In this episode I address the Democrats’ panic as they transition to a new narrative in the Russia case. I also discuss the catastrophic failures of Broward County Sheriff Israel and his disturbing comments on his leadership. I also address why liberals are losing the debate over the Second Amendment.
Conservatives are finally fighting back against liberal economic warfare.
This piece explains why the NRA is an influential organization, and it challenges silly liberal talking points.
Finally, a company stands up to the liberal economic war on America.
Was Trump, himself, spied on? Check out this piece.
Dealing with “aggressive violence” from a practical perspective.
This piece challenges the viewpoint that justice has been done in the Russia case.
Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved.
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.
Hi, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
I'm always glad to be here, Daniel.
Yes, it is good today.
We got a ton going on.
And yesterday, I hate when I do this.
I told you I was going to say something and I didn't say it on the show because I was so excited about yesterday's show.
I wanted to get so much information, I missed something.
So I will backtrack and cover the Manafort thing today, which I didn't mention, and why I think it's so significant.
It was a critical piece.
I'm a little upset at myself.
Thank you to all the email feedback on the show.
And thank you for all the feedback, folks.
I made a big announcement yesterday, this coming Monday.
This coming Monday, I will be starting my video show.
For those of you who have been asking, it'll be on NRATV.
It's available for free.
There's no payment, no paywall, nothing.
It'll be available at NRATV.com.
NRATV.com.
It'll be at 5.30 Eastern Time.
That's 5.30 p.m.
Eastern Time.
Starting next Monday.
So I'll be promoing it all week this week, doing some live content at 5.30.
Won't be the full-length show, but I'll be on today at 5.30 p.m.
as well on NRATV.com.
So thanks to everyone for your patience.
I appreciate it.
It's been a long time coming, but I'm happy to be over there.
All right.
All right.
Here's what I want to get to today.
I've got a really critical piece on why The Second Amendment debate is absolutely guaranteed to hurt liberals in the long run.
To hurt them electorally speaking.
They can't win, folks.
And I've done this a bit before and got tremendous feedback, but I'm going to explain why, and I'm going to also get into an absolutely awesome piece I saw that I'll have at the show notes about the difference between, Joe, violence And aggression.
This is important.
It's a critical conversation, and it was really well said.
It echoes a speech I gave a long time ago, but I think it says it a lot better.
So let me get into that.
So don't go anywhere.
It's going to be a terrific show today.
I put a lot of work into today's show.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at iTarget.
Thank you to everybody who supports our sponsors.
The iTarget Pro system is the best system out there to practice in the safety and security of your own home, to practice your marksmanship.
Listen, anybody can fire a firearm.
The only question is, can you fire it accurately?
Folks, God forbid you're engaged in a self-defense scenario and you have to engage with a firearm, you have to be able to hit what you're shooting at.
The iTarget Pro system allows you to do that in the safety and security of your own home.
Now, the range is important.
Of course, we want to live fire when we can, but sometimes it's just not practical.
Either you have to drive to get there, you can't get there, there may not be a range that's local.
It can get expensive.
You have to clean your weapons afterwards.
That's all great.
You should do it.
But, you know, it's not available to you, most of us, every day or even every week.
The iTarget Pro system allows you to do this in the safety and security of your own home.
Here's what they'll send you.
And this is what this is.
It is a laser round.
You will drop in the firearm you have now.
You have a 9mm weapon.
They will send you a 9mm round.
Once you've safely unloaded your weapon, check it.
Check it twice.
Check it three times.
Finger probe it, as they say.
Stick that pinky in that chamber.
Make sure it's empty.
You will drop that laser round in there.
It is not an active live round.
But when you then pull the trigger of your weapon, It'll send you a target too.
It'll send a laser down range.
A laser onto the target.
So you'll see where that dry fire round would have went.
It takes your dry fire practice to the next level.
This is the coolest thing out there.
I get tremendous reviews on this.
I send the reviews back over to the iTarget team.
They're really terrific.
The website is itargetpro.com.
That's the letter I.
Not the organ.
The letter I, TargetPro.com.
I, TargetPro.com.
Pick it up today.
Use promo code Dan.
You'll save a terrific 10%.
By the way, competitive shooters who do this for a living.
Dry fire.
Dry fire.
Ten times more than they live fire.
This is the way to take your dry fire practice to the next level.
All right.
So yesterday I mentioned Manafort.
Just quickly on this.
Folks, the Democrats are in a panic right now.
Their memo was a disaster.
We discussed that on yesterday's show.
The memo basically confirmed the worst parts of the FISA abuse process.
The memo confirmed that the court was never told about Hillary Clinton and the DNC paying for the information used to spy on Trump.
It also confirms that the FISA court basically used the dossier to, excuse me, the FISA court made its decision based on the FBI using the dossier, which is a critical distinction there.
The dossier put them over the probable cause fence despite the fact that the information was false.
Folks, this is critical now.
The Democrats are starting to realize that this is going to blow up on them, that they can't sustain this forever.
And why?
Because there are court records.
There are court records.
There are transcripts of what happened.
I said this yesterday.
So I had said to you, I said, pay attention to Manafort, pay attention to Manafort.
Here's what's going on.
In yesterday's show notes, I put a piece by Andy McCarthy, and this is where he makes a really great, great point that I had missed.
He says this attention on Manafort and his partner Rick Gates, and to be clear on who they were, because I don't want to lose you.
Just remember, this is a very simple case.
The Obama team spied on the Trump team, and they used false information to do it.
Don't get lost.
If you didn't listen to 628 on, this isn't like The Walking Dead or something.
If you missed season 1 through 7, nothing makes sense.
This is a very simple case.
The Obama team spied on the Trump team and used bad information to do it.
Bad information paid for by Trump's opponents.
That is the essence of the case.
Don't get lost in the wonkery.
One of the vehicles they used to spy on the Trump team was a campaign manager brought on at the time in Paul Manafort and his partner Rick Yates.
Make sense, Joe?
Simple stuff, right?
Why is Manafort important?
Because their narratives continue to fall apart.
They're having a tough time, ladies and gentlemen, justifying why in fact they threw the Fourth Amendment out the window and spied on a presidential candidate.
So first it was Papadopoulos, then it was Carter Page, then it was Papadopoulos again, then it was Carter Page.
In other words, they keep going, well this guy did something and that guy did something.
The problem is they can't find the something they did.
Because the something they did is based on false information.
Remember, Papadopoulos pled guilty to lying to federal agents, not to Russian collusion.
They can't find it anywhere.
So the Democrats, I argued yesterday, are buying time right now.
They're buying time by putting nonsense memos out there.
They are just buying time because they need to transition to the new boogeyman.
And the new boogeyman is going to be Paul Manafort.
There's a good body of credible evidence that Manafort may have been involved in some shady dealings.
I don't mean to downplay that at all.
Unlike Page and Papadopoulos, where the evidence is, I think, pathetic at best, speaking as a former agent myself.
There is evidence against Manafort.
Now he is entitled to a presumption of innocence like anyone else.
And he should be entitled to his day in court.
I don't know Paul Manafort.
I don't recall at any point even crossing paths with him.
I've definitely never met him.
And I don't know his partner Rick Gates.
But he is going to be the new boogeyman.
And McCarthy makes the point in one of his pieces, and I'm summarizing it, not as well as he does in his piece, but it's in yesterday's show notes, that Joe, the transition to this attention on Manafort is going to be the special counsel Bob Mueller's way of redeeming the FBI.
What do I mean by that?
What do I mean?
What do I mean?
Be very careful.
You get the takeaway here, Joe.
Yeah.
Okay.
You see where I'm going with this, right?
Mueller right now sees the writing on the wall.
Bob Mueller is a special counsel, a former FBI director, a practiced attorney and prosecutor.
Bob Mueller is a very smart guy.
I don't agree with a lot of what he's doing.
Matter of fact, I think his investigation has been entirely corrupted by people inside who have alternate interests outside of justice.
But having said that, Bob Mueller is not dumb.
Don't for a second think otherwise.
Mueller understands right now, he must, that collusion is a myth.
It didn't happen.
Again, folks, you can't fabricate a story.
It either happened or it didn't.
In this case, it didn't happen.
Mueller, being a former G-man himself, former director of the FBI, now understands, and I think, and messed deeply in the swamp himself.
Mueller has to save the reputation of the Justice Department.
Save the reputation of the FBI.
And I think there's a little bit of anti-Trump animus here.
Maybe not so much with him, but unquestionably with his team, specifically his top pitbull, Andy Weissman, who we know can't stand Trump.
He was present at Hillary's election night thing.
He emailed Sally Yates, Andy Weissman, congratulating her, the former Deputy Attorney General, for refusing to enforce Trump's travel ban.
He congratulated her, like, hey, good job, you gave the middle finger to Trump, nice work.
So we know there's anti-Trump animus on the team.
What they are trying to avoid here is they are trying to avoid making Trump look like a martyr.
So what they're gonna do, Joe, to justify this debacle of a spying operation, and even bigger debacle of an investigation into a collusion crime that never happened, even though collusion isn't even a crime, is they're gonna come back and go, well look, this Manafort was a really bad guy, and we got him for this with Ukraine, and this on tax evasion, and this on money laundering, and all this stuff, and therefore the attention of the Trump team was warranted.
Keep in mind, This likely has nothing to do with Russian collusion at all.
But they need a boogeyman, and the boogeyman keeps changing.
Remember the 30,000 foot.
The Obama team spied on the Trump team.
They had no evidence to do it.
The Democrats need to buy time to distract you from the fact that they basically used the Constitution as toilet paper and threw the Fourth Amendment out the window.
So they have to find a boogeyman.
Look, George Papadopoulos was in a bar.
This is called the case of the changing boogeyman.
The case of the chain is.
It's like, this is like, you know, remember like Friday the 13th, they were like, you know, Jason keeps coming back.
This one, it's a different Jason every time.
Actually, you know what?
There is a difference because in the first Friday the 13th, the killer's the mom, actually.
People forget about that.
Remember?
The first Friday the 13th, yeah, the killer's the mob.
It's not Jason, right?
But this is what, this is, you're right Joe, it's a good point.
It's the changing Jason each time.
You know, Jason number one, George Papadopoulos.
Jason number two, Carter Page.
Jason number three, Paul Manafort.
Jason number four, Rick Gaze.
Joe's doing it.
Norman Bates fromside.
You remember the shower scene?
This is it every time.
And Manafort, I think Mueller, just, Joe, am I clear on this though?
Manafort, I think Mueller understands is the one with the most evidence of criminal baggage.
Again, the presumption of innocence, unlike other people involved in this case, I believe in the Constitution, give him his debt.
If he's found guilty in court, we should all roundly condemn it.
But until then, he is presumed innocent.
That's how we work here.
We don't do lynch mobs.
Okay, folks?
That's not the way this works.
I'm just telling you, based on the evidence I've seen, most of it, by the way, which is publicly available to court filings, as I said, it seems there is, at a minimum, some evidence of some crime for Manafort, and they will seamlessly move on to Manafort being a boogeyman, Joe, and McCarthy, in closing on this, because I want to wrap this up.
I've got a lot to do today.
In closing, McCarthy says, this is going to be the way that the Democrats leave everybody cold.
Because Joe, in the end, just like Benghazi, this is me kind of adding some commentary, but just like Benghazi, just like Fast and Furious, just like the IRS, nothing's going to happen.
I don't mean to disappoint.
I'm telling you, McCarthy's premise is that everyone's going to be disappointed in the end.
The Democrats will be disappointed because in a way they were called out for abuses of the Fourth Amendment.
The Republicans are going to be disappointed because the Democrats come back and are going to be, well, maybe we abused the Fourth Amendment, but look, Manafort, you know, got convicted in a trial.
You get what I'm saying, Joe?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Which, again, is kind of, like, really crappy for everyone.
Like, justice definitely doesn't win the day.
Now, one final thought on this overall arc, story arc, we've been doing since 6-28, where our audience has exploded, and thank you so much to everyone who spread the word.
Our audience has almost, like, tripled.
Yeah, thank you so much.
And we've held it, which is, you know, I always worry about that.
Give me feedback on this on Twitter or you can email us.
I'm thinking of doing a timeline show to kind of wrap this up.
It's been a while, but not a special.
I mean, it'll be a show like anyone.
I'm not going to tape it two days early, but I'm thinking of doing that maybe on Monday or something, Joe, doing a timeline show.
Where we just calmly and collectively walk through an entire timeline and sum the entire thing up.
Not to put a capstone or something on episode 628 forward, but to reorient people.
Because yes, it is a simple case.
The Obama team spied on the Trump team without evidence to do it, yes.
But there's a lot of nuance to it in between that's fascinating and there's things I'm coming up with every day.
I saw something the other day that surprised me and this is why I thought of the timeline show.
You know how Mike Rogers, I believe, tells Trump after the election, and Mike Rogers, the NSA director, tells Trump, I believe he did, during their meeting at Trump Tower, that there was some spying going on, and the Trump team evacuates Trump Tower, and goes up to Bedminster?
For those of you who listened and missed that point, It's a fascinating turn in the case.
But another meeting happens later on at Trump Tower, and I'm puzzled by it.
And I thought, if we did a timeline and we walk through it, maybe we can crowdsource to the listeners.
So give me your feedback on it.
I think it would be fascinating to walk it through over the course of an hour, put the facts together in a timeline.
And by the way, the timeline is, I have it already, because again, the book, Matt Palumbo and I, is almost done.
I like the idea, by the way.
I think the listeners would like it.
Yeah.
Well, your feedback matters, Joe.
Okay, this is important.
I've got a lot of other stuff to get to, but today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Filter By.
Listen, folks, your HVAC system's working overtime.
It was really cold this winter.
It's going to be working overtime for me, because as the spring comes around down here in Florida, you get a lot of pollen, allergy aggravating pollution.
I make up new words all the time, but it is true.
Mold, mildew clogs up your Your filters and your HVAC system.
You don't want to run into the problems I did where your filters and your system blow out and you wind up spending almost $20,000 fixing it.
That stinks.
You've got to maintain your filters.
You're not only breathing unhealthy air, you might find yourself with no heat and thousands in repairs.
I did.
Now there's a better way with Filterbuy.com.
That's Filterbuy.com, America's leading provider of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses.
Filterbuy.com carries over 600 different sizes, folks, including custom options, all shipped free within 24 hours, plus they're manufactured right here in America.
Filterbuy offers a multitude of MERV options all the way up the hospital grade.
So you'll be removing dangerous pollen, mold, dust, and other allergy aggravating or aggravating pollution while maximizing the efficiency of your system.
It's important, folks.
You can save some energy, too.
Right now, save 5%.
When you set up auto delivery, you'll never need to think about air filters again.
Save money, save time, breathe better with filterbuy.com.
That's filterb-u-y.com.
Filterbuy.com.
Great company.
Thanks for supporting them.
Okay.
Voter intensity.
I have a note here because we talked about this on a prior show months ago, but it's important I bring it up again.
One of the general ongoing threads throughout this show has always been the why matters, folks.
You know, the great awakening for me, if I may share a personal story with you, was not understanding the facts and the data surrounding economic debates, healthcare debates, school choice debates.
That's easy, Joe.
I mean, I can research what the Reagan tax rates did, and I can look at what happened to tax revenue and what happened to growth.
It was good.
I'm glad I did that.
Don't get me wrong.
But that was not the eye-opening, profound moment I had.
The really deep breaks into my psyche that really changed me and shook the ground I stood on ideologically was a deeper understanding of the why.
Putting together the pieces of critical theory, putting together the pieces of identity politics, putting together the pieces of why the left, not necessarily the Democrats, it's an important distinction, but why the left does what it does.
Because when you start to figure out the why, That the left has always been about control.
It's not what they tell you on their face is just a disguise.
It's a patina over an underlying ideology.
Absolutely hell-bent on gaining control when you understand that everything else falls into place and makes sense.
In other words... Yeah.
You know, one of the critical questions, and it's happened over the course of time, it was not a road to Damascus moment by reading a lot of books, you know, Unholy Alliance by, I think, by David Horowitz.
What else?
There's another book, Milton Friedman, you know, Capitalism and Freedom, Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Anointed.
There's a book by Dan Flynn about the history of the left.
And over time and years reading this, you start to see these common themes about how the left is about control.
What I mean by that is, you know, I used to hear, One of the things that disturbed me all the time was people would ask questions I couldn't answer, especially, you know, when I was just new to the movement.
They'd say things like, well, I don't get it with the left.
You know, they claim to support, you know, gay rights, Joe, and the LGBTQ community, but then they turn out and, you know, they support people who support Sharia law, who many of them kill people, I mean, who are gay in some countries where people support a radical form of Islam.
I'm telling you the questions they would ask me, because I hadn't thought a lot of this through.
But when you understand that the left is about control.
In other words, controlling.
And when I say control, I don't mean this in an otherworldly, ethereal way.
I mean it in a very grounded, down-to-earth way.
They are about control of your money, regardless of the amount.
They don't care if it's a dollar or a hundred dollars.
When you understand they're about control of your health care, and you understand they're about control of your kids' education, control of your business and everything else, it all makes sense because the ends justify the means to get there, even if that means, and this is kind of the premise of Horowitz's book, Unholy Alliance, means, Joe, aligning with groups That contradict your stated values.
Because remember, your stated values are not... The left is really not about the LGBTQ community.
Hell no.
They're not.
I don't care what they tell you.
They use the LGBTQ community, Hispanics, black voters, and identity politics simply as a vehicle to implement policies which allow them to control things in your life you control now.
Does that make sense?
Parkland.
Exactly!
They are using the media and vehicles in the media because they... Folks, I'm gonna get... That was a perfect segue.
They understand fully that the gun control anti-second amendment measures they're proposing will do nothing!
They understand that!
I did not plan that with you, by the way.
That is a perfect segue.
Their agenda, folks, is not School safety programs.
It's not.
I'm not talking about Democrats.
I'm talking about the radical left.
Because when you propose simple ideas like, hey, what if we arm the teachers?
Ah, you're an idiot!
You're crazy!
You want these schools to be a shooting gallery?
You don't say.
Folks, the people walking, the criminals make the rules.
Why?
Because criminals don't follow the rules.
It is asymmetric warfare.
If a criminal says, I am gu- and I'll get to the aggressive violence thing in a minute.
Criminals fully understand that gun laws only work if you obey the law.
If you are a criminal intent on committing murder, why would you care about filling out a form 4473 to get a gun legally?
Please answer me that question.
Why you would care?
It was the whole premise, Joe, behind broken windows policing in New York.
The old theory of policing in New York for a long time, when I was there, was you don't arrest the turnstile jumpers because then the cop's going to be doing paperwork all day and he's not going to be there to stop the robbery.
Then Bill Bratton, Jack Maple, Rudy Giuliani came along and they adopted this form of broken windows policing.
And you know what?
The sea change in New York... Folks, I was there.
I saw it.
You never brought in someone for smoking weed in a busy precinct, ever.
The desk lieutenant would throw you right out of there.
Man, you need to be on the street for the serious stuff.
You know what the sea change was?
The guy who jumps the turnstile when we're smoking a joint in the street.
Mike, I'm getting into marijuana laws here, so don't email me.
I'm with you on a lot of this.
I'm just saying.
Most of the time, the guy jumping the turnstile was the very same guy who committed the robbery on a train.
Now, that may sound obvious to you now.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm absolutely telling you with 100% certainty, That was not the case when I first got on the NYPD.
You did not bring those people in.
You didn't bring them in.
You avoided it because you assumed they were different people.
That's what really cut crime dramatically in New York.
My point here in this entire thing is that they are not focused on hard solutions.
They are focused almost exclusively by using the media and using their vehicles They are almost entirely focused on control.
Control of the firearm supply.
Control in the hands of government.
Control in the hands of the government they control.
Keep in mind, this is the same very same crowd who tells you that police are the most brutal people among us.
They're hunting minorities in the street who make the very same argument That the police are the only one should have guns.
Does this make sense now?
My man.
There you go.
All of these questions that when you understand the left is strictly about control.
Folks, it is a statist ideology bedrocked in a Marxist background that the state and that the bureaucratic and elite intelligentsia should control everything because, this is what matters here, because you are too stupid to do so.
Because you are too stupid, this is them talking again, not me.
Because you are so dumb, you should not control your money.
You should never be able to separate yourself from the state on the security front by owning a weapon.
The state should control your security.
The state should control your health care.
Once you understand that, they need to detach you from any sense of individuality to control, to be able to spend your money, to be able to protect yourself.
This all has to go.
And they use the media to highlight this stuff.
They don't want solutions.
And my point about the broken windows was, it was obvious, it became obvious to people, the same way I was talking about the... because I don't like to lose you in long-winded answers, but it's a good... Joe made a good point.
It introduced an interesting vehicle here.
The guy who doesn't fill out the background check form, 4473, because he buys a gun off the street illegally, there is a damn good chance he is the same guy that is going to go on and murder someone with a firearm.
This is not groundbreaking news, folks.
When you don't care about paying for the train and you jump the turnstile, there is a good chance, not a perfect chance, it's not even probably a 50% correlation, but it's a correlation there.
You don't fill out the background check in the gun store and you buy the gun off the street, you're probably gonna commit a crime with it later.
Even if it's a small chance.
You're the same guy who jumps the turnstile?
You're probably gonna be the guy who rapes or robs or assaults someone on the subway!
Laws matter!
But laws matter when people follow them.
The criminals here are engaged in an arbitrage system to find their way around it.
And keep in mind, I'm not making the argument to you that we should have no checks and unfettered access to everyone.
It's clear as day to me if you were a felon with a history of violence, you should not be in possession of a firearm legally, illegally, or anything else.
I'm simply making the case to you that layering on additional laws... Let me give you an example here.
Joe, people are still murdered, right?
All the time, tragically.
Yeah, all the time, unfortunately.
But we have laws against murder, right?
We have homicide laws?
That's why I object to...
What are we going to have?
Additional homicide laws?
No, no.
Homicide times 10.
This is really like homicide this time.
Folks, we have these laws.
We're wasting a lot of time on bureaucratic, legal mumbo jumbo that is going to do nothing and stops people from doing what really, really works.
Increase penalties afterwards, not restrictions beforehand.
I'm really tired of people going out there and saying, oh, you know, free speech is restricted too.
You can't say fire in a movie theater.
That is not true.
It is not true.
Free speech is not restricted by you doing that.
I can prove it to you, Joe.
Have you ever walked into a movie theater and had someone ask you in advance if you intend to scream fire in a movie theater?
No, I haven't, Dan.
Have you ever had someone ask you to fill out a background check on have you screamed fire in a movie theater in the past before you buy a ticket?
No, that's a negative, Dan.
That's right, but if you do it, there is a penalty.
Right.
The penalty works.
Why?
Because a lot of people just don't do it because they don't want to be arrested for causing a civil disturbance or whatever it may be.
Does it work all the time?
No.
What you're suggesting for firearms is different.
You're suggesting a proactive restriction.
You will not be allowed to buy quote, assault weapons, which is a nonsense term.
You are not allowed to buy a magazine with 10 plus rounds.
You are not allowed to do this.
You are not allowed to do that.
They're stopping you before you go in the movie theater, despite the fact that you've done nothing wrong.
You've done nothing wrong.
I'm simply suggesting to you that we have to stop wasting time on all of this other garbage.
Banning rifles, magazine sizes, all this other stuff that's going to have no effect and focus on the penalties afterwards for actually screaming fire in a movie theater.
It is a nonsense example.
Nobody stops you before you go in the movie theater.
But people do stop you from getting a firearm.
Just ask Joe, who lives in Maryland, where it's almost impossible to get a concealed handgun license.
You bet, man.
You can't even see the movie in Maryland.
Let's focus on the penalty stage.
You steal a gun?
What, I don't care, 20 years?
You break into a house, you steal a gun?
You use a gun to commit murder?
Mandatory life?
Focus on that.
I'm open to that conversation.
I mean, I'm not into cruel and excessive punishment either.
I believe in the Constitution, even when it's inconvenient.
But I'm open to that conversation.
Dare not.
Now, this is an important point.
As I said, I get into this, why liberals will continue to lose here.
Folks, they're engaged in a war, liberals, and they're, listen to me, this worries, this really worries me.
Alright, I hesitate sometimes to show too much emotion on this because, you know, don't mistake my passion for weakness.
I was born for this fight like many of you, or else I wouldn't be doing this, even though I'm stressed to the maximum these days.
I almost, like, ripped my office apart yesterday for different reasons, but... The taking of people's liberty Whether through legal obstacles to the exercising of your liberty or the outright banning of that liberty in and of itself.
The anger at the taking of that liberty will always overwhelm the joy liberals obtain from doing what will not work.
Digest that for a minute.
I'm going to explain it.
Liberals know full well That the gun control measures, and I don't even like the term because you can't control guns.
You can't.
There's 300 million of them.
There's probably, worldwide, it's not possible, right?
Liberals fully understand that the measures they are proposing are nothing but cosmetic and nothing but a vehicle, folks, and a patina, a cover, a mask, to radical liberals, I'm talking about, to enact their underlying agenda, which is to disarm everybody in America that they can to make sure that you are only reliant on the state for your security, your health care, your economic well-being, and everything else.
Because, remember, the liberal premise is you are too stupid to run your own life, you are nothing but some, you know, uneducated and, you know, rube, you don't know anything, and that you definitely shouldn't have a gun.
Because once you have a gun, there's a sense of independence in your personal security.
They don't want independence ever!
I'm telling you all this and I went through that explanation because liberals know what they're proposing is crap!
How do I know that?
Because when you poll people, Joe, liberals, Democrats, you know, regular, moderate Democrats, I should say regular, moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans and conservatives, when you poll across the spectrum, the evidence is overwhelming, sometimes upwards of, you know, a super majority in some cases, well over 50%, and you ask people if it's going to do anything to curb violence and you propose specific measures, the overwhelming majority of them typically say no.
They understand it's not going to work.
Just ask them.
What I'm trying to explain to you is that they know it based on historical evidence.
Columbine folks happened after the assault weapons ban.
A lot of people in these polls know that.
They understand that.
So their joy, Joe, at enacting policies that they know full well, based on their own surveys, won't work is muted.
Why?
Because they know it's bold.
They understand.
It would be like a tax cut package that was passed that did nothing to cut taxes at all.
Conservatives would be like, all right, I'm not going to fight for this.
I'm not going to lose my political capital.
I'm not going to go out there and lie.
This is a crap tax cut.
It doesn't work.
That would be the, I'm trying to think of a corollary on our side of the aisle.
It would be like, you know, we repealed Obamacare and I didn't actually repeal it.
They just named it like whatever, Joe Armacost care.
And it was the exact same thing.
Conservatives would go wild.
This isn't a repeal.
It's just the exact same thing under a different name.
Their joy and their emotion motivates people to action, folks.
Their joy would be muted.
Can we all agree?
The same thing is happening with liberals.
This is why they are losing and losing badly, consistently, on this Second Amendment debate.
They are not joyful at this.
They are joyful at gaining control over your life.
But the emotion and the joy they need to go and motivate them to action and vote is muted because they understand, even if this stuff passes, that it's cosmetic.
They know full well banning bump stocks is not going to stop any criminal from assaulting you with a firearm he bought off the street.
They know full well that.
But the anger that liberty-loving, patriotic Americans feel at having their liberty restricted when they did nothing wrong.
I can't buy a 15-round magazine.
I can't buy a 5.56 chambered rifle.
I can't buy this because why?
Because some maniac teenager who 45 visits to his home is being reported today were all missed?
I now can't protect myself how I choose because of the acts of a maniac?
The anger at losing liberty will always Invoke more action at the voting booth than the joy at enacting policies that are unquestioned failures.
Folks, they can't win this debate.
They absolutely can't win.
Another thing on this.
I'm trying to think.
Oh, here it is.
I have a terrific piece at the show notes today, and I know I say that every day, but they are, folks.
I put a lot of work into accumulating pieces and commentary that is thoughtful and will contribute to your daily life.
I know you're busy.
I have a number of really wonderful pieces, but this one at National Review is a must-read if you are interested at all in this debate.
Remember, this is not about guns.
It's about control.
It has always been about control.
It was the whole setup there.
Gun control is nothing but a mask for people control.
I said that in a speech at the Annapolis in front of the governor's mansion five years ago.
Remember that speech, that thing about nuclear?
Yeah, it's still running on YouTube.
Yeah, tax hikes are nothing more than economic control.
It is still running.
It's up to like 2 million views, I think.
But this is a piece from National Review today that highlights this power.
And when I say this power, I'm talking about anger.
Not violent anger.
Anger to motivate people to vote and to political action.
This anger at losing liberty versus the joy on the left from taking liberty when they know that taking liberty will do nothing.
The anger at losing liberty will always be more powerful.
There's a piece of National Review which speaks to the power of the NRA and obviously the disclosure, you know, I work in NRA TV.
I don't work for the NRA.
I work for NRA TV.
It's maybe, I don't know, maybe it's a distinction without a difference at times, but it is important that I put that out there.
But folks, the power of the NRA does not come from what the left wants you to believe, buying off politicians.
Folks, tons of groups buy off politicians.
Do you dispute that?
I ran for office, okay?
Believe me, just go down to Capitol Hill and go to any restaurant, you can watch groups trying to buy off politicians.
Whether it's through PAC donations or donations.
But why is the NRA, why?
Why do they have such power?
Why them?
It's not the money, folks.
They're not even close to one of the top donors, the politicians.
They're not even close.
Unions, Planned Parenthood, they far outweigh the abortion industry, the NRA.
So why are they so powerful?
Here's a quote from this piece.
It's up at the show notes at Bongino.com.
If you join my email list, as always, we'll send them to you.
Please read it.
It's short, it's sweet, but it's great.
It says, politicians who come from communities with relatively high gun ownership, particularly from those in the South and Midwest, where Americans are most likely to own guns, are going to be hard-pressed to go against the NRA.
Knowing full well that its members are easily mobilized at the ballot box, especially come primary time when turnout is very low.
Precious few interest groups are powerful enough to do this.
All of this makes the NRA unique in the universe of interest groups.
A large membership distributed across key electoral districts, Motivated primarily by ideological, not economic concerns, and exercising power through the ballot box.
It is hard to think of another group like this.
Hammers home my point.
Yeah, sure does.
The members of the NRA, Joe, the five million members, They are not motivated by economic gain.
They're not lobbying Congress for a tax exemption for podcasting.
Joe's got a black shirt on.
They're not lobbying Congress for an exemption on a black shirt industry where they produce the t-shirts.
They are lobbying Congress because they want to hold on to their liberty.
They want to hold on to their ability to defend themselves against aggressive violence, which I'm going to get to.
Folks, this is quite literally a deadly serious thing.
People who live in American communities all over the country, outside of big cities, understand full well that the police cannot protect them.
The police may be 20 or 30 minutes away.
That is not protection.
That is a response.
That is far different.
That is a response after the fact, not a proactive measure before.
You take away their ability to defend themselves as they see fit.
You take away their ability to defend themselves at all, as they do in Maryland and May-issue states.
This is a literally deadly serious issue to them.
And their anger at losing liberty motivates them across, quote, key electoral districts in large numbers in low-turnout primaries.
You cannot beat that.
The t-shirt industry, Joe, may have hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying for... Alright, maybe a little dramatic.
Millions.
May have millions of dollars to give to politicians.
Nobody's voting for t-shirts, brother.
Nobody.
But you start taking away a man's ability to defend his family, and you start taking that away in key electoral districts across this entire fruited plain?
And you take it away in a primary where quite literally a thousand votes could make a difference?
Now you understand how powerful this organization is?
It has almost nothing to do with money.
It has everything to do with the ability to organize its members to fight back when their liberty is taken away.
Folks, you're making a big mistake by underestimating them.
Now, one quick difference here.
A distinction I want to make.
In the piece also, and I strongly encourage you to read it again, it's up at the show notes, it talks about in the piece the difference between the inside and the outside game.
How the Democrats right now are trying to say, oh, the NRA is powerful because they have money and they buy people off.
In other words, the inside game.
T-shirt places, everything else.
You know, it's not uncommon, Joe.
They give money and they buy off politicians.
I mean, it's what they do.
They donate PAC money and money and say, hey, here's our position.
We'd really appreciate if you stood for it.
They said, that's a big mistake.
The NRA is powerful not because of the inside game.
It is powerful because of the outside game.
It is the outside game, the ability to get people to vote.
Because folks, and again, the show, we do facts and data here.
We don't do nonsense, okay?
When you look at polls of one-issue voters, Joe, in other words, what percentage of the population, say, votes on guns alone?
What percentage of the population votes on taxes alone?
They're usually very small, because most people vote on a cornucopia of issues.
Taxes, health care, education.
They don't vote on just one thing.
But when you look at one-issue voters, The people who vote strictly on the Second Amendment and their ability to defend themselves is far bigger than almost anyone else.
You can't win!
Now, I have another great piece in the show notes about how companies are starting to figure this out now the hard way.
It was a bunch of companies that said, ah, you know what, we had these agreements with NRA members where you get a discount for buying here.
Hertz did it.
I think Delta.
Big mistake.
Huge mistake.
Finally, FedEx stood up and said, hey, listen, I respect FedEx.
They came out with a statement against my views, by the way.
FedEx said, we support restrictions on magazines and other things like that, but we're not... It's fine.
This is the United States of America, folks.
I strongly disagree, but I will not stop using FedEx because they disagree with my political views, and you shouldn't either.
What I care about is what FedEx does, not what they say.
It's a free country.
And what did FedEx say?
We are not discontinuing this arrangement with the NRA due to political pressure.
Sorry.
Good for you!
Finally, some cojones!
Like I said, I entirely disagree with the statement, but that's fine.
We have sponsors on this show.
They are, I guarantee you, 90% of our sponsors have a significant disagreement with at least one thing I say on every show.
You know what?
It doesn't matter.
I sponsor their product because they're good companies, and they sponsor our product because we have a good size audience, not because we have to get married on ideological views.
Joe, you have that disclaimer at CBM where you work.
Yeah.
The views on this program expressed are not necessarily the views of our sponsors.
And they have a joke at the end, but they should be.
But it's not.
I mean, this was known forever.
This has been standard practice in American advertising since the dawn of time.
The sponsors don't, they're not endorsing a viewpoint.
They're simply trying to outreach to an audience, of which, thanks to you, by the way, on this show is quite substantial.
And it's loyal.
You know, I haven't told you this, but our sponsors love this show.
Because you, yes, you listening right now in your car, in your house, I don't know, some of you may be cutting tomatoes in the kitchen.
You are ferociously loyal.
You know how I know it?
Because the sponsors give me feedback and go, my gosh, is your audience loyal?
Man, are they loyal.
That's why they're here.
I don't care if they are supporters of tax cuts or Obamacare or not.
But I do care when they take action.
And for those of you asking who the company was yesterday, it was SimpliSafe.
It's a good company, but I'm sorry.
Their actions, I can't support that.
I wasn't trying to be coy with you yesterday.
I just didn't feel the need to name them, but a lot of people email me and say, is it this company?
Is it that company?
No.
And I felt like, gosh, that was kind of a mistake.
I probably should have said that, which is fair enough.
But action matters.
And kudos to FedEx for their actions.
Not for what they said.
I disagree with their ideology.
And good.
Free ad for FedEx.
You guys should go use FedEx.
And you know what?
Tell them I disagree with your company's position too, but I'm proud that you stood up.
Now, what happened?
Another interesting story.
I'm sorry, I didn't even tell you the story.
Show notes today.
Article from Breitbart.
Folks, I'm not into this economic warfare I've said from the start.
You may say, but Dan, you've called for boycotts before.
Yeah, only in response to liberal boycotts, folks.
I don't want this.
I don't want boycotts either way.
I don't want it.
I don't want to boycott Target and boycott these other places.
I think the boycott of Chick-fil-A and others that happened at the... They're all dumb!
I just said to you, go buy products from companies because they produce good stuff.
Okay?
Don't get into this nonsense.
But once they take action against us, I'm sorry, I have to refrain.
And we have to fight back.
What happened down in Georgia?
Delta is headquartered in Georgia.
Out in Atlanta, Delta, the airline.
Delta decided they were going to make a statement by discontinuing their relationship with the NRA.
It was a discounts-type program.
Instead of doing what FedEx did.
They said, listen, we disagree with some of their positions, but we don't boycott based on political views of the United States.
That's not what Delta did.
So the state of Georgia, a lawmaker in the state of Georgia said, yeah, okay, um, yeah, we're in the state Senate here and there's this gas purchase for airlines that's going to specifically benefit Delta down here to the tune of almost $40 million.
It's kind of a tax carve out.
Ah, no thanks.
Have a nice day.
Hey.
Folks, I don't like any of this stuff.
Let me be crystal clear on that.
I hate it all.
Buy companies products because they make good products.
But when they take action, action that hurts our economy, you want to play ball?
We gotta play ball too.
I don't like carve-outs to begin with.
So now it's just more of an excuse to say, oh good, Delta was getting a carve-out for 40 million dollars in gas purchases or whatever it is.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
No dice.
Not today.
Not on our time.
Bye-bye.
I don't like it.
But folks, we're engaged in a really dramatic economic war here with these people.
They try to bankrupt everybody, and gosh, if any company is listening, do you understand how stupid this is?
These Media Matters-led, far-left, George Soros-funded boycotts almost always blow up in your face.
I'm going to tie this up for you.
For the same reason, the gun control debate is blowing up in the left's face.
Because taking the taking of liberty from people, the overt actions of a company that refuse to back freedom of speech and freedom of self-protection, the overt actions of a company will always generate more anger than the joy of kooky leftists who understand what they're doing will have no effect at all, if not hurt the company.
Makes sense, Joe?
Yeah.
What conservative boycotts work?
They work all the time.
The NFL being destroyed right now.
It is.
Attendance is down.
Viewership's down.
Those are just facts.
Hollywood, they can't sell seats anymore.
Folks, this is happening.
Target, they're stock plunged.
Liberal boycotts almost always implode.
Chick-fil-A.
Remember they boycotted Chick-fil-A?
Oh, you sure do.
You couldn't get in a Chick-fil-A for like a week.
I went up to Western Maryland at the time that happened.
The line was literally around the corner, not figuratively.
Yeah.
Chick-fil-A boycott was one of the most successful Chick-fil-A moves of all time.
They should have marshaled that damn thing themselves.
Chick-fil-A boycott.
What happened with USAA?
A good company.
Disclosure, I'm still a member of.
They had a beef with some ads on Hannity.
They pulled ads.
Very bad move.
Now I'm back with them now.
They've since made some amends and understood that this was probably a bad position.
The Keurig.
Keurig with the Hannity show.
It doesn't work!
Companies out there, make a political statement.
Issue a statement.
We support this, we support that.
Having said that, we absolutely refuse to engage in economic boycotts and will continue to advertise where there are audiences.
Which is, by the way, conservative talk radio, Fox News, MSNBC, whatever you want to do.
I don't care!
I don't care.
Advertise on MSNBC if they have an audit.
Go right ahead to the sponsors on my show.
I really hope you're advertising on liberal podcasts.
You have a ton of them.
You have Pod Save America.
Listen, these guys are in business.
I don't want to boycott their stuff.
Go sell your stuff.
You will not generate one ounce of anger or rage from me at all.
I will applaud you.
But to the liberals attacking us, leave us alone.
You can't win this.
You are gonna cost the companies, and you are gonna cost yourself.
Okay, gosh, I'm sorry, folks.
I really, so much content lately, I feel like I'm almost doing you a disservice.
Yeah, I know.
For those of you who asked me why the show's not longer, by the way, for you new listeners, Joe and I, our original purpose when we started was to give you a show that aggregated the best conservative content of the day.
I don't mean us.
I mean the best conservative stories we could find.
And then add some of our particular flavor.
I mean that's what our opinion is.
But it was designed to fit into your commute.
So that's why the show is an hour long.
It's not that we're lazy.
We just want to make sure, you know, you can get the show in the time you can commute home.
So thank you for all the questions on that from the new listeners.
But that's why.
There's an actual reason there.
All right, today's show brought to you also by BrickHouse Nutrition, one of my favorite companies and one of our original sponsors.
Listen, they were bombarded with orders.
Field of Greens has just basically exploded for them.
It is an amazing product.
Now, what is it?
It's like fruit and vegetable insurance.
There is an article up on Drudge today.
You can Google it.
Fruits and vegetables linked to lower rates of depression.
Folks, just Google fruits and vegetables linked to, and it'll always be some healthy outcome.
Almost every time.
Controlled blood sugar, diabetes, whatever it may be.
Listen, it's not a cure, okay?
Not a cure for anything.
You're not going to eat an apple and everything magically goes away.
But there's absolutely no reasonable nutrition scientist or anyone else out there who deals with nutrition every day who will tell you that eating high quality and high quantities of fruits and vegetables is not correlated with just about every positive health outcome out there.
I have been doing it since I'm a kid.
I eat everything from bananas to broccoli to kale.
I like all of it.
Anything I can get, I like the rainbow of colors out there.
Cranberries, I have dried cranberries inside, but I also take field of greens.
It is a terrific product.
It's food.
It is ground up, high quality, clean, nutritious, fresh fruits and vegetables, ground up into a powder.
You throw it right in a drink.
I like to throw it in green tea.
It tastes delicious.
There's a hint of licorice in there, some cherry in there, and it's fruits and vegetables you would not be able to get in the quantities.
They can do it by grounding up and just removing the water.
Water is like 90% of a lot of fruits and vegetables.
The stuff's terrific.
It tastes good.
I can't recommend it highly enough.
I've actually done with mine.
So Miles, if you're listening, you have to send me some more, please.
It's called Field of Greens.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com.
Folks, get it for the kids.
It's food.
It's not a nutrition supplement.
It's actual food, ground up.
It tastes good.
Throw it in their juice in the morning like I do for my kids.
I take two scoops a day.
I absolutely love it.
It is your fruit and vegetable insurance.
Go give it a shot.
BrickHouseNutrition.com.
Feel the greens available today.
All right, I said I would get to this, and I don't want to mistakenly not today because we missed that Manafort story yesterday.
I was pissed after the show.
I was like, damn it, Joe, I have to call you back and do a supplement now because I missed this.
But we're going to be doing more of those, by the way, as breaking news comes on.
But there is an amazing piece at luerockwell.com.
I say it a lot, but if you've ever been motivated to go to my website or join my email list to read the articles, read this one.
It's so, so good.
And it talks about the difference, Joe.
Between violence and aggression.
Forgive me for looking down, but I want to read this right.
And the analogy he gives is a topic we discuss often here, Mutually Assured Destruction.
Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, conveniently named, was the premise that when the United States and Russia, the superpowers, both had nearly equivalent supplies of nuclear weapons in the terms of lethality, That the nuclear weapons would never be used, which is an interesting premise.
Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars in technology and building weapons if you never, ever, ever could use them?
Well, the answer was because as they both built them out and built out their nuclear capabilities and payloads, they understood that a strike would be met by a strike from the opponent and it would mutually assure both of their annihilation.
In other words, we launch on Russia, they're going to launch on us, we're all dead.
So the fact that I mean, it's a very simple game theory.
Well, we launched, they launched, therefore we're dead, so we might as well not launch.
But, we can't get rid of the weapons, but you're not gonna use them because you just understood, you just said to me that you can never use them because we'd all be destroyed.
Yeah, but if we don't have them, we can't guarantee the other side that we could destroy them too.
You get what I'm saying?
Mutually assured destruction.
Pretty simple stuff, not complicated, right?
Well, he gives an analogy in this piece about what they call, Joe, now nuclear primacy.
This is fascinating.
Nuclear primacy is the premise that if we can develop a strike capability, that would take away their ability to launch back.
In other words, take away their... That nuclear primacy, a lot of people are worried about this in the foreign policy realm.
The geo-strategic global political folks out there think about this all day because then if nuclear primacy takes effect, then mutually assured destruction is not a problem.
Because if we can take out their ability to strike back while we're striking them, we don't have to worry about being destroyed ourselves.
What does this have to do with the gun debate or anything?
It was a terrific analogy because it addresses the common confusion between violence and aggression.
The left conflates these two all the time.
Now, I gave this speech, well, I cite this speech a lot.
I probably should link to it sometime, but I gave it in Annapolis a long time ago.
The backstory is I showed up at a Second Amendment rally.
Some people had known me from running for office.
I wasn't a particularly big name in conservatism at the time.
But a guy said, Hey, you know, here's the microphone.
Like I hadn't prepared this thing or anything.
I just grabbed the mic and it was an extemporaneous speech.
It was about five minutes.
The speech went literally viral.
You know, everybody says their speeches go viral, but we did Fox on it and everything like that.
And it kind of launched me into the second amendment advocacy movement.
The fact that I did it in Maryland, I think resonated with a lot of people.
But one of the points I made, In the speech was that, you know, you don't create a safer society by creating more sheep for the wolves to prey on.
That's what he's getting at in this piece of rockwell.com, which I will put again in the show notes.
There is a difference show between violence and aggression violence.
In many cases is acceptable.
Aggressive violence isn't.
Now think about that.
I know that said, oh my gosh, how can you say that?
No, just think it through logically.
If you're walking down the street and some criminal attacks you and your kids while you're with your two daughters and you then respond and overwhelm him with violence, nobody sends you to jail.
Now you may have a trial if you, you know, if you go overboard and you beat the guy, he may sue you.
But most people, Joe, sane people go, well, Joe, you're walking down the street with little Joe, what happened?
Some guy grabbed me by the back, tried to grab my kid.
What'd you do?
I punched him in the face.
Nobody goes, oh my God, what are you, an idiot?
Now, Joe, you and I are reasonable.
That is violent, correct?
Yeah, it's violent.
But is it aggressive?
No, it's defensive.
Ah, yes!
Bingo!
That is the difference.
It is the left's constant conflation of violence with aggression that confuses people.
The point he makes in the piece, which Joe, I did not set him up for that at all, is that what the left wants you to believe is that defensive violence is equally as bad as aggressive violence.
In other words, we need to get your guns away too because, hey man, violence, and we need to control gun violence.
Wait, wait, wait, time out!
Yeah.
You're talking about you want to control defensive violence, too?
So in other words, I have to forfeit away my right to concealed carry in blue states like Maryland and New York because of aggressively violent people?
It's a brilliant point.
Now, I swear I'm not patting myself on the back or trying to create some kind of intellectual equivalence.
I understood this point, especially in that speech, but I didn't articulate it like this.
So kudos to the writer here.
He does a far better job of philosophically explaining what I did in a relatively emotional speech.
You don't create a safer society by creating more sheep for the wolves to prey on.
He makes the point in the piece that the firearm, Joe, is the great equalizer in defense of violence.
And basically you cannot Deprive these people of their means to defend themselves against the aggressor.
That's the theory behind this, you know, nuclear primacy.
That when you effectively disarm a nation's nuclear ability to strike back, right?
Remember, right now the Russians have the ability to strike us, we have the ability to strike them, therefore nothing happens, thankfully, because we don't want to wipe each other out.
If we were able to effectively disarm them, not by taking their nukes, but to engage in nuclear primacy where we can take out their counter-strike ability right away, Joe.
We can hit them, they can't hit us back anymore.
We destroy it.
That the same foreign policy elitists who believe this should be the goal of the United States, nuclear primacy, are some of the same people who argue for gun control, but they're arguing the same thing.
In other words, you're saying nuclear primacy is great because we can engage in violence against them, but they can't fight back.
Oh, by the way, gun control is great.
What are you saying?
You're suggesting they're making the exact same argument, but the ideologies conflict.
You're saying that the Russians are in danger because if we engage in nuclear primacy, we can effectively disarm them.
But you're not in danger, but we effectively disarm you.
What is it?
You may say, oh Dan, that's kind of a strange analogy.
No, it is not!
It speaks to a larger Why Matters 30,000 foot thing that Joe and I concentrate on this show all the time.
And the why here is why are you conflating violence with aggression?
They are not the same.
Aggressive violence is a threat to every law-abiding American.
And by you arguing for, quote, gun control, and effectively de facto restrictions on preventing Americans from carrying the firearm of their choice to defend themselves, you're saying that they shouldn't be able to defend themselves.
Because you don't understand the difference between aggressive violence and defensive violence.
You're simply conflating the two.
Violence, fine, we gotta control violence.
Do we?
No, no, serious question here.
Or do we have to control aggressive violence?
Because if you're saying we should control violence in general, you're doing it because it's a talking point and you're not understanding the actual deeper intellectual debate here that you have the God-given right to defend yourself.
You know, there's a reason, folks.
I spent, you know, a year of my life, uh, excuse me, 23 years of my life, just got back in recently, it was in my head, you know, ground fighting and boxing and Thai boxing and judo and wrestling, American wrestling, Greco stuff, takedowns.
It's not because I ever plan on starting a fight in the street.
It's because God forbid at 43 years old some young buck thinks he's gonna take advantage of me and my kids walking out of a movie theater.
Ain't gonna happen!
I'm not a violent person, but I practice defensive violence twice a week in my jiu-jitsu plays.
God forbid I've got to defend myself.
So when the left starts saying it's violence, say, wait, wait, are we talking about violence or aggression?
They are not the same thing.
Because once you turn the conversation show to aggression, then all of a sudden it gets uncomfortable for them.
What, I don't have the right to defend myself against aggression?
Is that what you're saying?
So you're saying violence should be prohibited, what, under all cases?
Defense of violence?
No.
Makes no sense.
Here's a quote from this piece, a great piece.
Please, please read it.
He says, this then is the practical solution for dealing with aggressive violence.
Except that it is impossible to eliminate the means to inflict harm.
Impossible!
You can eliminate firearms.
Not all together.
But you can try.
Doesn't matter.
They'll get a gun.
They'll get a knife.
They'll get a bomb.
They'll run you over.
It doesn't matter.
Accept that it is impossible to eliminate the means to inflict harm.
Accept that some people will seek to harm others.
That is an incontrovertible fact of human life.
There are wolves among us.
That will never change.
Three.
Create in yourself and other decent people the ability to respond to predators with overwhelming counter-violence.
History shows us that when people do not have the means to defend themselves, they will eventually suffer atrocities.
The moral argument is cut and dried.
One more paragraph.
This is such a great piece, folks.
I really can't encourage you in strong enough terms to read it.
One more.
A human being is the absolute owner and sovereign over their body.
As such, they have an absolute and inalienable right to defend themselves from aggression by others, by any means available or necessary, as long as those means do not harm other innocent people around them.
Gosh, what a great piece.
What a dynamo.
I mean, powerful, powerful stuff.
Rarely do I read a piece and change the entire course of my show, but that is a really wonderful piece.
Check it out today.
Let's see, how are we doing here?
Oh boy, we're already way over on time.
Alright, Joe, hold on to those cuts for tomorrow.
Listen folks, tomorrow, let me just set you up for tomorrow here.
I definitely want to get into this Broward County Sheriff.
He needs to resign immediately.
The failures were before, during, and after.
They were atrocious.
They were catastrophic.
They were deadly.
His attitude afterwards has been horrendous.
But I want to get into quickly some of the shirking of the responsibility tomorrow with him and also some phone calls that were recorded 9-1-1 that Joe was kind enough to cut for us that are just horrifying.
And you'll be astonished that this guy still has a job.
So don't miss tomorrow's show.
Please go to Bongino.com, subscribe to my email list, and please spread the word on the show.
I try to like everyone who does so, your comments on social media.
So I appreciate it.
Thanks a lot.
See you 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.
