Summary:
In this episode I address the liberal implosion in this critical pre-election period. The liberal obsession with political correctness is destroying their message from within. I also discuss troubling new information released by the FBI about the operation to take down the Trump team. Finally, I address the caravan approaching our southern border.
News Picks:
Why is the DOJ hiding potentially explosive information about George Papadopoulos?
How many spies were working on the Trump team?
Glenn Simpson is invoking both the Fifth and the First Amendments to avoid testifying about his role in Spygate.
Identity politics is destroying liberalism from within.
Jobless claims fall to new lows in the Trump economy.
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.
Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Another Monday, another busy week ahead, Dan-o.
Yeah, brother.
You know, I've been on the West Coast this week at Politicon.
Some of you saw me there.
And folks, you're all the best.
Really, it was a great experience out there in Los Angeles.
Headed over to San Francisco next.
Won't miss any shows, of course.
We always have to produce a product.
But a couple things, a couple takeaways from the trip to Politicon before I get into the show.
So number one, I met probably, I don't know, three four hundred people maybe more and at least 20 people came up to me you all are so sweet you made my wife's weekend they came up to me and said wow was my wife's with me you're not kidding your wife really is great looking like and she was like she was so flattered so we went back to the hotel room and she was like you have the greatest fans ever you made my wife feel good but secondly
I ran into, in the green room, Avianti, who put his head down and couldn't get away from me fast enough.
Avenatti, of course, that Michael Trump called.
Yeah, but the guy's about 110, 110, soaking wet.
You know, internet, Twitter tough guy.
Could not get away from me fast enough in the green room.
But I also ran into, folks, an interesting fellow, a name, if you were listening to this show, you were intimately familiar with, Carter Page.
Ah, remember the names!
Yeah, remember the days.
Carter Page, of course, the target of the FISA warrants against the Trump team, had a very long conversation with him.
And I'm telling you now, and I'm putting this on the record on my show, and I have a little story about this later in the show, a little update on the case from the FBI, which is they're finally going on the record admitting something.
If Carter Page is a Russian agent, folks, I'm Joe Armacost's dad, which chronologically isn't even possible, but either is Carter Page being a Russian agent.
I don't want to go into the details of the conversation.
I'm just telling you now, based on my book, my homework, and having now talked to this guy for an extended period of time, I'm telling you, there's not a little, there's zero chance that this guy is, you have to be an idiot to believe it.
So I just wanted to get that out there.
All right.
Today was fun.
Thanks.
And thanks to all the people who brought books.
You gotta take that, you know?
Yeah, I know.
It was weird.
But I'm telling you, I'm that confident that this guy, the story's entirely made up.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at WaxRx.
You know how much I love my sponsors.
I only work with companies I believe in and have a product or service that's of value to me and would be of value to you.
WaxRx, it's not the sexiest product in the world, but it is damn well effective.
I use it, my kids use it, my wife uses it.
You know why?
You may have earwax buildup like I did when I was a secret service agent with that little ear thing that goes in all day.
The squiggly wire on the ear.
You don't even know what you can't hear because you're not hearing it.
And you can't stick those cotton swabs in your ears.
You're not supposed to do that.
So we have a solution for the problem.
WaxRx.
Here's an email we got about it.
I used to have to go to the doctor twice a year to get rid of my stubborn hardened earwax.
With my rising cost of healthcare and double deductible, I'd have to spend $60 a visit.
That's $120 a year to treat my ears.
Now I can do it myself with WaxRx and a significant savings that doesn't require me to miss a half a day at work.
This stuff is terrific.
It works.
It's great.
You'll be stunned at what you can hear when you can hear it.
Right now, you can try the WaxRX system by typing in gowaxrx.com.
That's gowaxrx.com.
Use offer code DAN at checkout for free shipping.
Don't wait.
You have no idea what you might be missing because of your wax.
gowaxrx.com.
That's gowaxrx.com, offer code Dan.
Alright, so, yeah, Politicom is great, appreciate it.
Thank you for all the kind words.
Let me move on, I got a lot to talk about.
I got five or six really important stories, and although the news cycle seems slow, folks, it's not.
There are a lot of things going on behind the scenes.
Story number one.
You know how much I hate giving clicks, Joe, to, let me pull you up to your full screen, there you go, there you go, bam, bam, bam, bam, there you go, bam, bam.
You know how much I hate giving clicks to like the Washington Post, Bloomberg, and other these far-left outlets, but sometimes it's important and I really think you need to read the piece and it overwhelms the necessity to shut these people down in the long term using the free market.
There's a piece by Tyler Cohen or Cowan, I don't know, I've seen him on Twitter a couple times.
But it's a fascinating piece and it's an important piece and it's written in light of the Elizabeth Warren DNA debacle and how this story won't go away.
But it's a fascinating piece from a guy who I'm not intimately familiar with his politics.
But it doesn't matter, Joe, because I think fact-based, it's an opinion piece, are good.
And the gist of it, always let's get the lead out first so you know where he's going with it, and what I want to discuss about it, is that the right may have found an Achilles heel in the left, Joe, in identity politics.
Now, a lot of this, forgive me Joseph, but a lot of this is going to sound familiar to regular listeners because I've done a similar show months ago, but it's important to hit this again before the election.
The lead on the story and the takeaway is that identity politics can't possibly continue without cannibalizing itself in a society where the identity politics aren't true.
Let me explain.
It may have been a little confusing.
The idea that there is systemic, systemic, that's the key word here.
Don't misinterpret what I'm saying.
Systemic, widespread, de jure, you know, racism, institutional racism and things like that going on in our society right now.
Folks are not backed up by the facts on the ground.
They are not.
Racism most certainly exists.
There are evil people everywhere.
We're all sinners.
But racism as an institutional systemic element, you know, with its foot on the neck of minority voters who can't get jobs, who aren't allowed in restaurants, is not belied by the facts.
Joe, it's not.
I'm sorry, there are almost no places anywhere in the country where if you are black, Hispanic, Asian, you will be kicked out of a kitchen counter.
Because it's just, it's not, thank God, it is just not going to happen.
The country is in a different place.
That does not diminish the fact that individual acts of racism and stupid people probably still exist.
The point is, the Democrats have been playing this identity politics card so much that when it doesn't exist, Joe, You have to endlessly search and create for new victims and that creation of new victim classes inherently is going to create a cannibalization effect.
You may be saying, huh?
It's important you get what I'm saying, because the guy who wrote this piece, I think, writes it in a very reasonable way that even moderates can understand.
He gives an example.
Now, giving the example will make the lead make sense.
That the right has found the Achilles heel in identity politics, and the Achilles heel, so you understand the headline, is it has to cannibalize itself when identity politics as you describe it, are we tracking, Joe?
Yeah.
Doesn't exist.
If it did exist, like it did in the Jim Crow South, It's a very real fight.
Make no mistake.
There were people getting salt thrown in their faces, black men and women who sat at kitchen counters, people getting fire hoses, people getting megaphone bullhorns screamed in their ears, you know, police dogs.
This was real.
This was not, this is not mythical.
This actually happened.
That was a genuine, real fight against de jure race and de facto racism.
But the bottom line is as the South has become less institutionally racist, it's become more Republican, which is a fact Democrats conveniently forget.
Think about that.
As the South has moved away from institutional racism, it has become more conservative and more Republican.
Do you understand what I'm getting at, folks?
Like, the liberals, that is a point they so frequently ignore.
They're like, oh, oh, the Southern strategy.
The Southern strategy by the Nixonian White House was to make it out like the, you know, the Republicans, they were going to protect the white man.
Dude, As the South has become less racist, it's become more Republican.
Are you guys idiots?
That's a point I think Dinesh D'Souza makes in some of his films all the time.
It just defeats your entire Southern strategy nonsense.
The Achilles heel in identity politics is the cannibalization effect.
Here's the example.
I'm fascinated by this topic, so I'm sorry if my passion for it is making it a little circuitous, but it's important I get this out.
The Asian-American lawsuit against Harvard, ladies and gentlemen, is absolutely blowing up in the liberals' face.
Now, this is the cannibalization effect.
In order to create new victim classes where they really don't exist anymore on a mass systemic scale, you have to find new groups of people to say, we're protecting you against this.
The problem is that this does not exist on a systemic scale.
We're protecting you against the white patriarchy.
And there are people going and working in the bond market, people who are architects, who are bricklayers, carpenters, white collar, blue collar, who are like, what are you talking about?
My coworkers are a bunch of white dudes.
I don't get what you're talking about.
Like they don't understand this was not finding that we're protecting you against you know whatever white racism or institutional racism in the in the south you know 60 years ago was not people like oh yeah well I got kicked out of a kitchen counter.
You're having they're having a harder time so creating these new victim classes they need to do that.
Joe it's important here.
They need to do that to backfill what they thought were the old victims who don't feel like victims.
Are you tracking me, brother?
Like my wife.
They need more victims.
They need more victims.
Leave it up to Joe.
Nobody puts the lead on the story better than Joe.
Here it is.
The story should have been titled The Bloomberg.
The left needs more victims.
It's falling apart.
It's not working.
My wife is a Hispanic female.
She is supposed to be the victim.
She, right?
Identity politics mythology says that my wife, Paula, is a victim and the Democrats are going to protect her against the white male patriarchy.
The problem is my wife had an extremely high-paying job, was a vice president in a major lobby firm in D.C.
She doesn't know what you're talking about.
I mean she literally, folks, Literally.
Literally the most overused word in the English language.
But literally does not know what you're talking about.
She doesn't understand that.
She's not dumb.
She's brilliant.
She just doesn't get it.
Like, I was a victim of the... I don't understand.
What exactly was I a victim of?
Hey mom!
The meatloaf!
We haven't heard that in a while.
Someone screamed that at Politicon at me the other day.
It was so funny on Saturday.
I laughed my ass off.
It was so funny.
So when you lose my wife, that was great, when you lose my wife, and people like my wife, You lose people like Elvira Salazar running for Congress in Florida, and I'll get to that later too, it's an important story, in Florida 27.
A Hispanic female, former reporter for Univision, who's running as a Republican, Joe, and is smoking her opponent in the district.
Hillary Clinton won overwhelmingly.
All of a sudden they're like, damn, damn, we're losing the damn victims.
We need more.
Well, here's where the cannibalization comes in.
Now you have to reach out to Muslim voters.
Oh, there's rampant Islamophobia in the Republican Party.
Muslim voters, you must vote, which is totally, completely ridiculous.
Totally ridiculous.
It's just, it's completely fabricated.
You need to vote for us.
We're going to protect you against these guys.
And then they go to Asian-Americans.
Listen, there is rampant anti-Asian bias in the Republican Party.
So now in this endless search for new victims to backfill the old victims, the problem is they've had to pick the victims against each other, or the perceived victims, what they think to be victims, because you cannot possibly create a policy where you give to one quote victim group without taking from other people.
You can't!
This is the cannibalization effect.
Now, if you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom, which should be mandatory reading for every conservative or libertarian.
It is one of the greatest books up there with Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell I have ever read in my life.
I mean, you know, the Road to Serfdom is pretty much, most people have read it anyway, but it's worth your time.
In the Road to Serfdom, Hayek points this out.
That when government entities, with the monopolistic use of force, Joe, who can control the use of force, say to these victim classes, we are going to make sure, we are going to enforce equality.
We are going to make sure you're treated equally.
By its very nature of a government enforced equality project, they have to treat people unequally.
Think about it, folks.
Digest what I just said to you.
Hayek's point is brilliant.
Government-enforced inequality requires you to treat people unequally.
Think about it from a pure economic perspective.
I'll get to the Asian-American lawsuit in a second, but this is important you understand this.
If the government's to say, we are going to treat everybody economically equally, we're going to level out income, the millionaires are going to become the 100,000aires and the people making 50 are going to become 100,000aires and everybody's going to make the same thing.
Joe, how do you do that without treating a guy who made a million dollars unequally?
You have to take his stuff!
Can't be done.
He's not treating... The guy who's making $50,000 gets $50,000.
The millionaire loses $900,000 a year.
Government-forced equality enforces inequality.
There's no other definition for it.
That is exactly what's happening right now in this fight over affirmative action type policies and race-based preferences in colleges.
And that's why it's a good piece.
It's worth your time at Bloomberg.
The right has finally found this soft spot in their identity politics.
And identity politics, which is supposed to help victims, actually is victimizing people.
Because in an effort to treat Black and Hispanic students Joe, equally, air quotes here, they have to treat Asian American students unequally.
Folks, the numbers are irrefutable.
Irrefutable.
If you are an Asian American student trying to get into elite Ivies like Harvard, you have to score something like 400 points higher on these scholastic aptitude achievement exams, SAT type tests.
You have to score something like 400 points higher than an incoming black applicant to get into the same school.
That by definition, Joe, statistically, is the treating of two different groups you're claiming are victims differently while you're actually victimizing people.
Asian-American students who work their butts off.
This is... and the guy... I just love this piece so much.
It was so good.
Again, I don't even know the guy's politics.
He says the problem here Is that aggregation isn't possible.
In other words, Joe, trying to create a class of people that doesn't exist the way you want it defined, right?
Like, quote, people of color.
What does that mean?
Because if you're trying to create a victim class, people of color, right?
And Joe, we're the Democrats and we're going to protect you against the Republicans who don't like, quote, people of color.
And you aggregate people into that class.
by aggregating them you're lying to them because people of color like what you would call asian americans are being you're they're the ones that need protection against you that's all right so the aggregation you get what i'm saying oh yes i do daniel the aggregation doesn't work and what happened is because they're running out of fights to fight on this identity politics front they're fabricating new classes of victims while simultaneously victimizing other classes of victims and this guy in the piece And again, I'm encouraging you to read it.
You have to understand folks, liberalism can't possibly go on like this.
It can't.
And he brings it up, to circle back to the beginning where we started with this, to the Elizabeth Warren case.
How Elizabeth Warren really believed this issue was a winner for her.
I mean, Joe, she had to.
One, why would she double down on it?
Why not just admit you screwed up?
Elizabeth Warren's got a high-paid political team and a bunch of strategists.
You'd have to be insane to think that she just made this up and fabricated it.
I mean, she did make up the fact that she's like, you know, was Cherokee and all that stuff is clearly nonsense at this point.
But he brings up the point that Elizabeth Warren and her liberal buddies who are so married to this identity politics
Joe, this is all they've grown up in.
They actually believe this was a winner.
Meanwhile, moderate Democrats in academia who have been victimized by identity politics, Asian-Americans, some white students who couldn't get into the school of their choice because they felt like they worked hard and they didn't meet some preferred racial category.
They're the ones looking at this.
They're not responding.
I'm talking about Democrats.
Forget Republicans.
They obviously think this is garbage.
But they're the ones looking at this going, Oh, what a scam.
Give me a break.
This woman's claiming to be Indian.
She thinks this actually works.
So it was a really good piece.
It was sent to me by a listener, by the way.
You know who you are.
Hat tip.
Email me the article.
And so the two takeaways, because I want to get to the ending, because this is why the guy sent me the article.
It's not because of that.
The two takeaways are this.
The left is cannibalizing itself, folks.
They are fighting fights that on a systemic scale don't exist like the left is telling you they exist.
There is no de jure Jim Crow strategy anymore by any party and the left is insisting to you it exists as people are looking around going, I don't see that, I don't get it.
So to fill those voters that they're losing because they don't have that anymore to fight against, they're creating new victims.
Oh, Asian Americans, we're gonna fight.
While they're simultaneously victimizing Asian Americans and moderates, say white Democrats, who are being subjected to racial preferences policies and colleges that don't benefit them.
And a lot of these moderates are like, wait, wait, wait, wait, this isn't for me.
You get what I'm saying?
Oh sure do.
The second part of this is the left has been so, so they're creating new victims and these victims are being victimized by the Democrats.
And the second takeaway is an important one too.
That these liberals that have grown up in this academic environment of identity politics, the Barack Obamas, the Elizabeth Warrens who've been married to this, they were both college instructors.
They are so married to this, Joe, that they don't even realize that their own moderate Democrats, who aren't in these preferred racial categories, are looking at this like you... Elizabeth Warren, like she's a fool!
Like this is imbecilic!
And the guy backs it up with facts and data in the piece.
I'm gonna leave this part of it at this.
He says, look at the polls on political correctness.
Even a majority of liberals think the politically correct environment has gone too far.
Folks, this is blowing up in their faces.
I say this before the election because I think, I'm reasonably confident that their identity politics strategy is blowing up amongst Hispanic voters.
Let me take a note, I'll get to that in a second.
I got so much to talk about today.
The end paragraph of the piece.
This is why the guy sent it to me.
This is why I disagree with the guy.
The author of the Bloomberg piece suggests that although the right may have found the Achilles heel within liberalism in the identity politics mess, he suggests that the left may have found an Achilles heel with us, too, on the right in the Trump movement.
Yeah, it's an interesting take.
And you know what he cites, Joe?
You're gonna laugh.
Own the libs.
Where do you hear that?
My favorite thing, own the libs.
Own the libs today, own the libs tomorrow.
Have you owned the libs this weekend or the following weekend?
If you haven't, commit to owning the libs.
Now, he says, listen, I've never heard this before, this own the libs, but it just started to creep up into our politics, and he's making this suggestion in the piece.
He does it in a fair way, too, or I wouldn't include the piece, but he makes the suggestion, because I can be self-critical, that this is a distraction.
In other words, now that we've covered the first portion, comparing it to the Elizabeth Warren thing, that they thought it's a winner, Elizabeth Warren, and the left thinks identity politics is a winner?
You get what I'm saying, Joe?
But it's really a distraction based on the polls?
Even liberals hate it?
He's making a suggestion here as well that the own the libs thing may be kind of the libs poking us, gaslighting us and getting us to focus on this like high-end own the libs like at the global level kind of thing.
Own the libs and be confrontational and rude and obnoxious and that that may be a strategy to distract us from sticking on message.
I entirely disagree because that's not what we're saying.
If I wrote it, this is why I wrote the piece on my website, which is still there.
If you Google Own the Libs, that that is not what Own the Libs is about.
Yes, it's a catchy slogan.
I didn't make it up, by the way, you know, it's been around forever.
I just doubled down on it.
Own the Libs is not about being obnoxious or it's not, it has nothing to do with it.
Matter of fact, we at Joe, we eschew aggression and confrontation violence all the time on the show.
I always, how many times do I got to say that on the show?
I mean, if you're a listener to the show, you already know it.
So I'm not even going to repeat it.
Own the libs is about one thing and one thing only.
And the fact that the liberals or that the right doesn't understand it is confusing because I don't think he really gets what we're talking about.
We are talking about the exercising of absolute raw political power to keep the left from power.
In other words, stop focusing so much right now in this election on the bad, the primaries are over, on the bad rhinos.
I get it.
I get it.
Like I said, I have issues with some of the people representing me in my own district in some of their positions.
The point is, this is an election, this midterm, about not the best choice, but the least of the worst choices.
And that's how the world works, folks.
Life is not about good and bad decisions often.
It's about on the margin.
That's the whole field of ethics.
What's the less bad decision, right?
So I have said to you that it is important you go out and vote straight ticket Republican, not because all these people are even good Republicans, I think a lot of them are train wrecks, but because the Democrats are so bad right now on the economy, on Trump, on identity politics, on Kavanaugh, character assassinations, mobs, aggression, violence, that the only way to own the libs is to exercise the one thing you know you can do in obeyance with the law and the Constitution is the exercising of raw Political power you show up you bring ten friends You vote straight ticket Republican down the line and you keep these people out of office no matter what and you get them to melt down Entirely like they did after George HW Bush when they lost that third election Reagan Reagan George HW Bush and the Democrats were forced to reevaluate their entire policy approach That's how you got second term Bill Clinton and you got to demonstrate Democrat Leadership Committee
Owning the libs is about, I can't say this enough, exercising raw, hard, strong political power.
Not aggression, not confrontation, not super constitutional duties we take on like Obama did with his pen and his phone.
It is about following the constitution and doing it and showing up and keeping these people from power.
That's what it's about.
Now I say this because I was on a panel at Politicon and there are some people who are confused about this who will continually insist that we should, after primaries, that we should either stay home or if some of the Republicans running aren't, you know, doctrinaire conservatives.
Folks, that is a suicidal approach.
Your alternative are Democrats who character assassinate people like Kavanaugh.
You're insane!
You're picking...
It's like death by chainsaw.
I mean of all the ways to go right?
Dude that is a bad move and I bring it up now let me dial back to the Maria Salazar race because I got some you know nasty looks from a couple people when I had said to them that I made a prediction on a panel Joe.
I made a prediction and I got a couple, I don't want to say nasty looks, but a couple people, one specifically on the panel, kind of like gave me the side eye there.
Like I was crazy talking about this.
Folks, we have a couple... Let me make the prediction first because the story will make sense.
That's how the question was asked.
Someone asked on the panel, make your prediction about the House and Senate midterms, how they're going to work out.
And I had said, I think, and I hate predictions, but we were so right on the Trump race, I feel an obligation to put it out there.
So it's now what, 15, 16 days before the election, early voting's on.
I'm going to make my prediction now.
So let's mark it, Joe.
This is 833, podcast episode 833.
I think we hold the house by two to four seats.
The Republicans.
And I think we hold, I think we definitely hold the Senate, but I think we add to our margin in the Senate by two, maybe three seats.
So that is my prediction.
Now why?
Because I don't ever come on the air and feed you BS.
I'm not, if you invest an hour of your time in me, I'm going to invest three to four hours of show prep to give you, I think, the best content out there.
There's a reason I think this.
It's not just, Oh, look, let me predict this.
So the next day I can pat myself on the back.
Although I did a little bit after we predicted the Trump thing, right?
We talked about that for a week because I was out there knocking on doors and I based it on evidence.
Here's what I'm seeing folks.
The Democrats are factoring into their plan to take the house and identity politics wave and it's not working.
There are two races that should show you, if you do the analysis of these races, that their efforts to outreach to Hispanic voters and portray them, dialing it back to the first story, as the victim class, Hispanic voters, look, we're here to protect you against the male white patriarchy.
That message is not working.
Now, they have a message that is working.
The message it is working is we hate Trump and we're going to go after him.
Sadly, that is working though, not in the Hispanic communities, Joe, that they need to take over the house.
Here's what I'm talking about.
There are two races, Texas 23, Florida 27.
Texas 23.
It is a largely Hispanic district in Southern Texas.
Right now, the sitting congressman is Will Hurd.
He is a Republican.
Will Hurd is running in an overwhelmingly Hispanic district in a race that according to the left's identity politics narrative which Tyler Cohen said is blowing up in their face in the piece you're like oh I tie this stuff in according to the left this is great we got their victims and we're protecting them People don't see it that way.
Will Hurd is up.
Is he gonna win?
I'm not sure.
All I can tell you are the polls are indicating that the Republican, in a district where identity politics, if it worked, Joe, should be playing so well, is not only losing, but losing badly.
Hurd should be getting destroyed in this race.
And he's not.
Well, that is a sucker punch to the gonads.
I don't even know where you got that one.
This is what happens when you let Joe loose on the soundboard.
I have no control over him.
I can't gang tackle him.
I'm in California.
I can't grab Joe.
That was a good one.
That is a great one.
I like that.
Joe just played.
Paul is in the room.
You want to say hi to the audience?
Say hi.
Say hi, Paula wants to know if it's Muttley.
Come over here, say hello to the audience, please.
Say hello.
Tell the audience, do you like Muttley?
I do not like Muttley.
Why do you not like Muttley?
Hi Joe.
It's so annoying.
Audience, you have emailed us.
Do me a favor, email our account, and we're gonna take a Muttley poll.
Paula does not like Muttley, but you don't like, why is it annoying?
Just tell the audience, because they haven't heard from you, I think, ever on my show.
I've never had a guest, you're our first guest.
I just don't like it.
Now, is this not a daily conversation in our house about Muttley?
Yes, it is.
Joe got emails from me about Muttley.
Right?
Joe, did Paula email you about Muttley?
Joe, do you have Muttley handy?
Can you play Muttley?
Do you have him handy for the audience?
Do you have Muttley handy?
Yeah, I do.
Play it so the audience understands what we're talking about.
He ignores my emails.
You see, folks, that's Paula.
Paula says that Joe ignores completely your emails.
This has turned into a big thing in my house.
And people are emailing us now.
There's pro-Mutley and anti-Mutley.
The pro-Mutley forces are overwhelming the anti-Mutley force.
I get a lot of pro-Mutley.
I get all your emails.
There's been a few Auntie Motley Joys with Paula, but most are pro.
Well, thank you.
You're the first guest on my show.
I need some pro-Paula email.
Anything else?
Pro-Paula email!
Thank you.
I love you, too.
You're the best.
She looks really good today, too.
I love the audience.
Yes.
I love you, too, though.
Oh, thank you.
Oh, she said she loves you guys in the audience.
She wasn't talking to me.
I love you, too, though.
Even though you said you love the audience and not me.
All right.
So getting back to the content portion, that is like the show.
We've never done that.
We have never had a guest since like Gail Trotter, right Joe?
Yeah, man.
Great moments in Dan Bongino's show.
This is it.
So getting back to the, and my wife happens to be a Hispanic Republican, the identity politics argument is not working.
The will herd race is not working.
Hispanic voters are not, just like this article says in Bloomberg, this message is dying.
Even liberals hate this PC crap, but there's another one.
There's another race.
It's not just Texas 23.
You know, I don't talk out of my caboose here.
Right.
Florida 27 in a race that was thought to be gone.
This race I'm intimately familiar with.
I'm a southern Floridian now myself.
Ileana Ross-Latham, who was a moderate, very, very moderate Republican, had held that seat forever.
She was a Republican.
It is an overwhelmingly Democratic Hispanic district.
Hillary Clinton, Joe, won the district by 20 points, not two, by 20.
This is not a Republican district, ladies and gentlemen.
There are a lot of Hispanic voters, but a Republican has represented it for a long time.
So you may say, well, it is a Republican dish.
Well, not in the way they vote presidentially, right?
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is leaving the seat.
It's open.
The Republicans had, I'm telling you, they'd forfeited this thing.
I know it.
They had totally, they're like, it's gone.
Forget it.
It's over.
It's one of those seats we're just going to lose.
It's over.
Really?
A woman jumps in the race, Maria Elvira Salazar, who I'd seen on Fox.
You've seen her before, folks.
She's a Republican.
She speaks Spanish.
She worked for Univision, the Hispanic cable station.
And she goes out there and she campaigns her butt off.
Dude, she's winning this race.
She's winning this race against Donna Shalala, a hapless, horrible candidate, an old Bill Clinton-era official.
She's winning the race.
Not only that, we have Carlos Cabello, another one down in Florida, who's still holding strong in a largely Hispanic district.
Folks, again, I'm not telling you these people are doctrinaire conservatives.
I'm telling you that it's the best we're going to do.
We don't, what's your options?
Giving the seat to the the damn Democrats and letting them take over every chairmanship and investigate the president to death?
Oh we showed them!
What kind of stupid plan is that?
I'm, let me be clear on this, I am not bothered Joe by in swingy even democrat-leaning far-left democrat districts, I should have said that the other way, in democrat-leaning districts or swingy type districts, I'm not bothered by Republicans Who stay in office by somehow pandering at this.
I wish they wouldn't, and I wish they could message it better.
Right.
I really, I'm mad at my own congressman for a number of reasons.
What I'm mad at are Republicans who are in Republican districts, or flat districts, 50-50 Democrat-Republican, who those guys run as run.
Those are the ones who are killing the cause.
You see the difference, Joe, where I'm going with this?
Yeah.
This is why I can't, and I'm bringing this up because people on the panel, You know, one of them looked at me like I was crazy, like, why are we supporting these rhinos, you know, Her and Carbello and Sal, are you nuts?
Are you insane?
Like, what, are you crazy?
What planet are you from?
So you want to turn over the seats to the Democrats so they can impeach the president?
Oh, we should show, we really showed them.
Oh, how great is that?
Those, what pisses me off, pardon my language, is when you get in and I, and listen, I'm not speaking with forked tongue on this.
I ran in Maryland 6, which is a deep Democrat district, despite this idiot at the decision desk who keeps claiming it's a Republican district.
It's a D plus 6, you dope.
He works for decision desk, which is hysterical.
He works for a political site that analyzes congressional races and he's insisting we're I ran.
Joe, is that district Republican?
Oh, it's about as blue as blue can be.
D plus six district.
Are you insane?
The Democrat beat the Republican before I ran by 20 points there.
So, not to get into my own stuff, but I just laugh because I got to block this idiot on Twitter.
He's so stupid.
But the point is when you're, and I ran as a conservative in a Democrat-leaning district, when you're in places like Arizona and others and Texas and you're voting for Democrat priorities in Republican-leaning districts, you're the ones killing the cause.
You are the ones doing it.
It's not these guys and women running in huge Democrat districts, Joe, who just, listen, they're just, I hate to say it, but they're just there to keep chairmanships for us.
They're there.
We're not going to get them on key votes.
We're not, but it's the best we're going to do.
And remember the new rules.
You like how I'm tying this all together?
I hope so.
Remember the new rules.
We have to exercise raw political power.
And the only way to do that is to win.
We can't, after the primaries, be doing what the left is doing to itself.
It's cannibalizing itself by the creation of new victim classes by actually victimizing people like Asian Americans.
We're gonna do this now?
You finally got a Hispanic candidate in southern Florida and in Texas who may be winning in Hispanic districts and we're like, Oh man, I don't know about this guy.
And this isn't about an ideological purity test.
I'm a conservative.
Don't feed me.
I ran as a conservative.
Go look at my campaign videos.
I'm not going to be lectured by anybody.
I'm just saying we have to win.
Winning matters.
Owning the libs is about winning.
Win, win, win, win, win.
And the way we win, Joe, is by winning.
You don't win by going, oh man, I'll be supporting them.
That guy's a horrible Republican.
He's in a horrible district.
What do you want him to do?
He's in a terrible district, so is Salazar.
Get him across the finish line.
I don't care if you don't like him during the primary.
I don't care if their kids stole your lunch money.
I don't care.
Just show up and vote, please.
If there's anything I've ever said to you that matters, please, I'm begging you to show up and vote.
Just Republican, Republican, just go down the line.
Own the libs.
Win.
New rules.
We win, they lose.
That's what the new rules are.
The new rules aren't, ah, we sit there after the primary and screw around about the, oh, one time in the past, you know, she said she was for open borders or something.
Okay, we can handle it later.
The president's going to be impeached.
Does that not matter to you?
If this doesn't stop.
Man, that was something.
So there's my prediction.
Sorry, I ran.
I was supposed to read an ad like 30 minutes.
I'm eight minutes late.
But there's my prediction.
Mark it down.
Two to four seats.
We hold the house.
Two to three seats in the Senate.
Oh, one more thing.
No, before you go, I told you before the show that that's what I thought as well.
And my prediction is really close to yours.
Well, the reason Joe's predictions are typically accurate, too, is Joe sits on WCBM all morning and has to take calls and listens to everyone from all over Maryland, the blue state, calling in to tell him their opinions.
Don't think for a second Joe's just haphazardly throwing that out there.
You wouldn't believe the Democrats that are beginning to call.
I believe it.
Joe's in Maryland.
Joe, who's winning in the Maryland governor's race in a deep blue state?
The Republican or Democrat?
That's old Larry, the Republican, yes.
Old Larry, the Republican.
I'm telling you, Joe's got his finger on this.
All right, before I get to the second part of this, because it's important to downsize, just let me read this.
I always appreciate your patience.
Today's show brought to you also by iTarget.
We love iTarget.
iTarget is the best system out there.
for improving your proficiency with a firearm, ladies and gentlemen.
One of the best ways to do that, when I was a law enforcement agent, they would have us dry fire.
That's when you safely unload a weapon, safely.
You check it, you check it twice, you check it three times, and you take your firearm, point it downrange, always in a safe direction, and you pull the trigger on a safely unloaded weapon.
Well, why would you do that?
Because the components of good marksmanship and proficiency with a firearm are your grip, Your slow, deliberate trigger pull, where you're putting that pressure on your finger pad, or your sight alignment and your sight picture.
You can work on all of those things without actually firing a round.
And the problem with firing a round is, there's recoil, and it takes your sight off.
So there's a natural benefit to dry fire practice.
The problem with dry firing is obvious.
There's no round!
You have no idea where the round would have gone!
None!
There's no round!
iTarget solved that problem for you.
How?
They will send you a target, it works in conjunction with a phone app, and a laser round.
It is super easy.
I promise you'll set this thing up lickety-split.
It is no problem at all.
You will never put it down.
The laser round, you drop into the chamber, the firearm you have now, there's no modifications necessary.
You don't have to do anything special.
You have a 9mm firearm, they'll send you a 9mm laser round, and when you depress the trigger on that safely unloaded weapon, because it's an inert round, it'll emit a laser and you can see where that round would have gone.
You're going to see your groupings tighten up in a heartbeat.
I get the reviews on this product are outstanding.
The website, itargetpro.com.
That's the letter.
Itargetpro.com.
The letter I. Itargetpro.com.
Use promo code Dan and they'll give you 10% off.
Itargetpro.com.
Promo code Dan.
Improve your proficiency today in a week.
You'll be far better than you were before you started.
Itargetpro.com.
Okay.
Um, so again, the reason I think they're going to hold the House is because in those Hispanic districts, they're having trouble with identity politics.
But on the downside, because I like to give you both sides of this, where we are having trouble, ladies and gentlemen, and where the Democrats' anti-Trump message, in other words, we just don't like Trump, we're going to fight Trump and impeach him, is working.
Because that's not working in Hispanic districts, and that's not the identity politics message, okay?
I want to be clear.
The identity politics message, Hispanic voters, we're gonna protect you against these people, these evil Republicans, that is failing.
The message that is working is Trump's horrible, it is for them.
Trump's awful, we're gonna impeach him, and if you wanna rage, vote for us, okay?
Where is that working?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we're in a little bit of trouble in the suburbs.
These suburban districts, dominated by who?
They're not dominated by largely minority voters.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm just giving you the demographics.
I'm not making any social commentary on it at all.
I'm just giving you the simple demographics.
A lot of these districts where we're having trouble are not minority districts.
They are dominated by white suburban moms and dads who are, for some bizarre reason, are attracted like a magnet to this we want Trump out of office, he sucks message.
So, suburban districts, Joe, that were largely, you know, 50-50, 48-52, districts where Republicans did pretty well in close elections, we're now getting small.
Excuse me while I get up off the floor.
Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's where we're gonna have trouble.
This is where we're gonna have big trouble, yeah.
One of them, like you may be familiar with Joe, because it is in our area, Joe's familiar with Virginia politics too, because the way Maryland, DC, Virginia works, is Barbara Comstock.
She's in a lot of trouble in a suburban Virginia district, suburban from Washington DC.
Comstock, you know, she's not the greatest conservative in the world, but again, Folks, this is not the time for that.
I'm sorry.
This is a real fight.
Remember the new rules.
Remember we win, they lose.
We gotta get out and vote for Comstock.
And what's happening right now is her opponent is using this anti-Trump message against her, and it looks like Comstock's in a little bit of trouble.
Now, that's just one district, but there's many.
There are more like that.
And there's too many to count in the show.
I use the two districts for the Hispanic side of the race.
Now that's not working, but the suburban races throughout the country, we are having some issues there.
Again, if you are one of these voters in those districts, you have got to show up because in order for us to hold the house by that three, two, three, four vote margin, we're going to have to pull a few of these suburban districts through.
And I think we will.
I think we will.
I think we're going to lose a lot of them, but I think we will because we have some pretty decent candidates who understand their districts who are running.
So, that's the good part.
The Hispanic voters are not digging this nonsense argument at all about identity politics.
Identity politics is cannibalizing itself.
The bad part, suburban voters, a lot of them unfortunately, are feeding into this anti-Trump hysteria.
So that's the bad part.
Okay, I said I would get to Carter Page, so this is interesting.
So I had this conversation with him again, I'm not going to disclose all the details, it would be inappropriate, but I just wanted to bring it up in light of a new piece at The Show Notes today.
By the way, check out The Show Notes, read that Bloomberg piece, it's worth your time.
There's another piece by Chuck Ross, who's been doing great work at The Daily Caller, on this interesting revelation by the FBI that involves Carter Page and others that happened just this past week, Joe.
Now it's not really, you know, like the flashiest explosive new breaking news, but it is critical because when you're arguing with your liberal friends who will insist that Trump wasn't spied on, you can now put that argument to bed.
Put it to sleep, as Joe would say, put it to sleep.
How do we know that?
Because a number of groups filed, this was brilliant Joe, Freedom of Information Act requests, FOIAs to the government said, we want to know Given our taxpayer dollars and our interest in freedom of information, how many people were paid to spy on the Trump team?
And what's fascinating, Joe, is you would have thought, given the liberal narrative, that the answer would have come back, none.
But it didn't.
Now, that's not surprising to you because you already know about Stefan Halper, who is a CIA asset who, according to multiple reports, was used to spy on the Trump team.
Like, all right, Dan, all right, so what, he was paid, we know that.
Well, now the li- but here's where it gets more interesting, Joe.
So now the liberal argument that he wasn't spied on we can throw out the window because the FBI has admitted they paid spies.
Spies.
S-P-I-E-S.
Or Joe Biden spelling S-P-I-E-S-S-S.
They paid spies.
Let me read to you something from this Chuck Rusby.
Read the piece.
It's good.
Short, sweet, to the point.
The U.S.
government revealed in court filings Friday that the FBI used multiple confidential informants, spies, including some who were paid for their information as part of its investigation at the former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
Oh, oh really?
But the liberals told us this didn't happen, folks.
It goes on.
Here's the quote.
The FBI has protected information that would identify the identities of other Confidential sources who provided information or intelligence to the FBI, as well as information provided by those sources, wrote David Hardy, the head of the FBI's Record Information Dissemination Section in court papers, submitted Friday.
Oh, oh really?
So now we know there were spies, ladies and gentlemen.
The argument that the Trump campaign wasn't spied on is absolutely ridiculous.
It's an absurdity.
It's a joke, frankly.
So now your comeback should be, really, because the FBI's information office, when subjected to a FOIA request, has not only indicated that there were in fact spies, but there were spies who were paid.
Folks, I think we can knock two names off the list right now we already know about.
We have Stefan Halper, who we've already discussed, right?
Christopher Steele, as well, we also know was a source.
Now, the payments, there was supposed to be a $50,000 payment.
There's some open question about if that went through.
The reporting indicates it didn't.
But my question to you is, who else is out there?
Who else is out there?
Is this one of the names... Joe, can I give you a little wake-up audio?
It'll be much more effective when we do a video podcast, right?
Can I suggest to you that maybe some of the stuff they're blacking out and despises the amount of money maybe that was paid or in some of these 302 documents?
Why would the amount of money paid to spies matter, Joe?
Let me give you a hypothetical, Armacost, as a former federal agent.
Oh yes, Daniel.
So, the current narrative now, although the left refuses to call them spies, is that we know about two people who may have been working with the government, right?
Well, we know they were Steele and we know Halper, okay?
So, Joe, let's say it was disclosed in some FBI document that's still being redacted that the amount paid to spies was $200,000.
Now, I'm going to ask you for some simple math here, okay, Joe?
Now, if we know by reporting that, say, $50,000 was paid to person A and $50,000 was paid to person B, that equals what, Joe, $100,000?
50,000 was paid to person B, that equals what Joe, 100,000?
That's right Dan.
That's right.
We're going to have to get that.
We're going to have to get that.
We need Wink Martindale.
That's right.
You know it's $100,000.
So if in one of these unredacted documents, and we can get the redactions out of there and clean up the blackouts, if we find out that the Bureau paid $200,000, Joe, and $100,000 was paid to person A and person B, Joe, would a reasonable person assume that there may have been a person C and maybe a person D too?
I'm just asking.
That would be a reasonable assumption, Dan.
That's right, Wink!
Thank you.
I'll take how do we screw over American citizens for 500 hours.
Folks.
This Chuck Ross piece, it's short, and it's not, I get it how if you don't understand this case, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to the liberal buffoons out there, how if you don't get this case, like that's all, oh, who cares, what's the big deal, so what, there were spies in the case, they're probably just talking about Steele and Halper, and you know, the media's already reporting it, I'm not so sure about that.
Let's see what that number is, how much they paid, how many people, because if there is a person C and a person D out there, who the hell were those people?
Wow!
It's going to get interesting, isn't it?
Oh, it's great stuff.
Now I'm getting all these questions.
Sorry, I'm getting text during the show.
People want to do some interviews.
Okay.
Wow.
One more read here and I got one more.
I have a lot of stories, but I'm sorry I haven't gotten to the invasion at the border in the South.
I mean, this is ridiculous.
I will get to it.
I'm just, it's so much going on folks in the news.
You know, my sincere apologies.
I'll mention it at the end of this read.
Okay.
So my show also brought to you today by Brickhouse Nutrition.
One of my favorite products out there is Foundation.
If you want to perform better and you want to look better, this is the ultimate supplement for you.
I took them on early as a sponsor and I said, listen, I'm not going to sponsor this product if it doesn't work because I work out.
I love to work out.
Supplements matter.
I'm not going to put garbage in my body, right?
So they said, don't worry, Dan, we're going to send you a bottle.
After a week, I told my wife, I'm like, oh, This stuff is incredible.
If you want to look better or feel better, and if you don't believe me, right?
If you're like, all right, you're a paid advertiser.
Well, listen, I don't take on companies I can't work with and I wouldn't use, right?
Number one.
But secondly, I encourage you to try the mirror test.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of foundation and take the mirror test.
Meaning, go look in the mirror.
Give yourself a little snapshot of what you look like.
Try the product.
Give it about seven days to load.
Then I want you to look in the mirror again.
You're going to be like, whoa.
Ask your wife.
Ask your husband to check.
Check you out.
How do I look?
This stuff is that good.
It is awesome.
You will look better.
You will perform better.
It is terrific.
I can't say enough about it.
Go give it a shot.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of foundation today.
Okay, again, my apologies for not getting to this earlier.
I know it's a news story, but we just get overwhelmed sometimes with stuff and I want to make sure I can pack stuff in and I don't just repeat what you're hearing out of the news station.
So, what's happening down south right now at the border, ladies and gentlemen, is clearly, clearly an invasion.
I mean, there's no other way to describe this.
Ladies and gentlemen, my wife is an immigrant.
I am intimately familiar with the legal immigration process.
It is a broken process, but it is a process nonetheless.
I have said frequently on the show, and I'll continue to say, there's no such thing as illegal immigration.
There is immigration, which is a process, however broken it may be in the country, and it is a laborious, kind of nasty process at times.
There is immigration and there's law breaking.
Illegal immigration is a... I don't even like the term because I think it's a nonsensical term.
There's immigration and breaking the law.
It's as simple as that.
When you enter the country, you have to enter through a port of entry.
Not entering through a port of entry is in fact a crime.
Do not believe the hype I love.
Well, you know, all of this is a civil penalty.
You know, a visa overstay is a civil penalty, depending on the conditions, by the way.
But, and not entering through a port of entry, through an authorized entry point into the United States is, in fact, a crime.
Doing it repeatedly is a felony.
Entering, trying to enter the country between ports of entry is a crime.
Ladies and gentlemen, having a thousand person caravan approaching the country from, we have no idea where any of these people are.
Is by definition an invasion.
This is not any kind of anti-immigrant nonsense.
My wife's an immigrant.
There is a process for this.
There is a way this process works.
Now I bring this up because there have been reports out there that some of the folks involved with the organization of this are being supported by left-wing governments in South America in an effort to embarrass and humiliate the United States.
That is not an insignificant point.
I don't think it's just happened to be by convenience, Joe, that this is happening right before an election.
But, having said that, whatever the left-wing governments in South America who may be supporting this, Think they're doing.
It is again blowing up in the Democrats face, Joe, just like the identity politics narrative.
If there is one thing that does not sell to moderates across the board, it is chaos.
And ladies and gentlemen, asking thousands of people to cross the border between ports of entry in the United States in violation of our law in a mass episode of potential law breaking.
Is not going to sell to anybody in these midterms, and I believe Joe.
That in conjunction with the Democrat Kavanaugh hysteria, back to the election point, that this may, may help Republicans keep the House by that two to four seat margin, I think is going to happen.
And ironically, Joe, I think it will even sell in Hispanic districts as well, because Hispanic voters are not robots.
They are not automatons.
They're Americans.
They are hardworking Americans and they do not want chaos.
Chaos is not a message it sells.
Should have gotten to that sooner, but there was just a lot going on.
Okay, one last story.
I've got two to choose from.
Let me go with this one because the economics one is important.
I don't want you to be...
I don't want to spend a lot of time stewing on this, but you're going to see some stories coming out in the next few days.
I saw one at the Wall Street Journal about the earnings.
There was an earnings miss.
A couple of companies, 35% of the companies on the S&P 500, Joe, had an earnings miss.
It doesn't mean they're losing money, it just means they didn't make as much money as they thought they would given the really successful business environment we've had instilled by Donald Trump and the Republican policies, tax cuts, regulatory reform, etc.
Now, and maybe I'll continue this a little more on tomorrow's show as well because it is a longer topic, but it's important you keep these things in mind.
You don't have to be an economics major to understand, when you're given the reason why some of these companies missed their earnings report, I want you to understand that this is not a bad thing.
So it's 35% of the companies on the S&P did not hit their marks.
Some of the reasons that have been cited, one of the more prominent ones, Joe, is the strong dollar.
Now, I hate this argument by people who don't understand, I can't stand people who think a weak dollar, these beggar thy neighbor policies are going to work.
Why would that matter?
Why would some companies lose money because the dollar, the US dollar, is strong?
It's very simple, folks.
A lot of these companies are multinationals, meaning they sell products overseas as well, not just in the United States.
One of the companies cited in the Wall Street Journal report was, in fact, a large multinational known as, you may have heard of it, IBM.
One of the reasons cited, again, was the strong dollar.
Why would that matter?
When the dollar in the United States gained strength, because interest rates go up, Interest rates go up, people want to invest in the United States.
The dollar gains strength like the price of a bagel gains strength if you have the best bagels in town and you only sell 100 bagels a day.
500 people come in looking for 100 bagels, the price goes up dramatically because there's a lot of competition for your bagels.
The same thing happens with money and currency.
When the U.S.
economy is strong and people want to invest in the United States, what happens?
People that invest in the United States have to buy dollars.
The competition for dollars gets strong.
You have interest rates go up in the economy to fight off inflation, given we've printed a lot of money.
There is going to be a stronger dollar.
The stronger dollar is a function of both Fed policy and the strength of our economy.
As those interest rates go up and up and up, which the Fed has been raising interest rates, they're not up dramatically.
They're up in very reasonable territory.
The competition for money gets fierce.
That creates strength in the dollar, which creates a weakness with other currencies against the dollar.
In other words, if the dollar gets stronger, Joe, even if the Japanese yen stays the same, if the dollar's stronger and more valuable, the Japanese yen, it's going to take more of them to buy dollars.
The Japanese yen may be doing fine against the Chinese yuan, but against the U.S.
dollar, it's going to take you more yen to buy a dollar.
Why?
Because it's stronger.
You need, say you needed, say it was one, it's not, but say it was one to one, one dollar equaled one yen.
The Japanese yen stays the same against other currencies.
The U.S.
dollar starts motoring because of the strong economy.
Competitions for dollars is fierce.
Now you need 2 yen.
That's a big deal!
That means also the prices of these U.S.
products overseas, or as they repatriate the money back, folks, that means the prices of a lot of these U.S.
products overseas that they export go up.
Because why?
Whereas it took you one yen to buy a product that cost you one dollar a week before, it now costs you two, Joe, to get the same damn product, denominated in dollars.
You may say, well, what's the good side of this?
It sounds like this is terrible.
So exports are suffering and what prices are going up because the currencies and multinationals can't afford to buy U.S.
products anymore.
Folks, there's a downside to everything.
The good side to this is as these interest rates go up and the dollar gets more powerful, what happens with interest rates?
Well, Joe, I'll ask you a simple question.
If you were a saver, say you have $100,000, Joe, and you were thinking about spending it or saving it, would you be more likely to save that $100,000 if you were going to get 5% interest or if you were going to get 10% interest?
I'd go with the 10%, Dan.
And you are not an economist, correct?
But this was easy for you to figure out.
I am not an economist.
Yes, this is how it works, folks.
When interest rates go up, it incentivizes people to not consume.
And you may say, oh my gosh, that's so bad.
They're not going to spend their money.
No, no.
Listen, listen, listen.
The not consuming portion, yes, it does have some temporary setbacks.
There are people who aren't going to make buying decisions on things and are going to put those things off.
But the money doesn't disappear.
The money goes into bank accounts and investments and is used by other people who then bid on those scarce dollars because they need the dollars in a scarce economy where everybody's bidding on the damn dollars.
These companies grab the dollars.
They say, hey, I got some business going on over here.
You guys may be a little slow at IBM, but my business is rocking.
And they take the dollars and they invest in more production and they invest in their employees.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is how investment over time, over time is going to lead to those prosperous Reagan years where we had six, seven years straight of nonstop growth.
So all I'm telling you is don't get crazy with the earnings miss.
You're going to see the Democrats hammer on it.
I can tell you that for a fact, you may see some stock market corrections, 5% or so coming up over the next few months on some of these earnings misses.
Don't get crazy about it.
The strong dollar is a good thing.
It is going to lead to investment.
It is going to lead to better products.
It's going to lead to higher paid workers.
And in the long run, it is a good, good policy.
I may go into more of this on tomorrow's show.
Folks, thanks a lot.
I appreciate you all tuning in.
Again, please go pick up my book, Spygate, available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and bookstores everywhere.
We're still in the top charts on Amazon, so I really appreciate it.
And please go check out our content at Bongino.com.
We have a whole bunch of new writers and authors coming in, so a lot of fresh content over there.
Thanks for tuning in, folks.
I'll see you all tomorrow.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
