouth is.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
Yeah, it is, I said John thun problem. I mean
if you had Mike Lee, and there would have gotten done.
Probably Rick Scott might have gotten it done. There's some
other centers that I think would have gotten it done.
The fact that you can't rally fifty out of the
fifty three members that you have on your side really
shows me that there's a problem with poon. I don't
know John Thun, but I feel like he's been very weak.
Mike Lee wants to do the talking filibuster. Do you
agree with him? Let's just keep on talking about it
(24:57):
until we get the cloture.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
Yeah, no, absolutely, I mean everybody gets to talk twice.
It's a matter of a willingness to do it, staying
in town and holding the floor and working through it. Look,
the Civil Rights Act back, you know, just before I
was born, got through a philibuster. The filibuster then was
sixty seven. That was the threshold, not sixty and they
(25:20):
talked right through it. By the way, a higher percentage
of Republicans voted for that than Democrats. And the way
they got through the filibuster was they talked and debated
their way through the filibuster, just like Mike Lee describes.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
Well, I think it was nineteen seventy five something like
that where they changed it to sixty. But you don't
actually have to filibuster. You can say I'm gonna go
to lunch. I philibuster. That's it. You're done, and that
just locks up the Senate and they keep on complaining. Well,
it gives the minority party a voice. You had a
voice when there was a talking filibuster. If you want
to be able to pass legislation, don't be in the minority.
It's kind of that simple, ken do you do? You
(25:53):
fear like I do that as soon as Democrats take over,
and I hope they don't, but if they should take
the Senate back, they'll just blow the filibuster out and
doing it they want.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Yeah, someday they'll get it back, and they are talking
about doing that. And look who's winning Democrat primaries now,
I mean, this is the communist wing of the Democrat
Party is now the predominant wing of the Democrat Party
in America. And forget this socialist stuff. They're communists. And
(26:23):
just because they don't know what a communist is, you
and I do, and everything they say is absolutely and
completely consistent with communist ideology. And I don't think it's
a coincidence that a lot of these folks are first
generation immigrants from very left wing parts of the world,
and they're importing that politics into the Democrat Party in
(26:46):
the United States. And when Hikeem Jeffries is too right
wing for you, you know that you are barely clinging
on to the left end of your flat earth.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Well, how do we here ken where we were actually
dying to stop communism? Four hundred seven thousand Americans died
in World War Two. We are globally we've been trying
to shut down communism for over one hundred years. Yet
somehow they're getting elected to our Congress, They're getting elected
to mayor's offices, they're getting elected to state representatives and
comptroller's offices. I mean, how did that? I get it?
(27:20):
We're free, we're liberated. Everybody can run for office. But
my god, they're literally saying out loud, we are the
reason why nine to eleven happened. There's some woman that
just won a primary who literally has said that in
the DSA right in Colorado. So you've got people who
are saying, I hate the country. I'm in office at
elon Omar to support the Somali community. That's why she's
(27:41):
in Congress in the United States. Don't we have any
common sense where we say, listen, we fought these people
abroad to stop it from coming here. We're not gonna
let you take office here. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
And I think the way this is unfolding with the
America Last being voiced by these people. The Constitution speaks
to the requirements to be in Congress, and there's three
of them, and allegiance to the United States isn't one
of them, because I think the founding fathers rather assumed that, Yes,
(28:14):
now two thirds of them can throw these people out,
but they're not going to do that because the Democrats,
what we'll call regular Democrats. I'm not sure there are
many of those left, but they're afraid. They're just flat
out afraid anymore. And the strategy of the communists is
to take over the Democrat Party, whether they're a minority
or a minority. And I would point you back you
(28:35):
mentioned one hundred years, Joe, go back to the Mensheviks
and the Bolsheviks. Folks, look it up. If those words
don't ring a bell to you. The Bolsheviks did not
take over the Soviet Union than Russia. It was the
Mensheviks who did it, and then the Bolsheviks, the more
radical and smaller group, killed, purged as in purge to
(29:01):
death the Mensheviks and took over the Soviet Union. Hello Lenin, Stalin, etc.
The Mensheviks used the Bolsheviks used the Mensheviks in the
same way the communists Democrat socialists of America are using
the Democrat Party today, the Democrat Party that most people
(29:23):
listening to you and me, Joe knows, are the Mensheviks
in this play. And the new folks coming in are
the Bolsheviks. And make no mistake, folks, they would put
your head on a guillotine if they thought they could
get away with it, because they would say that in
their lead opinion, it's for the greater good. And you
asked where this came from, Joe, it came from the
(29:45):
most successful progressive undertaking in the history of America, and
that is the takeover of our educational system.
Speaker 1 (29:53):
One hundred percent. It's Kane Kuchinelli. He is the national
chairman Election Transparency Initiative. Go and follow him everywhere. Also,
former acting Pity Secretary of the DHS. Let's talk about
allegiance for a second. I'm glad you used that word
because allegiance should have been taken. It should have been
in the fourteenth Amendment. Instead of saying subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, it should have said without any allegiance to
another foreign country. If they would have said that, it
(30:14):
would have been very simple. In fact, when Senator Howard
from Michigan said you have to put in subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, he meant allegiance. He met, you can't
have an allegiance to another country. Again, Ammy Cony Barrett
and also the Chief the Chief Justice John Roberts get
this wrong on the fourteenth Amendment in my opinion, and
that they alleged that the baby is subject to the
(30:35):
jurisdiction thereof and the allegiance of the parents doesn't matter.
I think it was a really bad ruling. You said
on a state level, we can fix the mail in
balloting stuff. I agree with you, Ken states do anything
to fix what they just got wrong. Mike Lee says,
let's get a constitutional amendment to fix how wrong they
were on this, And I'm like, Mike, you can't pay
the past the Save America Act. What can happen now
to fix this?
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (30:57):
I mean the technical solution is a constitutional but I
agree with you, Joe, and the practicality. And by the way,
I authored a brief in this case on behalf of
the Center for Renewing America, and we focused on the
concept of allegiance that you just raised, Joe. And it
is in the common law that the Chief Justice here,
this is his second Obamacare.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
That is the.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
Scale of how bad his opinion is in this case.
And so we literally this is one of his two
worst of all time, along with Obamacare. And in Obamacare,
he said Obamacare was a tax, even though Barack Obama
said it wasn't a tax, and no court or judge
anywhere had said it was a tax until the Chief
(31:43):
Justice alone said it was a taxed.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
Well, if it remained define, as you know, if it
remained defined, it would have been illegal. They couldn't do that.
They can't find you for not buying something, they can
tax you.
Speaker 3 (31:52):
Though this birthright decision now is on the level with
that Obamacare decision for the Chief Justice, it is that
bad and it sacrifices the value of American citizenship. It
puts at risk our sovereignty. It isn't that there are
no there's nothing we can do. For example, the president
(32:14):
has the power to not let women who are pregnant
or who don't have a negative pregnancy test come into
the country that you use the same rules we used
in COVID. The president has two to twelve that authority
is the statute, and he can do that. But you know,
the next Democrat who comes in there, even if this
president does it, isn't going to do that. And you know,
(32:37):
you've got Chinese folks running or operating into birth tourism
industry in the United States, largely out of California. Right,
You've got Mexican mothers, women come across the border to
give birth for this very purpose. That's the single largest country.
The most dangerous is China. But the single largest is
(33:00):
for obvious reasons, right, And it exposes us to a
permanent bleeding out of the value of our sovereignty and
of the citizenship that is the greatest gift of being
an American.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
It is ken Kuchinelli Election Transparency Initiative. You know, everything
you just said makes perfect sense. The president can do
those things. We'll call him a misogynist, they'll call him
an anti Chinese person, or right, it's not going to
change anything. But Mike Davis, when I had them on yesterday,
made a really salient point that I hadn't thought about.
You probably have because you're smarter. The Chinese communist tourism,
(33:36):
the citizenship tourism. They're doing the come here, have the baby,
go back to China, and that child is raised as
a subject of the CCP. And at eighteen guess what,
they can start voting in our elections, Ken, I mean literally,
you've got some as to say, one point five million
Chinese babies have been born here as American citizens. That's
going to change a lot of elections if they're allowed
to vote in eighteen years.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
Yeah, it certainly will. And let's make no mistake. Every
law of the CCP is ultimately that you have to
obey the state. That's what communism is. And they are
politically communists, even if they've grown themselves economically by allowing
a certain amount of capitalism. It's not in their politics
(34:21):
or their rights. It's only in the economy.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
And so.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
Go vote this way or we'll kill your family. They
can and do say things like that to gather intelligence.
Every corporation, every Chinese corporation is subject to having any
information that they have access to demanded by the CCP,
and they have to turn it over. Corporations that work
in China have to do this, which is a major
(34:47):
security concern for the United States today, just in the
business front. And then you throw in this voting piece.
And look one thing about totalitarians like the Chinese communists,
They're going to be there a long time. They can
exercise and execute long term plans. They've been doing it
against the United States, and as strong as they are
(35:09):
now and as threatening as they may seem right now,
twenty years from now, China is gonna be well on
its way to a collapse, to an absolute collapse. And
then what happens Their one child policy is going to
catch up with them. And I guarantee you that in
about fifty years there will be more people in the
United States of America than in the communist China as
(35:30):
we know it today. It's gonna flip that fast. And
so what are all those millions of Chinese Americans gonna do,
and how are they going to vote? And what sort
of leverage will China try to exercise over that time.
I don't know the answer to that. Time will tell,
but we scary proposition.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
No, we have. We met ourselves very vulnerable to It's
keneku cheneli. Let me let me finish with this and
put on your DHS cap if you can, but we'll
stay with China. Are we doing enough to stop the
Chinese Party? I mean, the Chinese Communist Party is buying
land adjacent to military installations and military basis, and Chinese
tourists are getting lost in their rent a car mere
(36:12):
military basis. We had a Chinese balloon, for God's sakes,
traverse our entire contiguous United States. Are we doing anything
on the DHS side to stop this from happening? Why
can't we just say you can't own land. Look, I
went and adopted my daughter Gia in China. I couldn't
buy land while I was there, Ken they wouldn't have
let me. Why are we letting them do it here? Well?
Speaker 3 (36:33):
Because we apply our own Western freedoms to everybody, including
Islamis and the communist Chinese who come and take advantage
of it. There are states that don't allow it. Florida
is an example, and we could block it at the
national level. I frankly don't understand why we don't block
it at the national level. I don't understand why that
(36:56):
surveillance balloon wasn't shot down the minute it was spotted
by President than Biden. I don't understand that we make
ourselves very, very vulnerable. I I back to my previous point.
I would note that as competitive and dangerous as China
looks to us today, and it is and it will
be for the next ten fifteen years or so, their danger,
(37:20):
their their period where they can stand up to us
as a peer, is about as close as it's ever
going to be right now, Right now, we are going
to outrun China in the years ahead if we maintain
our freedom and keep our keep the kind of economic
growth that Trump has brought alive and well, and and
(37:41):
we keep having children. I'm doing my part. I have
seven six grandchildren.
Speaker 1 (37:47):
Part right there we go because of that.
Speaker 3 (37:53):
And they've already they've already effectively killed themselves with their
one child policy. They can't mathematically recover. So yes, they're
a threat, But I believe the longest term existential threat
is the Islamist threat and uh and this birthright citizenship
opens the door there too. Though they're not as organized
or strategic as the communist Chinese are It.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
Is Ken Kuchinelli. Go and follow him an election transparency initiative.
What is the website?
Speaker 2 (38:20):
Ken?
Speaker 1 (38:20):
Is there one? Hey?
Speaker 3 (38:22):
Election transparency dot org And I'm at the free bird
at Ken Kochinelli.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
Go and check him out right now, Ken, thanks for
the knowledge and thanks for the time. Happy Independence Day.
I appreciate the early fireworks. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
I don't know if we can get that thing going.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
I don't know how that works. I have no idea.
Speaker 3 (38:38):
We appreciate itent, my man.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
Let's talk again very soon, Okay, glad to do it.
All right, I appreciate you. We're back after this. Stay
right here.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com