In this episode, I address the big reason that the Democrats running in 2020 are in real trouble. I also address the latest liberal lies about this ongoing crisis. Finally, I address some criticisms about my commentary on the opioid crisis.
News Picks:Another bizarre twist in the Jeffrey Epstein case as camera footage is deemed unusable.
Liberals are not telling the truth about the devastating fires in the Amazon.
Bernie Sanders is wrong, again.
Hollywood conservatives are being discriminated against.
A left leaning journalist is questioning their coverage of President Trump.
Socialist Mayor Bill De Blasio’s war on common sense and decency continues.
Will the 2020 election be close? Not likely according to this article.
Copyright Dan Bongino 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, lots of feedback.
Lots of feedback on yesterday's show, my commentary on the opioid crisis.
I want to get to that stack show today, including some major league updates on a lot of different issues, including election 2020.
Will it be close?
I've got some really fascinating stuff.
Don't go anywhere.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show, producer Joe, producer Joseph Armacost.
How are you today, my friend?
Yes, it's wonderful Wednesday, and I'm glad to be here with you, baby.
Wonderful Wednesday.
Quick programming note, I will be co-hosting The Five on Thursday and Friday.
Thursday being tomorrow and Friday being the day after Thursday.
So please tune in, check that out.
I'm sure there'll be some spicy debates.
Assuming there's no hurricane down here in Florida, down by me.
Yeah, I know.
So we're bracing now for Hurricane Dorian.
It may hit a little north of me, though.
I'll keep you updated on all that stuff.
We don't miss shows, though, as you know.
Never.
So we've been through a couple hurricanes, Joe and I, on the show, Matthew and Irma, and we still got on the air.
All right.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at GenuCell.
Newsflash, ladies and gentlemen, people look at your jawline.
It simply tells your age.
Now during GenuCell's summer blowout sale.
It's here.
Yes.
The summer blowout sale's here.
Get a $30 instant coupon, which is applied immediately and automatically to your web or phone orders.
It's that easy.
Just go to GenuCell.com or call.
Here's Cheryl from Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Wow.
Very first time I tried it, I could immediately feel the tightening sensation.
I've been using it for a week and the results are visible.
My jawline looks so much younger.
Of course it does.
We love GenuCell.
My mother-in-law thinks it's the greatest product out there.
Using MDL technology and Chaminade's proprietary base, GenuCell's new jawline treatment specifically targets the delicate skin around the neck and jaw for toy-telthy, younger-looking skin.
Results guaranteed are 100% of your money back, no questions asked.
Call now, and the classic GenuCell for bags and puffiness around those eyes is free with your order, and it starts seeing results in 12 hours or less.
GenuCell immediate effects is also free.
Go to genucel.com, enter DAN30 at checkout for a $30 instant coupon automatically off your order in August.
Go to genucel.com, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com, genucel.com, use code DAN30 at checkout.
All right, let's go!
Yeah!
Okay, so we covered a very serious topic yesterday about the opioid crisis, the lawsuit, the victory by the state of Oklahoma against Johnson & Johnson, a producer of a painkiller-type opioid-based product.
I said, listen, ladies and gentlemen, I don't think this lawsuit is the answer.
I don't think government regulation is the answer.
Excessive government regulation, I should say, to be precise.
And man, did I get a lot of feedback.
So I'm not going to readdress the entire topic yesterday.
But here's the topic in a nutshell.
Yes, there is a significant problem with abuse of opioid painkillers.
Oxycodone, Vicodin, other opioid-based painkiller medication in the country.
Period.
Period.
That's not in dispute.
The question is, does that warrant a remedy and this lawsuit remedy that could bankrupt these companies from producing pain medications that the overwhelming number of people, Joe, use responsibly after surgery and for other pain problems to control the pain?
My answer yesterday was no.
I got a ton of feedback.
I can't address all of it, but one email kind of summed up.
I'm going to address the negative feedback I got on it, because the positive feedback you already heard yesterday is if you agree, just listen to yesterday's show.
The negative feedback I got, one was from a guy, David Z, who emails me a lot, always good emails, but he said, hey, listen, you were off the mark on this.
The problem with opioid abuse and the abuse of opioid-based pain medications is that it's not appropriate for long-term use, for managing pain, because it rewires the brain.
Now, I'm not, thank you for the feedback, David, I mean that, sincerely, it's good feedback, and you are correct.
But I'm trying to think of a way to say this and not sound like a pretentious jerk.
I know that.
Gosh, I'm hesitant here, but I'm just going to say it.
I spent my graduate work in the City University of New York basically studying neuropsychology, pharmacokinetics.
I get sensitization and desensitization and how these things work.
I get it.
I didn't go into it yesterday because it's not a pharmacology course, number one.
And number two, I don't want to bore people to death who may not have had that level of understanding.
Having said that, I only bring up his email because if I know that with only two years of graduate work in neuropsychology, if I know that, by the way, 15, 20 years ago when I went to graduate school for it, how is it that a doctor shouldn't know that too?
In other words, David, with all due respect to your point, you're making my point, not yours.
You see my point here, Joe?
If a doctor spends four years in medical school, a couple years in residency, a year in internship, seven years of schooling, isn't it the doctor's responsibility prescribing these very serious and potent drugs that are effective?
Nobody abuses a drug, Joe, that doesn't work.
If the drug didn't work, nobody would abuse it, you know?
You don't hear people, you know, abusing placebos.
Well, because they don't, you know, you get what I'm saying?
The sugar pills.
There's a massive sugar pill problem.
You don't see that.
My point in this whole thing is I already know that.
Doctors prescribe these drugs.
It is their personal responsibility on the patient's side to not abuse these drugs.
But secondly, there's personal responsibility on the doctor's side as well to understand what the drug does, to understand it's not appropriate for long-term use in some cases.
Some cases it may be.
And to understand the pharmacokinetics and how these things work.
If I understand it, they should too.
You're expecting the government to come in and fix this?
The government couldn't even open up a website for Obamacare.
You want them to fix the opioid crisis?
Again, I don't want to spend a ton of time on this.
I covered it yesterday, but great email.
I appreciate that.
But that was the gist of a lot of the negative feedback, if you see where I'm going with this.
Yeah.
You know, Dan, it's not appropriate for long-term use and people will abuse it.
Okay, I get it.
You know, a lot of drugs aren't appropriate for long-term use.
Right.
And doctors understand that, and don't prescribe them long-term.
That's not the government's problem, and a lawsuit's not going to fix that.
That was my only point.
So thank you for the email, David, and I hope you understand.
Again, if I knew that, sensitization, desensitization, homologous, heterologous sensitization, and the inverse, then I'm sure a doctor gets it, too, with far more education than I do.
Or should.
If not, they shouldn't be an MD prescribing those products.
Just a simple point.
All right, moving on to election 2020.
We haven't done a lot of, we really need to get to some more of this.
I'm not in the predictions game anymore because they just completely go awry.
I mean, we're going to talk about some stuff I think may happen, but I'm not going to make, I'm trying not to make predictions because you just can't tell.
Stuff can change in like a Thanos-like snap.
You need like a football pool thing for this.
You do, ideally, right?
Unless there's some money wagered in it, we could win, I'm not guessing.
Really.
Because everything changes by the minute, you just never know, especially with the 24-hour news cycle.
So I saw this interesting article up on National Review.
I wanted to just briefly...
Dan McLaughlin, it'll be in the show notes, the title is A Squeaker in 2020, Not Likely.
In other words, is the 2020 election going to be close?
And McLaughlin goes into just some data on presidential re-elections, and he says this.
Presidents have run for re-election in 31 elections, okay?
19 of those have been complete blowouts.
15 were easy wins for the incumbent, 4 were big fat losses where it was a blowout.
In other words, of those 19, 15 wins, 4 losses, none were, those weren't close.
Twelve more were not really in question, although we wouldn't consider them blowouts.
And he goes into four races that were close, including the George W. Bush-John Kerry re-elect effort, where George W. Bush won, but certainly not in any kind of a landslide, as being examples of, you know, the rare case where an incumbent race is close.
I put the article up because it's a good article, it's worth your time, Dan does a good analysis, but I think his premise is off.
I think this election will be close.
And I'm cautioning people, I think Trump stands a good chance of re-election, but I'm cautioning people to not buy into this landslide argument.
Again, with all due respect to Dan, it's a good article.
I'm putting it up.
You can read it.
I like to give a counterpoint.
My point is, I don't think it's going to be a landslide.
I don't think we should treat it that way.
That sets voter apathy in place.
And when voter apathy gets in place, people don't show up.
And when people don't show up, you have Hillary Clinton on election night going, huh?
What?
What just happened?
We were supposed to win by 20.
Yes.
And because people thought You were gonna win by 20.
A lot of people said, ah, my vote doesn't count.
Ladies and gentlemen, treat the Trump re-elect like he's gonna win by a half a point.
And you'll show up.
Treat it like he's gonna win by five points, and you won't show up.
So, but I will, again, I'll give you the counter-argument to McLaughlin's piece that this could be a blowout based on historical evidence.
You can check that out.
But, That's just the opening to the same.
I wanted to just cover my analysis of what's going on right now with the election briefly and the 2020 candidates and why I think, because I don't want you to think I'm Debbie Downer.
I'm not.
I think Trump's chances of re-election are very good.
I want to be clear on that.
Especially if the economy stays strong.
I'm not being a naysayer here.
I'd like to see a continuance of a conservative agenda going forward and a Trump 2020 re-election.
Handily, that'd be great.
But I'm not going to treat it that way until he wins.
I'm not making that mistake, okay?
My opponent, John Delaney, when I ran against him in a congressional race, remember that race, Joe?
Sure.
He thought he was going to win by 22.
We won on election day.
Right.
He won on the absentee recount four days later.
We creeped up on him, and he knew it.
Don't treat it like a landslide.
Having said that, I'd love your feedback on this segment.
I want to go into this, why I think the Democrats are in trouble, and I'm going to call it the own your lane theory, okay?
Own your lane like a bowling lane, right?
There are bowling lanes in politics.
When you run for a national office like this, and maybe this theory may not apply to local races, but I think it applies to gubernatorials and presidential races that are really high profile and generate a lot of media coverage.
There are three lanes.
Now, I brought up the lane theory before, but this is going to be the own your bowling lane theory.
So you have these three bowlers and they're in this thing, you don't bowl in the other guy's lane, you bowl in your lane, right?
There are three essential pathways for these 2020 candidates to get to the finish line and become the Democrat nominee.
I've got these three lanes labeled as the establishment pick, in other words, the safe one, the safe guy.
The radical pick, the ideological pick, and the outsider pick.
Now, keep in mind, this applies to both parties.
But the Democrats are the only ones with a serious primary.
No one's taking Joe Walsh or Mark Sanford seriously on the Republican side.
So in those lanes, you have three frontrunners.
The safe pick, or the establishment pick right now, Joe, obviously, is Biden.
So you may say, okay, in your own-the-lane theory, the theory here is, if you have a lane, you need to own your lane.
Why are you saying they're in trouble?
Okay, because in the bowling lane that says above it on the bowling lane, safe pick, pick this guy, he's the safe bet.
You have to own the safe label.
Joe, do you really think Joe Biden, with this guy's Gaffer Day monstrosities, he can't even remember what state he's in, as I debated with Geraldo, Geraldo and I got a little spicy last night on Hannity.
Geraldo didn't seem to think, you know, Biden's trouble in Ukraine was real.
With his corruption, his corruption allegations, do you really think Biden is the safe pick?
No!
He keeps forgetting what lane he's in, you know?
Nice.
Nice.
Verdict is in.
Armacost.
Very good.
Very good.
Well done, Joe.
He does, he keeps forgetting the ladies in.
The comment, you know, poor kids are just as smart as the white kids.
Of course, you've got a history of gas with this guy.
Obama's clean.
He takes a shower.
I mean, these are all, Biden is not the safe pick.
No, no.
So when you're the front runner in the, He forgets what lane he's in.
That was good.
When you're bowling in that lane and you're allegedly the establishment safe guy and you're not safe.
He's got this corruption issue with his kid that people keep looking into in Ukraine and China and elsewhere.
Yeah.
He's got this history of gaffes.
They are in a lot of trouble when you can't own the lane.
It's the same problem Romney had.
Romney was the so-called safe pick, too, until he wasn't, until he started, you know, with the, I'm not saying what he said, by the way, I'm just, remember, the victim line, and the Democrats used it against him to make him the unsafe guy.
So, on the own-your-lane theory, lane one, safe establishment guy, own the lane and be safe.
They're not!
They're not safe.
Biden is not the safe pick right now.
Lane two, you have the radical ideological pick.
Radical meaning these are going to be the far left wingers trying to gin up the base, the AOC prototypes, right?
Who do you have in that column as the frontrunner?
You have basically Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
Now, why is that bowling lane, again, above the bowling lane you have radical, ideological, we'll gin up the base and get them all excited, all the communists and socialists will vote.
And the radical liberals.
Well, what's the problem there?
Well, own the lane.
The problem is, when you're a radical ideological pick, you better be who you think, to quote Denny Green again, they are who we thought they were.
You better be that person.
And the problem with Warren and Sanders is they're frauds.
Folks, one thing, think about it.
Think through it, think it through through the perspective of your own ideological lens to make it easier to understand.
If you were a Tea Party voter back in 2012, and you found out that the guy you were supporting running as a Tea Party candidate had voted to increase the government budget by two or three times and was a big crony capitalist, you'd be like, wait, that's not my guy.
He doesn't live or vote the lifestyle he's professing to adhere to.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are going to have the same problem when they get to the general and Trump fillets them.
They are frauds!
If you're going to run as the ideological pick, you damn well better live that lifestyle.
And they don't!
Sanders is a millionaire!
He's a millionaire who goes out and gives speeches about millionaires and billionaires being evil and awful!
He is one!
He decries this minimum wage of $7 an hour.
We need $15 an hour minimum wage.
Bernie, do you pay your employees $15 an hour on the campaign?
No, we don't.
We don't pay them $15 an hour because I'm Bernie Sanders.
He's a fraud!
He's a fake!
You have Elizabeth Warren on the other.
You get what I'm saying?
When you're running as the ideological guy, you damn well better be sitting there in like yoga gear and Birkenstocks and running as an anti-capitalist.
They can't.
They're frauds.
Elizabeth Warren.
Another one.
Big radical liberal trying to bowl in the liberal lane.
The radical liberal lane.
She's worth 12 million.
Good for you.
I'm a capitalist.
Congrats.
I'm not faulting your wealth.
I'm just saying you're a fraud.
You don't like millionaires or billionaires either.
You are one.
Donate the money.
Live the lifestyle.
Go make a six million dollar donation.
Show the left how much you care about redistribution.
Also, another problem she's gonna have.
She was aligned with the Republican Party in the past.
She was a Republican.
Not gonna bode well in the radical left lane.
Also, you have our problem with claiming Indian heritage, which is just utterly, at this point, has become a running joke.
So lane two, you have ideologues who are frauds.
Lane one, you have a safe pick who's not safe.
Finally.
I haven't done election analysis in a while, and I've been waiting on this show forever.
This is important stuff.
The third lane.
You just came up with a great name for Warren.
Running joke.
What?
Yeah.
Running joke.
That was good, dude.
Dude, I'm sorry to interrupt, but when I heard that, I went, whoa!
I was totally unintentional.
We'll have to use that again.
Put that in the file.
Put it in the file cabinet.
Running Joe Warren.
It's just not going to work.
But then you have this third, you're making me laugh now, which sometimes happens.
Very good.
The third lane, you have the safe lane, the radical lane, you have the outsider lane.
That was the lane in 2016, which I'm sure you didn't miss the election, was occupied by who?
Donald Trump!
He was the outsider lane.
Hey, look at those idiots.
I'm not with them.
That was his thing.
Donald Trump had one path to the nomination.
It was basically, I'm not with these morons.
So you have this outsider lane.
You see it all the time in every cycle.
Steve Forbes running on the flat tax.
You have outsiders, Ross Perot, who ran, they tried to claim the mantle of this outsider lane.
Okay, Joe, if you're bowling in the outsider lane and it says, I'm the outsider over your lane, then you should probably be an outsider.
I'm just going to throw that out.
You think that'd be a good idea, Joe?
Yes, that would be a good idea.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Again, add the headline, own the lane.
Is the outsiders running this election are not outsiders at all.
Matter of fact, they're insiders.
Pete Buttigieg, failed mayor of South Bend, Indiana.
This guy's not some like political newbie business guy from the outside.
This guy grew up in a very prestigious family and basically is running South Bend, Indiana into the ground.
He's not a political outsider, he's an insider.
He was given a shot at politics, he blew it.
On the other outsider lane, who do you have?
Beto!
Robert Francis Beto O'Rourke!
An outsider?
This guy's married to a multi-millionaire, he's been in Congress for a couple of terms, I don't even know how many terms he's had, and he just ran for Senate in Texas!
This guy's not an outsider!
Again, that's not necessarily a problem, Joe, if you're running as the safe pick.
But remember the own-your-lane theory.
That's not the lane Bateau and Buttigieg are running in.
They're running in the outsider lane, whether they acknowledge it or not.
And they're not outsiders.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's a big problem.
Now, I'll leave this segment by explaining how my own-your-lane theory is actually benefiting one particular candidate.
Paul, you know who I'm talking about?
Do you, really?
Okay, she says she does.
There is one candidate who's been creeping lately.
And if the Own Your Lane theory, which I believe is correct, is correct, it explains why.
That candidate is Andrew Yang.
Wasn't gonna say that.
Andrew Yang is... What?
You were right?
You were thinking that?
Okay, she never lies to me.
Alright, good.
I'll tell you why.
Yang is running.
I was going to say lane.
Yang is running in the outsider lane.
Yang is a legitimate outsider.
I don't agree with the man's got a preposterous, you know, universal basic income thing, but Yang is running in the outsider lane.
He's a likable guy.
He's a business guy.
He has no significant political background.
I mean, outside of maybe, I don't know if he made some donations or whatever, but that there's nothing unusual about that.
And in the latest polls, folks, look at them.
Who's the one making the biggest moves?
Andrew Yang.
He is the only one in the own your lane theory who is actually creeping because in that lane he's actually owning it.
Watch that guy.
Watch him.
Again, it does us no good to gaff this guy off.
Are you qualified for this third debate?
Watch that guy.
Because he's the only one who is in his lane owning the lane.
And the people who own the lane, like Trump did in 2016, are the most dangerous ones out there.
Election 2020.
Own the lane.
Alright, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
The finest.
Folks, I'm not messing with you, okay?
You know, I get it.
People sponsor the show.
I only do first-hand endorsements when I believe in a product.
That's not a requirement for a lot of these products.
But if I believe in it, I'm like, yes, I will endorse it because it works.
This stuff works.
This is the finest nutrition supplement I've ever taken.
I tell you that hands down.
If you're watching on YouTube.com slash Bungina, you'll see I'm holding up a bottle of foundation.
I'll shake it for you.
Foundation is a creatine ATP blend.
This stuff is like having two extra gas tanks in the gym.
How it works is pretty simple.
It's a phosphagen product.
It basically provides a backup energy source for you in the gym when you're out there working out.
It enables you to work harder.
But it not only does that, it volumizes your muscles as well.
Volumizing, meaning it makes them look bigger.
It gives them a toned appearance.
Folks, this will do three things.
You will look better.
You will perform better in the gym.
You'll look better and you'll feel better as well.
I said three things.
I almost did a Rick Perry there.
There are three.
Look better, feel better, perform better.
I'm not kidding.
And if you don't believe me, try in foundation.
Right?
Little Joe loves this stuff.
This is the real deal.
So my nephew wanted to drive up here from Fort Lauderdale to get an extra bottle.
All I ask you to do this, before you try foundation, I want you to take a little mental snapshot.
Look in the mirror at how you look.
Give foundation like five, seven days or so to load in your system.
Go back seven days later.
I'm telling you, you're going to be like, nice.
Right, Paula?
Nice.
We should incorporate this into the Duke Canada too.
Date night, better as a foundation.
It's that good.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of foundation today.
You will not regret it.
It is the best product out there.
I love it.
I'd be lost without it.
All right.
My man.
All right.
Yeah, it's good stuff.
Speaking of which, today's show is obviously politically thematic, a lot of political themes in this, and I talked about how in the ideological lane, the radical left lane, that you better be wearing Birkenstocks and, you know, a robe or yoga attire to run because these far leftist socialists, you know, they don't know what they're talking about, but they're believers.
Um, the problem is most of these people you have now in that socialist lane, not just running for president, but in Congress as well, are frauds, folks.
They're either frauds or they're total ignoramuses and they don't know anything.
And folks, you may say, wow, that's awfully personal.
Um, I'm not going to say I don't mean it that way because there's no way to mean that and not be personal.
But folks, There is an actual knowledge deficit amongst a lot of these frauds running in that ideological lane.
Evidence of that is always AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I get it.
I always get feedback.
A lot of people love the AOC segments.
I try to, you know, make them rare.
Some of you don't like them.
They think we give her unnecessary attention.
Folks, I don't.
She has a massive Twitter following amongst people who believe in the things she says despite what she's saying being so historically inaccurate.
I'm factually devoid of any data that it requires us to highlight it because this is how people with these dopey ideas that hurt people get in power and leverage that power.
So here's a short clip.
Of AOC.
She's doing one of these periscope type things, like a live video she's doing, where she answers questions, which, listen, good for her.
I don't think that's a bad idea.
Good way to reach your audience of constituents.
I don't have any problem with her having access to them.
But whenever she does them, she inevitably says something absolutely ridiculous.
So I want you to pay attention to two things in this cut.
First, if you're watching on the YouTube, I want you to pay attention to The question at the bottom, and how the questioner types it in, I'll get to it for the audio, but don't worry, she actually repeats the question.
But I want you to pay attention to our answer about why young people are so much smarter than older people, and how older people are just really, really, really bad.
And listen to our dumb explanation.
Check this out.
Is the new generation too delicate?
No!
I don't think they're too delicate at all.
I think that They're badass.
I think young people are more informed and dynamic than their predecessors.
I think that they are more sensitive in a positive way in that they actually care about other people's experiences and lives.
Okay, on the bottom of that was cut off.
The guy types in the question.
I don't know if it was a guy or a woman, doesn't matter.
The guy types in the question.
The question was, are young people, or is the next generation, too delicate?
Too.
T-O.
Oak!
The real question should have been, "Are young people too averse to using the English language?"
There's an extra O in there.
That part is just hysterical because that just is, that epitomizes every problem I have.
With, not with younger, listen I love our younger listeners.
The best emails.
I have Mitchell and all you other people who email me.
You guys are great ladies out there.
The problem I have is with younger people and candidly older people who think they're smarter than everyone else.
It's another reason I hate as I opened up the show touting my educational bona fides and resume.
I hate it.
I can't stand it.
It's always a crutch to tell someone else how dumb they are.
Look at me.
I'm educated.
I have two graduate degrees.
You're so stupid.
Meanwhile, the guy you're talking to, stupid, is running a successful plumbing business for 30 years while you're, you know, selling some bread hot dogs and on 46th Street, New York.
Okay.
Yeah.
Give me a break.
Okay.
Life experience matters too.
My problem again is with these younger people like AOC, who is younger than me, who really believe they're smarter than everyone else.
Now, a couple of points to take away with this, because there is a serious takeaway and it's a problem that has reached epidemic proportions on the left.
Problem number one, Joe, is the left does this all the time.
They build up the younger generation.
There's nothing wrong with that.
You don't want to tell younger people they're stupid.
That's not my goal here.
I have, you know, I have kids too.
But they do it at the expense of the older generation and their accumulated knowledge and experience.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's being done for a reason.
You got it.
And it really pisses me off, if you don't mind me saying.
Before I get to that though, she says that the younger people are, quote, more sensitive and they actually care about other people.
Really?
So I just wrote two examples down.
What about the generation of Northern troops in the Civil War?
Hundreds of thousands of casualties that died to wipe the stain of slavery from our society.
What about those people?
Did they actually care?
What do you think they were doing?
What about the civil rights generation?
Republicans, Democrats, civil libertarians?
Marching down south with fire hoses in their face and dogs barking at them, getting beaten by mahogany nightsticks.
What about them, AOC?
Do they care?
Or did knowledge and sensitivity just come along when you were elected to Congress?
Civil rights leaders.
Human rights leaders.
What about the women's rights generation that fought for the women's right to vote?
What about them?
Were they stupid too?
Was that generation just not of your intellectual and sensitivity caliber?
Now ladies and gentlemen, the left does this all the time.
And it is an attack on conservatism.
The essence of conservatism, in contrast to what the lunatic left wants you to believe, is to conserve good ideas, not bad ones.
Remember, it was largely Republicans who led the Civil Rights Revolution against Southern Democrats.
A historical fact typically left out.
Our goal is not to conserve crappy ideas.
Human beings have been plagued by crappy ideas since we became sentient beings.
Conservatism and being conservative is about conserving good ideas.
Essential human liberty.
Economic liberty.
God-given rights.
Limited government.
Big individuals, small government.
Good ideas that have led to wealth and prosperity throughout human history.
Educational choice.
Healthcare choice.
Basic human liberties.
This is what we're about.
Conserving good ideas.
Now go back to AOC.
AOC's not about conserving good ideas.
AOC, and her ignorance of history, is about implementing constantly changing new ideas by the benighted political class, which evaporate away good ideas like individual liberty.
Because individual liberty can't possibly exist when the government's constantly encroaching on it.
So when conservatives say, listen, Human beings have made mistakes.
The United States has made mistakes.
We've had historical human errors here.
Slavery, women not voting.
These things were all unquestionable errors.
We fixed them.
We've not eradicated racism, but we've come a very, very long way.
Conservatives want to propose the ethos that led people to fight against institutional racism and slavery.
When that institutional ethos we have is that all human beings are born free.
Including people who had been put into the stain of slavery.
Those were our ideas.
AOC doesn't like the idea that these basic bedrocks of big individual God-given rights.
She doesn't like that because her socialism ideas can't possibly exist.
The two spheres of big government and big individual rights can't exist at the same time.
So liberals, you'll see this all the time.
Young people, don't listen to your parents.
They're so stupid.
Don't listen to your grandfather.
They grew up in this racist time.
They're all awful people.
You know what?
My grandfather busted his butt Working in a fish store in Harlem his whole life.
God rest the man's soul.
He was the greatest man I ever met.
Fought in the Battle of the Bulge in World War II.
Never talked about it one day.
Used to wake up.
Let me tell you a quick story.
The night I was graduating from the Secret Service Academy, we didn't have a lot of money.
We were in the Doubletree in Alexandria.
So my grandparents came down with my father and my mother.
We all had to stay in the same hotel room.
We didn't have a lot of money.
In the middle of the night, my grandfather woke up, and it was like a scream.
And I think I may have told this story before, and nobody responded but me.
I was like, what's wrong?
Well, I woke up the next day, and I asked my father, I said, what happened there?
And he's like, oh, yeah, you know, it happens to your grandfather once in a while, ever since he came back, you know, from the war.
The war?
Ladies and gentlemen, he was in World War II.
I graduated from the Secret Service Academy in 1999.
I'm like, does he ever talk about it?
No.
My father said never.
You want to talk about a badass, tough guy, smart, intelligent, hardworking generation these pompous young twits could learn from?
I'm not talking about all the young people.
I'm talking about the pompous young twits.
You know exactly who I'm talking about.
Maybe for a minute take the cotton out of your ears and jam it in your mouth and listen to what this older generation and this generation that works for a living has to say.
It's really patently offensive that we have this generation of kids being taught that.
That your parents and grandparents are racist idiots and you are the enlightened ones.
Now, you think I'm wrong?
You think I'm making this up?
Conveniently, as I was listening to, I'm not kidding, in one of those serendipitous, I believe, heavenly-inspired moments, I'm listening to this dopey video by AOC, which goes on forever, by the way.
AOC, you know, 29 year old former bartender, enlightening us all on how stupid our parents
and grandparents were and how they weren't sensitive, and this is the first generation
of sensitive people. Ugh, why? I'm gonna... I... Yeah, I better... Let me show you this
article I saw that creeped up from NPR, exactly on my Twitter feed as I was looking at this thing.
This is August 25th, 2019.
Academic Science Rethinks All Too White Dude Walls of Honor.
This piece, I will put it in the show notes.
I'm going to have to dig it up again.
I don't think I'd put it in the show, but I will.
I want you to look at the picture in this NPR piece in the show notes and what this story is about.
Apparently, at some of these academic institutions of higher learning, they have walls of honor for Nobel Prize winners and people who've done great things in their past.
Joe, this is not a joke.
This story is going to make you scratch your head like you haven't scratched it in a long, long time.
They've taken these Nobel Prize winners and these great men and women down because a lot of them were white.
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
What does that have to do with anything?
And a lot of them were men, so they call them Jude Walls.
Oh man.
Again.
Right?
An effort by morons.
History-averse imbeciles with IQs less than 50 who want to whitewash the past, eliminate the past altogether, because they think they're smarter than the accumulated body of human knowledge based on experience, effort, knowledge, skills, and abilities.
And these are the people you want leading your kids in the future.
I'm telling you, it's a disgrace what's going on right now.
They do this all the time.
Now, I've got more.
Today's show is going to be very political.
I'm going to debunk some liberal nonsense coming up next, so don't miss the rest of the show.
This Amazon fires thing is out of control.
Literally out of control.
But the political narrative is out of control, too.
In case you missed it, there have been very significant damaging fires in the Amazon.
And liberals, of course, for the, what, Joe, 1,467th time are lying to us about what's actually going on in the Amazon because all they care about is politics, not fixing the Amazon.
I got that.
And them lying about Trump's use of money to build the wall.
Last sponsor of the day, a great one though, Helix Sleep.
We sleep on Helix Sleep mattresses in my house.
We love them.
You are not going to find a better mattress for the price.
Do not go to these mattress stores and buy one of these generic mattresses built for some other person other than you.
Helix Sleep will customize the mattress.
You know how they do it?
They have a quiz that takes just two minutes to complete, matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you, not some other guy.
Whether you're a side sleeper, hot sleeper, you like a plush bed, you like a firm bed, with Helix there's no more confusion and no more compromising.
Helix Sleep is rated the number one, that's right, number one mattress by GQ and Wired Magazine.
This is one of the most comfortable mattresses you're ever gonna sleep on.
We love it here.
Just go to Helix, that's H-E-L-I-X, sleep.com/dan, Helixsleep.com/dan.
Take their two-minute sleep quiz.
They'll match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.
You're in that mattress for eight to 10 hours a night sometimes, why are you sleeping on a garbage mattress?
And for couples, Helix can even split the mattress down the middle, providing individual support needs
and feel preferences for each side.
They have a 10-year warranty.
You'll get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
They'll even pick it up for you.
That's how confident they are, if you don't love it, you will.
Helix is offering up to $125 off all mattress orders That's $125 off.
That's a lot.
At helixsleep.com slash Dan.
Go today.
Helixsleep.com slash Dan for up to $125 off your mattress order.
Helixsleep.com slash Dan.
Please go check it out.
Great company, great mattresses, super high quality, great prices.
So, again, how liberals like AOC and others lie to you.
They just make things up to advance the narrative, and when accumulated experience comes into the mix, they ignore it.
Oh, ignore those old people.
They're all stupid.
They're all racist.
Well, Matt Palumbo, our resident fact-checker and debunker, who has, by the way, thank you all for picking up his book, Debunk This, on Amazon, your handy guide to the 2020 election and the issues.
It did very well.
Matt wrote another piece for us, which will be in the show notes today, debunking this nonsense you're hearing about fires in the Amazon.
Now, these are bad, they're catastrophic, they're very bad.
The problem is, what the liberals' reasons are for these fires are not true.
So the piece is entitled, Fires in the Amazon have decreased by nearly half since their peak.
So, Matt wants to debunk two points.
Again, not that this isn't an issue, of course it is.
Number one, liberals of course, Joe, instead of trying to solve the problem and finding out why the Amazon rainforest porcelain pits are on fire, Liberals go right to, it's gotta be climate change, Joe!
It's gotta be climate change.
Clearly, if you have a truck or you have an SUV, you are burning down the rainforest.
It's all climate change.
Well, Matt addresses that in the body of the piece.
He says, for the most part, the Amazon isn't burning.
Farmland is.
He says, surprisingly, this is a big shocker here, the fake news New York Times, actually, provided a much-needed reality check on the issue.
When the New York Times is calling you out, Joe, you know you're making this up.
Natural fires in the Amazon are rare, and the majority of these fires were set by farmers preparing Amazon-adjacent farmland for next year's crops and pasture, they clarified.
Much of the land that is burning was not old-growth rainforest, but land that had been already cleared of trees and set for agricultural use.
The Times also acknowledges that, quote, These fires were not caused by climate change.
They were, by and large, set by humans.
Of course they had to throw in a caveat.
However, climate change can make fires worse.
Of course they had to throw that in because God forbid they actually stick to the facts.
Folks, again, I'm not here to tell you that fires in the Amazon isn't an issue that shouldn't be addressed.
I'm here to tell you what I tell you every show, that liberals lie to you.
I cannot think of a single issue of substance I've had to address on this show in the last few months where liberals haven't given you a gaslighting false narrative.
These fires are not being caused by climate change.
They are largely not in the rainforest portion.
They're on farmland.
And they're being set by people.
Not, you know, Heronius, the Greek god of climate change.
I just made that up.
There is no Greek god of climate change, of course.
But Heronius did not set these fires.
Of course from our famous Vince Vaughn.
Erroneous!
It's not what's happening.
That is not what's happening.
We're not going to do gaslighting narratives on the show.
Your liberal friends who are telling you, oh look at what's happening, climate change, the Amazon fire, they're being set by people.
Oh, every day we gotta do it.
The misinformation coming from the left.
When the New York Times is calling you out, maybe you should rethink your narrative.
All right, takeaway number two.
These fires are not at some unprecedented frequency, ladies and gentlemen, as Matt writes in the piece.
Here is a chart I sent over to Matt Hazard in the piece if you want to look at it in more detail.
This is a chart.
Fires in the Amazon from the National Institute for Space Research.
The chart covers from 1999 from 2019 through 2019.
In other words, a good solid, you know, a couple decades here of fires.
As you can see from the chart, and I'll explain to you for those that are audio listeners, it is not the case.
It's a simple bar graph where 2019 is relatively the average for the fires they've had in the total forest fire spots detected by satellite.
In other words, this is not unprecedented.
I'm not saying it's not an issue.
I'm simply telling you, if we're talking in facts and data, which liberals are allergic to, this is not an unprecedented event where fires are out of control like we haven't seen in decades.
It's just not true.
It's not true.
It's a problem to be dealt with.
It's a problem to be dealt with when we understand what the problem is, what the precedent is, and why they're being started.
If you're listening to liberals, you will get the wrong answer on all of those accounts.
Really.
Please read the story in the show notes.
Again, if you subscribe to my email list, I'll email you these articles every day.
We really appreciate you all doing that, by the way.
I also email the link to the show if you just want to click the play button on the email.
Second, having to debunk liberal nonsense.
So, there's a story out there that's breaking.
It's going to get a lot of traction in the next few days.
I want to prepare you because you're going to hear it again.
Trump diverted emergency money from hurricanes into building a wall.
What an awful, horrible guy Donald Trump is.
Here's a short clip from Fox explaining the problem.
You're going to hear Griff Jenkins and some of the Fox folks.
It's about a minute and I want you to pay attention to the end because there's a takeaway because again, liberals are lying to you about this diversion of funds.
Check this clip out.
The timing is certainly fueling harsh criticism from Democrats.
Speaker Pelosi took an issue with the news that DHS is actually moving some $271 million from agencies like FEMA and the Coast Guard, issuing this statement.
She says, But to pick the pockets of disaster relief funding in order
to fund an appalling inhumane family incarceration plan is staggering. And to do so on
the eve of hurricane season is stunningly reckless. DHS says the move is intended to increase
detention beds and support the remain in Mexico asylum policy. It's also not uncommon for unassigned
funds within a single department to be transferred between agencies as the fiscal year ends.
Thank you, Griff, for clearing that up a griff's the news guy. He's not on the opinion side.
Ladies and gentlemen, the fiscal year runs.
It's not the calendar year.
The government spends money in a fiscal year.
That fiscal year ends basically at the end of September.
It runs from October through September.
We are approaching the end of the fiscal year.
When DHS has money in certain subdivisions of DHS that aren't spent, I was a DHS employee, my last line of work.
It's not uncommon to take those unallocated funds and move them around to other areas within DHS.
It happens all the time.
Now, of course, the Democrats, who lie constantly, are suggesting somehow that because FEMA and other places didn't spend this money and DHS is going to use it for border construction and other things, the unallocated funds, the funds that aren't spent, that this is somehow Trump taking money from the hurricane zone people.
Oh, he's so awful.
Ladies and gentlemen, again, they're just making it up.
These people lie to you constantly.
Are you even interested in the truth?
Vote whoever you want to vote for.
You're a Democrat.
You align with the Dems all the time.
You never cross-ballot.
Fine.
Whatevs, man.
Do your thing.
Just understand this.
What you're voting for is a lie.
You're not being told the truth on just about any issue of substance whatsoever.
That is not true, that this is some effort to jip the Puerto Rican economy out of a hurricane relief fund.
The largest hurricane relief package in modern American history was just allocated to Puerto Rico after the devastation of the last hurricane.
They're just making this up.
Because it is all about power and lies to them.
It's disgusting.
Donald Trump lies!
No, no, you guys lie.
Like, all the time.
You don't listen to the show, you'll probably believe that.
Oh my gosh, he took money away.
He took money out of the mouths of starving babies in Puerto Rico to give them to the border patrol.
That is not the way any of this works.
You just made all of that up.
Now, this is a nice segue.
I didn't even plan it this way.
But folks, shockingly, some in the media who cover this garbage and nonsense, some, and I mean by some, I mean very few, Are starting to wake up to the fact that the constant litany of lies against Donald Trump and Republicans is not really working out the way they planned.
Why are they doing that?
Again, it's not their goodwill.
It's not that media people are engaged in this moment of sincere self-reflection.
The problem the media is having right now is that nobody believes them anymore.
Because they lie so often and effortlessly about Donald Trump.
He colluded with the Russians.
He's a racist.
Donald Trump's bringing about a recession tomorrow morning.
This stuff is just discredited nonsense that they make up.
And the media newsrooms, as we saw in the Dean Baquet from the New York Times leaked little conference he had there, where he acknowledged that they screwed up on the Russia thing.
Now they're moving to make up racism charges instead.
They have a real issue.
It's been a really bad week for the New York Times.
You have that Bret Stephens debacle with the bed bug story.
They could tax some professor for calling him a bed bug.
You know, I have a thin skin too, but really, dude, I mean, you see the guy's boss is stupid.
But some in the media are starting to have brief moments of self-reflection, I think based on the fact that their own credibility is going down the tubes.
Here's an interesting article from MSN by Aaron Blake.
Aaron Blake writes for the Washington Post, and the articles, I have this in the show notes too, how Trump got under the media's thin skin.
Now, he cites another, I think his name is Jack Schafer, writer at Politico, and if you listened to yesterday's show, you'll understand the background, but briefly, conservatives are now starting to target the social media histories of media people who lie about Trump.
We've seen the conservatives have exposed some anti-semitic tweets from New York Times writers.
The media, ladies and gentlemen, as I covered yesterday on the show, is up in arms.
They're like, what do you mean?
We're only allowed to expose you guys.
When you expose us, that's not fair.
It's an attack on the press.
It's not an attack on the press.
It's an attack on your credibility.
Let me get this straight.
Conservatives found a bunch of tweets about an anti-Semite working at the New York Times while the New York Times was writing about Trump being an anti-Semite?
And you're bothered by that?
Sorry, as I said, too bad, so sad.
Now, as this guy writes in the piece covered by Aaron Blake, and I put Blake's piece and not the political piece because it covers both sides.
This is the political writer, I think it's Schaefer.
He writes, As much as I would like to sympathize with my fellow journalists, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to ask them to own or repudiate vile or impolitic things they may have stated in the past.
Gee, you think?
Nor is it remotely unfair for the president's supporters to demand that journalists, who are forever denouncing him as racist, and he writes, because he is, vice figure, you see these idiots?
To be held accountable for their bigoted speech on Twitter or anywhere else.
Journalists don't deserve a get-out-of-bigotry-jail-free card just because they're journalists.
If their past tweets, however ancient, undercut their current journalistic work or make them sound hypocritical, they can't blame their diminished prestige on Trump's allies.
It's like blaming a cop for writing you a ticket for speeding in a school zone.
I'm not sure about that analogy.
And of course the guy's kind of a jerk because he is alright.
He doesn't know what he's making that up to.
But again, this moment of self-reflection is not these guys being white knights and coming in here to save the day for journalists.
It's that they understand that nobody believes them anymore.
There's only so many narratives you can fabricate and create that are lies before the general public just says, you know what, you guys are just full of crap.
But you're not off-limits.
Why you would think you were off-limits is offensive to people like us.
I'm a conservative pundit.
I do opinion commentary.
I'm sure liberals have gone through every single thing I've done in my life.
So that's fair game for the Media Matters lunatics, but when we return the favor on them and find out that Media Matters is run by a guy who's made anti-Semitic blog posts, that that's not fair?
Hard pass.
New rules, folks.
We win, you lose.
You want to apply those standards to us?
We're going to apply them to you, too.
But again, don't make this moment of self-reflection for a second make you believe that, oh, look, these guys are being really good about it.
No, no, no.
It's just because their credibility's down the tubes.
That's the only reason.
Okay, last story of the day, but a good one.
You know, I love debunking liberal talking points.
I have some really good PJ Media pieces.
I like to kind of spread the wealth around promoting stuff between the various conservative outlets.
PJ does some good stuff.
PJ Media has a great piece about capitalism and how, again, silly leftist talking points by AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are just entirely, completely ridiculous.
The story will be in the show notes by Tyler O'Neill, August 26, 2019.
PJ Media.
Sorry, Bernie.
America's poorest are richer than 60% of developed countries.
Just fighting back again against liberal gaslighting nonsense narratives.
Their narrative is this, very clear.
Capitalism is discriminatory.
Capitalism takes advantage of people.
Socialism is more equal.
Therefore, we should be socialists.
That's the umbrella Bernie Sanders AOC narrative.
What's really comically stupid about this is, again, if facts and data matter, I know liberals, you can tune out now.
I know that stuff doesn't matter to you.
It does matter to me and Joe, Paula, and my audience, however.
An analysis they recently did of OECD countries, keep in mind, these are the wealthier countries in the world, right?
The OECD countries.
This is incredible, Joe, that when you base your figures on consumption, which is the way to do it, income's hard to measure because it doesn't necessarily take into account government transfers, so when you base it on consumption, in other words, what poor people in countries actually consume, food, cars, cell phones, computers, that stuff, it's a better measure of their well-being.
Than income.
Because income doesn't always take into account government transfers, Medicaid benefits, Medicare.
It doesn't, it's not a full scope.
Okay.
Maybe some kind of inheritance money.
You don't always get the full scope of what, consumption's a better way to do it.
Because it gives you a better sense of how people are living.
When you base those figures on consumption, the poor in America, the bottom 20%, statistically, Consume more than the average in 64% of OECD countries.
Here's a clip from the piece you can see on the youtube.com slash Bongino.
Think about what I'm telling you.
The richest countries in the world when you measure them, when you measure well-being based on consumption, that our poorest people are better off than the average income people in 64% of the world's wealthiest countries.
Tell me again how capitalism in the United States is taking advantage of the poor, screwing people over.
It's a failed system.
No, it's not failed.
Folks, poorest folks do better than average middle class people in the majority of the world's wealthiest countries.
Again, another data point you should grill into your head to argue with your leftist friends when they tell you how wonderful socialism is elsewhere.
They're just making it up.
Again.
Because that's what they do best.
All right, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel.
I don't know what YouTube did to our video yesterday, but it really, it crushed our, like, in half.
We had our best day ever on Monday, and then all of a sudden people couldn't find our video.
If you subscribe, youtube.com slash Bongino, it's free.
You'll get those videos every day.
Put on the alerts.
I really appreciate that.
Also subscribe to our audio podcast, also free, on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts.
