Ep. 624 Be Very Careful: The Dems Are About to Change Their Attack Strategy
Welcome our new sponsor, and use promo code “Dan” for free shipping.
The Democrats are testing a new strategy for their anti-Trump attacks.
It’s way past time for the Never-Trump crowd to acknowledge that they’ve failed.
This is an astonishing account of the liberal media’s ever-changing “collusion” narrative.
Former Obama advisers are losing their minds over Trump’s forceful approach to the Iran protests.
Critics said the Trump International Hotel would lose money. Here’s what really happened.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America with your host, Dan Bongino.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Hey, man.
I'm doing all right.
Doing good.
That was the mildest entry you've ever had into the show.
Yes, it was.
I'm doing all right.
It's almost like you spent New Year's Eve with CNN smoking a bowl.
Did you see them on TV?
They were like on CNN, they were like in a pot van or something like that.
I'm not even kidding.
I was like, what the heck?
What, are we promoting drug use now?
Give me a break, man.
Well rested.
I mean, yeah, it was nuts.
CNN has lost their minds on New Year's.
It's incredible.
I mean, it's not bad enough they're having a fake news crisis, right?
Let's get skied out on the air.
I mean, it's crazy, man.
Oh man, I'm itching to do today's show.
Folks, you know, I was debating before the show if I can be candid with you because I'm really seriously furious about what's going on right now with this new shift.
I titled today's show, you know, be careful, the left is changing its attack strategy, the Democrats on Trump.
I just, I don't know where to go without engaging in an unhinged rant that does neither you nor I any justice.
These are sick people.
I mean, these are seriously sick, deranged people.
Let me preface it by saying, as I always do because I mean it, I'm not talking about all Democrat voters in the country.
I'm not talking about all Democrats elected everywhere in the country.
I'm talking about the far left activists and 99% of the people up on Capitol Hill wearing the Democrat label on their chest, not so proudly.
These are sick, deranged people.
Now, what's the genesis of this?
Well, yesterday I read a piece by Andy McCarthy, who I...
I don't know how else to emphasize to you how important reading his stuff at National Review is.
Folks, I get nothing from it.
I know Andy.
We're not like best friends.
We're friends.
We run in some of the same circles only because he's a conservative and so am I. We don't like have dinner together.
I get no bonus from National Review where he writes for promoting his stuff.
I'm just telling you if you want to be informed about what's going on right now, With this Russian collusion thing, but importantly, why it matters.
Folks, the details of it are irrelevant if you're not a lawyer.
The details of it are relevant because it is instructive on how the far left, how sick and deranged these people are.
And for you to be able to effectively debate the corruption, I'm going to use that word and I mean it, the corruption they're engaging in right now, To immorally and unethically take down a duly elected president.
Now, I'm gonna get into how they're changing the narrative in a second.
So the premise of the show today is...
Joe, so far we moved from the guy was ineligible to be elected president, a battle on, uh, you know, remember when they were going after the, um, the electoral college, the electors and say, don't vote for this guy.
They moved on from that relatively quickly.
Um, then they moved on to this Russian collusion thing where they've been for a year.
Now they're starting to realize slowly, but surely that this is falling apart.
I covered some of this yesterday.
They're starting to realize this is entirely falling apart and they're moving on to a new narrative.
Let me just get out of the way what that narrative is.
You have that cut ready, Joe?
Yeah, man.
This is from MSNBC.
This is a clip, just to set it up, what is it, Alexis Witt asks one of their contributors, he's a professor from a university, he's a contributor to MSNBC, asks him about Trump and if he is in fact has some kind of like racist tendencies.
Here's his answer.
This president is a fairly devout racist.
But, Chanel, I want to take it one step back and just help folks understand, you know, racism is real and racism has real consequences.
Is he racist or just insensitive toward racial issues?
And, you know, people get all hot and bothered when you say the word racist.
What would you say?
He's racist.
He's racist.
And his comments suggest that.
Also his policies.
Look at the Muslim ban.
Look at how he talks about immigration with respect to Mexicans.
Look at all the various dog whistles and direct ways in which he's talked about folks of color over the course of his lifetime.
Look at what he did in terms of the Central Park Five.
There are too many examples that suggest that Donald Trump is a racist.
Wow.
Folks.
Trust me on this one, please.
Don't think for a second that was a mistake.
Don't think for a second that this professor went on there and was just some rando, some random person out there who appeared on the air and just decided to throw out there that Trump is a racist.
He's fed the question by MSNBC who are fed to their bookers talking points by the Democrat Party.
Now, Amazing what the guy says, because even the host at MSNBC, the craziest network on the air, Joe, tries to give him an out on that.
Did you hear it?
Where she goes, well, you know, people get a little perturbed at whatever she said, bothered, hot and bothered, she said.
When you call someone a racist, and he's like, no, no, no, he's a racist.
Oh man, he's a racist.
Are you like a crazy person?
Play that again.
Are you like a crazy person?
One more time.
Are you like a crazy person?
Yes, he is a crazy person!
He gives the dumbest examples you have ever heard in your life of evidence of racism.
First, he cites the Muslim ban.
Joe, is being Muslim a race?
No, Dan.
Is being Christian a race?
That would be a no, Dan.
What about being Jewish?
That would probably be a no, Dan.
Hindu?
Is that a race?
That is a religion, Dan.
That is, okay.
Okay, folks.
So being Muslim, the Muslim ban, that is not a ban on Muslims.
So one, he cites something that's not in fact true.
He cites a myth that there's in fact a Muslim ban.
Folks, if you are Muslim, you are not banned from coming in the United States.
Hence the term Muslim ban is meaningless.
Now there is a ban on seven countries that have, that are basically backlogged with terror right now.
Campaigns are trying to fight or promote.
That has nothing to do with being Muslim.
Secondly, he cites a religion as evidence of racism, which means he's an imbecile.
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
This is just a dumb human being.
Then he cites his approach to immigration from Mexico and the speech about how, clear as day if you listen to the speech, he says they're sending their worst.
He doesn't say Mexicans are rapists, but that, you know what, we shouldn't even re-litigate that because that's just stupid liberal drivel.
At any sites, something about the Central Park Five, which basically, it was just Trump going after guys who had done something really horrific in Central Park.
But of course, because they, you know, Trump, they need an excuse, he's just digging right now for stuff.
Yeah.
The guy's just making it up.
Now, that's example number one.
Example number two, I don't have a sound because it's really short and I don't want to waste your time.
Robbie Mook, who is a Clinton consigliere, who is Hillary Clinton's one of her campaign managers, one of the management staff on her campaign.
Robbie Mook is tied to Hillary Clinton at the hip.
Hillary Clinton is still an ambassador of the Democrat Party focus group tested talking points now, despite the fact that she lost the presidency in humiliating fashion.
Robby Mook was on CNN just recently.
On CNN, he was asked about the Russian collusion narrative, and he said short and sweet.
He basically said, folks, it's time to move on.
That the Democrat Party needs to start running on something other than Russian collusion.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is not a small, cast aside, incidental comment.
That is a mammoth sea change.
Don't think for a second this comment wasn't personally vetted and personally approved by Hillary Clinton.
What does that tell you?
Now you may say, oh well that's a good thing.
Robbie Mook is doing the right thing.
Former Clinton campaign consigliere.
He's moving on.
The Clintons want to do the right thing and acknowledge they've been lying about the collusion thing the whole time.
No, no, no, no, no.
That's not what's going on here.
This is not a come-to-Jesus moment.
This is a narrative-shifting, narrative-defining moment where they were going to move on to standard pre-collusion attacks, which for 50 years, Joe, have been, you're a racist.
You're a Republican, you're a racist.
Reagan, he was a racist.
Bush, he was definitely a racist.
Any, Newt Gingrich, racist.
Paul Ryan, racist.
Any significant Republican in the last 50 years Has been tarred with the racist label.
They're going right back to standard identity politics.
I want to tie in, if you're listening to these shows in sequence, I want to tie in the last two shows I did with today's show.
I think that's what we do differently here.
We keep persistent narratives throughout the show like we're telling a story because people think in stories.
People think in narratives.
I covered the left's infatuation with identity politics last week.
Addressed it again in yesterday's show.
How the left doesn't have anything else, they only get you to vote against Republicans.
And to do that, they have to put you in a box that you have to stay in.
You can't think of yourself as an American.
That's not a box, folks.
Their box is Black American, Hispanic American, union worker, woman versus man, Muslim versus Jew.
They need you in that box to show you how Republicans hate you if you are one of those people.
They're not anchored to big R rights by God or values by God, like good conservatives are, who will absolutely refuse to do that, to call people a racist without hard evidence.
Liberals aren't anchored to that.
They don't have an objective set of values.
Their values are subjective.
In other words, they're subjected to change on a whim by the subjective needs of a government.
If you have an objective set of values, Joe, that means they're immovable.
You get what I'm saying?
Rights that come from God.
Sure.
We will not do this set of things because it's immoral.
When you're a liberal, there's no such thing as immoral.
There's only an ends that justifies the means.
Killing, death, racism charges, lying, cheating, stealing to empower the state.
That is your set of values.
They change on a whim.
The liberals needed this.
I covered that and they need it now.
I covered that in the Identity Politics show.
I also covered in one of our recent shows the collapse of the collusion narrative.
Now, Rewind the tape a little bit.
So now you understand where I'm going with this.
They're ready to switch the narrative now from collusion to racism.
They're going to move on.
Why is that happening?
Folks, they want this investigation now, this collusion investigation to go away.
I know, Joe, even you, you're probably listening going, come on, Dan, seriously?
They've been married to this thing for a year.
Why would they want it to go away?
Because folks, it's turning on them rapidly.
Evidence is the show I did yesterday on the new narrative about what started the Trump investigation.
Now it's George Papadopoulos.
Now back to the Andy McCarthy thing because I kind of left that hanging out there.
McCarthy has a piece which will be in the show notes today.
Please.
I know I say this a lot.
Please.
I'm begging you.
If you don't want to go to my... I know it's my website.
I have it at Bongino.com for you there.
I'll have it at the show notes.
I can email it to you if you're on my email list.
Please join.
I understand if you don't want to do any of that.
I'm cool with it, okay?
If not, just go to National Review or Andy McCarthy's Twitter feed and read it there.
I don't care.
I just need you to read this.
It's not short.
It's about 1,200 words.
Take you about 15 minutes to get through.
It is a stunning piece put out yesterday about how the story about how this investigation into Trump started has now changed three times.
Now, I know I may be losing you.
Well, first you said they were going to switch the narrative away from Trump and the collusion narrative because it was going to hurt them.
Why is it hurting them?
And what does that have to do with the narrative changing three times?
Because ladies and gentlemen, as the walls close in on the Democrats, it's becoming more and more apparent every day, something I brought up I think every other day for the last six months now, it's becoming more apparent every day that Hillary Clinton's and DNC and her campaign paid to spy on Donald Trump.
That's it!
They paid Russian intel, Through Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS, who coordinated with the wife of a Justice Department official, Bruce Ornelior, who worked at Fusion GPS, to put together a fake Russian intel document to spy on an incoming president.
Think about what I just told you!
The DNC and Hillary Clinton You paid Russian intel for information used to spy on an incoming president of the opposing party.
You think the Democrats don't know this?
The genesis of this entire investigation, folks, was a dossier put forth by Russian intel through intermediaries in the Democrat Party.
That is why they keep changing the story about how this started.
Because how it started, Joe, is devastating to the Democrat Party.
So now, in addition to changing the story about how it started, Joe, because the way it started, it will destroy the Democrat Party when this comes out.
If they can't change the story on how it started, they're going to switch to racism again.
You see where I'm going with this?
Yeah, I can even see the timing overlap here.
Of course you can!
So now they're shifting to racism.
But as a backup plan, they're trying to change the story about how the investigation started into Trump and the spying away from the dossier.
Andy McCarthy's piece.
I'm just going to give you a couple snippets, and there's links in there to the piece, to show you how the story's changed now three times.
Here's a quote from the piece.
This is how his piece starts off.
This was a headline from the New York Times that ran on April 20th, 2017.
You tracking me, folks?
April 20th of 2017.
This was the headline about how the investigation into Trump started.
Headline from the New York Times.
Trump advisers visit to Moscow got the FBI's attention.
That was the page one headline the New York Times ran on April 20th, 2017.
Above its breathless report that a quote catalyst for the FBI investigation into connections between Russia and President Trump's campaign was a June 2016 visit to Moscow by Carter Page.
Right.
Wait, Joe.
I just told you yesterday that the New York Times, the same New York Times which reported on April 20th that the genesis of the Russian investigation was a June 2016 visit to Moscow by Carter Page.
I just told you yesterday reported that it was George Papadopoulos in a drunken episode in a bar that started the investigation.
So you're telling me the New York Slimes that had something like six investigative reporters or so working on this massive expose by Joe, anonymous sources, told us in April of now last year, 2017, told us in April that they were sure, they put their journalistic credibility on it, that a visit by a A 46th level backbencher in the upper bleachers of the backbench, Carter Page, who had the loosest of affiliations with the Trump team at best, visited Russia and that started the whole investigation.
That's what you told us in April.
You're a journalistic outfit.
You have one job, report the facts.
That's what you told us.
But wait, Joe.
Yesterday, they said that's not the case.
Yesterday, they claimed that it was now George Papadopoulos, another 47th row of the backbench in the bleachers.
Must be in the front row.
That guy was drunk at a bar, talking to a diplomat, and said that the Russians may have dirt on Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that everybody in the known universe already knew that.
That, no, no, now that's what happened, Joe.
You're laughing because you're like, wait, I can't keep the lie straight.
It's true.
It gets worse.
Now, remember, because I'm going to lay this out for you.
They need to change the story.
About the genesis of this investigation.
Because the true story is horrifying.
The DNC and Hillary Clinton paid the Russians to spy on the Trump campaign.
Don't ever forget that.
They can't have that story get out.
So first it was Carter Page did it.
Now, you may say to yourself, Joe, this may be one of the most important shows we've ever done.
Because it talks about the sickness and the moral vacuum these Democrats live in.
Fair enough question you may have, as the audience on Budsman, and I didn't ask, but you may, is, well, why did they change the Carter Page story?
The Carter Page story is not the dossier story, right Joe?
So what's the problem?
Why not just stick with that?
The problem, folks, is blaming Carter Page Puts emphasis on the dossier.
How is that?
Well, in the McCarthy piece, he goes into fine detail in some of his other pieces on this as well.
But in the dossier, Joe, it talks about how Carter Page and his trip to Moscow, again, this 47th row backbencher.
When he was over in Russia, made some deal, Joe, that he was going to be some conduit to expose Hillary Clinton by the Russians, and the Russians were going to give him a billion dollar stake in an energy company.
You have Spider-Man?
What?
What?
Play Natalie Portman again.
Are you like a crazy person?
So Carter Page, what?
He was crazy enough?
As the Times one should believe, some Trump surrogate, which he was like a serious backbencher, meaning this guy had, his affiliation was loose at best.
He went over to Moscow and caught a deal with the Russians for billions of dollars to expose the Hillary campaign?
There it is.
It's tied up, Joe.
All right.
Carter Page should be in federal prison, right?
This is it, Russian collusion, they've got it.
What's the problem?
What I just told you was in the dossier.
What's the subsequent problem?
It's not true.
It's been entirely debunked.
Paige doesn't even know these people they claimed he met with.
It's been... Why isn't... Ladies and gentlemen, you disbelieve what I'm telling you?
Why isn't the guy in jail?
Why?
Why isn't he in jail?
Because it's not true.
It's fake.
It was planted information.
So now, you see where I'm going with this, Joe?
The original April 20th New York Times, Carter Page did it, because they need to keep attention away from the dossier.
Keep in mind, the original narrative, at the time they didn't need to keep, they just needed a genesis for this thing.
So they said Carter Page did it.
Now they start to figure out that the FBI never vetted this information, Joe.
That the dossier is colossal BS.
So what do they do?
They can't implicate Carter Page because implicating Carter Page requires you to believe in the dossier!
So they have to move on.
Now, this is before anybody knew the dossier was false.
Obviously, or they wouldn't have mentioned Carter Page in April.
Now, you may say, well, when did they start to figure out the dossier was wrong?
Well, once they found out the DNC paid Russian Intel for it.
With Hillary Clinton.
Now, if you're following at home, you're saying, okay, I now have two narratives, not three, about how this started.
Yesterday's narrative, which is the third one, Papadopoulos did it.
He was drunk in a bar, said they had dirt on Hillary.
Whoa, man.
Interesting how they didn't interview Papadopoulos or surveil him, by the way, for like six months later.
Incredible.
Guy knew everything about an election that was about to be disrupted and nobody did a damn thing.
Whoa, nice job, fellas.
Well done.
First narrative, why I'm reading these out of order for a reason.
First narrative, Carter Page did it.
How do we know?
Because it says so in the dossier.
They were so, the media, the liberal hacks in the media, and these deranged liberals, were so confident that the FBI, this is, pay attention here please.
Joe, if I lose the audience, stop me.
All right.
The liberal hacks in the media, And these liberal maniacs were so convinced that the FBI was going to do their dirty work and vet the dossier they paid for through Russian intel that they breathlessly promoted this dossier before even understanding that it was total BS.
How do I know that?
Again, a link provided from McCarthy's piece.
I'll read you the headline.
CNN politics, Joe.
April 18th, 2017.
Two days before the Carter Page story.
Right?
Okay.
Headline!
FBI used dossier allegations to bolster Trump-Russia investigation.
Wait, it gets better.
Here's the opening line from the piece.
The opening paragraph.
April 18th, 2017.
Two days before the Carter Page news broke.
Smell of a leak, Joe?
Yeah.
The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to U.S.
officials briefed on the investigation.
Who do you think that Trump associate was?
Carter freaking Page.
You folks see what's going on right now?
Yeah.
Do you understand how I believe so much in this story that I'm willing to drill it into your eardrums every day, because if you don't understand what's happening here, or you're willing to sideline it and say, you know what, damn, we've got to move on, we've got other things, Obamacare, taxes, we do.
Taxes, healthcare, I get it.
School choice, there are a number of pressing issues.
But I'm telling you, as I've said on cable news and on this place, on this show many times, We cannot possibly move on as a country until we get an answer to the question from the Democrats.
I know the answer, but until we get them to acknowledge that they paid Russian intel to spy through our government and a FISA court on their opposition political party and a soon-to-be president of the United States.
Nothing else can happen.
I don't mean nothing else legislatively.
I mean nothing else on this or this collusion or this special counsel.
Nothing.
Until that question is answered.
Because you have right now a genuine, legitimate, non-hyperbolic or melodramatic threat to everything the Constitutional Republic stands for.
If an elected president, elected through the most democratic process known to man, in a constitutional republic framework, that is, can be taken down because an opposition political party pays money to a foreign actor to plant fake information about their opponents.
Nothing else can happen until we get that answer.
Folks, this is bad.
I understand I'm a conservative.
I get it.
I don't pretend.
I'm not a journalist.
I'm not pretending that a lot of what I say is not tainted with emotion in this.
It is.
I get that.
I am emotional about it.
But the difference between our emotion and the liberal anti-Trump emotion is everything I just told you is true.
I read to you the CNN headline.
I read to you the New York Times headline.
I read to you the conflicting stories.
I played for you an audio tape of a joker clown on MSNBC accusing Trump of being a racist.
I told you what Robbie Mook said about changing this narrative now.
Nothing I've told you is false.
But I can tell you what is false.
That the Democrat Party anymore stands for truth and justice.
This is a disgrace.
This is a national disgrace and a stain on our nation.
I don't care where you are on Trump.
Anti-Trump, never Trump, never, never, never Trump.
Because if you're never, never Trump, you're actually Trump.
But if you're never, never, never Trump, you're really never Trump.
I don't really care where you are.
This country will collapse if we don't get an answer on this.
Because Republicans and conservatives out there will never trust an election again.
If you take down this president without ever once having proved one single charge of Russian collusion, yet we can prove affirmatively that you just made this entire thing up, we now officially would be living in a banana republic.
It's a really sad story, and the fact that liberals are playing along with it, you disgust me.
You do.
If you're listening, if you believe this, and you're promoting this collusion fairy tale, and you promoted the use, the weaponization of government to spy on an opposing political party to further your sick political agenda, you're slobs.
Animals.
Subhuman man-beasts.
Destroyed the greatest country on earth because you lost an election.
Animals.
Look yourself in the mirror.
Look in the mirror and know what you did.
Horrible.
Oh, man.
All right.
Hey, we got a lighter note.
We got a new sponsor today who I'm really happy to have on board.
Hey, Joe, you know what's funny?
When I first got the pitch for this, right?
You know, they ask me, of course, hey, do you want to sponsor?
Then sometimes we say no.
And, you know, we get a lot of solicitations for advertisers.
We got a pretty popular show, I'm proud to say that, thanks to you.
And when I first got this, I think they were, the company was like, ah, I don't know what he's going to say on this.
And I was like, yes, you're darn right, I'll do that product.
And they were wondering why.
And I'll tell you what it is in a second.
But because in my time as a secret service agent, we wear those earpieces, you know, the squiggly things you put in your ear.
Folks, I can't tell you how many issues I had with that earpiece and earwax build up over time.
Oh, man.
You may be like, oh my God.
Yes, it's a serious problem.
And as you know, Joe, you're not supposed to stick cotton swabs in your ear.
You're not.
Even the makers of these companies right on the back, these products, excuse me, that make these cotton swabs for the ears, don't stick in the inner ear.
It's clear as day.
It's meant to clean the outside of your ear.
You're not supposed to jam those things in there.
You can jam the earwax in and do some real damage.
I'm not making it up.
Read the back of these things.
That's not how you clean your inner ear.
So they said, hey, we have a company that has this great product for cleaning earwax out.
You want to do it?
I said, hell yeah, I want to do it.
I know you have issues with this too.
You just said to me before the show.
Yeah, I have an issue with the earwax buildup.
I said to him before the show, I go, we got a new sponsor.
He goes, oh man, that drives me crazy.
Can I get a free sample?
So to our Go Wax Rx people, please send Producer Joe a sample.
He's got an earwax issue too.
Folks, when the ears aren't clean, they get really uncomfortable.
You know, they itch, it gets painful, they get plugged up, making it harder to hear.
It's a serious problem.
Many people use cotton swabs, candling, or drugstore remedies to clean their ears, but they don't really do the job.
That stuff can be dangerous.
Be very, very, very, do not do that.
Don't do it.
We have a real solution for you for this stubborn earwax.
The WaxRX Ear Wash System is doctor-developed.
I talk to these people.
They're terrific, by the way.
And it works safely when other products fail.
The WaxRS system is the method physicians trust the most.
And it's just like the system they use in their offices.
Same thing.
WaxRX comes with everything you need to safely clean out earwax and condition your ears conveniently at home for less than the cost of a doctor's visit.
Folks, who wants to go to a doctor to clean out earwax?
Seriously.
Not me.
You could do it at home.
Yeah.
I know Joe does.
We don't have enough time.
Joe and I are working on a million different things right now.
You know what I mean?
The doctor-developed WaxRX system uses special wax softening drops to break down earwax inside the ear, has a specially engineered pump fitted with a unique tip to gently deliver the perfect amount of cleansing pressure to flush wax away.
Finally, The pH condition formula rinses and soothes your ears, making for the ultimate, most complete earwax removal system available.
I wish, I really wish I've had... You know how many problems I had in the Secret Service with this?
Gosh, where were... I needed you guys!
I should have looked you up a while ago.
Here's where you go, folks.
Visit GoWaxRx.com That is GoWaxRx.com.
GoWaxRx.com to order your reusable earwash system today.
GoWaxRx.com.
Here's a promo code for you.
As always, my first name, Dan, D-A-N.
You can have it shipped for free right to your front door.
Folks, it's a new sponsor.
We are really happy to have them on board.
Joe, round of applause for GoWaxRx.
We really appreciate it.
Check them out, folks.
Support our sponsors.
They keep the show free for you.
GoWaxRx.com.
Promo code, Dan.
All right.
Thank you, Go Wax.
So, I know I say it a lot, and you may think I'm kidding when I say I didn't spend, spit it out, Dan.
Just got so excited about that story.
Planned to spend as much time on it, but I didn't.
I have a few other things to get to.
But it really is an important story, folks.
The Democrats are just, they're really sick.
They're losing their minds.
They're gonna destroy the country in the process.
All right, story number two.
There is a great, great piece at Powerline Blog.
I'm going to put in the show notes again, available at Bongino.com, or you can subscribe to my email list, about Never Trumpism and how, guys, ladies, it's just time to move on.
You know, and if the piece was that simple, like, it's time to move on, I wouldn't promote it.
Like, I only promote pieces I think provide a deeper level of understanding about things.
But the premise of the piece is this, and it's a really good one, folks, and I strongly encourage a lot of the conservatives listening who are still never Trumpers to consider the premise in it.
The premise is this, Joe, that Never Trumpism now would be viable if Trump wasn't actually doing things that advance the conservative agenda.
Yeah.
But that's not the case!
Right.
Whether it's crushing ISIS, backing the Ukrainians, whether it's been the tax cut agenda, the Trump administration war on red tape, getting out of the dreadful Paris Accords, I mean, the list goes, the appointing of conservative justices, both a justice on the Supreme Court, at the appellate court level, the district court level.
The conservative agenda in the first year has been advanced dramatically.
The premise of the piece then, Joe, is if you are an actual conservative who is a never-Trumper at this point, what are you basing your criticism on?
The answer's a simple one, Joe.
It's style.
It has to be!
Joe, I'm not messing with you, do you have another answer to that?
Not really.
I mean, if you're a conservative, which I know you are, and you see what's happening, tax cuts, the advocacy for school choice, the attack on horrible regulations, again, the list goes on and on and on, we've already talked about it, right?
You have to have another attack.
You can't say, well, Trump isn't cutting taxes.
Well, he is.
Well, Trump isn't cutting red tape.
Well, he is.
Your attack has to be on, well, it's style and his approach to the office.
It's not presidential.
Listen, you're entitled to your opinion on that.
I personally don't care.
But what I like about the piece is he makes a point that I think a lot of people overlook.
For you to still insist that we would be better off without what Trump is doing now, in other words with Hillary as president, is for you to ignore the fact that we could quite literally be nuked in Guam or Hawaii or some of our West Coast territories by North Korea like right now.
No, I mean, I'm dead serious.
We could be nuked today.
For you to attack the president now is to say that not crushing ISIS, which was clearly not a Clinton priority or an Obama priority, despite their rhetoric.
I'm just basing it on the evidence.
ISIS took over an enormous amount of land under the Obama administration with Hillary as Secretary of State.
Some portion.
For you to say that is to say, well, crushing ISIS isn't that big of a deal.
I'd prefer the president not tweet.
Wait, wait, come again?
Explain that to me again?
So you'd rather the West Coast get nuked?
Now you may say, Dan, you're setting up a straw man.
Okay, fair enough on the West Coast being nuked.
Probably if Hillary was president, we still wouldn't be looking at the likelihood of that tomorrow.
I'm not suggesting she would let it happen.
It's probably a bit of a straw man.
But the ISIS argument is absolutely not one.
Obama was president, ISIS expanded.
Trump's president, ISIS is annihilated, lost most of its land.
Those are just facts.
Again, on the economy.
Obama's president, we average 2% growth, worst recovery from a recession in modern American history.
Just the facts, whether you agree with them or not, is irrelevant to me.
That speaks to your problem, not mine.
So you're saying right now as a dad, a husband, an employee at a company, you would rather the economy be in the doldrums still because you don't like Trump's tweets.
Does that make any sense?
Are you deranged?
Are you like a crazy person?
I'm sorry.
I love that cut so much.
You have mental problems?
You're so worried about Trump's tweets.
And you don't like the elegance of his speech that you would rather your kids not get a job.
You would rather suffer.
You'd rather what?
Terrorist attacks on our home?
I don't know.
I don't get where you're going with this.
To question style over substance at this point is almost to be deranged.
It's a really good piece.
I'm going to put it in there, the show notes today.
I strongly encourage you to read it.
Oh, where am I going to go next here?
Oh, this is a good one.
So another common thread that I've brought up in the show often because it speaks to how Democrats, the narrative, it's always about the narrative, how they have to switch the narrative, man, every single time.
And especially, it's a pungent argument to me because I lived in Northeast high-tax states.
I bring up a lot how people are fleeing these states Income is leaving high-tax states and are fleeing to low-tax states.
Now, for normal, reasonable people who use logic, you would say to yourself, well, Joe, that's called a pattern.
Yeah.
Or as we would say on this show, some people would call it a clue.
But yeah, it is a pattern and a clue at the same time.
There's a pattern developing.
Now, normal people look for patterns and look for the reasons and the core.
What's at the core of that pattern?
What is forcing people or incentivizing people to leave high-tax states to low-tax states?
Well, again, reasonable people would say the taxes, right?
So, interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal today.
About $200 billion over the last decade or so in adjusted gross income.
Think about what I just told you.
200 billion dollars in income has fled California, New York, and high-tax states into Nevada, into Florida, into Texas, into these states.
States with either no income tax or very low income taxes where they have fled to.
Now why am I bringing this up again?
Not to keep beating the death, because it's obvious to our listeners That people are leaving these states because the taxes are too high.
The SALT limitation in the tax bill is even forcing Democrats, who had told us forever, Joe, if you're a regular listener to the show, that, oh, taxes, that's not the reason.
That's just a small reason.
People are leaving for other reasons, too.
Really?
There's been an odd change of heart since the SALT limitation.
Now, what was the SALT limitation?
The tax cut plan has a $10,000 limit on SALTs and acronyms, state and local taxes.
So if you're paying high taxes in those states, you used to be able to deduct an almost unlimited amount.
Now you can only deduct $10,000 in taxes.
So if you're making $10-20 million a year, and you're paying the state of New York $300,000 in taxes, you now lost $290,000 in deductions.
in taxes, you now lost $290,000 in deductions. You can only deduct $10,000 now.
Right.
Joe, the Democrats are in a panic.
You think I'm making this up?
New York State Comptroller, this guy DiNapoli, Democrat.
Is starting to worry that when middle class families feel the impact of this, they're going to flee the state.
Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait, timeout, timeout.
Joan, you live in Maryland.
I lived in Maryland.
People have been telling us for years that that's not the case, that people aren't fleeing the state because of taxes.
It's just a small reason.
So why turn around and acknowledge it now?
Oh, you've been lying the whole time?
You have Steve Sweeney, this legislator in the state Senate in New Jersey.
Democrat.
Acknowledging again that a millionaire's tax in New Jersey may not be a good idea right now because we don't want to see those people leaving, and he acknowledged that the top 1% in New Jersey pay an overwhelming proportion of the taxes.
I thought that didn't matter!
To the Democrats listening, do you see how everything you've been telling us is a lie?
You've been lying to us the entire time.
We know it.
You know it.
Now that reality is hitting you in the face and that people are going to actually be forced to pay the tax load you and you alone have imposed upon them.
Now all of a sudden you're changing your tune and acknowledging what we said years ago, but you said what we said was false.
That taxes matter and people are leaving.
But folks, you think I'm making this up?
Google people leaving Maryland, people leaving New York, high taxes, and watch the Democrats in all those pieces a year ago saying, oh that's not the reason.
No, that's not the reason.
As they now acknowledge that's... I'm telling you, if you're a liberal listening to the show, you've been living a lie.
You've been living a lie your entire life.
It's time for you to wake up.
All right, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Hey, big fans of these guys.
They were our original sponsor.
I am in love with Field of Greens.
Now, listen, I've been sick for the last five days.
Now, thankfully, today seems like its last stand, although I'm still a little congested.
You can probably hear it in my voice.
But thank God for Fielda Greens.
I've been putting this stuff in juice and V8 and green tea.
I mix a little collagen in.
This is my secret sauce.
It gets me through the day.
Nice energy boost.
I mean, it just has the unbelievable chemicals in fruits and vegetables.
Folks, we haven't even unlocked the door to the secrets of fruits and vegetables bring to our lives.
I told you about this story I saw in Drudgewood just two weeks ago.
How people who were regular salad eaters, salad!
Not even all the stuff Field of Greens has.
Salad eaters had brains that were about 11 years younger.
Field of Greens is kale, spinach, cherry, a mix of licorice, prebiotics.
This is a superfood.
A superfood we should all be taking.
Listen, we should all be eating multiple servings of fruits and vegetables every day.
I try to do it in addition to my Field of Greens.
But it's not easy.
When I travel up to New York on Fox, I don't have the opportunity to eat six, seven times a day.
You know, eat a handful of blueberries and a handful of pineapples and cherries.
I don't have that opportunity.
What do I do?
I take it with me in a baggie.
I throw it in a bottle of water, shake it up, chug that thing down.
It's got a really good taste to it.
I think it's because of the cherry in there.
But it's called Field of Greens.
Commit to health in the new year.
Get your fruits and vegetables in.
Boost your health.
There is no question that fruits and vegetables, that a robust consumption of fruits and vegetables is the right thing for your health going forward.
All right, one final story because you know this drives me nuts.
The school choice story matters to me.
Yeah, it does because I am a de facto product of it myself.
I would not be speaking to you in coherent English right now if I didn't have educational opportunities put in front of me as a child that frankly given our income level as a family should not have been available.
Why that opportunity does not avail itself to struggling poor families, struggling black and hispanic families, white families as well, is bizarre.
Now, as I've said to you opening up the show, and I'll say to you again, they're deranged.
A lot of liberals are deranged.
Their war on inner-city black children is racist.
It is a racist war, and I don't throw that label around loosely.
Because, as Jason Reilly said in a Wall Street Journal piece, there are 20,000 public high schools in the country.
Just 2,000 of them are responsible for half the dropouts.
If you're black, you have a 50% chance of sending your kid to one of those schools.
So targeting school choice, knowing that it disproportionately affects black communities, is the very definition of racism.
Why am I bringing this up?
There's a piece in the Wall Street Journal today that should absolutely blow your mind.
Detroit, Joe, which has some of the worst public schools in the country.
There's a charter school, Detroit Prep, that's looking to expand.
It's 50% black, 65% of the students are low-income.
It wants to buy a now defunct public school that's not being used.
Public schools sold the school, the building, which was dilapidated, by the way, to a developer for $600,000.
Detroit Prep wants to buy the school.
There's no catch here, folks.
They want to buy the school for $750,000.
That's $150,000 over what the developer paid for the school.
Even worse, the public school district, because of a stipulation in the law, will get $150,000 from the sale.
They'll get it.
So the public school makes money, the charter school, Detroit Prep, gets a school that they can fix up.
It's a minority, largely minority school, and it's overwhelmingly poor students.
The people at the legislature in Detroit, they're blocking this now.
What?
Yeah, they're blocking it and even worse, Joe, they're blocking it in superseding the law because in the law there's a stipulation that says if this is not being sold to a residence and it's being used for anything other than residential property, the sale must be approved and they won't approve it.
If you're looking for a- why are they doing it?
Because they hate school choice.
The law specifically says, not only do you have to approve the sale if it's not a residence, you have no legal intervention to stop it, and they're stopping it and nobody's doing anything about it.
The case has to make its way through the court system.
Because this is what Democrats do.
They are stopping the sale of this thing, despite a law that specifically says they can't, because they hate school choice so much, and they are engaged in such a battle with the black community trying to take control of their own kids' futures, that they would rather you be dependent on them, because they have to be in control, for a poor public education, rather than giving young, black, poor kids a way out of a really horrible, horrible future, because they'll have no education at all.
