SATN Episode 376 with Bob Carlstrom

Bob is a graduate of Augustana College (IL) with an advanced degree from The American University in Washington, DC. In addition, Bob studied law at Wayne State Univ. Law School. He has 4 grown children and six grandchildren. Bob is the Executive Director & National Spokesman for Prosperity for US Foundation

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (01:36):
Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of Stewing the Nun.
And I want to welcome everybody here episode three seventy
six and back. You may see this, recognize this fine
gentleman looking gentlemen, ready, mister Bob Carlstrom on the show
with us again the night he thought about four months ago. Bob,
welcome back to Steing the Nun.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
Well, thank you. It's really good to be back with you.
And I really look forward to our discussion tonight.

Speaker 3 (02:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:02):
Yeah, and I and one of these days we're gonna
get you to meet none. We're gonna get him down
here that we can see. There's another half, but uh,
there you go. Good to have you on. Thank you
everyone for joining us. Uh again, three seventy six, we
are the last episode of August. I cannot believe August
is essentially the summer's over. I think what is about

(02:24):
Labor Day kind of marks the official end of summer.

Speaker 3 (02:26):
As kids go pretty much, yeah, Monday, Yeah, I just uh,
I don't know where it went, that is for sure.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
I don't feel like I got a minute of it
to enjoy this this year.

Speaker 2 (02:39):
Well, as we get older, the time really flies, and
they're not.

Speaker 3 (02:43):
Kidding that it does. I think we just get too busy.

Speaker 1 (02:46):
That's the we We don't We don't kick back and chill.
We're just always got something going on between whatever, work, kids, grandkids,
and just volunteering and life in general. And we don't
just relax. But I think there're just creatures of our
bad habits there.

Speaker 3 (03:06):
But yeah, welcome back.

Speaker 1 (03:09):
If you kind of get viewers a little bit of
a little bit of your background and kind of and
and what you do with the Prosperity for Us Foundation,
I'd be great.

Speaker 2 (03:18):
Okay, I'm glad to I started with the as executive
director of the Prosperity for Us Foundation, and it's a
five oh one c. Three And our mission is really
to create an opportunity and enable citizens to really engage,
you know, in government, particularly at the state and local level.

(03:41):
And what we're proposing are a number of amendments that
are intended that would be state constitutional amendments that are
intended to give people an actual voice in their government
and particularly at the state and local level. And those
key amendments would deal with these things. And again I

(04:03):
emphasized the constitutional amendments, not legislative amendments that are subject
to changing majorities in state legislatures and also changing majorities
that may exist in local governments such as county council,
city councils and that kind of thing, because we've found
clearly that there is it's not only the federal government

(04:26):
that seems to be dysfunctional, but we've also found that
in many states people are suffering as a result of
actions taken by the states. Now, the specific items are
number one, capping property taxes, you know, and that property
taxes should not be raised while you own the home.

(04:49):
You know, it should be based on the initial purchase price,
and you know the assessment applied throughout your duration there,
and when you sell it then the new apprai so
would kick in, you know, for the buyer, because homes
are are a part of people's retirement planning, you know,
an investment value to them, and that should not be

(05:12):
continually eroded by increasing property taxes that are tied to
increases in the property value. So people should have certainty
in that property taxes are going to be raised above
a certain level, above inflation and family average family incomes.
Then the voter should approve it or disapprove it. And

(05:35):
so you should have a direct, direct opportunity to do that.
The second thing is is it really.

Speaker 3 (05:45):
I want to hit on the property tax thing a
little bit?

Speaker 4 (05:47):
Okay?

Speaker 1 (05:47):
Sure, So it's interesting you mentioned you know, you pay it.
It's set when you when you buy the house, when
the house sale transaction happens and you sell it again,
should ever be readjusted. There's definitely some validity in that
because a lot of at least from my own personal
experience with a few houses I've owned, is the town
comes by, does a drive by, or the higher consultants

(06:10):
or something, and they come by and say your house
is now worth this, and they don't see, you know,
short of having permits pulled for something. They can't see
what you're doing on the inside. They can't see what
you've done in the back, you know, improvements you've made
or haven't made, for them to just jack up a
price based on a home bunch of you know, speculation

(06:31):
and things like that that seems like a better than
it is today. But is anywhere doing that? Is any
locality doing that kind of stuff or are they all
raising it throughout that well?

Speaker 2 (06:43):
In Florida and David Beddolf, who's the founder and chairman
of the Property of Prosperity for Us Foundation was really
instrumental and getting the citizens to demand and support a
constitutional amendments in the Florida Constitution to create a property
tax cap and to require a vote to the citizens

(07:07):
as well in that. But one thing that's also important
about the property taxes that it really becomes a matter
of the tyranny of the unelected, because usually they send
out a career assessor of some unknown credential then and
I appealed this in Maryland, for example, because I got

(07:28):
an assessment that was much higher tax assessment, much higher
than any of my neighbors. So I went and appealed
to the county Montgomery County, Maryland, and it was a
waste of time because I went in there on the
assessors and they're joking with the administrative law judges. So
I said, okay, respectfully, I'm going to appeal to the states.
So I went up to the state and met with

(07:50):
the administrative law judge up there and he said, Bob,
you wasted your trip. Nothing I can do about it.
So I was taxed as the result of some career
person in the in the bureaucracy raising my taxes well
above what my neighbors had, and that's wrong. You know,
that is absolutely wrong, and you should have you should

(08:14):
have protections against that. And that's why we want a
constitutional amendment that that governs what the state and particularly
the locality can do that if they intend to raise
those tax rates above a certain level, it needs photo approofal.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
Yeah, I mean it's I mean, ny could if the
town or whoever's an authority is you know, someone wants
to target you. I mean they could just come your
stuff's going up. You know, your kid beat my kid
on the football game. You you cut me off, And
I mean it could be anything, right, personal or just
you know.

Speaker 2 (08:50):
It can't And seniors who are on fixed incomes, and
particularly those that may be at the lower end of
the income scale or middle income or being taxed out
of their homes. You know, there's a fundamental value here
is you own your property when you buy it. The
government doesn't own it. The government should not have a

(09:11):
right to add to increase its land. You need to
pay for goods and services. You know that the local
governments provide one way or the other, but you should
not be in a position where you have to lose
your home because the property taxes have exceeded the mortgage
and that's happening all over the country and that's got
to stop.

Speaker 3 (09:32):
And you mentioned Florida.

Speaker 1 (09:33):
I mean, I know Governor DeSantis has talked about he's
made a statement of like a homeowner should not be
renting their.

Speaker 3 (09:38):
Land from the government. That exactly no property tax.

Speaker 1 (09:42):
I mean, there isn't for certain like one hundred percent
disabled vets down there in a couple of things. But
you know there shouldn't, like you said, you bought your home, right,
any taxes on that when you bought it, and you know,
and you bought your you buy the property on your
home and stuff, that's your property.

Speaker 2 (09:56):
Yeah, and you'll pay pay the same tax every year,
but it's not going to go up to yourself.

Speaker 1 (10:02):
Right or does not? Or you pay it when you
first buy it. Like every other good, you just you
pay your tax and that's it. I buy a you know,
I buy something at the store. But then again, you
know they kind of do it with vehicles, right, but
you pay registration and stuff, but you don't pay the
sales tax right here, you just pay time. So you

(10:22):
pay the sales tax on buying a house one time,
and that's it, and it's on the local government to
figure out how to best spread that out. But you know,
another one kind of goes into is property tax, is
school and those kinds of taxes. I guess what are
the thoughts on that, because I have neighbors of mine
that don't have kids, and they're like, why am I
paying school taxes?

Speaker 3 (10:40):
I don't have a kid in the city.

Speaker 2 (10:42):
Yeah, some states are playing with that, you know, the schools,
public school systems and local governments have been really thriving,
you know, on your property taxes. And the question is
some some jurisdictions I've heard of, and I don't know
where they are, have really also create a school tax
or fee that kind of thing. But that's something that's

(11:04):
that's got to be resolved. I know state legislators are
very concerned too about the impact of of of what
we're proposing, and but we've said to them that in fact,
you're really increasing the economic condition, you know, of the
homeowners and property owners in the in the area and
that uh and also school systems reportedly are sitting on

(11:29):
a lot of cash, you know, and so the and
there's not any real direct accountability on that, you know,
yet you know they're able to argue that we need
to help the kids. They spend a lot of money
on their administrative overhead, but not as much money as
they should in the classrooms and you know with direct
student assistance personnel.

Speaker 1 (11:50):
So we see that from the NEA and and the
National Union, who you know, are more about dealing and
fighting in politics than making sure the kids have everything
they need to succeed. And and you know, it's it's
a valid concern. I mean, I have kids and I
have grandkids, so yes, I've used the school system, and
I've had friends of mine that have been you know,

(12:11):
they put their kids in private school and I'm like
or you know, and I'd be like, you're still paying
for that public school, and they get it, and then
they're privately that's their choice, right, they get they're out
of paying for the public school, but they they make
the choice to. But for for people that don't have
kids in the school, it seems like they would be
they would get a discount or something. But you know

(12:32):
that I could be okay with keep paying, but property tax,
I'm all for Governor Desantus is uh you know, saying
oh you shouldn't be running your property.

Speaker 3 (12:40):
You paid it, You're done, you.

Speaker 2 (12:41):
Know, yep, yep, yeah, you know you made a deal.
You made a deal. It's a contract, and part of
that contract is the price of the home, the interest
that you're paying on it, if you're paying interest on it,
and what the property tax is is the time you
buy it.

Speaker 3 (12:57):
End of story, right, right.

Speaker 1 (12:59):
If they want to that over a number of years, Uh,
that's fine, but that's it's uh. But I mean if
I they can't do that, I like your option of
pay for it. It doesn't get readjusted until.

Speaker 3 (13:13):
You sell it. Yep. That's perfect.

Speaker 1 (13:16):
Look if I if I sell for two three, four
hundred thousand dollars profit on my house, and I held
for whatever number of years then and and I sold
it for you know, let's say I sell it for
I bought it for two hundred thousand, I sold it
for five hundred thousand.

Speaker 3 (13:29):
Then I guess the tax is now based on five
hundred thousand for the new homeowner.

Speaker 2 (13:32):
Yep. And that's the market. So you know, let the
market dictate the outcome, not not government bureaucrats.

Speaker 3 (13:42):
Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (13:44):
So that kind of goes into the next thing, which
has been big. Is that the voter Bill of Rights? Yeah,
and I like to hear just what what what's that about?
And kind of what what are the goals of that
that the that the foundation is pushing.

Speaker 2 (13:59):
Well, we think decisions have to be made by governments, say,
local governments need to be accountable, you know, to this
to the voters and to the to the citizen voters
and what our amendments do. And the other one deals
with regulatory takings where a state or local government might

(14:23):
interfere with your use or value the property, real property
or even intellectual property. You should have recourse and guaranteed
right to have a jury trial to challenge that activity,
and particularly when you suffer loss. And and that's you know,

(14:44):
a regulatory taking. And it can take the form of
state law, or it can take the form of zoning
in terms of use of your property, or an environmental
nonsensical thing that allows prohibits you from from building in
your house when you have an intern in wet wet lands,
which is just drainage and things like that, that's all

(15:04):
going to be cleaned up, you know. And that's again
it's part of part of your freedom. Your property is
a fundamental right in our constitution, and the governments do
not have a right to trammel on that, you know,
and to dictate to you, you know, beyond a certain point,
you know, your use of the use of the property,

(15:26):
and when they come in later and impact the use
or value of the property, that's wrong, you know. And
the property owner, whether it's business or whether it's individual,
should have a right for a jury trial to deal
with on a timely basis. The other part of our
thing is the right of the people. If you're in

(15:47):
a state, you know, Colorado has what they call the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights, you know, which which says that
if the legislature is essentially going to increase taxes or
increase spending above a certain level, you know, it's got
to go to a vote of the people. It's got
to be approved that way, because again, you know, there

(16:10):
needs to be legislators need to have direct and fiduciary accountability,
you know, to the taxpayers, because they're spending our money,
your money, my money, everybody else's money, and so they
need to be held accountable to that. Certainly, at the
federal level it's the same problem. But the Tabor model

(16:31):
in Colorado is a superb model, and it's also important
and in fact, even at Switzerland they have the Swiss
debt break, which has worked incredibly well for the country
of Switzerland in terms of stimulating you know, better financial strength,
you know, among the citizens over there, because again, the

(16:54):
government's got to be accountable to the people in revenues
and so discipline is a yeah.

Speaker 3 (17:00):
What does that mean, debt break? How does that work?

Speaker 2 (17:03):
Well, it's it's a function of revenues and spending, you know,
and they've got to be relatively in line, you know,
and there can be a limited limited access and spending,
but it's got to be got to be dealt with
over a four year period, I think, is how it goes.
But it's it's another concept for that. The Colorado models
are very, very excellent one to have, and in fact,

(17:26):
the ALEC, which is the American Legislative Exchange Council, really
strongly supports, uh supports what's happened there, and they've they've
strongly endorsed our Prosperity for US foundation proposal to push,
you know, in the space to have a constitutional amendment

(17:48):
that is modeled somewhat after after the Colorado tabor and
the Swiss debt break again. The voters need to have
a right to directly and so what we're doing to this,
and the question is, well, how are you going.

Speaker 3 (18:03):
To do it?

Speaker 4 (18:04):
Bob.

Speaker 2 (18:06):
We're building a one hundred and eighty million voter file.
We're up to eighty million now, and we're going to
be reaching out to American citizens in the nationwide, but
on a state based basis, to say, here's how to
get involved. Here's a petition. You know, citizens have a

(18:27):
right to petition their government. It's a First Amendment right,
you know, and in many states, a number of states,
you know, enable citizens to have citizens positions to place
something on the ballot on the general election ballot, you know,
which is what happened with Tabor when that was passed.

(18:48):
And so citizens have a right to say, we want
this structure in our constitution. We want to avoid excuse me,
unnecessary spending. We don't want to see proper already taxes
being being raised significantly. We want we want a constitutional
right to challenge a regulatory taking, no matter how it

(19:09):
affects something. If it's you know, if they're attacking your
pricing structure or whatever, you have to stay out of that.
Government has to stay out of that. In fact, we've
got one more thing where you know, your congressional delegation
in your state is the congressional delegation from your state,
and therefore you know they have a direct and fiduciary

(19:31):
responsibility to you to not be a big spender in Congress.
And so our Fourth Amendment says, if you're a big
spender in Congress, you may just and you approve spending
that's well in excessive inflation, you should not be eligible
to run in the next primary. And that's a state

(19:52):
right to determine how its primary is structured, you know.
So that's one way of making these guys and why Washington,
who are the big spenders, to start paying attention because
you know, again they view it as sort of other
people's money, you know. And and again you know, the
power of taxing is you have to pay your taxes

(20:13):
for your deep trouble. So so these are our for amendments,
but they're all designed. They're all designed to strengthen the
will of the people and the ability that people to
really act and participate, you know, in a very significant
way where they can't do it right now, because remember,
states are the core unit of our country. We are

(20:36):
the United States. We are a democratic republic. We are
not a straight democracy. And this is this is an
important thing to strengthen people's voice in their states so
they can have a more direct impact, you know, on
what the elected to people do at the state level

(20:57):
or at the local government level.

Speaker 1 (21:00):
Yeah, as in no other states have adopted the Colorado model.

Speaker 3 (21:04):
Not yet.

Speaker 2 (21:05):
That's why we're here. We are we are a unique organization,
uh to do this. Uh many states may try things
individually on a siloed basis, but we're going nationwide and
we're building the infrastructure, you know, the communications infrastructure to
do this, you know, and to speak directly to the

(21:26):
American people, say, here's your opportunity. Our purpose is to
enable every citizen to have a voice and to make
that voice known, you know, in terms of amending and
fixing their state constitution, to enhance the constitution's ability to
protect them, you know, against runaway spending, property tax increases,

(21:48):
regulatory takings. That's what we're doing.

Speaker 3 (21:51):
Right And was that was that.

Speaker 1 (21:55):
Was that put in law in Colorado underneath the I
mean they typically pretty pretty left.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
Was that under it's in the Constitution of the state.

Speaker 3 (22:03):
When I mean, how how long has it been there? Oh,
heaven's uh that long. It's not something new.

Speaker 2 (22:10):
Yeah, no, it's been there quite a while. And people
have wondered, well, how can we get that done in
other states? And so you know that's a void you
know in terms of of of public affairs action and
helping people engage. Too many people say too often times
and you've probably in a bar and a restaurant they said, yeah,

(22:34):
they're complaining about this or that. What can I do
about it? Well, what you know? And so our purpose
is to help people deal with these things that are
a constant thorn in their side.

Speaker 1 (22:46):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (22:47):
You know, property tax is still an issue in Colorado. However,
you know, one of our colleagues out there have seen
his property taxes double, you know, within the last three years.
That's blowney, you know, and that's got to stop.

Speaker 3 (23:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (23:00):
Yeah, Rob said, yeah, I was passed by voters in
nineteen ninety two.

Speaker 2 (23:03):
So is that what it was? Yeah, it's been around
a while.

Speaker 3 (23:06):
Yeah. We got him as a producer and he can
he can google that stuff fast. Good.

Speaker 1 (23:11):
The uh no, that is yeah, it's just it's something
that you know, some of the other when you think
about states with bottles like live free or die or
things like that, you would think they would pick that.

Speaker 3 (23:20):
That model up.

Speaker 1 (23:21):
But yeah, it uh, it probably impacts their ability to
collect revenue well.

Speaker 2 (23:27):
And you know, you know, one of the big challenges
too is getting American people and right thinking American people
to engage, you know, and to pay attention. You know,
if you depend on you know, the legacy media, you're
not going to get the story and and uh, you know,

(23:48):
and to read and engage because you know, this is
all about their freedoms. And you know, our founder David
Biddle started the Prosperity for Us Foundation to out of
concern for his grandchildren and his successors. And we need
to leave while we're active in that is, leave it

(24:10):
better than we found it, and to fix things that
need fixing. And these are things that haven't been addressed,
you know, in a comprehensive way for the American people,
you know, on a state by state basis. And that's
what we're all about. And we're doing this for our
grandchildren and successor generations. And we have to take the
long view. And so I think everyone watching or listening

(24:34):
to this, you know, really needs to rethink how can
we get engaged, because that's so important. You know, I'm
so pleased with what's happened, you know, with the new
administration this last six months, it's seven months, eight months now,
it's terrific, you know, but we've got to keep the
momentum going, and we need to address you know, how

(24:56):
the states are acting and behaving, particularly the Blue states
in this regard. People are suffering, you know, the Blue
States are hemorrhaging in population, and you know, and the
only thing that's ever saved California is the Jarvis Amendment
and property tax limitation out there, otherwise scoring up the
whole state.

Speaker 3 (25:16):
That's why.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
Yeah, one point seven million people left last year.

Speaker 1 (25:20):
Yeah, they're raising every other tax to Renny U haul
to go out of California is very but it is
very cheap to w rent one to go into California.
Yeah that's true, you know, but uh no, it's it's
meant you mentioned, you know, leave it better than we
found it kind of made me chuck. I mean, that's
that's the tenant of you know, that's a that's a
main tenant of scouting. Uh conist and environmentalists and that

(25:43):
kind of stuff. I mean something I've I've been very
much involved with on a big hunter and even that,
you know, hunters are some of your biggest conservations there are.
But and it's always been a rule of you know,
when you go into another person's land or going to
a state, you know, public land or whatever, leaving it
better than you found it. In Scout out right, they
have that the concept to leave no trace, right, no
no tra And it's.

Speaker 3 (26:06):
So sad that as a society we don't have that.

Speaker 1 (26:09):
No for generationally, right, we generations of leaders and business
and government leadershup, we are not leaving. We're not leaving
our country, this planet, uh, your community. No one's leaving
it better than they found it. Right, it just continues
to through tactation, corruption, reach.

Speaker 3 (26:29):
You name it. It's definitely not.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
That's why the whole concept of are you better off
thannywhere four years ago? Kind of thing right during presidential elections.

Speaker 2 (26:38):
Yeah, And it's and it's so critical because you know, fundamentally,
you know, you know your politics. You need to vote,
vote your budget, you need to vote the budget. You know,
it's politics is not religion. It's about it's about your
your goal of realizing and maintaining your financial solvency and

(26:58):
for younger people, the ability to to realize the American
dream for themselves.

Speaker 1 (27:03):
Yeah, that's a good hashtag, that's a good politics is
not something we need to get trending. But yeah, maybe
the end of President Trump's second term maybe one of
the first times we can say we're leaving.

Speaker 3 (27:14):
He's leaving it better than he found it.

Speaker 2 (27:16):
But well, that's for sure.

Speaker 3 (27:19):
The bar was pretty low, so I think he'll be
able to real low.

Speaker 2 (27:23):
Yeah. Just I just continue to shake my head as
I learned more and more what these guys did.

Speaker 1 (27:31):
Yeah, they keep running over the rocks and uh and
just more and more. But oh yeah, So speaking of
uh turning things over, let's talk about the whistleblower accountability sure,
and uh and kind of what that what that mantra
and what that new mission is that you guys are
going on.

Speaker 2 (27:47):
Well, July thirty was the I think National whistle Blower Act,
and we put out an op ed on that and
you know, and and we called for in that article
and number of things. When was you know, independent oversight
of whistleblower claims to prevent abuse, accountability for whistleblowers who

(28:08):
breach court seals and do it falsely, reform of the
false claims, acting transparently in whistleblower prosecutor relationships. And let
me let me talk about that. Whistleblowers are very very courageous.
The good ones are a very very courageous group because
they're going against the grain, you know, and the purpose

(28:29):
of whistleblowers. And you know, when you think of fraud
and abuse and the government and that kind of thing,
there's so much of that. There's so much waste, and
people in government, whether it's federal, state or local, need
to stand up and say this is wrong, this is
a waste, you know, don't bow to the pressures of

(28:50):
those above you for spending, for example, wasteful spending in
these things, looking for ways to spend money at the
end of the year, or or giving giving contracts, you know,
to friends, you know, neighbors in that for favor or
payment for political favor. Whistle Blowers are an important element

(29:11):
of our society. They have it's a First Amendment freedom
again to speak out and say this is wrong, you know,
and there shouldn't be reprisals against them.

Speaker 3 (29:22):
Now.

Speaker 2 (29:22):
I know that the federal government, you know, they have
a Whistleblower Protection Act that it was amended I think
back again in twenty twelve, but that only applies to
the federal employees. Different states have different different statutes on
that too, but I think it's really incumbent on all
the states, you know, to really really protect sincere whistle blowers.

(29:46):
You know, it's interesting to note in Congress they don't
have the whistle blower Federal Whistleblower Protection Act doesn't apply
to them, and which is like so many other things
don't apply to Congress. The other or the other part
of that too is that there are those people who

(30:06):
really uh exploit the whistleblower relationship, you know, And then
we talked about that, and particularly it's almost like the
you know, the the ambulance chasers lawyers. This seems to
be another fruitful area for for that kind of plane
of bar, you know, to to even fabricate perhaps stories

(30:31):
about maybe a particular company or something like that. And
so what happens is they're essentially extorting a settlement, you know, yeah.

Speaker 3 (30:41):
People, and you say a whistle blower.

Speaker 2 (30:45):
And it's cheaper, yeah, and it's cheaper to pay off,
and it may not even be a whistleblower and maybe
a customer and maybe an employee, but it's cheaper to
pay off, you know, the whistleblower if it's a faulty
claim that it is the litigated right, you know, and
you get so angry when you you know, I have

(31:05):
been sued a few times in the past by some
miscreants and you know whoop them. But the cost of
the cost of the attorney's fees, you know, far exceeded
what the ultimate settlement was because you know, you win
the trial, then you then they said I'm going to
appeal and boom. You know, it's a contingency plaintiff kind
of thing. And so there's that racket that's got to

(31:27):
occur there too. And and particularly under the False Claims Act,
when people are are suing the government, you know, or
being sued by the government, they need to be prosecuted,
you know, if if they've if they've submitted false claims
against the government. When you look at the fraud for
example that Elon Musk found, you know, and and you

(31:50):
know throughout the government, and you look particularly at at
medicaid fraud, you look at social security fraud. You know,
one Social Security recipient is about one hundred and thirty
years old, one hundred and fifty years old, and that
kind of thing. You know, there's all of that and
that's all that's false claims, you know, and so you
know that needs to be pursued, you know, with a

(32:12):
lot of vigor, and those people need to be prosecuted.
So consequently, you know, there's it's an area that is
ripe for a lot of correction and a lot of
of of clear view and transparency, so you know, and

(32:33):
that's why the government should be transparent. So when you
go back to the kinds of proposals that we have
such as the as, the as, the Tabor, the fiscal
responsibility kind of amendment, which should also pass, I would
hope at some point in time, you know, by the states,
you know, you know, in terms of the federal level,

(32:53):
you really need that transparency so people can see, you know,
the sunlight, sunshine, let the sunshine. You know, I'm exposed
things and that's what's got to happen. And so I'm
glad there's more and more information available. But then that
because that information's out there, it's got to be deployed
and people have to be held accountable, you know, if

(33:15):
in fact they've done some shady things. Either it's the
object of a legitimate whistle blower, and if they're a
federal or government workers who have been wasting money and
that kind of thing, they should be canned with if
if if they're fraudulent whistle blowers, they need to be
prosecuted for raising false claims.

Speaker 1 (33:37):
What I don't get if there's if someone you know,
someone makes money off it, so they make a whistleblower,
they make a claim and it's fraudulent and they get
paid off, and it's sounds fraudulent. Are you saying there's no.

Speaker 3 (33:51):
There's no ravocations to them if it's you know, well,
you know, if.

Speaker 2 (33:55):
It's settled, if it becomes settled, it's I think the
lead grace juke it was. It was it was a
court approved settlement, and that kind of thing. So it's gone.

Speaker 3 (34:07):
It's based based on a lie.

Speaker 2 (34:10):
Based on a lie. Yeah, based on a lie, you know,
and that's where you get into prosecutorial and judicial integrity too,
you know, which is can be another kettle of fish.
But yeah, you know, if there's a settlement that that's
the current it's been approved, if it's been approved by
a court. That's one thing. If it's just a private

(34:32):
settlement and then it turns out later that it was fraudulent, yeah,
then then you're just subject to the statute of limitations,
depending on whether it's three years or five years. And
you can go back and call a US attorney or
state's attorney.

Speaker 4 (34:48):
And say.

Speaker 2 (34:50):
This really needs to be prosecuted as fraud.

Speaker 3 (34:53):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (34:53):
I mean, it's no different than someone making a false
claim to police about you know, an attack or an
assault they.

Speaker 3 (35:00):
Find that was made up.

Speaker 1 (35:01):
A lot of times the police will charge that person,
right they they absolutely you know, if someone uh you
know file you know, makes a claim and you know,
obviously someone can sue someone for slander. But those lawyers
also cost money. But I just can't believe that. I mean,
to me, it's not much German stolen balot, right, someone

(35:22):
someone says that they have uh you know, they they
were a veteran and they've got all these medals and
awards and they get they get money for you know it.
Stolen valor isn't a crime until they receive money for it.
And then they listen money from the VA for a
private foundation or you know, uh, someone builds them a
house and it's found out that they you know, lied

(35:43):
about their service, then they can be prosecuted because they
they they gained financially from those lots. And makes a
claim against a company or an organization or government whatever
it may be, and gets paid off in a court settlement,
and then it's found out that it was all up.

Speaker 3 (36:01):
That should very much be prosecutable. I mean you.

Speaker 2 (36:04):
Yeah, I think so, you know, and particularly you know,
if if a false claim damages the market reputation of
a company and therefore adversely impacts its sale and ability
to do business, that's a serious deal. And sometimes when
you're when you're in that let's say in the in
the C suite in a company, you really sit there

(36:27):
and do a risk analysis. If I settle this and
they retract it, then I'm not so damages. But if
I litigate it and more of the boloney comes out,
you know, what are the costs to me? And a
lot of times that happens is sometimes you know, I'd
rather pay the fifty thousand than spend three hundred thousand

(36:47):
fighting it.

Speaker 1 (36:49):
Right, And you know, they may win in the legal
court but lose in the court of public opinion. Right,
exactly know, whoever control the narrative or you know, it's
the attention.

Speaker 3 (37:02):
You could be totally innocent.

Speaker 1 (37:03):
It's no different than you know, someone that gets accused
of something terrible, like a sexual assault or something like that.

Speaker 3 (37:08):
Oh yeah, we see it all the time. You know.

Speaker 1 (37:11):
Let's take a way back to the Duke lacrosse players. Right,
they were they you know, the young lady made an accusation.
They were just ran through the ringer. It was years
later that you know, she made it up. But that
damage is done in a lot of people's perceptions.

Speaker 4 (37:26):
Yeah, it was.

Speaker 2 (37:27):
It was because they're forever having to defend defend something
that was false, and uh, you know, and that lingered
on and certainly probably in hurt that lady. That woman's case,
the statute of limitations had passed, so there was nothing
further she could do. And of course the prosecutor was
not that good of a guy either.

Speaker 1 (37:50):
Yeah, I mean, but it's just yeah, that's just amazing
that you can't be because you are.

Speaker 3 (37:53):
It's essentially it is extortion or blackmail.

Speaker 1 (37:56):
Hey saying this, oh you're in pain, me off five
hundred thousand and I'm just going to go away quietly
that is the textbook definition of blackmail.

Speaker 2 (38:05):
Of yeah, you know, and they do it to people
on the entertainment.

Speaker 3 (38:09):
Business all the time yep. Yeah, and whether it's sports
or otherwise.

Speaker 1 (38:15):
Right, because people are more are more concerned with protecting
their reputation, their is a dollar rdy to it because
they have endorsements, or they have influence and this and
that kind of stuff, and they would just pay it
off and make it go away sign an nd A.

Speaker 2 (38:30):
Well yeah, yeah, you know, in a sense it becomes
legally sanctioned theft when that when when that's.

Speaker 1 (38:38):
Wh which taints the term whistleblower. It doesn't give the
whistleblower protection makes a whistle blower could be a very
bad person, not just a good person who's trying to
do something right or highlight something being done wrong.

Speaker 2 (38:51):
Well, stud that's an excellent point. You know, how do
you tell the good guys from the bad guys?

Speaker 4 (38:55):
Sometimes?

Speaker 3 (38:56):
Right?

Speaker 1 (38:57):
And when you when you put something forward about whistle
blow or protection and accountability.

Speaker 3 (39:04):
Is there anything that are you guys looking at that?
Is there any way.

Speaker 1 (39:07):
To to say only if it's a good whistleblower?

Speaker 3 (39:11):
I mean, I don't know how you'd even frame that.

Speaker 2 (39:13):
Yeah, we really haven't really haven't dug into that. I
think in the column we just really wanted to call
attention to it because our focus is really on those
state constitutional amendments. But I do hope somebody can take
it up, and maybe we will, you know, as we
move along a little bit more.

Speaker 1 (39:30):
Right, Is there any are there any stats about that?
Has anyone had the ability to look at the number
of whistleblower claims and determine what percentage of them were fraudulent?

Speaker 2 (39:40):
You know, that's that's a good question. I don't know
the answer to that, but it I bet one could
find it, you know, either go on on i A
or artificial intelligence rather or or look in the Justice
Department too. In terms of False Claims Act that might
be might be found that. I haven't really looked at
the numbers.

Speaker 1 (40:00):
It could be tough, especially if warns were settled, and
it's kind of sick it's going you don't know whether
it is a good one or bad, or they just
paid off so they could air percentage of air of
you know, there could this could be plus or mind
is fifteen points right on? Because we're settled that we

(40:20):
don't know if they wasn't a really valid one because
they paid them money.

Speaker 2 (40:23):
Yeah. Yeah, And when you know, when I've been an
employer in some of my prior business incarnations, sometimes you
get these ridiculous EEO suits and those kinds of things
brought by a disgrunbled employee who doesn't get the raise
that he or she wanted, or was about to be
terminated for non performance. And and so then they they

(40:48):
hire a lawyer and sue you for an equal employment
opportunity violation in some cases. And so you say, okay,
that's boloney, We're not going to do it. But if
they persist in it and starts to get more costly
than you say, all right, then let's settle and go.

Speaker 3 (41:05):
Away, right because it's a lightning rod. It just yeah, yeah,
And it's a.

Speaker 2 (41:12):
Shame, you know, it's so sad to see, you know,
the paracis the lack of integrity you know that people
have when it comes to a dollar bill.

Speaker 1 (41:23):
Yeah, it's like you say, you know, it's the concept
of a whistleblower, no matter where it's at, isn't you know,
an honorable thing to do for someone to step out
and and you know, put things at risk. But to
have so many people violate that and and just like
say it's people just need to see it one or

(41:43):
two time, you know, and be like that's just easy money,
or you know, it just loses it's it's its value.

Speaker 3 (41:49):
I guess, yeah it does.

Speaker 2 (41:52):
You know, remember remember this recently, the two Internal Revenue
Service people who blew the whistle on the i R S. Right, yea,
And that took great courage and great.

Speaker 3 (42:05):
Courage under the old administration.

Speaker 2 (42:07):
Yeah yeah. And you know when they spoke in Congress
and that, and they really they really stood out and
stuck to their guns. You know, they were impugned by
people in I R S at that time and all
of that. They were impugned, you know in the congressional hearings,
but they stood tall, you know. And that's one outfit

(42:30):
in the government that needs a lot of house cleaning
as well.

Speaker 3 (42:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (42:35):
Rob is saying that the term false whistleblowers not even
a legal category. Yeah you know, and uh yeah about
there's roughly six hundred, eight hundred new cases filed annually.

Speaker 3 (42:48):
Wow. Yeah, so saying.

Speaker 1 (42:52):
Federal whistleblowers filed thousands of lawsuits under the False Claims
Act each year, with six hundred eight hundred.

Speaker 3 (42:58):
Cases filed annually.

Speaker 1 (42:59):
So yeah, it's uh that's something and and you know
it's I guess you gotta you gotta sift through the
noise and just try to figure out which one is
because you see this, you know, you see the things
like Aaron Brockovich rite that story against the energy company Oklahoma,
a very brave thing. This is young lady. Uh, you know,

(43:21):
just do what's right. People are getting poisoned and sicken
and that you go, awesome, what you know what cajones?

Speaker 3 (43:27):
What what?

Speaker 1 (43:28):
What risk and and integrity had to step out? But
then you see these other ones that like say they
just get a pay. It's so what I'm thinking is
lawyers are the root of all evil.

Speaker 2 (43:41):
I know what I've always I've always said they I
want to be able to always hire them and fire them.
But they all lawyers would agree with that.

Speaker 3 (43:53):
Yeah, they may be the reason term necessary evil.

Speaker 2 (43:57):
Well, they're they're very important. I guess, so many good ones.

Speaker 1 (44:00):
But yeah, so what other big initiatives is the foundation taking?
I mean you've covered some some monster ones. Any other
major ones you got looking.

Speaker 2 (44:09):
At, Well, those those are the big four. You know,
we we essentially formed in January of this year, in
twenty twenty five.

Speaker 3 (44:18):
Okay, yeah, and so we're we're.

Speaker 2 (44:21):
Well into it, and particularly in building this infrastructure that
I mentioned before, you know, one hundred and eighty million
voter files, so we can reach out to American citizens
and putting all of that in place. And you know,
and I really command the you know, the courage and
foresight of David Biddolf who's the founder and chairman of

(44:44):
this and his his desire to really really provide a
better country, a safer country, better rights, and better opportunity
for you know, our grandchildren and great grandchildren. And so
that's where we're focused. We have also supported the need

(45:05):
for an Article five States Fiscal Responsibility Amendment as part
of Article five, you know, because there the states have
the opportunity not only to demand a Convention of the
States for the purpose of offering amendments and amending the Constitution.

(45:29):
And that needs to happen because there are so many things,
you know, that I think are warranted, in a particular
to create a financial collor fiscal collar around congressional spending,
you know, And and so we've supported the Fiscal Responsibility
Amendment that is responsible there are others out there that

(45:50):
have supported let's keep the Supreme Court, you know at
nine members. Don't let the other team court pack, you know,
you know there's another one out there, one organization. It's
also pushing for congressional term limits, you know, as you know,
as a matter of the Constitution, I do think, however,

(46:10):
that really should be the prerogative of the states. And
I'll tell you why. There was a nineteen ninety eight
case I think it was called term Limits Incorporated versus
oh for the Fort I think, and the Arkansas Constitution

(46:31):
had a term limit there for two terms in the
Senate and three terms in the House. And remember, your
members of Congress are your delegation to the Congress. You know,
they're not out there independent of the state. And that's
why we we had that big spenders concept we're offering.

(46:53):
But the Supreme Court, which was a liberal Supreme Court
at that time, a five to four decisions said states
don't have the right to determine the term limits of
the members of their congressional delegation. It's entirely a federal responsibility.
But what's great about the good side of that case

(47:14):
is the it was a five to four decision, and
and the dissent dissent wrote about an eighty two page
descending opinion that whose primary author was Clarence Thomas, and
also joined in by the Chief Justice, and joined in
by antonin Scalia and the lady from Arizona O'Connor, and

(47:41):
you know, and so we now have a different court.
And what the first sentence in their descent said, the
states have an absolute right to determine the term limits
of its delegation to Congress. So that's something that is well,
I hope will burble up because that role needs to

(48:02):
be returned to the states. It should not be seized,
you know, by the federal government. And so that liberal majority,
in my humble opinion, is dead brown.

Speaker 1 (48:14):
Yeah, yeah, well that's uh yeah, term limits are definitely
I never knew that they you know, it could be
done by the state level. Well it should be, but
I mean that's even the ability to do that.

Speaker 2 (48:29):
Well they've had it. But you know, the federal government
has eroded a lot of the state's primary authority. Yes,
for example, a department of education, I mean that's education,
it's a state responsibility.

Speaker 1 (48:41):
Yeah, there was so many Yeah, harder form the department
of education.

Speaker 3 (48:45):
It wasn't even though.

Speaker 2 (48:46):
Yeah, I know, yeah, so you know, the government, the
federal government is reached out, you know, and and part
of them, you know, the Liberal strategy on that is
is to really reduce the states to administer divinities and
really establish a dominant federal control, you know. And we

(49:07):
saw that, you know, in the last Congress and Congress
before that, where the other team and the Democrats wanted
to essentially take over the conduct of elections in the
states by two different bills. I think that they tried.
They tried to do one you know, as a general

(49:28):
proposition and one that was sort of you know, playing
the race card, and both were rejected, fortunately because their
objective was to and they said that, well, we're only
doing this because you know that we're dealing with the
federal representatives, not the state. Was so states can have
a different ballot or a different kind of election, which

(49:49):
is nonsense, because they wanted with all the requirements they
had in their bill, they just simply wanted to squash
the states and the states would just conform, you know.
And so so there's that, you know, And so when
you have when you have people who want to have
one party dominance you know in the House and the Senate,
you know, and and flood the judiciary or court packed

(50:11):
the Supreme Court, and also control the White House, and
also manipulate elections. That's a real threat. And that's why
the American people, you know, in terms of what we're
doing at state level, should do it. The work that
we're doing also in terms of you know, tabor two
point zero in all the different states, that's something that

(50:33):
sends a strong message to Congress, say we're doing this
in the states. You guys got to wake up and
become accountable to this too, because you're you are a
part of an individual states delegation to the Congress, and
you need to be cognizant of it and respond, you know,
to your taxpayers in your state.

Speaker 1 (50:53):
So right right, yeah, let me ask you why if
we wrap up here, have you guys as a foundation
and you guys got a lot of influence and power player,
do you have any feedback into the administration or do
you guys have influence?

Speaker 3 (51:06):
Are you consulted.

Speaker 2 (51:09):
Any I've been swimming in this pond for a lot
of years and uh and a lot of good friends,
you know, you know, because I'm a part of the
conservative movement, you know, have moved in, you know, to
work you know, in different parts of the administration, and

(51:30):
so you know those are trusted you know, personal professional relationships,
and so you know, everybody has a swimming pool that
they saw am in, you know, and you know this
is I'm in the Washington area one and so I
swim there. So you get to know people over time.
Same things true in any community. You know, you have that,

(51:52):
and so it's uh, everybody has a different circle of
relationships and and many of my professional ones, you know,
even though I've been in other parts of business and industry,
but have you know, are still in town and love
what they're doing and very dedicated you know to saving

(52:14):
our country and saving our republic.

Speaker 3 (52:16):
That's why I asked.

Speaker 1 (52:17):
I mean, I'm not even in the DC area, but
I've had a lot of close friends and associates in
the first and definitely in this administration. And yeah, you know,
I've considered myself fortunate and honored to have that. And
I just figured in that area down to about uh,
if you guys have had the ability talking to you know,
whether some part of you know, Treasury or you know

(52:41):
d O. J. Or something like that. You guys have
had the ability like say it may be off the record,
but just to drop some in the ear because the
administration seems very you know, we're the last one and
many past ones. We're very much we know better than
anyone else. It's our way or no way. And this
administration seems very open.

Speaker 3 (53:00):
It is.

Speaker 2 (53:01):
They're very open. They're very accessible, and you have a
president who's always on television taking questions from reporters almost daily,
you know, which is really really significant. We do and
I do wayh in you know, on some of the
federal things. For example, I signed on a coalition letter

(53:21):
strongly opposing a Senate bill that wanted to impose taxes
on patents. On patents, I said, that's just nonsense, and
that may have come out of this administration's Commerce Department,
and so I and so I will I will represent
us too on some of these bills. Uh, you know

(53:42):
that occur there, and you know I continue to engage
in Washington with other conservative leaders as well on a
weekly basis.

Speaker 1 (53:51):
Well awesome, Well, hopefully some of this you guys can
get up or they're paying attention.

Speaker 2 (53:55):
And you wear a lot of shoe leather in.

Speaker 1 (54:00):
This town, yes, yeah, or for sure, or pay or
pay a lot for parking or I know, hey, at
least it's cleaner and safer.

Speaker 3 (54:13):
Now, I guess that's what they're saying.

Speaker 2 (54:14):
To tell you what a difference a difference. You know,
my grandson, you know, who has lived in the Georgetown
part of is now off to college, you know, in
South Carolina and Clemson. But he we're asking him, what's
what's it been like for you, because he grew up
in the district, in the Georgetowner. He says, well, haven't
felt safe for about two or three years. And this

(54:37):
is a city kid, And they said, now it's very different.
Everybody's feeling it, and so many people are appreciative of it.
And the President has a lot to brack about. You know,
he's a he's a man of action. It's extremely smart,
and I'm so impressed when I listened to him take
the hard questions and how he answers them both on

(55:00):
the short term basis, and you know, there's a very
substantial long term strategy behind it. So I'm very proud.
You know, the American people like him.

Speaker 3 (55:09):
That's what we hear outside of the Beltway. I mean,
and it's people.

Speaker 1 (55:13):
You know, they do some man on the street interviews,
but you know, here's someone personally.

Speaker 3 (55:16):
Yeah, you can notice the difference. I mean, I spent
a lot of time in d C. But honestly, you know,
in DC proper.

Speaker 1 (55:23):
You know, I'm not usually down there at night, right
It's I'm I'm in northern Virginior somewhere. But you know,
I've been down at night when it's really cold, like
you know, the inauguration. Uh and really because you know,
you know, I have to worry about other people out
looking for mischief. It's just too damned cold and wet.
But uh not in the summertime. I mean, I've been

(55:45):
down in some of the you know, around the monuments
by myself, but that was you know, that was a
number of years ago. That was probably you know, ten
pleasure years ago. I would feel comfortable going down by
the wall or walking around the Korean Memorial at night
because a.

Speaker 3 (56:00):
Lot of people.

Speaker 1 (56:01):
But from what I've heard, it's just even that it's
gotten so bad much. Less you get anywhere off constitution,
then it gets really sketchy.

Speaker 2 (56:08):
Yeah, will it does. But I'm hearing it's a lot
better now, you know, with the National Guards, been roaming
around with the police, you know, and even even the
DC mayor did a complete about face in terms of
recognizing the difference.

Speaker 3 (56:23):
I mean, you can't dispute facts.

Speaker 1 (56:25):
I mean, you can spin whatever you want on talk shows,
but I mean when you're responsible for it, and then
and this, you know, you talk about you know, eighty
something percent drop and carjackings and this and that, it's
it's you can't you can't spend that and just pad
the numbers. I mean, but you know you mentioned the
president is I mean, what a breath. I mean we

(56:45):
all knew it was coming after his first administration, but
I mean, you know, seven cabinet meetings and seven months
and you know, it's like that comes on those news
out their schedule because it's going to run for and uh,
it is amazing, I mean leader, and it's not just
a quick high by shake hands were done.

Speaker 3 (57:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (57:06):
His pedigree is I mean, he's a CEO, business CEO
and builder developer. He's done it internationally as well as domestically,
you know, and he you know, in a very tough
area of real estate, and and so he understands the economy,
you know, sadly too many people who've been in government,

(57:27):
they've never been in the economy. They've only been overhead
on the economy.

Speaker 3 (57:31):
And and.

Speaker 2 (57:34):
That's where a lot of times huge mistakes are made
because at best they might only have an academic understanding,
if any understanding at all. You know, that's what the
President speaks about when he thinks, talks about stupid decisions
that were made because people didn't have a clue as
to what were the ramifications. And you know, a free

(57:56):
market economy, you know, is a lunch pin, you know
of our successful republic, and it's the lynch been going forward.

Speaker 1 (58:04):
I mean, that's I mean, we we That's when you
see people like you know, someone like Biden spends forties,
that spends forty seven years in government. They've never been
in the same thing in academ people that graduate masters
and start teaching and being a professor and.

Speaker 3 (58:19):
Never work in the real world. They're in a lava land.

Speaker 1 (58:22):
They have they have no idea what business is like
and what which you know, to me his his you know,
I've always said, it's it's so crazy how a billionaire
someone born into money as he was, that most of
the American people and the blue collar people can relate
to him. How could they relate to someone that's had
it so well and been so rich because he regardless

(58:45):
of if he's at the guy building towers and buildings
or whatever, he's out there negotiating, he's dealing with all
the real world negatives and positives of trying to do business.
And and whether it's that or it's the guy that's
bagging groceries or driving a truck, they're they're all doing it,
but at different levels, you know, dealing with conflict and
personalities and and and oss and negatives. And that's it

(59:09):
took me a while to realize that's why the American
people can relate to him so much, because he just
lives life like it's a Business's why he fires people
as fast as he's does.

Speaker 3 (59:17):
He doesn't just send him off to another. Right.

Speaker 1 (59:19):
They he gets a lot in the first administration because
he hired a lot of generals, and he got criticized
because he had so many military generals. But I think
he I think he felt, well, they've already been through it.
They you know, they're probably they got some background, they
they have some pedigree and be honest, but even that,
they wouldn't they wouldn't tow the line, he'd fire him
and fire someone else.

Speaker 2 (59:39):
I mean, you know, your best your best friends in life,
for those that are always brutally and directly honest with you. Yeah,
you know, And and he is a he's a very
gregarious uh, and a good guy to meet, you know,
and in the chat with briefly and h he's very

(01:00:01):
much a regular guy. But he also doesn't doesn't stand
for bs at all.

Speaker 3 (01:00:07):
Yeah. Yeah, and he says some singers sometimes, that's for sure.
He can uh, does you know?

Speaker 1 (01:00:14):
I mean, people, I had the luxury of a number
of years ago on a previous show I used to host,
I had Donald Rumsfeld on for about thirty five minutes
and the show we ever did because I'm like, no,
Fox doesn't even get him for thirty five minutes, and
he was cracking jokes and everything. You never saw that
side of him, and he just he didn't have to

(01:00:35):
put on the image behind the d D lectern and
all that stuff, and he was just you know, he
was such a serious. I mean, I talk about a
lifelong you know politics, you know, you know, contributor to
our government and society with all the all the administrations.

Speaker 3 (01:00:48):
But he could be.

Speaker 1 (01:00:49):
He's just a person and he can lie, and it
made the interview that much better because you're like, he's
just a normal guy. He can make us whips and
sarcastic jokes and all that kind of stuff. And since
this day one of my favorite interviews.

Speaker 2 (01:01:02):
Well, he was and I think years ago he had
been CEO of gd Searle, which I think was a
pharmaceutical company in Illinois at one time, and so he
he had a broad experience and he was he was
a terrific and terrifically terrific individual as well.

Speaker 1 (01:01:20):
It really was, well, hey Bob, thank you so much.
We night and uh that hour flew by and all
your kind Uh well I learned.

Speaker 3 (01:01:31):
I learned even more.

Speaker 1 (01:01:32):
I mean just I mean see how this uh uh
you know, taxpayer Bill of Rights progresses and and hopefully
makes a movement on the four basic tenets there and
and then uh on the whistle board accountability. I mean,
there's there's give me a lot to think about.

Speaker 2 (01:01:48):
But yeah, well you know, it's a mission, you know,
and it's one that I I'm dearly grateful you know,
to have, Yeah, and to work with the guy like
David Biddolf Dan Renee and others that are really committed
to this because it's so critical again for our children
and our grandchildren. You know that these these reforms and

(01:02:10):
state constitutions are made.

Speaker 3 (01:02:13):
Yeah yeah, well hey, thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (01:02:16):
Thank you for coming back on and giving us amy
Thursday evening and even starting a little bit late, but great.

Speaker 3 (01:02:22):
Having you on.

Speaker 2 (01:02:23):
Well, it's an honor to be with you.

Speaker 3 (01:02:25):
Thank you, Thank you everyone.

Speaker 1 (01:02:27):
Have a good night and stay tuned our socials and
have a good safe holiday, long Labor Day weekend.

Speaker 4 (01:02:35):
Okay, A found potage, set stand and fund pot stand

(01:03:12):
Stan