The Tamara Scott Show Joined by David Bossie & John Strathman

about a year ago

Right click here and select "Save As" to download this podcast.

The Tamara Scott Show

99 Subscribers

Tamara Scott: Thank you for joining me. This is the Tamara Scott. The Tamara Scott Show where we help you live God's word in today's world. Today, joining me is David Bossie. If you look on Twitter, it says husband, father, but he's also the President of Citizens United, very active in a lot of the elections that we've had recently, and quite interested in the election of 2020. We just saw the trailer for the film Rigged 2020, Rigged David Bossie, welcome to The Tamara Scott Show.

David Bossie: Well, thanks for having me back, Tamara. I appreciate it.

Tamara Scott: I always appreciate it when you can come on and join us. You're also the national committeeman for Maryland, so we'll just add that in there. But we just watched just the short trailer. I have the other 3 minutes available. We can watch it while you're on. We can discuss it, break it, or pause it if you like. But I wanted to get right to you. This is your film. Did Citizen's United produce this?

David Bossie: Yeah. Tamara So, one of the things that Citizens United does is make full-length feature documentary films. This is our 27th film, actually. I think your viewers will probably know a lot of them, all the films that Newt Gingrich and Callista Gingrich produced over the years on Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, the World of Terrorism, American Greatness, Rediscovering God in America, Newton Callista's best-selling book by the same title. We produced all of their films. We've made films with Mike Huckabee, The Gift of Life, Fred Thompson, and Phil Robertson. You name it.

We've made a lot of films over the years, but our most famous film up until now was called Hillary the Movie, which we made in 2007 when she was running for President. And we took that all the way to the United States Supreme Court and won our First Amendment case, our big First Amendment case there in 2010. So, we've been doing this for quite a while. This Mark Zuckerberg film is called Rigged, The Zuckerberg Plot to Defeat Donald Trump is our latest film. And quite honestly, I think it might be our most important. It really provides President Trump with the facts and evidence of what Mark Zuckerberg did to put his thumb on the scale of the 2020 election.

For 18 months, President Trump has been telling the American people that the election was rigged and that it was stolen. We all know that, and we believe that. Yet we've had no ability to articulate it using facts and evidence, and that's what this film does. We use the IRS tax forms of these liberal organizations that Mark Zuckerberg funded. They are called the 990s. We used their 990s as the pathway following the money from whence it came and where it went and what states it went into, what districts it went into and how it impacted the 2020 election.

Tamara Scott: So, for our viewers out there, we all felt the censoring, the silencing in the last election. We now see the media admitting that they knew about the Biden laptop and refused to discuss that. One of the latest polls said 16% would have changed their vote had they known about that story. To me, that's voter suppression right there. When you're suppressing information that would very much influence the voters, but you're not really talking about that. You're talking about the money. The money that Zuckerberg put into cities. All right. So, David, I have several of the links available thanks to your staff for sending them over. They are numbered. I'm sure that you probably know which ones are which. Are there any of those you want to play for our viewers?

David Bossie: Well, Tamara, I think folks should go to You can stream the film from anywhere around the world where you can hear the show on any device. So, I urge people to go there. If you want to, let me just give you a little bit more background about the film and then we can maybe play a little bit. But the numbers are staggering, Tamara, and that's what I want folks watching the show to take away from it. Over $325 million was given from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to this left-wing organization called the Center for Tech and Civic Life.

That organization took $275 million and really directed it, of the $325, directed it to Joe Biden's districts. Ninety-two percent of $275 million went to Biden districts around this country in battleground state after battleground state in order to put their thumb on the scale so that before Election Day, not on Election Day, but long before, through the use of drop boxes and mail-in ballots and vote and ballot curing in these states, in these heavily Democrat areas, in Arizona and Georgia and Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, those places. With the enormity of the money and the operation run by the left, Donald Trump really didn't even have a chance. And let me just say, when I say "lost," he didn't, you know, he's not President because of 42,000 votes in three states.

David Bossie: This was an incredibly close election, even though Mark Zuckerberg spent $400 million to help Joe Biden defeat Donald Trump. So those are the global issues. And then if you look at Pennsylvania, you look at Arizona. Let me just give you an example in Arizona for a second. In the Zuckerberg-funded counties versus the unfunded counties, Joe Biden, who barely campaigned in Arizona, and Hillary Clinton, who was a fantastic candidate from the left, was a professional, did a great job in her campaign and drove out historically large numbers because of her coalition.

Joe Biden outperformed Hillary Clinton in the funded counties by 700,000 votes over Donald Trump and over the Hillary Clinton numbers. Okay. So, 700,000 more votes, and they only "won" by 10,000 votes in Arizona. This is what I say when there are facts and evidence, the sheer dollars and the science in which they used it in Maricopa County and in these other counties in Arizona, and they outperformed Hillary Clinton when Joe Biden hardly showed up in Arizona and couldn't really campaign at all in Arizona? They outperformed Hillary Clinton by 700,000 votes and only won by 10,000 votes? That is stunning. And I think that everybody in America can say without question that Zuckerberg's money made the difference.

Tamara Scott: Poor Hillary. She felt robbed in '16, and now she is embarrassed in 2020 that Joe beat her from the basement. Right? She just can't win.

David Bossie: She's going to be around again, I think, in 2024.

Tamara Scott: Like the bad penny. All right. So, the beauty of Rigged 2020 is we've all heard it. And when I go to a group, when you go to a group, I'm sure you hear it, too. When I ask, does anybody out here feel like there was something amiss with the 2020 election? Right. I don't even have to say the word that it was rigged or that, you know, somebody cheated. I just say amiss, and this is the one thing voters across my state want to talk about. They are concerned about this election. But the thing is, you don't just talk about accusations or headlines. You get in. You have the details of the dollars. The counties where these dollars went, and as you're saying, it was Zuckerberg into a couple of foundations, or I guess if foundations is the right word.

David Bossie: Yeah, it is.

Tamara Scott: Imagine if Trump would have spent that kind of money on specific Republican counties for voter turnout.

David Bossie: Yeah, people would be going to jail.

Tamara Scott: Imagine what the left would be saying.

David Bossie: Yeah, well, people would be going to jail because the left has criminalized political activity. And so, let me just say this, the money and the science of it, and let me just say you were correct. It was two foundations, two 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundations that the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative ran, the $400 plus million dollars through this. And the Chief Strategist, get this, the Chief Strategist for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is David Plouffe, Barack Obama's campaign manager who wrote the book The Citizen's Guide to Defeating Donald Trump.

The person who's in charge of the Center for Tech and Civic Life, who is the President of that organization where $328 million of Zuckerberg's money went, is an Obama Fellow. He used to run the New Organizing Institute, which is a hardcore left-wing training and tech organization. These people are the hardest core activists on the left that you could find. Yet Zuckerberg felt like he could give them the money, and it would be done in a bipartisan manner. Give me a break.

Tamara Scott: All right. So, people can find this movie at, And they can purchase it, right? And then show it. Have a popcorn party. Pizza party. Have a town hall. They can show it to their folks. And they need to. We absolutely need to.

David Bossie: Absolutely, please everybody listening should go to You can download this movie for $4.99. This is not a moneymaking operation.

Tamara Scott: Right.

David Bossie: This is an education, okay. We obviously need to be able to pay the bills, but we're doing it out of our foundation. Truly our foundation. So, we're going to take that money into the conservative movement. But $4.99 gets you the opportunity to get the facts and evidence that you need so that you can tell your friends and family, and neighbors. And those that are concerned, let me just say this, Tamara, this movie came out two weeks ago. Just last week, Mark Zuckerberg threw up his hands in surrender and said, "We will no longer fund these election activities," because he got caught. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Our grandmothers always used to tell us that, right? So, it is truly important. What this film did was change what's going to happen in 2022 and in 2024. I'm not saying they're not going to try to do something else, but what we've done is shined a light on this, and we're going to make sure that this, what they did, never happens again.

Let me just say this; 20 states, 20 that's a big number, have passed laws to make sure that they don't allow private funding like Zuckerbergs to come into their states again. And here's the thing. Five of those states, with five Democrat Governors, are Louisiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. An interesting group of states, right? Four of those five are some of the closest battleground states that we have in this country. Those are all Democratic Governors who have vetoed those laws because they need to be able to do it again. That's what this is about. It's about election integrity. We must fight, and we must continue to push these states to override those vetoes or to defeat those Governors come November so that we can pass this legislation and have free and fair elections because every legal vote must be counted. And those that are not cast must not be counted. That's what true democracy is. And that's what election integrity is.

Tamara Scott: Every legal vote must be counted. Absolutely correct. And even in a state like Iowa, we feel like it's very minimal if we have some situations, and there may be. But even in our state, when we have legal votes, every illegal vote that's taken around the country disenfranchises our legal vote. That's why this is so important. No matter what state you live in, you are still impacted when someone else is not playing by the rules in these elections. David, I want to let you go.

I know your time is important, but very quickly, tell us some of the names in this film. And I want people to understand these people are saying some pretty bold things. I don't know if it's Cuccinelli who said the election was stolen as they changed the rules in the middle of the game, which we all knew. And I think it might have been Cleta Mitchell who talked about we don't need to look at China. We don't even need to worry about voting machines. This falls right to Zuckerberg. So, David, I don't know if you want to give us just a rundown of some of those names before you have to go.

David Bossie: Well, first of all, President Trump is the star of this movie, and he hosted the premiere of this film at Mar-a-Lago two weeks ago. We had an incredible premiere where he sat and watched the film with me and all of our guests. It was an amazing evening. But we have Ted Cruz. We have Newt Gingrich. We have Ken Cuccinelli, Ken Blackwell, and Cleta Mitchell. Claudia Tenney, and Jody Hice, are both members of Congress. We have an incredible lineup. Kellyanne Conway is in this movie. Just so you know, she and I ran the campaign for President Trump in 2016.

So, we know a little bit about election integrity and how to run campaigns and what we saw, what Mark Zuckerberg did in 2016 versus what he and Facebook allowed in 2020. So please go to You can stream it from anywhere around the world on any device you want, and I highly urge you to get it. It's an incredibly powerful film, but you will also be entertained by it because it is such an unbelievable story. It's so engaging, and I never thought I would be saying that about an election integrity movie, but this film is fantastic from beginning to end, and I highly urge you to watch it.

Tamara Scott: Well, David, I want to thank you for your team putting this together. It was a lot of work to accumulate the footage to get the facts. I think what I appreciate about this movie is that you must have done something well, something, right, because when I do a search for your movie, it will not show me your website until like the second or third page. When they talk about Mar-A-Lago, they show us every liberal left-leaning article written about it. They do not want people to get to the truth of what you're doing. But as you said, they've already changed laws in several states. You're already accomplishing great change.

David Bossie: Yeah, it's just like what you talked about earlier about the Hunter Biden laptop story. The mainstream biased corporate media decide what the narratives are. And they're going to live with it. They can't let one iota of this get out because it breaks their narrative that it was a big lie. That President Trump was lying about the election being stolen. This movie proves it. And I think that the mainstream media can't allow the American people to hear about it. So, it's just like the Hunter Biden laptop story they can't allow people to hear it. It'll change their minds.

Tamara Scott: Absolutely. David Bossie, thank you for your work, Rigged 2020. We'll continue to show some of the trailers throughout the rest of this show. Get your copy. If nothing else, when that neighbor that annoys you wants to start talking about this and dismissing it, it will give you facts to put right back in their face. And of course, we always do that in a loving manner, right? But it's sure nice to be right when you do it. David Bossie, thank you so much.

David Bossie: Thank you for having me, Tamara.

Tamara Scott: You're very welcome. Any time, David Bossie, any time. Logan, if you want to go and play the three-minute trailer right now, let's take our viewers to that three-minute trailer Rigged 2020. (Video Playing)

Rigged 2020: On the day that he was inaugurated, the Washington Post had an article on impeaching him.

President Trump: I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear.

Rigged 2020: Donald J. Trump is now President of the United States. They had an absolute legitimate meltdown. If you try to change a system that big, the system fights back. The story behind the biggest election takeover in history. We're only now being able to finally confirm exactly how this worked. Mark Zuckerberg and his wife are donating more money to local governments ahead of the election. A $100 million on top of a $300 million gift.

The most money any individual has ever spent to win a presidential campaign in the history of our country. I actually became infuriated that someone had allowed Zuckerberg to tip the scales. The election was bought way before Election Day. They stole it fair and square. They changed the voting rules in the middle of the game. A nation divided. This was the greatest billionaire assault on election integrity we've ever seen. A billionaire-funded plot against the President. Do you believe that they used the COVID emergency as an excuse to pull this partisan voter turnout operation?

President Trump: Am I allowed to give you a one-word answer? Yes.

Rigged 2020: It was really a partial takeover of the election system. I don't think we have to blame China or voting machines. I think we can look straight in the eye of Mark Zuckerberg, and that's why Joe Biden won. That's what this was. A corrupt Democratic voter turnout operation. You had them putting their own personnel in to actually run the election in places. You had an entire Democratic party petrified that Joe Biden was going to be outspent, outfoxed by Trump. Rigged.

President Trump: It was a rigged the election. People have to find out what happened.

Rigged 2020: The first thing that anybody in the public learned about this was that five cities in Wisconsin were going to get millions of dollars. Now, everybody knew that Wisconsin was probably the most tightly narrow race in the whole country and a critical part of either party's election success. And where did they target it within Wisconsin? They are going to the big cities, which, of course, are the gold mines of Democratic voters.

President Trump: Well, look where he spent it. I've read where he spent 97% in Democrat areas. So, he's putting money under the guise that he's going to open up the election and all of that. That's all crap. He's not going to open it up. He's closing it. He's making it impossible for a Republican to win.

Tamara Scott: I wanted to go straight to David Bossie. I know how busy his time is. I wanted you to hear every detail that he could possibly share in 15 minutes, and he did a great job of that. The movie is Rigged 2020, Listen, we've all discussed it. We've all felt it. Two-thirds of Americans said they believed that 2016 and 2020 had something amiss, is the way I say it. Right? I won't say cheated or stolen or anything else. I'll just say amiss.

But his movie talks quite clearly about it with the facts, with the numbers. And you wouldn't make a movie like that unless you were pretty sure. The liberals might try it because they might get away with it. But when you're a conservative, you're going to get nailed if you're not factual and have actual truth there. So, joining me in the studio is John Strathman. I think of him as an analytical mind. What was your title when you were working?

John Strathman: The last job I had?

Tamara Scott: Yes.

John Strathman: The last job I had, I worked for the Department of Veterans Health, and I was the National Director for the data systems that collected all the performance stuff from the 160 hospitals that the VA has and the 600 and some outpatient clinics. But we grabbed all that data and analyzed it, made it available to physicians to do studies, and so on.

Tamara Scott: And so, because of John's analytical mind, his ability to work with numbers, to see things, the rest of us just kind of gloss over or our eyes gloss over when we see them. He was able to actually give us input on a couple of different elections that made a difference here in Iowa. And so many of us have discussed term limits. You've heard us talk about the convention of states on this show. We strongly oppose it. We think it's dangerous. Yesterday, Robert Brown came on and joined me as we talked about some of the reasons, some of the issues.

Well, actually, we kind of just addressed some of the distractions the other side likes to put forward with their personal attacks, accusing Phyllis Schlafly and myself of being pro-choice and pro-abortion. Kind of interesting. But as I said yesterday, in the last ten years, I don't remember any application that's pro-life for the convention states. I just don't. Now, apparently, back in the seventies, maybe there was. And I've not talked to Andy or John Schlafly about this, but I would assume that if Phyllis didn't support it, it was because they were tied to the convention of states.

I wouldn't even say she would have supported a life amendment because sometimes there are concerns about the way they're written or the language of them. Right? The Second Amendment is to protect our rights, and yet we have all kinds of trimmings. And it seems to give other people the right to come in and edit it as though, or so they think. So, I can't say why she would have opposed it, but you know that she was one of the most pro-life advocates.

Tamara Scott: She's the reason the Republican Party added the pro-life plank to their platform way back when she started the RNC Life Coalition. So, it's nonsense. What they're saying is nonsense and a distraction. But we talk about term limits. And so, John, I've got several reasons why I think we should oppose term limits. One, you have them. It's called an election. And I'm concerned about anybody's solution that takes away my liberty. I should have the ability to vote for someone in the office as short as they are serving or as long as they're serving. That should be my opinion. And this is, by the way, not to support any candidate that is in office, that's running that may have been there in a primary.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about those people who want to come out against term limits as if the time served is the issue. It is not the time served. It's much more difficult to get conservatives elected than it is moderates or RHINOs or Democrats or liberals. The media is not usually going to help you elect a conservative. Once you get a good one in there, why penalize them for doing the right thing? It just doesn't make sense. The issue is not career politicians. The issue is corrupt politicians. So, John, before we go to the points that I want to make, we've got a graph there on the screen we'll put up and go ahead and explain what those numbers are to folks.

John Strathman: So here in Iowa, we've had a lot of very active debate about term limits and, you know, a debate regarding our platform and what goes on at the statehouse. I just made a quick look, I didn't go any further back than 2015, about what's been going on in the statehouse, and we've had four resolutions introduced here in Iowa to impose or to have a constitutional amendment to our state constitution to impose term limits. Plus, we've had another six resolutions introduced that are calling for an Article V for the purpose of imposing term limits at the federal level.

None of those have crossed the finish line. I like to look at the data. So, I went back and looked at both the Iowa legislature, and I realize the audience here is more interested in not just what happens in Iowa but also in the US Congress. So, I looked at those two bodies, and in just over six years, the prior six years, and maybe I'll just focus on the summary line. If you look at the election year, there were three election cycles. There are 16 to 18 and 20 in that six-year period. And, of course, in each of those chambers, the incumbents in each of those chambers have different terms. Like both in the US House and the Iowa House, the term is two years. In the Iowa Senate, the term is four years. US Senate, it's six years.

John Strathman: So those terms impact how long a person is in office or how much competition it is for their job. But what I found, if I look at the total change, in the Iowa House, on average, 19 of our House representatives are replaced every election cycle. So that's almost a full one-fifth of the Iowa House every time you have a general election that gets replaced. And the Iowa Senate, again, that's a four-year term. Over those six years, we had an average each year of nine. Then you go to the US House.

Each of those election cycles in the US House, on average, 79 of those US representatives are replaced, and then in the Senate, on average, are nine. So then, if you get down at the bottom the total change over those six years, 64 incumbents have come and gone in the Iowa House, out of 100 seats in the Iowa House, 29 in the Senate, out of 50 total seats in the Senate. And this one kind of surprised me at the federal level. So, the US House, 239 of those incumbents have come and gone in those six years out of the 435 voting members, and then in the US Senate, it's 31. So again, the numbers suggest to me a pretty significant level of turnover and what's going on there.

John Strathman: I also read a report, the Congressional Research Service published a report about term limits and what it found, and I'll just give you some of the markers they had because of different lengths that were posed in different term limit efforts. In the US House, 42% of the members have served less than six years, 60% have served less than eight years, and 71% have served less than 12 years. Then switching over to the other chamber in the Senate, I'll just focus on the 12-year Senate; 12 years is two terms in the Senate. Fifty-nine percent of the US senators have served less than two terms, less than 12 years. So, then you saw from that prior chart all the turnover in the State of Iowa, also at the federal level.

Now I'm going to focus maybe more on Iowa here for a moment, but it would probably apply to other states as well and certainly at the federal level. But keep in mind, every ten years, we have what, a census, and then we have that followed by redistricting. And that's a whole different ballgame. So, every ten years, in addition to the normal two-year election cycles, we have redistricting and then an election that follows that. We'll have the election in 2022, you'll see a significant bump up in the number of individuals replaced. And I looked at a report from here in Iowa. We have something called the Legislative Research Service or the LSA.

John Strathman: And they found that in our house of 100 seats, at least 24 members have announced they won't be seeking re-election, they're going to retire. That's almost a full one-quarter of the Iowa House. We haven't even gotten to the election yet. Normally in the Iowa Senate, 50 seats, half the senators stand for election every two years, but not when you have redistricting. So, in 2022, after redistricting, at least 34 seats in the Iowa Senate will be on the ballot. Where normally it would have been just 25 and 12 incumbent senators out of our 50 have already announced they're not seeking re-election.

So again, that kind of throws an interesting curve in there. Tamara made a great point earlier about, you know, we do have term limits. They are called elections. And so, I looked at the candidates that are going to be on our primary ballot here in Iowa this June in 2022. All 100 seats in the Iowa House will be on that primary. There are 193 candidates that have filed that will be on the ballot for those 100 seats. That's a lot of competition. So, in the Senate, again, we'll only have 34 of the 50 seats on the ballot; 65 candidates have filed. So, again, that's more than 2 to 1, if you will, for the number of seats that are on the ballot.

John Strathman: So, again, the source on that is the Iowa Secretary of State's office. So, here's where people kind of fall short. We have elections, but you need to show up. In Iowa, we do a great job in the general elections. Our turnout here in Iowa is very healthy for general elections, but for primaries, not so much. I only looked at the primary elections from 2014 through 2020. And again, this comes from our Iowa Secretary of State. But for the Republicans, it ranges from a low of about 16 % to a high of about 37%. That's of eligible active voters that cast a ballot for the Democrats in Iowa over that same period.

It ranged from a low of 12% to a high of 42%. Now, keep in mind the number that I just told you before; all of those candidates are going to be on the ballot. If you don't like who's in office; they're offering you a choice. Show up and vote. I mean, to me, when I look at stuff, I want to try to find out what I believe is really the underlying problem. And one of the underlying problems we have in our primaries, and I suspect this is in other states as well, is low voter turnout. Those numbers should be up into the eighties, 80%. So, we've got work to do to get to get people to do their civic duty and just show up and vote.

Tamara Scott: John, thank you so much. I so appreciate your ability to go and find all the information and then get it to us and then make numbers and facts interesting because otherwise, that would not be the case for me. So, thank you very much for that.

John Strathman: But if I could have just one more moment, I'm sorry.

Tamara Scott: Absolutely.

John Strathman: There's one more thing. So again, I mentioned earlier we've had a lot of debate in Iowa about term limits. What I've heard repeatedly when somebody wants term limits is they'll mention a specific legislator that they want out of office. Oftentimes, it's a legislator that isn't on your ballot. You want somebody out of the office that's from another state or another district. So, I'm just going to look at it, a handful of these to just illustrate a point.

So, our current Speaker of the US House is one that's mentioned. She was first elected to the US House in 1987, so she's been there for almost 35 years. Her district, the 12th Congressional District in California, which is the tip of the San Francisco Peninsula, is that district, and I hope you guys haven't had too many numbers, but that district has about 290,000 registered active Democrats to only 29,000 active Republicans. So that's almost a 9 to 1 ratio of the registered active Democrats to Republicans. So, you term limit Nancy Pelosi out, well, what are you going to get on the ballot after that?

Tamara Scott: The next crazy one.

John Strathman: The next one, you know, Nancy, 2.0. Another one, just another example. So, we've all unfortunately probably heard of something called "The Squad." I just took one of those members who are from New York's Fourth Congressional District. So, here's an individual that's only been in office, this is only her fourth year in office. So, you can't set term limits low enough to affect that.

Tamara Scott: Good point.

John Strathman: But in her district, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is about 7 to 1. So, it's not as bad as the San Francisco case from before, but it's still a pretty steep hill to climb for a Republican. And then looking in the Senate, Senator Schumer in the Senate, was first elected in 1998. So been in office about 24 years. But again, it's the same similar issue in his district in New York. There are about 6 million active registered Democrats in the State of New York versus about, I mean, 5 million, 900, I should say to 2,000,600 for the Republicans. So that's about a 2.2 to 1 ratio. Again, you're not going to get a Republican. The odds of getting a Republican senator elected in New York is a pretty steep hill.

Tamara Scott: Especially a conservative one.

John Strathman: Especially a conservative one.

Tamara Scott: Not going to happen.

John Strathman: The last example I want to offer is from our own state, Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley has been in office in the Senate for almost 42 years. But here in Iowa, we still remain largely a purple state. The split between Republicans and Democrats, there's about one active Democrat voter to every 1.1 active Republican. So, it's pretty competitive. But I would just point out that when Senator Grassley was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, you all probably recall the name Merrick Garland, who was proposed by the former President for the Supreme Court.

That was in an election year when Senator Grassley was up for re-election. He could have ducked that or dodged that bullet, and he did not. He stepped up and declined to hold hearings on Merrick Garland's nomination until the next President was elected. As a result, while Senator Grassley was the Chairman of the Judiciary, two originalists and textualist candidates were confirmed for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. And I would just point out maybe an unknowable, but it's likely the result of the Supreme Court would be very different if that senior senator from Iowa was not there.

Tamara Scott: Absolutely, well said. Again, this has nothing to do with a primary. We're not talking about a primary. But by the way, if those of you who have concerns with term limits, primaries are a great way to handle that. And let me just give you some examples. Tom Daschle, Senate leadership, I believe in the US Senate was taken out, so we didn't need term limits there he was a Democrat. Eric Cantor, Republican in the House, I think lost in a primary to David Brat. So there, you didn't need a term limit. David Brat has since been replaced.

So again, you don't need a term limit. Let me give you what was seated in District 1 in Iowa in 2014. Braley left to run for the Senate against Joni Ernst. So, Rod Blum actually won in 2014. A short time later, Rod Blum was replaced by Abby Finkenauer. So as an incumbent, he was beaten by Abby Finkenauer. Abby Finkenauer, a short time later, was beaten as an incumbent by Ashley Hinson. So that's just one congressional district in Iowa that's had three different people since 2014. All beat their previous incumbent. Not a challenger. Not an open seat, an incumbent.

As well, David Young lost his election. Steve King was taken out by a primary Republican. And we now have Randy Feenstra, another good Republican. But here's how you have the system working, whether it's Republican primaries, whether it's challenging from across party lines. You know Axne beat David, that's Democrat taking out a Republican, and a Republican took out a Democrat with Finkenauer.

Tamara Scott: So, I'm telling you, it works both ways when you want to engage. We have term limits. We simply need to get out and be engaged. That's the key. Term limits limit your ability, your liberty, and mine. And it also creates apathy. Let me explain how a lot of people think this will stop the apathy that people are there because people don't get out and vote. If you challenge someone in an open seat, your chances are better than challenging an incumbent. We get that, though. I've just given you an array of situations where incumbents have been taken out.

John's giving you great numbers of the changeovers. But some people think that we need to wait till open seats. Well, yes, that may have an advantage. But what happens if you do term limits then if I think you're going to be up, if I'm considering running against someone, a challenger is considering running against an incumbent they're just going to wait two years. They're just going to wait four years until that opens up because it'd be easier to win that open seat.

I think you'll see longer service, less turnover because I think people will serve the whole term. I think you'll see greater apathy. I also think it's going to allow all those liberal leftist groups out there who interfere in our elections now without state money to know more easily who's up, when and when they need to apply themselves, and when they need to be dropping leaflets and mailings and emails on congressional districts.

Tamara Scott: And you will have so much more interference from outside organizations as well. Let me just say, California gave us term limits from what I've understood, from what I've read. They gave us term limits in 1996. Is California our model state? How are things going there? Is their budget good? I don't think so. From the land of nuts and fruits, as Rush Limbaugh used to say, they even realized it didn't help them. Their budget became bloated even more so because nobody was responsible for the budget. Nobody was going to be around long enough to face the repercussions of an oversized budget.

And then even the laws themselves were erratic because of the turnover of people in and out. And, so, they changed it, I think, in 2012. They now changed it from seven years in each chamber to a maximum of 14, too. They reduced it to only 12, but you could serve it in one chamber. They felt that that helped because they had lost expertise. There are certain areas, as you can imagine, that is a little convoluted in dealing with state law policy and all the issues that legislators deal with. If you don't have someone who's there with a little bit of experience, it can be very confusing, which takes me to my next point.

Tamara Scott: The bureaucrats will run the day, the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who are responsible. David Barton told us in 2014. They had created more laws than Congress had passed in the last couple of years. That was in 2014. So, I think that's true what they can do to you. We just saw it with the CDC overstepping their bounds. We all knew they overstepped their bounds, but the TSA gladly played along and enforced it. And anybody who wanted to travel was held hostage and had to wear a face mask, a face covering, grooming populations to think that the government could tell you to cover your face.

If you don't think that's an issue, ask the women in Islam countries. We just groomed our girls to think the government could tell them to cover their faces. They totally outstepped their bounds, and thankfully but for a judge, a Trump-appointed judge, who said, "No, you had no ability to do this, you overstepped. We'd still be facing that today. So, the bureaucrats will run the day. As well, our lobbyist will have a heyday. They will have such an oversized impact, as if, they don't have enough now.

But if your people are in DC and they know you can't elect them, they've got six years of a lame duck. You're not going to be able to elect them again. Maybe they're only 40 years old. Maybe they're only 50 years old. They're looking for the next gig. So, you've got some big lobbying firm that comes by and says, "You help us get this passed, and I think we could probably find a spot for you on our Board."

Tamara Scott: I think we could probably find a spot for you, a title for you. Don't think it doesn't happen. Well, let's go back to our Articles of Confederation. We had term limits there, and that's why our founding fathers took them out, because people were making hay while the sun shined, if you want to call it that. There needs to be a reward for good behavior. And if they can't be elected by you again, what's the damage? In fact, we've seen this in certain elections. Democrats will vote one way or not, just Democrats. Let me correct that Democrats or Republicans are susceptible to this, but if they're not going to be able to be elected by their people from term limits why not make the party happy?

So maybe you get a position, something more later. Ingratiate yourself with party structure, with the President, with the Governor, whoever it might be. You will have bad laws being passed because nobody is going to have to pay the cost. There is something to be said for rewarding good behavior, punishing bad behavior, and the fact that we're not being good disciplinarians and holding elected officials accountable is our problem, not their problem. That are just a few of the reasons why term limits are not a good idea. Do you have any more you want to add on that, John?

John Strathman: No, I think you summed it up pretty good.

Tamara Scott: I think there's a little bit more. But remember, Samuel, the people wanted a king, and Samuel kept warning and be careful what you ask for. Be careful what you ask for. The king will demand your children for war. He'll demand your livestock for payment. He'll demand your grain for a surcharge. So be careful what you ask for. And I would tell you, with this convention of states, I see great threat. I see great risk. And they can mock us and call us fear mongers.

But their own proponents, as we showed you yesterday on the show with Robert Brown, Lessig being one. Professor Lessig was with the Obama administration. A Harvard professor who wants to have a convention of states to call for the abolition of the Electoral College. We just had David Bossie talking about three states, three states that changed the election for millions. And we're all suffering because of it. Think this through a year and a half ago. We were energy independent, maybe a little longer than that, but we were energy independent.

Now we're suffering at the gas pump. Now our President is talking about begging our enemies for more oil. Afghanistan wouldn't have been abandoned. The people of Ukraine wouldn't be suffering had we had better turn out. Wiser elections. Had situations not occurred as they did. So, what we need to do is be more accountable. Hold people accountable. Be involved. Be a campaign worker, not just a poll watcher. See if you can be one who counts the ballots. And as Cleta Mitchell said, "It's not even the machines."

Tamara Scott: It was the Zucker Bucks that made the difference in some of those districts. I'll leave that to Cleta to decide. But you can get the movie Rigged 2020 and decide for yourself. Here's the deal. We're in a mess. We didn't get here quickly, and we're not going to fix it quickly. But the folks who make you promises about this convention of states, this constitutional convention, righting everything if you go to REDi TV or REDi Radio, I think even there, Meckler said, "There's no guarantee."

So, I want to also ask in the debate, what happens if we change the Constitution, we rewrite it? Which it's not the problem in the first place. Everything we need to fix every one of our problems, all of our ills, is already there in place in our Constitution right now. And everything we suffered in the last three years as they shredded our Constitution, ran over our liberties, and destroyed our inalienable rights, is because we allowed it as a people. So, we can correct this, and I think we can correct it quickly.

I think we start in the 2022 election by making sure our turnout is so great that no matter what they plan, it will not work. That's what happened in 2016, in my opinion. That's why Hillary had a little meltdown that evening because she thought it was taken care of, and it wasn't. So, get the movie Rigged 2020 with David Bossie, and then don't let anybody fool you into these foolish arguments that are going to fix the problems.

Tamara Scott: We'll come back and talk about that another day, whether it's the term limits idea that simply limits your liberty of who you can vote for. Good or bad, you should be able to have the ones you want as long as you want if they're doing a good job and administering to you as a people what you want them to do. Remember, Robert Brown, talks about the power of 500.

You get 500 people in any congressional district, and you will sway their vote, and you can hold them accountable to the Constitution. The problem simply is not enough of us know our Constitution well enough to defend it and to demand we stand on it. But we can correct all of that. And it begins today. So, as we tell you on this show, we try to give you information so that you can take it and use it to the best of your ability. John, I want to thank you for coming on.

John Strathman: Thank you.

Tamara Scott: Thank you for those numbers. Thank you for what you do. He is a State Central Committee member in Iowa, and those elections will be Saturday. So, if anybody's watching and you're a delegate for the Saturday conventions. John Strathman is a great one to have on our team. It is great work and analytically, and he's got a servant's heart. That's the kind of person you want leading you. And then my thanks to David Bossie. Rigged As we tell you, live boldly, love better, laugh bigger, be encouraged, but never be complacent.