March 17, 2025 • 31 mins
A power-hungry leftist judge from California is trying to seize Trump's presidential power for himself by ruling thousands of fired bureaucrats must be rehired. This is an attack on the very foundations of our constitutional order. America is supposed to be ruled by the people, not unelected oracles in flowing black robes. Meanwhile, Trump makes a major blunder by calling for Congressman Thomas Massie to be primaried. And finally, the Trump administration has a new proposal: abolish the income tax for Americans making less than $150,000 a year. We’ll talk about all of it today on The Conservative Rebel.
If You Enjoyed This Episode, Please Leave a Review
Follow on X for More Great Commentary: https://x.com/CnsrvtvRbl
Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@theconservativerebel
Follow on Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/ConservativeRebel76
Email Your Comments, Concerns, Insults, and Death Threats to ConservativeRebel76@gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
Today on The Conservative Rebel, power-hungry
leftist judges are illegallytrying to seize power from
President Trump to stop him fromimplementing his agenda.
This time, they've ruled thatTrump needs to rehire thousands
of useless bureaucrats fired byDoge.
This is an attack on the veryfoundations of our
constitutional order.
(00:21):
America is supposed to be ruledby the people, not by unelected
oracles in flowing black robes.
Meanwhile, Trump makes a majorblunder by calling for Kentucky
Republican Thomas Massey to beprimaried.
Congress is filled with patheticspineless traitors, but instead
of targeting them, Trump'sattacking one of the only
principled conservatives wehave.
(00:43):
It backfired spectacularly, asyou would expect.
And finally, the Trumpadministration has a new
proposal.
Abolish the income tax forAmericans making less than
$150,000 a year.
What happened to ending it foreveryone?
Why should your rights be basedon how much money you make.
We'll talk about all of it todayon The Conservative Rebel.
(01:15):
Ever since Trump took office twomonths ago, the left-wing media
has been claiming that Americacould soon face a constitutional
crisis.
which is a term they've beenthrowing around a lot.
They want you to think thatTrump is wildly abusing his
executive power by firinguseless bureaucrats or by
(01:37):
cracking down on the invasion ofthe southern border or by
fighting corruption at USAID orany other federal agency.
They claim he's violating theseparation of powers and
overstepping his bounds, andthis, they insist, could lead to
disaster.
They're wrong on all counts,except for this.
(01:57):
It's true that America's facinga constitutional crisis.
But it's not a crisis that'sbeing caused by President Trump.
It's a crisis that's beingcaused by federal judges.
Now, we're supposed to believethat judges are the be-all,
end-all of all constitutionalquestions.
(02:18):
If a judge says the presidentcan't do something, that's it.
But when you look at what thefounders actually had to say
about it, you'll learn thatthat's all a lie.
Thomas Jefferson, for one, neverhad anything nice to say about
federal judges.
Here's what he had to say aboutit.
Quote, The germ of dissolutionof our federal government is in
(02:42):
the federal judiciary, anirresponsible body, for
impeachment is scarcely ascarecrow, working like gravity
by night and by day, gaining alittle today and a little
tomorrow, and advancing itsnoiseless steps like a thief
over the field of jurisdiction,until all government, in little
(03:03):
as in great things, shall bedrawn to Washington as the
center of power, which willbecome as venal and oppressive
as the government from which weseparated.
What Jefferson was getting atwas that, since a lot of judges
face no elections and neverreally face impeachment, they
(03:24):
have almost zero accountabilityfor their actions.
The other branches of governmentall check each other.
The Congress can impeach thepresident.
The president can veto billspassed by Congress.
But the way the Constitution hasbeen interpreted for most of
American history, no one canreally check the power of the
(03:44):
courts.
Of course that's a wronginterpretation, but it's how
things have been done for quitesome time.
Jefferson's political enemieslaughed at him, but since then
his fear of the tyranny ofjudges has been more than
vindicated.
Just look at what left-wingjudges across the country have
(04:05):
been doing to Trump since hetook office two months ago.
These partisan hacks havestopped his common-sense
executive order on birthrightcitizenship.
They've forced him to spendbillions of dollars on foreign
aid he tried to cut, and ingeneral they've constantly been
harassing his administrationevery time it tries to cut
(04:27):
spending or fire lazy, entitledgovernment employees.
But the most egregious exampleof all happened this week, when
a federal judge ruled Trump hasto rehire useless bureaucrats
and allow them to continue tosponge off taxpayer dollars
after he fired them.
(04:49):
Here's the headline fromPolitico.
Thousands of federal workersmust be rehired immediately,
judge rules.
A federal judge on Thursdayordered federal agencies to
rehire tens of thousands ofprobationary employees who were
fired amid President DonaldTrump's turbulent effort to
(05:13):
drastically shrink the federalbureaucracy.
U.S.
District Judge William Alsupdescribed the mass firings as a,
quote, Shan strategy to sidesteplegal requirements for reducing
the federal workforce.
Alsup, a San Francisco-basedappointee of President Bill
(05:33):
Clinton, which of course he'sfrom San Francisco, it's
essentially Sodom, Gomorrah, andNineveh rolled into one, ordered
the Defense, Treasury, Energy,Interior, Agriculture, and
Veterans Affairs departments to,quote,"...immediately offer all
fired probationary employeestheir jobs back." This far-left
(05:57):
judge from San Francisco, in oneruling, is trying to seize the
executive power from Trump andsnatch it up for himself.
If the president can't even firelazy bureaucrats, many of whom
don't even show up to work, bythe way, he can't do anything
(06:21):
meaningful at all.
the president becomes thisuseless powerless castrated
figurehead and the real rulersof the country become the
bureaucrats and federal judgeslike this one instead of the
people By trying to seize thepower of hiring and firing from
(06:42):
Trump, this leftist hack istrying to seize power from the
people.
He's trying to seize power fromyou.
The president is supposed torepresent the whole American
people who elect him through theelectoral college.
So make no mistake, this is anattack on the very foundations
(07:07):
of our republic.
This judge is taking aflamethrower to the principles
of our Constitution.
Article 2 of the Constitutionsays this.
(07:29):
quote the executive power shallbe vested in a president of the
united states of america in caseyou didn't catch that it said a
president singular It doesn'tsay the executive power shall be
vested in the bureaucrats of theUnited States or the federal
(07:51):
judges of the United States.
It says the executive powershall be vested in a president
of the United States.
So here's a little civics lessonfor his worship, the judge from
San Francisco.
The United States has threebranches of government.
Legislative, which is congresswhich makes laws executive which
(08:17):
is the president who enforceslaws and judicial which are the
courts which are supposed tointerpret the constitution and
make sure the other branchesdon't do anything
unconstitutional Thesebureaucracies, USAID, the Energy
Department, the AgricultureDepartment, all of these,
they're not mentioned in theConstitution.
(08:40):
They form an unconstitutionalfourth branch of government.
The bureaucracy.
But since a fourth branch isunconstitutional, all of these,
to be legal, have to betechnically classified as part
of the three real branches ofgovernment.
So guess what they're classifiedas?
(09:02):
Executive agencies.
As we just read in theConstitution, the president is
the chief executive.
He has the executive power.
which means that he is in chargeof all of these bureaucracies.
He's in charge of thebureaucrats.
He's their boss.
And guess what that means, yourhigh mightiness?
(09:25):
He can fire any or all of themanytime he wants.
He could abolish any one ofthese agencies with the stroke
of a pen.
because the president is electedby the people and these
bureaucrats are not this judgehas in effect ruled that the
(09:45):
people are subordinate to thebureaucrats he has ruled that
america is an oligarchy not arepublic he is attacking the
foundations of constitutionalgovernment in the united states
and so is every judge who hasruled that trump can't fire
these people So yes, there is aconstitutional crisis in
(10:09):
America, but it's the activistjudges like this one who have
caused it.
And for the sake of ourrepublic, Trump's reaction
should be the same as AndrewJackson's was when the Supreme
Court overstepped its bounds in1832.
The judge has issued his ruling.
(10:30):
Now, let him enforce it.
Alright, moving on to our nexttopic.
I've been very supportive of alot of the things President
Trump has done since he tookoffice, and anyone who has
listened to the conservativerebel in the past knows that's
true.
But this week, Trump made amajor catastrophic blunder,
(10:53):
unfortunately, and I can'tignore it.
And that blunder is this.
On Truth Social, Trump calledfor Kentucky Republican Thomas
Massey to be primaried.
For those of you who aren'tfamiliar with Massey, he is
without question the mostconsistent conservative member
(11:13):
of the United States Congress.
Most Republican politicians arecorrupt, backstabbing traitors
who shower voters with promisesto cut spending, cut government,
and put America first.
But they end up doing theopposite.
They increase spending, theyexpand government, they ship off
your tax dollars to Ukraine, toIsrael, to regimes all across
(11:38):
the world, to fund wars that arenone of our business and meddle
in the politics of foreigncountries.
They either do that because theyprofit off and they deliberately
lie to the people, or they didmean what they said genuinely,
but then they end up being toocowardly to do anything about it
and they just want tocompromise.
(11:58):
That's what most Republicans inCongress do.
They form an elitist unipartywith the Democrats that supports
endless spending, endless wars,and the destruction of liberty.
Thomas Massey is one of the fewwho doesn't play that game.
He opposes the spending, heopposes the wars, he opposes the
(12:19):
never-ending encroachments onour constitutional rights.
It doesn't matter if a bill isproposed by Democrats or
Republicans.
If it's unconstitutional, Masseywon't vote for it.
So naturally, he was the onlyRepublican to oppose the latest
spending bill, whichunfortunately passed, because it
(12:40):
doesn't cut spending.
Pretty simple.
But for whatever reason,Massey's very predictable
opposition to this spendingbill, which anyone who knows
about his voting record sawcoming, just set Trump off.
The Hill has this, quote,President Trump is vowing to,
(13:02):
quote, Trump began a truthsocial post late Monday night by
thanking the House FreedomCaucus for backing the stopgap
(13:25):
funding package and supportingSpeaker Mike Johnson of
Louisiana's efforts to keep thegovernment open, and then called
for Massey to be primaried.
And here's Trump's post, quote,Thank you to the House Freedom
Caucus for just delivering a bigblow to the radical left
Democrats and their desire toraise taxes and shut our country
(13:48):
down.
They hate America and all itstands for.
That's why they allowed millionsof criminals to invade our
nation.
Sometimes it takes great courageto do the right thing.
Congressman Thomas Massey ofbeautiful Kentucky is an
automatic no vote on just abouteverything despite the fact that
(14:10):
he has always voted forcontinuing resolutions in the
past.
He voted for one continuingresolution that would have cut
spending by 8% because he votesfor cutting spending.
This one doesn't cut spending.
That's why he opposed it.
There's no inconsistency there.
But it went on, He's justanother grandstander who's too
(14:38):
much Now this was obviously aserious blunder on Trump's part,
(14:59):
and I'll explain why.
As we just talked about, mostRepublicans in Congress are
either backstabbers who promiseto cut spending and then don't
because of their own politicalinterests, or they're just
malleable cowards who are puttyin the hands of the left.
People who constantly try tocompromise and find a middle
(15:21):
ground and are afraid to everstand up for anything or take
any political risks.
You know who I'm talking about,the Lindsey Grahams and Lisa
Murkowskis and Dan Crenshaw's ofthe world.
Why isn't Trump calling toprimary these losers?
Why doesn't he go after them?
Lindsey Graham and 25 otherrhino losers just voted against
(15:47):
Trump's foreign aid cuts.
Rand Paul forced a vote on it.
You know how Doge cut a bunch offoreign aid?
He forced the Senate to vote onit.
25 of them voted against it.
How about you go after thosepeople?
I don't care if you agree withThomas Massey on this spending
(16:07):
bill or not, or on aid to Israelor whatever other issue.
There are dozens and dozens anddozens of Republicans who are
openly hostile to the AmericaFirst agenda.
There are dozens and dozens ofthem who have worked with the
Democrats to destroy thiscountry for the past four years.
(16:30):
Where are your priorities?
Shouldn't we deal with thembefore we deal with one who you
think is too conservative?
But you'll hear a lot ofRepublicans say dumb popular
things like, oh, Massey is justlooking for attention.
We need to unite to defeat theliberals.
We need to compromise every nowand then.
(16:51):
Just regurgitating the Fox Newsestablishment talking points.
Listen to yourself.
which do you think is a biggerthreat to this country people
like lindsey graham who neversaw a war they didn't like who
spend money like drunken sailorswho are bought and paid for by
(17:11):
lobbyists or people like thomasmassey Do you think the problem
with the Republican Party isthat it's too consistent, too
principled, that it doesn'tcompromise with the radical left
enough?
Really, is that what you think?
You think the problem with thatwith the republican party is
that it's too reluctant to wasteyour money you think the problem
(17:36):
with america is that congressdoesn't spend enough money
that's what you have to think inorder for primarying massey to
make any kind of sense as masseyhimself has pointed out every
time there's a new opportunityto cut spending Mike Johnson and
the loser faction of theRepublican Party will just say,
(17:59):
oh, we'll compromise now andfight next time.
But next time never comes.
Massey recently put this out onX, this is true.
Quote, the argument for CR,which is an abbreviation for
continuing resolution, which ishow they're spending money, in
September 2024, was to fight inDecember 2024 after the
(18:23):
election.
The argument for CR in December2024 was to fight in March 2025
after the inauguration.
The argument for CR in March2025 is to fight in September
2025 because we're not readyyet.
(18:44):
What he's getting at is wecontrol the Supreme Court.
We control the House.
We control the Senate.
We control the presidency.
If we don't fight now, we'llnever fight.
We have united government.
Republicans control everythingright now, okay?
(19:05):
Everything.
Now is the time to fight.
This is the golden opportunity.
This is the moment that westrike.
Because there will not be a nexttime.
This is the golden window ofopportunity to actually save
America, providentially given tous, a golden opportunity, and
(19:26):
we're just throwing it away.
It's insane.
And it's especially bizarre how,in his post, Trump compared
Massey to Liz Cheney.
He compared someone who isliterally on the staff of the
libertarian ron paul instituteto a woman who is one of the
(19:46):
most hawkish neocons in congresstheir polar opposites they could
not be more different i'm gladyou brought up liz cheney
because look at how she wasprimaried that should be the
model for how you deal withrhinos so how about we give
lindsey graham or someone likehim the liz cheney treatment
(20:10):
instead of attacking And alreadythis has backfired spectacularly
for Trump.
In just the past few days sincethis all happened, Massey has
raised almost$350,000 fromthousands of small donations.
(20:30):
And every time people havetargeted Massey, they've failed.
For three consecutive elections,he has faced opposition from
people who are running to theleft of him.
who claim that he's too much ofa firebrand or a radical.
For the past three electioncycles, that's what he's faced.
(20:51):
Last year, AIPAC, which is alobbying group that pays
congressmen money to ensurethey'll continually vote to send
money to Israel, pumped tons ofmoney into Massey's district to
try to defeat him in theprimary, because he votes
against all foreign aid,including to Israel.
But Massey ended up crushing hisSo the people of Massey's
(21:15):
district love him.
Whoever runs against Massey willinevitably lose.
So Trump can't win in this.
He can't win.
There's no way for him to win.
He has nothing to gain bycalling for Massey to be
primaried.
All it does is make him lookbad, which is unfortunate.
(21:36):
because I think Trump is thebest president we have had for
the past 100 years.
Now, that's a very low bar,obviously, but still, I really
like a lot of what Trump did,and it really upsets me to see
him make blunders as dumb asthis.
Alright, moving on to our finaltopic.
(21:57):
A few weeks ago, we discussedwhy the income tax needs to be
abolished, primarily becauseit's, of course, morally evil,
but also because it doesterrible harm to the economy.
Trump and his Commerce SecretaryHoward Lutnick had both
repeatedly hinted that theadministration might push to
(22:17):
finally free us from this NorthKorean tax system.
But unfortunately, for whateverreason, the administration has
retreated from its originalposition and has come up with a
new tax proposal.
Let's see what it is.
Newsweek reports...
President Trump has proposed aplan to abolish federal income
(22:40):
taxes for Americans earning lessthan$150,000 per year.
Trump has proposed numerous taxplans, such as no taxes on tips
or overtime, no taxes on SocialSecurity payments, and the one I
like, which is no federal incometax at all.
(23:00):
The federal income tax proposalwould remove taxes for people
earning less than$150,000 peryear, and would impact the vast
majority of Americans.
In 2022, around 93% of Americansaged 15 and over earned less
than$150,000, according to theU.S.
(23:21):
Census Bureau.
If Trump's plan is enacted,Americans would still pay taxes
at the state and local level, aswell as Social Security and
Medicare.
However, their take-home paywould increase if federal income
tax was removed.
Now, the first thing I'd like tosay is that the income tax is
(23:42):
evil in any and allcircumstances.
I won't spend very long sayingthat, we talked about it a
couple weeks ago, but wediscussed that it's morally
wrong for the government toenslave anyone by forcing him to
work half the year just to makethe money the government will
steal from him.
That will never change, nomatter how successful you are,
(24:05):
no matter how much money youmake, no matter who you are or
where you are in life.
It's wrong for anyone to do thatfor you.
It's wrong for anyone to takehalf your income, especially
your own government, when itspurpose, we're told, is to
protect your rights.
Your inalienable, God-givenright to property doesn't go
(24:28):
away the second your incomeexceeds a certain amount.
You think that's how it works?
You think you were created withan inalienable right to
property, but when you make$150,000 a year, that right
suddenly magically disappears?
If you make$149,999 a year,you're protected.
(24:52):
But the second you make just onedollar more than that, your
right to your own propertysomehow vanishes.
Because that's what you have tothink for this proposal to make
any kind of sense.
You have to think that somepeople have rights that others
don't.
You have to think some peopleare more equal than others.
(25:15):
And what's more, you're basingthat on how much money someone
makes.
So it violates the principle ofequal justice.
Now, of course, you can't reallycriticize Trump for that because
our current income tax system isalready a far more egregious
violation of equal justice.
(25:35):
We already have this ludicrousillegal system where different
people have to pay different taxrates.
Some pay 10%, but others have topay four times that, which is
morally insane.
We already have that illegalsystem going on that violates
equal justice.
(25:55):
But one of the things that Ireally liked about abolishing
the income tax altogether wasthat that went away.
That the government was nolonger just arbitrarily
deciding, based on how muchmoney you had to make, that you
would be forced to surrender Xarbitrary percent of your income
to them.
That went away.
(26:16):
Everything would be equal if weabolished the income tax.
So if we're going to keep theincome tax, it would make more
sense for it to be a flat tax,which is the only constitutional
thing to do.
The Constitution does have the16th Amendment, which is a
(26:37):
disastrous amendment, I hate itso much, it never should have
been approved, which gives thefederal government the authority
to collect an income tax.
But it doesn't give it theauthority to collect a
progressive income tax.
And we have other places in theConstitution where it says that
(26:58):
all laws need to be made for thegeneral welfare of the Union,
which means they have to benefiteveryone in the Union equally,
kind of.
They have to benefit the statesequally.
So, we may have this systemwhere the income tax is
justified by the 16th Amendment,but this progressive income tax
(27:19):
system isn't, and this newproposal that Trump has, while
it's certainly better than whatwe currently have, it would
still be a great thing if thiswas enacted, don't get me wrong,
it still would not be in thegeneral welfare.
There would be some people whowould benefit from it, and some
people who would not.
(27:40):
It would be the governedchoosing who would win, and the
government choosing who wouldlose.
So if we're going to have anyincome tax at all, which we
shouldn't, obviously, it shouldbe a flat tax.
And that would be fair, and thatwould make sense, and that would
be constitutional.
(28:00):
But I understand that Trump andmost people are not coming from
it that way.
They do not believe that theincome tax is the moral evil
that I think it is.
They think that it's just thisinconvenient thing that is
harmful for economic growth.
So if you're coming at it fromthat angle, this is a great way
(28:23):
to score political pointsbecause you always hear the
socialists and communistswhining about how the rich
allegedly don't pay their fairshare and all this stupid stuff
about billionaires allegedly payless than firefighters and
policemen, or whatever, when inreality policemen pay like 12,
(28:43):
22%, I don't know exactly whatit is, but the billionaires pay
40%, so that's obviously wrong.
But this system, obviously,would lift the income tax on the
lower class and the middleclass, but it would just be the
upper class who would have topay taxes.
So it's a very populistic thingthat a lot of people will like,
(29:05):
because it- looks like somethingthat's helping the little guy,
that's still making the richbear the cost of the government.
The problem is, though, that thepeople who make all of the jobs
that the middle class uses, theyhire all these middle class
workers, the ones who build thefactories, the ones who create
(29:28):
the stores that people work in.
if you're taxing them then theyhave less money to invest into
their business to grow theirbusiness which means they have
less money to hire middle-classworkers so by taxing the rich
you are actually killing Lots ofgood, high-paying jobs for
(29:52):
middle-class workers.
Now, this proposal would notraise taxes on the rich any more
than it already does, but whatI'm saying is that it doesn't
make economic sense any morethan it makes moral sense to tax
the rich but not to tax themiddle class.
(30:13):
So don't get me wrong, thiswould be a step in the right
direction.
I would be happy if this waspassed.
It would be far better than ourcurrent tax system.
I'm not someone who's all ornothing on this issue, where I'm
either gonna have the income taxtotally abolished or I won't
accept anything else.
(30:34):
This would be a step in theright direction, and I'd be
happy about it.
But it would only be a step inthe right direction.
We need to continue working tofree America from this
oppressive North Korean taxsystem because it is morally
evil.
It's like crime.
It's good when politiciansreduce crime.
(30:57):
It's good when the criminals arelocked up and the murder rate
goes down.
But we can never stop fightingit because it is evil.
We can never give up until itdisappears altogether.
And maybe the income tax willnever disappear, but we need to
understand that it is morallywrong and that the goal must be
(31:18):
to abolish the income tax foreveryone, and that once we do
that, we can finally begin torestore freedom and prosperity
to America.
Thanks for listening to thisepisode of The Conservative
Rebel.
Please subscribe to our podcast,leave a like, and share.
I'll see you on the nextepisode.
Today on The Conservative Rebel, power-hungry
leftist judges are illegallytrying to seize power from
President Trump to stop him fromimplementing his agenda.
This time, they've ruled thatTrump needs to rehire thousands
of useless bureaucrats fired byDoge.
This is an attack on the veryfoundations of our
constitutional order.
(00:21):
America is supposed to be ruledby the people, not by unelected
oracles in flowing black robes.
Meanwhile, Trump makes a majorblunder by calling for Kentucky
Republican Thomas Massey to beprimaried.
Congress is filled with patheticspineless traitors, but instead
of targeting them, Trump'sattacking one of the only
principled conservatives wehave.
(00:43):
It backfired spectacularly, asyou would expect.
And finally, the Trumpadministration has a new
proposal.
Abolish the income tax forAmericans making less than
$150,000 a year.
What happened to ending it foreveryone?
Why should your rights be basedon how much money you make.
We'll talk about all of it todayon The Conservative Rebel.
(01:15):
Ever since Trump took office twomonths ago, the left-wing media
has been claiming that Americacould soon face a constitutional
crisis.
which is a term they've beenthrowing around a lot.
They want you to think thatTrump is wildly abusing his
executive power by firinguseless bureaucrats or by
(01:37):
cracking down on the invasion ofthe southern border or by
fighting corruption at USAID orany other federal agency.
They claim he's violating theseparation of powers and
overstepping his bounds, andthis, they insist, could lead to
disaster.
They're wrong on all counts,except for this.
(01:57):
It's true that America's facinga constitutional crisis.
But it's not a crisis that'sbeing caused by President Trump.
It's a crisis that's beingcaused by federal judges.
Now, we're supposed to believethat judges are the be-all,
end-all of all constitutionalquestions.
(02:18):
If a judge says the presidentcan't do something, that's it.
But when you look at what thefounders actually had to say
about it, you'll learn thatthat's all a lie.
Thomas Jefferson, for one, neverhad anything nice to say about
federal judges.
Here's what he had to say aboutit.
Quote, The germ of dissolutionof our federal government is in
(02:42):
the federal judiciary, anirresponsible body, for
impeachment is scarcely ascarecrow, working like gravity
by night and by day, gaining alittle today and a little
tomorrow, and advancing itsnoiseless steps like a thief
over the field of jurisdiction,until all government, in little
(03:03):
as in great things, shall bedrawn to Washington as the
center of power, which willbecome as venal and oppressive
as the government from which weseparated.
What Jefferson was getting atwas that, since a lot of judges
face no elections and neverreally face impeachment, they
(03:24):
have almost zero accountabilityfor their actions.
The other branches of governmentall check each other.
The Congress can impeach thepresident.
The president can veto billspassed by Congress.
But the way the Constitution hasbeen interpreted for most of
American history, no one canreally check the power of the
(03:44):
courts.
Of course that's a wronginterpretation, but it's how
things have been done for quitesome time.
Jefferson's political enemieslaughed at him, but since then
his fear of the tyranny ofjudges has been more than
vindicated.
Just look at what left-wingjudges across the country have
(04:05):
been doing to Trump since hetook office two months ago.
These partisan hacks havestopped his common-sense
executive order on birthrightcitizenship.
They've forced him to spendbillions of dollars on foreign
aid he tried to cut, and ingeneral they've constantly been
harassing his administrationevery time it tries to cut
(04:27):
spending or fire lazy, entitledgovernment employees.
But the most egregious exampleof all happened this week, when
a federal judge ruled Trump hasto rehire useless bureaucrats
and allow them to continue tosponge off taxpayer dollars
after he fired them.
(04:49):
Here's the headline fromPolitico.
Thousands of federal workersmust be rehired immediately,
judge rules.
A federal judge on Thursdayordered federal agencies to
rehire tens of thousands ofprobationary employees who were
fired amid President DonaldTrump's turbulent effort to
(05:13):
drastically shrink the federalbureaucracy.
U.S.
District Judge William Alsupdescribed the mass firings as a,
quote, Shan strategy to sidesteplegal requirements for reducing
the federal workforce.
Alsup, a San Francisco-basedappointee of President Bill
(05:33):
Clinton, which of course he'sfrom San Francisco, it's
essentially Sodom, Gomorrah, andNineveh rolled into one, ordered
the Defense, Treasury, Energy,Interior, Agriculture, and
Veterans Affairs departments to,quote,"...immediately offer all
fired probationary employeestheir jobs back." This far-left
(05:57):
judge from San Francisco, in oneruling, is trying to seize the
executive power from Trump andsnatch it up for himself.
If the president can't even firelazy bureaucrats, many of whom
don't even show up to work, bythe way, he can't do anything
(06:21):
meaningful at all.
the president becomes thisuseless powerless castrated
figurehead and the real rulersof the country become the
bureaucrats and federal judgeslike this one instead of the
people By trying to seize thepower of hiring and firing from
(06:42):
Trump, this leftist hack istrying to seize power from the
people.
He's trying to seize power fromyou.
The president is supposed torepresent the whole American
people who elect him through theelectoral college.
So make no mistake, this is anattack on the very foundations
(07:07):
of our republic.
This judge is taking aflamethrower to the principles
of our Constitution.
Article 2 of the Constitutionsays this.
(07:29):
quote the executive power shallbe vested in a president of the
united states of america in caseyou didn't catch that it said a
president singular It doesn'tsay the executive power shall be
vested in the bureaucrats of theUnited States or the federal
(07:51):
judges of the United States.
It says the executive powershall be vested in a president
of the United States.
So here's a little civics lessonfor his worship, the judge from
San Francisco.
The United States has threebranches of government.
Legislative, which is congresswhich makes laws executive which
(08:17):
is the president who enforceslaws and judicial which are the
courts which are supposed tointerpret the constitution and
make sure the other branchesdon't do anything
unconstitutional Thesebureaucracies, USAID, the Energy
Department, the AgricultureDepartment, all of these,
they're not mentioned in theConstitution.
(08:40):
They form an unconstitutionalfourth branch of government.
The bureaucracy.
But since a fourth branch isunconstitutional, all of these,
to be legal, have to betechnically classified as part
of the three real branches ofgovernment.
So guess what they're classifiedas?
(09:02):
Executive agencies.
As we just read in theConstitution, the president is
the chief executive.
He has the executive power.
which means that he is in chargeof all of these bureaucracies.
He's in charge of thebureaucrats.
He's their boss.
And guess what that means, yourhigh mightiness?
(09:25):
He can fire any or all of themanytime he wants.
He could abolish any one ofthese agencies with the stroke
of a pen.
because the president is electedby the people and these
bureaucrats are not this judgehas in effect ruled that the
(09:45):
people are subordinate to thebureaucrats he has ruled that
america is an oligarchy not arepublic he is attacking the
foundations of constitutionalgovernment in the united states
and so is every judge who hasruled that trump can't fire
these people So yes, there is aconstitutional crisis in
(10:09):
America, but it's the activistjudges like this one who have
caused it.
And for the sake of ourrepublic, Trump's reaction
should be the same as AndrewJackson's was when the Supreme
Court overstepped its bounds in1832.
The judge has issued his ruling.
(10:30):
Now, let him enforce it.
Alright, moving on to our nexttopic.
I've been very supportive of alot of the things President
Trump has done since he tookoffice, and anyone who has
listened to the conservativerebel in the past knows that's
true.
But this week, Trump made amajor catastrophic blunder,
(10:53):
unfortunately, and I can'tignore it.
And that blunder is this.
On Truth Social, Trump calledfor Kentucky Republican Thomas
Massey to be primaried.
For those of you who aren'tfamiliar with Massey, he is
without question the mostconsistent conservative member
(11:13):
of the United States Congress.
Most Republican politicians arecorrupt, backstabbing traitors
who shower voters with promisesto cut spending, cut government,
and put America first.
But they end up doing theopposite.
They increase spending, theyexpand government, they ship off
your tax dollars to Ukraine, toIsrael, to regimes all across
(11:38):
the world, to fund wars that arenone of our business and meddle
in the politics of foreigncountries.
They either do that because theyprofit off and they deliberately
lie to the people, or they didmean what they said genuinely,
but then they end up being toocowardly to do anything about it
and they just want tocompromise.
(11:58):
That's what most Republicans inCongress do.
They form an elitist unipartywith the Democrats that supports
endless spending, endless wars,and the destruction of liberty.
Thomas Massey is one of the fewwho doesn't play that game.
He opposes the spending, heopposes the wars, he opposes the
(12:19):
never-ending encroachments onour constitutional rights.
It doesn't matter if a bill isproposed by Democrats or
Republicans.
If it's unconstitutional, Masseywon't vote for it.
So naturally, he was the onlyRepublican to oppose the latest
spending bill, whichunfortunately passed, because it
(12:40):
doesn't cut spending.
Pretty simple.
But for whatever reason,Massey's very predictable
opposition to this spendingbill, which anyone who knows
about his voting record sawcoming, just set Trump off.
The Hill has this, quote,President Trump is vowing to,
(13:02):
quote, Trump began a truthsocial post late Monday night by
thanking the House FreedomCaucus for backing the stopgap
(13:25):
funding package and supportingSpeaker Mike Johnson of
Louisiana's efforts to keep thegovernment open, and then called
for Massey to be primaried.
And here's Trump's post, quote,Thank you to the House Freedom
Caucus for just delivering a bigblow to the radical left
Democrats and their desire toraise taxes and shut our country
(13:48):
down.
They hate America and all itstands for.
That's why they allowed millionsof criminals to invade our
nation.
Sometimes it takes great courageto do the right thing.
Congressman Thomas Massey ofbeautiful Kentucky is an
automatic no vote on just abouteverything despite the fact that
(14:10):
he has always voted forcontinuing resolutions in the
past.
He voted for one continuingresolution that would have cut
spending by 8% because he votesfor cutting spending.
This one doesn't cut spending.
That's why he opposed it.
There's no inconsistency there.
But it went on, He's justanother grandstander who's too
(14:38):
much Now this was obviously aserious blunder on Trump's part,
(14:59):
and I'll explain why.
As we just talked about, mostRepublicans in Congress are
either backstabbers who promiseto cut spending and then don't
because of their own politicalinterests, or they're just
malleable cowards who are puttyin the hands of the left.
People who constantly try tocompromise and find a middle
(15:21):
ground and are afraid to everstand up for anything or take
any political risks.
You know who I'm talking about,the Lindsey Grahams and Lisa
Murkowskis and Dan Crenshaw's ofthe world.
Why isn't Trump calling toprimary these losers?
Why doesn't he go after them?
Lindsey Graham and 25 otherrhino losers just voted against
(15:47):
Trump's foreign aid cuts.
Rand Paul forced a vote on it.
You know how Doge cut a bunch offoreign aid?
He forced the Senate to vote onit.
25 of them voted against it.
How about you go after thosepeople?
I don't care if you agree withThomas Massey on this spending
(16:07):
bill or not, or on aid to Israelor whatever other issue.
There are dozens and dozens anddozens of Republicans who are
openly hostile to the AmericaFirst agenda.
There are dozens and dozens ofthem who have worked with the
Democrats to destroy thiscountry for the past four years.
(16:30):
Where are your priorities?
Shouldn't we deal with thembefore we deal with one who you
think is too conservative?
But you'll hear a lot ofRepublicans say dumb popular
things like, oh, Massey is justlooking for attention.
We need to unite to defeat theliberals.
We need to compromise every nowand then.
(16:51):
Just regurgitating the Fox Newsestablishment talking points.
Listen to yourself.
which do you think is a biggerthreat to this country people
like lindsey graham who neversaw a war they didn't like who
spend money like drunken sailorswho are bought and paid for by
(17:11):
lobbyists or people like thomasmassey Do you think the problem
with the Republican Party isthat it's too consistent, too
principled, that it doesn'tcompromise with the radical left
enough?
Really, is that what you think?
You think the problem with thatwith the republican party is
that it's too reluctant to wasteyour money you think the problem
(17:36):
with america is that congressdoesn't spend enough money
that's what you have to think inorder for primarying massey to
make any kind of sense as masseyhimself has pointed out every
time there's a new opportunityto cut spending Mike Johnson and
the loser faction of theRepublican Party will just say,
(17:59):
oh, we'll compromise now andfight next time.
But next time never comes.
Massey recently put this out onX, this is true.
Quote, the argument for CR,which is an abbreviation for
continuing resolution, which ishow they're spending money, in
September 2024, was to fight inDecember 2024 after the
(18:23):
election.
The argument for CR in December2024 was to fight in March 2025
after the inauguration.
The argument for CR in March2025 is to fight in September
2025 because we're not readyyet.
(18:44):
What he's getting at is wecontrol the Supreme Court.
We control the House.
We control the Senate.
We control the presidency.
If we don't fight now, we'llnever fight.
We have united government.
Republicans control everythingright now, okay?
(19:05):
Everything.
Now is the time to fight.
This is the golden opportunity.
This is the moment that westrike.
Because there will not be a nexttime.
This is the golden window ofopportunity to actually save
America, providentially given tous, a golden opportunity, and
(19:26):
we're just throwing it away.
It's insane.
And it's especially bizarre how,in his post, Trump compared
Massey to Liz Cheney.
He compared someone who isliterally on the staff of the
libertarian ron paul instituteto a woman who is one of the
(19:46):
most hawkish neocons in congresstheir polar opposites they could
not be more different i'm gladyou brought up liz cheney
because look at how she wasprimaried that should be the
model for how you deal withrhinos so how about we give
lindsey graham or someone likehim the liz cheney treatment
(20:10):
instead of attacking And alreadythis has backfired spectacularly
for Trump.
In just the past few days sincethis all happened, Massey has
raised almost$350,000 fromthousands of small donations.
(20:30):
And every time people havetargeted Massey, they've failed.
For three consecutive elections,he has faced opposition from
people who are running to theleft of him.
who claim that he's too much ofa firebrand or a radical.
For the past three electioncycles, that's what he's faced.
(20:51):
Last year, AIPAC, which is alobbying group that pays
congressmen money to ensurethey'll continually vote to send
money to Israel, pumped tons ofmoney into Massey's district to
try to defeat him in theprimary, because he votes
against all foreign aid,including to Israel.
But Massey ended up crushing hisSo the people of Massey's
(21:15):
district love him.
Whoever runs against Massey willinevitably lose.
So Trump can't win in this.
He can't win.
There's no way for him to win.
He has nothing to gain bycalling for Massey to be
primaried.
All it does is make him lookbad, which is unfortunate.
(21:36):
because I think Trump is thebest president we have had for
the past 100 years.
Now, that's a very low bar,obviously, but still, I really
like a lot of what Trump did,and it really upsets me to see
him make blunders as dumb asthis.
Alright, moving on to our finaltopic.
(21:57):
A few weeks ago, we discussedwhy the income tax needs to be
abolished, primarily becauseit's, of course, morally evil,
but also because it doesterrible harm to the economy.
Trump and his Commerce SecretaryHoward Lutnick had both
repeatedly hinted that theadministration might push to
(22:17):
finally free us from this NorthKorean tax system.
But unfortunately, for whateverreason, the administration has
retreated from its originalposition and has come up with a
new tax proposal.
Let's see what it is.
Newsweek reports...
President Trump has proposed aplan to abolish federal income
(22:40):
taxes for Americans earning lessthan$150,000 per year.
Trump has proposed numerous taxplans, such as no taxes on tips
or overtime, no taxes on SocialSecurity payments, and the one I
like, which is no federal incometax at all.
(23:00):
The federal income tax proposalwould remove taxes for people
earning less than$150,000 peryear, and would impact the vast
majority of Americans.
In 2022, around 93% of Americansaged 15 and over earned less
than$150,000, according to theU.S.
(23:21):
Census Bureau.
If Trump's plan is enacted,Americans would still pay taxes
at the state and local level, aswell as Social Security and
Medicare.
However, their take-home paywould increase if federal income
tax was removed.
Now, the first thing I'd like tosay is that the income tax is
(23:42):
evil in any and allcircumstances.
I won't spend very long sayingthat, we talked about it a
couple weeks ago, but wediscussed that it's morally
wrong for the government toenslave anyone by forcing him to
work half the year just to makethe money the government will
steal from him.
That will never change, nomatter how successful you are,
(24:05):
no matter how much money youmake, no matter who you are or
where you are in life.
It's wrong for anyone to do thatfor you.
It's wrong for anyone to takehalf your income, especially
your own government, when itspurpose, we're told, is to
protect your rights.
Your inalienable, God-givenright to property doesn't go
(24:28):
away the second your incomeexceeds a certain amount.
You think that's how it works?
You think you were created withan inalienable right to
property, but when you make$150,000 a year, that right
suddenly magically disappears?
If you make$149,999 a year,you're protected.
(24:52):
But the second you make just onedollar more than that, your
right to your own propertysomehow vanishes.
Because that's what you have tothink for this proposal to make
any kind of sense.
You have to think that somepeople have rights that others
don't.
You have to think some peopleare more equal than others.
(25:15):
And what's more, you're basingthat on how much money someone
makes.
So it violates the principle ofequal justice.
Now, of course, you can't reallycriticize Trump for that because
our current income tax system isalready a far more egregious
violation of equal justice.
(25:35):
We already have this ludicrousillegal system where different
people have to pay different taxrates.
Some pay 10%, but others have topay four times that, which is
morally insane.
We already have that illegalsystem going on that violates
equal justice.
(25:55):
But one of the things that Ireally liked about abolishing
the income tax altogether wasthat that went away.
That the government was nolonger just arbitrarily
deciding, based on how muchmoney you had to make, that you
would be forced to surrender Xarbitrary percent of your income
to them.
That went away.
(26:16):
Everything would be equal if weabolished the income tax.
So if we're going to keep theincome tax, it would make more
sense for it to be a flat tax,which is the only constitutional
thing to do.
The Constitution does have the16th Amendment, which is a
(26:37):
disastrous amendment, I hate itso much, it never should have
been approved, which gives thefederal government the authority
to collect an income tax.
But it doesn't give it theauthority to collect a
progressive income tax.
And we have other places in theConstitution where it says that
(26:58):
all laws need to be made for thegeneral welfare of the Union,
which means they have to benefiteveryone in the Union equally,
kind of.
They have to benefit the statesequally.
So, we may have this systemwhere the income tax is
justified by the 16th Amendment,but this progressive income tax
(27:19):
system isn't, and this newproposal that Trump has, while
it's certainly better than whatwe currently have, it would
still be a great thing if thiswas enacted, don't get me wrong,
it still would not be in thegeneral welfare.
There would be some people whowould benefit from it, and some
people who would not.
(27:40):
It would be the governedchoosing who would win, and the
government choosing who wouldlose.
So if we're going to have anyincome tax at all, which we
shouldn't, obviously, it shouldbe a flat tax.
And that would be fair, and thatwould make sense, and that would
be constitutional.
(28:00):
But I understand that Trump andmost people are not coming from
it that way.
They do not believe that theincome tax is the moral evil
that I think it is.
They think that it's just thisinconvenient thing that is
harmful for economic growth.
So if you're coming at it fromthat angle, this is a great way
(28:23):
to score political pointsbecause you always hear the
socialists and communistswhining about how the rich
allegedly don't pay their fairshare and all this stupid stuff
about billionaires allegedly payless than firefighters and
policemen, or whatever, when inreality policemen pay like 12,
(28:43):
22%, I don't know exactly whatit is, but the billionaires pay
40%, so that's obviously wrong.
But this system, obviously,would lift the income tax on the
lower class and the middleclass, but it would just be the
upper class who would have topay taxes.
So it's a very populistic thingthat a lot of people will like,
(29:05):
because it- looks like somethingthat's helping the little guy,
that's still making the richbear the cost of the government.
The problem is, though, that thepeople who make all of the jobs
that the middle class uses, theyhire all these middle class
workers, the ones who build thefactories, the ones who create
(29:28):
the stores that people work in.
if you're taxing them then theyhave less money to invest into
their business to grow theirbusiness which means they have
less money to hire middle-classworkers so by taxing the rich
you are actually killing Lots ofgood, high-paying jobs for
(29:52):
middle-class workers.
Now, this proposal would notraise taxes on the rich any more
than it already does, but whatI'm saying is that it doesn't
make economic sense any morethan it makes moral sense to tax
the rich but not to tax themiddle class.
(30:13):
So don't get me wrong, thiswould be a step in the right
direction.
I would be happy if this waspassed.
It would be far better than ourcurrent tax system.
I'm not someone who's all ornothing on this issue, where I'm
either gonna have the income taxtotally abolished or I won't
accept anything else.
(30:34):
This would be a step in theright direction, and I'd be
happy about it.
But it would only be a step inthe right direction.
We need to continue working tofree America from this
oppressive North Korean taxsystem because it is morally
evil.
It's like crime.
It's good when politiciansreduce crime.
(30:57):
It's good when the criminals arelocked up and the murder rate
goes down.
But we can never stop fightingit because it is evil.
We can never give up until itdisappears altogether.
And maybe the income tax willnever disappear, but we need to
understand that it is morallywrong and that the goal must be
(31:18):
to abolish the income tax foreveryone, and that once we do
that, we can finally begin torestore freedom and prosperity
to America.
Thanks for listening to thisepisode of The Conservative
Rebel.
Please subscribe to our podcast,leave a like, and share.
I'll see you on the nextepisode.
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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