In this episode I address the unbelievable attack on the pro-life movement happening in Hawaii. http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/13/hawaii-force-pro-life-pregnancy-centers-advertise-free-abortions/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRneFlURTBNRGN6WTJJMSIsInQiOiJ3aEJLaUdKUjhaY3hCK2NLVVd5ZU82ajVZNUd3b0tvbFZLRXhvNzZmbytxc0gyZDBENEhRTEZNWW1SZkVVMFlTTVVHK1I2UnBwbGlSOUVHVXFcL2RcL0F3OUNveTBUWEVDZnlkXC9mc2Q2ZlF1V0ZKUURDYUw1SVZaaXd1cjRIOWlxKyJ9 I discuss a bombshell new report which questions the integrity of the environmental data the Left has been using to advance their green agenda. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent- I address the activist group "La Raza" and the reasons being their recent name change. https://www.wsj.com/articles/la-raza-finally-loses-the-race-1500229809 I discuss the big data problem, privacy concerns with that data, and the government's regulatory role in big data. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/16/how-can-we-stop-algorithms-telling-lies Finally, I address the scandal developing in Canada around payments made to a man who admitted attacking and killing a US soldier. http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/14/trudeaus-khadr-remarks-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
I have an obligation to come on the air with data and material and research.
I can't just say, trade stinks!
Thanks for tuning in to Dan Bongino Show.
Let's jump right in because we have no time for nonsense.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
When I was a young man, I don't remember it being sexy to want to allow a nanny state to control my life.
On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right, welcome to The Rangy Republican with Dan Bongino.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Oh, Daniel, I'm hanging in there!
Yeah, another fine Monday.
Still beating a snot.
I was complaining to Joe, as one thing heals, the next thing goes.
Getting, like, cauliflower-ier now, which is killing me, because I wear headphones for the show.
Oh!
Yeah, and I'm like, ugh, get these things off!
I'll be in for Levin tomorrow, by the way, for those of you who want to tune in on Terrestrial.
Yeah, I just got the, uh, got a text for that.
So, folks, I have so many stories today that I think I could use the bevy of stories today to cover content for the entire week.
So I'm going to try to power through them.
And I just want to be clear on this, too.
I have so many stories that if I don't get to them, I am going to put the links to what I found to be about eight or nine mind-blowing stories.
They're always available at Bongino.com in the show notes.
But also, if you want to join my email list at Bongino.com, I will email you these stories in a quick one-liner why they matter to you.
Into your mailbox every morning.
So my goal with the email list is to by the end of the week, we've covered all the significant information you need to know about politics and economics or mostly all of it.
So at least through my perspective.
So go sign up for the email list at Bongino.com.
Hey, before we get going, I have a major correction.
I want to Give a hat tip to one of our email list recipients of our email, Alexis.
I don't know if it's a guy or a woman.
So sorry, Alexis.
I didn't think to ask her.
But sent me an email and said, hey, the Conor McGregor quote, you were wrong.
Accuracy is our thing on this show.
So I got a couple points on this.
Conor McGregor's fighting Floyd Mayweather.
You can listen to this show.
If you're binge listening, you heard it a half an hour ago.
If not, we covered it on Friday.
He's an MMA fighter.
Mayweather's a boxer.
They're going to fight.
I love Conor, but I don't think he's got much of a shot at this.
It's a strict boxing match.
But I said at one point, remember, Joe, I said, you know, Conor called Floyd a dancing monkey.
That was not accurate.
Oh, is that right?
Yes.
All right.
And we always correct here.
So thank you to Alexis for reaching out and correcting that.
Here's the actual quote, and I zeal to get the story on the air.
I confuse two separate incidents.
They were interviewing McGregor about, remember Rocky III, Joe, the Clubber Lang one?
Yeah.
Clubber Lang versus Rocky, that one.
They were interviewing McGregor about that, and they said something like, hey, could you beat Sylvester Stallone in Rocky III?
He said, I'm trying to remember which one was Rocky III.
Was that the one in the celebrity gym?
I can't remember if that's the one with the dancing monkeys or not.
So McGregor being white and Mayweather, of course, being black and Clubber Lang and Rocky III being black and Rocky being white.
I'm telling you, this thing's taking on racial overtones.
And for those of you who don't follow mixed martial arts or boxing, I get it.
But the reason I brought it up on Friday is not because I wanted to get into the MMA versus boxing debate, although I think it's a pretty fascinating one, it's because you can see how these things take on these racial overtones due to the divided nature of our country because liberals love to play these games.
And that was, so the quote, he didn't call Mayweather a dancing monkey, he was talking about that, but he did say to Mayweather, dance for me, boy, at one point, which of course, you know, didn't go over well with the Mayweather camp.
So, you know, thanks for the heads up on that.
And just on another note, I debated bringing this up, but You know, I consider this a conversational show, and by the way, I have to talk to you about doing a rough cut show for the weekend.
Oh yeah?
Yeah, I was going to call you this weekend, but I didn't want to bother you.
I'm thinking of doing a Saturday show, folks, like rough cuts, like culture stuff, working out stuff, and MMA stuff that I didn't want to fit in during the week.
You're free to listen to it if you're here strictly for the politics.
The show's not for you, I totally understand, but I really like the idea of doing one for the weekends.
See, I get so distracted talking about this stuff.
Rough cuts, rough cuts.
I just find this stuff fascinating, and I think the mixed martial arts thing and the fact that it's a white-black argument that came out of a boxing versus mixed martial arts thing to be incredibly fascinating.
Oh, I know what I was going to say.
Sorry.
I know the look squirrel moments get really tiresome, but I really have a lot to put out there.
Someone put on my Facebook page, you know, Dan, we love your show, but you, you always get in the pop culture stuff wrong.
And they're right.
I'm at movies and stuff.
I'm the worst.
So the guy said, fair enough.
He goes, well, why should we trust you with the economic stuff?
And hey, I thought, you know what?
I'm going to put that's a good question.
I would ask the same thing.
And here, I have a very logical explanation.
I'm constantly getting movie quotes and titles wrong and things like that.
I, honest to God, folks, my whole life is this show.
It drives my wife crazy.
I spend the entire day going through the Wall Street Journal, Breitbart, Cato, Zero Hedge, reading, double-checking, taking written notes.
I mean, one of these days I'm going to take a picture of my notebook where I write down verbatims so I don't forget it, exactly what the article says.
I put the articles in the show notes and then I put them on an email list saying, hey, not only is this the quote, here's the quote, here's the article.
I spend so much time doing that that I don't have a lot of time to go and see movies and things like that.
I mean, I'm just telling you the truth.
That's why I'm constantly screwed.
I can hear it now.
You spend more time with that producer, Joe, than you do with me, Dan.
It is.
It's she does.
He gets annoyed at my wife and I don't blame her.
I mean, I'm on the phone all the time because I'm constantly reading.
So that's the explanation why I'm always screwing up the pop culture stuff.
So.
All right, moving on.
So a ton of stuff to get through here.
There's a where should we start?
Let's do the Daily Signal story first because this one just blew my mind.
I went into last week how the left's obsession with population control is at the very core.
The why matters.
Why is the left always pro-abortion?
I'm talking about the far left, not all Democrats, but why are they pro-abortion?
Why do they like euthanasia?
You know, for those of you, not youth in Asia, euthanasia, the idea that we should put people to death if they're sick.
Why did Barack Obama say when they were pushing Obamacare about the grandmother with the hip replacement that maybe she's too old, maybe we should just give her the pill.
Remember that one, Joe?
Why does the left have this obsession with basically making people go away?
Well, it's because they've been married to this idea of population control through the writings of Malthus and the idea that we were going to outgrow our food supply for decades.
And I said, don't confuse the left with a party that's in love with death.
They're not.
I mean, as I said last week, if they were in love with death, they'd be recommending mass suicide, which we're not there yet, thankfully.
They just don't mind death, which, folks, is scary enough.
I'm not trying to apologize for liberals.
I'm just saying far-left liberals don't mind death.
They don't.
They don't see abortion, the barbarity of it.
It doesn't bother them.
Death is not an impediment.
Meanwhile, to us as Christians and conservatives and Jews and people of any religion who believe in a higher power that life is a gift, Obviously, Joe, see death as an obstacle to any bad policy.
In other words, we don't support abortion because it kills people!
You get what I'm saying?
This isn't complicated to us.
Now, I saw this story today, and I'm like, here we go, confirming again a story we discussed last week.
Hawaii just passed a law It's already a law in the books in California, kind of replicating the similar Hawaii policy.
These pro-life centers, Joe, you could go into these places.
They're called pregnancy centers in some places.
There's some in Western Maryland.
When I ran for office, I had popped in there a couple times at some of their events.
But there are these pregnancy centers where you can go and if you're in a crisis pregnancy, whatever it may be, it's unplanned, you're a teenager, you can go in there and you can get advice and there's some guidance they provide and obviously I've never been pregnant so I've never been in one of them and I've never been the co-partner in a pregnancy like that, but you could go in there and get advice.
So of course that's not good enough for the left because the left Joe again doesn't mind death and they seek population control in any measure.
So there was a Hawaii judicial ruling that was just passed down that these pro-life centers are now forced to provide advertisements for free abortion when you walk in and the website and all of the accoutrements that go along with it like guiding people to free abortions.
You're forced to do it.
Jeez.
So, again, it's not enough for the left to be, quote, pro-choice, which is nonsense.
Folks, I'm telling you, they are pro-abortion.
They don't mind death, as it's not an impediment to their solution, and their solution is always going to be population control, and population control requires the power of the state.
And they always worship the power of the state.
When you go into one of these crisis pregnancy centers, they have to give you a piece of paper directing you to where you can get a free abortion, that it's free.
You gotta read the article in the Daily Signal.
It includes the actual language.
You're gonna be like, this can't be real!
But it is real!
Because, again, the left sees death as no impediment at all to bad policy decisions.
It's just not.
I saw the story this morning.
I'm like, this is just unbelievable that this is happening in the United States.
Okay, I want to motor through a couple quick ones here, too, because there's so much going on.
La Raza is finally changing its name.
You know La Raza, the far-left activist group that disguises itself as Hispanic activism, which is nonsense.
I don't buy it.
Yeah, the race, exactly.
That's Spanish for the race, la raza.
They are changing their name, Joe.
Again, I'll put this story in the show notes today.
And it goes back to a story we discussed a long time ago where we were talking about the why matters and why the left does what it does and why the left loves the power of discretionary bureaucracy.
In other words, the left doesn't love elected government.
The left loves non-elected government.
Because when the government's elected, if the government that's elected does not represent leftist values, the left will attack that.
So don't ever get confused and think for a second like, oh, the left is in love with big government.
The left is not in love with big government.
Do not be confused.
It's like the left is not in love with death.
They just don't mind it.
The left is in love with population control.
The left, when it comes to big government, is in love with left-leaning big government.
The Trump government right now is still huge.
I told you a story last week about how the monthly budget Our monthly federal budget, we're spending $400 billion per month for the first time, despite the fact that the Republicans are in charge in the House of Representatives.
They have the power of the purse.
We are spending record amounts of money.
So Joe, if the left was in love with big government, like a lot of the people who don't do the deep dives on this want you to believe, then why isn't the left celebrating the House of Representatives now?
Because it's not their government, Joseph!
It's not!
Republicans are in charge in the House of Representatives.
They love their big government.
It's as simple as that.
I can't emphasize any of this to you enough.
They love their big government.
Now, they also love non-elected bureaucracies.
Non-elected bureaucracies, meaning what effectively is becoming our court system, who are becoming bureaucrats, not judges.
I got a story on that later, too.
You're like, what the hell's going on?
But they love non-elected bureaucracies like the EPA and other places.
And also the Obama administration, what they were doing, because they can funnel money through these bureaucracies and rules and judicial rulings that they wouldn't get through the legislative process.
Right.
So what happened here?
So LaRose is changing its name to Unidos USA.
Now, why would they be doing that?
Again, the why matters, folks.
Under the Obama administration, do you remember Joe, the show we did when I was talking about the lawsuits that were being filed against big banks?
Oh yeah.
So the Obama administration's DOJ was filing mega lawsuits against big banks.
And as a condition of the lawsuit, they wrote into it, because the government cannot give money To La Raza, or a private group, without an appropriate law being passed by Congress.
Congress has the power of the purse.
So the Obama administration, which again, loves bureaucracies, and loves skirting the law, and loves judicial activism, tried to figure out a way around that, and they won.
They're like Bugs Bunny.
And they won.
They figured out a way, and the way they did it was they would sue big banks, and say they won the lawsuit against a big bank for $10 billion.
They'd say, well, Here's what we can do here.
You can either give that $10 billion to us, the United States Treasury, or if you make, Joe, a donation to La Raza and other groups, we will give you credit for double the amount of the actual donation towards the ruling.
So we'll give you $2 for every dollar you donate.
So obviously, if you're like, well, let me see.
I'm a big bank, I can pay a fine of $10 billion to the U.S.
Treasury, or I can pay a fine of $5 billion and make a quote, donation to La Raza and all these other groups, Acorn, all these other groups.
Of course, Joe, you're a business, you're going to take the $5 billion.
I can take the $10 billion, shareholders would go crazy.
That's what was happening in the Obama years.
Again, a way to skirt entirely the legislative process because they don't like government.
Stop.
Please.
I'm begging you.
Stop saying the left loves big government.
They don't.
The left loves their government.
When it's not their government and the House of Representatives in the Obama years was controlled by Republicans, they couldn't pay off their interest groups.
So what did they do?
They ignored them and minimized the House of Representatives and went straight through to this underhanded way of getting money to their special interest groups.
It's critical you understand the difference.
They don't love big government at all.
They love their government.
Now, what does this have to do with La Raza?
Well, La Raza was making a lot of money under that.
Obama had hired some La Raza people to work in his administration, and their allocations from the federal government had more than doubled from $4 million to $11 million.
That's a lot of money for the federal government, for taxpayers to facilitate a transfer into that organization.
Well, the largesse is drying up right now because that stopped under the Trump administration.
We discussed this too.
Sessions shut that down at the DOJ.
It's not happening anymore.
So these groups now have to go out and raise money from the grassroots, from actual people.
And what they're finding, La Raza, The indications here, Joe, and this is a story I'm bringing up today because it plays into the left's use of identity politics, the left's love of their government, not big government, but also because it's very personal to me, folks, if I can be candid with you.
My wife is Colombian, 100%, not South Carolina, Columbia from South America.
My kids, and I'm Irish, for those of you who don't know me, I'm Irish, Italian, and German.
I'm not all Italian.
I know I look, I have the very Italian look to me, but I'm only half Italian.
My father was Italian.
So basically, my kids' genetic makeup is largely Colombian, Joe.
They're half Colombian, and the other half is mixed up between Italian, German, and Irish.
My kids do not identify as Hispanic.
Now, on any form where they're asked, what are they, they put Hispanic because that's just factually correct.
But they don't identify as Hispanic.
It's not an insult, it's not a slap in the face.
My wife is very proud of where she's come from and she's, believe me, extremely proud to be American now.
And it's not a denial of our background or my kids' background at all or where their mother came from.
It's just the fact that they're American and they've been raised American.
We don't raise our kids with identity politics.
Why am I bringing this up?
Not to give you my family background, but to tell you that this is not a unique experience show at all.
The article makes the point that now that the money has stopped flowing from the federal government, they've had to go out and raise money from the grassroots.
And using a name like La Raza, or as you accurately stated in the English translation, Joe, the race, is not an attractive way to raise money from a group of people who are largely not identifying with the race.
You get my point?
They don't think like that.
Right.
Now, the far left automatons who want to play identity politics and insist that there's a generation of Americans that identify as Hispanic voters, that's just not true.
You can identify that way all you want.
It's the same reason in Texas, you know, Governor Greg Abbott won something like 48, 49% of the quote Hispanic vote.
The reason, Joe, is it wasn't the Hispanic vote.
It was just a bunch of people with Hispanic heritage who didn't consider themselves Hispanic.
They were American.
Yeah.
My kids don't run around saying, I'm a Hispanic.
They're American.
They don't care.
They don't care about the labels.
They care about where their mom is from.
They care about learning where their mom is from.
But that's not what they're married to.
But the left is so immersed in identity politics that they can't seem to escape from the bubble unless, Joe, money's involved.
This is always my point when I try to get to when it personally hurts the left.
Now, all of a sudden, Laraz is like, Wait, should we really be calling ourselves the race?
Considering that the people we're trying to raise money from don't believe in these artificial designations of the race?
So they change it to Unidos U.S.
United United States.
Some derivative of that.
Silly wefties.
Yeah, exactly.
Folks, they don't mean anything they tell you.
Identity politics for them is a scam used to get votes.
They use it to get you to believe if you are You know, they understand that if you identify as American, the likelihood that you are going to vote conservative or Republican in the future is great because American values are almost uniquely Western.
What we do here.
Liberty, freedom, free markets, the idea of freedom of religion.
They are almost uniquely Western.
I say almost because obviously a lot of European countries still have degrees of liberty, but they're moving with socialized medicine and other things in the wrong direction, especially what we're seeing going on in religion in some European countries.
But these are almost uniquely Western values.
So the left understood a long time ago that we can't have people identifying with being American, Jo.
Does that make sense?
So we have to get them to identify with something else.
So this is where identify identity politics came in.
If we can convince black Americans that they are black first and American second, Or Hispanic Americans, that they are Hispanic first and American a distant second.
We can get them to believe that the Republican Party is targeting them specifically and that they somehow are a group of victims, the subject of bad policies enforced by conservatives.
Which is amazing considering most of the areas of inner cities that have dense populations of Hispanic and black voters are literally governed monopolistically by Democrats and are being screwed over every day.
So how the Republicans went after you is just a mystery to me, considering the fact that Republicans aren't in charge almost anywhere.
That involves dense pockets of populations of Hispanic and Black voters.
It's just amazing the job that went on to sucker people into believing this.
But remember, when money's involved, La Raza needed to raise money.
Now all of a sudden, they're going to change their name.
So now they're back to UnidosUS.
So I will put that in the show notes.
It's a really interesting story.
It's in the Wall Street Journal.
If it's a subscriber thing, forgive me, I don't think it is, but Mike Gonzalez wrote it from Heritage.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at My Patriot Supply.
You know, I appreciate all the emails I get from listeners out there, but I really appreciate the ones where you support our sponsors.
You know, it means a lot to me.
They keep the show free.
They've been really good to us.
My Patriot Supply has been with us a very long time, and they offer a service that I think is vital.
I wouldn't do an advertisement for them if I didn't believe so.
Folks, not having a supply of emergency food is just insane.
You really need to get yourself a supply of emergency food.
We insure everything in our lives that matters.
Everything.
We insure our health.
People have dental insurance.
You have car insurance.
You have home insurance.
Hurricane insurance down here.
Flood insurance.
Sinkhole insurance in Florida.
How you don't have a supply of emergency food, I think, is a reflection of our national wealth.
I understand that.
People say, ah, there's food everywhere all the time.
Well, what if there wasn't?
What if there was a natural disaster?
What if there was an EMP attack?
What if there was a massive civil disturbance that disrupted supply lines?
Folks, you and I, Joe and I, everybody, any rational person hopes and prays that never happens.
And hopefully the chances of that happening on a mass scale are very low.
But are they low enough that you wouldn't spend $99 to supply, to get an emergency supply of food?
That's all it is.
They will give you a month's supply of emergency food.
MyPatriotSupply at, here's the website, It's preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
They will send you a month's supplies, all kinds of different food.
It's not gruel, I promise you.
It's breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
They have a variety of different food products.
It's all, it tastes great.
You can, all you have to do is add water.
It comes in a super slim plastic case.
Stick it in the bottom of your closet.
Better to have it, not need it, than to need it and not have it.
Go to preparewithdan.com.
Pick up your month's supply of emergency food today.
Okay.
Zero Hedge, which I really love.
It's another email list.
They do a great job.
The guy who writes, he writes under a pseudonym.
Tyler Durden.
Does that ring a bell to you?
You a movie guy?
This one I know I have right.
For all my pop culture critics out there, and you are correct.
They do get things right.
Do you know where Tyler Durden comes from?
No.
Do you remember the movie Fight Club with Brad Pitt?
I didn't watch.
I didn't see that one.
Yeah, Fight Club.
It's an older movie, but it's a good one.
I like it.
Brad Pitt and Ed Norton are in it.
It's, I don't want to give away, someone might not have seen it, but it's a cool movie.
I like it, especially if you're into like mixed martial arts and stuff like that.
But the character in the movie, the Brad Pitt character is Tyler Durden.
And, uh, it'll make a lot of sense why this guy stole that name.
If you, uh, or you didn't steal it, but took the name to write this piece.
If you, if you watch the movie.
But he puts out a website, Zero Hedge, and he has an email list as well.
He launches some good stuff out.
And this morning I saw a piece out there, again, about liberal misinformation.
So first we talked about the, you know, attack on life, I mean, in general.
And we talked about the La Raza thing and how, you know, the identity politics only works for them unless they need to raise money.
And then they'll switch from identity politics in a heartbeat to take your money.
But this one's another one about, you know, the green agenda.
The Green Agenda and environmentalism and how it's based on faulty data.
Now, I've done entire shows on this about the mythical 97% of scientists agree that the globe is going to melt tomorrow morning nonsense and how they manipulated that, how it was really based on an unbelievably small subset of people who answered a survey.
If you say 97% of scientists agree, this is the leftist talking point, that the globe is warming.
You have to know, Joe, how many environmental scientists are in the world, and you'd have to know what the 97% figure looked like, or you would have to engage in a statistically rigorous study that was an accurate subset of the entire scientific community, correct?
Correct.
If you say 97% of people respond to a drug positively for blood pressure, the subjects have to be randomized.
There's an appropriate way to what we call in science control for the, you know, different effects and to control for extraneous variables to make sure that it's the drug working and not the fact that Joe is exercising, right?
Instead, the same thing works with survey data.
That's not how any of this was done, that 97%.
Almost everything that comes out of the left's mouth when it comes to environmental science, sadly, is some tinkering of the data, or in this case, a torturing of the data.
So Zero Hedge put a piece out about a new report, and I'm always hesitant to use the term bombshell, because bombshells become overrated.
But this is a bombshell report.
Now, in case you're thinking, and the new report does challenge the far-left orthodoxy on the environment, and you may be thinking to yourself, well, Who put this report out?
Conservative Review or Breitbart or one of you conservative groups?
No, it's a new report that's been peer-reviewed by the EPA, MIT, and a number of other universities, and I'll put the link in the show notes today.
You can read the report yourself.
The link to the report is in the article.
You can check it out yourself.
I don't talk about anything I can't back up.
It's not credible.
This is more than credible.
So the new report analyzes what they call GAST, Joe.
Global Average Surface Temperatures.
And what they found out was fascinating, that the data is, which is not a mystery to anyone who's followed this for a while, the data is being tortured in such a way in cyclical adjustments.
So let me think of an analogy to sum this up.
I love economics.
So what they do in unemployment, when they do unemployment figures show is they'll do cyclical adjustments.
So if unemployment were to, let's say, go up in a certain area of Maryland in the summer, You may say, look, the economy's spiking in Ocean City, Maryland in July.
Now I think Joe sees where I'm going with this because he knows Maryland.
Yeah, I do.
Yeah, of course it's spiking.
Ocean City, Maryland's a beachfront town and people come in, you know, there's Joe from Pennsylvania and other places and they work in whatever, the fast food places, the restaurants, the bars, because people go to the beach in Maryland in the summer.
That is not A quote, spike in employment.
It is a cyclical phenomenon, meaning Joe, summer happens.
Did you know this every year?
Yes.
Do you know summer happens every year?
Don't need the abacus for that.
By the way, I got an email.
They love Jay's abacus.
It's a huge hit.
So thank you to Jay.
Yeah, I got an email this morning.
Yeah.
Um, yeah, it happens every year.
So they make cyclical adjustments.
So let's say the unemployment numbers in Ocean City, Maryland, let's say unemployment is 10% in January.
I'm just making this up.
And let's say in July, it drops to 5%.
If you're not making the cyclical adjustment, you're like, oh my gosh, Ocean City's crushing it.
They cut unemployment in half.
Uh, no, that happens every year.
But the way you would make a cyclical adjustment is, let's say, based on historical data, Joe, let's say that's what's happened every summer for 10 years.
That unemployment is 10% in January and is 5% in July due to the influx of employees taking care of all the tourists in the summer.
Let's say one year, it's 10% in January and drops to 2% in July.
Now, Joe, we may have something.
Because you can't strictly attribute it to a cyclical adjustment in people coming into the summer to support the tourism industry.
Get what I'm saying?
Yeah.
It may be something else.
It may be they dropped the minimum wage law.
They cut taxes in Ocean City.
There's been a spike in real estate.
You know, again, we're not saying causal.
We're just saying that these factors are correlated and there's some other third factor here that's not just the summer.
Because the summer effect was not that large in the last 10 years.
Now, I use that analogy because this is the same thing that happens when it comes to temperature data.
There are always cyclical adjustments to be made based on all kinds of factors that may be polluting the data.
Where they were cited, I think I did one show where they talked about if Ocean buoys that were taking ocean temperatures, Joe, were on ships, that the warm water in the ship was contaminating the numbers.
So the cyclical adjustments are always made.
So I just want to be clear on this, so I'm fair to our liberal friends who absolutely believe in the orthodoxy of global warming.
I'm not saying cyclical adjustments are a bad thing.
You get what I'm saying?
That is necessary.
We both agree.
What I'm telling you is this new report, that's a bombshell, has said, okay, great, cyclical adjustments.
How is it that they're cyclically adjusted up every single time?
And the new report systematically goes through the fact that this can't be possible.
And remember, this is previewed by the EPA, MIT, a lot of major universities, and the guy makes the point at the end in the piece that they're cyclically adjusted up all the time.
So that would be the equivalent, Joe, if you were the Ocean City Mayor.
Of making a quote, cyclical adjustment every single season, and then you magically adjust it down to 5%, 4%, 3%, 2%, but you don't really have the data to back that up.
So now you're saying, look, it's not just the fact that it's tourism in the summer coming in.
Look, it's my policies.
I'm the Ocean City Mayor, and I'm a Democrat, and I hike the minimum wage, and look what's happening here.
The point of the article is that they are torturing the data to adjust it every single time upwards to make the globe look hotter than it really is, and they make the conclusion in the report that the data can't possibly be accurate.
And therefore, the measure of the disastrous scenario we are in due to, quote, global warming and excessive carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere can't be accurate either.
I strongly encourage you to look at this.
It's in Zero Hedge.
It's a really quick article.
It's not long.
It doesn't beat you to death with scientific jargon, but it does cite the report.
And you need to see this, not because we don't need to care for the earth.
I'm not a, you know, I'm not a, I'm not unrealistic or unsympathetic to people on the left who have genuine concerns about the health of the planet.
I have children here too and hope to have grandchildren one day.
And, you know, being a Christian, you're not supposed to, you're supposed to take care of it.
You know, the animals, we have minion over the animals doesn't mean we, and the earth doesn't mean we're supposed to, you know, beat the snot out of it.
But I crave accuracy.
Obviously, by the opening of the show.
And I'm not going to debate someone who openly lies.
And I've known from the start that this data can't possibly be accurate because they're computer models, Joe, that predicted that we'd all be melting right now, that the polar bears would all be dead, and that the global ice caps will have melted and there'll be water up to the, you know, in the Rockies in Colorado, all the way up to the height of the mountains.
You guys were wrong!
Obviously, I'm exaggerating, but you were wrong.
The computer models have not, so they have not come to fruition.
So something you did is wrong.
Are you going to acknowledge that or are you just going to ignore it?
Something you did is not right.
So read the piece and you'll see how these big global data has just been, the surface temperature data has been tortured in all the wrong directions.
Did I sum that up okay?
Yes, you did.
Okay, because it's an important story.
All right, powering through here.
Hey, you know how much I love big data.
You know, we've brought up the Bertrand Russell Turkey problem over and over.
Folks, big data is becoming a big asset But a big problem.
Most people involved with big data who understand the complexity of the problem will tell you big data can lead to big problems.
It reminds me of an old line I had in the Secret Service when I was an agent, and we would have these cases that were incredibly complex.
We did credit card fraud cases, and I remember this guy, Tom, who was in my office telling me one time, big cases, big headaches.
Little cases, little headaches.
And he was right.
Believe me, following the money in a credit card case, especially check kiting, is not easy.
It's really, really difficult.
They had this rule, this Regulation Z, back when I was a young agent, with these credit card companies, where if you had sent a payment in, even if the check bounced, Joe, the credit card company would have to clean that portion of the balance so you were available to use it.
It's something to do with the interest payments.
So what guys would do and women would do who understood the system and were savvy enough is they would send the check in for $5,000.
The check was going to bounce, there was no money.
They would wait for the $5,000 to clear off the credit card and they would go out and run up another $5,000.
Well, big cases, big headaches, big data, big headaches too.
One of the problems they're having with big data, and this was an article sent in by a listener.
I appreciate all your emails.
I read them.
Thank you very much to the listener that emailed me with this piece.
Well, big cases, big headaches, big data, big headaches too.
One of the problems they're having with big data, and this was an article sent in by a listener.
I appreciate all your emails. I read them.
Thank you very much to the listener that emailed me with this piece.
I saw it on Drudge and I was going to run with it.
And until I saw the email, I was like, all right, now if this is a, I do listen to listener suggestions.
I said, someone else is interested, so let's do this.
So the problem they're having now with big data, and when I say big data, I mean, we have never had the capacity, Joe, on a mass scale to collect the amount of information on both individuals and groups like we have now.
All right.
I'll give you a quick example.
eBay and Amazon.
I'm on eBay, well, Amazon, really.
I try not to buy anything from eBay for other reasons altogether.
But I do look at eBay once in a while, and I usually look at it for Daredevil comic books, because I love Daredevil comic books, right?
I mean, this isn't a mystery to anyone.
If you look at, say, Daredevil number seven, which I just got, where he wears the red suit for the first time.
It's not a mystery that when you go on to Facebook and other places, Joe, what'll pop up?
An ad for, look, Daredevil number seven.
Oh, wow.
And you know what's funny, Joe?
We all take that for granted.
Like I said that right now, and Joe's like, okay, great.
Like big deal, Dan.
Everybody gets it.
Yeah, of course.
But you understand how we take that totally for granted?
Yeah.
And in the future, and some would debate this is happening now, but I don't want to get out of my lane of expertise.
My wife is convinced it's happening now, by the way.
She's a computer whiz kid.
The way she looks, she looks like a kid.
I mean, her skin looks amazing.
I mean, as a compliment, by the way.
She looks incredible.
My wife is 42.
I swear, she looks like she's like 21.
I don't put too many pictures of her up on Instagram for obvious reasons, but gosh!
I don't know what the hell she's drinking.
Maybe it's that refrigerator water we have.
But my skin looks like a mess.
I'm 42 going on 542.
But she looks like she's 21.
But she's convinced that this is happening now.
That when you talk about something, that your phone is listening.
And it runs an ad, you know what I'm saying?
And the reason she says this is, it is kind of weird, although I think it's for another reason, like we typed it in and we just didn't remember.
But what were we doing the other day?
We were talking about, whatever, a flight to Las Vegas or something for my niece.
And all of a sudden on your internet search, which pops up a web ad, flights to Las Vegas from Southwest.
And you're like, she's like, you see, they're at it again, you know?
But Joe, make no mistake, that is going to happen in the future.
There is an ability to coalesce, aggregate, and use and sell big data like we've never seen before.
And where I think it's going is it's not just going to be what you're talking about.
It's not just going to be what you look at on your phone.
There's going to be eye tracking as well.
You're going to have ads on bus stops where there's going to be some kind of a tracking of people's eyes.
There's going to be facial recognition.
If you're laughing, by the way, you think this is funny, trust me.
I don't like this.
No, you don't.
You shouldn't.
But the ad agencies and the companies that are selling this kind of data, they don't think this is funny at all.
This is very real business to them.
Jason Chavis was on one of the Fox shows, I think it was last week, and said the FBI is building this facial recognition database and they've got almost half the people in the country on it already.
Perfect!
See?
I didn't even hear that.
So I'm not making this up, folks.
That's the Bureau, which worries me a little bit.
I mean, when government gets involved, I'm always terrified.
But Joe, you and I know private industry's already at it.
Oh yeah!
So you could be, if you take the bus or the train and you live in New York, you take the subway, there could be an ad on the subway platform and you're looking at the ad and the ad is for, you know, the latest and greatest mouth guard, whatever.
You need a mouth guard.
You're a football player, you do jits and you don't want to lose any teeth.
And you're staring at that ad for, say, five minutes.
In the future, that ad may be able to recognize your facial profile, and even if they don't get you exactly right, they may be able to log that and make you one of three or four people.
You get home then and all of a sudden you have an ad that pops up on your Facebook or your Twitter or your search for that specific mouth guard and you're like, gosh, how did that happen?
You don't even know.
And the answer is it may have been using facial recognition.
So at no point in human history have we had the technology to coordinate the use of big data like we do now.
Now, the Guardian piece, and just to be clear, the Guardian is a left, in many cases, far left-leaning operation.
This is not a down-the-middle, centrist, journalistic outfit, in my humble opinion, the Guardian.
But folks, we have to be careful here, because the Guardian is a recommendation.
Their article, the gist of it is that these big data things are causing big problems, and I agree.
Big data can cause big problems.
It can be very helpful.
And the turkey problem is, you know, the example I've used from Bertrand Russell frequently, is that when you have big data, if you don't assume there's a natural error in the data, and you assume as the data set gets larger that it's more and more accurate, you can cause the accumulation of the data in and of itself can cause a collapse of the data.
And what I mean by that is the turkey problem is this, if you're on a farm and You're a turkey and, you know, you live there and they're going to kill you on day 365, you know, when you're a year old.
And you have the ability to coordinate the transfer of data from the farm to all the turkeys in the world.
On day 364, that transmission of data to turkeys everywhere.
This is the greatest place on earth.
The farmer, look what he does.
He feeds us every day.
This is terrific.
We love this farmer.
He's so wonderful.
Everybody come here now.
And all of a sudden, everybody does.
On day 365, they all show up, they're all dead.
So it was the simple coordination of the data and the transmission from the turkeys to the turkeys all over the world that actually caused their own death.
Because if they had no ability to do that, Joe, they wouldn't have been over there.
Because no one would have told them about the turkey farms.
Make sense?
Now, Bertrand Russell talked about that a while ago, the turkey problem.
But this goes to show you how data can cause a problem.
And that's what happened in the housing industry when everybody was looking at what everybody else was doing.
They're like, wow, they're all investing in housing.
Let us get in there, too.
And then the federal government, in the end, is incentivizing people to spend money on housing.
And Fannie and Freddie are going to scoop up mortgage-backed securities.
This is great.
Everybody buy it.
Ah!
Day 365, the turkey's head come off.
The reason I'm bringing this up is the Guardian piece has a suggestion on how to fix this.
And you should be saying, hold on!
Hold on, time out, rewind the tape.
The solution by the Guardian is that...
I'm not even making this up, Joe.
A professor at the University of Maryland is suggesting that we should have a National Algorithm Safety Board.
Joe, this is one of your peeps in Maryland.
I'm not kidding.
They're suggesting that the government is going to fix this problem.
The same government, Joe, by the way, that could not even remotely sniff out the housing crisis.
Matter of fact, the same government that, through the implementation of a mortgage policy, they wanted people to have home mortgages and buy homes.
The same government that incentivized Fannie and Freddie to buy mortgage-backed securities from companies issuing mortgages, encouraging them to issue more repeatedly.
The same government that was warned by Bush, that was warned by the Treasury Department repeatedly.
You guys, Fannie and Freddie, you're buying too many of these.
You're giving people free money.
The free money's being used to buy homes.
They can't afford them.
It's all on tape.
We've done entire shows on them.
Go listen to the library.
It's all on YouTube now.
The government warning people that this was a bad idea.
The government still went forward because the incentives were all wrong.
So my point is here, just to be clear on this, it's not that the government It's not that the government couldn't figure it out if they dedicated the resources to it, to look at these algorithms and the National Algorithm Safety Board, Joe, and figure out, you know, and the concern of the author is that they're going to be, you know, this could be a major infiltration of privacy.
But the point is, folks, the government isn't the one to figure this out.
They're not.
Because the government's incentive is not to protect your privacy.
The government's incentive is to get re-elected.
And Joe, to sum it up, in the housing crisis, the government's incentive at that point was to keep Fannie and Freddie afloat because people they thought they could get votes from We're getting low interest rate mortgages to buy homes they couldn't afford at a higher interest rate.
It's really no more difficult than that.
A lot of the lobbies out there, the lobbyists and the special interest groups wanted people in homes they couldn't afford and they saw the government as an easy way to do it.
Their incentives, despite being warm, despite government having data that there was a housing crisis on the horizon.
Joe, do you understand that?
They didn't care.
Because their incentives were, who cares?
People are in homes and we're getting votes.
Right.
Now you want the government to take over the National Algorithm Safety Board?
Are you kidding me?
Folks, watch what's gonna happen next.
And they do talk about some legitimate issues in there.
There's one in there that I found particularly disturbing.
If you, and I'll put the piece in the show notes again, it's in the Guardian, even though they're a left-wing outlet, it is an interesting piece.
The guy says one of the issues they're having with some of these complex big data aggregation algorithms, Joe, is People doing Google searches, and this is their words, not mine, so please forgive me if I say it in a little impolitic way, but this isn't my conclusion, that if you had an ethnic-sounding name that could be black or Hispanic or whatever it may be, that if you were to search for a name that sounded, in their words, quote, black, that ads for things associated with criminal activity would come up.
Which we can all agree is completely inappropriate, but here's what's interesting.
So he's suggesting a government solution because that's terrible, which it is.
But it's interesting, in the piece he says why it happened.
It's not that the people in Google were racist when they wrote the algorithm, Joe, the code.
That's not what happened.
What happened is the search engine learned by itself because it says in the piece that people who were searching for things, whatever, bail bonds or things associated with criminal activity were searching names that were associated with what would be culturally considered black names.
It's not my premise.
It's theirs.
Take it out on them.
So he said, he, in other words, he says, it's not what, so how, I don't understand, like, how do you handle that?
How do you handle that?
It's not easy, folks.
I just don't think the government has a... What's the government's solution gonna be?
We can't have racist algorithms?
Well, okay, well, what do you do?
I mean, what is your measure of what a racist algorithm is?
You see how the government, the free market will have a solution for that?
You don't... And here's what I mean.
You go to a search engine, Joe, you put in a name, and that name happens to be, say it's a cousin or a friend, that person happens to be black, and you Google in their name for whatever reason.
You want to do one of those genealogy.com things.
And you get an ad for bail bonds.
Don't use the search engine, that's all I can tell you!
If you're right, if it offends you, just don't use it.
And the free market, the government does not have a solution for that.
I promise you they will only make it worse.
But it's a fascinating piece.
I will put it in the show notes.
Man, I can't.
All right, I'm going to get to one more quick though.
But before we get to that, hey, have you signed up for CRTV yet?
If you haven't, we are in the final phases finally of launching some new New content I'm happy to be part of, but we also have Levin's show up there, Mark Levin's show at CRTV.
We have the best conservative content out there.
Michelle Malkin's launching a new season of her show.
I think it's the finest investigative show available right now for conservatives.
She gets to the heart of issues like no one else.
We have Steven Crowder's show, Steve Dace's show.
There's a whole bunch of content on there.
You can watch it on your computer, your tablet.
All right.
phone, you take it with you, it's terrific. Go to crtv.com.
It's all available for about less than $10 a month when you put in my promo code. My promo code is
Bongino, B-O-N-G-I-N-O. I mean, that's a really cheap price to pay considering what you're
paying for a lot of the junk on cable right now. Go to crtv.com and check it out. All right. One
final story, which is really disturbing.
Did you see the story, Joe, about the terrorist in Canada who got a multimillion dollar payout?
Oh yeah, yeah, I did.
This is hard to believe. So Omar Khadr, K-H-A-D-R, he admitted this.
He admitted to throwing a grenade at a Delta Force Sergeant First Class by the name of Christopher Speer.
Killed him, by the way.
Not instantaneously, but died shortly thereafter.
And partly blinded another Sergeant First Class, Lane Morris.
So this Omar Khadr, he's a killer.
So he throws this grenade at them.
Again, he admitted to this in a proceeding.
He was interviewed and interrogated before he was 16 right before his 16th birthday.
So because of that Canada Who agreed to take him in.
Canada has some kind of a law, which is being tortured here, that protects juveniles.
So it's clearly, Joe, to me, and I think you as well, he wasn't acting as a juvenile when he threw a grenade at someone.
But Omar Khadr, after he threw this grenade that killed this guy, he got out of jail in 2015.
He was released.
So he's out now.
He's sued.
Omar Khadr sued.
Sued the Canadian government.
He was just given $10 million according to a number of sources by the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who, this is the disturbing part about this, I'm going to leave it with this because I want you to formulate your own end from this because it's really deeply disturbing and I think if I say any more I may get overly emotional and lose the context.
Cotter got the $10 million after a lawsuit.
The families of both the patriotic dead US soldier and the one who was partially blinded by the grenade thrown by Cotter filed a lawsuit as well in Utah.
It was $134 million suit.
They had a petition into the court where they could have seized some of Cotter's assets.
Trudeau rushed the payment, brushed the payment to Cotter to get that $10 million to him before that lawsuit.
Now the family's been left dangling in the wind.
Folks, what do you even say about that?
We're now paying off a guy who threw a grenade in a war zone that killed a U.S.
soldier, partially blinded another one, and the family of the dead soldier and the partially blinded one can't claim money from a lawsuit against this guy because this guy got $10 million from the Canadian government.
Trudeau rushed it.
You know, the liberal prime minister out there who rushed the payment out to get it in advance of the court petition by the soldier.
It's a hard to believe story.
I'll put it in the show notes.
It's in the Daily Mail.
It goes to show you the intellectual and moral vacuum of the far left all over the world.
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.
