These articles thoroughly debunk the Democrats’ latest disingenuous talking points about the GOP tax cuts.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/28/dont-believe-democrat-attacks-tax-reform-facts/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454099/senate-tax-reform-would-not-raise-taxes-poor
Is Obamacare causing a wave of healthcare bankruptcies?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-28/obamacare-set-drive-new-wave-hospital-bankruptcies
CNN says they’re boycotting the White House Christmas party, but, who really cares?
https://t.co/XRvDYmhmYS
Why is this rogue government agency collecting your financial records?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cfpbs-nsa-like-surveillance-in-limbo-with-leadership-tussle/article/2641956
The Democrats took a huge loss yesterday in the courts.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/11/court-sides-with-trump-in-bitter-fight-with-cfpb-and-elizabeth-warren/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host Dan Bongino.
All right, welcome to the Dan Bongino show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Ready to roll, Dan-o.
Little road show today from Dallas.
Came back from Los Angeles yesterday.
I'm here in Dallas with the NRA TV folks today.
I'll be in studio.
I'm always on at one o'clock Eastern Time if you want to take a look.
But I had my stem cell treatment yesterday.
I appreciate everyone who emailed me your prayers.
I asked for them.
It means a lot to me.
And it was Dr. Mark Berman out there.
He's the best.
So he's out in Beverly Hills.
And I tell you, folks, I can't recommend it enough.
I mean, I've had the procedure done before where they take your stem cells out.
If you listen to Rough Cuts, I described it.
But they take some fat out of your back.
You get like a liposuction, which it's not such a bad thing.
I said to the doc, I'm like, hey doc, you want to take a little extra?
You can take it.
I don't really care.
So they do a little liposuction on you.
They get your stem cells out.
It takes about an hour to get them out of the fat tissue.
It looks like a chicken broth.
It's like a blood-tinged chicken broth, however gross that sounds.
And he injects.
It's pretty painless.
He injected my shoulder and my left knee and my elbow yesterday.
So last time it worked like a charm.
I have a torn rotator cuff in my right shoulder.
So I'll keep you all updated.
I know there's always a lot of questions about the stem cells, but Folks, I mean it.
He doesn't pay me for advertising on this show.
He doesn't have to.
Check him out.
If you have arthritis and stuff and you're really out of options and you're living in pain, check him out.
Dr. Mark Berman at Beverly Hills and the Stem Cell Network.
I can't say enough about him.
He's a genuinely good guy.
Great guy.
All right.
I've got, I know I say this a lot, I have a ton of material, but today I really have a ton of material, so let's just get cracking right away.
Show notes today, critical.
Folks, you gotta read the show notes today.
I understand if you don't want to subscribe to my email list, I totally get it.
If you do, I will email you these.
You can always subscribe at my website, Bongino.com, but please go to Bongino.com and check out the articles I have today in the show notes, because they are Awesome!
Okay, first one from National Review, which is a thorough debunking of another silly, ridiculous liberal talking point on the tax cut plan.
So, what happened?
How do we debunk it?
What are your liberal friends saying?
Why is the media running with the story?
Well, Joe, there was a Joint Committee on Taxation and CBO report released, and CNN picked it up with the headline, as a couple people said, this is Dom DeLuise from the Cannonball Run, thank you for the... That's what that's from, right?
Thank you, everyone.
That is where I got that from, you're right.
Someone said it was Captain Underpants, but that's tra-la-la.
I've seen that too, but it's definitely Dom DeLuise.
So here's the headline from CNN on this CBO report.
Poor Americans, Joe, would lose billions, billions under the Senate bill tax plan.
You're all gonna...
Folks, you wonder why the fake news epidemic is... So you read that headline, and understandably, folks, I'm not making fun of a lot of people.
I know not all of you have the time to go and read the Joint Committee on Taxation and the CBO report.
I do.
This is what I do for a living.
It's my obligation to present you factual data.
But you read that headline, and you would be understandably concerned, right, Joe?
Yeah.
I mean, if you're a middle or low-income American, and you're thinking, oh my gosh, tax cuts, and I'm going to lose billions?
Yeah.
I understand.
Folks, it's a scam.
It's always a scam.
And what we do on this show is debunk scams.
Here's the scam.
And this National Review piece, it's really short, but it is awesome.
It's so good.
Please read it.
They say, here's the scam here, right?
The Joint Committee on Taxation and CBO report, the losing of billions, or what they're saying would effectively be a tax hike on poor, middle-income Americans.
It really is based on the repeal of the individual mandate in the Senate bill of Obamacare.
So here's their logic.
Let me walk you through how dumb this really is.
Because this is... I gotta turn this down a little bit.
My return is high, so I'm like cooking my own eardrums.
The individual mandate, which is the Obamacare penalty, Or what they called a tax, the Obama administration fought, made it a tax, fought in court through their Solicitor General on the idea that the Obamacare penalty was in fact a tax.
The CBO logic here is that if you repeal this penalty for not having Obamacare, you following Joe?
That poor folks, I've said this before but this is important because it just came out yesterday again, this new CNN headline, That Obamacare sucks so bad that if you don't penalize people, that they will in fact not go buy Obamacare, and that that would be a tax hike, effectively, because then some poor folks would lose the subsidy and the Medicaid they get from the government.
Oh, Joe.
Joe, do you have the dude ready?
Can you play the dude, please?
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
Folks, folks, this, this is, this is, this is the insanity that CNN is putting out.
There is a legitimate news report and the CBO.
This is, the logic here is so dumb that me explaining, I've literally lost 10 IQ points in the last few minutes just explaining to you how stupid this is.
So the CBO headline and the Democrats have been running with this, this tax cut plan is going to hike your taxes.
So Americans are left scratching their heads like, tax cut plan is going to hike?
That doesn't make any sense.
How is that?
Oh, because they're going to repeal the mandate that you buy Obamacare.
Okay, so what?
So if they repeal the mandate that you buy Obamacare, many of you are not going to want to buy Obamacare.
Well, why is that?
Well, because it sucks and it's overpriced.
Okay, well, how do I lose?
Well, you would lose because it sucks and it's overpriced so bad that you may not get a subsidy to help you buy said overpriced insurance.
So by losing other taxpayers' money in the form of a subsidy you would have gotten if you would have bought crappy Obamacare, you are now subject to a tax hike.
What?
What kind of crap is this?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Joe, I legitimately don't know.
That's not even... To call it dumb logic is not even accurate because to put the term logic in there, that's just dumb.
Folks, this happens all the time.
And one of my frustrations with liberalism as a... Folks, listen, I'm no different than any of you, okay?
I grew up a middle class, at some points, lower middle class kid.
I'm not Albert Einstein.
I don't pretend to be something I'm not.
But I'm not going to lie to you when I tell you I'm increasingly frustrated every day, as I've said repeatedly on the show, by having to wake up every morning and debunk what is just ridiculous liberal stupidity.
I really don't mind sound, sensible arguments like on foreign policy and stuff that liberals make that I think are wrong, that you can debate.
I mean, there's a legitimate conversation right now about what to do about North Korea.
They launched another ICBM yesterday.
There are a lot of liberal Folks out there who say, listen, there's no military option.
Okay.
That's, that's a fine debate we can have.
And I, I, you know, in some respects you may be right, but there is no sound common sense, reasonable logic based argument to defend saying that pulling a requirement for people to buy something they don't want, even though the government is going to give it to them for free in many cases in the form of Medicaid, that pulling that requirement is a tax hike.
If they choose not to buy it.
Folks, that's just plain dumb.
And this is what bothers me about politics today, that we can't even have reasonable, non-nonsensical conversations about policy initiatives without hyperbolic headlines like CNN's, poor Americans would lose billions under the Senate bill.
Really?
Seriously?
I mean, how about the real headline?
The tax bill will save Americans billions by not making them pay a tax for not having Obamacare.
That's the real headline, Joe.
Yeah, there you go.
That's a fact-based headline.
If you repeal the individual mandate in the Senate bill that you have to have Obamacare, the real headline should be, poor Americans would save billions.
Because remember, Joe, as I discussed a couple weeks ago on the show?
90% of people paying the Obamacare tax, 90% make $75,000 or below.
That is not rich in America anymore.
Maybe it's middle class, in some cases upper middle class, depending on where you live and the cost of living, but that is not rich by any measure.
That individual mandate is screwing over Americans.
So CNN should just tell the truth once in a while.
I mean, it's really disgusting what's going on.
I just get really upset about this.
All right, folks, today's show brought to you by our buddies at iTarget.
Thanks to everyone who's gone out there and purchased iTarget.
It's the letter I. The website is itargetpro.com.
Now, what is iTarget?
Well, for those of you who have it and love it and have emailed me, I really appreciate the feedback.
I send a lot of it right on to the company, by the way, and they like it as well.
Eye target is a laser bullet you drop in your firearm to increase your marksmanship because
marksmanship folks is a perishable skill. I had to shoot every month with the secret service and
candidly speaking I haven't shot in a while. I need to get on my eye target because you lose it.
You lose the ability to depress the trigger slowly and with consistent pressure to line
up your sights on both sides.
Listen, any knucklehead can shoot.
The question is, can you shoot accurately?
The other guy's, God forbid, shooting at you and you're under a home invasion situation.
He can't hit you, but you can hit him.
I got news for you, Joe.
You're in a far better situation.
You have to practice your marksmanship, but range fees are expensive.
Listen, everybody acknowledges you got to go to the range and live fire once in a while, but not many folks have the opportunity to get there once a week or once a month.
EyeTarget gives you an option to practice safely at home.
It's a great piece of equipment.
What does it do?
It is a laser bullet that drops into the firearm you have now.
You don't have to make any modifications.
You don't have to buy anything special.
You just get the EyeTarget laser bullet.
It's not going to damage or hurt your gun in any way.
You drop it in, you depress the trigger, and the laser bullet emits literally a laser onto a target that EyeTarget sends you with the package.
The app, the phone app, will track all of your shots.
It's like the greatest video game in the world, except the fact that you're learning a skill everybody needs, which is good marksmanship.
I've gotten incredible reviews on this.
I've got guys who are practicing for law enforcement academies who said, listen, it helped me pass my law enforcement test.
A parent who said he was getting it for his son in the military.
But folks, really, it's for all of us out there.
If you own a firearm, it's only responsible to know how to shoot it and shoot it well.
Go to I, the letter I, TargetPro.com.
That's itargetpro.com.
And remember, competitive shooters dry fire 10 times more than they live fire.
These are people who do this for a living.
Use promo code Dan for 10% off.
That's Dan, my first name, D-A-N.
This is a great product, folks.
Thanks for supporting our sponsors.
They're wonderful.
Okay, let's see.
Folks, a huge, huge, huge loss yesterday for the Democrats in the court system.
What am I talking about?
Yeah.
Well, if you listened to yesterday's show, you know about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, folks.
Make no mistake, what happened there was the first soft coup attempt by the Democrats in the modern era.
You laugh?
Oh, Dan, come on.
Come on now.
That's hyperbolic language.
That's not necessary.
Is it, really?
Well, if you listened to yesterday's show, you know what happened.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has become a rogue agency, founded under the Dodd-Frank Act, which, by the way, is accumulating your financial records, but more on that later or tomorrow.
I'm not kidding, folks.
This is a rogue agency.
Richard Cordray leaves.
He's a Democrat appointed under Obama.
He was the director.
He just decides, Joe, he's going to appoint his own replacement.
Yeah.
Okay.
That's interesting, considering the fact that that is not how the government functions under the executive branch.
There was no stipulation for him to do that the way he did it.
The stipulation for the director to appoint an acting director was if he was unavailable.
Joe, he resigned.
He left.
He was not unavailable.
He resigned.
And in that case, the president, under the executive branch, has the full authority to appoint an acting director.
So again, what happened?
Leandra English, who was Cordray's Democrat appointee in their soft coup attempt, just decided she was going to occupy the acting director office while Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney, the OMB director under the Vacancies Act.
Folks, do you understand what I just told you?
I know I talked about it yesterday, but the Democrats just engaged yesterday in what was really their first soft coup attempt of the modern era.
They basically said, we're just going to occupy a government office with our own power folks and you guys can all plant a big wet one on us, you know?
And you know where you can do it.
So what happened?
The Trump administration, I give them a lot of credit here, did the right thing.
Joe, they could have, and I warned you about this yesterday, the nine hour, I said they could have walked in and had the woman escorted out of the building and fired immediately.
Right.
Now I, again, being candid with you, my impulses were first to do that.
Like, I've had enough of these people.
I mean, really, my impulse was get her out of here.
This is a disgrace.
But, folks, the Democrats wanted that.
And, you know, if you... I'm not a big, like, Sun Tzu guy, but, you know, here's the deal.
When your enemy, when your political enemy, which, sadly, these coup people are.
I'm not talking about all Democrats, but I'm talking about these people who have tried to diminish the Trump administration.
When your enemy's doing, when you're doing what your enemy wants you to do, you're probably doing the wrong thing.
And in this case that applies.
The Democrats in the case who were supporting this woman, Joe, wanted her to be escorted out because they wanted a big scene with the press there and they wanted to make a big production.
The Trump administration handled it right.
What did they do?
They went into the court system, and yesterday a federal judge ruled that this was ridiculous.
Like, you're not the acting director.
Beat it.
Leandra English, who I'm telling you was engaging in a soft coup at the CFPB.
Now, this was a really fantastic development because this thing blew up in the Democrats' face exactly as I predicted it would in yesterday's show.
Why?
Folks, the Democrats love the idea of discretionary government, as I've said repeatedly, and this is what that was yesterday.
It was a usurpation of the Constitution and the President's ability to manage the executive branch of government, which is the role of the presidency under Article 3 of the Constitution.
Any, you know, government civics 101 student can figure that out.
But why the Democrats looked really foolish yesterday?
Was they were not only smacked down by the federal judge, they were also smacked down by the CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the rogue agency's own legal counsel, Joe, who was appointed by Obama.
So what happened yesterday?
The Democrats engage in this soft coup.
They try to implant their own person, embed their, like an embed, into the government, into a government agency, despite the president's own desire to have someone else.
And they look like total idiots.
They're beaten down in the courts.
They're beaten down by their own legal counsel.
They're humiliated in the media.
They humiliate this other lady.
And even I think a bunch of moderate Democrats are like, wait, wait, left scratching their heads, Joe, saying, let me get this straight.
The president appointed an acting director and some lady just decided that didn't matter and she was in charge nonetheless and the court said no and the legal counsel said no.
Do you understand, Joe, how the Republican argument against the CFPB the entire time was that it was a rogue agency that was operating outside of the realm of normal government procedures in the Constitution?
And the Democrats were like, no, it's not.
No, no, this is just protecting consumers.
We called it the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after all.
And you see how yesterday just reinforced the Republican stance on this?
That this is an entirely rogue operation that should not exist in the government as we know it today in a formal constitutional republic.
They look like total, complete idiots.
It blew up in their faces.
There's a really good article, Legal Insurrection, which is a great website that I'll put in the show notes today about this.
Folks, they look like morons.
Bunch of buffoons.
Oh, it just blew up in their face completely.
I mean, it's just embarrassing.
Alright, what else do we got here?
Oh, uh... What should I get to first?
Let me get to this one.
This is kind of an interesting but frightening piece in many respects.
There is a Supreme Court case, Carpenter v. the U.S., that's going to be initiated today.
And me as a former law enforcement agent at the federal level and a former police officer at the city level in New York at the local level, folks, I'm I'm very afraid of the power of government when it comes to law enforcement because I've seen what can happen.
You know, I tweeted out last night, and I meant it, that when the government engages in witch hunts, you better be really careful because the government always finds a witch.
Always.
Every time.
And, you know, I was thinking about this in the case of You know, the Trump-Russia case, obviously, but I think as a federal agent, a lot of the federal agents I know who listen to my show, who email me a lot, I think you'll agree with this, that when you walk in, someone has to initiate a federal case on anything, even if it's the Trump-Russia thing.
It has to start somewhere with someone, right?
When you walk into an office, whether it be the Secret Service, the FBI, Joe, and you think you found something, like, I got Joey Bagadonuts on a bank robbery charge, whatever it may be, your whole life becomes about that case.
Your whole life becomes about proving that Joey Bag of Donuts robbed the bank, and it almost leads to some tunnel vision, Joe.
I know.
I mean, I've seen it with other agents, where they're obsessed with the idea of finding a crime.
Why do I say that in terms of this case?
This case isn't about the Trump-Russia thing, but it worries me about giving the government too much power when the government has that tunnel vision to find a crime, even if a crime may not have been committed.
The reason we have a constitution is to limit what the government can do to you if you are the witch they're targeting.
Make sense, Joe?
Yeah.
So what's the essence of this case?
Well, there was this guy who committed a bunch of robberies, this guy Carpenter, and I think it was in the Detroit area.
The police department went in and got a court order to track- to geolocate his phone.
Geolocating a phone, Joe, is basically like your- your- I hate- I don't want to scare you folks, but your cell phone is like a tracking device.
I don't think this is a mystery to any of you.
No, it's not.
You can triangulate its location off of cell towers and we can figure out where you've been.
Maybe not to the precise inch you're standing on the pavement in a big city, but it can tell relatively where you've been.
So, the police department went out and got a court order, Joe, to follow this guy, Carpenter, his foot traffic, where he was over a period of 120 plus days.
And they figured out, using the information, that he was in the area of these crimes, these robberies, and used it in a conviction.
Carpenter's lawyer is now suing, saying that that's a violation of his reasonable expectation of privacy.
Now, folks, I owe you an opinion on this.
It may not be popular with some of the conservatives out there, the law and order types, but I assure you it is a law and order position to not seek to restrain people in law enforcement, but seek to restrain government, of which law enforcement is that front line.
You see what I'm saying, Joe?
Folks, I think this is a very dangerous development.
The police department in the case is relying on what they call this third-party doctrine.
In other words, Joe, us tracking his cell phone data over 127 days without a warrant but a court order?
That's really no different than us, like, canvassing a neighborhood and asking a third party, hey, where was Joey Bag of Donuts over the past few days?
They're saying, Joe, and if I'm not clear on this, please let me know, as you always do, They're saying, well, asking the phone company to do it is no different than us going out and knocking on doors.
You don't need a warrant to do that.
Folks, really?
I ask you this very simple question and the Wall Street Journal has a really great piece today.
What was the guy's name who wrote it?
I'll have to look that up.
I think it was from the American Enterprise Institute, but it was a really, really good piece.
And he's like, the only issue at question here is, forget the reasonable expectation of privacy for a moment, is, Joe, is a search a search and is a seizure a seizure?
There you go.
In other words, when you go and canvas doors and you knock on doors and say, hey, did you see Joey Bag of Donuts in the vicinity of First National Bank a week ago?
Are you really searching or seizing anything?
But Joe, when I go to Verizon and I say, hey, can I have Joey Bagadonat's records?
Here's a court order, which is a lower standard of proof, folks, than a warrant.
And I say, hey, can I have Joey Bagadonat's records as to where he's been?
Track him with that homing device we call a cell phone.
I need to know where he's been for the past 120 days.
Joe, you're actually seizing something.
Yeah.
What are you seizing?
The business records of Verizon, which I argue strongly belong to you!
Folks, I'm not trying to get in the way of law enforcement and legitimate investigations.
And I think, so just to be clear, my opinion, I'd love to hear your feedback.
You know, I really enjoy when you all disagree.
I do.
I know you don't think I do, but I do.
Especially that death penalty show where I got some really terrific emails about the biblical, you know, basis for the death penalty.
Very interesting.
But Daniel Apongino is my email.
If you disagree, let me know.
But folks, I don't think the government This is not a reasonable expectation of privacy argument.
This is just a simple, is this a search or not?
Using that third... you see where I'm going with this, Joe?
Yeah, well it seems more like a seizure to me.
Yeah, exactly!
Using that third-party doctrine that, oh we're just canvassing, we're basically just canvassing the phone company, is ridiculous.
You would never have the technological capability to do that.
If it weren't for that business record, you would have to, as Joe just said, seize from Verizon.
The neighbors aren't keeping your business records as to where you've been for the past few weeks.
And I think what, forgive me, it's not a knock on lawyers.
I mean it.
It's not.
You're very smart folks.
It's tough to get into law school.
But I think sometimes, Joe, in the legal profession, We tend to get lost in the wonkery and lose the forest for the trees.
This is common sense.
This is a business record that I believe is yours.
You own it.
It's a search and it's a seizure.
There should be at some point some, you know, expectation that the government's going to have to meet a standard of proof before they can track you.
Now, couple points on this.
One, I have a question I'm gonna get to, which is important.
This is the only question you should ask on this, in my humble opinion.
But secondly, I think there's a middle ground on this.
And the middle ground is, if it's a quick, and the journal brings this up and I think it's a good point, if it's a quick Yeah let's say like they bring up the case this was this really happened Joe where there was um there was this person who was shot in a house through their window and it was obviously an emergency situation there so the police asked for the cell phone data to eliminate basically to figure out who was in the area that gunshot at the time of the gunshots and they basically narrowed it down to about whatever 40 or so people
That was a court order.
It was an emergency situation.
It wasn't long-term tracking.
You see what I'm saying, Joe?
Yeah.
It was a simple court order to say, hey, who was there and who wasn't?
I personally don't have an issue with that.
A court order which is a lower standard of proof, folks, just to be clear, it's got to be relevant data, the probable cause warrant is, excuse me, search warrant for the data is probable cause, which is a higher standard of proof.
Copy?
I have no problem with the lower standard of proof making it easier if it's that quick situation like that.
Child is kidnapped, who's in the area, that's it.
But there's a difference between that, Joe.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
And monitoring Joey Bag of Donuts for 120 days.
Now, I brought that up intentionally to go to the question I just discussed, which I think is the second takeaway here.
The relevant question, whenever it comes to increasing government power, and believe me, this is a substantial increase in government power if it's determined that you only need a court order to basically put a homing device on Joey Bag of Donuts in perpetuity, right?
The question always is what could go wrong.
And when it comes to government, you always have to assume what can go wrong, will.
Now, you may say, oh, Dan, that's a relatively negative view of government.
Is it?
You sure about that?
Are you willing to say that after the NSA spying scandal, the accumulation of metadata on Americans, the breaches into the NSA system?
Oh, there was just a few.
A few?
A few is too many.
The unmasking scandal by the Obama administration?
Are you still willing to tell me that what can go wrong won't?
I think my premise that what can go wrong always will is a reason to always err on the side, Joe, of the rights of the citizen over the rights of the government to information.
If you are relying on a situation here, Joe, where trust of the government is a factor, you better throw that damn thing out right away.
Now, that was a little...
Convoluted the explanation, but here's what I mean by this.
By allowing the government under a simple court order, which Joe, just to be clear again, is a lower standard of evidence than a probable cause search warrant.
Okay.
By allowing the government to track Joey Bag of Donuts almost in perpetuity using his cell phone as a homing device, and Joe just trusting them that it'll only be used in a criminal situation?
Yeah.
I don't know about that!
Now, I know Joe pretty well.
I know where, you know, Joe goes to church and Joe goes to work every morning.
It's a pretty standard routine.
But let's just say in the future you get another unmasking type scandal and you get a political leader with some influence who says, you know what, I've got this political opponent, these political groups, kind of like the IRS targeted conservative groups.
Oh, that never happened either.
Let's not worry about it.
Let's just trust the government.
They're not going to do that.
Right, Joe?
I mean, it's entirely plausible, given the IRS scandal, the unmasking scandal, the NSA scandal, and all the other scandals with our government now.
It is entirely possible that one day, Joe, you become an influential, uh, more influential person as the, as you call yourself, the second banana on the show.
Yeah.
And someone says, hey, you know what?
We gotta take that guy down.
We gotta discredit that guy.
So you know what?
Let's make up a charge of ripping a mattress tag off, and let's get his cell phone records under court order for the last 200 days, and let's find out that he went to, uh, whatever, he went to some radical, uh, you know, terrorist group meeting somewhere of, uh, of, uh, white supremacists or something.
You see what I'm saying, Joe?
Yeah, I see where you're going.
This is always open to the interpretation of the government.
And I use that radical white supremacist thing for a reason.
Because one, it would perk your ears up.
But secondly, let's say really the group was just like a tea party group and the government's like, oh no, that's definitely a white supremacist group.
We got to get this guy.
We got to lock him up.
Folks, this stuff should scare you.
It should always scare you.
And having worked inside the federal government, I can tell you affirmatively, it scares the hell out of me.
The government is accumulating way, way too much power.
The ability to triangulate your location and put a homing device on you long-term without a warrant?
Nah.
No, no, no.
No way.
I'll keep you updated on the case.
Starting today, it's Carpenter vs. U.S.
I'll put something in the show notes about it too, but please, please stay on top of this stuff.
Now, in case you think, again, this is just hyperbolic anti-government language from Dan Bongino, wouldn't you be crazy?
I'm not anti-government.
I'm anti-horrendous government and big government.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which we talked about before, the first soft coup attempt in the modern... I'm not laughing.
It's not funny.
It's just like amazing that Democrats, how dumb they are.
It's the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
They had a thing, and I'll put this article in the show notes as well.
It's an article from the Washington Examiner, Joe.
The reason, one of the reasons the Democrats are fighting so hard right now to keep this Leandra English in charge, not to mention the fact they just want to embarrass Trump and engage in a soft coup to diminish the power of the Constitutional Republic and engage in discretionary governing.
That was a long intro.
But one of the other reasons is, one of the stipulations of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of their powers, Joe, under Dodd-Frank, and this should scare the heck out of all
of you, is to accumulate all of your financial transactions and to "monitor" them. Now,
to be clear, not do X-Files stuff, that's not what we do here. The records are supposed to be
anonymous and it's supposed to be for macro data collection.
In other words, their take on it, Joe, is, well, we're not tracking Joe Armacost individually, you know, Joe?
Like, we're not tracking your Amazon Prime purchases of, you know, vitamins and creatine supplement, you know what I'm saying?
Their take on it is, we're looking for big trends in the economy, you know?
Massive credit card debt accumulation in the automotive industry.
You see what I'm saying?
Like where they could predict some kind of a bubble or things like that.
Or some kind of consumer scam is probably a better way.
That's more their Edith going forward.
But folks, again...
There's a trade-off here, just like I talked about on the Carpenter vs. the U.S.
case of allowing the government to track through your cell phone to put a homing device on you basically for an extended period of time.
The trade-off with that is, well yeah Joe, of course we're going to solve more crimes.
But folks, do you understand the potential for abuse?
The question you have to ask yourself is, again, do I have to trust the government, just like in the first one?
Okay, so we're allowing the government the power to do this, to solve more crimes, which it would, I have no doubt about that, folks.
But the trade-off is what?
The sacrificing of your individual liberty under the guise of we're trusting them to not abuse that power?
Folks, the whole idea of a constitutional republic is the constitution protects you against those trades.
Makes sense, Joe?
Yeah.
Think about what you're asking with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
You're giving them all of your financial transaction data under the guise that we're trusting them, that it's anonymous and it's not going to be abused?
Like what?
The power of the IRS?
Like the Obama unmasking thing?
I mean, how many times we got to keep bringing this up?
The NSA metadata accumulation?
How do we know one day, Joe, again, Joe doesn't become a target because this show becomes this powerful force or whatever.
Yeah.
And all of a sudden, Joe Armacost, Captain Second Banana of the Dan Bongino Show, becomes a target.
Next thing you know, we're not only tracking Joe at his Tea Party meeting, which is now declared a white supremacist meeting, so he's investigated as a potential domestic terrorist, but next thing you know, we find out that Joe bought a...
A bulk set of bulk cutters from Amazon.
I just bought those recently, I swear.
Bulk cutters.
Oh my god, Joe's clearly gonna break in somewhere.
Oh no!
The oh no is right.
We're trusting them?
I mean, you're trusting the government right now that they're not gonna use that financial data.
Ladies and gentlemen, if the word trust and government is in the same sentence, with regards to a policy initiative, your answer, I'm sorry, should be no.
I'm telling you as a guy who was on the inside, I don't mean to be overly dramatic.
I don't mean I wasn't elected to the White House, to the presidency, but being a Secret Service agent is a very unique position.
I worked in the White House for five years.
You're not advising the president on policy prescriptions, but you really see how the sausage is made.
You're sitting right there.
It's really bizarre, and then you get the experience of being a federal agent and awesome power.
Folks, it's a power, even when I had it, I was afraid of it.
Now that I'm outside, you and me should be even more afraid of it.
Troubling stuff.
All right, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
I've had an interesting couple days, so I have really needed these guys.
They have the best energy product on the market right now, folks, hands down.
The stuff is fantastic.
It's called Dawn to Dusk.
Now, in this, you know, get-up-and-go, 24-7, 365 environment, I know how important it is for many of you working parents, blue-collar workers, white-collar workers, people who need to be attentive all the time.
How important it is to have that elevated energy level.
Folks, the days of 9 to 5 working, as Joe Armacost knows well, are over.
They are.
They're over for me.
We're at it all day.
All day.
It's like, Joe, can we do this?
Can we do this?
Let's do this for the show.
It never stops.
We have meetings.
We have onboarding meetings.
We have all this stuff going on.
You need to be attentive the entire day.
Folks, unfortunately, the human body doesn't really work like that.
But with a little help from dawn to dusk, you can get through the day.
Here's the difference with this energy product.
Unlike coffee or energy drinks, this is a timed released energy product.
Lasts about 10 hours.
Gives you a nice elevation, a boost in mood.
10 hours, you're not going to get those crashes associated with energy drinks and coffee.
You get through the day, your mood is elevated, your energy level, you can get done what you need to get done.
The product is available and they're holding a bunch of sales right now.
They're extending a lot of their Cyber Monday sales.
If you go to brickhousenutrition.com/dan, that's brickhousenutrition.com/dan, pick up a bottle of Dawn to Dust today, give it a shot.
I'm pretty sure the Cyber Monday sales are still extended throughout the week.
I got an email from Miles the other day, Joe.
He was like, dude, we're just, this stuff is like, they can't even keep it on the shelves.
It's that good.
Once you buy a bottle, you'll be, you'll love it.
You'll just, you'll be, you'll be stuck with it because it's great.
You'll just keep buying it.
It's so good.
Dawn to Dusk, go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
All right.
This was that story I was debating talking about first, but I'll get to it now.
What the heck?
You know, that file drawer we have of Dan Bongino wakes up in the morning and is going to have to combat some liberal nonsense today.
I had this sent to me by a listener and I got it this morning again on Zero Hedge.
Zero Hedge is another great email list like Legal Insurrection.
Highly recommend it.
And I saw the headline of this story and I thought, wow, this is another one of those Dan Bongino audience stories.
I love this.
It's Obamacare related.
I know.
I know.
I get it.
I totally get it.
But it's Obamacare is so indicative of the larger problem with liberalism that it's really hard to avoid the topic.
And the gist of the story is this, that Obamacare Which was supposed to help hospitals with the situation of uninsured care, Joe.
And when I say the situation of uninsured care, I mean people without health insurance going into emergency rooms, getting care, and hospitals not being compensated.
So hospitals didn't like that, obviously.
Well, why?
Because they didn't get paid.
I mean, none of this is mysterious.
So Obamacare, which was another big, fat government intervention, was supposed to help this problem and actually made it worse.
Now, how do we set this up here?
Let's see.
First, Obamacare healthcare industry bankruptcies, Joe, since Obamacare have tripled.
I will put this article, this is what I was talking about too when I said the show notes today.
You gotta read this piece.
It's short, it's sweet, it's really, really good.
Be at the show notes at bungeano.com or on my email list.
It opens up laying out the premise simply, which I always like to do.
Obamacare was supposed to stop hospital bankruptcies or slow them down and they've actually tripled.
What's happening and why?
This is another fascinating example of how planners screw things up.
So Joe, the original premise of Obamacare was by giving people government subsidized insurance.
In other words, you don't have insurance, now we're gonna give you other taxpayers' money to go out and help you buy insurance, and we're gonna expand Medicaid as well.
In other words, we're gonna let people with a higher income get Medicaid.
This will not wipe out, but...
Take a big chunk out of America's uninsured, healthcare uninsured population.
Make sense?
That was the Obamacare idea.
It's so easy, Joe.
It's so easy.
It's every day.
It's so easy.
Well, what happened?
Of course, the policy backfired.
Now, these planning geniuses said, well, Joe, If we're gonna give people government subsidies to buy insurance and we're gonna expand Medicaid, then there's really no reason anymore, I had to pick this up and write this down, to continue what they call disproportionate share hospital payments.
Now, what are those?
Yeah.
Those were... See, that was a time for the Macho Man drop.
Right?
Was it?
Oh yeah!
That was it.
Yes, yes, that was... The oh no was good.
That was an oh yeah Macho Man time.
These, what are they called again?
Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments.
What these payments were, were they were taxpayer funded government payments to hospitals That took on a large portion of uninsured patients, mostly in poor areas.
Make sense, Joe?
Mm-hmm, yeah.
So, pre-Obamacare, just so we're clear, hospitals in underprivileged, low-income areas that were taking on a lot of low-income people without insurance, they would get some taxpayer subsidy for that care.
The geniuses in Obamacare said, oh, that's not gonna be necessary anymore, because what's gonna happen?
We're just gonna give people insurance, we're gonna solve all the world's problems, and Joe, It's all good.
We're all gonna sit around, make s'mores, roast marshmallows, sing kumbaya, and everything's gonna be great.
Well, of course, that's not what happened.
A couple things happened now.
Again, Obamacare bankruptcies are now tripling in the healthcare industry because of two things.
Problem number one.
People did not, in fact, buy Obamacare.
The uninsured population has not shrunk very dramatically at all.
Matter of fact, the uninsured population of the United States, when you factor in all of the deductible payments, which makes people de facto uninsured, has hardly moved at all.
So, what do I mean by that?
This is actually two points in one.
A lot of people just don't want Obamacare, so having the CBO numbers and projections on how many it was going to insure were way off.
But secondly, the insurance people do have, due to really high community rating and guaranteed issue principles, meaning the death spirals... I'm already confused.
See, I don't like to confuse people.
What I like about the show is we're short and sweet.
It hasn't insured that many people, number one.
Like they said they would, okay?
Right.
So the hospitals lost the payments for taking care of the uninsured under the guise that, don't worry, the patients will be insured now.
They're not.
Point number two, the people coming into hospitals now, because the Obamacare insurance is so expensive and people aren't buying it, insurance companies have to make their money back somehow because they're handling older and sicker patients, Joe.
So what happened?
The insurance companies raised their deductibles.
What does that have to do with this?
People coming into the hospitals now are effectively uninsured because the deductibles so high, Joe, when they go into the emergency room, You see what I'm saying?
They get a bill for $5,000 and I go, I have insurance.
And the hospital goes, no, you don't.
Well, you have insurance, but your deductibles, whatever, 7,000 bucks.
So you have to pay in cash.
So what does the low income guy do?
He says, well, I don't have $5,000.
So see you later.
Folks, you know, I know we were talking about it in relationship to privacy in the CFPB case and the search case, but whenever you're talking to government planners about government policies, you should also ask that question, what could go wrong?
Because what can go wrong always will.
And this is the really sad, tragic outcome of government planners.
Very rarely what they intend on doing actually gets done, and not only does it not get done, But the opposite of what they planned on happening typically happens because they can't plan for human behavior.
Nobody can plan for the... There's just a natural randomness in human behavior.
So they eliminate these disproportionate share hospital payments.
They don't give money to hospitals serving low-income populations anymore.
They're the guys that will give the money to the people.
The people think Obamacare stinks so much they don't even get the Obamacare payments.
So they go into the hospital, they don't have the money at all.
Now the hospital that's treating the patient who doesn't have the money at all and Joe doesn't have insurance isn't even getting payments for the government to take care of these poor folks.
And the people who go into the hospital, the deductibles are so high that they find out in the emergency room that they're going to have to pay cash, that their insurance doesn't even get activated at that point.
They don't have the money.
So now the hospitals are now going bankrupt left and right.
What do you say?
I mean, really, what do you say?
All right, one final note.
I don't mean to leave you with such a negative story.
Here's kind of a funny one.
But the article's up at, it'll be up at Bongino.com, and read it, because it's a really great piece at Zero Hedge, which proves my point that liberals have no idea what they're doing when it comes to government planning.
So, CNN.
Did you see the story, Joe, about CNN and the White House Christmas party?
No.
By the way, NBC fired Matt Lauer this morning.
I mean, holy crikeys, did that come out of nowhere?
Yeah, that was a shot out of the blue.
That happened while we were on air.
Woke up this morning, I'm like, they fired who?
Gosh, it's like a bloodbath to these media companies.
Just a quick story before we run to CNN.
The White House every year has these Christmas parties.
Now, as a former Secret Service agent, as most of you know, I can tell you how these things work.
The White House has a number of Christmas parties.
So if someone tells you I'm going to THE White House Christmas party, not to be a snob for facts, but there's not A White House Christmas party, there's many.
They do one for the press.
They do one for the staff.
They actually did two for the Secret Service for many years.
I think Obama did one.
It's not a knock on him.
I know it's easy, but some presidents did, some didn't.
It's Republicans and Democrats.
But they would do two for the Secret Service.
I know Bush did for a while.
And why would you think they would do that?
Well, they would do two because some guys are working, obviously, with the Secret Service while they're at the Secret Service bar.
You get what I'm saying?
So they had their own party and you get these pictures.
So there's multiple White House Christmas parties and there's typically one for the press.
So the press one this year, CNN, has now said they are boycotting the White House Christmas party.
And I'm just going to leave you with this quick comment.
Who cares?
Folks, who cares?
Ladies and gentlemen, is there anyone on the planet who objects to the policies of the Obama administration more than I do?
No, I'm serious.
You may object as much.
You can't object more because it's not possible.
I am at the maximum level of I object to on Obama.
I'm telling you right now, I had zero problem going to the White House Christmas party when Obama was there.
I have a picture with him, I was proud to do it, he was the President of the United States, I didn't agree with the man, but I am not a soft coup proponent, and I'm not one of these guys that says, oh, you know what, President Schmeseden, he's not my president.
I was happy to take the picture, and I have pictures in the Oval Office with him.
I disagreed with the guy, but he wasn't rude or disrespectful.
I thought it was nice that they took the time to take a picture with the agents.
CNN, are you serious?
I mean, give me a break.
What a bunch of immature little fools.
Give me a break, guys.
Grow up.
All right, folks.
Thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
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.
