In this episode I address another disgraceful Washington Post hit piece which, unbelievably, tries to pin the blame for the Alexandria attack on GOP congressmen on conservatives. http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/07/wapo-blames-conservative-talk-radio-for-bernie-bro-who-shot-scalise/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29 I also discuss the explosive growth of Bitcoin, how it works, and a renewed interest in it by central banks. http://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/E11308EC-64F0-11E7-978F-406CF61524D0 Finally, I discuss another California-Democrat initiative to destroy political freedom. https://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-one-party-state-1499639097
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
All the Sanders supporters love throwing bombs at me and I throw them right back.
I'm not here to pull any punches, right?
This is the great irony of conservatism.
Even liberals win under conservatism.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
Are you suggesting you're that stupid that other people can run your lives better than you can even though the cost and quality of what they buy, quote, for you doesn't even matter to them?
On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Alright, welcome to The Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Doing well, Dan.
Ready to go.
Yeah, tomorrow's gonna be our 500th show.
Wow.
Can you believe that?
Now!
Gosh.
I know, it's crazy how time flies, man.
Me and Joe started this thing in my basement in Maryland two years ago, and thanks to you...
We've become like the second or third largest conservative podcast in the world.
Yep.
So thank you.
Due exclusively to you, the loyal listeners.
So I really appreciate that.
We had a great week of downloads, too, as well.
So a lot to talk about it today.
So enough self-celebration.
Let's get right to it.
The show today, by the way, is brought to you by Freedom Fest.
Hey, you guys go into this and ladies out there, I will be there and I would really like to see you there.
It's July 19th to the 22nd.
It's coming up.
Again, it's called Freedom Fest, and it is the world's largest gathering of free minds.
Listen, it's mission's clear to bring together everyone who cares about liberty to spend the ultimate three days together learning, sharing, networking, and more.
Networking is important, especially in our movement.
The theme this year is exploring new frontiers.
Brett Leonard is going to be there.
William Shatner is going to be there.
Kennedy from Fox Business and Fox News is going to be there.
I'm going to be there.
Danine Borelli is going to be there.
They have Libertarianism to the Extreme, a series going on this year.
Here's some of the titles of some of the seminars.
No More Gun Control.
Don't Vote.
It just encourages them.
Is it a Crime to Discriminate?
Not in my book.
Free Texas.
The State's Rights to Secede.
They're also going to celebrate the life and career of Steve Forbes at his 70th birthday.
They have a Saturday night banquet, celebrity guests, major think tanks will be there, Cato Heritage, the State Policy Network, the Atlas Society, and many more.
They have a trade show for liberty and an anthem film festival.
Now go register today.
I'd like to meet you there.
I'm going to be there.
I'll be walking around.
I'll have my family with me.
Go to freedomfest.com.
That's freedomfest.com and you can use promo code CRTV100 and you get $100 off.
That's CRTV100 for $100 off.
That's CRTV100 for $100 off, or you can call 855-850-3733.
Okie doke.
So, over the weekend, the disgraceful, embarrassing, disgusting, horrifying Washington Post reached a new low, which is hard because, you know what, when you reach a floor, like, it's really hard to reach a new low.
You know, there is an expression out there, Joe.
You know, you and I know some people who've struggled in life, and especially when it comes to the use of drugs and narcotics, they have a saying like, rock bottom.
Like, what was rock bottom for you?
You know, I was watching an ESPN 30 for 30 last night about Dwight Gooden, The pitcher for the Mets and Darryl Strawberry, and they kept asking Dwight Gooden, who seemingly kept relapsing, you know, what was rock bottom?
Well, just when you think the Washington Post hit rock bottom, they recreate rock bottom and break through the rock that was at the bottom.
So what happened?
There is a writer over there, Peter Holley, H-O-L-L-E-Y.
This guy is a total disgrace.
I mean, this guy should hang his head in shame and should just delete his Twitter account and just go find a new career.
I cannot believe the piece this guy wrote.
It's causing a lot of controversy and I don't want to harp on it too much because You know, beating up the media is just easy because they're just so damn stupid.
Yeah.
Especially the Washington Post and the New York Times, who, it's funny, paint themselves as the intellectual elites, but are total, total lightweights.
These people should be, they should not be allowed in a civil political discourse by respectable people.
Really, they're just a complete disgrace.
So Holly writes this piece, Joe, where he blames the Arlington, excuse me, the Alexandria, Virginia shooter, the shooting, the Hodgkinson guy who shot up Steve Scalise, nearly killed him, and he's in rough shape, by the way, still Steve Scalise, and tried to kill a bunch of Republican members of Congressmen.
And the shooter, Hodgkinson, by the way, who is, for those of you who may have unbelievably missed this story, but The shooter, Hodgkinson, is a known avid leftist and Bernie Sanders supporter.
Keep in mind, Joe, none of this is in dispute.
Right.
This isn't controversial.
Again, I'm not blaming Bernie Sanders.
Hodgkinson was clearly a maniac.
He's now dead.
He was killed by the Capitol Police officers defending their members of Congress.
But nobody, no serious person disputes this.
So, Joe, this guy Hawley writes a piece in the Washington Post where he blames the shooting on Conservative talk radio!
Oh, come on.
No, no, no, no, no.
This really happened.
Now, this guy, the backlash, by the way, has been tremendous because the guy is an intellectual cretin and he's a moron.
He's an embarrassment to journalism.
I don't know why this guy even has a job.
The Washington Post should have canned him.
How this got past an editor really is a clarion call for the Washington Post to increase its editorial staff, because this piece, that it saw the light of day, is disgusting.
Here's the connection he makes, which is laughable, if not dangerous, but embarrassing, again, for this guy.
He says, Joe, there's this radio host out there, he's a former police officer, forgive me, I don't remember his name, I've never heard of that guy before, But he has a show in Belleville, Illinois, which is Hodgkin's in the Shooter's hometown.
Now, the guy claims to be a conservative.
Again, I don't know his show.
I've never listened to it.
Or he doesn't claim to be a conservative.
He claims to be like an anti-politician guy.
But the writer of the piece claims he's a conservative.
You get what I'm saying?
The Washington Post guy is saying that this radio host in the Shooter's hometown is a conservative.
I've never listened to him.
I can't vouch for that.
But the host doesn't say that.
The host says he's just an anti-politician guy.
The host is a former police officer and apparently he gets into some heated rhetoric on the radio on his talk radio show.
He, nobody even knows if this guy Hodgkinson ever listened to this guy.
Nobody really knows if he's a conservative or not.
And yet this, this intellectual moron, this, this complete vacuum of, of moral or ethical values.
Peter Holley is like, well, you know, he makes, he makes the leap that this may have contributed somehow.
And he does it by, he's clever.
Like he doesn't say it directly.
You know what I'm saying, Joe?
He just kind of posits it and leaves it there for you.
Folks, this is just, how many times in the show am I gonna have to bring up gaslighting?
This is what bothers me about people like Peter Holley.
He's a liar, and the worst thing you can call a journalist or even an editorialist at a garbage can newspaper like the Washington Post is a total disgrace.
Go to the National Enquirer if you want credibility.
The worst thing you can say to them is they're liars.
You know, the worst thing people say about me is, I've heard it all the time, like, man, That Ponchino's got anger problems.
No, it's not a problem.
I'm just an angry guy at bad stuff.
It's not a problem for me, it's a problem for you.
One guy said to me, do you have anger management issues?
No, I manage just fine.
I direct it at exactly the people I want to.
It's managed fine.
You may not like it, but it's not an anger management problem.
That's okay, like I'm okay with that.
Alright.
But I would never be okay with people saying, oh don't listen to his show, he lies all the time.
We correct our stuff here.
This guy is a liar, this Peter Halle.
He's a liar.
There you go.
He's a not credible person.
There is no greater insult.
I'm telling you the truth that he's a liar.
Pun absolutely intended.
He's a liar.
He's a liar.
The guy is a liar.
He's a farce.
He's a joke.
He's making it up.
He is just completely fabricating a story to do the gaslighting thing, which we've discussed over and over on the show.
And if you don't understand gaslighting...
You probably haven't been listening to this show, but you have to.
Gaslighting, again, is what the liberal media and liberals do all the time.
It is the idea that you fabricate a narrative, you create a lie, you repeat the lie confidently.
So that's step one.
Create lie, repeat lie confidently.
Step two is you isolate people from the truth.
Which the liberal media does by default by never giving you the real story.
So when people like Peter Holley and the Washington Post try to fabricate a narrative, in other words lie, and the fabricated narrative, Joe, in this case, in the gaslighting episode I'm talking about now, is conservative talk radio caused Hodgkinson to shoot Republican members of Congress.
You may say, come on, this is dumb.
No one's going to believe that.
Ladies and gentlemen, people believe the Reagan tax cuts cost the government money.
People believe Clinton ran a surplus.
That is patently false.
Any idiot can look it up on Google, but people believe it.
So don't tell me that No one's going to believe that conservative talk radio caused a Bernie Sanders supporter to shoot Republicans.
That's just dumb.
People believe dumb things all the time because the liberal media specializes in fabricating dumbness.
That's what they do.
And people buy it because people are isolated from the truth and they want to believe it.
The power of persuasion is strong.
People want to believe it.
You have to understand, ladies and gentlemen, liberals are desperate for misinformation.
Conservatives are not.
What I'm telling you about the Reagan tax cuts, the Clinton surplus, what I tell you about third-party payer systems and their failure, we'll get into that later or maybe tomorrow in the show with a different story I have.
What I tell you about school choice is based in fact and data.
Data you can independently verify yourself.
You don't need me to do it.
Liberals don't do that.
You can't verify ever, Joe, ever, that Hodgkinson, the Alexandria shooter, you will never be able to know his motivation because he's dead.
Outside of what you can see, and what we can see publicly, what we know, again, no one can ever confirm this with 100% certainty, but it's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, right?
That this guy was a Sanders supporter and hated Republicans.
The data points in our direction.
This guy's fabricating a completely disingenuous narrative that conservatives somehow motivated a guy to go shoot conservative lawmakers.
The guy's a liar, Holly!
Tell the story.
So again, step one, make up a false narrative, lie about it, but say it confidently like he does in a piece.
I, you know, I'm going to leak to a, in the show notes at Bongino.com and conservativeview.com.
I'm going to link to a piece of legal insurrection.
Now it does sublink to the Washington Post piece.
Click on it if you want.
I really strongly encourage you not to because it's, they quote, there's enough of the piece in the legal insurrection piece.
I don't want to give this guy any clicks.
I had to do it, but I beg you not to.
Because again, you can read portions of the piece in the Legal Insurrection piece, which is a really good site, Legal Insurrection.
The Washington Post is garbage.
But you can read enough in there that you'll see that what this guy does is he repeats the lie confidently.
Again, step one of the gaslight.
Step two of the gaslight is never tell people the truth.
Never admit in your newspaper, the Washington Post, CNN, the New York Times, this collective Borg-like entity that puts out their false narratives.
Never admit the truth that you are the violent left.
The left embraces violence.
The left has always embraced violence, not all Democrats, but the far left has always embraced violence because the left Worship state control and state control has a monopoly on force and when they lose state control, the left, they lose the presidency and they lose elected office and they don't have the power to monopolize force.
They believe in, again, the use of force to take back that power because they see that force as a greater good.
The state is a greater good.
They love force.
They worship force.
They genuflect behind the altar of force.
They don't have the emergency brake, Joe, liberals like conservatives do.
The emergency brake for conservatives against the use of force against others.
for political purposes, is that conservatives believe in big R rights granted by God.
God is the ultimate power and God will judge you.
Folks, I'm not making any of this up, okay?
I'm giving you the ideological underpinnings of two completely different movements.
Conservatives, the emergency brake against attacking liberals and beating them up while they're speaking like they do to us.
When they attack us on college campuses, they throw pies, they beat people up, they injured the neck of that professor up in, was it Maine, at the Charles Murray speech.
Conservatives cannot do that.
Conservatives are forbidden from doing that in mass.
Again, there's isolated incidents of stupidity everywhere.
But with the left, it's a coordinated effort to use violence to suppress speech because they've lost the government monopoly on force and they need to get it back because that's all they have.
The right believes in freedom and big R rights by God, and God is always an emergency brake against unprovoked violent action against others.
When I say unprovoked, I don't mean what they mean.
The left thinks speech is provocation.
The right doesn't believe that.
I'm talking about someone physically attacks you.
God's not going to ask you to sit there and let your daughter or son get beat up.
You know what I'm saying?
But unprovoked violence against others is stopped by the right, by the big R rights.
So this guy's really just a total disgrace.
I tweeted at him this morning because I'm so disgusted.
Thank God he only has 3,000 followers and no one seems to give a crap what he says.
I think this article only got any, you know, any public, any PR out of it because conservatives were just so enraged by it that this guy, they're like, no, this can't be right.
Like this guy can't be this dumb.
But no, it turns out, yes, he is this dumb.
Yes.
Like I said, rock bottom, the rock floor is always broken through.
All right.
I got a lot to get to today.
I had an interesting conversation this week.
I want to hammer this out because I get a lot of emails on this topic.
And when I say a lot, I mean probably 10% of the emails I get to my show email account.
Appongino.com are about this topic.
People ask me about Bitcoin all the time, and I'll be honest with you, I was never overly... I don't want to say this the wrong way, because Bitcoin users are ferocious, and in a good way.
I don't mean in a bad way.
They're very passionate about Bitcoin, and I understand why.
I don't trust central banks with links to governments either.
But they're very passionate about the topic.
But I got it, but I didn't get it with Bitcoin.
So I had an interesting conversation this week, and I'm starting to figure out why people are so passionate about it.
My friend Sagi, I was up in New York, and he knows a lot about it.
And I saw an interesting story today.
I'm like, do I talk about this on the show?
And when I saw this story doing some homework for the show today, I'm like, you know what?
We're going to bring this up.
There's an interesting story I read, and I'll put it in the show notes.
It's about Bitcoin and central banks that are looking at potentially buying some Bitcoin assets.
And here's how this thing works in a nutshell.
Let me put the buyer beware, caveat emptor, right here.
It is extremely complicated and I could link to you to a thousand YouTube videos that range Joe from level 10 complication explaining the cryptography to level one that just goes into the basics.
I'm going to give you like a 1.5 or two just so you have the basic idea of what it does because I think there's a point to be made here about why this is relevant to the conversation in the United States right now about our own Federal Reserve and the evaporation of value coming from inflation of our money, which I think is right around the corner.
Bitcoin is, is basically a series of algorithms.
It's a, it is a cryptographic currency, a cryptocurrency.
And the Bitcoin is, it's like an international ledger of, so let's say Joe, you know, if we were exchanging currency and the currency didn't physically exist, like Bitcoin doesn't physically exist.
It's not, it's not like gold, like hard gold, but you can hold.
If you and I were, say we were in an island of 100 people, and we all agreed that the currency would not be physical, it's going to be strictly based on faith.
In other words, I owe Joe 10 bitcoins, Joe owes me 2 bitcoins for this.
And what we all do is we keep a ledger, right?
And the island all agrees that the ledger is real.
We're not changing anything, Joe.
All we're doing is making a change to the ledger.
So I buy from Joe podcasting services, which we buy now.
Joe is the engineer.
And Joe, whatever, Joe buys from me my new book, Protecting the President, right?
Convenient enough.
I say I pay Joe a Bitcoin a week for processing my podcast, I would minus a Bitcoin from my ledger, Joe would get one.
Right.
Well, the same way it would work for me.
If Joe buys my book for one Bitcoin, it would go in reverse.
Joe would get minus one Bitcoin, I would get one in the ledger.
Now, the common sense questions would be, well, what's to stop you from faking the ledger?
Like, how do you know the ledger's legit?
Like, what if Joe just goes in there one day, no one's looking, right?
Joe gets a pencil eraser and says, I'm going to add plus five bitcoins to my account.
I'm just going to minus one from all these other people that have a lot of bitcoins.
They won't even know it's gone.
Yeah.
Which I had an interesting criminal case like that once in the secret service, but that's exactly what the guy did.
The guy figured out through this program called Credit Master, he figured out the algorithm credit card companies used and he stole credit card numbers, but only stole Like 50 cents or a dollar from millions of different people.
So nobody knew.
Like if your balance went up on your credit card, Joe, from $978 to $979, would you really know the, I mean, honestly, would you know the difference?
No, no, no.
I mean, seriously, unless you owe a dollar and then you owe two, very few people are going to notice the difference.
So I had a case once, which was fascinating like that, but that the idea with Bitcoin is, well, how would you stop someone from doing that?
Well, The ledger, Joe, say on the island that verifies everybody's transactions, because remember, there's no hard currency.
There's no paper for you to verify you have the Bitcoin I gave you.
There's no actual Bitcoin.
It's only the ledger.
It only exists in cyberspace in the case of Bitcoin, not in an actual physical ledger.
The ledger has to be verified.
And to verify the ledger, you have all of these miners that come in.
You know, the term miners is an interesting take.
I think it's taken from the idea that, you know, we used to mine gold, and I think Bitcoin sees itself as a competitor to gold.
I frankly don't.
I don't think it's a competitor to gold at all.
I think it's a complementary asset, because gold is the ultimate physical asset.
You know what I'm saying, Joe?
It'd be nice to have crypto and a hard currency.
I think they see themselves as competitors unnecessarily.
Um, I, I think that, I think people would, it'd be great to have both.
I mean, what a hedge, right?
Against inflation.
But the miners in Bitcoin are the ones that verify the ledger.
And it's not just one miner.
It's, and like the miner in, Who's the ultimate miner, Joe, with U.S.
dollars?
The central bank, right?
The Federal Reserve?
Yeah, Federal Reserve.
They're the ones that verify the ledger.
They're the ones that control the money supply.
Now, that would be a centralized system.
Why?
Because it's centralized with one entity, the United States Federal Reserve, that controls the money supply.
That's not the case with Bitcoin.
The miners, there are There's a multitude of miners that all have access to the ledger that have to verify the transactions.
And you may say, now the lexological question is like, well, why the hell are they doing that?
I mean, if you had a bunch of people on the island, a hundred people and 25 of them, their entire day was spent verifying the ledger, like what are they getting for it?
Well, this is where Bitcoin's really clever.
By working to verify the ledger and the transactions.
Are you following me by the way?
Yeah, but it is complicated and I don't know anything about it.
I know, I know.
It's so hard, I know.
It's not easy to make this simple and I pride myself in simplicity.
I'm following you so far though.
But to verify the ledger on the island, because remember there's no physical asset.
Joe doesn't have gold in his hand.
He doesn't have a bill that says Dan owes me this.
He doesn't have a dollar bill.
He has nothing other than the ledger to rely on to verify the ledger so that everybody's transactions are legit.
These miners, they can all, they're all responsible.
It's not one central, it's not one person central for doing it.
So imagine if there was one person on the island, can you imagine the potential for corruption there?
Yeah.
If like, um, You know, whatever his name is, you know, King Jones on the island, right?
He could just sit there one day and go, you know what?
Screw these people on the island.
I'm going to screw with this whole ledger.
He could throw the whole system into disarray.
They don't have that.
They, all these miners compete to verify the ledger using math.
The reward for them doing it is new bitcoins.
So they're paid, I think it was 25 bitcoins, to verify the ledger.
The ledger is verified using very complicated math.
Now, this is where it gets a little more complicated.
So Joe, does that make sense?
A lot of people verify it, so everyone agrees the ledger's legit, right?
By doing that, for the work, they're rewarded with bitcoins.
Okay.
Now, another logical question would be like, well, you just said inflation's a problem.
What's to stop You know, the world's, you know, billion or so people who have some minor expertise in math, right?
What's to stop everybody from just jumping in and verifying a ledger and collecting all their bitcoins and now bitcoins are worth nothing because there's a whole lot of bitcoins out there.
Oh, that's a great question.
That's a great question.
And luckily I have an answer for it in my Bill Clinton voice.
The answer is the mathematical complexity Of the verification of the ledger, because it's similar to a math problem, is inversely related to the number of people doing the verifying.
Hold on, I know that was company.
Whoa, daddy!
Okay.
So, if a billion people jumped in tomorrow to verify the blockchain, using the math necessary to do that, If a billion people did it, that's a whole lot of bitcoins being created.
And by the way, there's a limit on the number of bitcoins to be created, but let's leave that to the side for a minute.
Remember, you're getting about 25 bitcoins per verification, right?
Then the currency would be worthless.
They'd be everywhere.
So the way they make it, which is brilliant, is the more people that jump in, the more complicated the math gets and the more computing power it takes.
So, I mean, you're talking about I'm not a big computer wizard, but like state-sponsored entities at some point who are the only people who are going to be able to figure that out if all those people jump in.
Now, if nobody jumps in to verify the voucher, I mean to verify the transaction ledger, right?
If nobody jumps in, that's a problem too.
Because then how does anybody know the transaction ledger is legitimate?
How do I know Joe owes me money?
Well, then the math problems get super simple.
You know, they get, like, I watched an interesting YouTube video and the guy's like, well, it would be like X plus Y equals 15.
I mean, that wouldn't take you too long to figure out what X plus Y could be if you guessed enough times, right?
And that's the idea, that they would make it so simple that, you know, people would start jumping back in to claim their free bitcoins, well, their bitcoins for verifying the ledger.
So, I know it sounds complicated, but this is a fascinating thing because Bitcoin is built in a system that naturally is a hedge against inflation.
The more Bitcoin that is created, remember, and you may say to yourself, what do you mean it's just created?
You mean like it's a fantasy in cyberspace?
Well, what do you think paper money is?
No, I'm serious.
What do you think paper money is?
Paper money is a fantasy.
Oh, so it's created by the government.
That makes it extra legit.
I mean, Joe, they just print money anyway.
Quantitative easing is the United States federal government printing money to buy itself.
That's them checking the math.
More or less.
Am I right?
I mean, I don't know.
No, no, you're right.
They're checking the math to make sure, number one, that the Bitcoin population doesn't explode.
Because again, if multiple people come in to check the ledger on it, if a lot of people come in, it gets really hard to figure it out.
So they won't create that many Bitcoins because only, say, one person will figure it out.
Right?
Okay.
If nobody comes in, they'll make it really simple so that tons of people come in and verify the ledger.
But there's also a ceiling on the number of bitcoins that can be created and I think they anticipate by 2140 there'll be no additional bitcoins created.
Now you may say to yourself, well who's going to check the ledger then?
The way they're going to do it then is they're going to just basically have a service fee for the miners who come in.
You're not going to get new bitcoins, you get what I'm saying?
You're just going to get Whatever, a transaction in already created Bitcoin for doing the servicing, just to make sure the ledger's legit.
But what's fascinating about this is I thought about it.
So I was having this conversation about Bitcoin.
This guy's super smart, I was talking to him.
I was thinking of an old Milton Friedman line he uses often when he talks about inflation, how bad money will always chase out good money over time, and that's why inflation is so dangerous.
So if you're one of the first investors in, say, a currency, Joe, and let's say that currency's worth something, right?
Let's say you invest in this new metal...
You know, strontonium.
I'm just making that up.
Sounds good.
What's the Superman thing?
Kryptonite?
Kryptonite.
Yeah, you invest in kryptonite, and they mine kryptonite, and kryptonite's gonna be used for currency because it's so rare and people are like, oh, I gotta get my hands on this kryptonite, and a block of kryptonite's worth $10,000.
Well, Friedman used to say, you know, bad money always chases out good money, meaning that may legitimately be worth about $10,000 in value.
That's a pound of kryptonite when you start, Joe.
But let's say tomorrow morning.
You know, all of a sudden people figure out a way to counterfeit kryptonite, right?
All of a sudden you see this kryptonite, not many people can tell the difference, now kryptonite's being traded that's counterfeit, people find out there's a counterfeit problem, next thing you know, the amount of kryptonite, the value collapses.
Of kryptonite, because people don't trust the currency, that was Friedman's way of saying, you know, bad money in the end to counterfeit kryptonite.
Will always chase out good money.
He gave some more complicated examples about tobacco, how tobacco used to be used as a form of currency, Joe.
Yeah.
So what, tobacco farmers would naturally want to give away their worst tobacco.
So as it became a more accepted form of currency, tobacco, using tobacco like we would use dollars to trade, farmers who farm tobacco would want to give away their crap tobacco for your whatever, your good wine products or whatever it is.
So bad money always chases out good money.
Nice thing about this Bitcoin thing, And I think why central banks are really interested in it right now, central banks meaning government sponsored banks, actually think about buying bitcoins.
Which remember, you're just buying essentially an algorithm connected to the web.
That's it.
You store it on a USB drive, store it on a hard drive.
You know, you lose it, you lose it.
I read another fascinating story about a guy.
He bought bitcoins early, just like you would buy, say, gold or silver, and they weren't worth much when he bought them.
So he stored them on a hard drive, Joe.
He threw the hard drive out.
The hard drive, a couple years later, was worth $7 million.
So he went to the dump to go.
He could never find it.
I feel bad for that guy.
Poor guy.
But central banks are considering looking into this.
So it's definitely a topic I think you should put on your front burner now.
It's not unrelated to what's going on.
All right.
What else we got today?
All right.
Today's show also brought to you by our friends at My Patriot Supply, which is a perfect segue right now, although unintentional.
You know I'm into preparedness.
That's why I'm going to look into this Bitcoin thing and my Birch Gold buddies, too.
I want to hold some stuff, though, too.
Having a hard drive is nice, Joe, but I want to be able to hold some shiny stuff, too.
People like shiny stuff.
But my Patriot Supply, they will sell you a month's supply of emergency food.
Now, I get it.
Some of you may be saying, well, why do I need that?
Why do you need that?
How can you not have it is the better question.
We used to say in the Secret Service when it came to emergency supplies, better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them.
I'm not kidding.
We used to have all kinds of bulletproof stuff.
I'm not going to say what, but cut into fancy designs so we could hide it in places and throw it on the president if needed, right?
And I remember a couple times, guys, God, do we really need that?
Yes, yes, we need it.
God forbid the bullets start flying, we're gonna need it.
You need emergency food.
They will give you a month's supply of emergency food.
God forbid there's a really serious power outage.
We have one of these EMP attacks the North Koreans keep talking about.
They keep mentioning this, which they have like an obsession with it.
You have a blackout that lasts a little longer than intended.
You have a tornado, a natural disaster.
You will have the security.
The psychological security of having a month's supply of emergency food for yourself.
It's only $99.
It's 140 servings.
It lasts 25 years.
It comes in a slim plastic case.
Store it.
You don't have to worry about it for 25 years.
Here's the website.
It's preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
Only $99.
Go pick up your month's supply of emergency food today.
All right.
A couple more things I have to get to.
I hope you found that interesting, by the way.
I'm always hesitant to discuss things like Bitcoin, but people are fascinated by it.
And after the conversation this weekend and reading this article today about central banks, I thought, this is something we have to discuss on the show.
We'd be doing you a disservice if we didn't.
All right, the anti-anti-communist liberals have been exposed again.
Trump gave a speech in Poland last week.
His speech was about the benefits of, it was a little bit about Polish history and the fighting spirit.
Of the Polish people.
But one of the things he also addressed, Joe, were the benefits of Western civilization.
Talking about our civilization, the idea of a constitutional republic, the idea, you know, of voting rights, the idea of big R rights granted by God.
The power of Western civilization, I mean, amongst reasonable people, Joe, like you and I, is not really quite, like, nobody questions Western civilization and the benefits to the world unless you're a liberal buffoon, but that's the, you know, subject of my story today.
I have, Trump gave this speech, and liberals went wild.
So that's, that's what's generating my, my storyline here.
Liberals went crazy.
They had a piece on Fox news this morning, a competition for the most unhinged reaction to Trump's speech, uh, stating the benefits of Western civilization.
Everything from Trump is a racist to a white nationalist to, you know, Trump hates every other country that hasn't embraced Western values, which is all simply outrageous.
And as, um, A commentator on Fox pointed out this morning, you know, it's interesting, Joe, LBJ was a Democrat, Lyndon Baines Johnson, you know, former president of the United States, gave almost an identical speech on the benefits of Western civilization, and at the time, at least, liberals in the media loved it.
Now, why is that?
Well, of course, because LBJ was a Democrat.
But Trump gives the same speech, you know, professing the greatness of the United States and Western civilization and our values, and, you know, praising the Polish people for their fight, and the liberal media went nuts.
And The why matters.
We say the why matters all the time.
Why did they do that?
Folks, again, the anti-anti-communist approach to the left.
I cannot express this to you in strong enough terms.
This is their ideological bedrock.
I have to hat-tip this to David Horowitz.
I did not make up the term.
But Horowitz says you will stop questioning the left's motives for things when you understand that they are the anti-anti-communists.
We are the anti-communists.
Communism is the state ownership of private assets, of what should be private assets, state ownership of the economy, and really state ownership of you.
Economic freedom and political freedom are interrelated.
If you can't vote or you can't own assets or your own private property and everything is property of the state, you don't have either.
Don't forget that line, folks.
This is from Hayek, right?
Not a direct quote, but one of the premises of the road to serfdom was the idea that If you can't own anything, and the government owns all of your assets, your labor and everything else, which is what communism is, Joe.
You're not allowed to own a factory, you're paid by the government.
In other words, you don't have economic freedom.
Political freedom is irrelevant!
You understand why, right Joe?
If I'm voting for Joe Armacost or Frank Luber, the host at his morning station, and you're both running to be the premier of the Soviet Union, or to run for a seat in the Politburo, but you both own my assets once you get elected, it doesn't matter!
What do I care if it's Frank or Joe?
Oh, we got political freedom, we can vote.
For what?
It doesn't matter, you have no control.
And the inverse is true too.
If you can't vote, ever, and you have no say over the power of people who are in charge, even if you own assets, those assets, because you have economic freedom, are always in jeopardy because you can't vote the people out of office when they decide to take them.
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
I mean, Hayek could not hammer this point home in strong enough terms in the road to serfdom.
Economic freedom and political freedom will always be married at the hip.
You cannot have one without the other.
What was I talking about?
Oh, the anti-anti-communist thing?
Oh, the reason I bring this up is because the anti-anti-communists understood this a long time ago.
And they understood that to be communist, to fight for their cause, they had to fight anything that was against them, even if people that were against them seemed to clash with their own values.
Here's what I mean.
And this is the reaction to this.
Trump professes a speech talking about the greatness of the United States.
The liberals need you to understand that the United States is an awful place.
So how do they do that?
They need to bash the United States at all costs and they need you to see the United States as an imperialist empire because they are fighting for both Your economic and your political freedom.
They want to take away your ability to vote people into office for change and they want to take away your ability to own property.
That's what socialism is.
So they have to get you to hate the current system.
So that's how they became the anti-anti-communists.
We're the anti-communists and they're against us.
So whatever we stand for, they're against.
And however another group can benefit their collective cause, taking away our economic and political freedom, they will jump in line with them even when it clashes with their own values.
And the classic example of this is why liberals will continue to defend radical Islamism despite the fact that, you know, the Iran deal And a lot of these radical Islamist empires, they will continue to defend them despite the fact that they're supposed to be, Joe, they're supposed to be champions for LGBT values.
Liberals, that is, right?
That's their thing.
LGBTQ values, they've been out there at the forefront.
Transgender bathroom usage, that's their thing.
But the fact that the Iranians throw people who are gay off the roofs, and what was it, Ahmadinejad who said years ago in New York that there were no gay people in his country, Remember that?
The guy's a maniac.
The guy's clearly crazy.
Liberals will defend them, not because they align with their values, but because they're against us, the anti-communists.
And anybody they can get on the team to defeat us, to take state power, even if it clashes with their immediate agenda, they'll do it.
And the reaction, the unhinged reaction this week is just a confirmation of that.
That they are the anti-anti-communist party.
They don't have any values.
They don't like the United States.
They don't like Western civilization because they don't like freedom because they worship state power.
You have to understand that folks.
There's a why to everything.
This is not being done by mistake.
The liberals cannot have you praising Western civilization because Western civilization is a thorough rebuke to everything they believe in.
They don't believe in freedom.
They don't believe in economic freedom, and they don't believe in political freedom.
And that's why they reacted the way they did.
All right, final story of the day.
This one was a doozy, and I'll put this in the show notes, too.
This one's just... I read this in the Wall Street Journal, the opinion section.
I just laugh my butt off because it's just so anti-anti-communist, like how they hate everything that involves freedom.
And you know, the liberals, Joe, with their fight against voter ID, right?
You would think the liberals would care about the integrity of the ballot box and people's access to ballot measures and not doing last minute changes that would destroy a free and fair election, right?
Well, it's nonsense.
They don't really mean any of that.
So I saw a story about, if you're a California resident, you probably heard this, but if not, you'll be a little bit, maybe a little bit floored by this.
So the supermajority in California, the Democrat supermajority in their Senate is in jeopardy right now.
Now their supermajority in California allows them, Joe, due to some ballot initiatives, allows them to raise taxes, the Democrat supermajority.
They don't need any Republican support.
They can basically scrap the Republicans, okay?
They have that now.
Now, they're in jeopardy.
The supermajority's in jeopardy because there is an initiative to hold a special election to get this guy, what's his name, Senator Josh Newman from the Orange County area, to get him out of office.
Now, this guy's in a swingy district, so this guy's a Democrat, he's a Senator, and if this special election goes through, this recall election, because people assume sick of this guy, The Democrats will not have the ability to unilaterally raise taxes.
They'll need a Republican to do it.
Does that make sense?
So there are election laws in California on the books now that say two things.
The two takeaways is the election laws say, well, for special elections, you know, they'll be held whatever this amount of time after the, you know, after the recall thing passes.
And then there's another law that says that there are campaign finance limits, right?
Joe, the Democrats are for that, right?
They hated Citizens United.
They always talk about dark money.
So just to be clear, There's a recall initiative to get rid of a Democratic senator that will break their supermajority to raise taxes in California.
The laws that govern these recall elections say when they can happen and put limits on how much money people can donate to them.
Two things you would think Democrats would be for.
Because they're all about free and fair elections, Joe, and control of money and politics.
Of course, yes.
Of course, but you'd be wrong again.
So what happened there?
The Democrats are now pushing through an initiative to change the date After the fact, by the way, sorry I'm itching my eye, change the date of the election to correspond to a local primary because the turnout would be higher which they think would benefit the Democrats.
Keep in mind it's all being done after this recall movement started.
So you may say, oh, well, okay, you know, they want to change it after the fact so they can win.
Everybody would do that.
Well, here's the second one's an even bigger doozy.
Here's the second change they want to make.
They want to make it so that the campaign finance limits on the amount of money you can donate to this guy, Josh Newman.
They want to waive it for internal donations.
In other words, like, Democrat state senators who donate to this guy.
And the reason they want to do that, because if the recall election goes forward, a lot of these Democrats in California have surplus funds.
They can pour hundreds of thousands of dollars in this guy's race.
So they want campaign limits to apply to everyone else but them!
Wow.
But again, folks, don't worry about it.
If you're liberals, again, just keep telling yourself you have values and ethics.
You're disgraceful.
Your movement's a disgrace.
You don't stand for anything.
You're the anti-anti-communist.
You just want to beat up the other guy.
And whatever principle, air quotes, you have to use to do it, you'll do it.
The referee says no punches below the belt, you punch below the belt.
The referee says no baseball bats, you hit him with a bat and your corner man comes out and shanks your opponent.
You have no ethics, nothing!
Oh, we're all about campaign limits, except when we're going to lose our supermajority.
It's just disgusting.
So I'll put the story in the show notes.
You can read the details.
But again, it just shows how when you have a monopoly rule in a state like California, I discussed Illinois last week, how they will do almost anything to maintain power and throw all their principles out the window.
It's just grotesque.
All right, folks.
Thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Thanks for a great week of listens last week and downloads.
And tomorrow will be show 500, so I'm really looking forward to that.
I'll see you all tomorrow.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
