May 30, 2025 • 39 mins
Seg 1 – EU Protectionists in a Trump Fracas
Seg 2 – The Income Tax Endgame
Seg 3 – The Golden Dome Proposition
Seg 4 – Is the Border Crisis Officially Over?
Seg 2 – The Income Tax Endgame
Seg 3 – The Golden Dome Proposition
Seg 4 – Is the Border Crisis Officially Over?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
It was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Hello, Welcome to the Liberty Nation radiohead coast to coast
on the Radio American Network FRO, my flagship station in
the Nation's Capital WWRC in Washington, DC. I'm your host,
Mark Angelides. On today's show, we are talking the Golden Dome,
income tax, and a whole lot more. It's going to
be quite the show. Please remember Liberty Nation Radio Spondspyliberty
Nation dot com. You can access podcast to breaking news
analysis and a range of biting and brilliant shows to
(00:56):
what your apetite for freedom and your fondness for the
Great American Constitution. And here we are on Libtination Radio
or Remainia host Mark Andlesan We're having a conversation with
Libtination's economics editor, mister Andrew Moran, thanks for being here,
Andrew big graving me, So, Andrew, tough times for the
European Union at the moment with taris right.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
Yeah. So, heading into the Memorial Tay weekend, President Trump
out of nowhere went our truth social and said I'm
going to impose a fifty percent tariff on the European
Union as of June first, and then two days later,
out of nowhere truth socially, he says, yeah, you know,
we're going to suspend it until July ninth. And so
that's what the that's where the state of trade negotiations
(01:37):
are and whether or not going to succeed doubtful.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Yes, So when you say whether or not they're going
to succeed, what does success look like?
Speaker 4 (01:46):
That's that's a that's an excellent question, because it's all
about for the administration, yes, tariffs as well the the
you know, thirty percent, let's say, twenty five percent tariffs on automobiles.
But if you comb through the National Trade Estimate Report
that was released prior to Liberation Day by the US
Trade Representative's Office, there's a long list of the non
(02:07):
monetary trade barriers, you know, chemical regulations, licensing, currency strategies,
all these different things that the administration you know, dislikes.
You're telling me that these things which have been which
have you know, compounded for a deck since the formation
of the European Union is suddenly going to be dismantled
(02:28):
by July ninth, within a month. Highly I highly doubt
that that's going to occur.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Well, so that's the thing, right commissioned President a set
of vonderlean She said that they're going to be working
swiftly to come to some kind of deal. And that's
when Trump put out that we're going to hold off
on the fifty percent until July ninth.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
But what does that deal look like for the EU?
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Because the whole purpose of the the EU was this say,
trading market of member states, in which the EU's claim
being that we will reduce regulation and barriers for trade
between the member state nations. In reality, it was a
(03:15):
regulatory overload in just every form. But it's a protectionist situation.
That's the entire purpose of the EU is protectionism for
its member states, for the individual markets within the member states.
So to get a deal, as you rightly point out,
(03:38):
it's nothing to do with just the exports outside of
the Union or the economic area, economic zone.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
It's also about.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
The non tariff burden that exists.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
Now, how.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Can the EU continue to exist as what it is
if they are getting rid of these for like what
we might call a favored nation deal with America.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
So a couple of things.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
So on.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
I think it was on the day of the announcement,
Treasury Secretary Scott Besons, he appeared on Fox News and
he was talking about the European Union and he made
an interesting point that you somewhat alluded to. He said
that the Member States have no clue what the European
Union leadership is doing at oil. You're in the dark.
They don't watch strategy they're employing. So I thought that
was a very interesting one to me. Now the second
(04:33):
part too, when it comes to a trade agreement with
the European Union, I tend to believe that the UK
US trade agreement that was announced a couple of weeks ago,
that is the blueprint of what all these future trade
agreements are going to be, which amounts to very little.
You look at this trade these trade deals with sorry,
this trade deal with the UK and all it is
(04:53):
is rearranging checks, rearranging chairs on the down the boat deck.
That's all it is doing. So I suspect that the
Union it's gonna be the exame thing where you know,
they may trim around the edges. The United States is
going to trim around the edges, and then President Trump
is going to declare a victory and say, hey, look
we got a we got a better trade agreement out
of this, when in the aggregate, nothing much, nothing much
(05:14):
gains for the broader US economy. Now, some industries may
benefit slightly, like US agricultural and it's beef X sports
that may benefit, but as as a whole, there's not
going to be much substantial change as you expected on
that liberation to announcement.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
Well, actually, I think you have it both right and
and a little bit wrong.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
And no, no, no longer.
Speaker 5 (05:36):
I'm not I'm not.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
An economist, of course, but I do know the EU.
I you know, I studied the EU.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
I studied what it does, and what it does is
it protects key industries. So now, because the individual markets
within the now twenty seven member states, each of those
has big players within the market. So for example, thinks
champagne from France, think aartsmobiles from Germany, and they have
(06:06):
these key drivers. Now the governments of these nations have
to answer to the big markets within their country, and
so what happens is the EU says that we're going
to help these markets because that's going to be good
for the governments. They're trying to get some cooperation from
the member states. So the the existing government of the
(06:29):
time fully backs the EU project, which.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Almost all of them do.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
We saw it with the Brexit vote of twenty sixteen.
You had both the Labor of the British Labor Party
in the British Conservative Party both wanting to stay in
the EU and then of course just Nigel Farage pushing
to get us out, and you know he was ultimately successful.
But what happens is you have, for example, the champagne producers.
(06:59):
The E stamps down on all the other member nations
calling any kind of sparkling winor champagne and they say,
look what we've done for the for the champagne farmers
of France, right, and if it's not from that region,
car court champagne and they say that to a regulatory win.
But then of course they also take the money that's
provided to them through these member state governments and they
(07:22):
dole it out to various industries. So wine makers in
France get subsidies from plumbers in South London. Right, working
class plumbers in South London are paying subsidies to keep
wine farmers on the go in France. And so what
(07:45):
you have is sorry, just to round this out to
my final point is you have all these these markets,
and that's what it's about about individual markets within the
Member states, each getting a little bit of something. But
what Trump I believe, is aiming for with his his
tariff deal with the EU is access to the protected markets,
(08:05):
so the ring fence markets.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
He wants to be able to put into.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Those and have US suppliers of products afforded the same
protections that other companies within the EU would have, and
I don't think that's beyond reach.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
Well, I would see only one point on the n
C stru not have a champagne industry, So that point
will not.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Go especially according to the EU regulations.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
Right.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
I would see another point that we've talked. We've talked
this one on your radio show. A key thing that
the administration is not like is the value add attacks.
Now the value on attacks from understanding and for my
research on it is a major revenue driver for the
block nations. I think endows are about twenty percent of
the overall aggregate for revenues. That is not something I
(08:56):
believe that the European needed is good to suddenly dismantle
and safety. We're not gonna, We're not gonna rule, and
we're not gonna suddenly, you know, not generate revenues from
from the value out of taxes, considering the financial fiscal
strain that a lot of these governments have. So this
this circles back to my point, how it's all fine.
You talk about champagne, you talk about wine makers. This
still trimming around the edges.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
It's not gonna.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
It's not gonna be a transformational trade agreement that that
that the US and the U are going to lead
to and just just on the logistics alone. So the
Administration claims that two hundred countries have reached out to
the Administration to reach trade agreements. You need an immense
amount of manpower to negotiate these trade agreements, and they
all keep saying that it's gonna happen soon. These announces,
(09:39):
announcements are gonna happen, you know shortly, don't One announcement
you have so far is the United Kingdom and that
was it's been what two months when that whole liberation
Liberation Day announcement occurred. So you talk about these subsidies, fine,
but you know they're not gonna be They're not gonna
be removed, They're not gonna be abolished. They're gonna say,
we're gonna we're gonna lower the terror freight by a
(10:01):
minute school percentage on this product. And then Trump's gonna
call it a win, and then the market's gonna cheer.
And then just say, if you find this was this,
this didn't amount too much at all. So now now
we know what the what the future trading agreements are
gonna look like with India or with China or with
the you know Lichtenstein.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Well, well, the lecture style is not in the EU,
but they'll have to be a bespoke one.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
But the or the Penguin Islands, you know, whichever we're on.
That was that that the.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Is the Falklands as I call it, and we'll continue
to call it despite Argentina's protests.
Speaker 4 (10:32):
You know, I I when the libertation they announced that happened.
I actually I fell for it. I thought, okay, yeah,
he's really gonna up end global trade. He's really going
to impose all these massive tariffs in the countries. He's
gonna he's gonna pu pummel them into submission. A week
later when they were reversed, and you had Kevin Assett say,
he's a National Economic Council director and he said, yeah,
you know, the bond yields really encouraged us to you know,
(10:55):
make a premature announcement that they were back back pedaling.
But my whole inclusion out of this is that the
administration did not understand, they don't expect the market's reaction
of you know, stocks nosed diving and the treasure you'll sar.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
We're going to continue this conversation after the shortbreak. Don't
go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark
edge Alitis.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
And we're back with Liberty Nations economics editor Andrew Morano
Remania host Mark Ansley's we'll continue our conversation about the
overall impact of Trump's Liberation Day tariffs. And Andrew, I
want to kind of go broad spectrum on this, if
we may so, your contention, and I think it's a
valid one, is that it's not going to be this, uh,
(11:48):
this total upset of global markets when the dust settles
on the tariff negotiations. And I think you're right on that.
My counter art would be that it was never actually
intended to be. It was intended to be. You know,
we'll make a little bit of extra from this country.
We're making a little bit of extra from this country,
and you spread that across one hundred and ninety countries
and you end up with quite a nice pot. Now,
(12:11):
so I want to talk about the pot and what
that's really coming up for.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
So I believe March was.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Sixteen billion dollars, which is like a record collection, which
isn't a huge amount, is it sixteen billion considering the
overall spending. But here's how I want to examine this.
The lens that I want to examine this theori is
what the trajectory is here. So you've got this sixteen
billion in March, whatever it was in February, and then
(12:40):
the ten days of Trumps presidency in January, and so
you project that going forward, we're looking over a year,
assuming things stay on a similar trajectory. We're probably talking
what eighty to one hundred billion a year?
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Is that about? Is that fair?
Speaker 4 (12:58):
Your estimate is definitely more accurate than the other estimates
I've seen in the open marketplace, where the government itself says, oh, yeah,
we're going to collect six hundred billion dollars a year
and we're going to collect six trillion over ten years,
which is absolutely insane. But I think your projection is
far more accuratey.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
So, there's there's one hundred billion a year there now
that is not going to pay for the repeal of
income tax. And that's what I really want to get
to is Donald Trump's musings on income tax. So there
has to be like a multi pronged approach to this, right,
a multi level analysis of how you get to this
(13:38):
is what we can do for income tax in a
political sphere. So there's tarres coming in, let's say one
hundred billion, maybe a little more, maybe a little more.
That's obviously not so I think at twenty twenty four
there is six trillion outlayers from the government four point
one trillion revenue income and so I mean that's there's
(14:02):
two trillion that's just been borrowed for and it has
to be paid back. So tarifs by themselves.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
Won't do anything.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
You need a multi pronged approach to do anything around
the edges of income tax. And so you've got those,
which is optimistically by the time it shuts up, the
project shuts up shuffle though the department won't in July
twenty twenty six, optimistically it will cut I would say,
(14:33):
in my opinion, maybe eight hundred to nine hundred billion
off yearly expenditures.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
So you've got that, plus.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
You've got one hundred billion off tariffs. That's a trillion
aside per year, which is which is interesting, but it
does nothing to deal with the you know, the extra
two billion spending on top of the four billion revenue.
So what other areas can Donald try look at, or
(15:01):
that the government look at, or successive governments look at
to try and get these numbers closed together?
Speaker 4 (15:07):
Wow, there's lots of a pack there if they're well.
The one area.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Which I've been staring all this up.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
The one area that the administration and will say they
will not touch, is the mediatory side of spending. But
since that accounts for ten years, is going to count
for about seventy percent of all spending. That's an area
you're going to have to eventually touch. You talked about DOGE.
The problem with DOGE is that, yeah, it's finding cuts
I think to date. Let's say, let's just be liberal
and say, yeah, one hundred billion dollars. The problem is
(15:37):
that Congress is not codifying this, so it's not it's
actually taking it as the cuts and you know, reducing
the budget with it. Now, tariff revenue, that's this another
interesting thing. We look at all these tariff revenue estimates
and it's all based on okay, assuming that global trade
remains the same, nothing changes at all, that it generates
you know, three trillion dollars over ten years. But of course,
(15:58):
as we all know, tariffs do upend trade flows. Now
now also with tea tariff revenues, Scott Besson's he compared
it to a shrinking ice cube in the street, ger
ice tubes and a glass. He was saying, yeah, fine,
tariff revenues, you know, you hope will pay for a
lot of government spending. But eventually, once more you have
on shoring and reshoring of manufacturing, then you increase domestic
(16:19):
income and that therefore that pace for more government spending.
Now also on income taxes alone. Commerce Secretary Howard Levenick,
he was on I think it was sixty minutes, and
he was saying, you know, you want to eventually elimited
income taxes for anyone paying less than one hundred and
fifty thousand dollars. Once again, these these well no, he
as he later clarified, only once you balance the budget.
(16:41):
So therefore you know that you're never lately come tax
because the budget will never be balanced. So there is so,
as you said, there's a multi problem, a novelization you
need to engage upon when when you talk about the
income tax in tariff revenues.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
So we know that Donald Trump is the in many
ways the Pat bonhom was the places the world. I
think that's accepted by everybody, including Donald Trump. And you
have this situation, so you have the status quote now
where this is income tax, it exists as it does.
And then he's saying, in this bright, sunny golden age,
(17:15):
there'll be zero in contax on people earning less than
one hundred and fifty thousand. The reality, I think is
going to be somewhere along a spectrum in the middle
there for what can be achieved. Where do you think
that will land by the time the next presidential election
comes around. Where do you think reality will show its head?
Speaker 4 (17:38):
I think the reality is the current one big beautiful
bill that I think that's going to be the permanent
status quo. Tax rates, you know, so therefore you never
you never go to income tax. You look at the
monthly Treasury statement, you look at the interest payments, and
you compare it to let's say, the income tax collections.
(18:00):
In many months, the income tax collections account for nearly
half of interest payments alone. So how can you eliminate
a major source of revenue for the government just disperce
the debt. It's not going to happen. So the one
be Beautiful Bill. It permanently extends the Tax Cousin Jobs Act,
so you have a cross board lower income tax brackets.
So that's the reality situation. You're not gonna limit it,
(18:22):
you're not gonna abolish income tax round how great it
would be. You're not eliminating and you're a balance with
So maybe we're just a skeptic, but those numbers do
not support the projections and proposals from many administration divisions.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
So we have a big beautiful bill, will be the standard. Yeah,
and so what I guess people who are sick of
paying income taxes that are looking for a bigger and
more beautiful bill next time around. Andrew Moran, thanks ever
so much for joining us.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
Thank Grady.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Know that's what was free. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Of enterplase and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
And WE'REECCA on Liberty Nation radio head coast to coast
on the Radio America Network.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
I remain your host, Mark Anthontis.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
We're very fortunate to have with us today Liberty Nations
national security correspondent, mister Dave Passton. Thanks for coming in, Dave.
Speaker 5 (19:35):
Thank you, Mark. Always happy to be with you.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
So Dave.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
The big news for me in recent days, and I
predict that it will be going forward, is the funding
of not the Iron Dome. Trump calls it the Golden Dome.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
I believe yes he does.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Which is I think that's a beautiful name. Is a big,
beautiful name for a big beautiful dome.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
It's some thing that everybody thinks.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Will protect the United States.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Well, I don't.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
I haven't really heard any any adult criticism of actually
having an iron dome system. However, I have heard criticisms
from a couple of things. Number one is the funding,
and I really want to talk about that because how
is that going to be paid for? But number two,
(20:24):
and I think this is pretty interesting, is we're hearing
criticism from inside America saying that other nations won't like
it that America has an iron dome system. And I'm thinking, well,
isn't that the whole point, Dave, Let's deal with the
second one first.
Speaker 5 (20:44):
Yeah, let's let's let's do that, because that is so
that is so globalistic in eurocentric, right, I mean, and
that is precisely what the Trump administration is not about.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Now.
Speaker 5 (21:01):
This is about America first and keeping Americans safe. And
so to hear that other nations might not like this
means clearly to me that we're doing something right.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
You know.
Speaker 5 (21:14):
It is to take a page out of Marco Rubio's book.
When I believe it was, Senator Cade said, if I
had it to do over again, I would not have
voted to confirm you in these as well, then I
must be doing something right.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
So the chief worry warts, as you might call them,
apparently are and again this kind of proves that you're
doing something right with it are China and Russia. And
so I've been reading critics saying that, well, China won't
be happy that the US has such a situatete, you know,
(21:53):
it's such a capability, and Russia won't be happy that
the US has such capability, And I think, well, the
very fact that they're not happy about it proves to
me on a personal level, that that's exactly the reason
that America should have it. Because despite the Biden administration
(22:14):
protestations that we are not adversaries, we live in an
adversarial world. That's the reality. And he who fails to
prepare for future adverse events is risking almost everything that
(22:34):
people hold dear.
Speaker 5 (22:35):
Well, that's right, I mean, And so for Biden to
say we are not adversaries, you know, is pretty much
emblematic of the entire four years that we endured. They
never got it, They never understood the world in which
we live. Trump does, he does get it. And you know,
(22:57):
I always kind of I wrote against this notion of
if we're real nice to you, will you be real
nice to us, which was the mantra of the Biden administration.
And we can see how well that hall how that
worked for them. It doesn't. And so for Trump is
a realist and he sees that he lives in a
world where whatever we no matter what we say, China
(23:20):
has started to build and will will soon be have
completed more than three hundred ICBM silas well, they're not
doing that to hold wheat, And the consequence of that
is that we have to do something that will at least,
you know, put them a little bit back on their feats.
(23:42):
The criticism that I hear mostly is, oh, my goodness,
we're by by having a defensive system, we are abrogating
our responsibility for deterrence. Well, that's absurd that having a
defense thing about it, Having a defensive system actually enhances
(24:04):
the deterrent effect of the capability that you have.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Sure, yeah, I mean it's naturally so for example, if
you make just just for example, if you make a
potential enemies uh stockpile of ICBMs pointless, then they will
stop stockpiling ICBMs. It's it's very much a de escalation
(24:28):
of well of of the destructive capability of modern weaponry
and the idea that we should instead be building a better,
bigger bomb. I mean that's I mean, that's that's everything
that everybody should be really against, I think, right, I mean.
Speaker 5 (24:47):
Well absolutely, and I think too, you know, not to
not to take the conversation into the metaphysical, but the
fact is is that deterrence is a kinetic h response. Yes,
I have the capability to beat you. You have the
capability to destroy me. We are at a standoff. On
(25:08):
the other hand, if your capability not only is there
to send missiles their way should that have to happen,
but you can also defend against their missiles, it becomes
actually more for them than just pointless. It becomes losing.
(25:29):
You have lost this battle. You have to kind of
rethink your position in the world and come back with
something better than We're going to defeat you, because you can't. Ultimately,
you cannot do that. So it is it's whoever.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
It is said peace through strength? Was that Ronald Reagan?
Speaker 5 (25:50):
Absolutely, you know, And it's just so it actually becomes
more of a winning solution than it is is a
defensive solution. Which would you know, deterrence was always defensive.
The only thing that we had going for us is
the uncertainty on the part of our enemies that if
(26:10):
they shot their counter force missiles that they'd hit empty silos.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Yes, so yeah, I really think that people who are
criticizing the Idome on that subject that they're absolutely missing
the point. But let's get to the criticism of cost.
So it's not a done deal, is it, Because I
believe I might have these figures wrong, but I believe
there's twenty five billion to get the ball rolling on this,
(26:44):
which is not going to be enough to pay for
for everything involved. And if we may just take a
minute to talk about what's involved with that, it's just
I'm sure all of our listeners know. The how the
Iron Dome system were is a series of satellites that
(27:04):
first track everything and then there's some more satellites that
would have essentially Star Wars capability that can take down
myselves as there en route. So it's a big mass
of satellites that would need to be put up into orbit.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
Is that about right? Well?
Speaker 5 (27:23):
It is ultimately I think that that's their goal. But
in the meantime, there President Trump saw iron Dome, and
his thinking was, well, we'll just model what we have
after iron Dome. IF when they announced it and from
the overall office and he announced the program Manager General
(27:44):
good line, there was a graphic that went up and
it had four or five different things, but one of
them was ground based missiles and a ground based system.
That's what iron Dome is. It's a ground based system.
That's what you would have to have initially. And so
(28:05):
you can scale something on the order of Iron Dome
and have a ground based system to begin with, which
is what we have currently. Are exciting three sites and
forty four missiles after twenty four years of spending money
on that, and so this would be consider and why
(28:28):
he's talking about three years is I think that's what's
in his mind that you create this system. And okay,
the argument is, well, you know, Israel is the size
of Rhode Island, and you know it would just be
an enormous project. But the idea is, okay, fine, you know,
divide the country up into those areas that are the
(28:48):
size of Israel and put systems in each of those
regions so as to defend against that area. But I
think that to more more to the point if you
think about this whole this whole problem, it is a detect, identify, track, intercept, destroy, right,
(29:13):
That's that's the point. And so the problem that people
are talking about is that now we're looking at hypersonic missiles. Okay, well,
Raytheon just came out with a new version of their
tracking and intercept radar that handles hypersonic weapons. And so
(29:38):
we are in a position of now having the capability
perhaps rudimentary as it is, but certainly consistent with the
threat that you scale. And now you can scale these
things to the point where, okay, we have all these
different missile systems. You know that that basically we have
(29:58):
a high low miss mix already. We don't have to
develop anything for a ground based system. And you've got
you know, the terminal high altitude intercept in that, you've
got patriots in all manner of Israeli's Arrow two and three,
and so you have the capability to start to create
(30:19):
this this this system. And I'm I can't put, you know,
thoughts in President Trump's mind, but I think that's pretty
much how he sees this.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
Yees.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
So it's really just taking existing technologies multiplying them on
a grand.
Speaker 5 (30:34):
Scale and start.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Upscating them with the latest technologies into existing systems. Now
we're going to be continuing a conversation on Donald Trump's aims, plans,
and schemes after this shortbreak.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelits.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Andrew back on Liberty Nation Radio. I remain your host
Mark Anderley's and we continue our conversation with the Liberty
Nations national security correspondent Dave Patterson. Dave, thanks for sticking around.
Earlier in the show, we were talking about the Iron
Dome or the Golden Dome, the system, which I love
the name. It's such a great name, right it hearkens
(31:20):
back to Greek mythology, or the golden fleece, the Golden Dome,
Golden Age, Golden Age or Golden age.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
Thinking.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Now, there's a non positive one. But there are many
other things that the Trump administration is doing with national security,
and I think one that in twenty sixteen twenty seventeen
was the driving issue and then it came to a
head under the Biden administration when floods of illegal migrants
across the US border. But now it seems that the
(31:53):
legacy media just doesn't talk about the border anymore. And
I think the numbers show why don't they. We had
the March figures. It was down ninety four percent illegal
border crossings this March from last March, and that's the
difference of thousands of people per day. And I wonder
(32:16):
why tens of thousands, tens of thousand. I wonder why
it's become such a non issue when it's always seemed
to me to be one of the most important national
security issues. People you don't know, who may want to
do you harm, may want to do your country harm
on a large scale, are allowed to freely enter and
(32:37):
leave the nation. I always wondered why that was never
considered as one of the key national security issues. But
now nobody talks about it because and why is that?
Is it because it's been dealt with or is there
something else?
Speaker 5 (32:52):
I think it's yes, absolutely, because it's being dealt with.
I mean, on one day, some porschnook, one person tried
to get across the border. I mean, that's that's pretty effective.
That's a pretty effective border. And as President Trump says,
you know, it is the best circumstance that we've had
(33:13):
but it's not because he didn't do anything. It's because
he he made the border secure. He sealed up the
southern border, and so if he doesn't have much to
talk about in terms of flooding the country, so the
media doesn't have much to talk about either, what they
(33:35):
will talk about is, oh, my goodness, you know he's
sending another one one hundred troops to the border. Okay, Well,
that's how you secure the border, and so it's been
pretty effective, and so why would you stop doing something
that's been effective.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
Let's talk about that. So what has he done him?
There's the political will side, and I do want to
get to that because it seems to me that the
driving force behind was just plit school Joe Biden could
have done this, but he chose absolutely. But what specifically
has Donald Trump's the administration done since coming into us
(34:11):
the second time to shut down that border physically.
Speaker 5 (34:15):
Well, first of all, he stopped catch and release. That's
the first thing. That was the first day that so
that's no longer a policy. Secondly, which was kind of
I won't say in genius, but it was pretty smart,
and that is, he established a military reservation on the
easement that the United States has on the border. So
(34:39):
now you cross the border and you are trespassing on
a military reservation and that's against the law. Sure, so
now you've got now there anybody who tries that is
not only an illegal alien, but has broken the law
by trespassing on a military and st Yeah, that's pretty good.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
It's pretty smart.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
It's pretty smart.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
And it didn't it didn't take legislation to do that.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
So we've got this in and now nobody's talking about
the border wall.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
And I believe.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
Construction is still taking place and repairs. Do you have
any of the latest information on that.
Speaker 5 (35:21):
Well, it's continuing, and they've put money in the budget
for it, and it's I am I'm not sure, but
I do think it's maybe in the reconciliation bill as well,
but it's certainly in the twenty six budget.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
Okay, so there's money for the wall. The last I
heard was from Carolyn Levitt. This is just the last
I had, not necessarily the last that she made mention
of it that there was roughly an extra eighty miles
and being built in another seventy or something had been reinforced.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
Do you think that because Donald Trump one way the other.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
He finishes his presidency in January eight, so he's out
in twenty twenty nine, and whoever comes in, whether that's
Democrat or Republican or libertarian, because you never know, right,
you never.
Speaker 5 (36:18):
You're not the Green Party, but you never know.
Speaker 3 (36:21):
You never know.
Speaker 2 (36:23):
If you want to know about political upsets, just look
across the Atlantic at Nigel Farage, the man they thought
would never even become a member of Parliament is now
on track to become the next Prime minister, which is
quite something. And he's getting there over the defeated rubble
of arguably the most successful political parties that have ever
(36:46):
existed with you know, so never say never in terms
of who gets in in who is the twenty twenty
on election? But do you think that they'll be backsliding
on border control going forward?
Speaker 5 (37:02):
So there's a there's sort of a rule in the
government that nothing happens except for crisis and late to need.
And so if if they can't develop a crisis or
a crisis isn't on the border, it will it'll lose
its you know, its appeal. On the other hand, they
have to you know, the adults have to get in
(37:24):
charge and they have to keep saying that the reason
that we don't have this problem anymore is because of
what we did, and we need to maintain that. And
you make it a national security priority and a part
of your national security strategy, you institutionalize it in terms
of the budget, and you're better capable of making sure
(37:45):
that that that initiative remains a viable part of national security.
And it is, I mean, it is a part of
national security. I once was watching a hearing and some
poor soul that on the left said, well, I take
offense at you calling this an invasion, and I was thinking, well,
(38:09):
let me see, twelve million is not an invasion, but
two hundred and fifty seven thousand on D Day was
an invasion. I'm sorry, I don't get.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
Two hundred and fifty seven. That's rookie numbers. Rookie numbers.
Need to get those figures out there. Dave Patson, final
word for you. Do you think that the Democratic Party
will be swinging back towards the mantra of Bill Clinton
in terms of border security and illegal immigration come the
(38:46):
next election?
Speaker 4 (38:47):
Well?
Speaker 5 (38:48):
I think they would if they were smart, but nothing is.
There's no indicator to me that they'll suddenly become smart.
We've seen that moved to the left with AOC and
Bernie Sanders, and I just don't see it happening in
the near term. But you know, they may the liberal side,
the progressive side, the lunatics side may well, well, you
(39:10):
know we're out there, welcome and be discarded in favor
of common sense.
Speaker 2 (39:16):
Yeah, when one fails to learn the lessons of the past,
that doomed to repeat them, and that could even entail electorally.
Dave Patterson, thanks ever so much for joining us.
Speaker 3 (39:24):
Thank you, Mark, and that's.
Speaker 2 (39:26):
All we have time from this week's edition of Liberty
Nation radio head Coast to coast on the Radio America Network.
I'd like to thank our guests Andrew Moran and Dave Patterson,
and of course extend my thanks to you the listeners
at home for tuning in each and every week.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
You are appreciated.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Please remember Libertination does not endorse candidate's campaigns nor legislation,
and this presentation is no endorsement
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
It was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Hello, Welcome to the Liberty Nation radiohead coast to coast
on the Radio American Network FRO, my flagship station in
the Nation's Capital WWRC in Washington, DC. I'm your host,
Mark Angelides. On today's show, we are talking the Golden Dome,
income tax, and a whole lot more. It's going to
be quite the show. Please remember Liberty Nation Radio Spondspyliberty
Nation dot com. You can access podcast to breaking news
analysis and a range of biting and brilliant shows to
(00:56):
what your apetite for freedom and your fondness for the
Great American Constitution. And here we are on Libtination Radio
or Remainia host Mark Andlesan We're having a conversation with
Libtination's economics editor, mister Andrew Moran, thanks for being here,
Andrew big graving me, So, Andrew, tough times for the
European Union at the moment with taris right.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
Yeah. So, heading into the Memorial Tay weekend, President Trump
out of nowhere went our truth social and said I'm
going to impose a fifty percent tariff on the European
Union as of June first, and then two days later,
out of nowhere truth socially, he says, yeah, you know,
we're going to suspend it until July ninth. And so
that's what the that's where the state of trade negotiations
(01:37):
are and whether or not going to succeed doubtful.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Yes, So when you say whether or not they're going
to succeed, what does success look like?
Speaker 4 (01:46):
That's that's a that's an excellent question, because it's all
about for the administration, yes, tariffs as well the the
you know, thirty percent, let's say, twenty five percent tariffs on automobiles.
But if you comb through the National Trade Estimate Report
that was released prior to Liberation Day by the US
Trade Representative's Office, there's a long list of the non
(02:07):
monetary trade barriers, you know, chemical regulations, licensing, currency strategies,
all these different things that the administration you know, dislikes.
You're telling me that these things which have been which
have you know, compounded for a deck since the formation
of the European Union is suddenly going to be dismantled
(02:28):
by July ninth, within a month. Highly I highly doubt
that that's going to occur.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Well, so that's the thing, right commissioned President a set
of vonderlean She said that they're going to be working
swiftly to come to some kind of deal. And that's
when Trump put out that we're going to hold off
on the fifty percent until July ninth.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
But what does that deal look like for the EU?
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Because the whole purpose of the the EU was this say,
trading market of member states, in which the EU's claim
being that we will reduce regulation and barriers for trade
between the member state nations. In reality, it was a
(03:15):
regulatory overload in just every form. But it's a protectionist situation.
That's the entire purpose of the EU is protectionism for
its member states, for the individual markets within the member states.
So to get a deal, as you rightly point out,
(03:38):
it's nothing to do with just the exports outside of
the Union or the economic area, economic zone.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
It's also about.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
The non tariff burden that exists.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
Now, how.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Can the EU continue to exist as what it is
if they are getting rid of these for like what
we might call a favored nation deal with America.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
So a couple of things.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
So on.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
I think it was on the day of the announcement,
Treasury Secretary Scott Besons, he appeared on Fox News and
he was talking about the European Union and he made
an interesting point that you somewhat alluded to. He said
that the Member States have no clue what the European
Union leadership is doing at oil. You're in the dark.
They don't watch strategy they're employing. So I thought that
was a very interesting one to me. Now the second
(04:33):
part too, when it comes to a trade agreement with
the European Union, I tend to believe that the UK
US trade agreement that was announced a couple of weeks ago,
that is the blueprint of what all these future trade
agreements are going to be, which amounts to very little.
You look at this trade these trade deals with sorry,
this trade deal with the UK and all it is
(04:53):
is rearranging checks, rearranging chairs on the down the boat deck.
That's all it is doing. So I suspect that the
Union it's gonna be the exame thing where you know,
they may trim around the edges. The United States is
going to trim around the edges, and then President Trump
is going to declare a victory and say, hey, look
we got a we got a better trade agreement out
of this, when in the aggregate, nothing much, nothing much
(05:14):
gains for the broader US economy. Now, some industries may
benefit slightly, like US agricultural and it's beef X sports
that may benefit, but as as a whole, there's not
going to be much substantial change as you expected on
that liberation to announcement.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
Well, actually, I think you have it both right and
and a little bit wrong.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
And no, no, no longer.
Speaker 5 (05:36):
I'm not I'm not.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
An economist, of course, but I do know the EU.
I you know, I studied the EU.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
I studied what it does, and what it does is
it protects key industries. So now, because the individual markets
within the now twenty seven member states, each of those
has big players within the market. So for example, thinks
champagne from France, think aartsmobiles from Germany, and they have
(06:06):
these key drivers. Now the governments of these nations have
to answer to the big markets within their country, and
so what happens is the EU says that we're going
to help these markets because that's going to be good
for the governments. They're trying to get some cooperation from
the member states. So the the existing government of the
(06:29):
time fully backs the EU project, which.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Almost all of them do.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
We saw it with the Brexit vote of twenty sixteen.
You had both the Labor of the British Labor Party
in the British Conservative Party both wanting to stay in
the EU and then of course just Nigel Farage pushing
to get us out, and you know he was ultimately successful.
But what happens is you have, for example, the champagne producers.
(06:59):
The E stamps down on all the other member nations
calling any kind of sparkling winor champagne and they say,
look what we've done for the for the champagne farmers
of France, right, and if it's not from that region,
car court champagne and they say that to a regulatory win.
But then of course they also take the money that's
provided to them through these member state governments and they
(07:22):
dole it out to various industries. So wine makers in
France get subsidies from plumbers in South London. Right, working
class plumbers in South London are paying subsidies to keep
wine farmers on the go in France. And so what
(07:45):
you have is sorry, just to round this out to
my final point is you have all these these markets,
and that's what it's about about individual markets within the
Member states, each getting a little bit of something. But
what Trump I believe, is aiming for with his his
tariff deal with the EU is access to the protected markets,
(08:05):
so the ring fence markets.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
He wants to be able to put into.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Those and have US suppliers of products afforded the same
protections that other companies within the EU would have, and
I don't think that's beyond reach.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
Well, I would see only one point on the n
C stru not have a champagne industry, So that point
will not.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Go especially according to the EU regulations.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
Right.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
I would see another point that we've talked. We've talked
this one on your radio show. A key thing that
the administration is not like is the value add attacks.
Now the value on attacks from understanding and for my
research on it is a major revenue driver for the
block nations. I think endows are about twenty percent of
the overall aggregate for revenues. That is not something I
(08:56):
believe that the European needed is good to suddenly dismantle
and safety. We're not gonna, We're not gonna rule, and
we're not gonna suddenly, you know, not generate revenues from
from the value out of taxes, considering the financial fiscal
strain that a lot of these governments have. So this
this circles back to my point, how it's all fine.
You talk about champagne, you talk about wine makers. This
still trimming around the edges.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
It's not gonna.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
It's not gonna be a transformational trade agreement that that
that the US and the U are going to lead
to and just just on the logistics alone. So the
Administration claims that two hundred countries have reached out to
the Administration to reach trade agreements. You need an immense
amount of manpower to negotiate these trade agreements, and they
all keep saying that it's gonna happen soon. These announces,
(09:39):
announcements are gonna happen, you know shortly, don't One announcement
you have so far is the United Kingdom and that
was it's been what two months when that whole liberation
Liberation Day announcement occurred. So you talk about these subsidies, fine,
but you know they're not gonna be They're not gonna
be removed, They're not gonna be abolished. They're gonna say,
we're gonna we're gonna lower the terror freight by a
(10:01):
minute school percentage on this product. And then Trump's gonna
call it a win, and then the market's gonna cheer.
And then just say, if you find this was this,
this didn't amount too much at all. So now now
we know what the what the future trading agreements are
gonna look like with India or with China or with
the you know Lichtenstein.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Well, well, the lecture style is not in the EU,
but they'll have to be a bespoke one.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
But the or the Penguin Islands, you know, whichever we're on.
That was that that the.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Is the Falklands as I call it, and we'll continue
to call it despite Argentina's protests.
Speaker 4 (10:32):
You know, I I when the libertation they announced that happened.
I actually I fell for it. I thought, okay, yeah,
he's really gonna up end global trade. He's really going
to impose all these massive tariffs in the countries. He's
gonna he's gonna pu pummel them into submission. A week
later when they were reversed, and you had Kevin Assett say,
he's a National Economic Council director and he said, yeah,
you know, the bond yields really encouraged us to you know,
(10:55):
make a premature announcement that they were back back pedaling.
But my whole inclusion out of this is that the
administration did not understand, they don't expect the market's reaction
of you know, stocks nosed diving and the treasure you'll sar.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
We're going to continue this conversation after the shortbreak. Don't
go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark
edge Alitis.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
And we're back with Liberty Nations economics editor Andrew Morano
Remania host Mark Ansley's we'll continue our conversation about the
overall impact of Trump's Liberation Day tariffs. And Andrew, I
want to kind of go broad spectrum on this, if
we may so, your contention, and I think it's a
valid one, is that it's not going to be this, uh,
(11:48):
this total upset of global markets when the dust settles
on the tariff negotiations. And I think you're right on that.
My counter art would be that it was never actually
intended to be. It was intended to be. You know,
we'll make a little bit of extra from this country.
We're making a little bit of extra from this country,
and you spread that across one hundred and ninety countries
and you end up with quite a nice pot. Now,
(12:11):
so I want to talk about the pot and what
that's really coming up for.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
So I believe March was.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Sixteen billion dollars, which is like a record collection, which
isn't a huge amount, is it sixteen billion considering the
overall spending. But here's how I want to examine this.
The lens that I want to examine this theori is
what the trajectory is here. So you've got this sixteen
billion in March, whatever it was in February, and then
(12:40):
the ten days of Trumps presidency in January, and so
you project that going forward, we're looking over a year,
assuming things stay on a similar trajectory. We're probably talking
what eighty to one hundred billion a year?
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Is that about? Is that fair?
Speaker 4 (12:58):
Your estimate is definitely more accurate than the other estimates
I've seen in the open marketplace, where the government itself says, oh, yeah,
we're going to collect six hundred billion dollars a year
and we're going to collect six trillion over ten years,
which is absolutely insane. But I think your projection is
far more accuratey.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
So, there's there's one hundred billion a year there now
that is not going to pay for the repeal of
income tax. And that's what I really want to get
to is Donald Trump's musings on income tax. So there
has to be like a multi pronged approach to this, right,
a multi level analysis of how you get to this
(13:38):
is what we can do for income tax in a
political sphere. So there's tarres coming in, let's say one
hundred billion, maybe a little more, maybe a little more.
That's obviously not so I think at twenty twenty four
there is six trillion outlayers from the government four point
one trillion revenue income and so I mean that's there's
(14:02):
two trillion that's just been borrowed for and it has
to be paid back. So tarifs by themselves.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
Won't do anything.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
You need a multi pronged approach to do anything around
the edges of income tax. And so you've got those,
which is optimistically by the time it shuts up, the
project shuts up shuffle though the department won't in July
twenty twenty six, optimistically it will cut I would say,
(14:33):
in my opinion, maybe eight hundred to nine hundred billion
off yearly expenditures.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
So you've got that, plus.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
You've got one hundred billion off tariffs. That's a trillion
aside per year, which is which is interesting, but it
does nothing to deal with the you know, the extra
two billion spending on top of the four billion revenue.
So what other areas can Donald try look at, or
(15:01):
that the government look at, or successive governments look at
to try and get these numbers closed together?
Speaker 4 (15:07):
Wow, there's lots of a pack there if they're well.
The one area.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Which I've been staring all this up.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
The one area that the administration and will say they
will not touch, is the mediatory side of spending. But
since that accounts for ten years, is going to count
for about seventy percent of all spending. That's an area
you're going to have to eventually touch. You talked about DOGE.
The problem with DOGE is that, yeah, it's finding cuts
I think to date. Let's say, let's just be liberal
and say, yeah, one hundred billion dollars. The problem is
(15:37):
that Congress is not codifying this, so it's not it's
actually taking it as the cuts and you know, reducing
the budget with it. Now, tariff revenue, that's this another
interesting thing. We look at all these tariff revenue estimates
and it's all based on okay, assuming that global trade
remains the same, nothing changes at all, that it generates
you know, three trillion dollars over ten years. But of course,
(15:58):
as we all know, tariffs do upend trade flows. Now
now also with tea tariff revenues, Scott Besson's he compared
it to a shrinking ice cube in the street, ger
ice tubes and a glass. He was saying, yeah, fine,
tariff revenues, you know, you hope will pay for a
lot of government spending. But eventually, once more you have
on shoring and reshoring of manufacturing, then you increase domestic
(16:19):
income and that therefore that pace for more government spending.
Now also on income taxes alone. Commerce Secretary Howard Levenick,
he was on I think it was sixty minutes, and
he was saying, you know, you want to eventually elimited
income taxes for anyone paying less than one hundred and
fifty thousand dollars. Once again, these these well no, he
as he later clarified, only once you balance the budget.
(16:41):
So therefore you know that you're never lately come tax
because the budget will never be balanced. So there is so,
as you said, there's a multi problem, a novelization you
need to engage upon when when you talk about the
income tax in tariff revenues.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
So we know that Donald Trump is the in many
ways the Pat bonhom was the places the world. I
think that's accepted by everybody, including Donald Trump. And you
have this situation, so you have the status quote now
where this is income tax, it exists as it does.
And then he's saying, in this bright, sunny golden age,
(17:15):
there'll be zero in contax on people earning less than
one hundred and fifty thousand. The reality, I think is
going to be somewhere along a spectrum in the middle
there for what can be achieved. Where do you think
that will land by the time the next presidential election
comes around. Where do you think reality will show its head?
Speaker 4 (17:38):
I think the reality is the current one big beautiful
bill that I think that's going to be the permanent
status quo. Tax rates, you know, so therefore you never
you never go to income tax. You look at the
monthly Treasury statement, you look at the interest payments, and
you compare it to let's say, the income tax collections.
(18:00):
In many months, the income tax collections account for nearly
half of interest payments alone. So how can you eliminate
a major source of revenue for the government just disperce
the debt. It's not going to happen. So the one
be Beautiful Bill. It permanently extends the Tax Cousin Jobs Act,
so you have a cross board lower income tax brackets.
So that's the reality situation. You're not gonna limit it,
(18:22):
you're not gonna abolish income tax round how great it
would be. You're not eliminating and you're a balance with
So maybe we're just a skeptic, but those numbers do
not support the projections and proposals from many administration divisions.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
So we have a big beautiful bill, will be the standard. Yeah,
and so what I guess people who are sick of
paying income taxes that are looking for a bigger and
more beautiful bill next time around. Andrew Moran, thanks ever
so much for joining us.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
Thank Grady.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Know that's what was free. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Of enterplase and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
And WE'REECCA on Liberty Nation radio head coast to coast
on the Radio America Network.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
I remain your host, Mark Anthontis.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
We're very fortunate to have with us today Liberty Nations
national security correspondent, mister Dave Passton. Thanks for coming in, Dave.
Speaker 5 (19:35):
Thank you, Mark. Always happy to be with you.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
So Dave.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
The big news for me in recent days, and I
predict that it will be going forward, is the funding
of not the Iron Dome. Trump calls it the Golden Dome.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
I believe yes he does.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Which is I think that's a beautiful name. Is a big,
beautiful name for a big beautiful dome.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
It's some thing that everybody thinks.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Will protect the United States.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
Well, I don't.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
I haven't really heard any any adult criticism of actually
having an iron dome system. However, I have heard criticisms
from a couple of things. Number one is the funding,
and I really want to talk about that because how
is that going to be paid for? But number two,
(20:24):
and I think this is pretty interesting, is we're hearing
criticism from inside America saying that other nations won't like
it that America has an iron dome system. And I'm thinking, well,
isn't that the whole point, Dave, Let's deal with the
second one first.
Speaker 5 (20:44):
Yeah, let's let's let's do that, because that is so
that is so globalistic in eurocentric, right, I mean, and
that is precisely what the Trump administration is not about.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Now.
Speaker 5 (21:01):
This is about America first and keeping Americans safe. And
so to hear that other nations might not like this
means clearly to me that we're doing something right.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
You know.
Speaker 5 (21:14):
It is to take a page out of Marco Rubio's book.
When I believe it was, Senator Cade said, if I
had it to do over again, I would not have
voted to confirm you in these as well, then I
must be doing something right.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
So the chief worry warts, as you might call them,
apparently are and again this kind of proves that you're
doing something right with it are China and Russia. And
so I've been reading critics saying that, well, China won't
be happy that the US has such a situatete, you know,
(21:53):
it's such a capability, and Russia won't be happy that
the US has such capability, And I think, well, the
very fact that they're not happy about it proves to
me on a personal level, that that's exactly the reason
that America should have it. Because despite the Biden administration
(22:14):
protestations that we are not adversaries, we live in an
adversarial world. That's the reality. And he who fails to
prepare for future adverse events is risking almost everything that
(22:34):
people hold dear.
Speaker 5 (22:35):
Well, that's right, I mean, And so for Biden to
say we are not adversaries, you know, is pretty much
emblematic of the entire four years that we endured. They
never got it, They never understood the world in which
we live. Trump does, he does get it. And you know,
(22:57):
I always kind of I wrote against this notion of
if we're real nice to you, will you be real
nice to us, which was the mantra of the Biden administration.
And we can see how well that hall how that
worked for them. It doesn't. And so for Trump is
a realist and he sees that he lives in a
world where whatever we no matter what we say, China
(23:20):
has started to build and will will soon be have
completed more than three hundred ICBM silas well, they're not
doing that to hold wheat, And the consequence of that
is that we have to do something that will at least,
you know, put them a little bit back on their feats.
(23:42):
The criticism that I hear mostly is, oh, my goodness,
we're by by having a defensive system, we are abrogating
our responsibility for deterrence. Well, that's absurd that having a
defense thing about it, Having a defensive system actually enhances
(24:04):
the deterrent effect of the capability that you have.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Sure, yeah, I mean it's naturally so for example, if
you make just just for example, if you make a
potential enemies uh stockpile of ICBMs pointless, then they will
stop stockpiling ICBMs. It's it's very much a de escalation
(24:28):
of well of of the destructive capability of modern weaponry
and the idea that we should instead be building a better,
bigger bomb. I mean that's I mean, that's that's everything
that everybody should be really against, I think, right, I mean.
Speaker 5 (24:47):
Well absolutely, and I think too, you know, not to
not to take the conversation into the metaphysical, but the
fact is is that deterrence is a kinetic h response. Yes,
I have the capability to beat you. You have the
capability to destroy me. We are at a standoff. On
(25:08):
the other hand, if your capability not only is there
to send missiles their way should that have to happen,
but you can also defend against their missiles, it becomes
actually more for them than just pointless. It becomes losing.
(25:29):
You have lost this battle. You have to kind of
rethink your position in the world and come back with
something better than We're going to defeat you, because you can't. Ultimately,
you cannot do that. So it is it's whoever.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
It is said peace through strength? Was that Ronald Reagan?
Speaker 5 (25:50):
Absolutely, you know, And it's just so it actually becomes
more of a winning solution than it is is a
defensive solution. Which would you know, deterrence was always defensive.
The only thing that we had going for us is
the uncertainty on the part of our enemies that if
(26:10):
they shot their counter force missiles that they'd hit empty silos.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Yes, so yeah, I really think that people who are
criticizing the Idome on that subject that they're absolutely missing
the point. But let's get to the criticism of cost.
So it's not a done deal, is it, Because I
believe I might have these figures wrong, but I believe
there's twenty five billion to get the ball rolling on this,
(26:44):
which is not going to be enough to pay for
for everything involved. And if we may just take a
minute to talk about what's involved with that, it's just
I'm sure all of our listeners know. The how the
Iron Dome system were is a series of satellites that
(27:04):
first track everything and then there's some more satellites that
would have essentially Star Wars capability that can take down
myselves as there en route. So it's a big mass
of satellites that would need to be put up into orbit.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
Is that about right? Well?
Speaker 5 (27:23):
It is ultimately I think that that's their goal. But
in the meantime, there President Trump saw iron Dome, and
his thinking was, well, we'll just model what we have
after iron Dome. IF when they announced it and from
the overall office and he announced the program Manager General
(27:44):
good line, there was a graphic that went up and
it had four or five different things, but one of
them was ground based missiles and a ground based system.
That's what iron Dome is. It's a ground based system.
That's what you would have to have initially. And so
(28:05):
you can scale something on the order of Iron Dome
and have a ground based system to begin with, which
is what we have currently. Are exciting three sites and
forty four missiles after twenty four years of spending money
on that, and so this would be consider and why
(28:28):
he's talking about three years is I think that's what's
in his mind that you create this system. And okay,
the argument is, well, you know, Israel is the size
of Rhode Island, and you know it would just be
an enormous project. But the idea is, okay, fine, you know,
divide the country up into those areas that are the
(28:48):
size of Israel and put systems in each of those
regions so as to defend against that area. But I
think that to more more to the point if you
think about this whole this whole problem, it is a detect, identify, track, intercept, destroy, right,
(29:13):
That's that's the point. And so the problem that people
are talking about is that now we're looking at hypersonic missiles. Okay, well,
Raytheon just came out with a new version of their
tracking and intercept radar that handles hypersonic weapons. And so
(29:38):
we are in a position of now having the capability
perhaps rudimentary as it is, but certainly consistent with the
threat that you scale. And now you can scale these
things to the point where, okay, we have all these
different missile systems. You know that that basically we have
(29:58):
a high low miss mix already. We don't have to
develop anything for a ground based system. And you've got
you know, the terminal high altitude intercept in that, you've
got patriots in all manner of Israeli's Arrow two and three,
and so you have the capability to start to create
(30:19):
this this this system. And I'm I can't put, you know,
thoughts in President Trump's mind, but I think that's pretty
much how he sees this.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
Yees.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
So it's really just taking existing technologies multiplying them on
a grand.
Speaker 5 (30:34):
Scale and start.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Upscating them with the latest technologies into existing systems. Now
we're going to be continuing a conversation on Donald Trump's aims, plans,
and schemes after this shortbreak.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelits.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Andrew back on Liberty Nation Radio. I remain your host
Mark Anderley's and we continue our conversation with the Liberty
Nations national security correspondent Dave Patterson. Dave, thanks for sticking around.
Earlier in the show, we were talking about the Iron
Dome or the Golden Dome, the system, which I love
the name. It's such a great name, right it hearkens
(31:20):
back to Greek mythology, or the golden fleece, the Golden Dome,
Golden Age, Golden Age or Golden age.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
Thinking.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Now, there's a non positive one. But there are many
other things that the Trump administration is doing with national security,
and I think one that in twenty sixteen twenty seventeen
was the driving issue and then it came to a
head under the Biden administration when floods of illegal migrants
across the US border. But now it seems that the
(31:53):
legacy media just doesn't talk about the border anymore. And
I think the numbers show why don't they. We had
the March figures. It was down ninety four percent illegal
border crossings this March from last March, and that's the
difference of thousands of people per day. And I wonder
(32:16):
why tens of thousands, tens of thousand. I wonder why
it's become such a non issue when it's always seemed
to me to be one of the most important national
security issues. People you don't know, who may want to
do you harm, may want to do your country harm
on a large scale, are allowed to freely enter and
(32:37):
leave the nation. I always wondered why that was never
considered as one of the key national security issues. But
now nobody talks about it because and why is that?
Is it because it's been dealt with or is there
something else?
Speaker 5 (32:52):
I think it's yes, absolutely, because it's being dealt with.
I mean, on one day, some porschnook, one person tried
to get across the border. I mean, that's that's pretty effective.
That's a pretty effective border. And as President Trump says,
you know, it is the best circumstance that we've had
(33:13):
but it's not because he didn't do anything. It's because
he he made the border secure. He sealed up the
southern border, and so if he doesn't have much to
talk about in terms of flooding the country, so the
media doesn't have much to talk about either, what they
(33:35):
will talk about is, oh, my goodness, you know he's
sending another one one hundred troops to the border. Okay, Well,
that's how you secure the border, and so it's been
pretty effective, and so why would you stop doing something
that's been effective.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
Let's talk about that. So what has he done him?
There's the political will side, and I do want to
get to that because it seems to me that the
driving force behind was just plit school Joe Biden could
have done this, but he chose absolutely. But what specifically
has Donald Trump's the administration done since coming into us
(34:11):
the second time to shut down that border physically.
Speaker 5 (34:15):
Well, first of all, he stopped catch and release. That's
the first thing. That was the first day that so
that's no longer a policy. Secondly, which was kind of
I won't say in genius, but it was pretty smart,
and that is, he established a military reservation on the
easement that the United States has on the border. So
(34:39):
now you cross the border and you are trespassing on
a military reservation and that's against the law. Sure, so
now you've got now there anybody who tries that is
not only an illegal alien, but has broken the law
by trespassing on a military and st Yeah, that's pretty good.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
It's pretty smart.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
It's pretty smart.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
And it didn't it didn't take legislation to do that.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
So we've got this in and now nobody's talking about
the border wall.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
And I believe.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
Construction is still taking place and repairs. Do you have
any of the latest information on that.
Speaker 5 (35:21):
Well, it's continuing, and they've put money in the budget
for it, and it's I am I'm not sure, but
I do think it's maybe in the reconciliation bill as well,
but it's certainly in the twenty six budget.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
Okay, so there's money for the wall. The last I
heard was from Carolyn Levitt. This is just the last
I had, not necessarily the last that she made mention
of it that there was roughly an extra eighty miles
and being built in another seventy or something had been reinforced.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
Do you think that because Donald Trump one way the other.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
He finishes his presidency in January eight, so he's out
in twenty twenty nine, and whoever comes in, whether that's
Democrat or Republican or libertarian, because you never know, right,
you never.
Speaker 5 (36:18):
You're not the Green Party, but you never know.
Speaker 3 (36:21):
You never know.
Speaker 2 (36:23):
If you want to know about political upsets, just look
across the Atlantic at Nigel Farage, the man they thought
would never even become a member of Parliament is now
on track to become the next Prime minister, which is
quite something. And he's getting there over the defeated rubble
of arguably the most successful political parties that have ever
(36:46):
existed with you know, so never say never in terms
of who gets in in who is the twenty twenty
on election? But do you think that they'll be backsliding
on border control going forward?
Speaker 5 (37:02):
So there's a there's sort of a rule in the
government that nothing happens except for crisis and late to need.
And so if if they can't develop a crisis or
a crisis isn't on the border, it will it'll lose
its you know, its appeal. On the other hand, they
have to you know, the adults have to get in
(37:24):
charge and they have to keep saying that the reason
that we don't have this problem anymore is because of
what we did, and we need to maintain that. And
you make it a national security priority and a part
of your national security strategy, you institutionalize it in terms
of the budget, and you're better capable of making sure
(37:45):
that that that initiative remains a viable part of national security.
And it is, I mean, it is a part of
national security. I once was watching a hearing and some
poor soul that on the left said, well, I take
offense at you calling this an invasion, and I was thinking, well,
(38:09):
let me see, twelve million is not an invasion, but
two hundred and fifty seven thousand on D Day was
an invasion. I'm sorry, I don't get.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
Two hundred and fifty seven. That's rookie numbers. Rookie numbers.
Need to get those figures out there. Dave Patson, final
word for you. Do you think that the Democratic Party
will be swinging back towards the mantra of Bill Clinton
in terms of border security and illegal immigration come the
(38:46):
next election?
Speaker 4 (38:47):
Well?
Speaker 5 (38:48):
I think they would if they were smart, but nothing is.
There's no indicator to me that they'll suddenly become smart.
We've seen that moved to the left with AOC and
Bernie Sanders, and I just don't see it happening in
the near term. But you know, they may the liberal side,
the progressive side, the lunatics side may well, well, you
(39:10):
know we're out there, welcome and be discarded in favor
of common sense.
Speaker 2 (39:16):
Yeah, when one fails to learn the lessons of the past,
that doomed to repeat them, and that could even entail electorally.
Dave Patterson, thanks ever so much for joining us.
Speaker 3 (39:24):
Thank you, Mark, and that's.
Speaker 2 (39:26):
All we have time from this week's edition of Liberty
Nation radio head Coast to coast on the Radio America Network.
I'd like to thank our guests Andrew Moran and Dave Patterson,
and of course extend my thanks to you the listeners
at home for tuning in each and every week.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
You are appreciated.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Please remember Libertination does not endorse candidate's campaigns nor legislation,
and this presentation is no endorsement
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.