In this episode, I address the Democrats turning on each other regarding this key 2020 election issue. I also address a potential pitfall for the Trump 2020 re-election. Finally, I address an explosive fake news story designed to damage the Trump team. News Picks:Fake news alert. No, Trump rallies are not associated with a spike in “hate incidents.”
The hapless AOC blames 100 companies for climate change, but half are government owned.
This may be one of the few times I agree with Rahm Emanuel.
Would “gun control” legislation severely impact President Trump’s re-election effort?
This college accepted Epstein money and labeled it “anonymous.”
Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
While Big Mobile subsidized leftist causes that erode our values, our rights, and our country, Patriot Mobile is donating to the causes you believe in.
Patriot Mobile was created to give conservatives, like you, a voice, both literally and in preserving our great nation.
Join thousands of Americans using Patriot Mobile and get reliable nationwide coverage.
Keep your number, bring your own phone, or get a new one.
Feel good about unlimited talk and text and high-speed data plans that fight for your freedom.
Switch today at patriotmobile.com slash dan.
Again, that's patriotmobile.com slash dan.
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
More fake news to debunk today, folks.
As always, it's a Monday morning and the litany of fake news stories continues.
Journalism is dead.
Stick a fork in it, bury it six feet deep.
Unfortunately, they seem to have this vaccination against truth, facts and reality.
Stack Show for you today.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Yeah, Dano, for some, the truth really hurts.
And it's a great Monday, baby!
Wow, you really are like in full talk show mode on a Monday morning.
So I had to take a jiu-jitsu ground, private lesson, ground game lesson on Sunday.
Little sorte, clean up my debacle on Thursday night where I got destroyed by a friend of mine in the class.
I was very upset about that.
But I feel good now.
My top game's a little better.
I can't recommend private lessons enough in Brazilian jiu-jitsu.
It was great.
So good weekend for me.
Hope everything was good for you.
I got another AOC facepalm for you.
I agree with Rahm Emanuel on something.
Hold the presses.
Yes, former chief of staff to Obama, Rahm Emanuel, actually had a moment of brilliance.
Shocking.
I agree with him on some.
Google, more Google collusion.
Life, liberty and live in.
If you saw it last night, got that.
And then another Trump hate incident, rally, whatever hoax I need to debunk.
It's really important.
All right, so today's show brought to you by WaxRx.
WaxRx, they've been a sponsor for almost two years, and because of your support of WaxRx, this is how you're going to clean out your ears now, folks.
No more of those cotton swabs inside there.
It's dangerous.
Uh, Walgreens took notice and now carries it.
Wax Rx, listen, it's not the sexiest product to talk about, but as I've told you, I had a problem with earwax buildup in my prior line of work, and even now, wearing these IFBs in my ear all the time.
When your ears aren't clean, they get really uncomfortable.
They itch, they're painful, and get plugged up.
I couldn't hear anything in my left ear last week, right Paula?
I'm not even messing around.
Making it harder to hear.
Many people use cotton swabs.
You're not supposed to stick them in your ears.
It's really dangerous.
Even says on the back not to do that.
Try the Doctor Develop Wax RX Ear Wash System.
It's just like the one doctors use in their office.
You save a trip, a co-pay, it's just better.
Try the Wax RX system by typing in gowaxrx.com.
That's gowaxrx.com.
Use your offer code Dan at checkout for free shipping or visit your local Walgreens.
Don't wait, you have no idea what you might be missing because of inner ear wax.
It's real simple, folks.
You see that spray nozzle?
You just put the little cup they give you in a year, gently spray.
It comes with a solution that breaks up that earwax.
You'll be surprised what comes out.
It just fell over on me.
But this is it.
WaxRX, the best system out there.
Visit gowaxrx.com.
Offer code Dan.
That's gowaxrx.com.
Use code Dan for free shipping.
Gowaxrx.com.
Offer code Dan for free shipping.
All right, let's go.
There we go.
Way, way off on this one.
All right, story number one.
I agree with Rahm Emanuel, shockingly.
I know we may, stop the presses, but Rahm Emanuel, who was Barack Obama's former chief of staff, the failed mayor of Chicago, was on, was it, it was one of these talk shows this week, and I have the clip I'm gonna play in a minute, and he was giving a warning to the Democrats about, hey, ladies, gents, you're going down the wrong path, and for like this brief moment in time, I actually agree with Rahm.
Here's what he said this weekend.
We've taken a position so far, and the candidates have, through the process, a few have not, about basically Medicare for All, which is we're going to eliminate 150 million people's health care, and we're going to provide health care for people that just come over the border.
That is an untenable position for the general election.
As you know, George, I just biked around Lake Michigan, nearly 1,000 miles, through Michigan and Wisconsin, two really important states.
Nobody at a diner ran at me and said, take my health care away.
Nobody.
This is reckless as it relates to, and you don't have to take the position to win the primary, and you're basically literally hindering yourself for the general election.
He's right!
I mean, what do you want me to do?
Disagree with him because he was Obama's chief of staff?
He's absolutely right!
This Medicare-for-all proposal being espoused by many of the top Democrats, Liz Warren, Bernie Sanders, and others out there who've raised their hand in support of this disaster, ladies and gentlemen, is a political, tactical debacle of historic proportions.
Now, I'm not an Emanuel fan, obviously, but he can be tactically sound when he's not in a leadership position himself.
You know, for his side, not for our side, which is deadly to us.
He was the guy, you know, don't let a crisis go to waste.
I mean, Emanuel's one of these guys that helped Obama push through some of the most liberal pieces of legislation in American history.
The guy knows what he's doing on his side, which again is very bad for us.
He's warning them.
This is a bad idea.
Now, I was on Fox & Friends this morning for my Monday morning appearance I always do.
It's around 6.30, sometimes a little later on Monday mornings.
I got up this morning early and I saw that was the topic and I was really happy to talk about it.
Now, I addressed a couple things I want to address here in a little more detail.
Obviously those hits are a little, they call them hits on TV, a little shorter.
This is my show, I have a little bit more time.
Why is this so dangerous for you and everyone out there?
Point number one, ladies and gentlemen, Resources are scarce.
We need to all understand this.
And when it comes to Medicare for All, which is basically single-payer, government-run health care for everyone in this country in lieu of what you have now, all resources are scarce.
Everything.
Please tell me a resource that's not scarce.
The opposite of Scarce Show being unlimited, correct?
Yes.
Again, I need you to put on the audience ombudsman.
If this gets complicated, stop me.
Unfortunately, we have to talk to liberals who are vaccinated against facts sometimes.
Understood.
All resources are scarce.
Now, when it comes to medicine and healthcare, a doctor's time is scarce, correct?
They work 8, 12, maybe 16 hours a day.
Hospital beds are scarce.
Rooms in hospitals are scarce.
MRI machines are scarce.
None of this is unlimited.
Everything.
Water is scarce.
It's not unlimited either.
Scarce resources can only be allocated one of two ways.
You can either price them or you can ration them.
Right.
Folks, there is no third way.
You can price those resources.
Gold, medical appointments, computers, it doesn't matter.
iPhones, you can price them or you can ration them.
There is no other way to allocate them.
In other words, to distribute those.
You can distribute them based on people who are willing to pay a certain price for them, or you can ration them.
There is no other way.
When you wipe out the price signal, And use the government to price these things, which makes prices irrelevant.
Because you're paying tax dollars to the government, they're just giving money away.
When you wipe the price signal out, you have to ration your healthcare.
There is no other way.
Every single payer system on earth that has implemented this Medicare for all, which is really Medicare for none, because it'll wipe out Medicare as you know it, every place on earth has had to implement some form of rationing to try to keep the use of those services down.
Because those services, when the government pays for them, which really means you do your tax dollars, Joe, what do people do?
They think it's free.
Sure.
So they rush to the hospital when they get the sniffles.
They pile up in emergency rooms.
Guy gets a little cut on his hand.
He winds up going to the emergency room instead of just putting some peroxide and neosporin on it.
You know, kid's got an ear infection.
Instead of going to an ear doctor, they wind up in the emergency room.
Instead, you wind up with dramatic overuse of medical services, which correspondingly leads to what?
Rationing of said services because the government doesn't have enough money and enough of a tax base to pay for everybody to go to the emergency room every time they get the sniffles.
It's only happened every place on earth it's been tried.
Now, we've discussed that ad nauseum on this show repeatedly.
Price it or ration it.
There's no other way.
There is no third way.
Right.
Government-run healthcare, Medicare for all, whatever you want to call it by any euphemism they want to use, is a rationing system by default.
Now what's the problem with that?
Why am I bringing this up now?
Emmanuel brought up a very key point there that I think a lot of people missed in that appearance which I brought up this morning, but again I'll repeat here in a little more detail because it's important.
He says, listen, I was biking around Lake Michigan, this Emmanuel, and I cut, and he says, Rahm Emanuel, and he says, listen, nobody's talking to me about, hey, I want to get rid of my private health care, free market health care, nobody.
Now, why is that a problem?
And why is what he thinks... Get in his head.
He is a liberal Democrat strategist who, again, when he's not in the leadership possession himself, is actually very effective at getting anti-liberty stuff pushed through, like the Obama agenda.
Don't disrespect the guy's tactics.
Disagree with them.
But if you disrespect and ignore them, that's how they get this stuff past you.
Oh, don't pay attention to that guy.
He's a knucklehead.
No, he's not.
He knows exactly what he's doing.
He's sounding the alarm for Democrats because there's a foil effect, folks, that they don't necessarily have in other single-payer countries.
The National Health Service in the United Kingdom A lot of these single-payer health services in Scandinavia and other places, Joe, Japan and elsewhere, a lot of them, they've had them for decades.
You're a little bit older than me, not much, but for most of your adult life, if you've lived in the United Kingdom, Joe, you have not known what free market healthcare looks like.
What do you mean I can just go to the doctor?
There's no waiting list?
You have not known any different.
That is not the case here!
No.
Emmanuel is warning the Democrats that people here know what it's like to go to the doctor when they want.
Is everything perfect?
Heck no!
There's a lot of waiting time, there's a lot of downtime in waiting rooms, but generally, generally speaking in the United States, if you want to go to a doctor, by law if you want to go to the ER, the ER can't turn you away, you can go!
Is it perfect?
No, the system has many flaws.
A lot of it due to the government, as a matter of fact, which pays about 40% of the health care bills.
But you have this foil effect now you don't have in other single-payer countries.
All they've done is sit on waiting lists.
They don't know any different.
It's almost like the enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't know.
They're like, well, we can institute single payer in the United States and it would take away the health care you have now.
People go, I hate the health care I have now.
Well, you're going to wind up in a government clinic.
No, no, I don't want that.
You see how it works in reverse?
In the United States you will never see this, and this is a devastating proposal for the Democrats, because even though people in the United States now are not crazy about their health care, psychologically, sociologically, the fear of the unknown is greater than the fear of what they have now, because at least what they have now they can deal with and they've learned to deal with over the years.
Right.
The reverse is happening in the United Kingdom.
They know what they have now has problems, significant problems.
People are dying on waiting lists.
5% of United Kingdom doctors admit to knowing patients that have died on waiting lists.
Those are just the 5 out of 100 doctors admit to it.
40,000 upwards of 40,000 Canadians a year if not more cross the border to pay for health care here despite getting it quote free in their country in Canada.
But folks, the fear of the unknown is very powerful.
Just look at any of these psychology studies they do when you give people the statistical analysis on, do you want to take this dollar now?
Or do you want to flip a coin?
And statistically, you're almost guaranteed to make $1.25.
They're like, no, no, just give me the dollar now.
These studies, we used to talk about them on the show all the time.
That was my area of graduate work.
When you look at studies on uncertainty, people will pay a premium.
They will lose money for uncertainty.
When you tell them, it's almost statistically guaranteed, if you just flip a coin, you'll make more money, they go, no, no, just give me the money now.
Even though they know the data says you will make more if you flip the coin.
Probability-wise.
Some could lose, of course.
But the fact that you could lose, even if it's a small percentage, people don't want it.
That's why this is such a political disaster for the left.
And that's why, honestly folks, I don't see any change around the world with these single-payer healthcare systems, despite the fact that people know they're being rationed, literally many of them, to death.
Because uncertainty troubles them.
But Emmanuel smells problems here for them.
This guy's tactically smart.
He gets it.
They are in a world of trouble.
And the Trump team needs to leverage that.
All right, it's an important topic, healthcare.
We haven't discussed it a lot lately.
I wanted to make sure we got to that really, really critically important stuff.
All right, I wanna get to story number two, because this was really a couple of bombshells on Life, Liberty, and the Vin last night.
Mark Levin's terrific show on Fox.
It airs at 10 p.m.
on Sunday nights.
It's really very good.
If you haven't checked it out, set your DVRs.
But he had a guy last night on a PhD, a guy by the name of Dr. Epstein.
Now, we've heard all about, you know, Russian collusion.
Russian collusion influenced the election.
Do you actually have any evidence of that?
No, we don't have evidence.
You know, it was, of course, the biggest hoax of our time was the whole Russian collusion overturned the election nonsense.
They bought like, what is it, $400,000 in social media ads?
It was probably less than that by the time they were done.
And the Democrats want you to believe the Russians got Donald Trump elected.
Well, they had this guy on, Life, Liberty and the Vin last night, I got video from this, this was stunning, making some really unbelievable, well, I shouldn't say unbelievable, I mean, they're definitely believable knowing Google, but hard to fathom charges about what Google may be doing to influence the election and what they did in 2018.
Check out this brief cut, when we come back, I'll explain how devastating this is gonna be.
Now, when you say in 2020 they're gonna go all out to defeat Trump, And promote whoever the Democrat nominee is.
All out means like right up into election day, pushing these agendas.
For example, if they put on their site, as they did in the past, Go Vote, instead of Google, right?
They had Go Vote.
What was that, 2016?
2018.
2018.
They'd Go Vote.
And people were praising them, you know, like the League of Women Vote.
Wow, look at that.
It's a public service.
Go vote.
You don't think that was a public service at all?
Why?
Oh, no, I know for sure it wasn't.
I actually published an article in which I included all the calculations showing that this was actually just a vote manipulation.
And that's something I'm now studying and understanding better.
But the point is that you know, that would have, let's put it this way, Google
knows full well that more Democrats and left-leaning people like myself use Google than Republicans
do. They know that. They know the exact numbers. So they know that if they present a go-vote
prompt, they know that's going to have a bigger impact on Democrats than Republicans.
And I calculated that that one manipulation in 2018 gave at least 800,000 more votes to
Democrats than to Republicans.
There's nothing to see here, folks.
Russian collusion.
Let's talk about Russian collusion.
The biggest hoax of our time.
Russian collusion with the Trump team to impact the election.
This guy, this PhD, who, by the way, I don't believe is a conservative at all, was on Levin Show, made the claim.
Did you hear what he just said?
Yeah.
That the Google Go vote was potentially an intentional manipulation, knowing that more liberals and Democrats will use Google, was an intentional manipulation that could have impacted the decision-making of 800,000 voters?
No, no, Joe.
It was the $40 buy of a Facebook ad in East Kenosha, Wisconsin that definitely changed the election by the Russians.
That was it.
That was definitely it.
Do you understand 800,000 voters, what a difference that is?
Remember, folks, keep this in mind.
I took this note because I don't want to mess this up.
This is important.
The presidential election is not a national election, as many of you are aware of.
It is a series of 50 different state elections.
The popular vote is irrelevant.
You're not elected by the popular vote.
So the 800,000 may not seem like a big number in an election where, you know, 100 million people turn up and vote.
But it is when you consider the fact that if the Trump re-election effort hinges on just a few states, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Donald Trump won those states, some of them by just thousands of votes.
Thousands.
Of those 800,000, if 20 or 30,000 of those votes tip Michigan and Wisconsin, ladies and gentlemen, the path to re-election for Donald Trump may be already shut off.
Why is this not, I mean, how is this not breaking news?
That was an amazing, amazing interview.
Mark always has a way, by the way, of finding guests.
It's what I like about his show that, you know, just a hat tip, Mark, for a minute.
I mean, obviously, full disclosure, Mark's a friend, but I'm not saying this because he's a friend at all.
Anybody can do an interview with You know, the person of the day, whoever the per- you know, whatever.
The story of the day is this, you know, this guy rescued this guy's kid, and so it's great, and they're good, and TV loves them and stuff.
But to do a 40-minute interview, Mark shows an hour, but with commercials, he always finds these guests that aren't necessarily the newsmakers of the day, and he makes them the newsmakers of the day.
That's an astounding claim, Joe.
And that Google may be repeating this strategy for 2020.
This could have a severe impact, but again, there'll be no investigation whatsoever of that.
None.
By the media, that is.
The media will avoid that topic and focus instead on the debunked Russian collusion.
Remember, 800,000 is a huge number.
If 10,000, if even 5,000 of those are in one of these swing states, decided by a couple thousand votes or less, Google could in fact tip the election.
How is that not an in-kind donation to the Democrat Party?
Google should have, folks, ladies and gentlemen, Google should, stay out of the voting business.
Stop manipulating people.
Stay out of the voting business.
If people Google, where do I vote?
That's your job.
Your job is not political activism.
Your job is to be a search engine.
It's not to politically, it's not to get involved politically.
Very, very, very disturbing stuff.
Alright, I got a pretty stacked show.
I gotta debunk this story.
It really has me furious about these Trump rallies.
I'll get to that in a second.
Have you heard this one?
Trump rallies!
They're associated with an increase in hate incidents!
I read that and I was like...
I think Matt Palumbo has already debunked this on our website, but I read that and I was like, nah, that sounds like another media, a story, not the story.
You get what I mean?
We'll get to that in a second.
All right.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Lending Club.
Hey, for decades, credit cards have been telling us, buy now, pay later with interest.
And despite your best intentions, that interest adds up fast, can cause you big problems.
With LendingClub.
You can consolidate your debt or pay off your credit cards with one, one fixed monthly payment.
Who's better than you?
Since 2007, LendingClub has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable, fixed rate, no tricks, personal loans, no trips to a bank, no high interest credit cards.
Just go to LendingClub.com.
Tell them about yourself.
How much you want to borrow, pick the terms that are right for you.
And if you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
Lending Club is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued.
Go to LendingClub.com slash Dan.
Check your rate in minutes.
Borrow up to $40,000.
That's LendingClub.com slash Dan.
LendingClub.com slash Dan.
All loans made by WebBank.
Member FDIC.
Equal housing lender.
Check them out.
LendingClub.com slash Dan.
Okay.
Yeah.
You know, it's just kind of comical how easy it is to debunk liberal nonsense narratives.
So let's get to this.
Check out this piece by Reason Magazine.
It'll be in the show notes today.
If you want to see, by the way, my full appearance on Fox & Friends this morning, I have it in the show notes too with the foxnews.com piece.
You can check that out.
But check out this reason.com piece by Matthew Lilly and Brian Wheaton, September 6, 2019.
It's really good.
No, Trump rallies didn't increase hate crimes by 226%.
In fact, they didn't have any detectable impact at all.
Okay.
Whoo.
It's just, I see, I know, if you're a regular listener to this show, you read.
So the story, the headline, just so you know what reasons debunking is.
There was a study, if you even want to call it, it was so poorly done to call it a study, it's an
embarrassment to the word study.
the next video.
But there was a study that came out that said when Trump hosts a rally in a place that, quote, hate incidents go up 226%, they go up dramatically.
The minute you read this stuff, you should automatically know that this is probably BS.
But, you know, rather than just saying it's BS, let's show you how it's BS so you have the ammunition you need during this 2020 cycle to not only debunk the nonsense, But the authors of this piece turn it around and make a very interesting counter-argument I'd like to point out.
First, let's point out the methodology and how stupid this was, okay?
So, they collected the data.
Remember the thesis we're testing here, the hypothesis, right?
The hypothesis is Trump holds a rally somewhere and hate incidents go through the roof because Trump's a racist.
So, the authors here, they used the data.
They collected it the same way.
They also analyzed the effect of Hillary Clinton's campaign rallies using the identical statistical framework.
The ostensible finding, Hillary Clinton rallies contributed to an even greater increase in hate incidents than Trump rallies.
Holding!
Holding.
Hillary Clinton rallies, 10 yards, repeat first down.
Folks, do you understand how dumb this is?
I haven't even gotten to the methodology and how this works.
I'm going to get deeper into how this works because this happens often.
And I'm sorry, but really, I'm trying not to dig libs too much.
Ignorant people accept that on its face.
Trump, I hate it.
Obviously Trump's racist.
Using the exact same methodology.
Where did Hillary Clinton hold a rally?
In the exact same... Hillary Clinton's rallies led to a greater increase in hate crime.
So is she an even bigger racist than you say Trump is?
Now, of course this is all silly stupidity.
What happened?
What went wrong?
I love science.
Real science.
Not fake liberal science.
So I want to explain to you how they do this.
Why it's wrong.
So you can prevent from falling in the black hole of ignorance that is liberal media nonsense.
Because the liberal media promoted this story.
Read the piece at Reason and you'll see how the liberal media ran with this.
There are headlines all over.
Trump rallies!
Hate incidents!
Everybody's gonna die!
Don't go near a Trump rally!
You'll be killed immediately in a hate incident.
Put up screenshot number two from this piece.
This is very telling.
They're talking about the results.
They say, probably not.
Talking about is Hillary a racist?
Well, probably not.
Both of these results rely on comparing counties with rallies to other counties without them.
Well, this produces a glaring problem.
So just stop for a second here.
So the methodology was so stupid that what they did is they said, well, let's just compare a Trump rally where it happened to a county where there was no rally.
Since politicians tend to hold political rallies, Joe, not surprising, where large numbers of people live.
And in places with more people, the raw number of crimes is generally mechanically higher.
I know, liberals, this is a shocker for you.
But where there are more people, there's generally more crime.
Where there's no people, there's no crime.
Okay, simply put, no one should, this is from the piece, no one should be surprised that Orange County, California, population 3.19 million, was home to both more reported hate incidents, five, and Trump rallies, two, than Orange County, Indiana, population 19,840, which had zero of each.
I know this is hard!
I know this is tough for liberals to figure out, but politicians need votes, so they go to places and hold rallies where people who can vote actually live.
When there are large numbers of people, it will skew the data on crimes because where there's more people, there is a tendency to have more crime than where fewer people live.
Now, you would have think the geniuses in the media that it's funny watching them analyze criminal justice data, sociological data, and psychology and sociology studies, because they can't even do journalism, no less read this research.
But how they didn't figure that out in this analysis is so bizarre.
This is not a complicated confound.
I'm going to get to confounds.
It's not going to be a science show today, but I'm not even going to talk about my educational credentials because it's always stupid.
Hey, look at me.
I'm so smart.
But I was, experimental psychology was one of my favorite classes.
Everybody else hated it, I loved it.
Because it was, the rules of conducting experiments to generally accept, or not just, experimental psychology was more than just about psychology.
There are ways you conduct these kind of experiments, and there are ways you don't.
And you have these things called confounding variables that'll pollute your data, and Joe, one of them is obviously controlling for population size.
This is not hard to figure out!
This is not complicated.
Orange County, California, with 3 million people, of course it's going to have more reported hate incidents than Orange County, Indiana, with 19,000 people.
Joe, I'm not mocking you.
I'm being sarcastic, but not in an effort to mock you.
You did not go to graduate school and study experimental econometrics, right?
Oh no, you know I didn't do that, no.
You're a smart guy though, I know, James, very smart.
I'm not kidding, I'm not messing with you.
You did not have a tough time figuring this out at all, right?
I'm not messing with Joe because I get emails from people who love Joe.
Don't mess with Joe!
I'm not!
I'm just trying to show that Joe's a smart guy and if Joe was in media, which he's not, I mean on the journalism side, we do opinion here, Joe probably would have figured out in a second that, okay, three million people, yeah, you're probably going to have more reported crimes than 19,000.
Just a guess.
I didn't need the boost button for that.
No, no, you didn't.
No, it's not hard.
It's not complicated.
The piece goes on.
This is important.
Nor is it sensible to interpret that one of these differences, hate crimes, is caused by the other, political rallies.
Indeed, adding a simple statistical control for county population to the original analysis caused the estimated effect of Trump rallies on reported hate incidents to become statistically indistinguishable from zero.
The study is wrong, and yet journalists ran with it anyway.
Of course they did, because as I just said to you with the Google story and the Russian collusion story and others, journalists aren't doing journalism anymore.
It's dead.
They are telling you a story, not the story.
A story versus the story.
Now, The narrative they wanted to tell in a story here is Trump's a racist and where Trump talks, hate incidents happen.
They ran with a study so easily debunked that they weren't worried about their credibility.
They were just worried about parroting the liberal narrative of the day.
And I thought about one quick example and I'll move on because I got a couple other things to get to.
It's an important show, really important stuff today.
When you're doing research, right, you want to eliminate these confounding variables because you want to isolate the effect of one specific thing.
Right.
Let's say, I was trying to think of an easy example this morning, let's say you're doing an experiment on reaction time.
You know, hit the buzzer when you see the light.
And you don't randomize your subjects into different groups.
You pick, say, a bunch of students, you're like, you know what, just go get those students from that dorm over there, and let's let them do the study versus this dorm over here on reaction time.
And you find out that one dorm on the college campus, their reaction time is unbelievably quick, versus the other dorm that they're super slow, right?
The reaction time.
Click the button when you see it, and one group is like, boom!
And the other group is like, and they just don't get it.
So you come to the conclusion from your study, poorly controlled, not randomized, that clearly the better conditioned athletes are in dorm A versus dorm B because their reaction time is better.
Well, Joe, what's the problem with that?
Well, the problem is, you didn't eliminate the confounding variables that polluted your results, and you find out that Dorm B, that was allegedly slower, poorer athletes, had a massive party the night before on Saturday night.
They all woke up intoxicated at the thing, and they all were in the same dorm party, and of course their reaction time's gonna be worse.
It doesn't mean they were worse athletes.
Always.
Look for the confounding variables, the polluting variables, the variables that pollute your data.
This one was so easy to pick out.
Any Journalism 101 student with half a head on their shoulders would have seen immediately the stupidity of this study before writing it up.
But I'm sorry, some of the least intelligent people I know are in journalism.
I'm sorry, I've met a lot of them.
I remember telling this guy at the Washington Post editorial page that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts didn't lead to a loss in tax revenue.
I sent him the tax tables and he still didn't believe me.
I'm like, you can't read either?
You can't process the information first and then I send you the tax table and you can't read a spreadsheet?
Like, how dumb are you?
But this is what's polluting our journalism today.
It really, it's embarrassing.
It's so bad.
Frustrating.
Just read the data!
My gosh.
And then they'll rip on us, Joe, right?
Joe, conspiracy theory.
It's not...
Don't frustrate the snot out of me!
Just do your job!
You don't like Trump?
Fine!
Just write up the report, and hey, this report, there's a problem with the report, and let people make their own judgments!
I don't mind you writing it up, but just be honest about it!
I would!
If someone put a report out there about Obama, there was a 10,000 percentage point spike in hate crimes, and I saw that the data was polluted by population size, I'm not going to humiliate myself and report on that!
My credibility actually matters, unlike you!
Alright.
Moving on.
Well... Frustrating, folks.
Did you get that, Joe?
It made sense though, right?
That complicated?
No, heck no, man.
Good.
Speaking of a good night's sleep in the reaction, I did not plan that out.
Helix Sleep, our final sponsor today, who I love to death.
Helix Sleep.
We have two Helix Sleep mattresses in our house.
They're that good.
We love sleeping on them here.
Helix Sleep has a quiz, a quiz.
Why would you need a quiz for a mattress?
Because don't go in a mattress store, spend eight hours there with a guy who's going to sell you some junk not customized to you.
Helix Sleep, Helix, H-E-L-I-X, has a two minute quiz.
It matches your body type when you answer the questions on the quiz to a mattress that fits you.
Not some junk mattress for someone else.
Are you a side sleeper like me?
A hot sleeper?
Definitely like me.
I'm always like, I forget it.
I keep the AC at 68.
I'm still hot.
You like a plush or a firm bed?
With Helix, there's no more confusion and no more compromising.
Helix customized their mattress for me.
Helps me sleep at night.
Helix Sleep is rated the number one mattress by GQ and Wired Magazine.
It's the most comfortable mattress I've ever slept on, my daughter too.
My daughter Amelia has one, me and Paula have one.
Just go to Helix, H-E-L-I-X, sleep.com slash Dan.
Helixsleep.com slash Dan.
You need a new mattress?
Support our sponsors, support Helix, you will not regret it.
It's the best mattress out there for the money.
Take their two-minute sleep quiz, they'll match you to a customized mattress that'll give you the best sleep of your life.
Don't waste your time on some store-bought nonsense for someone else.
And for couples, this is a nice benefit.
Helix can even split the mattress down the middle, providing individual support needs, that's nice,
and preferences for each side.
They have a 10-year warranty.
You get to try it out for 100 nights, risk-free.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it.
That's how confident they are.
You won't need it, you're gonna love it.
Helix is offering up to $125 off all mattresses Get up to $125 off.
That's a lot.
Helixsleep.com slash Dan.
That's Helixsleep.com slash Dan for up to $125 off your mattress order.
Helixsleep.com slash Dan.
Go check them out.
Yeah, man.
Get rid of those confounding variables.
Confounding sleep variables.
That's right.
Well said.
Very good.
The heat, the helix will fix it for you.
It's true though.
I mean, I love that course.
I had this professor who was so smart and he would tell you about confounds you never thought about.
When you randomize people and you stick them in different experimental groups, Those confounding variables and the effects are randomized amongst the experimental groups, so you can attribute the difference in both groups to your statistical manipulation and not pre-existing manipulations.
That's the whole field of experimental psychology and statistics.
That's cool stuff.
Journalists, of course, don't know any of that, as they'll sit there and bash us and our show.
Look at those idiots on the Dan Bond show.
Yeah, we're the idiots.
Right, sure.
Yeah, keep keeping it.
Good job, fellas.
You reported on the study so easily debunked.
Stupid.
Read the reason piece.
It's in the show notes.
It's so worth your time.
Hey, one quick request too.
We're trying to get to 300,000 YouTube subscribers as quick as possible.
If you wouldn't mind subscribing to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino, I would personally really appreciate it.
We're at like 270 now and it's growing really fast.
So youtube.com slash Bongino, please subscribe.
I'd appreciate that.
Okay, story number four, quattro.
Here's a warning for 2020.
I've been covering this repeatedly, the gun control issue, and I always use air quotes because gun control is a myth.
There's no such thing as gun control.
There's only people control.
Guns have never been controlled.
You're not going to control guns.
There are hundreds of millions of firearms around the world.
Unfortunately, a lot of dangerous people get access to them.
Your only question now is, are you going to defend yourself against those people with your own firearm, or are you going to become a sheep?
There's no other scenario.
Gun control is a myth.
It is a liberal myth put out there to make you believe the world would be safer if law-abiding people turn their firearms in while criminals laugh at all of us for turning in our firearms so they can prey on us.
So, here's a story by our friend Legal Insurrection, one of the better blogs out there, by our friend Fuzzy Slippers.
Paul and I were laughing.
I don't know Fuzzy, personally.
He or she, I have no idea.
But Paul was like, Fuzzy Slippers?
We love Fuzzy Slippers.
Peace, Legal Insurrection, be in the show with us today.
Report.
Folks, take this seriously.
Gun control measures could reduce Trump's base support going into 2020.
Quote, data gathered by the president's campaign showed that supporting any gun control measures would pose a problem for him politically going into the 2020 election season.
Ladies and gentlemen, why do I bring this up?
Folks, I bring this up because, Paula, how many emails do we get on this?
A lot, yeah, a lot.
It's probably the biggest underestimation in human history.
She's being generous by saying, I have received so many emails from you.
Listen, a couple of them misinterpreted myself.
If you listen to the show, I am not a supporter of any new gun control.
They just don't work.
They just don't work.
I'm sorry.
They just don't work.
They will do nothing to curb illegal gun violence.
Nothing.
I do not support red flag laws.
I thought I'd been clear.
I only say that because a couple of folks emailed me.
They weren't rude or anything.
But I think they misinterpreted my position.
I'm an avid supporter of the Second Amendment and constitutional carry.
These gun control measures are a disaster.
Now, from the legal insurrection piece, this is a please to the Trump admin.
I hope you're listening.
This is a theme being covered more recently as reports suggest that Trump's internal polling is highlighting the danger of proceeding with gun control measures.
Measures, it should be noted, that target the law-abiding and would not stop criminals from committing gun-related crimes.
Folks, the Trump team has to know this.
The sane, sentient gun owners out there understand that these new measures being proposed will do absolutely nothing, nothing, to curb gun violence in this country.
Nothing.
Because criminals don't care, folks.
Now, the warning for them.
One-issue voters.
There are very few one-issue voters compared to the... But they matter.
And they matter big time.
But there are very few of them.
Honestly, folks, very few people vote on one issue.
The economy... I should basically describe.
One-issue voter means that's it.
That decides your whole vote.
You're voting on that no matter what.
Shockingly, I know it's a... But when you look at the data, having run for office three times, you analyze this stuff in and out, there are very, very few one-issue voters.
People think they are.
They, oh, I vote on the economy.
That's not the only reason you're voting.
The data doesn't support that.
But there are one-issue voters.
And two issues basically monopolize the space of one-issue voters.
I hope you get what I'm talking about.
Abortion and guns.
In other words, not a lot of people are one-issue voters on the economy, not a lot of people are one-issue voters on healthcare where it determines their whole vote, but when it comes to guns, and it comes to abortion, there are a lot of people, you will win or lose their vote based on what you do on one of those issues.
Please.
Please.
I know there are a lot of people in the presidency here, and I think he's going down the right path with this.
Do not jeopardize 2020 by getting involved with this disastrous new set of measures that, again, will do nothing to curb gun violence in this country, will only place obstacles in front of people who want to defend themselves and their families.
It will do nothing.
There is no evidence whatsoever any of these things will work.
Now, showing you how bad of an idea this stuff really is, I just touched on this a little bit last week, but I didn't get to cover it in the detail I wanted to.
Did you see what happened in San Francisco?
Just to harp on one of these gun control measures and how poorly thought out this... These red flag laws are a disaster.
These red flag laws are a... are... are... are... are... in essence...
They're gun protection orders, meaning you don't have to be convicted of a crime and they can take your firearms away based on someone's accusation.
They're called gun violence protection orders or red flag laws.
You may say, well, what's the problem with that?
Ladies and gentlemen, the potential for abuse is rife.
As I said last week, and I'll just repeat quickly here, yes, if you implement red flag laws, I'm not naive, you will probably stop some cases of gun violence.
You will.
You may say, why wouldn't you support them?
Because, folks, you could say that about anything.
Well, if we threw out the requirement for search warrants, Joe, we'd be able to search anyone's house.
Yeah.
Yeah, of course you'd stop some crimes.
You'd also flush liberty down the toilet.
Folks, trade liberty for security you will have neither, as our great founding fathers said.
I'm not willing to do that.
I'm not willing to sacrifice liberty for an enhanced sense of fake security.
Look at what happened in San Francisco.
San Francisco branding the NRA.
San Francisco politicians.
You see this?
Brie Simmons, Fox News.
San Francisco's branding of the NRA as a terrorist organization was even panned by the Washington Post and the LA Times.
Even they said this went too far.
Now, just to be clear.
You want politicians and others like these absolute lunatics in San Francisco that voted to make the NRA a terrorist organization, one of the dumbest things I've ever heard in my life.
It pains me to repeat it.
You want these same people being able to write red flag laws to confiscate your firearms without ever accusing you of a crime at all?
Ladies and gentlemen, I will give you both sides of an argument.
You're very smart.
You can figure it out on your own.
Honestly, again, I'm being candid with you.
I know a lot of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters, maybe not as strong as I am, who don't think red flag laws are a bad idea.
Fair enough.
I disagree.
You are engaging in a slippery slope here that will result in the slow evaporation of your ability to retain a firearm.
What's going to be next?
You're a conservative and San Francisco deemed you a terrorist organization too?
And then there's a law written, if you're deemed a terrorist organization by anyone, red flag laws kick in, they come to take your farms away.
That'll never happen here.
Yeah, we didn't think the FBI would spy on a presidential candidate here either, but that happened too.
I'm sorry.
This is not a good idea.
And to tie this up, the Trump administration, they need to see this.
You need to understand how bad of an idea this is and you need to explain it.
There's nothing wrong with giving the public both sides and then telling people why you take the stance against this.
You sound silly denying that these red flag laws wouldn't stop a few.
They would!
I have no problem saying that.
But again, we are conservatives.
Conservatives have to say the famous Thomas Sowell line.
The greatest economist of our time.
I love Thomas Sowell, a philosopher.
His book, Vision of the Anointed, changed my life.
Okay, and then what?
And then what happens if you implement red flag laws?
Oh, well, the potential for abuse by people in San Francisco who just don't like you is enormous.
We've already seen it.
You branded the NRA a domestic terror group?
Are you kidding me?
Big trouble.
Big, big trouble.
Big warning.
Bad, bad idea.
And ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to lose in 2020.
This will be a disaster.
Those one-issue voters will turn on this president.
They will.
Their own internal data is showing it.
I think the president's getting some good advice by some on this, so I'm optimistic.
I don't want to sound like Debbie Downer here.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it and put that warning out there.
It's important.
Okay, moving on, final story of the day.
But a good one by our resident fact checker, Matt Palumbo.
He did a great piece, and this was a good one.
I was a little skeptical when he proposed this to me, too.
He said, what do you think of this story?
I was like, eh, whatever, give it a go.
This is a great one, it's up at the show notes today.
Again, at Bongino.com, subscribe to our email list.
This is great, listen to that, Joe's laughing, of course, he's reading ahead, YouTube.com.
If you're viewers, you're probably watching now.
Subscribe to my email list, I'll email these stories right to you.
Mac Palumbo has debunked this.
AOC blames 100 companies for climate change.
What's the problem?
But half of them are government owned by Mac Palumbo, September 6th, 2019.
This was, when I read it, I'm like, nice.
Yeah.
I really, when he proposed this story and he pitched it to me, I was like, eh, I don't get it.
Now I got the angle to it and where he was going with it.
Cause it didn't, if he wished he would have sent me that headline, I would have been golden.
So here's the, the, the genesis of this is this.
There was this study, and I always have to use, again, the dreaded air quotes, because anytime you hear about a liberal study, just like with Reason.com, you have to look for either the confounding variables, or the pollution in the study, the dirt in the study, that pollutes the evidence.
So there was this place called the Carbon Disclosure Project, right?
And the Carbon Disclosure Project did this, that we can see from Matt's, a snippet from Matt's piece, and the study, it showed this, from Matt's piece, and I'm quoting, another popular variant of the claim, basically that these hundred companies, They're polluting the world, they're all responsible.
Which is really just a rephrasing of it.
Is that 100 of the largest companies are responsible for 71% of carbon emissions.
And that source, that data, from a 2017 carbon disclosure project report.
Man, does that sound serious.
Yeah.
The project is tracking emissions by company from 1988 to 2015.
So again, if you're a liberal, you can stop here.
Because liberals, again, in the media are telling a story, not this story.
So the narrative the media wants out there, Corporations, bad, very bad, evil, awful, polluting the earth, we're all gonna die.
And that the biggest ones, Joe, of course, it's not the mom and pops, these big corporations, they're the polluters.
These hundred corporations, and by the way, that's assuming you think carbon dioxide is a pollutant, it's not.
Global warming is a total hoax.
But assuming you even believe that, the assertion there is that Just so you understand the narrative.
The narrative is big companies, bad.
Socialism, good.
So AOC, who has promoted this carbon disclosure project, and other liberal Democrats who are out there touting this, these hundred companies are ruining the world.
Let's be clear.
The narrative is that these corporations are bad, and that Joe, by implementing bigger government, bigger government regulations, yes, that bigger government would somehow fix this problem.
Red flag!
Laundry on the field folks!
We're going to review that play.
So yeah, laundry on the field.
You know when there's laundry on the field, we got to go under the hood for review.
So nice job by resident fact checker Matt Palumbo.
Matt showed us this.
This is great, Matt.
Nice job.
This is what his whole book, by the way, his book, Debunk This, which you all sent to the bestseller list, which just came out a few weeks ago.
This is what Matt's book is about.
Debunking all this nonsense.
Pick it up if you, it's really good.
From the piece.
After diving into the carbon disclosure project, sounds so serious, it became evident that our corporate polluters are nowhere near as much of a problem as the government polluters.
Remember, AOC wants more government.
Of the top five biggest polluters, and again that's assuming CO2 is pollution, it's not.
Four are government-run state-owned enterprises, with ExxonMobil in fifth.
Of the top 50 polluters, which accounts for 63% of global CO2 emissions, 26 are state-owned enterprises.
This gets even better.
So China, which is implementing the AOC socialism model now, China Coal tops the list, Joe!
Responsible for 14% of all CO2 emissions on the entire planet!
I thought big government socialism like China was wonderful!
Saudi Arabia's Saudi Aramco is responsible for 4.5%!
Ouch!
Russia, the Democrats' best friend.
Russia's Gazprom, 3.9%.
And the national Iranian oil company, Obama's best friend, 2.3%.
ExxonMobil is the largest private polluter.
They're not polluters, but you get to make it responsible for 2% of the world's emissions.
Folks, it's so easy to debunk this nonsense.
Understand that our principles do not, the data tells the exact opposite story than the hapless AOC.
I mean, Joe.
Yes.
She is the queen of the facepalm.
She is the queen of the self-own.
She sends out this information on her Twitter account that it almost always contradicts the point she's trying to get across.
She stands for bigger government with Bernie Sanders.
A government takeover of the economy.
Uses a study trying to show how the free market is awful and government has alternatives.
And what the study actually shows is that the government alternatives she wants you to believe is the solution is actually the problem she's trying to solve.
If there was ever, ever a better example of the broken leg, unbroken leg fallacy, right?
That is it.
That the government breaks your leg and it introduces more of the same problem that broke the leg as a solution for the broken leg.
Just look it up.
You'll see.
This is the perfect example.
AOC, private companies, bad, polluting the air.
Actually, the top four are all state-owned enterprises.
I'm not paying no attention to that.
The verdict is in.
Private companies are horrible.
She doesn't understand her own data.
You know, I was on Fox and Friends this week, and again, talking about this.
Actually, excuse me, I was on Judge Jeanine's show, because she's calling for the impeachment of the president to AOC.
Yeah, yeah.
Folks, she just does not get it.
As I've said repeatedly, she won a seat in Congress.
Congrats!
Grace!
It's hard to do.
But now you have to actually know stuff.
And it's evident, based on the litany of nonsense emanating from the absurdities in your Twitter feed, you just have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't know if people are walking in and tweeting for you in your office, they're asking you, or if you're just sitting there on a Saturday night tweeting yourself, but the stuff you're saying is not making the point you think it's making.
It's making the opposite point.
This isn't hard.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
Tomorrow or sometime this week, I'm not sure, I will have a list of book signings, folks.
I've been getting a lot of emails.
I appreciate that.
Exonerated, my second book on the Spygate scandal about the disastrous Mueller probe and how they did this before, which I think we're the only ones who are writing about this.
It's gonna be, this is gonna create some waves in the press.
It's coming out September 24th, so we're just a couple weeks away now.
We will have four book signings, Paula?
We have Book Review in Huntington, New York.
Vero Beach Book Center.
We have the Barnes & Noble in Palm Beach Gardens.
And what was the other one?
Oh, The Villages, yeah.
We have one of them, The Villages, up in Florida.
We will post those times up there.
We'll get them out there this week.
If any of you want to come out, I got a couple emails.
People wanted the info on it.
We'll get that on the show, so I really appreciate your interest.
Thanks again for tuning in.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino, and subscribe to our audio show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts.
Helps us move up the charts, and it's always free.
Thanks a lot, folks.
I'll see you all tomorrow.
You just heard The Dan Bongino Show.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
