In this episode - Beware of this dangerous liberal scam designed to destroy our Constitutional Republic. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/truth-catches-up-with-the-effort-to-abolish-the-electoral-college/article/2637915?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Examiner+Today&utm_source=StructureCMS Ted Cruz destroys Bernie Sanders on taxes! https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/ted-cruz-destroys-sanders-robin-hood-tax-fantasy Busted! The disingenuous congresswoman attacking Trump for calling the widow of a heroic serviceman has a spotty record on veteran’s issues. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/19/florida-democrat-wilson-no-friend-veterans-vote-record-shows.html Federal spending per person has exploded. Check out these disturbing numbers. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/capita-federal-spending-sevenfold-1941 The real dangers of the DC “swamp.” http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/18/trump-not-replacing-bureaucrats-enables-deep-state?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTTJJeVl6VXhZVEZsTURZeiIsInQiOiJkTXdGampvWFdENmNsK2V2NVZcL0pqMERTMzZjVGtURHZ2U1pzQXgyQkhLcklnMTRRSVwvZ01iczRpb2VrTEJHcCs3Z09pZUlla0UwUENFMUpmejZwXC9UZkd5Z0VpZ1hoS2IyaWNKUUMwekFxMFE1MDZiUlFcL243Rkxya3N5UTdLd3QifQ%3D%3D Here’s how to listen to my podcast on your Amazon Echo. https://www.amazon.com/Harrison-Digital-Media-AnyPod/dp/B072HY3T7Y/ref=lp_14284855011_1_2?s=digital-skills&ie=UTF8&qid=1507912308&sr=1-2 Sponsor Links: www.BrickhouseNutrition.com/Dan www.CRTV.com Promo Code “Bongino”
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Dan Bongino. I owe you, who owes who? You owe me, I owe you, there's no money!
The Dan Bongino Show. Anything run by liberals will be run into the ground,
burned, stepped on, gasoline poured on it and burned again.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
They're arguing about things and debating how quickly they can deconstruct the greatest country in the history of mankind and all of the ideas and norms that have gotten us here.
On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Hi, welcome to The Renegade Republican.
I'm Dan Bongino.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Always glad to be here, Dano.
Yeah, busy news day.
Thanks to everybody listening to yesterday's show.
We had the near-nuclear meltdown about this crap going on with this Russia investigation, and it turns out the Trump-Russia scandal has evolved into an Obama-Russia scandal, which has conveniently gone away because the mainstream media are a bunch of fake, phony, fraud, liberals in disguise, political activists, not journalists.
Tune them out.
Don't click on their stuff.
They're garbage.
Cancel your subscriptions.
And I really have nothing nice to say about them at all.
Didn't have anything nice to say yesterday.
Don't have anything nice to say today.
There's nothing we can do.
They have the absolute First Amendment right to put out what they want and I support that, but that doesn't...
Prevent them from being total jerks and really destructive to the country.
A negative moral influence.
I mean, they're totally unethical and I'm just disgusted by the whole thing.
The fact that for months we've been told about this Trump-Russia thing, Joe.
Did you get any feedback on yesterday's show?
Yeah, I mean, I got about two, three hundred emails.
People loved it.
So it was great.
I appreciate the feedback.
I just I'm so disgusted by the state of the country.
And, you know, I just remember being in the Secret Service and sitting there amongst the press and watching the group think.
And I just I can't understand that.
I'm going to move on from this.
I want to repeat yesterday's show.
But I'll just leave you with this point, folks.
I can't understand for the life of me Why we're supposed to take the modern mainstream media seriously?
This is a serious question.
I'm not, this isn't hyperbole for effect again.
This is a serious question.
I don't take an orthopedist's word seriously, an orthopedic doctor's word seriously when he's telling me about a brain condition I may have.
I don't mean that as an insult.
I just mean, Joe, if I had a brain tumor, God forbid, which I may, but I may after yesterday's show.
If I had a brain tumor, what kind of doctor do you think you'd go to for a brain tumor?
Most likely a brain doctor.
A brain doctor who specializes in, you know, oncology of the brain and cancer of the brain.
I mean, that wasn't, again, sometimes Joe, these questions are so obvious.
I'm afraid you think I'm setting you up.
Sometimes I do.
Yeah, I know, but I'm really not.
Like, you're the audience on BuzzFeed.
So, I go to a doctor who specializes in cancers of the brain.
If I have a broken bone, I go to... Matter of fact, ironically, if I have a broken bone or a sprain in a joint, I want to go to a doctor that not only is an orthopedic, but who specializes in that specific joint.
Yeah.
I don't go to a knee guy for a shoulder, okay?
Why?
I mean, this is a very serious question I pose to my audience, who I adore.
Why do you take these people seriously in the media?
These are, folks, I'm sorry and this is not a, my experience with them, this is not a, I'm not trying to stereotype the entire industry.
I'm telling you my experience with the majority of media folks I dealt with behind the scenes in my time working at the White House.
These are really, really, let me be nice, they are not very, they're not bright people.
They're not, I'm telling, they're not, they are not even like, these are people who probably couldn't hack it in biology, couldn't hack it in chemistry, couldn't hack it in physics, couldn't hack it in any of the hard sciences, probably had a tough time in engineering, dropped out and became basically journalism majors.
And yet they write about stuff and we're supposed to universally accept their position that they're the barometer for universal truth?
Why?
Why are we listening to these people?
Folks, I hate to say it, you should be openly mocking and laughing at these people.
I don't mean that in a bad way, but they're... I mean it because it's true, like their whole Trump-Russia thing was a fairy tale.
It was made up.
Yeah.
And yet we're thinking, oh no, the New York Times said it.
Okay, even worse.
Why again are we... I don't understand why we're listening to these people.
I don't know, folks.
That's why I was so upset yesterday.
It makes no sense.
And again, we're hearing it again on the tax bill.
That's why I wanted a little segue here, intentional one.
Sometimes I unintentionally do them.
This was intentional.
The media, again, is injecting themselves into this tax cut debate, being that Trump is pushing for pretty pronounced and substantial tax cuts.
But again, the media, who are not brain surgeons, who are not engineers, who are not architects, who are not nurses or doctors, and they are definitely not economists, were supposed to take the New York Times word for the economic effects of tax cuts, as if the New York Times or the Washington Post has ever been able to credibly report the facts.
Why are we taking, these are not economists.
These are just folks, I'm telling you, they are really not smart.
Some of the conversations I had with these media people behind the scenes, I would walk away and be like, oh, did he just say that?
Like, is that real?
Did that person just say that and writes articles for blank outlet?
Fill in the blanks.
Time, Reuters, whatever.
I mean, you're stunned at the level of stupidity.
I would take a Secret Service agent's word any day of the week and twice on Sunday over that of someone in the media.
Who, ironically, the media's job is to put, you know, just the facts, man.
But this tax thing is infuriating to me because they refuse to report the truth.
Now, Chuck Schumer, who's gone full clown, he's gone full clown mode, is on the floor yesterday in the house and, ironically, starts You know, badgering the American public against these tax cuts.
And it's funny how he frames it, Joe.
And it goes to show you the hypocrisy of you, Democrats, listening.
You.
Yes, you.
Me?
Not all of you.
Not you, Joe.
But the Democrats, I know where you stand.
But the Democrats listening, you're part of your hypocrites.
You're hypocrites.
You're not genuine.
Again, not all of you, but the good majority of Democrats are total frauds.
We don't have that problem in the Republican Party.
We don't want to pay higher taxes and we don't want you to pay them either.
So Chuck Schumer gets on the floor, Joe, and gives his speech on the floor and outs himself as a complete total fraud.
He starts talking about, you know, we're worried about the national debt and middle class taxes going up under this plan.
Wait, what?
Chuck Schumer said that, folks.
I didn't say that wrong.
It's not like I'm confused.
Are you confused?
Let me get you one confused.
Chuck Schumer, the liberal hack Democrat from New York, gave a speech on the floor panning the Trump tax cuts, saying how magically how the Trump tax cuts are going to hike taxes on the middle class and increase the debt.
So Chuck Schumer, let me get this straight.
All of a sudden you care about middle class people paying more and you care about the debt going up?
Folks, do you actually believe that?
Now, Republicans actually care good ones, not the bad ones.
I don't want to stereotype in a positive direction on our side either.
We certainly have our share of abysmal failures.
But ladies and gentlemen, we have been fighting this fight for constrained government spending forever.
The Democrats have exploded the budget and there's not a dollar of government spending they won't support.
And all of a sudden Chuck Schumer goes on the floor, renounces 50 plus years post FDR, more than that, of expansive government policies.
Oh, and you think I'm making that up?
Where is this here?
There's an article I'll put in the show notes today at Bongino.com.
You can subscribe to my email list there and I will email you the show notes as well.
Great article by CNS News Joe.
Since 1941, federal spending per person, inflation adjusted, these are not nominal numbers, these are real numbers.
Inflation-adjusted.
In 1941, we spent $1,718 per person per capita, right?
All right.
Now, 2017, inflation-adjusted, $12,239 per person.
That's a seven-fold increase in federal spending.
So let me get this straight.
Seven-fold.
That's a big number, folks.
That's an enormous number.
What do you stand for, Democrats?
I don't understand.
Is the debt your concern?
And if the debt's your concern, why don't you take real action like cut spending?
So the debt's your concern, but you support more government spending, and middle-class tax rates are your concern, despite the fact that you've consistently argued for higher middle-class tax rates.
Folks, these guys are total frauds.
They're making it up as they're going along, and Chuck Schumer stands for nothing.
He's a fake.
He's a charlatan.
He's a magician.
That's all he is.
Now, Folks, I have a suggestion to solve these problems, and I think this would be one of the few ways we could, because I don't see any...
Any real solution in the future under the current status quo of taxing and spending?
Taxes will continue to go up as spending goes up, because government spending is taxes.
Whether they're taxes now or taxes in the future, they're taxes you're going to pay for.
There's only three ways to solve this problem, which I'll get to in a second.
But let me just suggest a strategic way to stem the tide of excessive government spending.
Folks, I get it.
People don't think this is real.
They don't.
I'm sorry.
People don't think this is spending anymore.
They don't think it affects them.
They don't see government spending like they see household spending.
When you get a bill in the mail for a product you bought and that bill is like three, four hundred dollars.
Let's say you got, I had some duct work done in my house recently.
I bought two new air conditioners and the duct work couldn't handle it.
So they came in and like, oh man, now we got to do the duct work too.
It was like 2000 bucks.
That's real to you.
Why Joe?
Because I had to write a check and that $2,000 cleared from my bank account and went into the bank account of the HVAC company.
Right between the eyes, yeah.
Right between the eyes, right in the kisser.
People don't see government spending as real.
I know you may say, oh come on Dan, yes they do.
No folks, they don't.
They see government spending as either some accounting error, or they see it as like, oh, don't worry, we'll be long dead before the bill comes due, because the bill hasn't come due.
So a simple suggestion to make this real, to make the grotesque amount of government spending, $4 trillion and $20 trillion in accumulated debt, years and years of annual deficits, projected way into the future.
You know what?
You want to make this real, Joe?
We should start billing people at the end of the year.
Wow.
Yeah.
Do you agree?
Yeah.
Send them a bill.
You'd see it and feel it that way.
You'd see it and feel it.
You want to pay for government?
Folks, I know this is going to suck.
This would impact me because you say, well, people wouldn't save.
People could go bankrupt.
You're already going bankrupt.
You're making my point.
Well, why not just not pay then?
It's the same as saying, you know, government spending is, oh, don't worry.
Government's dead.
Who's going to make us pay?
You're going to pay.
What do you want to pay later or you want to pay now?
Or you want to pay later with interest?
Send everybody a bill on April 15th.
We're already financing the government with debt.
What does it matter?
Forget payroll withholding.
Send everybody a payroll tax bill for your Social Security, a payroll tax bill for your Medicare, and a payroll tax bill for your, uh, excuse me, and an income tax bill at the end of the year on April 15th.
And watch what happens when the average American making, say, $70,000 a year as a family, that's a little bit above the median income.
But, you know, people who are median income plus a bit, wait till they get that $20,000 bill in the mail.
I'm not talking about Republicans, folks.
I'm not lecturing.
You guys already know that this is a problem.
Good Republicans.
I'm talking about the Democrats who think this is all free.
They live in the money fairy land.
Send them a bill!
20k every year, plus interest on the debt.
You watch how quickly this turns around.
Because Democrats are full of crap.
They're full of it on this issue.
I just showed you they're full of it.
Chuck Schumer's arguing on the floor that the Democrats now care about debt and middle class tax rates.
Nonsense!
They support endless government spending.
Spending is taxes.
Which is a hike on the middle class.
Government debt is just a tax on the future plus the interest on the debt.
There's no difference.
This is real, folks.
This is real money.
It's not fake.
Now, I said I'd get to this.
There's only three ways for us to finance this government debt.
There's only three ways for us to pay for it.
Number one, which I've discussed before, and this is, I'll make the case to you strongly and I'll stand by it, this is why the Democrats absolutely adore inflation.
Despite the fact that inflation's a double whammy for you.
Because what does inflation do to you, Joe?
It makes prices go up for stuff you have to buy, and inflation makes your salary effectively go down, because inflation means your dollar's worth less.
Inflation means your dollar, if a dollar yesterday bought you product A, B, and C, inflation means the dollar's been devalued.
It means that that dollar now only buys A and B. And if inflation's worse, then it only buys A. And then it only buys a half of A in the future.
Inflation's a double whammy.
Prices go up, your earning power and your spending, I should say, your spending power goes down.
But Democrats love inflation because inflation also reduces the value of government debt.
I know I've spoken about this before, but it's important.
It's why the Democrats right now, I like to tie stories together, folks.
Are very worried about the upcoming appointment to the Federal Reserve Board.
They are extremely concerned that Trump is going to appoint a what they would call a hawk and not a dove.
A monetary hawk would be someone who supports a strong dollar or doesn't support unfettered inflation, right?
Right.
A fiscal dove would be someone who supports Heavy or robust inflation as a way to inflate away the value of the debt.
It's a little simplified way of saying it.
I get that.
But that's why, you know, I like to tie these stories together.
And there's a big debate right now going on because there's an open seat about who Trump should appoint to that position, a hawk or a dove.
Trump has actually spoken in kind of dovish terms, which worries me a little bit on that to be candid.
We need a hawk in there that supports a strong dollar.
But Democrats love inflation because it devalues the dollar and it also devalues the dollar of government debt.
The example John Maynard Keynes, who ironically is the, you know, eponymously named Keynesian economics, which is the bedrock of Democrat liberal economic principle, even he explained the dangers of inflation away by giving the example I always give that, you know, there's a couple ways to pluck the goose, right?
If you want to get 25% of the population's money because you want the government to spend it, there's two ways to do it, Joe.
You could basically, if say the economy was $100, you could tax away $25 and spend it.
So federal government comes in, taxes everybody 25%, takes $25 out of the $100 in the economy, and spends it, right?
Alright.
The other way to do it is they don't tax you at all, or they tax you very little, and they just print $33 and put it in circulation.
So now there's $133 in circulation, but the government automatically prints it and gives itself that $33.
Now you may say, oh, that's great.
They don't have to tax anyone.
No, they tax you.
You just don't know it.
Right.
Because now with $133 in circulation, your money's devalued and buys less.
There's no free money.
There's no money fairy.
That's why Democrats love inflation.
So there's only three ways to do this.
We can inflate away.
When I say this, I mean, I'm talking about getting rid of our debt.
We can inflate it away.
We can tax it away.
Now, you may say, well, Dan, you're arguing that you're a supporter of decreased government debt, but now you're saying that we can tax it away.
Folks, we could tax it away.
But the irony is, taxing it away doesn't mean higher tax rates.
It generally means lower tax rates.
You're like, wow, now I'm really confused.
Folks, lower tax rates to a point.
It's called the Laffer Curve, named after Art Laffer.
L-A-F-F-E-R.
Just look it up.
There's tons of pages that describe what it is.
It's very simple.
Laffer described this phenomenon through taxation where obviously zero taxes lead to zero tax dollars.
But a 100% tax rate eventually leads to zero tax dollars, too.
How's that?
Because at a 100% tax rate, the government confiscating all the people's money, what do people stop doing, Joe?
Working!
Generating money, yeah.
Right!
Generate!
Better way to say it, as you actually correct.
See, that's what I like having.
People stop generating money!
Why?
Because it's not their money, it's the government!
So Laffer, allegedly on a napkin, as he describes it, was showing a Bush economic advisor once, how the Laffer curve works and he showed that there is an effective peak of that curve a tax rate that people will find generally fair and not a disincentive to work because it's not so high that all their money's being confiscated and where they get decent value for their government dollar a court system the military that well it's in dispute where the peak of that curve is I would argue through you know through the uh through some work that's been done in the past that you know I've described on the show
That it's probably around 18 to 20 percent based on Hauser's law.
I'm not going to get too deep into that, but it's around 18 to 20 percent, in my humble opinion, based on some of the work of a financial analyst from the West Coast, Hauser.
That people around 18 to 20 percent of their income is enough for them, Joe, to continue to work and not be disincentivized by paying so much of their money that they stop working.
So the argument I'm making here, again, point number one, you want to get rid of the debt?
We can inflate it away.
Very bad, because it inflates away your dollar, too.
So it can be done, but it's bad.
I'm not recommending it.
That's what the Democrats love.
Method number two, effective tax rates.
The tax rates, though, have to go down a bit, not up.
We're already at 35% for a top marginal rate on the federal income side.
Top marginal rate.
But the problem is 45% of people right now aren't paying federal taxes, so that tax load is about 15 points above where it should be.
I would make the case to you strongly that if we were to cut the tax rates, it would incentivize people to work more.
Frankly, folks, not because they're being benevolent, Joe.
But because they want to earn more money and now they can keep more of it.
The catch is they earn more, they produce more, they produce more money and the government even at 20% rather than 50 at 35% gets a bigger nominal chunk of the pie.
Now the third way to do it would be to grow out of it which is kind of tied to number two.
We're not going to grow out of it through inflation and we are certainly not going to grow out of it through higher tax rates.
Now I just described to you why lower tax rates can actually lead to more money coming into the government.
But we need growth, folks.
At 7% growth over 10 years, we would double the real value of our economy.
Think about what I'm telling you.
Now, that's a ridiculous amount of growth.
I'm not suggesting that that's even plausible.
But at 3.5%, half of 7, obviously we could double our economy in 20 years.
In our lifetime, in 20 years, I'm 42, gonna be 43.
By the time I'm in my 60s, if we hit 3.5% growth every year, not a difficult target, it's been done many times.
Reagan hit nearly 6% in one of the years of his presidency.
In 20 years, Joe, we could double the size of our economy.
Think about what I'm telling you.
We owe 20 trillion in debt.
Our economy is 20 trillion.
So right now, we owe every single thing we're worth.
If we were to double the size of our economy in 20 years, just by simple growth alone, simple growth alone, we would shrink our debt just through growth, even if we paid nothing.
Yeah, there'd be some interest payments, but you get what I'm saying?
And interest payments right now are lower than 3%.
I just want to bring this up because I know I spent a little time on it.
I'm afraid if I get too wonky, sometimes I'll lose you.
But I'm just, I'm disgusted by dealing with Democrat hypocrisy and all these issues.
Chuck Schumer, Oh, we gotta worry about the debt.
Shut up, Chuck.
Shut up.
You never gave a damn about debt.
You don't give a damn about debt now.
You're a liar.
I mean, how do you get on the floor of the Senate and sell your soul to the devil every single time?
You're just making it up.
You're just totally, completely making it up.
You never cared about the debt.
You never cared about middle class taxes.
Now you care about middle class taxes?
Since when?
You're just a hack.
Empathetic.
And unlike those characters, I'm offering you real solutions, okay?
I'm offering you solutions that are bad.
Inflation.
Second, higher taxes, because it's going to lead to lower tax revenue, so they're not really solutions.
They're proposed solutions that'll be failures.
Third, the only way to do it is to grow.
Grow through lower tax rates and more investment in the economy.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Big fans of these guys.
Man, did I need them yesterday.
I had like a mind melt yesterday.
I was telling Joe before the show, like my mind just melted away and I think it led to such just explosive anger in that Trump-Russia story I covered in the beginning of the show.
I was so upset yesterday, so I appreciate all the feedback.
Today's show brought to you by Brickhouse Nutrition.
They make one of the best energy products out there, although I just said it was sponsored by them twice.
Dawn to Dusk.
Love this product.
It is a time-release energy product.
Folks, the problem with most of the energy products out there now is you take it, whatever it is, coffee, energy drinks, whatever they may be, and a couple hours later, some of you who've tried them know exactly what I'm talking about.
Joe, you've tried them.
Oh, yes, I have, Dan.
By the time you get home, you're ready to crash.
And Joe, you know, Joe gets home early because he works early.
He gets up at like two o'clock in the morning because he does a morning show.
Folks, this is a time release product.
It lasts about 10 hours.
I spoke to the doc.
I know this company well.
I know the people.
They do some really, really good product design with unbelievably qualified people.
This product is worth your time.
Go check it out.
It's called Dawn to Dusk.
It'll help you get through the day.
Crossfitters, military guys, cops, firemen, assembly line workers, working moms, people go to yoga.
You need to get through the day.
You got your workout in the morning.
You got to work till five o'clock at night.
Give it a shot.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan and go pick up Dawn to Dusk today and give me your feedback.
I really love the positive emails I get.
I forward them right on to the owners of the company.
They love them too.
Hey, one other thing I forgot to mention.
I was on Cooking with Friends a few weeks ago on Fox and Friends, which was fun.
Going up to the studio, Fox is always funny.
You see people on TV all the time and then you run into them in the green room.
The thing about Fox, and I don't just say this because it's a relatively conservative outlet, folks.
I could, but I'm not going to.
Behind the scenes, the people are very genuine.
I'm telling you, I've never had a bad experience with anyone.
An on-air personality, the bookers, the camera folks, they're really unbelievably nice people.
And I just want to give a quick shout out to Janice Dean.
I know we have a lot of listeners.
She was unbelievably nice.
The weather machine.
You know Janice Dean, the weather machine?
Oh yeah.
She's great.
She gave some of her Freddy the Frogcaster books to my kids and she signed all of them.
And she donates a significant portion of those proceeds of the book.
To various charities, and she was an unbelievably elegant and just wonderful person to my kids, and I appreciate it.
So go pick up a copy of her book if you don't mind.
Freddie the Frogcaster.
She has a big series.
She donates a lot of money.
She's really a wonderful person, so thanks to Janice Dean for doing that.
I really appreciate it.
Go check them out.
Freddie the Frogcaster.
Really cool books.
My five-year-old loves them, by the way.
She signed all of them, too, which was amazing.
All right.
Oh, gosh.
This is a story I saw today, folks, that I hope gets reported on elsewhere, although I'm not confident it will.
Let me be careful.
I don't want to be overly dramatic because I got into a fight yesterday on Twitter with the former ambassador to Russia.
No, I'm not kidding, folks.
Check back to Mike McFaul, who sounds like a decent enough guy.
He wasn't hostile about it, but he didn't understand my tweet.
I was talking about the Hill story yesterday about the Uranium One deal.
Yeah.
And I said that the looks like the Russians bribed their way through the Obama administration.
I didn't say bribe the Obama administration.
I said bribe their way through the Obama administration.
Meaning that they were influencing these deals that were going on through the money exchanging hands with these private companies.
And I was alluding to, although not in the fashion of a bribe because it's a legal term yet, the Clinton Foundation payments.
So McFaul didn't like that, but he was, you know, he was cool with that.
I'm not, I have no problem with people firing back.
I fire bombs on Twitter.
But I saw this story, so I want to be careful how I present it.
Because words do matter, and that's why I very delicately worded that tweet yesterday, because I don't like to get into, like, conspiracy stuff, right?
As you well know.
Which is ironic, because some people, some idiots tweet me, like, what are you, a conspiracy theorist?
I'm like, oh my god, I can't win.
I can't win with this.
I can't.
Whatever.
Whatever, dudes.
There is a story in the Washington Examiner in the show notes.
You have to read it.
If you don't want to subscribe to my email list, fine.
Go to Bongino.com.
You don't want to go to Bongino.com?
Find me on Twitter.
I tweeted it out.
You don't want to?
Just go to the Washington Examiner and look up the piece.
It's really good.
The Democrats are trying to get rid of the Constitutional Republic and our system of electing people.
I don't know any other way to say it.
I'm trying to be precise and careful in my language, but there's no other way to say it.
An organized group of Democrats, Joe, wants to wipe clean the Electoral College, which I have warned you about in the past, is extremely dangerous to get rid of.
Just to be clear on what we're talking about, I'm not trying to dumb the show down, I know most of you know, but for those of you who aren't familiar with how exactly we elect presidents, the election of the President of the United States is not a national election.
It's not.
It is a series of statewide elections that the results of those statewide elections are determinative of the number of electors that are selected to then elect the president.
Just think of it like a series of 50 governor's races.
It's not a national election.
It's not a popular vote election.
Most of you know that.
The winner of the popular vote was not Donald Trump.
It was Hillary Clinton.
It's not the first time this has happened, by the way, either.
Al Gore won the popular vote over George W. Bush.
Now, the less argument is that, oh, that's subverting democracy.
Folks, we are not a democracy.
We are not.
We are a constitutional republic.
We have a democratic process, but we are not a direct democracy.
No one's subverting anything.
We were never intended to be a direct democracy.
And I'm going to get into this in a second because there's an organized effort and Robert Reich, who I really, frankly, can't stand.
I mean, because he just...
I did a whole video about this guy.
He is an economist who just makes stuff up all the time.
I mean, he does, and he hides behind the guise of a doctor of philosophy, whatever, his PhD, to say things that are just factually incorrect, and he gets the public to believe him.
Robert Rice exposed a whole kit and caboodle on a thing called national popular vote legislation.
Folks, when you hear this thing, run for the hills.
What is it?
The Democrats have always wanted a direct democracy.
Why is that?
Well, the line about a direct democracy is it's what, two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, right?
That's it!
The reason we don't have a direct democracy, in other words, people vote on every single issue and majority wins, folks, is because majority rule can be just as tyrannical as actual tyranny!
What do I mean by that?
The electoral vote, given that 50 states get a say in the presidential election based on what happens in their state, state, not nationally, prevents two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Because, Joe, what it prevents is, let's say, I was trying to think of an example today, I'm sitting there, I'm walking around my house, it's early in the morning, you know, I work out early now, and I'm like, alright, here's a good example.
Do you think farmland—again, this is not a trick question, I promise you—do you think farmland generally benefits people who live in midtown Manhattan?
Generally, no.
No, no, because there's very little, if any, farmland in Midtown Manhattan.
So I thought to myself, okay, what if New York City got together in a direct democracy and bandied together enough votes to put a referendum on a national ballot that said all farmland is going to be taxed at 90% and proceeds are going to go to subway systems nationwide, conveniently with New York having one of the biggest ones.
Would that be fair?
Uh, no, that wouldn't be fair, no.
Again, not tricked.
I feel bad for you.
Sometimes I do set him up a little bit, but very rarely.
Very rarely.
And he usually catches me anyway, so it's not really that fun when I do it.
Joe, is that not a democracy?
Yeah, that would be a democracy, yeah.
If more people voted for a bill that said all farmland proceeds are to be taxed at 90%, money is to go directly into subway systems, and it benefited New York City, that's democratic, right?
Yeah, it still sucks.
Dude, that's going on a mug.
Joe Armacost, quote, it still sucks.
No, no, no.
Direct democracy.
We'll put your next name, Joe A, next to it.
Direct democracy.
Armacost.
It still sucks.
You're right!
It sucks.
Of course it sucks.
And the founders understood that there can be a tyranny of a majority that's not different from a tyranny of an oligarchy or a monarchy.
People can't vote away others' rights, folks.
That's why we don't have a direct democracy.
We have a constitutional republic, otherwise called in some cases a representative democracy, where we elect people in certain regions to represent our local, regional interests, not national interests, in many cases.
The Democrats hate this because they understand the tyranny of the majority and they understand they own the population centers.
New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, they own Baltimore where all the populations are with a The populations of major regions of the country are concentrated in America's big cities.
They always understood, the liberals, that if they could get the Electoral College to go away and make this a national popular vote referendum, they could enforce the tyranny of the majority and take away the rights of the minority.
The United States never wanted that.
So now we have a system where, and let me just, because I'm afraid I didn't explain this well enough, the Electoral College, when the majority of people in the state of Wisconsin, Joe, Vote for President Trump, which they did in this election.
President Trump, at the time candidate Trump, gets the electoral votes from Wisconsin.
What the Democrats are trying to do, do this scam, and remember the name, because you need to tell your legislators about this, the National Popular Vote legislation, this is really slick what they're trying to do.
And it goes to show you, by the way, and I'm going to read a quote for a second on how they always, remember how I tell you they always lie to you?
Yeah.
They always lie.
They never tell you.
They initially phrase this as, oh, no, we're not trying to get rid of the electoral college.
And now Robert Rice exposed the whole kit and caboodle by saying, oh, yeah, we need to get rid of the electoral college.
Again, pulling the wool over your eyes.
What they're trying to do is they're trying to get 270 electoral vote states to sign on To have their elect because remember Joe you need 270 electoral votes nationally to win the presidency.
To sign on to like pledging their allegiance to vote for the winner of the national popular vote not the vote in the state.
Man.
Do you see what I'm saying?
Yeah.
Wisconsin would have in fact the president Trump would not be president if this was the case because although President Trump won Wisconsin He did not win the national popular vote.
So if Wisconsin pledged its electors to voting for the national popular vote winner and not the winner of the state election in Wisconsin, we'd have President Hillary Clinton.
Folks, I hate to say it, and I don't mean this in a complimentary qualitative way, it is an unbelievably brilliant scam.
Because once 270 electoral vote states or more sign on to that compact, it doesn't matter what the other states do, Joe.
The winner of the national popular vote wins.
You see my point?
I sure do.
If Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, California, if they all sign on and say, we don't care about the vote in California, New York, Wisconsin, we only care about the national popular vote, then the winner of the national popular vote already has 270 electoral votes.
It doesn't matter what happens in the states.
Genius.
Now, the whole intention, folks, of the electoral college was to avoid the two wolves and a sheep at dinner conundrum.
The point of an electoral college was to make sure that farmers in Wisconsin, engineers in Wisconsin, that auto workers in Michigan, that western Pennsylvania coal miners, That their interests could be represented on a government at not a co-equal level but in a representative democracy.
You see what I'm saying Joe?
It's not co-equal because Pennsylvania doesn't have the same amount of electoral votes as California.
California has more people.
Yeah.
But they have a say based on what happens in Pennsylvania based on their population.
Right.
If Pennsylvania swears on to this national popular vote thing, then the interests of Pennsylvanians don't matter!
Because they're just swearing on to what happens in the popular vote nationally!
Swearing their allegiance to it.
Also, the House of Representatives is obviously weighted on population.
So although each state gets two senators to protect it against the two wolves and the sheep scenario, to also allow some representative democracy They adjust the House of Representatives based on how many people live in the state.
There's basically a member, you get a member for roughly every 700,000 people in your state.
So it's not, they don't totally wipe effects, wipe clean the effects of population, but it is not a majority rule system.
This is in the Examiner today.
It's an amazing piece.
And this would, folks, this would go into effect, this national popular vote legislation.
I took some notes on this for you.
After 270 electoral vote states signed on, for obvious reasons.
Folks, this is a huge scam.
This is a total subversion of our constitutional Republican representative democracy.
And another brilliant point brought up in the piece, I'm going to read a quick little snippet from it in a minute, but a brilliant point brought up in the piece is, Joe, do you honestly think Because there's not, keep in mind, there's nothing stopping these electors from going back on their pledge if a Republican wins the national popular vote.
Remember, this is why I'm saying it's always a scam.
The Democrats only want this when the Democrat wins the national vote to get a state like Wisconsin that voted for Trump to vote for Hillary.
They don't really want to tell the truth here.
Because do you honestly think That if Donald Trump wins the popular vote, and liberal states that signed on to this, say Maryland, Massachusetts, places like that, that would sign on to something like that, potentially?
Do you honestly think, Joe, that the Massachusetts electors are going to vote their state for Donald Trump if he were to win the national popular vote?
I know you laughed because they're Zippo chads!
This national popular vote thing is a win-win for the Democrats.
It's an excuse to subvert representative democracy when the Democrat wins the popular vote.
And by the way, it's not binding.
So when a Republican wins the national popular vote, they'll all turn around and go, no, no, we really didn't mean that.
It's not binding.
We're going to vote for the other person instead.
It's a total joke.
This is the biggest scam ever.
Don't fall for it.
Here's that quote from the Washington Examiner piece, it's a good one, to show you how liberals are full of crap every time.
They never tell you the truth.
Chuck Schumer, this is going to increase the debt, increase middle class taxes.
This is the same guy who supports endless debt and hiking taxes.
They are, liberalism is a scam, a fraud.
It is a BS act.
It's a bad magician at a Saturday early morning kids party where you're sitting there going, my God, how did the kids like this?
This is what they are.
They're a joke.
They're a fraud.
They never tell you the truth.
They have been saying this national popular vote thing, this is not an effort to subvert the Electoral College.
Well, Robert Rice says this, so here's a quote from the piece.
For anyone who has been following this issue, Rice's language is astonishing.
His statements contradict everything the national popular vote people have been telling legislators, especially red state legislators, for years.
National popular vote has been steadfastly pretending, Joe, Your name's not in there.
That its proposal is pro-Constitution and pro-Electoral College.
Oh, yeah, okay.
Okie doke.
So, this is their words.
Let's be clear, national popular vote lobbyist Laura Broad blasted several years ago.
The national popular vote legislation being voted on and supported by legislators across this great nation does not abolish the Electoral College.
Other National Popular Vote lobbyists have routinely agreed.
The idea that the National Popular Vote abolishes, attacks, neuters, or subverts the Electoral College or the Constitution is simply not true.
Well, Rice just came out in a piece and basically said, listen, let's get rid of the Electoral College completely by instituting this national popular vote.
In other words, telling you that everything they've been telling you... Folks, you don't believe me, read the piece.
Everything they've been telling you the whole time is complete, utter, bull garbage.
It's bull!
They're just making it up!
Never, ever trust liberals.
Ever!
Don't trust Rhino Republicans either, but definitely don't trust liberals.
They are always lying to you to institute an agenda.
It is a total, complete scam.
Alright, today's show also brought to you by CRTV.
Folks, in case you missed the big news, I'm really proud to announce we brought on Phil Robertson to CRTV with his new show In the Woods.
We had an explosion in subscriptions.
I'll give you a promo code for me.
As I said, there's also the promo code DUCKS, but that doesn't...
It doesn't benefit me, but it's fair to you all.
Ducks, you'll get $20 off if you use that promo code to sign up for CRTV.com.
My promo code, you'll get $10 off using my last name, Bongino.
I always appreciate it.
It'd probably be silly to leave $10 on the table, but if you want to support the show, it helps me a lot with my company.
I'm not going to lie to you.
I don't do, you know, no interest in doing that.
So there's two promo codes for you.
And Bongino, you can use either one, not both.
Go to CRTV.com.
I really respectfully request you give us a shot.
We have Steve Crowder's show.
We have really amazing content.
We have put so much work into this.
Mark Levin's show.
Steve Crowder's show.
Steve Dace's show.
Michelle Malkin's show.
Gavin McGinnis' new show.
Phil Robertson's show.
You got that morning grinders thing they do over there, which is crazy.
Check that out.
You'll laugh, I promise you.
You get Nate Madden on the Capitol Hill brief.
You get John Miller does the White House brief.
You can watch it on your computer.
You can watch it on your smartphone.
You can watch it on your tablets.
Ways to sling it to your TV.
Folks, just give us a shot.
That's all I'm asking.
CRTV.com.
Promo code Bongino for $10 off B-O-N-G-I-N-O.
Thanks for giving us a look, for those who have.
I really appreciate it.
By the way, one of my buddies yesterday tells me, oh, I signed up.
I signed up for three years.
I got a deal.
I'm like, did you use my promo code?
He goes, you have a promo code?
I'm like, dude!
Dude!
I mean, this is how I get paid to keep this on the air, that you guys use my promo.
I was like, you better go back and put that promo code in there.
Oh, gosh.
And I will be sending out on my email list, by the way, a link.
On my website, Bongino.com, a link where you, if you link, you'll get, we get credit for it too.
So that'll be out there soon as well.
All right.
I had a couple more stories I wanted to hit on.
I don't know if I'm going to get to both of them, but I definitely wanted to cover this growing, you know, media foe controversy about Trump's conversation with this wife who lost her hero husband in combat in Niger.
You know, folks, I, I, listen, I, I, I don't know how many times I have to explain.
I'm not Trump's psychologist and I'm, I'm, I'm not trying to be.
I'm not absolving Trump.
Trump's a sinner like you and I are.
Okay.
He's a man in an incredibly stressful position.
He's had a really busy life.
He's clearly made some mistakes, but I'm, you know, not one to throw stones for his moral failings if he's sincere in his redemption, which I think he's trying.
I really do.
I, I, I support the president.
I'm really offended by this whole thing.
You know, I get it.
You know, was it a great idea to bring up who Obama called and didn't?
Nah, to be candid folks, no, it probably wasn't.
I mean, each president is a different way.
Bush, Obama, you know, Clinton.
And I know this isn't me being, you know, chicken about it.
Just each president has a different way.
I understand that.
I've never obviously been president of the United States, but I've been in some really odd positions before where people have asked me, can you call this person about this?
And you're like, and there's no question these people are heroes, but some people just don't want to hear from the president.
I know that sounds crazy.
So it probably wasn't a good idea to bring that up.
But bashing Trump for calling a widow of a unbelievably heroic American Green Beret When all it's alleged, alleged, Trump said, because Trump isn't even saying he said this, but even if he did, is my point, all he said, Joe, was he knew what he signed up for and he did it anyway?
What the... What's the problem with that?
Let me get this straight.
He's a Queens guy, like me.
He's not... He doesn't claim to be a wordsmith.
We're not, you know, Shakespearean orators.
We're just a bunch of New York kids who have an interest in issues in politics.
Obviously.
Ran for president.
I do the show.
I don't know.
I mean, Joe, seriously, you're a regular, I mean, you're literally like the average Joe.
I mean that as a compliment.
Joe's a hardworking guy, goes to work, he likes motorcycles, cars, guy stuff, sports, lifting weights with his kids.
I mean, his kid, I, I, I, he's just, Joe.
Yeah.
Do you see, I mean, I'm asking you to be strictly candid with it.
Do you see anything wrong with that at all?
I think that was his way of saying this man was a hero.
Exactly!
I'm still trying to desperately get what this hack congresswoman in the great state of Florida where I live, Frederica Wilson, who is a joke, a farce, I mean a complete ridiculous sideshow of an act, She's like, I was going to pick up the phone and curse him out.
Were you?
Good luck.
Good luck doing that.
You complete piece of garbage.
You were going to curse him out for calling a widow to emphasize the point that this hero knew he could die and signed up anyway.
Give me a freaking break.
This is a faux fake news controversy invented by hack, disgusting, filthy politicians like Frederica Wilson, whatever her name is, who's a total farce, a total joke, a total sideshow, has no business being in Congress or in any position of leadership at all.
It's an embarrassment to herself, her district, and her country.
You were gonna curse out the president for calling a widow on his time of an American hero Killed in a combat situation for saying that he knew what he signed up for and he did it anyway.
That's all you've got?
And then you wonder why people like Frederica Wilson only appeal to radical hack liberals in their own districts.
This is a woman who could never run statewide, she'd be laughed off the stage.
Laughed off the stage.
Embarrassing.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I don't mean to get such a macabre story to this.
Sometimes these transitions are tough.
I just saw this, too, on Fox, and someone called me about it from Bustle.com yesterday.
They asked me if Melania Trump uses body doubles.
The story's been getting some, because they've got some pictures out there with her with glasses.
Folks, listen to me, please.
I'm begging you.
I know my audience.
I love you to death.
There are no body doubles in the Secret Service, okay?
It's not even legal.
For a number of reasons.
Spending taxpayer money defending a civilian pretending to be the president is probably, you would probably be fired for that.
There are no body doubles.
There's no Melania body double.
It doesn't happen.
Not to get Secret Service protection.
It doesn't work that way.
There are no body doubles, so scrap that story.
All right, don't forget to tune in tomorrow.
I got a couple more things I want to get to.
I got to talk about the collapse of, total, utter, complete collapse of one of the three imbecile musketeers, you know, Hollywood, the media, and academia.
It's just collapsing right now.
They're eating each other over there, which is, in some ways, you know, it's sad to watch because, not that I feel bad for Hollywood, but the ramifications of this are going to affect all of us.
And there's another story about the What's going on with Obamacare?
This Alexander Murray bill is terrible.
Lamar Alexander, Patty Murray.
Folks, this is a complete mess.
Forget it.
Get away from it.
It's a total disaster.
It basically funds Obamacare's economic failures in exchange for a little bit of plasticity for the states to mold their individual state programs.
But it's a disaster.
Get away from it.
I'm glad Trump isn't supporting it.
It's a nightmare.
Maybe I'll talk about it a little more tomorrow.
But thanks again for tuning in.
Please go to bongino.com.
And today on my email list, by the way, I will put in instructions if you have an Amazon Echo.
It's really simple, by the way, on how to listen to our show using just quick voice commands and Amazon Echo.
I will put it at the end, the link, on my show notes today at bongino.com.
So go check it out.
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.
