Summary:
In this episode I address the suspicious timing of the latest media attack on Jeff Sessions and what I think it says about the investigation into government malfeasance. I also discuss the renewed push for new tax cuts and the real world effects of our out-of-control spending.
News Picks:
Facebook is at it again. Conservative websites are losing their audience on the platform.
This piece covers some of the worst aspects of the recent Omnibus spending bill.
Liberals love to talk about the “fair share” of tax payments. But what do the numbers actually say about who is paying.
Obama’s policies benefitted friends of his.
Christian movies are winning the day in Hollywood.
Jeff Sessions’ lawyer strongly disputes aspects of the recent attack on his credibility.
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.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Hey, I'm doing great, Dan.
He can't get the 7 out of his head.
Joe keeps giving me the wrong number for the show.
Yesterday I save it as, uh, podcast whatever.
Was it 671?
And I save it and it says, that show already exists.
I'm like, Joe, then today, what's today's show number?
Joe is 672.
No, it's not.
It's 682.
Joe has this seven thing in his head.
He's like obsessed with it.
You doing all right today?
Yeah, a little better than yesterday.
Yeah, good, good.
I had a rough night last night.
I just explained it to Joe.
Yesterday was like the longest day ever.
So, uh, yeah, but a lot of news to get to.
So, uh, let's get right to it.
Hey, one quick thing on the email, you know, I don't get into a lot of personal stuff and I don't like to waste your time and junk stories, but someone emailed me yesterday.
They said, you're always talking about deadlifts, this obsession with deadlifts.
I'm telling you, it's the greatest exercise on the planet.
There is, I was telling my wife this yesterday, there is nothing like the deadlift.
It is a man-maker and a woman-maker.
Make you an Amazon if you're a woman and a Spartan if you're a dude.
There is something about lifting heavy stuff off the ground.
It's incredible.
There's something about it.
It transformed my whole physique when I started deadlifting.
Where do you find a corpse?
Where do I find it?
Very funny, Joe.
Very amusing.
One of Joe's worst jokes ever in the history of The Dan Bongino Show and prior to The Renegade Republican.
And prior to that, when we were originally The Dan Bongino Show.
But that would be interesting, lifting an actual dead weight, because it would be dead weight.
That would be heavy.
And dead weight is always tough to move around.
All right, I want to get to some stuff about Austin, this omnibus garbage bill, some fair share debunking nonsense, and another story about Facebook, which is really bothering the hell out of me.
But today's show brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Speaking of lifting, I want to talk about one of the other products, Foundation.
I've been talking about Fielder Greens for the last few days, but Foundation was their original product.
It was the product I fell in love with, and it's how I found them as a sponsor.
I said, hey, send me a sample of that stuff.
And Foundation's a creatine ATP blend.
And I'm thinking to myself, This stuff can't be that good.
I'm like, come on, I'll give it a shot.
I've tried every supplement on the market.
This stuff is amazing.
I always ask people to try foundation.
It's like having two extra gas tanks in the gym, right?
The way creatine works is it gives you a little extra boost in the gym, a little extra strength there to get through these workouts, but it has a nice intracellular volumization effect.
You look bigger and you look stronger.
I always encourage people who try it to take the mirror test.
In other words, look at yourself in the mirror.
Take like a mental snapshot of what you look like.
Try foundation and then come back seven days later.
Take another mental snapshot.
You'll be very impressed.
It's really killer stuff.
I get some great emails on this stuff.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouse Nutrition.
Brickhousenutrition.com/dan.
Try Foundation today, one of the best products out there.
It's called Foundation.
Give it about five, seven days to work, but you will definitely see results.
It's a terrific product.
And give Fielder Greens a shot, too.
It's their fruit and vegetable insurance policy, as I call it.
It's a fruit and vegetable powder.
It tastes terrific, and it's like insurance for those of you who can't eat vegetables all day
'cause you don't have time.
Go check it out.
Brickhousenutrition.com/dan.
All right, on this Austin thing, I just wanted to bring up a few quick points
I brought up on Fox because I think they're interesting.
And that is, you know, in contrast to the Unabomber, you're, by the way, Joe,
you know why they call them the Unabomber?
It was the FBI codename for the case.
It was University and Airline Bomber was a codename they had for the case.
He was caught in 1996, the Unabomber.
The difference between that era and now in terms of investigations, we had DNA testing and DNA evidence back then, but the science has gotten dramatically better on DNA detection and the library of relevant samples to compare a DNA sample against has gotten comparatively larger as well.
Folks, it's going to be, obviously crime, there's always going to be crime, there's always going to be criminality, but it's going to be increasingly difficult in the future to pull these things off because whereas, Joe, you can wipe off a fingerprint relatively easily, it is very difficult.
I mean, a fingerprint is essentially an oil remnant of the profile of your finger.
Loops, arches, and whirls.
Law 102, for those of you who remember.
How many deltas are off this?
If you were a cop or went through federal law enforcement training, you know exactly what I just said.
Loops, arches, and whirls.
What is it?
One delta, no deltas, and two, and the other thing.
Law 102.
But it's an oil remnant and you can wipe off.
It is very, very difficult to wipe clean any remnant of your DNA whatsoever on some of
these devices.
So in the future, the point I'm trying to make is it's going to get easier and easier
to detect these people faster and faster.
And there's a reason that's relevant to this Austin case.
But the second point, Joe, one, camera technology.
Camera and recording technology has gotten geometrically better, and it's grown ubiquitous.
It's everywhere.
Everybody is walking around with a camera in their pocket recording, you know, 1%, 2% of the population at any given time that has a smartphone is, you know, taking a photo or something.
I don't know.
But people are walking around recording devices all the time.
Security cameras are just about everywhere now.
As the costs come down, You're going to see it incorporated into standard, you know, building codes for people who are going to say, hey, listen, we're going to pre-wire it for security cameras and things like that.
This stuff is everywhere.
It is going to be extremely difficult in the future to plant, hide, or mail any kind of explosive device without being caught on cameras we saw in Austin.
What does all this mean?
You know, I was on Hannity the other night, and I don't, you know, I don't typically repeat what I said on cable news that often because, you know, some of you see it and I don't like to repeat content.
But they were asking me live on the air why I thought there was this accelerated pace of attacks at the end.
Remember, Joe, it was like there was one every few days, then there was two in a day, and then there was four, and there was more.
And I had suggested, and I think, I'll be proven right as the facts of the case come out, even though the bomber's dead.
Is he entirely understood he was going to get caught.
He didn't want to get caught.
He would have turned himself in then.
But he knew he was going to get caught and he just didn't care.
And in an effort to engage in what I called an extinction burst of behavior, an extinction burst is a psychological term for a behavioral profile.
The extinction burst would be like if you put quarters in a vending machine and you don't get the peanut M&Ms, you shake the machine, you shake it, you shake it a little harder.
And then you go crazy and you push it and then you just stop and extinction bursts the behavior.
I think that's what this was.
He was just engaging in a last minute bout of just let me get all these bombs out there all at one time because I realize I'm going to get caught.
So that's what I think had to do with a lot of this and I think in the future it's going to be extremely difficult for people to pull this off for any prolonged period of time like the Unabomber did for years and years and years without getting caught.
So I didn't address it yesterday because we just had so much going on with that Facebook story and net neutrality.
But I wanted to be sure I brought that up today, and I just wanted to also applaud the Maryland police officer who acted rather heroically and, you know, I think lent credence to what we've been saying for a long time that the only way to defend our kids is going to be with a good guy with a gun, folks.
A lot of the other stuff...
You know, access control and fences around schools, it's all great and it's appreciated and I think they're good ideas, but without a tactical deterrent like a trained man or woman with a firearm behind it, it's all meaningless.
You know, when I was an agent on the Secret Service side doing sites, site security Joe, we would use pipe and drape a lot.
You know what pipe and drape is?
It's those hollow aluminum pipes and they hang blue drapes from it and they use it for like fake, you know, for walls, you know, use it for walls.
Well, you know, you can construct a room within a room with pipe and drape.
It's just a visual deterrent.
But the golden rule of pipe and drape in the Secret Service, if let's say we were in a big ballroom, right, and the president was only gonna visit half of that ballroom, what we would do is we would cut the ballroom in half if they didn't have a slider with pipe and drape so people couldn't see.
But pipe and drape, the golden rule of it was if it didn't have an agent behind it or a police officer with a gun, we never put it up.
Well, why?
Because you could just slide the drape over and walk in.
It's a suggestion, that's all.
Hey, don't come through here.
Well, what happens if I do?
Oh, nothing.
You had to have a guy on the other side with a weapon.
The same thing applies to school security and we saw with another horrible case in Maryland.
Where this kid walks into school with a firearm and wants to, you know, enact chaos, violence, death, and destruction on others.
What stopped him?
A man with a gun.
All of the signs in the world and all of the Joe pipe and drape are not going to stop someone intent on doing harm from walking across the pipe and drape or walking across a gun-free zone sign or walking through a school checkpoint and doing it.
The only thing that's going to stop them is a good guy with a gun.
The same rules that apply to the Secret Service when they protect dignitaries should apply to your kids.
There needs to be a deterrent, folks.
And forgive me for not talking about it yesterday, but again, we had a lot going on.
I want to make sure that, you know, I want to make sure the facts come out.
All right.
Oh, yesterday.
This is what I wanted to get to.
You know, big story.
But I want you to see the backstory behind the big story, to understand the deviousness and the fear on what's going on right now.
So yesterday I did the show on firing Mueller, and I think we laid out a good case, and I got a lot of emails on it.
And many of you are absolutely correct, and I agree with you, and I did agree with you the whole time, and forgive me for my lack of precision in the argument, that is my fault.
Yes, the IG report should come out first before they fire Mueller.
I 100% agree with that.
That was the one criticism I got.
Well, one guy, Matt, emailed me.
He didn't like my idea, which is fine.
He knows who he is, Matt N. So thanks, Matt.
I appreciate your email.
I disagree with you, but he didn't.
As a matter of fact, a couple people said, I think it's a bad idea, which is great.
Really, I appreciate your emails.
It means a lot.
I responded back, I think you're wrong, but thanks for the feedback.
But I do agree with the emailers who said, yes, fire Mueller, but wait for the IG report.
I did not say that.
Forgive me.
I did mean that.
That's why I've been saying with Joe on the show, jokingly, take it easy.
Take it easy.
The take it easy meant wait for the IG report, but that's my fault for not being more precise because the IG report coming out, by Michael Horowitz, which is looking into the whole Hillary Clinton email debacle.
The biases within the FBI and the investigation is going to be damning, and they're going to have very few places to run after that.
So yes, wait for the IG report, then fire Mueller.
Point stipulated, you're absolutely correct.
I did mean that, but that's my fault, not yours.
Thank you for the feedback.
But an interesting story, the reason I bring that up, interesting story breaks yesterday, which confirms my, let's call it the Take It East Theory, or theorem if we want to sound very professional, right?
All right, Dan.
All right, Dan, yes, thank you.
We'll be like we're at a scientific symposium or something.
We'll call it the Take It East Theorem, right?
The Take It East Theorem says, Let's wait for the IG report, because I'm telling you, and I've been telling you forever, based on some really, I think, good quality sourcing on this, things are going on behind the scenes with the Sessions DOJ that we don't know about, and there are people in a world of trouble.
Confirming, I believe, again, what I'm telling you is true about the DOJ wheels spinning under Sessions, Is the fact that this leak yesterday comes out about Andy McCabe starting a criminal inquiry into Jeff Sessions a year ago.
Now, did you hear the story, Joe?
Yeah, I'm wondering how this happens.
Yeah, I will put this story in the show notes today.
Please check it out.
This is critical, folks.
It explains a lot, and it explains critically how the cockroaches are scurrying right now, Joe.
The lights are coming on.
Listen, I grew up a little poor.
I'm not embarrassed to say it.
Joe, I know you didn't grow up with a ton of money either.
You know that sound, right?
I do, yes.
It's a nasty sound.
The pitter patter of little feet.
Oh, it's gross.
But I've been there, you know, quite a bit, unfortunately.
Gosh, what are you drinking?
It's got like a gallon container of, what is that, iced tea?
Arnold Palmer, man.
Arnold Palmer, half and half.
Look at you, daddy-o.
Yeah, baby.
So, the roaches are scrambling.
I hear the sound.
I know that sound well.
A leak comes out yesterday, strategically timed after the McCabe termination.
So, Andy McCabe, the number two at the FBI.
Was terminated on Saturday night, right before he was eligible to retire.
He was not like Arnold Schwarz to terminate.
He was fired from his position at the FBI as the number two.
I had said to you repeatedly that this kind of stuff was coming.
Be patient.
That was the take it easy theorem, right?
He's fired, and now all of a sudden we get a leak yesterday on... What was yesterday?
Wednesday?
It's Thursday today, right?
We get a leak from ABC News.
Andrew McCabe, the number two at the FBI, was looking into criminally Jeff Sessions for a perjury charge for lying to Congress about his contact with the Russians.
Folks, the most farcical, ridiculous, absurd story I've ever heard.
I have no doubt it's true.
But make no mistake, that story was leaked yesterday with the media bootlickers who are working with all their liberal allies to discredit Trump, Sessions, everyone else.
That story was leaked to make Sessions look bad.
That is the only reason.
Oh, wait, they were investigating Sessions for criminal behavior?
Folks, the story is, believe me, I believe there's an element of truth to it.
But here's what happened.
Sessions was asked during his confirmation hearings if he had had any contact with the Russians in the course of his campaign work.
He truthfully answered no.
What the Democrats then came back and apparently pushed Andy McCabe at the FBI to do was to investigate Sessions for perjury because he had had contact with the Russians as a member of the United States Senate.
Which is, Joe, entirely uninteresting.
The fact that a United States Senator might have contact with a Russian in the course of conducting foreign affairs, foreign policy, foreign policy legislating is entirely unremarkable.
What is remarkable is that McCabe, which further proves my point that this guy was entirely without deserving of his position.
McCabe was actually looking at a criminal inquiry into Sessions because of that.
Which I find amazing for lying under oath about contact with the Russians when he wasn't lying.
I find incredible because Jim Clapper, the statute of limitations on Jim Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, just ran out For unquestionably lying to Senator Ron Wyden up on the Hill when asked about the accumulation of metadata on American citizens.
Remember that?
Senator Wyden to Jim Clapper.
Obama's Director of National Intelligence.
Another hack knee-deep in this Trump spying scandal.
Are we collecting data on American citizens?
Not wittingly!
That was his answer.
He lied under oath!
But no investigation for him, Joe.
No investigation for Lois Lerner.
Lois Lerner from the IRS collected a pension.
But yes, let's investigate Jeff Sessions for telling the truth.
He did not have contact with the Russians as part of the campaign.
Substantive any kind of contact, the one that they were referring to.
It was as his role as a U.S.
Senator.
That leak was meant to discredit Sessions.
It was strategically timed.
McCabe will not go out without a fight.
This guy is going to burn the whole house down with him, I'm telling you.
This thing is a joke.
But the reason it's being put out there is just this is coming for a lot of these people.
I strongly believe Joe, let me give you the wink and a nod.
You like that?
Got it, babe.
Joe, if we had a video podcast, maybe we'll do that in the future.
You can see the wink and a nod, too.
We'll have like a Rush Ditto cam or something.
I strongly believe that what's happening here is these FBI officials, McCabe and a lot of the other folks involved in this spying scandal, I believe some of them are under threat of potential criminal action, not just job sanction.
That is why the panic is setting in.
And they are trying to get Sessions to back down through a series of coordinated leaks in the media to discredit him, to create the kind of political pressure they put on Sessions in the beginning, where they ultimately forced him to recuse himself.
You see what I'm saying, Joe?
They sniffed weakness in the recusal.
Yeah.
See where I'm going with this?
They got Sessions to recuse himself despite the fact that he shouldn't have from the Russia investigation.
He shouldn't have.
He had done nothing wrong.
And he'd done nothing to recuse himself, by the way.
They got him to back down.
I'm not a Sessions bootlicker here.
I think there's things going on.
I'm willing to give him some time.
But I'm telling you, they smelled weakness there and that was a bad decision, the recusal.
And now what they're trying to do is you're going to see a series of coordinated hits on sessions to see if he can back down on this one as well because they already smell blood.
That is what's going on, folks.
Make no mistake.
These stories are all BS.
And the irony of yesterday's story, Joe, is I think it kind of blew up in their face.
I think they thought, by leaking it through their media bootlickers and the acolyte Democrat media acolytes that love the liberal narrative, I think they thought it was going to make Sessions look bad.
Like, oh my gosh, he was under investigation?
What a bad guy?
Meanwhile, the question that came out, even from some moderate Republicans, What the hell was the FBI doing investigating Sessions for his testimony at a confirmation hearing?
Are you kidding me?
It was a joke, like it totally blew up in their face.
All right, I got a lot more to get.
Today's a really busy news day, folks, so bear with me.
Don't go anywhere.
I got some great stories for you today.
I still got to get to this disastrous spending bill.
Today's show also brought to you by buddies at Freedom Project Academy.
Hey, listen, America's schools, they're not like we remember, right, Joe?
You got that right.
You're darn right!
We grew up in safety, and learning was more than just safe spaces and liberal propaganda.
And though technology continues to offer new opportunities for learning, I think we can all agree that our traditional moral values that were once woven into the fabric of the classroom have practically disappeared.
It's sad to see.
That's why you need to consider Freedom Project Academy's fully accredited Judeo-Christian classical online school for kindergarten all the way through high school.
We're talking about an incredible interactive education where students attend live classes every day with teachers and fellow classmates from across the country.
Freedom Project Academy doesn't accept a penny!
Of government funding.
We love that.
Because it allows them to stay committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think.
No propaganda here!
Families can enroll students full-time or start with a single class.
It is entirely up to you.
Here's the website.
And by the way, we're going to have a link up.
If you email us on the website, we'll send you a link with all our sponsors if you're interested.
These links will all be there.
But here's the link for Freedom Project Academy.
Go to freedomforschool.com and request your free information packet from Freedom Project Academy.
Enrollment ends in July, but hurry up because classes do fill up fast here.
That's freedomforschool.com.
Freedomforschool.com.
And please don't forget to tell them that we sent you over there.
Freedomforschool.com.
Tell them the Dan Bongino show sent you.
Okay.
Dan Horowitz has a really... You know what?
Let me get to that in a second.
This other story is more important.
So I'm going to put an article from The Daily Caller up at the show notes today at Bongino.com.
Please check it out about what's going on again with Facebook.
I don't want to triple down on a story I've covered two days in a row, but I just want to bring this up to you to show you again the hypocrisy and what's going on right now and how Facebook is afraid.
I brought up on yesterday's show how Facebook understands that liberals relish the power of government.
To attack both friends and enemies.
It doesn't matter.
Liberals, their inherent nature is the ends justify the means.
If they have to take out a few good guys in the process to get to an end, they'll do that.
They don't care.
They will turn on you in a heartbeat.
Facebook and the tech giants have always been a media darling of the liberal movement.
Why?
Because they've helped them.
There are multiple stories of these social media outlets, you know, providing assistance in some way shape or form to the Obama campaign and liberals to get their message across.
They back liberal causes.
This is what they do.
So some of you would ask me, well, why, you know, why is the, why are liberals going after Facebook now?
Because that's what they do.
They use the power of government to advance a cause.
Now, Facebook, I don't think, objects to this.
I think I made the point yesterday on yesterday's show that Facebook wants conservatives off of Twitter.
Excuse me, off of Facebook.
And Twitter wants them off of Twitter.
YouTube wants to get rid of conservative content.
And people said to me, well, why?
Why would they want to kick off the Ruddies?
Because they're ideologues!
That's why!
They're doing it!
Listen, I don't mean this in any way, shape, or form to be condescending or pretentious on my end.
I don't understand how you can ask that question.
They're already doing it.
People ask me, why would they want to kick conservatives off YouTube?
What do you mean why?
They're already doing it now.
Because they're maniacs.
These are liberal companies that care about liberal causes.
They think their path to profitability in the future is to cozy up to government, ensure monopoly status, cozy up to liberal advertisers, and they don't think they need conservatives.
Now, someone emailed me, and you're right, it was a good point.
They'll take conservative eyeballs on their site.
Oh, sure.
Yeah, absolutely.
Conservative clicks, yeah.
Yeah, conservative clicks.
They just don't want conservative content.
That was a great point someone emailed me.
They won't turn away conservative eyeballs.
You want to go to Facebook and look at, you know, Aunt Millie's pet videos?
They're all about it.
They can claim you as one of their, you know, billion-plus users.
Right.
But they don't want you posting anything negative about Obama on there.
YouTube doesn't want you posting firearm videos.
They're already kicking people off.
Now, in case you think I'm making any of this up and how a lot of these companies in the future, I think, are going to be the ones lobbying for net neutrality, to get the government in there as a regulator, to ensure their monopoly status, I put a number out there on one show that's something like, 80% of the population get some form of their news.
I forget the exact number from Facebook, but the number was overwhelming.
It was huge.
Even Joe, I did one of those Joe quizzes.
Even Joe underestimated it.
He was like, what, 40, 50?
I'm like, dude, no.
It was like 80 or something.
It's high.
I forget the exact number.
Forgive me.
Facebook wants to maintain their monopoly on your eyeballs.
So they will cozy up to the left knowing the left will use the power of government against them and the right won't.
They have no reason to fear us.
Because we don't use government to attack them.
And I suggested to you during yesterday's show it's a mistake to adopt that approach.
Because then we've become what we hate the most.
Using big government as a power tool to hurt your political opponents.
But there's an interesting thing going on at Facebook now, and this is where the Daily Caller article comes in today, Joe.
Facebook is now in the process of boosting what they call trusted news sources, and by default, suppressing other news sources as well.
Now, Joe, let me ask you a question.
This is going to be tough, Joe.
Remember when we were kids, they'd say, kids, put your thinking caps on.
Remember that?
I used to love Miss Gilfeather.
I still have mine, yeah.
Yeah, I kept mine, too.
It's a little old and ragged, but Miss Guildfeather, my fifth grade teacher, used to say that.
Alright, kids, put your thinking caps on.
She also used to say, life's a bowl of cherries.
Don't fall in the pits.
That was a great one.
That was one of her classics.
So, Facebook is now boosting on your timeline the prominence of trusted news sources.
Joe, do you think those trusted news sources are going to be liberal-leaning outlets or conservative?
Wait, let me give you the Jeopardy countdown.
What do you think, Joe?
Liberal, Dan!
No, wrong!
Because you didn't say what is.
What is liberal?
So it's Jeopardy.
Just messing with you, buddy.
What is liberal?
Yes, right!
Joe takes the $500 Boobie Prize.
Yes, of course, they are going to boost liberal sources instead.
It is not going to be conservative outlets.
Now, if you read the Daily Caller piece, you will see in there that there are a number of conservative outlets who are already reporting a serious dive in their Facebook reach.
Oh, that's so funny.
I said serious dive and Siri on my phone creeped up.
What can I help you with, Dan?
No, no.
Serious.
That's creepy, isn't it?
What can I help you with?
A lot of these, including mine, folks, I have seen it as well.
They are trying to diminish the influence of pages and conservative news sources by pumping up the influence of liberal news sources.
Remember, this is zero-sum.
When I say zero-sum, zero-sum means what you give to one, you have to take from another.
I don't mean to talk down to you.
I know most of you know what that means, but, you know, some may not, so.
In other words, your timeline, Joe, on Facebook, your timeline is limited space.
Right?
There's only so much space.
You can only see a couple things.
You can't put everything on the Facebook timeline.
Right.
What they're doing now is, on that timeline, they're going to emphasize and make sure that these, quote, trusted news sources, which are going to be liberal outlets, are going to get prominence on your timeline.
And conservative news sources are going to go down.
So, I mean, I've really diminished my use of Facebook a lot, I'll be honest with you, because I just, I can't stand it.
I'm on there, I try to post daily, but I don't put nearly the attention into it that I used to.
But I'm asking you as a favor, not just for me, but for others, go and physically like and comment on Breitbart, Conservative Review, Daily Caller, what is it?
What's that other one?
Oh, BizPack Review.
Make a comment, like their pages, like some of their stuff.
Because if you like it, it will defeat the Facebook algorithm.
They won't be able to suppress all these news sources and put NPR in your feed all the time.
Alright?
So just, I'm asking you to dance a little bit with us here.
And it's really, by the way, Ben Shapiro's page, Mark Levin, Hannity, anything you can do to like our stuff, it matters because eventually it'll beat their algorithm.
Their algorithm is a mathematical formula they're using, again, to suppress news sources.
Now, I bring this up in light of the net neutrality debate because it entirely defeats The liberal, and sadly, some Republicans who support net neutrality, their argument that a bit is a bit is a bit.
The whole net neutrality debate show has been framed in the context of, well, we gotta treat all information equally on the internet.
That's not happening!
That's not happening!
Okay?
And it shouldn't happen.
All information is not equal on the internet.
It isn't!
Pornography is not equal to a WebMD website that may help you in the event you're having a heart attack.
I'm sorry, it isn't!
And I don't care if Google or Bing or Yahoo or whatever other search engine you choose to use If I say, you know, hey, my chest hurts, I don't want to see porn that says, chest hurts porn, check this out.
I don't want to see that.
I want to see WebMD or a doctor's site that can help me.
Traffic is not equal on the internet.
And liberty comes with consequences.
And the consequences of that is this isn't always going to work out for conservatives.
Liberal companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are going to crap on us all the time.
Liberal search engines like Google are going to put, if you put tax cuts in, are going to put 7,000 articles by the Washington Post and NPR before you see one article by Conservative Review.
That's fine!
I shouldn't say it's fine.
It's stupid.
But I don't suggest a government legislative fix to that.
Because you know what's going to happen?
As I said on yesterday's show, and I'm talking about it, I'm telling you again.
A conservative alternative will materialize.
The demand hole will be filled.
Just like Fox News filled it in the mainstream media.
It's going to happen.
Just be patient.
The monopolies never last forever.
Myspace was the king of the hill until it wasn't.
Blackberry was the king of the hill until they weren't.
There will be an alternative.
The demand is there.
But don't fall into the trap of demanding government legislation.
And when your friends demand that, oh, net neutrality, let's have the government regulate the internet because a bit needs to be a bit.
Is a bit a bit?
Because on Facebook, they determine what I see.
Twitter now is not allowing conservatives to run ads, me being one of them.
I thought a bit was a bit, Joe.
Apparently a bit is not a bit when it's an ad from the Dan Bongino show.
Some bits are more bitty than other bits.
Some bits are a lot more bitty than others.
And apparently if you're a liberal, your bits are very bitty.
They are the bittiest bits of all.
Our bits are not bitty enough.
We're not allowed to run ads, either is PragerU.
It's so ridiculous.
I wouldn't give them money anymore anyway, so I can't say that enough.
Twitter's done with my... My money's not green?
That is absolutely a-okay.
Good.
Do your thing.
But a bit isn't a bit.
So stop telling me that about the net neutrality debate.
I don't mean to hammer this three days in a row, but it's important because this is going to get hot with this Cambridge Analytica story, and they're gonna sucker conservatives into it.
Yeah, we're going to get the government in here, man.
Make it fair.
And they're going to say, and the liberals are going to use it against us.
Yeah, we're going to use, we're going to go after Twitter.
We're going to make them post conservative content.
Don't do it.
Don't do it.
Don't be a sucker.
Please don't be a sucker for this.
This is a scam.
They've been working on this for a long time.
Okay.
All right.
Good on time.
All right, Dan Horowitz put an excellent piece out yesterday, a conservative review, which I strongly encourage you to read.
I will put it up again at the show notes at bungino.com, and if you subscribe to my email list there, I will email these articles right to your inbox.
You know, the fair share... Here's the genesis of this.
Round two of the tax cuts is coming up soon.
I covered it yesterday at the end of yesterday's show.
I think Trump is going to push for even lower income tax rates on the personal side, and the Republicans in a genius strategic move are going to push to codify The income tax cuts on the personal side into law after 10 years.
I explained at the end of yesterday's show how the Democrat talking point has been so far that the corporate tax cuts show, those corporate tax cuts are permanent, but the income tax cuts were only temporary.
Well, that was because of the liberals, because they filibustered making them permanent.
That's 100% correct.
Now they're all on the record complaining that the income taxes are not permanent, the liberals.
So now the Republicans, in a genius move, are going to put out a bill that is going to make the income taxes permanent, and the liberals are going to have nowhere to go because they're total liars.
What are they going to say?
They're on the record complaining that the income tax cuts aren't permanent.
Now when they try to make them permanent, they're going to vote no.
And you know, the media will cover for them because that's what these media hacks do all the time.
But it is going to be embarrassing and it's going to make them look awful in the midterm elections when they vote against something they advocated for earlier.
Oh, there he is!
That was genius.
I didn't even see you do that, by the way.
I usually see Joe creeping for the soundboard.
You know who that is for you new listeners?
It's our boy Donnie B.
Donnie Bizzles.
Donnie Brasco.
What are you going to do?
Play it again, Joe.
What are you going to do?
One more time.
What are you going to do?
What are you going to do?
Poor lefty telling Donnie Brasco about how he was kids on drugs.
You know where that comes from?
I'm sorry, for you new listeners who missed this.
You old listeners, you're like, I know the story.
I've been listening to Dan Bongino's show forever.
What are you going to do, right?
My wife watched this movie with me, Donnie Brasco, for like the 15,000th time.
I love the movie.
And we're watching it on a cable.
And she thought that was the funniest thing ever.
Lefty's on the couch with Donnie explaining this awful story about his kids into drugs.
He's a total loser.
And Donnie says, Joe, what are you going to do?
Nothing.
Like, hey, I feel bad.
That's it.
That's all he's got.
What are you going to do?
Well, in light of this tax debate, this is going to come up again, the fair share argument.
So Dan Horowitz put some incredible numbers in there because this is what we do here.
We debunk silly liberal nonsense.
Let's talk about what a fair share actually is, Joe.
So, at the end of the Horowitz piece, he writes, hey, in 1979, right before Ronald Reagan got into office, Joe, the 1%ers, I covered this on my NRA TV show last night too, the 1%ers, those evil 1%ers that left this, you know, can't stand, those successful people who build businesses and do things like create jobs.
God forbid we have any of them.
In 1979, those evil 1%ers paid About 18.4% of our federal income tax.
So the top 1% paid about... Round up just for the sake of making it easy.
One out of a hundred people, the top 1%, the wealthiest among us, the most successful, paid about 20 cents of every dollar of income taxes.
That was in 1979.
Okay.
Now, 2018, 2017, according to the latest CBO data, those top one percenters, the wealthiest one of a hundred people in your neighborhood, right?
Right.
Pays over 40% of the entire income tax load.
Think about what I just told you.
One out of a hundred people is paying 40 cents on every dollar.
What the hell is the fair share if that's not a fair share?
That is an overwhelmingly fair share of taxes.
So let's be crystal clear on this.
The percentage of the income tax load paid by the wealthiest Americans, in actual percentages of dollars paid, has doubled since 1980.
So what is your definition of the... This is a serious question.
I'm not messing around for our liberal listeners out there.
Especially Richard, who emails me all the time.
Richard and I, it was interesting.
He started throwing bombs at me when we first started.
He's kind of like toned it down a little bit, but he still comes after me.
But Richard, I know you listen out there.
You know what I'm talking about.
I'm not going to give your last name, obviously.
He emails me a lot.
I'm really interested to know, and I would like you to ask your liberal friends, listeners out there as well.
Seriously, what is the fair share?
What does it mean?
One out of a hundred people, the wealthiest among us, is paying 40 cents of every tax dollar.
400 of every thousand.
4,000 of every 10,000 tax dollars.
What's the fair share?
What should those top 1% pay?
Is it 60?
Is it 70?
And do you understand the economic downside of not having a flatter, a broader tax code?
Here's what I mean by that, because I don't want to confuse anybody.
Folks, one of the reasons California's state government constantly finds itself in a situation of either surplus or massive uncontrollable debt, instead of relatively flat tax revenues over time, Is they rely almost exclusively on a small pocket of rich people.
Like the federal tax code is getting now.
I just told you one out of a hundred people is paying 40 cents of every tax dollar.
You may say, well I don't get it, Dan.
What does that have to do with state government like boom and bust?
Well folks, think about it.
What happens in the depths of a recession, right?
In the depths of the recession, the people that lose the most are typically the wealthy folks.
They lose their stock portfolios.
Now, I'm not diminishing the effect on people who are middle class or poor, but I'm there, I get it.
A lot of them lose their jobs, too.
But if you're worth $100 million and your company takes a $50 million hit in a massive recession, folks, you're probably not paying a dime the next year in taxes because you're claiming losses.
You don't pay taxes on losses.
Now, if you're middle class and you lose your job or you take a 10% pay cut, you're still paying taxes, Joe, in some respects, right?
In the case of a 10% tax pay cut, you're still paying.
If you lose your job, you're probably not.
But maybe you find another job for less money, but you're still paying taxes.
The rich wind up not paying anything because they claim massive losses in capital gains, their businesses start losing money, on the corporate side they start losing money.
If you rely exclusively on a small pocket of taxpayers who are wealthy, when those wealthy taxpayers go bust, you go bust too!
You cannot have an isolated pocket of people paying to finance a government that benefits everyone.
You can't.
I know it sounds great in theory, folks.
I know the liberal talking point is, well, the wealthiest should pay more.
They do pay more.
10% of a million is a lot more than 10% of 500.
If you make a million dollars, your 10% is a lot more.
But isolating your tax stream funding for your government to a group and pocket of wealthy people that eventually, if a business cycle kicks in, are going to go bust is a guaranteed way to bankrupt your government as well!
It's a stupid plan!
You know, only in utopia do those say, well, they're really rich, they should pay more.
They do pay more.
We're not arguing about who should pay more.
Oh, by the way, on that fair share number, by the way, the bottom 40% in Dan Horowitz's piece, and we're talking about income taxes, not sales taxes, just to be clear.
Joe, the bottom 40% not only pay nothing, the bottom 40% collectively generate money from the tax code.
Through tax credits and things like that.
They don't pay anything!
So now you have four out of ten people not paying anything to finance the government, and in many cases actually making money from those same tax payments through tax credits, earned income tax credits, and the like.
You can't finance a government like that!
Reminds me again of that Adrian from Rocky IV.
You can't win, Rock!
You can't win that way!
It doesn't make sense!
It's financial suicide!
Read the piece by Horowitz, folks.
It's a good one.
But again, I want to leave you with that point for your liberal friends.
One out of ten taxpayers, the wealthiest one out of ten, is now paying 40% of the tax load.
What is your fair share?
And what are you going to do when they go bust?
What are you going to do?
They don't have the capability to just immediately regenerate an entirely new income stream by saying, oh, now we're going to move on to the bottom 40%.
You have to have a fair tax code all the time.
And fair means everybody has to pay in.
And if it's based on percentages, by simple math, the wealthy will always pay more.
This is not complicated, folks.
Alright, I gotta get to this budget story, because this is a total disaster.
And your antenna should be going up right away to the BS that's going on.
That's the point of electing Republicans, if they advocate for Democrat causes, right?
Bingo!
You know?
All right, our final sponsor today is iTarget.
We always get really great reviews on iTarget.
We love iTarget.
Listen, anybody can fire a firearm.
You pull the trigger and a round comes out.
It's really not a complicated process if you go to the range.
But the question is, can you fire it accurately?
Whether it's in self-defense, or you're hunting, or if you're a police officer, military personnel, first-time gun owner wants to learn how to use your weapon proficiently, you have to learn how to engage the trigger the right way, slow, deliberate pull to the back, sight alignment, equal light on both sides, line them up across the top, and one of the best ways to do that is to dry fire.
Dry firing Means pulling a trigger on a safely unloaded and empty weapon, practicing that trigger pull.
Safely unloaded, which means rack the slide to the rear, open the cylinder, look inside, make sure it's clear.
Look away.
I'm doing it for Joe.
This is how we used to do it at the Secret Service.
You look back again.
Look at that.
Is it still empty?
You look away one more time.
You look back again.
You can't afford to mess this up.
You then take your pinky, your figure probe into the chamber of the cylinder.
You make sure there are no live rounds in there.
Okay, then you can practice your dry fart.
Now you know the weapon is safely unloaded.
You can depress your trigger and you will work on that trigger pull.
You work in your sight alignment.
Now that's great, but you don't know where the round would have gone.
You have no idea.
So what do you do?
iTargetPro. That's the letter I. The website is itargetpro.com.
They will send you a laser round.
You drop in the weapon you have now. You don't have to do any special modifications,
and it comes with a target, and you will see where that round would have gone.
So you're not just guessing. People send me their targets all the time.
I appreciate it.
I always get a kick out of it.
And they show me their, say their Monday target and their Friday target.
And by the end of the week, they're like Billy the Kid, man.
They're like pistol ears with these things, okay?
iTargetPro.com.
You drop that round in.
It works in conjunction with an iPhone app.
And remember, Competitive shooters, people who do this for a living, dry fire ten times more than they live fire at the range.
The range is great, but it gets expensive.
You gotta clean your weapon, you gotta get there, you gotta buy the rounds.
This is a great way to practice being proficient with your weapon.
A great way to do it in the safety and security of your own home.
Go to itargetpro.com.
That's the letter.
Itargetpro.com.
Itargetpro.com.
Use promo code Dan for 10% off.
Itargetpro.com.
All right.
So this is important stuff here.
Sometimes I miss News of the Day because I get lost in these narratives for a while, but I really enjoy them.
The Omni came out yesterday, the omnibus bill.
This thing is a mess, folks.
I'm unsure where to start on how bad it is, but let me give you some of the lowlights of this disaster.
So this spending package, which was agreed to, apparently, by four higher-ups in the Congress and the Senate side.
funds plant parent contains eight hundred billion dollars in new debt
funds a nine hundred million dollar local tunnel between new york in new
jersey folks the thing is a disaster
i could spout off all day about how awful this bill is but i'm starting like many republicans to ask the question
if we are we now embracing
Are we the party of debt now too?
Because that's not what I signed up for and not my conservative friends either.
I thought we were the party of government fiscal restraint.
I thought that's what we were about.
That is becoming clearer by the day, Joe, that that is chimerical.
It is gone, nonsensical, a total waste of time.
That is a Teddy Ruxpin fairy tale.
I don't know what happened to Republicans.
I don't know what happened to their, if they've all been castrated.
I don't get it.
But they've clearly lost their nerve and potentially more.
This was the very genesis of the Tea Party Revolution, was based on out-of-control government spending and taxation.
Now, here's the problem with this, folks, because anybody can scream and rant about it.
There's going to be a lot of screaming on talk radio and TV today about how bad the omnibus spending bill is.
By the way, the Republicans agreed to.
They haven't voted on yet, so I want to be careful about that.
But let me explain to you what's going to happen here, folks, because I think the mechanics of how bad of a situation we're in sometimes get lost.
People, when it comes to government money, Joe, they seem to think... I don't know if they think it's free or if they think there's never going to be a penalty, but they're confused about how we spend money we don't have.
The government is going to generate 800 billion dollars in new debt.
It's going to spend 800 billion dollars of money not supported, excuse me, by tax revenue.
It does that by borrowing money from foreign governments and by borrowing money from its own people.
So there are two ways here the government can spend, don't miss this, this is really important.
There are two ways government can buy things, spend money on people, give money to people that it doesn't have.
The first one is quite simple.
I just said it.
It can borrow it from others.
So it's no different.
If Joe wants to give money to little Joe and Joe doesn't have it, Joe can go to a bank.
Joe can get a loan and give money to his son, little Joe, but he's got to pay it back eventually.
That's the way the government does it too.
The government takes money from the Social Security Trust Fund.
The government takes money from government bond sales.
The government takes money from government bond sales overseas.
And it spends that money, it then has to pay it back later with interest, okay?
By the way, how's your cold doing?
You feeling any better?
Yeah, day by day.
Okay, I see you kind of coughing a little bit.
Yeah, a lot.
Yeah.
So that's pretty clear, Joe, right?
That's pretty simple.
Borrows money it doesn't have.
But it's number two which should really bother you and disturb you here.
The second way the government can spend money it doesn't have, because it always appears to be free money, but it's not!
If it can't borrow the money from others, you'll see what's happening in Venezuela right now, where it can just print it.
The government has a monopoly over the printing of money.
If you print money in your house, you go to jail for counterfeiting.
The government Federal Reserve note is the only recognized currency in this country.
We print money.
The government can print money itself and then spend that money.
The federal government, you can't do that.
You can't print money and spend it.
The government can do that.
It can print money and spend it.
Whether they call it quantitative easing or loose monetary policy or whatever they do, they can print money and spend that money.
Now, I've given this example a couple times but it's always worth giving again because it explains why liberals prefer this method.
If the government wants to spend 25%, let's use the debt example.
If it wants to spend 25% more than what it has.
So the government has $100 and the government wants to spend $125.
The government can borrow $25 from a foreign government and then spend it.
Or, the government can print $25 and spend it.
Yeah.
Now, you may say to yourself, okay, well the latter is clearly better because the first one they have to pay back.
But the second one they don't have to pay back.
Oh, no, no, they don't have to pay it back.
You're right if they print it and spend it.
Because you already paid!
Because when the government prints more money, and more money, and more money, and generates electronic accounts of money, the money you have now is worth less.
That is a mathematical certainty.
If $100 are chasing 100 chairs, and the government prints another $100, and now there's $200 chasing 100 chairs, the chair is going to get more expensive because more money is chasing the same amount of chairs.
The only way money has substantive value is if it's backed by actual value.
You earn it, you work for it, you trade for it.
If you just printed it, it'd be worthless.
One of the best lines I ever heard Neil Wright is, bad money always chases out good money.
One of the examples Milton Friedman used to use was when tobacco was used as currency.
People would pay off debt with tobacco using the crappiest tobacco leaves they had.
Why, Joe?
Because you're not going to give the guy you owe money to your good stuff!
But tobacco was money.
Bad money always... Bad tobacco?
Bad money.
Bad money always chases out good money.
The government can't possibly pay off right now with the growth rates we have now, all of this debt.
Folks, when you print money, you destroy the value of the currency people have.
It's happened over and over.
Argentina, it's happening in Venezuela now, in Zimbabwe, in other countries in Africa where they've entirely debased their currency.
The currency in your bank account will go down as they do this.
But understand, there is no paying off of the debt we have now on the current growth track we have.
None.
Now, because I don't want to leave you with a bad mood in a bad mood and running out of time.
All right.
Because you're probably like, gosh, that was macabre.
So what are you saying, Dan?
We're all going broke.
You're saying either the government's going to borrow money.
So there are two ways to do it, Joe.
They can borrow it and then pay it back at ridiculously high interest rates.
By the way, the CBO is projecting $1 trillion in interest payments over the course of the coming up in the next decade.
In interest payments, not even paying down the debt, just in interest.
So they can borrow it, or they can print money and devalue what they have now, what you have now.
Either way, we're paying.
Either you're going to pay through higher taxes later, or you're going to pay through devalued currency now.
There is a way to stop this out-of-control train.
Folks, if they just put a cap on spending now... I'm not... Let me be clear on this.
Don't send me nasty grams on this, please.
I'm not saying the elevated spending levels we have now are good.
They're awful.
We could cut a trillion dollars in spending if we put our heads to it.
Definitely.
I'm suggesting to you That even if, which they're not doing, they put a cap on the spending levels we had today, and went all in on Growth Show, getting rid of government red tape, additional income tax cuts, you know, getting better trade agreements with our neighbors, working full force on boosting our economy to six and seven percent growth, through economic growth alone,
We could do the opposite of what inflation does to your money.
Inflation debases the currency.
Economic growth will devalue our debt just through growth.
Because think about it.
If our entire economy right now, Joe, is worth $20 trillion, and we now owe $21 trillion, that's trouble.
We owe 100% of what we're worth as a country.
But if we can double our economy in 10 or 20 years, that'd be tough.
That'd be really tough.
But it's not impossible.
If we could double our economy in 20 years, And we just held spending levels now, of course interest payments and stuff.
We could devalue our debt significantly!
As a component of what we'll have to pay in the future, just by growing out of it.
It is possible, folks.
So I don't want to leave you in a bad mood.
The problem is Democrats are wholeheartedly, Joseph, committed to the idea of anti-growth policies.
They don't want to put money in the pockets of people, they want to put money in the hands of government.
And remember this, don't ever forget it.
Money does not multiply in the hands of government.
Government doesn't produce anything.
Government doesn't recombine previously associated assets and resources into things of greater value.
Human beings do that outside of government.
What I mean by that is government doesn't create iPhones.
Government doesn't create biotest micro-PA.
I'm looking at things on my desk.
Or Logitech mouses.
Or remote controls.
Government doesn't produce that.
Companies in the private sector do, in the free market, that multiply.
You know, the iPhone creator put glass and silicon and all this stuff in there.
I have a plastic case on it.
Sensitive microchips.
They recombine that into a product worth more money than the subtraction of all its parts.
They recombine scarce resources into things of greater value.
The government doesn't do that, folks.
The government just takes.
The government divides money.
It doesn't multiply it.
The point I'm trying to make, in conclusion to today's show, is when you keep money in the free market, in people's pockets, they are the ones who will multiply it, and by multiplying it and just putting a cap on government spending as we have today, if Congress just had the guts to do it, which they don't, these gutless wonders, we would eventually grow out of our debt problem, maybe in our own lifetimes, but they're not willing to do it because they're entirely, completely cowardly.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Please go to bongino.com, check out the show notes.
Dan Horowitz's piece, the Daily Caller piece are really, really good.
And if you subscribe to my email list, I will send them right to your email box.
