In this episode I discuss the damaging effects of political correctness on our national security. I also discuss a troubling story brewing on Capitol Hill which is being largely ignored by the media. http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/22/sources-democratic-aide-suspected-of-major-security-breach-under-government-protection-in-pakistan/ Finally, I discuss the paradox of high tax rates and revenues. https://www.cato.org/blog/new-estimates-corporate-tax-rates?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=267ad778cf-Cato_at_Liberty_RSS&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_395878584c-267ad778cf-143016961&goal=0_395878584c-267ad778cf-143016961&mc_cid=267ad778cf&mc_eid=3fd7404a34
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
All the Sanders supporters love throwing bombs at me, and I throw them right back.
I'm not here to pull any punches, right?
The Dan Bongino Show.
This is the great irony of conservatism.
Even liberals win under conservatism.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
Are you suggesting you're that stupid that other people can run your lives better than you can, even though the cost and quality of what they buy, quote, for you doesn't even matter to them?
On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right, welcome to The Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Man, I'm doing good.
What a night, huh?
Oh my gosh, you're crazy last night.
Something happened to me last night.
I was really upset about it.
I can't get it out of my head.
You never ever want to be felt like you were taken advantage of and last night I really feel like I got seriously like screwed over by something.
I'm using a lot of likes.
Like, you know, like Clueless from like Alicia Silverstone.
I was, no, I'm really like fired up about the whole thing.
It was very upsetting what happened, but yeah, you know.
I do a lot of favors for people, folks.
A lot of things behind the scenes.
I don't talk about them.
I don't ask for any pats on the back or anything, but don't ask me to do something and then shaft me.
Gosh.
Alright.
I got a lot to talk about today.
This Manchester attack last night, because it's something I've been discussing for a long time, and it's critical you understand the difference between access control and security.
And how it pertains to delineation points, in other words, secure zones and non-secure zones, and how terrorists are always going to take advantage of this, folks.
It's going to create a serious problem for us, and it has to transition us from a fireman attitude, in other words, putting these fires out after they happen, which is what we're focused on now, to an arsonist mode, starting these fires in advance and stopping these terrorist attacks from happening at all.
There's no way, and this is going to make a ton of sense, I promise you, but I discussed this on MSNBC in regards to the Sochi-Russia Olympics.
What was that?
Three, four years?
I don't even remember.
No.
I don't either.
I discussed this problem.
How the secure zones are going to get bumped out and out and out and out and out, and the terrorists are going to take advantages.
So I got a bunch to get to.
Let's get right to it.
Today's show brought to you by our friends at Birch Gold Group.
Love these guys because I'm into stability in my retirement, folks.
Stock market's hitting new highs daily.
That's great, but the question a lot of people are wondering is, how do I protect my hard-earned savings when the market inevitably dips?
Unfortunately, it always does.
What happens when China calls in the debt, folks?
What happens when inflation starts to explode and get out of control?
Something I've warned about on the show frequently.
You know, you can make 2%, 3%, 4% in the stock market, 5%, but if inflation's 6% and 7%, I got news for you.
You're losing money.
Easy monetary policy by the Federal Reserve.
Big problem right now.
The company I trust with precious metal purchases, I have some silver right in front of me actually, is Birch Gold Group.
They sell physical precious metal for your own possession and they'll ship it right to your front door if you ask them to.
And right now, thanks to a little-known IRS tax law, you can move your IRA, your eligible 401k, into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver.
That's the real deal!
Perfect for those of you who want to ensure your hard-earned retirement savings are protected from the ravages of inflation.
Here's what you should do.
By the way, this company is A-plus rated by the Better Business Bureau.
Look it up.
I'm not messing with you.
Go look it up on Google yourself.
And it has countless five-star views.
These guys are the real deal.
All I'm asking you now is to go to birchgold.com, B-I-R-C-H, go to birchgold.com, B-I-R-C-H, go to birchgold.com, B-I-R-C-H, go to birchgold.com, B-I-R-C-H, go to birchgold.com, B-I-R-C-H, go to birchgold.com, B-I-R-C-H, go to birchgold.com, B-I-R-C-H, go to birchgold.com, B-I-R-C-H, go to birchgold.com, B-I-R-C-H, go to birchgold.com, B-I-R-C-H, go to birchgold.com, B-I-R-C-H, go to birchgold.
Alright, so this is what I'm talking about.
A long time ago at the Sochi Olympics, there was a bombing in a train station outside of Sochi.
I don't know if you remember this, Joe, but it was not at the Olympics.
It was at a train station going there, and they brought me on MSNBC.
It was an early morning hit on a weekend, and they wanted me to talk about what the ramifications were for that, for the Olympics, which was like a week away.
And I said, the problem we're going to have, and in light of what happened in Manchester last night, the problem we're always going to have and the problem we've always had in the Secret Service is access control is not security.
It's access control.
In other words, a ticket to an Ariana Grande concert, a ticket to the Olympics, a ticket to a football game is an access control device.
The ticket controls who gets in and who doesn't.
Okay.
Joe Armacost doesn't have a ticket.
Joe does not get access.
Gotcha.
That is not a security device.
If Joe has access to the device, Joe has access to the event, and nobody pats Joe down on the way in the event, that's not security.
They controlled who got in, but any terrorist can walk in the door and do what they want.
Access control is not security.
Why do I bring this up?
Because controlling access is, one, always assumed to be security.
It's like, oh yeah, you gotta have a ticket to get in.
That doesn't mean anything, okay?
The Secret Service has been really smart about this over the years.
Say you need a ticket to get into a presidential rally, right?
You need a ticket with a barcode or whatever it may be.
They understood that there's an access control point, but that's not where the security starts.
So Joe, you're lined up, or queued up if you're overseas, to get into a presidential speech for Donald Trump
with your ticket.
The old view of security is that the security starts at the ticket taker booth, right?
Oh, we'll see who gets in and who--
that is not the security.
That's only the access control to the event.
These are not the same thing.
The delineation point between secure area and non-secure area
has always been the ticket taker for most of America in most of the world, but not the Secret Service.
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
Like, if you're going into a presidential speech and the Secret Service was doing it the way most people do it, like they did at the event last night... Listen, this is not me, like, pouring salt in an obviously tragically open wound.
I'm just trying to explain to you, hopefully for some business leaders, people who own big arenas and stuff, that you're looking at this all wrong.
The old view was that, oh, the security starts where we control who comes in and who doesn't.
The ticket-taking point, right?
That's not the way the Secret Service does it.
And I'm going to explain why in a minute.
We have the outer, inner, and middle rings of security.
And that outer ring starts way before you even get to the checkpoint where someone takes your ticket and you walk through a metal detector, a magnetometer.
Now, I can't explain to you how exactly we do what we do.
It's, you know, for obvious reasons.
Even in my third book, I touch on it in enough of a way to not give out any secrets.
It's coming out soon, by the way, in September, for those of you who are interested.
But there are ways we do things that ensure that before you even get to the checkpoint, Someone's giving you a look-see, let's say.
And there's ways to do that.
A number of ways to do that.
There's a number of detection ways to do that, too, to pick up on things, okay?
Now, I'm not suggesting the whole world needs to do that because it's prohibitively expensive, but I am going to suggest a way to fix this.
Because when you do security the old way, Joe, in other words, hey, they're not our responsibility until you get to the ticket-taking point.
Yeah.
Well, what happens?
What happened in Sochi?
Oh, the Olympics are secure?
Okay, we'll just bomb the train station.
Outside, what are you going to do there?
Are you going to get a ticket to drive to the train station?
You got to get a ticket to get on the train, but there was no ticket to walk into the lobby.
What happened in Fort Lauderdale?
Oh, we couldn't get in the terminal?
We'll shoot someone at the baggage claim.
What happened in, uh, what was it, Prague?
What happened in, um, no, what was the, yeah, it was an attack overseas not that, not that long ago.
Uh, Brussels.
The, I'm sorry, the Brussels attack.
Same thing.
You can't get into the terminal, get on the plane, hit them in the, uh, ticket-taking area.
Folks, the point I'm trying to make is if you view security as an, as an access control, as secure areas versus not, Then the terrorists are just gonna keep moving farther and farther out to the areas that aren't secure!
Does that make sense, Joe?
Like, the Ariana Grande concert, the security started at the access control point.
Getting into the stadium.
So what did the guy do?
Or woman?
We don't know who it was yet, but apparently it looks like a suicide bomber at this point.
I can't confirm it, but I've heard some pretty reliable reports this morning.
They just waited for everybody to walk out!
Now, you may be saying, okay, well, what's your point?
And say they moved the security outside the arena, and that was the access control point.
Then they'd hit them on the train.
Exactly!
That's the point I'm making.
When you view security as access control, and you have a secure area, a non-secure area, the terrorists are just gonna keep moving outward and outward and outward to the non-secure areas to hit us before you get to the access control point.
Now, When you do it the way the Secret Service does it, and you view security more holistically, and you view it as an intelligence gathering thing, a detection, a cooperative effort between locals and local intelligence gathering, local cops, you start to pick off these threats before they happen.
This is where I'm getting to the arsonist-fireman analogy.
If we constantly confuse security with access control, they're going to beat us every time, because wherever we set up the secure location, here's where you get in, here's where you go to the magnetometer, they'll just hit you outside.
So instead of trying to be firemen and putting these fires out after they've started, a suicide bomber walks up to a magnetometer, a suicide bomber goes to an Ariana Grande concert.
Folks, that's all, you know, well and good that we set up secure perimeters, but unless we stop this stuff in advance, do really vigorous intelligence gathering, while, I want to be crystal clear on this because I had a real problem with this NSA metadata thing, while still respecting civil liberties, by the way.
Unless we stop this stuff in advance, they are gonna beat us every single time.
Because you're confusing security with access control, and they're gonna wait till they hit the access control point?
They're not gonna go through it, and they'll just detonate right there.
Every time!
You can't beat that game!
They will always win!
And the reason I bring this up is we've seen a concerted effort over the last eight years of the Obama administration, and prominently amongst liberals, Joe, Bill de Blasio, and others, we've seen this prominent effort to constantly succumb to lawfare.
In other words, these organizations that'll sue for everything and everybody backs off.
Well, we can't surveil mosques.
Why can't you?
Why can't you?
Nobody's saying every person who practices Islam is a... Nobody's saying that as terrorists.
That's ridiculous.
Only idiots, liberals, say that.
But they say, you know, idiots.
I said the same thing twice.
No conservatives saying that.
But folks, if you get a tip in the NYPD or any other police department in the country that there's spirited radicalization going on, and I mean spirited in a negative way, not spirited in a spiritual, holy way, You know, radicalization going on in a mosque, and you need- why do you need some kind of extra permission to go in there and surveil that?
It's a public place!
They accept anybody!
Even if it's private, if they can get an informant in there, why would you not do it?
Joe, you and I both know with 100% certainty That if that was a Catholic church, where there was a pastor in a Catholic church recommending the bombing of major U.S.
cities, there would be a thousand FBI agents in the pulpit tomorrow.
Of course!
Because there's nothing politically incorrect about doing that.
But for some reason we've succumbed to the dreaded politically correct atmosphere of the far left, and we're forfeiting our own safety as a result.
Folks, they will always beat us at the access control game.
It is impossible to maintain a strong security posture as firemen.
You're always putting out fires.
Always.
When you start focusing on the arsonist thing, starting fires, starting intelligence fires, going out there, shaking trees, gathering intel, you can cut this stuff off in advance.
Can you cut off all of it?
Of course not.
But it's inexcusable that we've had this phenomenon of known wolves.
Not lone wolves.
Known.
K-N-O-W-N.
Known wolves.
Where we've let people go, you saw it at the bombing in New York recently, where they've been on our radar, you've seen it overseas, and due to political correctness, we've been unable to follow up on this stuff.
It's unbelievable.
Boston comes to mind on that.
Boston, perfect, great example, the Sarnia brothers, traveled overseas, they had text records apparently, which is a system used to monitor who goes in and out of the country and what's been going on.
Known wolves.
This is inexcusable, folks.
Again, I'm not in any way suggesting a reactionary police state.
If you listen to the show, you'd know that, so please don't email me stupidity.
I don't think we should pool NSA metadata on the entire population to try to get a needle in a haystack.
It's an absurd way of conducting investigations.
But this focus on being firemen and putting out attacks afterwards is absolutely insane.
And a little hat tip to Jay Sekulow, who was on Hannity last night.
He made a terrific point.
And it feeds right into this arsonist versus fireman argument I've been trying to make for eons now.
Again, since, you know, Sochi, Russia.
He said, Joe, don't you find it odd that after these attacks, like the tragic attack last night in Manchester, the next day there's always arrests?
Always!
There's always arrests and investigations.
You're like, well, how'd you get all these people?
Oh, they were on our radar forever.
What?
Oh, so now that there's an attack and you can overcome politically sclerotic human beings and an inertia of political correctness, now you make arrests?
Folks, you've seen it over and over and over again.
Brussels, Paris, the next day, Joe, always rains.
Always.
We got 20 people in custody.
Why weren't they in custody the day before?
Well, you know, we can't just arrest them because they're Muslim.
Nobody's saying that.
Nobody's suggesting you should arrest anyone because they're Muslim.
That's ridiculous.
But if you have hard evidence that people may be involved in a potential terror plot and you're not following up, that's absolutely inexcusable.
I'm sorry, folks.
I just wanted to give you an inside perspective on this, because this is outrageous.
And I don't recall seeing any of this when I was on the Presidential Protective Division.
When I was on the President's Detail, and we had a domestic threat to the President, believe me, there were a lot of them.
Class 3 threats.
There's Class 1, Class 2, Class 3 being the worst.
There was no political correctness.
You know, you were a Class 3 threat.
You know, you were being watched.
That's it.
There was no like, oh my god, are we going to hurt his feelings?
I mean, you couldn't violate his constitutional rights or her.
But you were being watched.
You get what I'm saying?
There was none of this like, oh man, are we going to hurt their feelings?
It's a joke.
It's a joke, the way we're handling law enforcement.
Total disgrace.
Alright, what else did we talk about today?
Got like four or five stories.
I told you that corporate tax story.
Great story about tax credits, too, that they're melting down.
There was a Voting Rights Act thing yesterday.
Alright, here's one I thought was interesting.
Joe, you don't have that sound, do you, from Dershowitz?
Yeah.
I know I've been beating up the Trump-Russia thing, and forgive me folks, I don't mean to just, you know, hammer you with this story, but the real problem I'm having with it is not only that it's a fairy tale and it's a myth, and that yesterday, go back and listen to yesterday's show if you have any doubt that this is a complete fairy tale, but the real problem I'm having with it now is it's starting to distract people from the real issues that we're having right now.
Tax cuts, Obamacare, but there's a story that broke yesterday that's just It's unbelievable in its scope and potential damage to the United States, and it's being completely drowned out.
Hat tip to the Daily Caller for doing work on this.
But the story's being completely drowned out because the Democrats are obsessed with lying to you about the Trump-Russia fairytale.
And this is a left-leaning liberal attorney.
You've probably heard of Malin Dershowitz.
I was on Fox with him yesterday.
But I believe to be a fair guy.
I mean, a lot of liberals have no principles.
I wouldn't accuse him of that.
But this is him talking about the dangers of this Trump-Russia investigation.
And when we finish this clip, I want to talk to you about how dangerous it is because we're ignoring a story that's an absolute threat to our national security right now that I promise not many of you have heard of.
Play that cut.
First, I'm here not as a supporter of Donald Trump.
I voted for Hillary Clinton very proudly.
here as a supporter of civil liberties and construing statutes narrowly as they were
written.
I just don't see a crime here.
I see perhaps some political wrongdoing.
I see leaking information on both sides.
But even if, for example, the campaign coordinated, which there's no evidence of, but coordinated
its activities with Russia, and even if Russia and the campaign said, gee, wouldn't it be
better if Trump were elected, that's political wrongdoing, but it's just not a crime.
Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated.
And a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime.
And the reason I think Trump may benefit from this is this will be a secret proceeding.
Mueller is a very honorable guy, so he's not going to leak anything.
And in the end, he's going to find no crime.
Maybe he'll issue a report, which in my view would be improper, because he only hears half the evidence, only the prosecutor's part of the evidence.
But he will say there's no crime.
Maybe the worst case scenario for the Trump administration is maybe Flynn gets indicted for lying.
The president probably pardons him at that point.
But it's two years from now, or a year and a half from now.
And in the meantime, he has a reprieve.
Wow.
I mean, folks, this guy is a Democrat.
A principled one, sadly few and far between these days.
But that was just a minute, what was it, about a minute clip, Joe?
Yeah, something like that.
Summation of nothing!
Of him saying there's nothing there!
There's no there there!
Now, I only played that one because I wanted to get to it yesterday.
It fit better with yesterday's show, but Joe did a lot of work and I felt bad after the show.
I'm like, S with a hit.
I miss the sound cut.
But that just goes to show you how they're spending all this time distracted on nothing.
There's no there there, and that's the left telling you about it.
But here's a story that was just amazing.
So did you hear this story about this guy Imran Aman?
I don't know if you've been covering this at all at CBM, Joe.
No, I don't recall.
There are a bunch of House IT staffers, okay?
This guy Imran Aman and his spouse and brothers, they had a $4 million contract with the House of Representatives, the Congress.
It's a $4 million contract.
And all of a sudden it's come up that these guys who had access to email accounts, to sensitive high-level information in the Congress and the House of Representatives, foreign intelligence, things like that, transferred over the email system.
They had access to a DNC iPad with the passwords.
They fled to Pakistan.
Ruh-roh.
Ruh-roh.
Now, this is a story.
They fled to Pakistan, by the way, pulled their kids out of school,
got on the moving truck, and that was it.
Take it to the plane and get out of Dodge as soon as possible, all while under suspicion.
Now, this thing has been squashed.
This thing has been kiboshed.
This thing has been hidden because they don't... This is not a conspiracy theory like the Trump-Russia nonsense and some other, you know, things that are going on.
This is an actual story that Democrats will not touch and the media has not gone near it.
Now, from what I'm getting from very credible people, There's some heavy shoes that are gonna drop on this thing.
Folks, again, I don't engage in hyperbole.
I don't exaggerate stories for effect.
But you put a couple of points together right now, and at a minimum, We have a highly, highly suspicious potential threat to national security.
These IT staffers had access to all of the emails of the people they were working with up on the hill.
They were suspected of some fraud, there were some suspicious payments coming from Iran, and all of a sudden they pick up and leave their Loudoun County homes, this guy Aman and the family, and they head out to Pakistan.
But let's not cover that.
Let's talk about Trump, the Trump-Russia fairytale, despite zero evidence.
Now, why would this story be squashed?
Because who were they working for?
The Democrats!
If this was a Republican staffer, this would be on the news tomorrow.
I'll put the story in the show notes, folks.
You follow this story at the Daily Caller, you're gonna see.
We talk about when there's smoke, there's fire.
This house is burning down on that one, and nobody is touching this story because they're terrified of it.
All right, hey, have you tried BrickHouse Nutrition yet?
So let me tell you just a quick story, BrickHouse.
So I did Fox News.
Did I tell the story yesterday?
I did Fox News this weekend, and I stayed up in New York.
I was in studio, and I stayed in a really terrible hotel.
It was awful.
It was one of those hotels where, like, the bed is, like, 500 years old, so you sink in, so your feet are, like, 10 feet above your head, and the blood, like, drains to your head.
It was awful.
And I forgot how loud New York is, living in Florida.
I couldn't sleep.
I should have brought some of those foamies for my ears.
And I'm sitting there, and I slept about two hours, and I had to do two hits on Fox.
One at 6.30 in the morning and one at 8, and I was beat.
So luckily, I had a bottle of Dawn to Dusk with me, which is the best energy supplement I've ever seen, ever tried.
The stuff is incredible.
My wife loves it.
Here's the thing with Dawn to Dusk, their energy product.
It won't crash yet.
These energy drinks, coffee, you drink it.
I'm a coffee victim myself.
Two hours later, you can barely move.
You crash, you're having a really tough time getting through the day.
That's not dawn to dusk.
These guys figured out a time-release method to give you a solid, elevated mood, energy elevation for about 10 hours.
Great for cops, great for firemen, military, CrossFitters, working moms and dads, people on assembly lines busting their butts all day.
Give it a shot.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of Dawn to Dust today.
I'm telling you, it got me through.
It got me through this.
As a matter of fact, if you go watch the interviews on Fox from Sunday morning, you'd be like, wow, Dan's pretty wired up.
So thanks to BrickHouse Nutrition for that one because I couldn't get access to a cup of coffee.
They did a great job with this product.
Go try Dawn to Dust.
Okay, here's a corporate tax story I wanted to get to because, again, it feeds into a consistent narrative on the show that liberals are lying to you, and they're lying to you in a self-serving way.
I mean, again, you point to me a liberal narrative.
You know, taxes on the rich, they'll help foster equality.
The public school system is being drained by school choice.
You point to me a narrative, I'll show you how liberals just made it up and they're lying, not to advance your cause, not to advance their cause.
Their cause is power consolidation and control.
Now, one of them that's always bothered me is this idea that the corporate tax, they use this over and over, and there's a very specific reason why liberals constantly call for the corporate tax to be high, which is the business tax.
I mean, the corporate tax just sounds really fancy, but it's a tax on businesses.
Now, we have one of the highest both real rates and effective rates in the entire world.
Scratch that.
Nominal rates and real rates in the world.
In other words, our nominal rate, if you factor in the Obamacare and a lot of the other state and local taxes, is close to 40%.
That's a ridiculously high business tax.
Now, the effective or real rate isn't as high as that because you can claim deductions.
So, if your rate is 40% but you claim a deduction for, let's say, new equipment you bought, you may pay a little less.
Either way, We are one of the highest rates in the world.
I think we're number three in real rates and number one in nominal rates.
So we're really high.
Now, one of the arguments the liberals constantly make, and the reason they love the corporate tax, I want to be clear on this.
is because they don't make it personal.
In other words, when you hear income tax, you think it's coming out of your wallet.
When you hear a business tax, you're like, oh, screw it.
That's just businesses.
I'm not going to pay for that.
Well, the joke of the corporate tax is when you look at the corporate tax and the capital gains tax, one's a tax on businesses, the other's a tax on investment, and you look at the research, you'll see consistently, again, this isn't for liberals.
You're not into research.
This is for conservatives, libertarians, and democrats who are looking to learn a few things.
When you look at the research on the corporate capital gains tax, Joe, you find that the tax burden falls on consumers and employees of the company.
Because corporations are just collections of people, whether you like it or not.
They're not aliens.
They're not collections of pets and animals.
They are collections of people.
So when you hike a tax on a business, and every business, what do they do?
They hike their prices.
Remember, corporations are just tax collectors for the government.
That's all they are.
If you hike a tax on a business, the business is just... Let me just make this real simple for you, Joe.
Where does a business get its money?
From customers!
Customers, yeah.
Who else are they going to get their money from?
If Joe's a t-shirt company, where do you get your money from?
People who buy t-shirts.
Right.
So if the government's demanding more money from you, where are you going to get the money?
The customers!
Yeah, same place.
That's it!
Or if you have investors, you're going to pay a lighter dividend, or you're going to offer them less return on their stock.
Oh no, the corporation pays it.
Okay, who pays the corporation?
People!
So folks, again, the stories like this drive me crazy, like the one in Cato, which I'll put in the show notes, about the corporate tax.
Because, as I've insisted to you from the inception of the show two years ago, to be a liberal requires you, I hate to say this, to be a total ignoramus on economics.
Corporations are nothing more than tax collectors for the government.
When you ask them to collect more money for the government, they collect it from the people they get money from.
You!
This is not complicated.
It's only complicated for dopey liberals who aren't interested in the reality of cash flows and economics.
Point I'm trying to make here too is that So they'll always argue for a hike in the corporate tax, even though hikes in the corporate tax rarely lead to increased revenue at all.
So if their first argument is that we gotta get those businesses because it's fair to do it, so let's increase their tax rate.
Their second argument is, well they should pay more because they need to help us pay down the debt that government bureaucrats and elected officials ran up.
Well neither one of those things happen.
You're increasing taxes really on customers and people and you're not paying down the debt.
So here's a quote from this piece in Cato about the United Kingdom's experience with the corporate tax.
They had a really, really high corporate tax in the pre-Thatcher years and in the Thatcher years as well, Margaret Thatcher.
They've recently been in the United Kingdom, by the way, which is beating the snot out of us on corporate tax rates, which is amazing, because you would think in that area of the world where corporate taxes and taxes in general in the big welfare state, Joe, are worshipped, you would think they would have a lower rate, I mean a higher rate, but they have a lower rate than us.
So, here's a quote from the piece.
In the past 30 years, there appears to be little evidence that cutting the corporate tax, they cut it from 52%, Joe, 52%.
That's insane.
To 19%, there appears to be very little evidence that it has fundamentally reduced revenue at all.
The at all's my addition to it.
It has fundamentally reduced revenue.
Now, here's the numbers.
The percentage of national income that the corporate tax raised has traditionally been 1.7% to 3.5% of GDP.
So just to be clear on this, no matter what the rate was in the UK, the amount of money raised was about 1.7% to 3.5% of GDP.
Well, they cut the rate.
Again, cut the rate.
Follow me, liberals.
This isn't complicated.
52% to 19%.
Now, what is it?
It's 2.6% of GDP.
Right there.
Right flat, smack dab in the middle where it's always been.
And, ironically, that 2.6% of GDP, which at the lower rate, Joe, the 19% rather than the 52% rate, is the same as in 1985 when the rate was 40%.
So folks, you have to be asking yourself if you have common sense, which I know is tough for liberals.
If we can lower the rate...
And raise the exact same amount of money, while lowering the rate means lowering prices for customers, means lowering the tax load for businesses so they can grow.
And yet we can raise the same amount of money.
Why wouldn't we do it?
Because liberals are not interested in that, folks.
Liberals are interested in control of businesses.
The way they control businesses is by taking their money, even if it's a smaller amount of money.
Please understand what I'm telling you.
They don't care in expanding government.
They care about expanding government power.
They would rather have control of 90% of a crushed economy than 10% of a huge economy.
Because they can control it!
Please understand, that's why... You think liberals don't know these numbers?
Smart ones.
They know, they just don't care!
I bring this up because now that the Trump tax bill, when he gets back on the Trump tax reform plan, When he gets back on U.S.
soil, and Mike Pence is up on the hill working on it now, you're going to hear these dumb arguments again and again and again to your liberal friends, and all you need to do is ask them to say, give me an example anywhere in the world where cutting the corporate tax rate over time, long-term, has decreased revenue.
Just give me an example!
Just show me the numbers!
Show me something!
Anywhere!
They can't do it, folks, because it doesn't exist.
They're just making it up.
All right.
Hey, one more quick thing I want to hit before we before we roll here.
So there was a big Supreme Court case yesterday in the Voting Rights Act on North Carolina's congressional districts.
Now, this matters to you because the congressional districts are gerrymandered all over the country.
It's a very long, complicated reason why they're gerrymandered as badly as they are.
You know, there's a rumor out there that it's largely benefited Republicans, but a lot of non-partisan analysis has shown that that effect is minimal.
It's really not benefiting Republicans that much at all.
Not to the degree Democrats want you to believe it, because we have massive... Remember, redistricting only applies to the House.
For obvious reasons, Joe.
The Senate races are statewide.
You can't redistrict a state.
Like, let's redistrict New York into Texas.
You can't do it.
So it only applies to the House, and the Republicans have significant majorities in the House of Representatives, claiming that congressional districts have been cut up to benefit Republicans.
Now, again, a lot of nonpartisan analysis has shown that that effect is major league, or bigly overstated, as Donald Trump would say, right?
It's overstated, significantly.
It's just a Democratic excuse why they keep getting their butts kicked.
But it was interesting, the Supreme Court yesterday, they ruled that the North Carolina redistricting was done primarily, it benefited Republicans, but it was done at the expense of black voters.
But, now that's the liberals against.
Stop thinking now, because now you're happy.
You're like, yeah, you see, Republicans don't like black voters.
Whatever.
You can turn off the show now.
Now for conservatives, libertarians, and republicans who are interested in intellectual arguments and not liberal stupidity.
You have to read into the details of what happened to understand just how confusing the ruling was.
Clarence Thomas, who's a great conservative, actually ruled with the liberals on this one, which he traditionally does anytime race is entered into equation.
He just doesn't feel that race should be a factor.
If we're going to be a truly colorblind society, then color or skin color shouldn't factor into it, right?
It just seems obvious.
But what was interesting is the Congressional District 12 in North Carolina that was the subject of the Supreme Court case, they had changed the black voter percentage to 50.66 from 43.77, and it was that district that was struck down.
Now, if you're following the show here, you're probably like, Would it come again?
So the district was changed from 43.77% black, Congressional District 12, to 50.66.
So you may say, well, how did that disadvantage black voters?
Exactly, folks.
That's the point.
This is confusing.
I gotta get this out because I ran for Congress and I know how this works because the Republicans are hurt badly by the redistricting that was done in Maryland.
They had four seats in Congress, they're now down to one.
I would have had two if I would have won that one seat that I lost by one point there.
The problem they're saying now is, oh, oh, now, keep in mind, the Voting Rights Act, you cannot dilute the votes of black voters.
In other words, you can't cut off blocks of black voters here, cut off blocks of black voters here, and stick them in different districts, Joe, so you dilute their voting percentage.
The Voting Rights Act.
What you also, they're saying now, can't do, is you can't put a significant portion of black voters into a district because if you don't put those voters, if you put them in one district, then you don't let them vote in other districts where they could influence the election.
If you're scratching your head going, what are you talking about?
So is everybody else!
Because if, on one hand, the Voting Rights Act, Joe, says you can't dilute the black vote.
Okay, so North Carolina increased the black vote from 43 to 50 percent.
But the court ruled, no, no, no, you packed all the black voters in that district so they couldn't vote in other elections.
What?
Everybody's scratching their heads going, what the hell's going on?
Are we supposed to dilute the black vote or concentrate the black vote?
Folks, again, liberals, stop thinking now.
But conservatives, you have to start.
You may say, well, what's the solution?
Here's the solution, folks, because I don't want to leave you with like, hey, what the hell just happened?
Stop considering skin color!
Keep neighborhood lines intact.
And that was the original intention of the House of Representatives to give local neighborhoods and local communities influence in the United States federal government.
For who cares what the percentage of black or Hispanic or green or blue or Indian or Chinese or Asian?
Who cares?
Keep the neighborhoods together and you won't have this problem.
Instead, we focused on using mathematical formulas, and we're all over the place.
Race matters, but if it matters too much, which is what they said in... No, no, you packed them all in one district, black voters.
But if it matters too much, we're gonna strike that down too.
Again, we've become obsessed with identity politics due to the left, and it's really inexcusable what they've done.
