In this episode - Why are we continuing with a suicidal immigration policy? https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/uzbek-nyc-terror-suspect-was-admitted-under-obamas-dhs Here’s one thing we most do to fight back against this growing terror threat. http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/12/01/nyc-attack-us-needs-to-focus-on-physical-surveillance-says-fmr-secret-service-agent.html Another terror attack on American soil. Thank the Lord for America’s brave police officers. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/01/nyc-terror-attack-halloween-horror-would-have-been-much-worse-without-top-notch-nypd.html Another troubling component of the Russian special counsel investigation. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453305/paul-manafort-indictment-mystifying-enigmatic How keeping the property tax deduction will backfire on the middle-class. http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/31/keeping-property-tax-deduction-backfire-middle-class/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
All the Sanders supporters love throwing bombs at me and I throw them right back.
I'm not here to pull any punches, right?
This is the great irony of conservatism.
Even liberals win under conservatism.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
Are you suggesting you're that stupid that other people can run your lives better than you can even though the cost and quality of what they buy, quote, for you doesn't even matter to them?
On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show with Dan Bongino.
Guys, we've got to get used to that from the Welcome to the Renegade Republic.
I'm still...
Still trying.
Gosh, it's been a long night, too.
So much going on.
Dude.
Another terror attack on American soil.
The first terror attack in New York City since 9-11, and a lot to discuss about this today.
I mean, you know, God bless our cops out there jumping into the line of fire when everybody, you know, rightly so, is trying to get out of it.
You know, another vehicle attack, this new M.O.
by these animals overseas who just cannot stop killing.
I mean, is there any other way to say that, you know, Joe, you and I are obsessed with jobs, kids, family, your son, my two daughters, these animals, all they want to do is kill people.
I mean, they're not even, it's like an insult to animals.
Like animals don't live all day with the thought of killing other animals.
They do that when they want to eat.
I mean, there's no like homicidal animals.
It's, it's really tough to deal with, but let's dig in because I want to, um, it's a lot I want to discuss today with regards to this.
Number one, There's a really great piece written by Dan Horowitz at Conservative Review, and I know I send you to my show notes a lot.
Bongino.com is my website where they are, and if you join the email list, we'll send them to you.
And I know I say this is a must-read, but this is really a must-read.
I mean, it helps also, he writes for Conservative Review where I work.
But you know I don't chill for even my own company.
If it's a good article, I'll talk about it.
This is a really terrific piece by Dan Horowitz on immigration.
It's very short, very readable.
And let me sum up for you some major takeaways, which I discussed on Fox News this morning and I discussed on Fox Business last night.
Joe, we have a suicidal immigration policy.
You think?
I mean, what are we doing?
What is the purpose of immigration?
You know, I was on Fox & Friends this morning and I said the sole purpose, the only purpose, there is one purpose to immigration and one purpose only.
That should be to enhance the safety and prosperity of the United States.
There is no other reason for immigration other than that.
Amen.
There is no constitutional right to immigration, folks.
When you're talking to your left-leaning liberal friends, ask them where in the Constitution it talks about a big R right to immigration.
Is it in the Bill of Rights?
Where is it?
Article 1?
Article 2?
Article 3?
Where is it?
It's not in there.
Is it in the amendments?
Where is it?
It's not in there.
There is no constitutional right to immigration.
Citizenship should mean something.
Why am I bringing this up?
I'm gonna have to drink coffee during the show today, excuse me.
Sorry folks, but I never drink coffee in the show, but it's been such a long night and I have so much stuff I want to get out.
I want to make sure we're sharp for this and speak with clarity and some sense of precision here.
This guy was admitted to the country on a diversity visa program.
What the hell is that?
Another Chuck Schumer, as Donald Trump called it this morning, beauty.
A diversity visa program, where we admit up to 50,000 people from low-immigration countries to the United States, and it's a lottery.
It's not merit-based, it's a lottery.
Why are we doing that?
Why?
No, what's the... I'm serious, folks.
You know, I was always taught, paint a picture, ask a question.
I'm asking you the question, we'll paint the picture as time goes on during the show here.
Why?
Why are we doing that?
Oh, we don't have enough diversity country.
By what measure?
What measure are you talking about, by the way?
And I'm talking to the liberals out there.
And the open borders Republicans.
By what measure are we not a diverse country?
Here's a question for you that should spur you a little bit to think a little bit if you're on the wrong side of this issue.
How many immigrants have we given green cards to over the last 15 years from predominantly Muslim countries?
This is not a, you know, Jeopardy quiz.
I'm just asking, because if you're on the wrong side of this, you're like, this is, you know, diversity.
We need diversity.
We are extremely diverse as a country, by the way.
But give me, you know, give me a guess.
How much do you think?
They'll probably say, I don't know, a hundred thousand.
No, try almost two million.
We are a country of 300 million people.
As Dan Horowitz puts together in this piece of Conservative View, which again will be in the show notes, we have admitted 1.8 million green card holders from predominantly Muslim countries in the last 15 years.
Joe, the country only has 300 million people!
I hear you.
That, another thing Joe, that does not, I repeat, does not include the 150 plus thousand student visas as Horowitz points out in the piece that we admit as well for people to come here and to educate themselves in the country.
This is not a constitutional right, folks.
This diversity thing is a canard.
We are already allowing in, this is just from predominantly Muslim countries, two million people over the last 15 years.
What is the end point to you?
Here's the problem, you know, because the why matters, and I know I focus on this show on the why, and I never like to leave you with any guesswork at the end.
Here is what's going on here.
The Democrats will recruit voters to enhance their power and their power base and their control over the electoral system.
We'll recruit voters from regions of the world they think they can get people to vote Democrat on.
That is all this is about.
This is not about the security of the United States.
This is not about diversity.
This is about none of that.
Those are flowery talking points promoted by Democrats who are concerned only with increasing their voter numbers.
That's all this is about and I can prove it to you.
There was a poison pill put in a piece of immigration legislation a while ago.
It was put in by Republican members of the Senate, Joe, and it said this.
Yes, we'll go along with a lot of your immigration proposals if there's one thing.
If the people who come here don't get the right to vote for a certain amount of years.
And you know what?
The Democrats said no.
I remember that.
And you know why they said no?
Because this is not about immigration and it's not about diversity.
It has always been about, to the Democrats, enhancing their voter numbers and their power base.
This diversity visa program is a scam!
Two million people from predominantly Muslim countries over 15 years.
Folks, one more point on this.
So that's the takeaway.
This is a scam.
This is done purely for votes.
And we've already admitted up to two million people.
Can we let the people here assimilate first?
Clearly, Joe, as evidenced by another attack yesterday, we are having an assimilation problem.
So can we put a stop now to the nonsensical talk about diversity knowing that we've already diversified our entire immigration pool over the last 15 years?
Second takeaway from this.
This vetting thing is- throw it out.
Stop with the vetting.
I'm tired of hearing about the vetting.
Yeah.
Sorry.
Take another cup of- sip of java there.
How you gonna do it?
There's no vetting!
Yeah.
Folks, here's the dirty little secret of international vetting of people who come here as immigrants.
I don't know if I've told this story before, I don't think I have.
When I was an agent with the Secret Service traveling around and you were doing a protection mission, not necessarily criminal work overseas, but protection missions overseas, right?
You would work with the foreign security services on the ground.
Sometimes it was the military, sometimes it was law enforcement, sometimes it was the intelligence community, sometimes they were all wrapped into one.
I can't tell you how many times We would get a list of name checks for presidential events for people to come in.
I mean 150, 200 names, Joe.
These are the people we're going to put on a podium.
These are the people who are going to be in a meet and greet with the president.
I'm talking about in foreign countries.
I can't tell you how in many of these countries with broken economies, how we would give them to the locals to name check and we would use some of our assets too, obviously, what we had.
And the locals, they'd come back to you and be honest like, hey, um, you know, we don't, we don't, you know, we don't have much.
What do you mean you don't have much?
Well, what do you think they're doing overseas?
Checking like the Department of Voter Vehicles or their library cards?
Listen, in a lot of developed countries, there are very good data analysis systems where they have information on their citizens.
In a lot of these countries that we're taking in diversity visa citizens from, they have almost no ability whatsoever to check these people.
Now, to be clear, diversity visas were not from countries like Syria, but Syria was used as an example once in a congressional hearing about a country that has almost no ability to check its citizens at all outside of limited intelligence stuff and people we've come into contact with on the ground with our IC community.
In other words, takeaway, there's no such thing as vetting in a lot of these countries.
It's all guesswork.
So if we can't vet these people properly, then why the heck are we admitting people under a diversity visa, which is complete, it's all luck folks, it's not merit-based at all, that we have no idea will enhance the prosperity and may damage the safety of the United States.
Why are we doing it?
Why?
Now they'll circle back and they'll start with, they will start again where we started.
They'll be like, oh it's all, the diversity is important.
What diversity?
What, that we are the most diverse country on the planet?
What are you talking about?
Ah, man.
Alright, I got a clip here of Governor Cuomo, because there's another thing here.
There's another why here about this attack yesterday.
You need to rebut right away.
Forget this lone wolf thing.
There's no such thing as lone wolves anymore, okay?
Lone wolf has turned into, it started as a legitimate term.
It did, Joe.
It started as an individual attacker, you know, a John Hinckley type or whatever.
Lone wolves do not apply to ISIS and Islamic radicalized fundamentalists who go out there and kill people.
They're not lone wolves because they're part of a larger conspiracy by ISIS to use these people to terminate the lives of others.
Forget lone wolves.
Now, I want to play this clip by Cuomo and explain to you why the left keeps insisting on using this term.
Play that cut.
There's no evidence to suggest a wider plot or a wider scheme but the actions of one individual who meant to cause pain and harm and probably death and the resulting terror.
What?
Wait, Joe, did I just hear him say he may have meant to cause death?
He ran people over with a rental truck.
What do you think he was doing?
I mean, checking their heads for lice?
I mean, what kind of comment is this from the governor?
Now, More importantly, you know what's fun?
You played that clip for me, or actually you sent it to me, excuse me, I played it on my phone.
I didn't even catch that last part because I was so taken by the beginning of it, where he's so eager to show you that there's no evidence of a wider plot.
Now we do facts on this show, unlike Governor Cuomo, breaking this morning from ABC News.
You know, Joe, that bastion of conservative values?
Yes.
I mean, it's ABC, folks.
Latest, New York City terror suspect had come up in prior counter-terror probes as a possible associate, law enforcement officials tell ABC.
Now, why would the governor jump the gun and start talking about lone wolfism and no evidence of a wider plot?
This is what leftists do.
Now I don't want to bash the guy completely because you know what there's no sense piling on at this point because it's you know that the city does need these people to be there even though I don't agree with their politics but I particularly object to this and have to call it out because this is the why matters here and this is an effort by the left the lone wolf terminology Joe to make you to believe that Islamic radicalism is not a problem that this is just people not the ideology.
It is the ideology, the people, there's an endless farm of people out there willing to kill themselves for the cause, Joe.
I'm using the air quotes out there.
It's the people, it's the ideology we have to target and the Democrats are deathly afraid of that.
They are deathly afraid of that because they are soft on national security and they know this issue works politically for the Republicans and they don't want this to blow up in a strong voter base they're trying to recruit for future elections, which are Muslim Americans.
That's it folks, that's it.
That's why they will not call terror what it is, and when they do call it what it is, which they did yesterday, I'll give, de Blasio did say that.
Yeah.
But when they do call it what it is, after eight years of dancing around the topic under Obama, they are in an effort to avoid, avoid discussing the larger ideology and to make it about the individual.
Alone wolves, no evidence of a larger plot.
I just read you from ABC News that that is factually incorrect.
That is not correct.
They want to keep it about the individual, Joe, because they don't want to alienate a voting bloc.
That is what this is about.
And secondly, again, they know the national security issue always works for the Republicans because on a guns and butter approach, the Republicans have always fallen towards the guns end, not the butter end.
Guns and butter is an expression used for social spending versus military spending.
And I think it's pretty clear the Republican Party and conservatives have largely supported national security and military spending over an expansion of the social safety net.
That is an issue that has always worked for Republicans.
Democrats want to distract at all times from that.
Folks, this is very real.
Okay?
The why matters in this stuff.
One last point now.
I'm going to move on because there's actually a lot of stuff to talk about.
This is a tragic, horrible story.
We have to cover it.
But I can't forego the rest of the news because there's just so much going on.
One solution to this I've discovered.
Let me just give you two quick ones, Joe.
I was on Tucker last night, and on the show, if you saw it, great.
If not, I'll try to get the clip.
I have one clip from this morning in the show notes from Fox Business that I encourage you to look at.
It's a short one.
We have fallen in love over the years with the idea of signal intelligence.
What would be called in the IC, the intelligence community, is SIGINT, right?
Signal intelligence is great.
It's a wonderful thing.
The ability to intercept emails from adversaries, that's terrific.
I mean, it's good to have the ability to intercept.
Well, you don't even have to intercept, but looking at monitoring social media accounts, This is a good thing.
It's not a bad thing.
Now, I do think it's a bad thing on the metadata front, which I have been crystal clear about.
I don't think collecting on innocent Americans is a good thing.
I'm a libertarian in that respect.
Actually, I don't even need to be a libertarian.
I believe in the Constitutional Republic as is.
I don't believe in metadata, but signal intelligence is a good thing.
But Joe, you're never going to win this war on defense, and you're never going to win this war from behind a computer screen.
Signal intelligence has become a bedrock on which we built our entire counter-terrorism house on.
Folks, it's not going to work anymore, and here's why.
We don't rely exclusively on it, but largely on it.
These attacks now, these vehicle attacks, leave almost no investigative footprints behind at all.
These are not 9-11 style attacks.
They don't leave behind flight records, flight training, cash transactions.
You see what I'm saying, Joe?
Oh, sure, yeah.
9-11 required massive logistics, big money transfers, and all those money transfers and all that flight training and all the communications, they leave clues behind.
Clues are dangerous to bad guys.
Why?
They don't want to get caught.
These kinds of attacks don't leave those clues.
You go, you rent a car, and you go and run people over.
There are very few clues.
What does that have to do with SIGINT versus human intelligence?
Gumshoe, old-fashioned detective work.
Folks, the only way to stop these things in advance, if you don't know about them, because there are no breadcrumbs to pick up, because there are no clues left behind, is to have sources in the community that'll sense something wrong before it happens.
It's the only way.
What are you going to do?
I suggested this before.
You're going to have a do not rent list?
Don't rent cars to these guys?
I mean, seriously, where does it end?
You have got to have sources in the community.
My point, I guess, is not that we don't have sources, because I want to be very clear on this.
It's that we need a Marshall Plan-like effort to expand our network.
You would be stunned, the listeners to this show, you would be astonished, and I speak from experience on this, how limited our physical surveillance capabilities are in some of these communities.
Folks, if you're investigating the Russian mob, where do you go?
To Italian communities?
You go to Russian communities and you develop sources in those communities.
We have gotten away from that and become obsessed with reading signals intelligence.
We have got to get back to human intelligence development on the ground.
It's how we cracked up the mob.
It's how we've cracked up organized crime.
It's how they broke up the Fulton Fish Market.
You need sources.
We are not doing a good enough job there.
And I believe this is more of a reflection on political interests than it is on law enforcement interests.
Because they're afraid, Joe.
Politicians are afraid.
Oh my gosh, we can't have sources in the Muslim community.
It'll look like we're harassing and targeting them.
You're not harassing and targeting anyone!
You're harassing and targeting potential criminals.
It has nothing to do with Muslims.
I've said to you on this show a thousand times, and I'll say it again.
Don't dare, dare, if you're 11, unless you're willing to get annihilated on social media or your email, dare accuse me of your phobophobia istophobes.
I've said clearly on this show to you, Joe, and everyone who listens, I remember after 9-11, a lot of patriotic Americans who happened to be Muslim calling our Secret Service office and saying, hey, you remember this story?
Saying, hey, I got a tip.
I've got a tip for you.
Here's what's going on with my, you know, my neighbor.
That happened all the time.
Someone's going to tell me about, you know, oh, stop making about, no one's making it about all Muslims.
Idiot leftists are doing that.
But there are people in the Muslim community doing real damage, just like there were people in the Russian community and the Italian community and the Irish community with the Westies.
Stop making this a political issue and let's make it a survival issue.
These people are at war with us.
Don't be played for a fool.
Back to human intelligence.
Get the sources on the ground.
All right.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at iTarget.
Hey, thanks for all the great feedback.
I had a guy email me yesterday, Joe, and for, I'm not going to say what reason, but he can't make it out of his house a lot.
He can't get out of his house a lot, but he is a firearm owner, obviously interested in self-protection and staying proficient with his weapon.
Folks, anybody can fire a firearm, right?
It's not hard.
No.
Really.
Firing it accurately is what makes the firearm worth having.
Good marksmanship is a skill.
It's like hitting a baseball or anything else.
You don't practice it, it's going to go away.
Ammo's expensive.
Range time, it's tough to get to.
I know.
I got a recoil for my FLEOSA permit soon.
I haven't been able to get there.
This product, I've, you know, listen, I get a lot of sponsors on the show, but the reviews have been rave.
So the guy says, I can't make it out of the house.
He says, so I've been using iTarget.
I like the letter I.
He said, I've been using it.
He goes, I'm not kidding.
Like my finger is actually sore because I haven't been able to put the damn thing down since we started.
Give this thing a shot.
Instead of a bullet in your firearm, you have to go buy a new gun.
It's not going to damage your gun in any way, shape or form.
In the place of a bullet, there's a laser.
It looks like a laser bullet and it goes in there.
It's not going to damage your firearm at all.
You depress the trigger and it emits a laser onto a target they send you and you know exactly where your rounds go.
I practice out to 25 yards, 15 yards, I got my wife on it, 10 yards, and you would be astonished in one session how much better your marksmanship is going to get.
So you'll get slow, deliberate trigger control, work on your sight alignment, focus on the top end of that front sight.
This is a terrific product.
Now here's the website.
I'm going to give you a promo code for 10% off, which is a pretty good amount of savings.
The website is itargetpro.com.
That's I-T-A-R-G-E-T-P-R-O dot com.
Itargetpro.com.
And use promo code Dan, my first name, D-A-N, and get 10% off.
Remember, competitive shooters dry fire 10 times more.
Then they live fire.
These people do this for a living.
Folks, you're going to love this product.
I promise you.
Work on your marksmanship skills.
It is an absolute must-have component of being a firearm owner.
Go check it out, itargetpro.com.
Okay, moving on, because I've got a lot of stuff to get to, and it's like backing up now over the days because there's so much stuff.
I don't want to, again, beat this thing to death, but Andy McCarthy at National Review, who I really can't say enough about, Sorry, Joe.
We didn't disconnect on Skype.
That's just me.
Folks, I'm really sorry about the drink of coffee during the show, but I literally am like... I don't want to say literally.
People say it... Literally, people say literally too much.
Figuratively, I am working every... Because that wouldn't be correct.
I have an interview, like, every 10 minutes.
So we're going to leave the coffee sips in there, Dano.
Yeah, yeah.
Leave the coffee sips in there, please.
Uh, let's see.
Oh, the Manafort case.
And Andy McCarthy over at National Review is really a phenomenal writer.
I can't say enough about him.
And I have been including in the show notes some of his pieces.
And I'm going to include another one today about this Russian investigation, the Manafort arrest, the Papadopoulos arrest and plea.
And he had a piece yesterday and he just he nailed it again.
This guy is just incredible.
And he's a really nice guy to boot.
Yesterday during the show and the discussion of, and if you haven't, I can't go over all three because I don't have time, but if you missed yesterday's show, please listen to it.
I discussed why You're indicted federally versus using a complaint to arrest someone.
When you want to arrest someone in the federal system, you can indict them or you can issue a complaint to get an arrest warrant.
You can do an information tube.
But usually, when you do an indictment, it's meant to impress upon someone the seriousness of the crime.
Because an indictment is very hard to dismiss.
You can supersede it, but it's not... Complaints get dismissed all the time.
So McCarthy asked an incredible question, Joe, which darn, I think I may have missed during yesterday's show and I'm so annoyed at myself.
He said, if the indictment, which is more, in my opinion, more serious and more serious to a defense attorney, it sends a message, then a complaint.
If the indictment was issued, Then why not come out with the whole kit and caboodle to scare him?
In other words, Joe, and track me here if I'm losing it.
If you're trying to send a message to a defense attorney, right?
To say, we've got your client Manafort in the bag and because you guys didn't talk, now we're not going to do a complaint and arrest warrant or any information.
We're going to go for the full kit and caboodle indictment and we're going to take you to trial.
Then why not fire the entire nuclear bomb at them?
In other words, put everything, right?
Yeah.
I mean, you're trying to scare them, right?
So in other words, the point I'm trying to make, Joe, is if I'm trying to scare you, I don't do it with a Bozo the Clown mask, I do it with a Pennywise from It, right?
Mask.
That goofy Stephen King movie.
I do it with the scariest clown mask possible.
But McCarthy says that's not what they did.
He's like, listen, what's with this indictment?
And he asks a question.
He goes, why are there no tax charges in here?
I mean, most of the indictment talks about money laundering and some form of tax fraud.
But what's fascinating, Joe, is there's no actual tax evasion charges in there.
So why not hit him hard?
Why not hit him hard out of the chute?
Now, McCarthy's clear.
And I think he makes a good point.
I'm going to make it with you, too.
Sniff.
We obviously don't know what Mueller knows.
Bob Mueller, the special counsel.
We don't know that.
I mean, that goes without saying, right?
Yeah.
But folks, this doesn't make any sense.
I really think, in this case, Mueller, he's got some top-notch people working with him, most of them Democrats who are making, I think, a partisan investigation of this, but they're not stupid people.
I really think, Joe, this is all they have.
Hmm.
In other words, McCarthy says, are they hiding something?
Are they waiting for later?
Are they going to supersede later?
But if you're going to supersede later with a bigger indictment, to do what?
To send another message?
Hey, we indicted you because we're serious.
But Joe, now we're really serious with another indictment.
What's the point?
Why not hit them with everything right now if your goal is to get cooperation?
And folks, the reason I bring this up is, I'm not sure this is going to go well for the Democrats.
I'm not kidding.
I think we all have to... Listen, I totally object to the special counsel right now.
I don't care who they investigate.
We already have a Department of Justice.
Let me be crystal clear on that.
And I'm not backing Bob Mueller.
I think he's totally conflicted.
I think he should step aside.
I think he's hired all the wrong people.
Everybody clear on that?
Yep.
Okay, great.
Joe speaks for everybody.
Yep.
Speaking for the audience.
Yep.
Yep.
I get all of that.
But I do want to suggest to you that this may be all they have.
This is it?
This is your opening punch.
This may be all they have.
They may have hoped for cooperation, got none, said well now we're screwed we can't just tell them we're going to indict not, and this may backfire on the Democrats again because the secondary target of this may be Maybe the Podesta people called the organization or group B in the indictment.
Podesta's brother who was working with Manafort's group and lobbying for foreign governments.
I'm just saying folks, it is very rare to come out with an indictment, punch someone in the face rather than a complaint, looking for cooperation, but to not hit them with everything if you're going to indict.
Now it's not unusual to leave a complaint light.
Because you don't want to tell the defense attorney what you have?
You know what I'm saying, Joe?
And you'll dismiss it later?
But to leave an indictment like this when they've already signaled there's not going to be any cooperation is very strange to me.
All right, enough of that because I've been talking about it for three days.
But please, it's important because this is, I think, the status of our justice system is at stake.
I mean, justice clearly isn't blind anymore.
It's totally a political animal.
All right.
Today's show also brought to you by our friends at Brickhouse Nutrition.
Gosh, seriously, Joe.
Thanks to them for that daunted dusk.
What would I do without it?
By the way, I gave a couple bottles.
I know Miles listens to the show.
I gave a couple bottles of Dawn to Dust, that's Brickhouse Nutrition's energy supplement, to the woman who comes to the house for makeup.
I have a studio in my house and her husband's the camera operator and she does the makeup.
When you see me on Fox, it's my office.
I'm in the same room I do my podcast on.
The only difference is I turn a TV screen on behind me.
Joe's seen it.
It's cool.
He's been here.
Yeah, it's pretty cool.
She says to me, you know, I'm tired.
I'm like, hey, try this Dawn to Dust stuff.
She came back last night, I'm not making this up, and she's like, dude, do you have some more?
That stuff is amazing.
I'm telling you, it's the best energy product in the market.
If like me, you have to be sharp, clear, precise, and hopefully witty, I don't know, you tell me, for 10, 12, 14 hours a day, every single day, weekends included, I'd be lost without this stuff.
It's called Dawn to Dusk.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com.
Dan?
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Go pick up a bottle of Dawn to Dusk.
If you are a working mom or dad, you know, an executive, blue collar, white collar, crossfitters, MMA folks, you don't have to be in any kind of martial art, any kind of lifting, physical activity, you need the energy to get through the day, go check this stuff out.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
And again, I'll have a banner ad on some of my emails you can just click on if you want to pick it up.
But the product is called Dawn to Dusk.
Give it a shot.
Give me your feedback.
I know you'll love it.
Daniel at Bongino.com.
I still don't think I've gotten a negative email about this stuff.
It's terrific.
It's always positive.
All right.
One, two, three, four.
Let's see.
Six more.
Let's get to this one because this one's important.
I didn't get to talk about it yesterday.
So there's a real scam going on right now with the Democrats.
Joe, shocker.
Big scam.
Never happens, right?
Big scam going on with the Democrats with Obamacare right now.
Now, you know, I know the Obamacare topic, it's old.
I totally understand that.
And you know, they'll tell you in radio, Joe can probably tell you, you know, you never tell the audience like in advance, like things are going to get old because they want to tune out.
No, I don't do that.
I consider you all friends.
And I just want to preface that by telling you it does get old.
And that's why I try to avoid discussing Obamacare stuff, because I feel like we beat it to death.
But this was interesting, because there was an angle to this story that I did not see coming.
I saw the scam, but I didn't see what was going on, and I'm like, damn it, I gotta bring that up to my audience.
It was a cool story.
So here's the gist of it.
I'm not gonna put it in the show notes today, folks, because I'm getting a lot of complaints about putting Wall Street Journal links in there because it's subscriber only.
So I'll try to find a different article, but I'll just tell you the gist of the story.
It was good, but it was in the journal a couple days ago, and it said, That's how long I've been holding this thing.
That the Obamacare premiums for the silver plans are scheduled to go up 37% next year.
Yeah!
Nice job, Obama!
This Obamacare's terrific, isn't it?
I mean, if they're not going up by double digits, then pretty soon it'll be triple digits.
Then it'll be, you know, quadruple digits, right?
So Obamacare premiums are going up next year 37%, meaning you're going to get a bill if you're on an Obamacare-compliant plan that is going to be through the roof for your monthly premiums.
The story talks about what's going on behind the scenes.
The Democrats are in a panic, for obvious reasons, Joe.
The bill, despite its actual name, the Affordable Care Act, everybody calls it Obamacare.
Wouldn't you agree?
Yes, I would.
Now, they thought this was going to be a strategic asset, but now they're starting to realize, and this is why, as I mentioned in a prior show, that when you hear Democrats talk about Obamacare, now they never say Obamacare, they say the Affordable Care Act, because they don't want this thing tagged with Obama.
They don't want to tag with Obama.
They want some, you know, otherworldly sounding name which separates it from the Democrat Party because they know it's crap.
They're trying to figure out a message to explain away what's going on right now with these 37% premiums going up next year.
So what they've settled on, Joe, is that Trump sabotaged it.
You're going to see this word all the time.
Remember, the Democrats live off the talking point.
And the talking point is it was sabotaged by Trump because Trump won't advertise Obamacare to young invincibles, meaning young people who should buy into Obamacare.
Folks, think about this.
This isn't the dumbest talking point.
And the Democrats, They have so many dumb talking points that sorting through the dumb ones is genuinely tough to do.
This ranks up there, excuse me, top two or three dumbest talking points ever.
They're saying now because Trump did not advertise Obamacare.
Joe, nobody knows about Obamacare.
Did you know that?
Nobody's heard of it.
It's only existed now for years through multiple elections.
Obama practically celebrated it when he started.
So they're saying all these young people aren't joining Obamacare because they don't know about it and the Republicans aren't But keep in mind they are spending money to market it because it's been allocated, but they're not spending what the Democrats think we should do.
Hundreds of millions of dollars or whatever to advertise to young people to join this.
Here is why this is so dumb.
Let me turn the page because I took some data points on this which I thought were hysterical.
It is Obamacare's own frankly piss-poor design that is keeping young people from joining actual Obamacare.
What's happening right now?
Folks, they need the money from young healthy people, their premium money, to be paid to health insurance companies so that health insurance companies can keep premiums down for everyone else.
But where are the young people going, Joe?
They're not going on Obamacare.
They're staying on their parent's plan till 26.
Till they're 26.
Well why are they doing that?
Because that was written into Obamacare!
Ladies and gentlemen, if this is not one of the dumbest decisions I've, it doesn't end there by the way, young people who were supposed to offset the premiums for older sicker people and join Obamacare are now not joining Obamacare because Obamacare had a, had a, had a um, Aligning it, which enabled the same young people to stay on their parents' plan until they're 26 and not join individual market Obamacare exchanges.
If you're like, uh, huh?
Yes!
You know what?
I missed that angle and I was really, really annoyed at myself.
I'm like, gosh, I should have thought.
This is the beauty of Democrat stupidity.
They blame Republicans for writing a law where they need young people to join a plan that incentivizes people, young people, to not join said plan and join another plan.
Not only that, Joe, and I got some numbers for you in a second.
The Medicaid expansion.
Obamacare expanded Medicaid to way beyond the poverty line.
Who's joining Medicaid?
The same young people who are supposed to be joining Obamacare which, let's be clear, are individual market plans.
What are they doing?
They're joining me?
You think we don't have the numbers here?
Here's how many young people are in Medicaid right now, in contrast to people on individual market Obamacare plans that would be, you know, just for these young kids alone, not group plans, not Medicaid, not S-CHIP, none of that, right?
There were 13.4 million of these young invincibles on Medicaid.
There are 3 million on Obamacare.
Whoa!
I'm gonna leave it at this.
When your liberal friends want to argue with you because Trump's sabotaging the plan.
Be like, no, no, no, no, hold on, time out.
How?
Oh, they're not marketing.
Clearly they're marketing enough, Joe.
Well, how do we know that?
Because young people are joining Obamacare, just not Obamacare plans.
They're joining Obamacare on their parents' plan until they're 26, which was Obamacare, and they're joining through the Medicaid expansion, which you're paying for.
They're just not joining actual Obamacare plans.
So how can they be sabotaging a plan that sabotaged itself?
But again, you know, Dopey Dems, don't let that get in the way of another stupid argument about how we're all sabotaging and destroying Obamacare when it was written to sabotage itself.
Does that make sense, Joe?
Yeah, Houston, we got a problem.
Houston, we got a big problem.
You wanted young invincibles to join the individual market while incentivizing them to stay out of the individual market, sign up for Medicare, and stay on their parents' plan.
Great job Dems.
Only a Democrat would see that as a viable way forward on an economically effective health care plan.
Only a Democrat because 2 plus 2 equals 77 to them.
Oh my gosh.
All right.
Let's see.
Oh, this was a really terrific piece.
There was a piece in the Journal this weekend that I really took to.
They do these profiles, the Wall Street Journal, which are interesting.
They're longer profiles, you know, up to sometimes 2,000 or more words on people on the weekend.
I always find them fascinating.
It's such a diverse group of people.
But this weekend, they did a profile on a woman named Erica Komisar, I think is how you pronounce it.
Forgive me, Ms.
Komisar, if I'm saying it wrong.
Maybe Komisar.
The piece was about the left's war on motherhood.
Now, this woman does not profess to be any type of conservative.
I don't even think she mentions her party affiliation in the piece, but it's clear she's not a conservative.
I don't even think she's a Republican.
It doesn't really matter.
But she did some research, Joe, and the research is something you all need to hear because it was a real eye-opener for me and my wife.
And we sat on the couch and talked about this for a good, you know, Saturday morning.
It's like, my wife calls it relaxy time, not relaxing, relaxy, which I always find kind of funny.
So we're talking and we're chilling out and we've had a sense of regret.
I mean, if I just be candid, because my wife's going to kill me for talking about this, but we had a real sense of regret because the core of the piece was this, folks.
This woman who's being attacked now by the left, Put together scientific research, it's not an opinion, it's an opinion based on science, that the first thousand days of your child's life, roughly three years, that the mother, it would be nice to have the mother and the father, but very specifically the mother, the mother has to be there for that child to develop in the most, I'm going to be very careful, in the most efficient, best way possible.
Now why is that, Joe?
It's not just like, oh, because it is.
Because we love them.
Yeah, of course we love them.
We get all that.
This was science.
Remember, Joe, the left loved science.
Remember that myth?
But this is fascinating, Joe.
She says in the piece, and it goes to show you how sick liberals are.
They love to tell you how much they love science.
That in the first thousand days, a child Has almost no functioning nervous system on a self-regulatory front.
I mean, the nervous system works, obviously, it's sending signals, I think that's obvious, but she says that it has no ability, a child's nervous system, to regulate their own emotions.
And she says, you know, think about it.
And she gets into some detail on it.
She says, you know, when a child cries, an infant, you know, one two-year-old infant, six-month-old infant, Joe, and you know this, you know, I mean, I know my kids, they won't stop unless, there's no reason for it.
I mean, maybe they're hungry or whatever, but it's probably more energy exhaustive to continue crying than it would be to just stop and preserve your energy.
But kids don't get, they can't self-regulate.
So she says in that thousand days, the mother, who has a unique ability through the presence of oxytocin and some hormones that the mother has that the father doesn't.
The father's instinct is to be protective and in some cases aggressive, while the mother's is to sue.
This is her words.
This is their science, not mine.
She says the mother acts as the baby's central nervous system, which I found fascinating.
In other words, children in their first three years learn to self-regulate through the mother.
The mother grabs them, Joe, sues them, picks them up.
You know, you've all been there.
Mothers are probably, you know, you pat the child, you burp the child, you feed the child.
And the child eventually learns through the mother's signals How to use its own central nervous system to regulate, and this is important, and control their own emotions.
So she makes a couple of leaps in here and talks about some things, and I'll make a leap she doesn't make directly, but is this the cause right now of a lot of our societal problems with crime, behavioral malignancy?
I mean, I don't know, it's a big leap.
But the point of which, and I believe what she's saying is absolutely true, by the way, you know, my wife and I sat on the couch and we were like, gosh, you know, cause my wife worked really hard.
We did, you know, we were, you know, we had to make it.
We, we had, we had to make money.
I mean, what are you going to do, Joe?
I mean, you and I, you know, we're not, none of us are rich.
So we had to put our youngest in daycare.
And my wife and I sat there for a good half hour, an hour, like feeling really awful about, you know, our first child.
And she spent a good amount of time in daycare and we brought relatives in and we did the best we could.
And we felt terrible about it.
And here's the point.
I lived through this.
So, you know, I get I'm going to get a lot of emails from people, but the woman who's just did a scientific study, it's not, she's not making political observations on it.
I mean, she does suggest a child tax credit, but the left's going after her, Joe.
And a lot of them won't even publish the articles or the research because they're saying, oh, you're going to make women feel bad.
Folks, I'm not trying to make anybody feel bad.
I mean, it's a genuine question.
A genuine question should be, are you or are you not interested in what may or may not be better for the development of your child?
I am.
It made me feel bad.
But gosh, I wish I would have known this before, Joe, right?
Maybe we could have made a more informed decision.
Yeah.
Maybe we could have adjusted our work schedules a little differently.
I mean, what, you just don't want to know?
I mean, that to me speaks again.
To a liberal agenda of nothing but controlling how people think even when people think doesn't align with the science or the reality.
Don't let be, oh my gosh, we can't have that, it'll destroy our war on women narrative.
We can't tell women that the first thousand days are critical.
Why not?
Why can't you tell them that?
Of course not every woman's gonna have the, or man, or household, are gonna have the ability to stay home with their child for the first thousand days.
Of course not.
But can we all just make informed decisions without the left's constant effort, Joe, to mislead and gaslight all of us?
Tell us lies and isolate us from the truth?
It's really not fair!
Yeah, but it's a really great piece.
If you Google it, you'll see.
Again, it's a subscription-only piece, but I gave you the gist of it.
Hey, um... One last story.
I'll wrap this up quick.
There's a story in Legal Insurrection out there about a proposal to, no, I'm sorry, this was another journal piece, but I got the idea of it from a Ben Shapiro speech, which he's apparently preparing to give at a college, and they want to charge a massive security fee, and I've warned you about these security fees in the past.
These security fees are nothing but an excuse right now to shut down free speech, making people pay money they don't have.
You know what I'm saying, Joe?
Sure.
So one of the proposals out there is, well, I saw this.
This was from a right-leaning guy.
Well, maybe we should start pulling funding from universities that don't support free speech.
I just want to leave it at this.
Maybe we should not be getting in the university funding business at all, right, Joe?
And let the market decide.
You want to send your kid to a crap school that bans conservatives from campus?
Pull them out of there.
Let's just get the federal government out of it altogether.
I think it's a really bad idea, federal funding in the first place.
And I don't think we should argue for pulling or giving federal funding anywhere.
Let's just pull federal funding altogether and let these universities stand on their own.
I mean, here's just a quick number for you on this.
Let me see, I wrote this down yesterday.
2015, Joe.
$38 billion went to universities from DC.
60% of all their research budgets.
You know what?
Let the market decide, folks.
Keep that money back in the economy.
Let's not get into who should get or who should not get money.
These universities are doing us a huge disservice with their war on free speech, but anytime we start getting into government funding and arguing for or against it, you're making the case that government funding initially is a good thing and that's a big mistake.
All right, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Please go to bongino.com and subscribe to my email list there.
I'll send you these articles right into your email box.
Thanks a lot, folks.
I'll see you all tomorrow.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
