The Dana Show with Dana Loesch - Thursday December 7 - Full Show

Episode Date: December 7, 2023

Dana recaps last night’s GOP debate. Vivek Ramaswamy calls Nikki Haley corrupt. Nikki Haley gets fact-checked over signing a trans bathroom bill. John Kirby makes a threat with American lives if we don’t fund Ukraine. On the 82nd Observance of Pearl Harbor, Dana reflects on America’s bravery and perseverance on the contrast of the War in Ukraine by Russia. How should the RNC handle the remaining debates? Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, joins us to explain Moore v. US, a Supreme Court case on income tax.Please visit our great sponsors:Black Rifle Coffeehttps://blackriflecoffee.com/danaChange the lives of Veterans and their families with the Boot Campaign with every purchase of the Ready-to-Drink Coffee!All Family Pharmacyhttps://allfamilypharma.com/danaSave 10% with code DANA10 when you order today at https://allfamilypharma.com/danaHeadrest Safehttps://theheadrestsafe.comUse code DANA for an exclusive $50 off. Hillsdalehttps://danaforhillsdale.comVisit Hillsdale College for a special Christmas viewing of O Little Town Of Bethlehem. KelTechttps://KelTecWeapons.comSign up for the KelTec Insider and be the first to know the latest KelTec news. Nimi Skincarehttps://nimiskincare.comDon’t compromise. Use promo code DANA for 10% your order.Patriot Mobilehttps://patriotmobile.com/danaGet a free smartphone with code FRIDAY76 when you switch today! Wise Food Storagehttps://preparewithdana.comSave $50 on your 4-Week Survival Food Kit plus free shipping when you order today!

No, that's slippery slope, what rights are going to be taken away next and what are going to be hands on you. You do not have the right to abuse your kids. This is cutting off their genitals. This is mutilating these minors. These are irreversible procedures. And this is something that other countries in Europe, like Sweden, once they started doing it, they saw it did incalculable damage.

They've shut it down. I signed legislation in Florida banning the mutilation of minors because it is wrong. We cannot allow this to happen in this country. And I know Chris disagrees with me, and I think he has an honest position. Nikki disagrees with me. She opposes the bill that we did to ban that. She said the law shouldn't get involved with it. You said the law shouldn't get involved with it.

She also, though, I think, and this flows from what she did as governor of South Carolina, they had a bill to try to say that men shouldn't go into girls' bathrooms. And she killed that bill, and she bragged that she killed that bill. Even to this day she bragged that. I don't think men should be going into little girls' bathrooms. I think it's wrong. And I think we have every right to protect them from that. That was a huge win.

I thought last night, that was a major dig last night in the debate. And it was a very interesting debate, and I'm kind of tired of them at this point. I put a piece out where I said that I think that we finally have the winnowing with everything down to just two people. So welcome to the radio program. You can listen across the country. and you can stream the radio program as well. Make sure you sign it for the newsletter, chapter and verse. Lots of good stuff up there.

I had a little recap of the debate last night that you can go and check out. I want to recap some of it today. We're going to have like the best and worst moments, but I thought the policy stuff was very interesting because there were some very, I think you could really, you could really contrast some of this stuff when you got around Chris Christie's Eeyore type Trump Vendetta, which is really what it was.

He barely, I want to make a quick point. He and Vivek Ramoswamy barely made, barely qualified for the debate. In fact, I think it was Vivek that was struggling to get that polling qualification to even get on stage at the debate. And so that was kind of, that was a major, that was a problem for them. And I, that's why I feel like they're really going to struggle, even, considering making the next one, which whenever that would be, I think we're tired of it at this point. So a quick, just a quick recap, and then I'm going to do a deep dive. I thought that was one of the big, I thought that was a very big point in the debate last night because she had been on, I mean,

she previously was not supportive of it, the whole, any kind of the bathroom bills. I mean, she's on tape and we're going to dive into that. I'm not going to do it just the second, but I'm going to dive into it deeper here coming up. I mean, she's on, and we're, we've got that audio. She's, you know, she's on tape actually slamming it and saying that, you know, she doesn't think that it's something that is, you know, worth pursuing. She's always, she's been on the wrong side of the culture war from the get-go. So that, I think, was a huge moment against her. I also think the criticisms of her, particularly with some of the Chinese acquisitions in her state, that was a big criticism against her as well. And additionally,

she seemed overwhelmed. She seemed, I mean, I get, I mean, and obviously, I am honest with you guys, whereas other people who do commentary on television or not, they pretend that they don't have a preference in the primary, but they're lying to you, they do. They just think that you're too stupid

and they're too far too clever by half for you to figure it out. I just tell you as it is. I mean, you know, primaries, we have primaries for a reason, right? I mean, we had people in my family, And I'm sure in your family who fought and bled to protect our rights. And so I completely celebrate the fact that we have primaries in an election process in this Republican. And I'm not going to stop celebrating the absolute pure unadulterated Americanness of it.

So that being said, she just seemed tired. She seemed a little overwhelmed by the onslaught, which she should have, I think, been a little better prepared for. She just seemed tense and she seemed overwhelmed. But that's also part of her problem that she brought up on herself. because in previous debate, she made a lot of accusations that she couldn't really back up. And, you know, here now you have the truth of the matter. And so that was an issue for her.

I thought Vivekramuswamy, I think what this debate proved, I get it that he has a group of acutane rage fans that like to call women, see you next Tuesdays on social media. Believe me, I've had my fair share of it. I've gone through this before from the establishment and from the left. So people who think that history began the day that they were born, I really really. doesn't affect me one way or the other. I didn't have a problem with him in this primary until he started being incredibly disingenuous. And then that's when, and I've written two pieces that are very in depth with tons of receipts about this, that you can access over at chapter and verse, my substack.

But I think that his contention in the race last night is done. If he was ever a serious contender, he was not after last night. He came off like some kind of clownish Michael Anthony Hall and 16 candles. He has unintentionally mastered the art of making the people that he criticizes seem sympathetic, which is kind of wild. Particularly when he criticizes, he goes after Nikki Haley, and there's justifiable criticisms. But this is where I feel like he's not knowledgeable enough to actually be effective in the execution of this. Because if he was incredibly knowledgeable, not just about the issues, but also about her record, he would be going after her more for foreign policy and in ways that would completely neuter her on the stage.

He stays 30,000 feet from everything. simply writing on a piece of paper that she's corrupt and holding it up for the cameras doesn't do the trick. It doesn't do the trick. Maybe he could wax nostalgic about her nostalgia for failed foreign policy. Maybe he could ask question her about her knowledge of NATO because she seems to think that Russia is going to be on NATO's doorstep. But she said on this radio show, we've had this conversation. I mean, you have you have Latvia, Estonia, and other countries that are literally former Eastern bloc nations that are, NATO members now. And so theoretically, well, actually, geographically, they're on the border of

Russia. They're on their doorstep. So it's just that there's a number of things that he could do, but I don't think that he's ever, he thinks he's too smart to be prepared. And so he always, it's shallow, it's miles wide, inches deep. If he really wanted to cut her, I think that he would do it so much better, which then feeds into this conspiracy theory that I have. It's like he's told to ding her, but not too serious. And it feels like he was mad at her because she's rising and trumps esteem, whereas he's not. And I feel like they're both competing for daddy's attention. That's what it seems like to me.

You want my pure unadulterated take from this? This is it. It just seems, you know, it just seemed weird to me. He kept repeating that, you know, she's corrupt. And he was doing this in front of an audience that should have made for an easy win with a, with a slogan like that. But he never took the opportunity to truly rhetorically bury her with her positions on crony capitalism, crony capitalism.

the Chinese acquisitions, the shared bathrooms, the trans bathroom stuff, he never went after her. He never really went after her. He did like stupid. He, you know, pettiness is not a substitute for wit. It's cheap. It's like shock. And he never went beyond that. And that's what makes me question. Like, is he really in this to, if he really thought she was the threat, then why wouldn't he? There were so many things. I was watching this debate and I'm like, oh, is he going to go here? No, he didn't. Is he going to go there? No, he didn't. Is he going to go here? No, he didn't. So that made me kind of question, even his genuineness in going after her at all. It just seemed either he was, either he knew his limitations on knowledge or he was told to just hit her, but not too hard. There's a, there's a strategy and a psychology there that he feeds into it because he's, he's not the best debater.

He's too manufactured and he is afraid to let loose. and he has these verbal rhetorical tics that he does that buys himself more time. And people who speak regularly can spot it a mile away. So that's, I'm just, I don't get it. I get it that he's got a lot of fans. I think it's fine to like him. As a presidential candidate, oh, redacted, no. I mean, he's, and the other thing with Nikki Haley, this is the thing that stuck out to me.

Why didn't she go after him? He has literal, active Chinese investments right now. He says he stepped down his CEO from Roivant, but he literally takes a check from it. They have business interest with the CCP. How are you, Nikki Haley, and this is documented. This is not something that's made up. This is stuff these guys got to declare. How does she not go after him for this stuff?

How are you up there, and he's attacking you on Chinese acquisitions, and you're not responding with, yeah, but you take a chance? How is that not your first response? I don't think that she's well prepared for this because there were many times where she kept going after, for instance, the fracking thing in Florida, right? People in Florida didn't want fracking in their swamps. You can dislike it as much as you want to,

but unless you live there and you get to vote on this stuff, your opinion really doesn't matter. They voted on it. It doesn't matter who the hell's in the governor's mansion. They had enough energy for it in the Florida legislature that even if he were to veto it, they would have overridden it. So you see it's there, that's just the way it is. This is, and she acted like he drafted the damn anti-fraking bill and pushed it through.

And then she went after him for a thing that actually happened under Rick Scott. This Chinese company got subsidies in the state of Florida. And it was when Rick Scott was governor. And she blamed DeSantis for doing it last night. Now I'm bringing this up because she has no idea what the facts of these candidates are. She doesn't know enough about these candidates, dirty laundry or anything that these candidates have done that's a negative to. actually craft that into a strong, a strong attack on their record. She jumbles it up and then she loses credibility. Whoever's prepping her should be fired. It's one of the worst debate

preps I've ever seen in modern political history. It's a mess. So I'm like, when Vivek Ramoswami is hitting her with this stuff, she's standing there, do-eyed, and doesn't say a damn thing about it. I'm like, how are you not hitting this guy back with this stuff? How would you? is this not your response? How are you not saying, yeah, well, at least I'm not taking checks and I, you know, I'm not, you know, all of this stuff. At least I don't have, uh, you know, the back and forth, uh, with, uh, getting interest, getting money from Roy event and making tons of money with the CCP. At least I'm not doing this. I mean, that's just wild to me that that was not her first response. So I think she continues, but you also have to remember too. We're going to talk about

polling coming up because polling's garbage and now we got to start paying attention to some of it. But there's no, you know RCP doesn't include it. a lot of the local primary polling. So we got to bring some facts of the matter into this. So I've got some worse and worst moments and good moments. Chris Chrissy's done after this. It was just a joke. He's very much like Eeyore.

He's got this, this, this anti-Trump vendetta. I get it. But we're all tired of it. I think that was his only purpose up there was to just complain about Trump. I mean, really, what is it? So we're going to touch on this more. and we're also going to get into some of the latest with what's happening at the border, some of the latest too with Israel, and then these universities,

because one university president issued this really weird groveling apology, and I just don't think it's going to, it doesn't matter. It's too late. We'll talk about that coming up as we move. Our partners for this portion, Nimi's skincare. This is a USA company. They use USA ingredients, and they don't test on animals, and it's paraben-free. This is all stuff.

I mean, maybe you have things that are important. important to you. These are all huge things that are important to me when I'm looking for products. But one of the biggest things that I think that Nimi's skincare does is they understand that women have different skin care needs. A woman in her 20s needs different things than a woman in her 30s. And a woman in her 60s needs things that are different from a woman in her 40s. Nimi's skincare understands this. They don't spend the time virtue signaling and trying to sell women products using men. They don't get into all of that. They don't, in fact, that's why Nimi's skincare was created because they realized there's going to be a real problem for women in women's

skincare products here coming up. So we need to fill this gap. So they have some really great right now. They have a winter bundle and gift cards. This is a great Christmas gift. I use the moisturizer, the moisturizing cleanser. That's the thing that I use that actually is one of my favorite things to use. So I deal with eczema. And I have to be super careful what I use, which is why all of the chemicals and all that stuff is incredibly important to me. So if it's clean on my skin, then if you don't have issues, and you're definitely not going to have issues. It's made right here in the U.S. of A, and all of their products are 100% guaranteed.

They're packed with proven ingredients that repair and revitalize the skin. Now, you can save 10% off using code Dana. And with NEMI skincare, you don't have to compromise your values to have great skin. Visit nemeskinkare.com, NIMI, and use promo code Dana for 10% off. Your skin will thank you. We are getting our pockets picked. As we send billions of your tax dollars to countries like South Africa to stop burning coal, are they cooperating?

No way. What's the climate agenda's next goal? Going after methane. Be prepared to get our pockets picked once again. Check out the watchdog on Wall Street podcast on Apple, Spotify, wherever you get your podcast. And now, all of the news you would probably miss. It's time for Dana's Quick Five. All right, so first up, Gavin Newsom canceled the public Christmas tree lighting amid planned pro-Hamas protests.

The Christmas tree lighting was canceled because they said that they were. going to be some of these these well they were worried about trouble why don't you just threaten the people that are trying to you know cause problems why don't you just tell them don't cause problems and otherwise there's going to be a penalty but that would be a little bit too difficult right george santos is apparently earning six figures from the that those cameo videos you guys remember the video we i mean we just had what was it monday that we had it so john fetterman had hired him to make this video where he was trolling democrats over gold bar bob right and now he's apparently earning six figures.

Now, cameo is this thing where you can hire people. There's a lot of celebrities on it and weird folks. You can hire people to make like these videos. And you can, you know, it's like, how long are they? Like 30 seconds, 15 seconds, I don't even remember. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And you have them make these videos and you can, they're yours after that. You can do whatever you want with them.

He's making six figures. drug shortages are hitting record highs. This is kind of wild because I was not, I mean, this is really crazy. I mean, and I have a story about this coming up later on. A House committee is investigating what Congress can do to the supply chain to make sure that doctors don't have to keep rationing essential drugs. The cancer treatments, the cancer drugs, there's even a shortfall. Health experts agree that the shortages of hundreds of generic drugs need urgent attention,

but they said they're still trying to build consensus on how to handle that what best remedy to deal with that. Psychologists say they can't meet the growing demand for mental health care. Yeah. And you know what? It's made worse by the matrix of social media. He said psychologists are well and also because people, they think there's a one size, one solution fits all with it. Annual survey by the American Psychological Association released this week says that they were gauging the impact of the coronavirus, which made it all infinitely worse. They're seeing patients still struggle with symptoms.

A lot of people knew longer treatment times due to the mental impact that the lockdown had on them. And it's all ages. It's not just youth either. It's like all ages, especially they were saying older Americans that were used to going into the workplace. And then they all had to be stuck at home. And they're like in their 50s. And they all had to be stuck at home. And it was really bad for them.

That doesn't get a lot of attention. Let's see. This is fun stuff from China. Giant eight inch poisonous spiders are set to invade the. United States. Black and yellow spiders. They've been parachuting through the air on the East Coast. They're going to hit New York and New Jersey. They're the eight-inch Joro. Joroo spiders. It's a zoroos spider. Oh, gosh. I don't even like saying the name. Their toxin is as toxic as a bee sting, the venom. And they said they only post the threat if the victim is allergic. What if you're just

allergic to them being here. They said they can fly 50 to 100 miles at a stretch. They use their webbing as a parasail to glide in the wind. And they're hitching rides up the East Coast highways, but they said that they're not a threat to humans or pests. The jury's out on that.

The jury's out. And they said that they're going to be in Jersey, New York. They're huge. Eight inches. That is about eight inches too big for any spider. I don't even like the looks of them. They are terrifying. They go after other spiders. They're going kill all the local spiders that we hate.

So we got a lot more on the way. Coming up, some of the best and worst moments, foreign policy contrast, stick with us. Looking for a proactive solution in a battle against COVID-19? Well, Ivermectin is now available at all-family pharmacy based in Boca Briton, Florida. With a growing interest in its potential benefits,

Ivermectin has emerged at the forefront for its antiviral properties. Supported by robust research and real-world experiences, it has gained new attention as a possible ally in managing the impact of the virus. For reliable information and access to quality products like Ivermectin, visit AllFamilyFarma.com slash Dana and save 10% with promo code Dana 10.

Your health matters, so stay informed. Visit allfamilyfarmac.com slash Dana. Navigate these challenging times with informed choices and proactive steps. All family pharmacy is U.S.-based and safe. Embrace the possibilities with Ivermectin. Save 10% with code Dana-10 when you place your oral. order now at allfamilyfarma.com slash Dana. That's allfamilyfarma.com slash Dana co-Dana 10. That's Dana and the number 10.

Looking for the drive-through version of the Dana show? Check out the best highlights from every show and Dana's absurd truth podcast posted daily from the Dana show. She said, I want your name. She absolutely said it. Her first day in office, she said one of the first things I'm going to do. I said we were going to get the millions of bodice. Government ID to docks every American. That's what she said. You can roll the tape.

She said, I want your name. And that was going to be one of the first things she did in office. Then she got real serious blowback. And understandably so, because it'd be a massive expansion of government. We have anonymous speech. The Federalist papers were written with anonymous writers. Jay, Madison and Hamilton, they went under Pubulus. It's something that's important.

And especially given how conservatives have been attacked and they've lost jobs and they've been canceled. you know the regime would use that to weaponize that against our own people. It was a bad idea. And she should come up to it. I mean, he's not wrong on that. She is on camera

literally saying this. So she's not, he's not wrong. I mean, there's video of her saying, like speaking against the bathroom bill. I mean, she, it did the, The flashback video, I think we have this, the flashback video where she's had like even, she was, she was against this.

I'll just somebody three. Well, no, this is the immigration one. There's another one. Oh, Juan has it. Yeah, Juan, go, hit this for us. Please take us back. So do you think Senator Bright's bill is unnecessary then? I don't believe it's necessary because I think if you look at everything that we've had

happened, there's not one instance that I'm aware of. I look at South Carolina and we are, like I said, a state where we don't have to mandate respect and and I think that that's something that we have seen play out and with that bill in 1999 we're not hearing any issues of religious liberty violations or anything else and so I think we're in good standing. So when you say there's, you don't know of any instance,

you're talking about religious liberty or you're talking about a transgender bathroom? Either. Either. I mean, you know, these are not instances that y'all haven't reported on anything. I haven't heard anything that's come to my office. So when I look at South Carolina, you know, when we get look at our situations. We're not hearing of anybody's religious liberties that are being violated,

and we're again not hearing any citizens that feel like they are being violated in terms of freedoms. And so I think, you know, like it or not, South Carolina is doing really well when it comes to respect and when it comes to kindness. She didn't think it was a big deal. Why did they need the bill if it wasn't a big deal? I mean, if it wasn't a big deal, then why, why was it even? I mean, because, I mean, clearly there was an issue. There was an issue. Welcome back to the program, Dana Lash here with you, bottom of this first hour. I mean, I, you know, I was looking back at some of this because she, she was never hardcore against it, but she, I mean, it didn't, it didn't pass.

She was against, she, I mean, she sounds like she was against it. It didn't pass. It was very, it would have prevented men who wanted to cosplay as women from using the bathroom of their choice. That didn't have, it didn't get to the Senate in South Carolina. And so, why, why, I mean, she was on camera. Why in the world, you're your former governor, when you go on a debate stage in a very hotly contested primary and you are, you're going to deny that. I mean, it's just very

simple. If it's something that you've changed your mind on, say that you've changed your mind on it, but don't, don't, don't sit here and, and say that it's not a position that you've had. I mean, it's true. I think there was, there was a, this is, let's see here, audio soundbite, this was a cutting comeback because it popped up again later on in the debate. This was, I think, really one of the moments kind of ended that. Listen. And this shows how hypocritical Ron continues to be. When he was running for governor and they asked him about that, he said he didn't think

bathroom bills were a good use of his time. You can go look that up. I signed a bathroom bill in Florida, so that's obviously not true. So. The idea that you would say that I was against that. You didn't. You killed it. I signed it.

I stood up for little girls. You didn't do it. And there was this going on. I was actually just in South Carolina. You killed it. I signed it. Some of the legislators told me at the time. That was great.

That was a great moment that he had in that debate. And that was bad for her. Look, one of the reasons I'm highlighting this stuff is because it's further evidence of folding instead of fighting. If it's a culture war or whatever you want to call it, it can, you can, you can, you can, dislike the idea of a culture war, but you have to recognize that all policy extends from it. That's how it's always been. All policy extends from it. So you can dislike the fact that it's a culture war or whatever. All policy comes back from that. It all begins there. That was a really

strong point that he had, a really strong moment that he had last night. And I think it contrasts two different kind of factions within the Republican side, within the right. You have the side that thinks that, you know, these battles aren't battles worth having. These battles, oh, there are a distraction or they're silly or, well, you don't see the need. And it gets into the video that we played yesterday. It was a shortcut. I felt it should have been longer. And it wasn't our guy's fault or anything. It was just, that's how it was put out there on the internet. But she had said that in this, that she didn't, when it came to medically unnecessary medical mutilation, you could say in the name of the gender cult. She thought that that was something that the law should

stay out of, which is assinine to me, because you wouldn't aid. That's like saying, well, you know, the parents abusive. That's something the law should stay out of. Oh, the child's bulimic and they're, they're killing themselves with their body dysmorphia. That's something, and the parents are aiding it. That's something that, you know, the law should stay out of. You don't aid negligent, abusive parenting. That's actually against the law. And so it comes down to whether or not, you believe that aiding and and facilitating this abuse in body dysmorphia with medically unnecessary surgeries, et cetera, you either believe that that is an act of criminality or you don't. And apparently she doesn't. And she doesn't realize the extent to which this is happening

to minors. That's a major issue, major problem. And so I thought that was that issue and that that back and forth, there were, there, those two instances of back and force, I thought, were the biggest hits against her. And I think those were the weakest spots in her campaign, for sure. For sure. They are the weakest spots in her campaign. It, it was, that, that right there perfectly contrasts the two factions in the Republican side on this. All right, there was a lot more, too. As I wrote about this last night, Chris Christie, I thought, there was, I think his only moment, his best moment, came unintentionally. There was this time. I was trying to remember exactly what Vivek Ramoswami was saying to her. It was a goofy personal attack. And I always just think

people, you act like it's a flex. Some people think it's a flex to make a petty personal attack on someone, but it's just a red flag of defeat, or white flag of surrender is really what it is. It's a defeatist move. You have nothing else to which to go to avail yourself. So you, people go to these petty personal attacks. And I think that one thing that's being overlooked by a lot of the folks that cheer that style on is that it's loathed by independence. I mean, there are numerous surveys on this. And it's across the board. It is loathed by independence. And I'll say it again, all of this is determined in the margins, right? So I understand the point that Ramoswami was making when it comes to

sending sons and daughters to fight. Although he contradicted himself. He, wait, does he support now? Sending eight, does he support aiding you Taiwan or not? Because at first he was like, yeah, like give him to China. Go ahead. And then he took it back. And then he got mad at the people who pointed out that he had said it in an interview on tape of his own mouth. Yes, you know, we're just go ahead and let China have Taiwan. And then he's like, no, we'll send

troops in. So I don't know. He's just as bad as the rest of them. He just wants to, he was just send troops to Taiwan. It was a weird back and forth. Anyway, there was one moment where he had this personal attack on Haley and Chris Christie. It was a quick second. And it was the time when the camera panned out. And it was, if you, if you were on the stage looking at the audience, the camera shot was from the left side of the stage. And you could see Nikki Haley kind of gesture to Chris Christie, not her head. And you can kind of see or say thanks and and he just nodded his head in acknowledgement. Not because they were friends. I think he was just, he was like the old grandpa on stage, right? He was like the grandpa on stage.

He was just sort of tired of it. And he just, and that wasn't the first time that Ramoswamy had done that as well. He also had this. Audio sound by nine. This was, and then apparently Christie got mad over this and said something to the debate moderators. Listen. We learned three things right there. First of all, Chris Christie also doesn't know what provinces in eastern Ukraine. He actually want us to fight for. Chris, your version of foreign policy experience was closing a bridge from

New Jersey to New York. So do everybody a favor. Just walk yourself off that stage. Enjoy a nice meal. And get the hell out of this. So that's a fat joke? I mean, it's okay, Kane, if we make fat jokes. But I don't want my pot. I don't think that's a flex

for a candidate on stage. That's low-tee energy, dude. I don't like that. That's not clever. It's not you just you look like a dumbass when you do it it just looks weak i can't stand that whenever i see people doing that stuff and they're politicians like we can do it because that's what we do right like we're not i do not pretend to be a statesman okay i give you insight and then i'll give you some opinions they're two different things but i don't like it when i see my my candidates do this because you're supposed to be more put together than all of us right that's why you're on the stage right you're supposed to have the

facts at hand and you're supposed to be way better than all of us at this stuff. Isn't that why you're running? I mean, I'm not going to vote for somebody who's worse than me on stuff, right? That's what that signals to me. When I see someone that thinks that pettiness is a substitute for wit, I just think that's, why would I vote for somebody as good or worse than me? And then it makes me not like that person. That's not my fault. That's that person. That's a candidate's fault for telegraphing that. I just think that he seems like again Michael Anthony Hoff from 16 candles I think that that is the extent of his reach when it comes to rhetorical skill he's not a great debater and it sounded like that was a manufactured response as well people I had some of his fans getting

mad at me all day I don't even care I have been hated by the establishment I've been hated by new people who act like outsiders but they're really more establishment than the establishment. I have been through that. I've been doing this since I was in my early 20s. So I get it. I've been in the streets. I've canvassed. I've done all that stuff. I have seen it all. I have been around it all. I have heard it all. This ain't new. It ain't no. So I just, now I'm not saying I don't I probably wouldn't dislike him personally. I mean, he's been on the show several times and we got along fine. As a as a presidential candidate, no. there's just certain people

you can like them but they may not be the best for the role right they may not be the best for the position it's like you got to look at it like a sports team you may like player X but they're not as good as player Y at this position right maybe they're not a starter but you know maybe they'll come and clutch when it comes in

I mean everybody's got a different role to play and it's fine to acknowledge that not everybody can be president of the United States and not everybody should be but that was just some of the stuff I just, I feel like this debate was the debate where we're going to find out the biggest policy differences between some of these candidates. And then also we're just going to air all the petty grievances that they all have with each other. And that's kind of it.

I will say that this debate was the first time that Haley named Trump and criticized him from the debate stage. That has never happened. I've watched every single one of these debates twice. That's never happened before. So that was very interesting. Thought that was just very interesting indeed. So we have more of these highlights. I also want to get into some of this other stuff too.

The University of Las Vegas UNLV yesterday, a 67-year-old college professor whose job application to the university had just recently been turned down. He was trying to work at a job there on campus. Now, police are investigating as to whether or not that was a motive. They haven't released a motive yet, but this guy went on campus yesterday afternoon. Open fire.

He was killed in a shootout with police. And you have the same usual suspects that are going out and saying, well, you know, if we didn't have the firearms that we do and weak laws, et cetera, et cetera, UNLV is a gun-free campus. our friend Larry who lives in Vegas was one of the first people to make mention of this to us and I actually went

and I was looking at the website after he brought this up I went and I was looking at their restrictions for campus and it's true they I mean you can't have blade you can't even have blades you can't have knives or anything like that there

it is a weapons free including guns including fire projectiles free zone so I'm just curious what what law because murder is also illegal what law would these gun groups propose that would make a gun-free zone more gun-free.

Curious. You know, criminals don't pay attention to laws. So maybe they have a law that makes the criminals follow the laws. I don't know. Our partners over at the head rest safe. This makes a great Christmas gift idea, the head-rest safe. In fact, this is, it's designed as a gun safe. It's an invisible, secure storage solution for items like jewelry and medication and cash and other valuables.

But you can get to your stuff in two and a half seconds. There's a magnetic access door, a user-friendly, biometric fingerprint reader. They have an adjustable post system that ensures a perfect fit in any car truck. I mean, it's easy to install and lock securely in place with a deployable toggle bolt. It's one of the most innovative products to hit the market. I think it's the most innovative vehicle safe that's out there because everything else is incredibly obvious. You might as well just slap a big sticker that says this is a vehicle safe on it. But this, though, it's the headrest. If it's passenger side headrest, so there's no interference of driver performance or safety.

and you can if you don't need it for your firearm you can still use it for your valuables your cash your medicine everybody goes on road trips everyone needs a storage solution like that when they're out on the road if they're going to the game whatever and this the headrest safe it's undetectable it fits that bill and also the interior if you're worried about the material matching the rest of your vehicle it is seamless because they can match up to i think it's over 85% of the materials used for for car interiors they can match it so you need to to check it out and see it for yourself. Great Christmas gift idea, by the way. Get one for you and then one is a gift. The headrestsafe.com use code Dana. Get an exclusive $50 off. That is the headrestsafe.com code Dana for 50 bucks off 100% money back guarantee. Don't let FOMO get the best of you. Stay in the loop and ahead of the curve by following Dana on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of the United States. United States. I want to speak, though, to a larger concern that I have with the bill.

And I first want to speak personally because there's nobody on this committee who has been a bigger victim of the weaponization of the intelligence community than me. He's the biggest victim. that's Eric Swallow Swal wall Swallow will You know

It's a verbal fart It's okay But he's saying That nobody has been A bigger victim Of the intel community Being weaponized than him In what way

Like was he beaten by Thing Thing? Like I don't get it In what way They literally I mean they didn't even punish him But they brought to light His own ethics

The dude had romantical times with a Chinese spy like romantical times rated X he's the victim the Chinese spy he's a victim and he's the victim because people pointed it out and we're like isn't she a Chinese spy and he and his response is I'm a victim that's yeah I'm being victimized I was murdered this guy he and nobody asked him by the way he just volunteered that information he's sitting there on the, with all the other lawmakers,

and he just volunteers that all by himself. It's like, well, by the way, guys, nobody's been more victimized than me. Eric, swell wall. Swal. Swal. Whatever. We were actually, we, we had a problem,

whether or not we wanted to play him or Hakeem Jeffries. Their son bites for days of these United States. We're going to have to share Jeffries with you coming up on our second hour. It's really bad. We got a whole bunch of stuff on the way. Stick with us.

People who help bring you free radio are friends over at Wise Foods. Wise foods wants to make sure that you're prepared. That's the thing. Be prepared for whatever life throws your way. Like if an emergency were to strike, the last thing that you want on your mind is where is your next meal coming from. But this is where Wise Food Storage comes in. So you can save $50 on your four-week survival food kit. You get free shipping. It's all at prepare with Dana.com. It's a two-bucket four-week survival food kit. This is 2,200 calories, plus 64 grams of protein per day. 28 days supply. All food is made with

high quality U.S. ingredients, freeze dry, dehydrated, super easy to prepare you. Just add water. 25-year shelf life as well. So always be prepared because it's a smart thing to do. And especially, you don't, you never know, you'd rather have it, not need it, then need it and not have it. And this will keep, this will keep 25-year shelf life. Order yours today at preparewitana.com. Save $50 on your four-week survival food kit, plus free shipping. Visit prepare with Dana.com. He didn't respond to the criticism. It wasn't about the parents' rights and education bill. It was about prohibiting sex change operations on minors.

They do puberty blockers. These are irreversible. Talk to Chloe Cole. She went through this. Now she's an adult. She's warning against it. She may never be able to have kids again. That is what Nikki Haley opposed.

She said the law shouldn't get involved in that. And I just ask you, if you're somebody that's going to be the president of the United States and you can't stand up against child abuse. abuse, how are you going to be able to stand up for anything? That is the truth. I never said that. We have it on video. We played that video literally last hour.

You did say that, though. That's the truth of it. Welcome back to the program. Dana Lash here with you. Top of the second hour. You can listen coast to coast to the radio program. You can also stream the radio show. And you can watch the simulcast YouTube, uh, Facebook channel 347 direct TV.

YouTube hates us. You know, Desantis made people mad because he, uh, said man dresses at the debate. They, and it was a quick, like a side. And he was, they were talking about, um, uh, it was like foreign policy, Middle East, etc. And he was asked about troops, the southern border. And I don't, it was weird where the responses take the conversation.

But he was talking about how, you know, Al Qaeda wasn't wearing a uniform. and he says, you know, you see anybody walking down the street, they all had man dresses on, and you don't know if somebody has a bomb, et cetera. And people got mad at him because he said, man dress. Now, the first time I literally ever heard that phrase was a friend of mine who is a veteran, Green Beret. And he said that. He was relayed.

Actually, it was at Chachot. I think it was, he since he's, it was a friend of ours who we were, I think we were all there. We were at having dinner at Chacho. and he was relaying a joke that he and another soldier had played on a friend and that phrase was just, you know, they said it casually. And I honestly had no idea what they were talking about at first. I'm like, what? What?

Man dress. It's a man dress. And then I realized, oh, it's the robe thing that, okay, I get it. That is such a common phrase. I've only heard veterans say it, though. I've never heard anybody who didn't serve say it. Like people who've actually been over there in the heat and the sand. Those are the people that I've heard.

I've heard it a ton of times since then from a multitude of different pets. So I didn't bat an eye when I heard him say it yesterday. I mean, because he started. He was over in Middle East. So it didn't, you know. But people, there were people who think, again, the people who think politics began the day they were born. They were all offended, Kane. They was all offended.

I mean, how day are you sighted? that about that atah. How dare you. I'm going to need my smelling salts. It was wild. It was wild to see some of these people try to get all upset over something like this. Mike, is you serious? Like, stop. I mean, I've actually heard Arabic, like veterans of Arabic descent say this phrase. I literally have. Stop. Just stop. Just sit down. Stop trying to make something out of everything. It's so stupid. It's so dumb. Just don't do it. Did you watch a debate last night came? I did. Yeah, I did.

I think it started off kind of rough before that first commercial break. It just seemed like everyone was like throwing haymaker type stuff. And it was just like swinging to see what connects, that sort of thing. And then after that first commercial break came back out and it seemed like it started getting a little more substantive. They started, you know, going with a little more accurate jabs. Things started, you know, rolling a little bit better after that. And then I just lost interest. I don't know, about 20, 30 minutes into it after that.

Yeah. I was trying to think, I feel like I maybe halfway through the debate was pretty much settled after that. And I just don't know if there was anything else that we could have learned from it, from any of the people on state. Did you learn? I did actually learn, not learn. I got more insight into some of the candidates' personalities, I think, from on state. one of the things that I like to see the best is who gets worked up over when there's a pile on. I'm a little bit of an expert in that and having a lot of people come at you all at once in a giant auditorium.

I feel like if you love Nikki Haley or hate her, this is irrelevant. I feel like she didn't take it well. The UN is a very different place from the debate stage. and that you're expected you are by way of being the United States you're the good guy going into this cabal of thuggery you're the good guy so you already have that working in your favor in a primary debate it's everybody for themselves and you don't immediately come in with that understanding of being the victor and i feel like without that uh without that aid did not perform well, if that makes sense psychologically. I think it worked against her. But I do think that Vivek Ramoswamy is just totally out of his depth on tons of foreign policy

stuff. I do even think to an extent monetary things as well because he's, you got some fuzzy math in there with some of his successes. People can like him. I also don't like these dudes who are these big pharma guys because he's a big farmer bro. Like you can love him all you want to, but let's not insult everybody's intelligence and act like the dude isn't a big pharma bro dude is big pharma six ways to sunday dude created a vaccine database and tried to sell it so if being if supporting a vaccine database that tracked everybody that got the clot shot if supporting that is the new measure of whether or not someone is conservative then now word has lost all meaning and there's never been really a reckoning for that. There's just, we're going to dodge it

and not address it. But dude's a big farmer bro. Like, you can say whatever you want. He's a big farmer, bro. Everybody's got something up there. People get mad at DeSantis. They say his boots are weird. He wears heels. Okay, what's worse? Heels are spray tans. I don't know.

But that's a big issue. The database. That didn't come up at all in the debate last night. That's another thing. Like, where was Haley with that? Dude, I would have been raining down every sentence. would have said to that dude would have been prefaced with something like that. I just feel like a lot of people, I feel like that was a major opportunity.

Not one of the people on stage brought that up. Not even DeSantis. They didn't bring that up. I'm like, why are, that's, that should be brought up every single time. That is not a one time address. That is every single time that has to be brought up. I don't know. Maybe people, maybe there are some people out there who aren't mad anymore over the lockdowns

and the vaccine mandates and all the government tracking. I'm still pretty ticked off about it. That's why I hate the vaccine database. And I don't like being told that what I know is real is not real. So I still, my jimmies get rustled on that subject. For the lack of a better way to put it. That's why it's such a big issue with me. And why I feel like they should have been hitting him with that, you know, every which way.

And they didn't. And Nikki Haley didn't, which is why I've, as much as you think that Ramoswami and Haley win at each other, they really didn't. They kept it up top. they didn't actually get deep with their criticisms saying someone's corrupt want want tell people how they're corrupt show them don't just tell them show them so very interesting stuff very interesting stuff now i have some other audio too we're going to get into that i want to switch gears here real quick can we play audio sound bite one because this sounds like a threat

from john kirby in the bide administration listen to this and so we can't support ukraine Their chief advisor yesterday said they're likely to lose this war if they lose U.S. support. And Putin gets all of Ukraine then one. Then where's he go? Because right then, he's up against the eastern flank of NATO. And if you think the cost of supporting Ukraine is high now, just imagine how much higher it's going to be, not just in national treasure, but in American blood, if he starts going after one of our NATO allies, because as the president also said, we take our Article 5 commitments very seriously.

That sounds like a threat to me. I mean, either you do what we want you to do now or we're going to send your loved ones over to die. That sounds like a threat. It's just an odd soundbite from John Kirby. I tweeted about this yesterday before the debate got going. That, first off, the, begging the question there that something is going to go sideways and less. we are involved with boots on the ground, unless we're involved, unless we give them money. You're assuming that they're even using the money, A, wisely, B, that it's required, or see that this is even anything in which that we should be involved in at all.

It's not. But that sounded like a threat. If you think the cost is high now, imagine how much higher it's going to be in American blood. So what are you saying that if we don't, that that argument presupposes that Russia is just going to gobble up Ukraine and then keep expanding. They don't even, they don't have the manpower or the finances to do that. And apparently the upper crust doesn't have the will. And as powerful as you want to think that Vladimir Putin is, I mean, he still has to deal with palace intrigue. And he still has to deal with some of these other folks that can call shots in their own ways. So it's not a be, it's not a end all be all with one person.

I just, to me, that seems like a very antiquated idea. or perception of what's happening there. Antiquated is in, you know, 80s antiquated. 70s, 80s antiquated. It just, it doesn't, that doesn't seem to be an accurate representation of what's happening there. I mean, it's, it just still seems like a big money laundering up. How does it not, right? It's a money laundering up. But that was a threat. Make no mistake. That was a threat. We're going to talk more about this. We've got headlines coming up. This is the coffee that I drink every day because it's the best coffee that you can get. It's boozy coffee without the bougie price and by boozy I mean that they're nerds about how they roast their beans.

This is like the only coffee company of its type where they actually bring the beans to the United States and roast them all throughout the week at their two locations. Everybody else out there white labels. What does that mean? It means that they have other people in foreign countries roast the beans and then they bring it into the U.S. and white label it and try to act like it's a big thing to sell. But that's not what Black Rifle Coffee Company does. These guys are legit coffee nerds. This is a veteran-on company. They employ

veterans. They employ active duty and all their families. And they are super focused on making the best coffee in the nation. And it truly is. They're also continuing to raise money for the boot campaign, one of the most renowned veteran focus, non-profits in the country. They have all these programs that treat the invisible

wounds of war. A lot of stuff that our vets deal with today. That's what the boot campaign treats. they're raising money for it through their ready to drink coffee over a black rifle coffee so you buy a get a 12 pack of that through the coffee club and that money goes right to the boot campaign and the coffee club by the way this is a great Christmas gift if you're looking for something for the person who has everything the coffee club is where it's at because you can get you know a year subscription you can choose the roast and you can change them too online however you want to do it in your account you can

choose your roast frequency of shipment that coffee sent to your house you never run out of coffee the best coffee, free shipping, and it's affordable. So make sure you visit Black Rifle Coffee. Black RifleCoffey.com slash Dana, feel your caffeine fix, and help make a difference in the lives of vets and their families. That's black rifle coffee.com slash Dana. And now, all of the news you would probably miss.

It's time for Dana's Quick Five. I love this story because they use a photo of Jay Leno and this old car and this antique. I don't know what kind of car this is. The headline is, it's true, owning a flat. flashy car makes you more attractive. And they said that it makes them more sexually appealing. And they said that it's a, people use it as a status symbol, et cetera.

They said that they looked at 500 people in Brazil and asked them how they received a person if they had a regular car versus someone who drove like, you know, maybe a Ferrari or something like that. They said that it makes you look like you're more appealing than it is. it was the perception. That's interesting because, you know, I like Jay Leno, but I'm looking at him and his fancy cars and I'm like, yeah, no, I don't think so. That's not really, it doesn't really, I don't know if it works like that in every instance. I mean, I think that there's, there's a little context that's required there. McDonald's is going to launch an alien-inspired restaurant that

serves slushes to go. It's called Cosmix. Yeah. Cosmix, C-O-S-M-C-A-posterphy-S. Cosmix. This is going to be annoying with influencers, isn't it? They say that it's beverage focused and that they have multiple

drive-thrus and they're going to try to compete with Starbucks and other takeaway drink chains. That's the whole thing. Cosmix. Can you get fries there though? I mean,

that's... One singular golden arch. One golden arch. Yeah, one golden arch. Multiple drive-through lanes. It's the first new concept that they've had with it in that McDonald's

franchise in like 60 years. And so they said that that's what they're... I mean, okay. That's, you know, that's all right. A, uh, this is the wrong time to do this. A Michigan woman is caught stealing

from Walmart during a literal shop with a cop event. 75 police officers from all these different agencies were attending a holiday family event at Walmart. And this chick got arrested. She was caught shoplifting during the shop with a cop event.

I love this. I love this person's quote. The Lieutenant Police, Michigan State Police Lieutenant Renee Gonzalez. She says, quote, I got to say it surprised me because, you know, when I'm driving a patrol car, people slow down. When you see 75 cops in the store, I mean, I don't know if maybe they thought we were busy. So that's, they ended up, they didn't say a lot about the suspect. She was a woman. She bonded out.

She's going to be charged with retail fraud. Her identity has not yet been released. That's just one of the dumbest. I mean, good heaven. Good heavens. A dine and dash guy ran up a $452 bill with three meals and 26 pints. This isn't Britain and he didn't pay. He ran away.

There was a hotel bill before paying the bill. And they said that the con man is under investigation. $452, three nights in a hotel. That seems like, that's like a, like what did he eat? I'm just curious. 26 pints of beer. Well, yeah, that's some cheap beer, but $452 with three meals. An Alabama woman stabs her husband to death a year after she stabbed him before.

Why is he still with her? This Ashley Ratt was arrested Monday in Mississippi. And they said that this is Clarksdale, Mississippi. She was extradited back to Bama. Bonn has not yet been set for this woman because she crazy. No, they said she killed. The guy was killed. He had chest wound.

She apparently, she stabbed him with a six. steak knife on December 1st of last year, and he reportedly suffered non-life-threatening injuries. I mean, literally almost a year to the day. She does the same thing. Maybe the first time should have woken you up. Stick with us. We get a lot more in store. Whenever someone's wrong on the internet, rest assured that I'm telling them they're wrong

using Patriot mobile. And I get great satisfaction out of the fact that not only am I telling somebody that they're wrong on the internet, but I'm using a phone service that actually doesn't donate. our, my, your, all of our collective dollars to promote and protect the things that we vote against. They don't fight against us at the ballot box, which I appreciate. So there's this immense satisfaction in saving money, an immense satisfaction in a great service so I can tell people that they're wrong and tell people who need to be told no matter where in the world I am.

And then also the great satisfaction of knowing that I'm actually putting financial momentum behind the things that I vote to protect. They also have a 100% U.S.-based customer service team. I also am satisfied that I am helping to create and maintain U.S.-based jobs. Now, they have some great deals that are happening right now. First off, you can keep your phone, keep your number, you can upgrade the choices yours. They have the Black Friday promotion.

You get a free smartphone using code Friday 76. Now, this is limited time only. I don't even know if it's going to last through the week. I'm just telling you act now, if that's something that you want to do, just visit, make sure you hit Patreon. mobile.com slash Dana. And don't forget, Friday 76 is the code that you got to use to get that free smartphone. So Patriot.com.com slash Dana or call 972 Patriot. Again, that's code Friday 76 for the free smartphone. Make the switch today. Elevate your commute, workouts, or downtime with the Dana Show podcast.

Unleash the power of knowledge at your fingertips by following Dana on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Well, we've committed as a NATO member, that we defend every inch of NATO territory. Then we'll have something that we don't seek and that we don't have today. American troops fighting Russian troops. American troops fighting Russian troops if he moves into other parts of NATO. But that's not going to happen. And I feel like that's warmonger talk.

It's not, that's not what the purpose is. Welcome back to the program. Dana Lash here with you, bottom of the second hour. That was Joe Biden just yesterday. That was after we were off air. and he's talking about what he thinks. There's some, I guess, he's got this antiquated, imperialistic Russia perception.

And it's maybe back in the 70s and 80s, this was true, but it's not anymore today simply because a number of other factors that are incredibly important that construct this are different. Welcome back to the program, like I said. Dano Lash, listen to coast, stream it, Channel 347 DirecTV. I've heard this from some Republican candidates too. And it's incorrect. Russia's broke. They are broke. Now, yes, they're making money with oil and dirty gas. But by and large, they do not have the manpower, nor do they have the financial resources to carry out what was, I guess, Putin's vision 20 years ago.

I was thinking about this this morning, the contrast between what more neocon. And I do think, I know, I realize, look, as someone who hates the use of that word, I get it. It's tiring. The only thing, dumber than that term is the term uniparty. But there is a strain on the right that likes to go to war. Lindsay Graham, excuse me, allergies. Thank you. Lindsay Graham.

Sorry. Just. there is a strain on the right of some lawmakers who do love bombing all the things. And their first response, if there looks like there might be a hint of a conflict somewhere, let's send in the troops, let's do it. Woo! I get it. So I do think that that term is appropriate when used correctly in the correct context. Now that being said, I mean, sidebar, I literally just watch this guy give an interview the other day and that was like the first word out of his mouth was military. I'm like, oh my gosh. All right, back to my point. I was thinking about this

this morning because what's today the observance of Pearl Harbor 82 years ago today? You had 2,403 people that lost their lives in Pearl Harbor. Now, a little backstory so you can understand I am obsessed with World War II history. specifically Pacific region. And the reason why is because, well, we had family that were on both sides of the world. While we had a grandpa that was in the Pacific fighting the Japanese,

we had a grandpa who was on the beaches in Normandy. It's wild when you look at everybody's American history. There's not a family that's untouched. And to be in two different theaters at the same, I mean, it's just amazing to think of it. The Pacific, And the attack on Pearl Harbor was stunning. And there's a lot of, I don't want to get into a lot of, I've read a lot of books about the lead up to it and FDR.

I know, but I'm not talking about that today. The United States was anticipating what, something was happening. They were, they were preparing. There are so many things that you can use Pearl Harbor for as a basis to, whether it's, monetary, whether it's trade, whether it's, you know, all of this, that Pearl Harbor is a good filter through which to view these events. But the United States was anticipating that there were moves. They saw what Imperial Japan was doing. Imperial Japan did absolutely have the desire to expand. And they were running a little bit short on the means. They needed more resources in order to

continue to propel their empire and the expansionism. It's one of the reasons why they were going and essentially raiding all of these other nations of their resources. They were eyeing the Coral Sea. There were a lot of, they wanted to expand and they needed the resources to do so. And they also saw the United States was preparing for their increased aggression as their expansion grew. And that's, we saw this build up in Oahu. And they thought they were going to to take out the fleet. And I think it shows also the limitation of what imperialist Japan, what they knew at the time. They didn't actually go and target a manufacturing facility for certain armaments that was apparently like a couple of miles away. They targeted the harbor and they didn't get everything. They also didn't

anticipate the fury of the United States and our ability to be self-sustaining. If the United States had not been as self-sufficient as we were back during the time of World War II, I don't know that we could have won. We were sending stuff to Britain and we were dealing with the front in the Pacific. I mean, we were torn in two different directions, multiple fronts. And we were churning stuff out like crazy. Everybody was in the factory. My great grandmother was literally a riveter. She worked in one of the factories in they she had to move up from rural Ozarks and she took my grandmother with her so that her husband didn't have all the kids. They were trying to separate, you know, each have the equal amount of kids because they both, you know, her husband had been injured previously in the war. So he didn't go into

this one. So he was dealing with the farm and dealing with the kids. And she went up and she was a, she worked in factories and literally was, was putting machine parts together. And there, there's pictures of her. We have old pictures of her with her. her hair up in a kerchief. I mean, she was one of those iconic women of that era. And everybody, everybody did their part. Everybody did their part. We were so incredibly self-sufficient. And that was, the Japanese were stunned when in just a matter of months, we had rehabilitated some of the damaged ships and had them back out. They, they were shocked when we met them at Coral Sea. They were shocked by Midway.

But Japan absolutely had not only the ability, they had the will to expand. I think this is an important contrast to the sound bite that I just played for you. I don't believe Russia has the will. I think that in some people's heads, they believe so. I kind of question why there isn't as much attention paid to China. who has the will. They have the manpower. And they're almost capable

financially for the means. Because it seems as though focusing so much on Russia takes all of the attention away from China. I had this conversation with my husband the other day. We were watching a... I can't remember which show we were watching. It always seems like, oh, it's the Russians

are the bad guys always. Yeah, they're the bad guys here. But can we also talk about the CCP? And we don't even have any. From what I understand when we last talked to Stephen Yates, who we're in Radio Free Asia. I mean, the guy's, the guy knows some stuff. His demeanor suggests otherwise. That just means he's that good at his job. It's kind of scary when you think about it.

But they, we don't have, we don't, the reason we don't get a lot of info out of China is because they killed our spies. They killed them. I mean, that they're pretty, there's, there's a serious danger there. There's a serious hostility. We're kind of in early stages of like a Cold War, World War III. But everybody keeps focusing on Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. If Russia takes a disputed territory after they already annexed Crimea, if they take the Dombus region, and there's a history there that a lot of people don't understand and it's

not as clear cut as some people would like for you to think it is, how does that put us towards World War III? How does that necessitate troops going in? Why in the hell would we send our loved ones over there to go fight with Russian soldiers over a disputed area that's gone back and forth? Why? It doesn't make any sense. For the people who go, like Nikki Haley, who's been on this program and was trying to tell me that they're on NATO's doorstep, NATO's, look, I'm not saying this as a to cast Russia as the sympathetic figure. But you realize Lovian-Estonia, which were part of the Eastern Bloc and are now NATO members

border right up to Russia, correct? Would that not be the doorstep we're talking about? And it's been like that for a while? So I don't think that there's an urgency there. I mean, Russia didn't do anything after Lafian-Estonia were part of NATO. I mean, Finland's going to join up. Russia's not, you don't see Russia doing it.

I don't think that they have the way. I don't think that they have the manpower and they don't have the financial resources to do what all these people are saying that they want to do. They're trying to fabricate and create out of the ether a wannabe war that just simply doesn't exist in that part of the world. Meanwhile, things are kicking up in the Pacific. I don't want to go to war with China either. I don't like war, period. If somebody messes with us, though, I think you should turn them to glass and war is hell. And there's going to be a lot of unintended consequences that go along with it, but such as war.

now that would be different because China behaves in some fashions very similarly to Imperial Japan you know we had tariffs and restrictions on Imperial Japan at the time particularly on energy which some argue that made them more desperate which is why they began making riskier moves in terms of gleaning resources from other countries that they were invading and it further exacerbated the problem and sped up that unavoidable conflict. I mean, you know, history is always 20-20 and people, you know, it's very easy to play armchair strategists when you're looking backwards in time. But there's some similarities there for sure. What are we doing about it now, though?

There was a very good answer that DeSantis gave yesterday because I don't like, and I'm not just saying this because I guess I get it, I have a preference in the primary, but I want to win 24. But this kind of goes along. I think I made, I think I tweeted about this. And we don't really, we don't need a planning audio. But he was, I don't like answering hypotheticals because I think that you're, especially when it concerns foreign policy, because you're doing one of two things. You're telegraphing something and giving basically, you know, an answer to the enemy that

they don't deserve nor need because it's disadvantageous to us for them to know. And then secondly, also, I feel like you're shortchanging yourself by committing yourself to maybe one plan of action that hasn't yet formed. And it just seems short-sighted. I don't like dealing in hypotheticals like that. There's a difference in preparation, and then there's a difference in having a concrete plan to a hypothetical where the variables can change at any moment. That being said, there was a question that it was asked of the candidates about whether

or not they would send troops to defend Taiwan if China decided to invade, which they're not going to do. But if China decided to invade, would the United States defend with boots on the ground? And DeSantis, I thought, had the answer with the most insight because he said, well, that's not going to happen because of the steps will take beforehand. And instead of focusing on, well, what steps would you take? They just wanted the soundbite. The moderators just wanted the soundbite, which I thought was short-sighted. They were just like, well, would you take it? Yes or no. And it was like that to all of these candidates. And some of the candidates took the bait. DeSantis was like, well, you know, it's not going to happen. Now, what he's talking about is specifically very similar to in the

lead up of world, in the lead up of Pearl Harbor with the United States and Imperial Japan. There are a lot of things that we could do in the meantime to actually make it more difficult for China to act and also a show of strength. Now, some of those things we started to do, there hasn't been as much attention paid to that part of the world as there has been to the Middle East and with Russia. But he's right. There are a number of things that we still have available at our disposal to do to ward off something like that so that a cold conflict doesn't turn hot. and that went completely undiscussed in the debate last night. I was so excited when that came up and I thought, here we go. And then the moderators just wanted the sound bite.

So is that a yes? I don't know. Well, whoa, whoa, there's a bigger fish here. And you're missing it for the minnow. That was frustrating because that, I think that's the question that I would ask all those candidates. If you don't want military conflict with China, what would you do to avoid it? What is your action to avoid it? What is your action?

What diplomatic or trade or whatever actions would you take to protect Taiwan and avoid a hot conflict with China? That's the question I would want an answer to. But that wasn't asked last night. We got more on the way. It's his life mission to make bad decisions. It's time for Florida man. So I like when Keynesons this over and he's like, this is a different sausage. story because there was a fight what was it a fight between a couple and one of one we had this

monday like the lady hit the dude with a sausage i think the dude hit the lady with a sausage but it was like a summer sausage either way right anyway okay so this is a whole different sausage fight this is that was an accident a florida man hurl sausages at older brother during disagreement emergency responders used a saline solution to wash out the victim's eyes okay we really. A 60-year-old, quote, brat in Florida is facing charges after he hurled sausages at his older brother. According to the arrest affidavit, Pinellas County Police Department, the 60-year-old Ray Allen got to a heated argument with his older brother in the backyard of their St. Petersburg home. Police said that Alan threw sausages right at his brother's right side of his face. And they said that he had to have, he required EMS personality as a saline solution.

to wash out the unidentified victim's eyes. They said that Alan may have been drunk. He was arrested on a charge of domestic battery and booked it. He threw a sausage at you. You're a sissy. If somebody throws a sausage at you and you're like, I need salient delusion of my eye. I think some of the meat got in it.

I don't know. Like, really? Am I wrong, Kane? That's ridiculous. Anyway, the guy was released from Jaley pled not guilty to misdemeanor, but he can't contact his older brother. Oh my God. Gosh, this is like one of the dumbest things they've ever read.

Another Florida man wins a million dollars because he played Florida's lottery scratch-off game. I am not as interested in that as I am about the guy who, well, I'm going to save this one for tomorrow. We've got another one for tomorrow because this guy had a tantrum at a senior center over his DMV vision test. A lot of words I can't say. Stick with us. Third hour. The media is making a big deal about what he said about some of his comments. I would just remind people, that is not how he governed. He didn't even fire Dr. Fauci.

He didn't fire Christopher Ray. He didn't clean up the swamp. He said he was going to drain it. He did not drain it. He said he was going to build the wall and have Mexico pay for it. We don't have the wall. He did say in 2016 he'd have the largest deportation program and history. He deported less than Barack Obama did when Barack Obama was president.

That's wow. I mean, just total unloading. Just total unloading. That was, when was that? I think that was like pretty early in the debate last night. I think that that happened. Welcome back to the show. Dana last year with you.

Always good to be with you top of this third hour. And we've been covering the moments of the debate. I think it's winnowed down after this. I mean, come on. You got, I mean, I don't see Christy making the stage again. Ramoswamy barely qualified for the debate with polling. It's going to be Haley and DeSantis that there's another primary debate. And at some point, Trump is going to have to debate, especially because these people are blasting Biden for not wanting to debate.

I'm like, you can't have it both ways. Come on. You can't do both. All right. So I just like it. You know why? First off, let me just say. welcome everybody. Daniel Lash with you. Let everybody rejoin. Set the table. You can listen to the show

Coast to Coast, stream the simulcast sign up for the newsletter. We're at Substack. I don't know why people get bent out of shape to make the candidates have like a mortal combat kind of fight in the primary. That's what they're for. Don't forget you are the person that they're supposed to try to impress. And these people got this backwards. They get very, very upset. If they're candidate, if they feel like their candidate is slighted, during the primary. No, no, no, don't be upset for a candidate on behalf of a candidate. You should be your first priority in this situation. This is a republic. They're supposed to be kissing your butts, okay? I don't care who they are. I don't care how nice they are. I don't care how great the state is that they govern. Your butts are the ones they're supposed to be kissing.

Stop doing it the other way. Do not do it the other way. I don't know. I just, maybe this is why I hate going into D.C. I would be the worst publicist in the history of that industry because I cannot play. Kane's laughing. Shut up. Why you laugh? I just know. Because I know. It's one of those if you know, you know moments. I just don't care.

I don't care to do any of that, the small talk, all that stuff, making nice with people, none of that stuff. I don't want to go and kiss no of the butts of any politicians. I hate that. I always get, I feel weird about it when people I know go to all of them. these like events in dc and they share all the stuff on their instagram here's me with my cocktail and this politician here we are together and they're i mean i get great for them if that's what they like but i i don't like being that comfortable with people i get real weird the moment you're running for office it just changes i don't know what it is it gets real weird betwixt us gets weird

and I don't like when I feel like the positions are reversed. And that's what a lot of these operatives want you to think. A lot of these influencers out there on social media, on Twitter, that run groups, they think that you're supposed to kiss the butt of this candidate and be a fighter for this candidate. And it's supposed to be the other way around. So I like the idea of all of them fighting in the primary because it benefits me. The voter. That's how this is supposed to be.

it's supposed to benefit you. And I even say this, I have a preference in the primary. I still want a fight. That's how this is supposed to be. Why do people get this twisted? And look at it like this too. Wouldn't you want to know if the person that you like in the primary, say they totally fall on their face over a question or something comes out at a debate?

wouldn't you rather know before you cast your vote? You know what I mean? Like, I just feel like that's how we should be looking at this stuff. I don't know. I get, I have people that are going off about loyalty and turns and the one way to get me riled up is to lecture me about loyalty to a candidate. Because we literally overthrew a monarchy over that. So if that, if you're not animated by that spirit of liberty,

you need to be questioned your American credentials. Because that is not, we are not, there's no such thing as loyalty to a politician in the United States. None at all whatsoever. None. None. Not at all. So I just please keep that in mind. People get mad if they think that I'm not carrying water for a candidate. Even if I like a candidate, I've gotten criticism from people who, you know, if they think I'm not carrying enough water, or if I'm not going, or if I'm not carrying any water at all, or if I'm too critical or if I'm to this, well, that's what I'm supposed. supposed to do, number one. And number two, I just don't have that view of politicians. Somebody asked me, they're like, shouldn't you be trying to help them get votes? Somebody asked me this on social media last night. And I laughed and I'm like, that's not my job, Slick. That is not my job. It's not my job

to get votes for DeSantis. It's not my job to get votes for Haley or Trump or Ramoswamy or Christie. That's each of these candidates' jobs to make that case. I just like calling balls and strikes. And if I see that somebody makes a good point, they made a good point. If I see that somebody's acting a fool, then I'm going to say that they're acting a fool. But it's not my job to get anybody votes. Now, when I first started on radio, I would canvas on behalf of issues. I never went door to door for a candidate, ever.

I don't know if that's weird or not. I did phone bank for a candidate once. But I always, my thing was I was really pushing against health care. the health care bill, all of that stuff, going door to door with grassroots groups for that. But, and there's nothing wrong with Canada. I'm just saying in radio, you know, and I always tell people exactly where I stand, so there's no confusion. And the only reason people even know if they want to criticize me is because I told them. But it's these candidates' jobs to get their votes.

That's literally why they're running a campaign. That said, Trump's going to have to debate. He might be, he's not too precious to debate, y'all. And I'm going to tell you, the last time he was debating on the debate stage was before COVID. It was before Parkland. It was before some things that have happened, before the government shut down, before the economy shut down, before we talked about taking the guns and having due process later. So don't tell me that there's no need for a debate unless we're not holding people accountable for their records or things that they've said or things that we'd want to know about because we just don't know where they stand on new things that have occurred. nobody's too good for debate

and I don't look at it as a sign of strength I look at it as then you're worried especially if it's a record you know if you got to sit here and defend your record are you worried like I look at it like that ain't nobody too precious to come before

you in debate the end so that being said we're going to have another one of these stupid things aren't we how much when in January?

I think I saw the 23rd. I'll have to double check that. So at least like we got some time after New Year's. Yeah, a little bit. Okay. I mean, what else are they going to, at that point,

it'll be just hailing to Santa's. And I just feel like enough of a contrast has been made. If the RNC was smart, they'd be like, okay, the RNC's too, honestly, the RNC's afraid of Trump. And they shouldn't be. But Ronna Romney McDaniel

has her seat because of him. I'm not being mean. I'm being honest. She's got her seat because of him. He handpicked her. He wanted her in there. She would not have that seat if it wouldn't for him. You know that.

She's a Romney. She would not have that seat if it wasn't for him. Come on. But she can't run that group. They don't like me. I have a feeling. Has the RNC ever liked me, though? I used to criticize Reince Prebus pretty extremely.

I criticize what's his face. The guy, Michael, what's his face? He's over at MS. Shman, BC now or whatever. I communicate with the RNC on a regular basis. Yeah, they'll talk to you. Well, yeah, nobody that I book, you know, is going to be talking to you. Yeah, but they're nice to you.

Like, you're, they get along with you. Yeah, which means they get along with the show, which I don't, I haven't heard any, anything from them. They don't talk to me. R.N. C's never talked to me. Well, they haven't shut any sort of communication down with the show. No, but I just, you know, you know, you know when you know. You know what I mean. Yeah, I hear you.

You know, I'm just saying. Like, you know, if you know. They, I remember, and I get along with Ryan's Prebis, he and I, I can't remember what was it was at an event we kind of we had a nice healthy debate because we ended up we were having I I think I was broadcasting and I went to have lunch and I was sat right next to him so we ended up having a very healthy debate on the direction of the RNC it was very interesting but my whole point is that I think that the organization needs to grow some jimmies and step up and be like okay this is how it's going to work you're all going

to debate y'all are going to get on stage you all going to make your case of the voters because that's whom we're supposed to represent. None of y'all are too precious to do it. A lot of stuff has happened since the last time. Some of y'all debated. So there's some things that absolutely have to be discussed and voters are owed those answers and voters are owed to hear about it.

And not enough has been said about it publicly because softball interviews with people don't count. They don't. So that's the end of it. And if the RNC was really in this to win and actually knew how to win, that's exactly how they would be operating. But they're too afraid,

they're too afraid of their own shadow to do it. And if they don't get it right, we're going to lose the House. We'll lose the Senate. We'll lose the White House. Goodbye, America. I smile when I say that, but I don't mean that. I don't mean it as a smile. But that's a very serious.

I mean, that's true. I mean, it would be impossible, at least in the next couple of generations, to come back from what would happen if we lost as badly as we are projected to on this current path in 2024. Too many seats up in the house. too many competitive seats in the Senate. I mean, it's just there, there's no way. And they're having enough, they're having a hard enough time. Yes, in Virginia, I thought they overperform last time.

We were talking about that election. That's why I think that Virginia was kind of, I think that election that they had there was a bellwether. And R&C hasn't learned from it. We've had Scott Pressler on the show. He's going to all these states getting out the vote and registering people, places the RNC won't go to. Why? Why don't they go there? why are they not more involved in on the ground i got issues everybody's so afraid everybody's like

protecting egos i mean if you're more interested in protecting egos than you are the country gtfo we got a few other things i want to make sure that we hit as well because uh we got to talk about finances we have the president that wants to let me pull this up how what is it 80 it's 8 billion or 80 billion Oh, geez. Of more student loans that Biden is looking to cancel. Oh, sorry, forgive. And you know what that means. That means everybody and their brother is going to be paying for it.

Except, you know, those people. $4.8 billion in student debt. Now, this is, he wants to wipe loans. The new plan wants to wipe loans for 80,000 borrowers. Don't you love that language? Just wipe the loan? What does that mean, wipe the loan? and make it go away.

Like what is fascinating, is it not? 80,000 people. A lot of them are government workers. They're not doing anything about the very specific steps that increase the cost of college and also consolidated student loan administration entirely at the federal level, which also ran up the expenses.

They're not doing anything about that. This is a bailout of epic proportions. it's vote buying. Of course, and all nicely timed, you know, in an election cycle, too. We're going to discuss this. And then we're also going to discuss there's a few other things to hit as well that you need to be, that you should pay attention to. Grover Norquist is going to join us on this tax case. It could be a major fiscal policy change and have significant implications for U.S. taxpayers. We're going to talk to him about that as well. And now, all of the news you would probably miss. It's time for Dana's Quick Five.

So Mann gets a new trial after he was convicted of murder based on a blind witness's testimony. I mean, this is, this is something else. Yeah, we got, it is Cook County Judge overturned the murder conviction Tuesday of a man who was found guilty and a fatal shooting at a south side gas station. merely based on the testimony of an eyewitness who turned out to be legally blind. Daryon Harris was an 18-year-old high school senior. He had a clean criminal record. Prosecutors charged him in an ambush-style shooting that left one man dead, another seriously injured. This is all the way back in 2011. This is how long this case has gone on. Now, he's 30 years old. He's long maintained his innocence.

He said he was staying home watching LeBron James playing the NBA finals between Miami Heat and Dallas Mavericks. But a now retired judge found him guilty in 2014. Sempton to prison for 76 years. Now, four years later, his legal team, everybody else, they began urging a conviction integrity. And they found out that one of the witnesses is actually blind. It's like the witness that everything hinged on was blind. Yeah, that seems, hmm. Olive oil, we told you this, was going to have an olive oil prices skyrocket as the Spanish drought continues.

They said it's a bad year. Two years in a row, 22 and 23 of bad olive harvests, according to these farmers. of olive trees. They said that in Spain is the biggest olive oil producer in the world. They cover 70% of the EU's consumption, 45% of the rest of the world. They said the lack of rain and elsewhere, they've had a big impact on the olive oil and the price.

So that's probably, you're going to see that being more expensive. Cops say a man stole a public bus, stopped at a waffle house. Well, I mean, you know, that makes sense. It was a big old city bus, and he went and stopped at a waffle house. house. He got in trouble for it and he's on camera stealing it and everything. Grover and Orquist to explain this court case that could affect taxes for everybody.

Stick with us. Whether you're a policy wonk, a news junkie, or simply someone hungry for insightful discourse, the Dana Show podcast has your back. Follow Dana on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. If we just said, if you've got more than $50 million in assets, and we put in place a two-cent tax on your wealth. And by the way, people pay taxes, pay property taxes all the time on unrealized gains. You pay your property taxes on your home. But a two-cent wealth tax, think what that would mean in this country right now. It would mean that we could provide universal

childcare for every one of our babies. We could put much more money into our public school system. We could provide free post-high school technical school, two-year college, four-year college. We could cancel all student loan debt and we could still have a lot of money left over. It's really easy to be Santa Claus with other people's money. Is it not? Very easy. You know, in the spirit of giving, I'm going to demonstrate my generosity by giving you someone else's hard-earned money. Look how generous I am. That's like the whole, that is the whole basis of the left's economic belief set and their fiscal policy.

Welcome back to the program. Dana Lash here with you. bottom of this third hour. I immediately thought of when I saw this interview, I was like, what would Grover Norquist say about this? Because I know that Elizabeth Warren's probably one of his favorite people, one of his favorite mathematical minds out there. As you know, Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform, ATR.org. He joins us now. Grover, very good to see you. I just wanted to get your initial reaction to that soundbite from Elizabeth Warren. This is the woman who is the poster child for student debt.

made $400,000 a year teaching a course once a year. There are a thousand people in Boston who know more than she does on the subject who have done it for free to work at Harvard, but she's taking $400,000 away from students and saddling them with student debt, which she evidently is willing to pay for with other people's money. Now, maybe that evens it out. Yeah, maybe so. I mean, she's also one of the people directly responsible for the increasing cost of college. I mean, when the government moved to consolidate everything at the federal level and handle administration of student loans? What do people think was going to happen?

She was one of the people there for it. She created the problem. She was part of the problem. It's very sad. But she has a new idea. If you're worried about your income taxes and the business taxes and sales taxes and property taxes,

she's got an additional tapeworm to add to your problems that will make all the other tapeworms be more restrained or maybe not. I love that you'd use tapeworm to describe that. I don't know if I've ever heard a more perfect description, and I'm going to steal it. I'm going to completely shamelessly steal it because it's perfect. All right, I wanted to ask you about this, because there's a case right now before Supreme Court.

We've mentioned it a little bit on the show, but we were really waiting for you because you, you know so much about this. This concerns this move from this couple, Charles and Kathleen Moore. They had invested almost half a million dollars in this business in India, name Kaisen Craft. they marketed power tools to Indian farmers. They got 13% of the company's equity. You know, that was a pretty decent investment. But what ended up happening is that they were hit with this, it's like almost $15,000 tax bill and on money that they had not yet possessed,

or what they would call unrealized gains. And, I mean, it seems like a pretty open and shut case. They're citing Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, where they're talking about no other direct tax shall be laid. that seems pretty clear. So why are we all the way now at the Supreme Court with this case? Because the left is desperate for new sources of revenue. You're quite correct that when the 13 states got together and created the federal government, the biggest concern they had was that the central government would tax their people and caused the same problems that we had with Britain. We had a whole war because we didn't want the British government taxing a certain... So they were very specific.

Now, they weren't very slapdash in the rest of the Constitution, but they were extremely specific. Congress can have these kinds of taxes when the big spenders of their day wanted more money and they wanted a personal income tax that had to amend the Constitution because the Supreme Court twice struck down efforts to get a income tax during the Civil War and then even afterwards. They said, that's not in the Constitution, can't do it, and tax income. And so it's okay, we have an income tax. Now they want to say income that's not realized, income that isn't income will now be income, meaning your life savings, the increase in your life savings, what Elizabeth Warren and others

have said, they really want a wealth tax, which is clearly unconstitutional. But this is the midway to get to a wealth tax. It's the increase in your wealth tax, which is not permitted. If you sold your stock, you would pay capital gains tax on it. That would be income because you would have it. A couple that went to the Supreme Court, we filed an amicus brief at Americans for Tax firm, friends of the couple, not friends of the government. We're with them, not you.

So they said, and we said, they don't have the money. it's not income. And by the way, if the stock went down next week, they could lose money, okay? Is the government going to be writing checks to people who lose money? Every time the stock market goes down to his Bezos, get a $3 billion check.

And when it goes back up again, he's got to send it back, and you ping it back and forth, it makes sense to tax your tax income, you tax income when it's income. Yeah. And that seems like that's the, ultimately the core question

that has to be resolved in this case. I know that there was, I had read a linguistics professor that also filed an amicus brief, and they were going back to the whole etymology of the word saying that, you know, at the time, you know, when all of this was drafted, everybody pretty much realized that this was money that you had to have made and had to be real in order for it to be taxable, which it just makes it seem like the government's case on this is incredibly weak. How do you think that this is, how do you think that this will be resolved? I don't see how this Supreme Court, which is, has, has, several members in it that have read the Constitution all the way through,

Penn can miss the fact that non-realized income, property is not income, your house is not income, a stock is not income, until you sell it, then it could become income. If you made money, it could also be a loss if the price had gone down, which is why you wait until they sell it to decide what it is. At least that's what normal people do. I think they have to say it not realized income is not income. It is wealth. It is property and it's not taxable.

Now, they could then end with that. And then other courts would deal with, are there other examples of this? In the 2017 bill, there was a measure which deemed that certain property had in overseas, had been brought back to the United States. and then would be recognized as income. But it hadn't come back to United States. Right, right. So they were to tax it.

That's where they got into this mess because they were trying to make some things balance and they weren't paying attention and they were under a lot of pressure and they shouldn't have done what they did. They should just strike that down. Whatever revenue was raised from that needs to stop. And if you want to have a wealth tax,

pass a constitutional amendment. if you want to have an unrealized gain tax pass a constitutional amendment but biden and the other democrats have been talking for some time they want to figure how to tax your 401k your individual retirement account your health savings account your education savings account they've been trying to get in there to tax it for some time and taxing unrealized gains cracks open those life savings projects that are so important to more than half of americans Right. This is not pretty rich people. This is more than half of American. That's exactly where I was going with this next, because that's how it's always, that's how this is presented.

We're talking with Groven, Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform, ATR.org. That's how this is always presented to people as a way to sort of, you know, the Elizabeth Warrens, the Joe Biden's, the Kamala Harris, is they're like, oh, well, this is all in favor of rich people. But what you just, it's not, as you just described. But this is trickle-down taxation. Politicians like to say we're going to tax rich people with the income tax. You have to make more at the time, more than $11 million when the income tax was put in to pay the top rate of 7%. Now more than half the country pays more than 7%. Trickle-down taxation when they put in the tax for the Spanish-American War.

More than 100 years ago, they had a tax on phones, on long-distance phone calls. And phones cost like $9,000 at the time in their dollars. Very expensive. Very few people had them. but within a few decades, all Americans had a phone. So the taxed on the rich for an emergency, the war, that was going to be temporary, war was over at some point. I went to public school, but somebody told me that the war ended a while ago.

And so it's an emergency, it's temporary, and it's just the rich people, except pretty soon it's all the time everywhere, everyone trickle down. They always introduce taxes telling you at someone else, a few people, not anyone you know, step out of the room, it may not be pleasant, but it's not you. When they say they're going to tax the rich, they haven't finished the sentence. We're going to tax the rich first, then you. And that's how it always works, talking with Grover Norquist. This also would empower.

I mean, I can't, I mean, this is why they probably were preparing for this, what they assumed was an eventuality with this case. You have the 88,000 new IRS agents, because if you're out there unable to tax all these unrealized gains, goodness, you've got a lot of busy agents, a lot of work for them. going after unpacking going through and surfing through everybody's 401k or individual retirement account and now all of the 1099Ks that they want because you send money through through the internet on PayPal or any of the other then Mo and so on they want to tax all of those sell something out of your basement taxable unless you have the receipt the whole thing's income they need a lot of

IRS agents going through your basement looking at everybody's flea market and everybody's, you know, when you sell stuff from your back of your house or out on the street, or on Venmo or Craigslist or any of these things, they want to tax it all. And if you don't have the receipt, you know, you sell a motorbike perhaps for a lot less than you paid for it. Yeah. But if you don't have the receipt, it's all income. Prove it isn't. Oh, that's, oh, goodness. I, I'm glad that you're confident that this case is going to be resolved in favor of the taxpayer as opposed to in favor of the government. But I mean, who knows? Because there's a, there's a lot of other stuff that's already been passed. Like you mentioned Venmo, looking at, what is it? I think the minimum, $600.

I mean, that's still, it's not in effect yet, but it's, it's been delayed as I understand it, but it's still there. It's still going to be implemented. It's in the law. The law. law has not changed. Illegally, the president has said, we're not going to enforce it, meaning please don't yell at us during this election cycle. We'll enforce it after I get reelected. This is the second time they've delayed it. It's not legal. The law says it's all owed. They've taken it down to $600 and it's going to hit many, many tens of millions of Americans. They realized the pushback and the Republicans said, let's repeal it. And when that was moving forward than the IRS, which is completely political under this administration,

responding to Biden saying, our political needs are for you to lie to people and say we're not going to enforce it. And we're not going to enforce it yet. And of course, we'll come back as soon as they get past the next election. Yeah, there's going to be a lot more to talk about then. Heaven help us all. Grover Norquist with Americans for Tax Reform. Always a pleasure. So appreciate what you do. Thank you. Follow Dana on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, because knowledge is your ultimate superpower. I mean, we've been very, very clear about the supplemental and how important it is, as you've seen, the OMB director has been pretty out there on the different networks making the case. And one of the things that she has said is that it's stunning.

It's stunning that we've gotten to this point, right? It's stunning that we have gotten to this point. and that Republicans in Congress willing to give Putin a gift, the greatest gift that Putin could hope for. That's what we're seeing. And so they are playing chicken with our national security. That's what we're seeing here. And history will remember them harshly. What? Because they want to secure the border? History's going to remember you harshly because you want to make the border secure. You bad, bad people, bad Republicans are so bad. What? that I think she's got this backwards.

I think she has this backwards indeed. We're going to discuss this more tomorrow on the radio program as we conclude the week. And make sure that you sign up over at Substack, chapter and verse, because I had a thing about the debate that went out. And then I think I actually had something related to this, because this is the second day in the road that the administration has messaged that soundbite, that wanting to, have any kind of finance apparatus for the lack of a better way to say it in any kind of legislation

that doing the border instead of sending money on accountability to Ukraine that that's like that's I'm trying to wrap my mind around this on the struggle bus what I'm still that's the first and foremost job of the United States government technically the government has but a few jobs. Article 1, Section 8, just a few. Anything beyond that is excessive and technically

excessive denotes unconstitutionality. So that's literally, you had one job. That's their one job. As it pertains to national security is making sure the border secure. I told you, day before yesterday, as Bill Malugian reported, over 12,000, 12,000 illegal immigrants in one day. Can you imagine? That's, that's almost four times, no, that is four times the size of the town that I, almost four times the size of the town I was born in. That's insane. And the, they can't handle it.

You wonder why now Border Patrol can't handle it. You wonder why now they're trying to make sure that they have all the ports of entry covered and it's even affecting commerce and all this other stuff because they just don't have the boots on the ground to handle it. It's just, it's shocking. and cartels are exploiting this. It is a boon for them. All right.

Today's stupidity came. All right, it is Hakeem Jeffries. I know it. He's the minority speaker or minority leader. Is he the guy who thought that Guamwich? No, that's Hank. No, that's Hank Johnson. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Completely different. But weapons of war are not used on deer. It's going to make me mad. Agree, I guess. Kind of, but not. But let's listen to what he says here about that. We should not have action. access to weapons of war.

What does that even mean? This country is built by weapon. So not used to hunt deer. Nobody used to hunt human beings. Nobody hunts deer with full auto. No, and by the way, weapons of war are used. Yeah, they are. Yeah, they are used like all the time.

But AR-15s, like two-two. Nobody uses like 22-5-55-6 for deer. In fact, some of the states, you can't use that for deer because it's too small. Anyway, good grief, folks, that does it for us today. make sure you sign up for substack chapter and verse and i'll be back behind the mic with you tomorrow