Striking Video of the Owning of the Libs (Ep 1069)
In this episode, I address the real reasons behind the impeachment theater led by the hapless Jerry Nadler and the outstanding appearance by Cory Lewandowski on the Hill. I also address the latest liberal gun grab efforts and the continued use of the faulty Australian model for “gun control.” Finally, I address the growing Ilhan Omar scandal and the vaping controversy.
News Picks:Liberals cannot handle the hard truth about Australian “gun control.” Here it is.
There are more guns in Australia after the gun confiscation than there were before.
What? Merriam Webster adds a “non-binary” definition of “they” to Dictionary.
This is the best explanation I’ve seen of the impeachment theater nonsense we saw on Capitol Hill yesterday.
Why is Ilhan Omar hiding the identity of her father?
The media is ignoring this horrific story about abortion.
Exposing the myth of widespread medical bankruptcies.
Eleven things you need to know about vaping.
The US Navy says the troubling UFO videos are authentic.
Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Vincero claims to be the best value in the industry, and I agree with him.
You're not going to find a better made watch for this price anywhere if you don't believe me.
Head to Vincero's website, read one of over their 15,000 five-star reviews.
I'm wearing the Altitude.
Vincero has dozens of styles to choose from.
I went ahead, I picked my top five.
You'll see them if you go to vincerowatches.com slash Bongino.
See my picks, use code BONGINO for 15% off.
Do not miss out.
This deal is too good to pass up.
Vincerowatches.com slash Bongino.
See my pics.
Check them out.
All right, let's go!
So here's my story first before we get started.
So yesterday, for those of you who I was talking about earlier in the week, the screwy recording schedule, thanks to Joe and Paul for being so understanding, I had to head up north to go do a recording for Life, Liberty, and Levin.
Which is, there it is, a picture of me and Mark taken yesterday on the set.
It will be on this Sunday on Fox, 10 p.m.
Eastern Time, a full hour.
Me and my good friend, the Great One, Mark and I are buddies.
I don't say that to be a name dropper.
He's just a really good man.
He is, and he's been great to me, and I can't thank him enough for having me on again.
It's my second appearance.
It's just me this time, last time I was on with the Genova.
And ladies and gentlemen, I'm not messing with you.
It is the single best interview I have ever done, thanks to Mark and his questions, on the collusion hoax and Mueller and on my new book, Exonerated, and why the book matters.
Please DVR it.
You will love this show.
If you don't, I will be astonished.
Send us your emails.
My email's on the website.
Love to see your views.
But here's the story.
I fly up to Virginia, right?
It's a pain to get there from where I am in southern Florida.
Yeah.
So it's a pain to get there.
So I had to fly out of Reagan, which is kind of far from where the studio is instead of the closer airport, right?
So I'm coming back after filming this hour-long episode with Mark excoriating Bob Mueller and the horrible witch hunt.
And folks, I've not told you all this story.
Who do I pass in the airport who gives me the stink eye?
Do you know the stink eye?
Like you would not believe, Bob Mueller!
Get out of here!
Dude, brother, I'm not kidding.
That's why I didn't tell you before the show.
Bob, he gives me this, now my eyesight's not as great as it was years ago.
So I see him from, you know, Reagan's always crowded, especially that terminal where JetBlue is.
So I pass Madeline Albright.
She walks by me first.
And then I see this tall guy and I'm like, you know, when you can, even in a crowd, you can see why someone's staring at you.
I'm like, why is this dude giving me the stink eye?
It's Mueller.
So I stare him right back in the face, and he walks by, drops his head, and keeps going.
And I tweet it out immediately before I got on the plane.
I'm like, this is probably the most priceless moment of my entire life.
Just get done filming Life, Liberty, Live In, excoriating this guy's horrible investigation.
And who do I pass?
Bob Mueller.
So I thought you'd like that.
Don't forget to watch the show.
All right, so let's get to this first, right?
Good story, right?
So, impeachment theater up on Capitol Hill yesterday.
Jerry Nadler and his hapless judiciary committee.
This guy's just a pathetic excuse for a congressman.
What a failed human being Nadler is.
He had this impeachment hearing, faux nonsense.
It's not even an impeachment, it's just an act.
The whole thing's a joke.
The Democrats want to get on TV to raise money.
So, He has this hearing and he makes a huge, huge show.
Huge.
Reminds me of Pretty Woman, the Julia Roberts thing when she goes back in the boutique store, right?
When they don't want to sell her clothes, she's like, you made a big mistake.
She's showing them the bags of clothes she bought elsewhere.
Huge.
He brings up Corey Lewandowski, who in one of the greatest own the libs appearances we've ever seen up on Capitol Hill, just absolutely decimates, hat tip Corey.
I know Corey, disclosure, good man.
He just destroys the liberals and makes Jerry Nadler look like a fool again.
How many times is Nadler going to have these hearings?
They had the Mueller hearing blew up in their face.
Of course, the Democrats had the Cohen hearing before that.
That blew up in their face.
They just look like morons.
Now, before I get to some of the videos, I have four videos from there just to sum up what happened.
I want to give you a little behind the scenes so you have some more in-depth color than just me ragging on the dopey Dems about what's really going on.
So I scoured the internet and always I wind up back at the same place every time.
Andy McCarthy.
He's just a godsend to our movement.
He has this piece up in National Review.
Folks, please read the show notes today at Bongino.com or if you subscribe to my email list.
I have about eight stories, a little longer today, but they're all must-reads.
It's everything from UFOs to this.
Please read this story.
National Review, Can Trump Assert Executive Privilege Over His Conversations With Corey Lewandowski?
By Andrew McCarthy.
Now, before we get to the videos, what happened, what did the Democrats want, and what's the problem going on behind the scenes?
So, Jerry Nadler, hapless Jerry Nadler, cannot impeach the President.
Why?
He doesn't have the votes.
Nancy Pelosi is not going to put an impeachment resolution on the floor and lose.
Even if they do get an impeachment resolution passed on the floor, Joe, The president's not removed from office.
I know you know this, but for some it's your introduction of the Constitution, notably the liberals, not the conservatives listening.
Impeachment does not remove you from office.
If you are impeached, it's similar to an indictment on the judicial side.
There is then a trial, but the trial is not in our courts.
The trial is then in the U.S.
Senate.
Where you need 67 votes.
You're not gonna get them.
The Democrats don't have 67 senators to go on the record to impeach and remove the president from office.
Excuse me.
It's not gonna happen.
It's like Fetch from Mean Girls.
It is not gonna happen, Gretchen.
Stop trying to make Fetch happen.
Pelosi knows this.
She knows it would suck all the energy out of the room, they would lose, and they would be humiliated by Donald Trump again.
Nadler, who is a hapless loser, Nadler has a A primary opponent, shockingly, to the left of Nadler.
So Nadler has to raise money, and he's afraid of being AOC'd, like Joe Crowley.
In other words, losing a primary, Joe.
So he has to put on what everybody out there has been calling impeachment theater.
In other words, he's not going to impeach, wink and a nod, but he's going to keep it going in these hearings like it looks like there's an impeachment.
So they brought up Corey Lewandowski.
As Andy McCarthy covers in the piece, what's at issue here is, is the nature of the communications with President Trump and Corey Lewandowski, is that privilege, does it fall under the presidential executive privilege?
McCarthy states in his piece, this is an issue of substance, not form, the nature of communication, not the status of the presidential advisor.
Hold that one second.
Here's the Democrat argument, so you have a little in-depth color to this story.
The Democrat argument, which is false, I believe, excuse me, so does McCarthy, is that Corey Lewandowski is not a White House staffer.
Therefore, his communications don't fall under executive presidential privilege in his communications.
But as McCarthy, if you can put that up again, correctly, I believe, indicates, it doesn't matter.
It's the nature of what was said in the communication, Joseph, not the status of the advisor.
McCarthy goes on.
We want the President to be able to have candid conversations with worthy advisors in and out of the government in order to make the best decisions for the country.
Moreover, our system is based on separation of powers, so Congress should not intrude on communications the President has in furtherance of exercising his, the President's, legitimate authority.
Now, the piece goes on, but I want to get to the video.
He says, listen, Henry Kissinger Obviously he was a statesman with Nixon.
Kissinger's been consulted by many administrations despite not having an official U.S.
government role and by many presidents since Nixon left office.
Does that mean those aren't privileged either?
McCarthy's right.
The whole Lewandowski thing is a farce.
It's based on the idea that Lewandowski was instructed, allegedly by the President of the United States, to hand a letter to Sessions telling Sessions to limit the Mueller probe.
Folks, none of that's even illegal.
That's a legitimate exercise of presidential authority.
As McCarthy points out, was it a good or bad political decision?
I don't know.
That's for you to decide, the voters.
But Joe, Bob Mueller and the Department of Justice fall under the executive branch.
They are subordinate officers to the president.
Whether the president asked Lewandowski to hand Sessions a letter limiting the scope of Mueller's probe or not is a political question, not a legal one.
The Democrats, you following me, brother?
The Democrats are suggesting that that was an obstruction of justice act, handing that letter to Lewandowski.
The Republicans are saying whether it was a bad political decision is up for you to decide.
It is not a legal one.
The Bob Mueller and the DOJ worked for the president.
If he hands Sessions a letter telling him to do it, it's a presidential order.
So this whole thing is nonsense.
Now let's get to it.
First, this is kind of a funny one.
Be more substance in the other ones.
But this is Lewandowski.
He's going back and forth with Jerry Nadler.
And the hapless, pathetic Jerry Nadler, who's putting on this impeachment theater, can't even figure out how to get a roll call vote going.
Check out this absurdity.
How many times did you meet with the president alone in the White House in 2017?
I don't know the answer to that.
How many times did he direct you to deliver a message to a member of his cabinet?
The White House has directed not to disclose the substance of any discussions with the President.
Did he ever discuss with you any concerns that he may have committed a criminal offense?
The White House has directed not to disclose the substance of any discussions with the President or his advisors to protect executive branch confidentiality.
I recognize this is not my privilege.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
Pursuant to Clause 2J2A of Rule 111, that the gentleman is out of order.
He has exceeded the time limit under the five-minute rule.
I will enforce the time limit under the five-minute rule.
I challenge the ruling of the chair.
I challenge the ruling of the chair.
The ruling of the chair is challenged.
All those in favor of overriding the rule of the chair will say aye.
Opposed, no.
No.
Roll call.
Roll call is asked.
The clerk will call.
Where's the clerk?
We can make this a lot easier.
We can.
I mean, this clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Nadler.
The question is, will he, with the ruling of the- >> All right, let's bring in our legal analyst to break
down what is happening here.
Nadler can't even figure out where the clerk is.
That tip Doug Collins, a Republican congressman who's the ranking on the committee, who just
owns Nadler and every- >> Nadler looks so confused.
He's so confused about what to do.
It's just hysterical to watch.
No, I just wanted to put that one up there.
Got a few more, let me get to them.
Here is Lewandowski absolutely decimating again Nadler, making him look like a total fool.
How he thinks Nadler this works for him politically, honestly folks, is seriously perplexing to me.
Here's another on the libs moment, Lewandowski striking back at Nadler.
Nice work here.
Mr. Lewandowski, is it correct that, as reported in the Mueller report on June 19, 2017, you met alone in the Oval Office with the President?
Is there a book and page number you can reference me to, please?
I don't have a copy of the report in front of me.
Volume 2, page 90.
But I simply ask you, is it correct that, as reported in the Mueller report on June 19, 2017, you met alone in the Oval Office with the President?
Could you read the exact language of the report so I don't have it available to me?
I don't think I need to do that.
I have limited time.
Did you meet alone with the President on that date?
Congressman, I'd like you to refresh my memory by providing a copy of the report so I can follow along.
You don't have a copy with you?
I don't have a copy of the report, Congressman.
Mr. Chairman, I request that the clock be stopped while this charade is sorted out.
Yes. Okay.
(laughing)
I'm sorry, Congressman, what page was it?
The clock should have been stopped and should remain stopped.
Page 90, volume 2.
Okay, in which paragraph, sir?
I don't have it in front of me.
Big time Listen
Own the lips It's a lifestyle.
Corey Lewandowski's clearly mastered the art of lib ownership here.
Making Madden look like a fool.
What's going on there behind the scenes again to provide some color commentary to what is actually a very funny moment and one kind of viral yesterday.
Folks, we owe them no respect up on the hill, and I'm deeply sorry if this offends you, and I know I'll get some emails on this, and that's okay.
We can politely disagree.
I'm not here to lie to you.
I'm here to give you an honest opinion.
If you enjoy it, the show is for you.
If not, maybe not, but that's your choice.
I can't cater to every whim out there.
We don't owe these people respect.
Now, I get it.
Some of you may be listening, going, Dan, we should be better than them when we testify.
You know, we should look like the, whatever, upstanding citizens.
No, we are upstanding citizens.
We believe in God-given rights for everyone, even liberals.
But we don't owe Jerry Nadler, David Cicilline, and the clown show of Democrats on that committee, Eric Swalwell and others.
We don't owe them a thing.
A damn thing, and I mean this, I'm being dead serious when I tell you this, if you are a victim of this nonsense, and I do mean a victim, not in a snowflake way, where you get dragged up there to witch hunt the president on a fake charge based on a corrupt spying investigation by a Democrat investigation where they're trying to pin it on you and flip the script, you don't owe them squat.
Now what happened there?
Corey Lewandowski, exercising the executive privilege of the president, refused to testify outside of anything in the Mueller report.
So Jerry Nadler asked him, well, I want to talk about this thing in the Mueller report then.
Of course, Nadler wasn't smart enough to actually give Corey Lewandowski a copy of the Mueller report.
And Lewandowski smartly said, well, you read it, Congressman.
I don't have it in front of me either.
Too bad!
You sit up there, folks, and listen, call me if you want, I don't care, and you delay that thing all day because you don't owe them squat, because these are not decent people.
They live in a moral and ethical vacuum.
These are spineless jellyfish worms who frame the President of the United States, abuse the intelligence and law enforcement community.
Attacked innocent American patriots with their IRS targeting.
Spied on people during the Obama administration.
Used political hacks to leak stuff to the media to ruin people's lives.
Attacked an innocent man in Brett Kavanaugh this weekend with another fake news story.
These people are slime.
You don't owe them squat!
You do exactly what Lewandowski did.
You delay and you make them look like the fools they are.
Corey gets the new rules, dude.
Corey gets it big time.
Big time.
You know what?
You got it.
New rules, folks.
He gets it.
We apply the same rules the Democrats apply to us right back to them.
You don't like syrup of Ipecac?
Well, you're gonna taste it.
Now you, you know, you want to feed it to us?
Now you're gonna taste the Ipecac.
Yeah, man.
It ain't cute, I promise you.
Ask anyone who was forced to swallow Ipecac in the 60s and 70s.
Makes you vomit.
It's disgusting.
Why they call it Ipecac?
Now we're gonna give you guys the Ipecac.
See how you like it.
All right, moving on.
Here's Lewandowski with a zinger pointing out the absolute hypocrisy of the fake spineless jellyfish loser Democrats about this email thing.
He's asked a question about his emails with President Trump.
This is just comedic gold here.
I also received hundreds of thousands of emails.
Some days with as many as a thousand emails.
And unlike Hillary Clinton, I don't think I ever deleted any of those.
Quotes.
If this was ever, ever a moment for the Thug Life glasses.
Can we get a double Muttley?
This is at minimum, Joe.
Come on, get him.
This is at minimum a double Muttley.
Okay?
This is at minimum a double Muttley.
We've only had, I think, one quadruple Muttley in the history.
That is at minimum a double Muttley right there.
Okay?
Beautiful.
Unlike Hillary, I have not deleted my... I love this guy.
Nice!
Excellent.
Made to look like fools again.
New rules, as Joe just accurately said.
All right, I got to move on.
I got a lot to get through.
This is him trolling just the, I mean, Sheila Jackson-Lee is like the whole, or her whole, Sheila Jackson-Lee, I could put a highlight roll of Sheila Jackson-Lee mess-ups.
I'm going to get through a tweet by Katie Pavlish after this, but here's Corey just knocking Sheila Jackson-Lee off her high horse here, making her look just silly.
Check this out.
When he asked you to deliver him a note about that very investigation.
Did the president tell you that?
What you've just read on the screen, Congresswoman.
You need to look at the screen.
There it is.
Yes or no.
Read the screen.
You're welcome to read it, Congresswoman.
You're welcome to be stalling, and I'm not going to stall.
You either answer the question yes or no.
Congresswoman, I'll take the same privileges that you've had as other members.
Did the President tell you that nobody at the White House was supposed to even contact the Attorney General about the investigation?
That you can answer yes or no.
I will not disclose any conversations I've had with the President and Congresswoman.
Again, you are obviously here to block any reasonable inquiry into the truth or not of this administration.
The White House counsel, quote, shortly after Sessions announced his recusal, directed that Sessions should not be contacted about the special counsel investigation.
Oh, we missed the end.
I'm sorry.
There's the end of that.
I'm sorry.
There's a part of that at the end where he just wrecks her and he says, is there a question in this?
Yes, there's a question.
Because I just heard a rant.
Either way, nice work with Sheila Jackson.
But you've probably seen it.
I'm sorry.
Maybe I'll put it in there tomorrow.
That's my fault.
I probably cut the wrong time.
Either way, Sheila Jackson Lee just getting wrecked.
Here's a tweet by Katie Pavlich, by the way.
Sheila Jackson Lee at one point, this is hysterical, Sheila Jackson Lee refers to Volume 2 of the Mahler Report, Joe, as Volume 11.
Well, that is confusing, Dan.
Yeah.
Those two little lines next to each other.
Roman numerals, I guess.
Roman numerals escaped us.
I'm just leaving that right there.
Very good.
Katie Pavlich, good pickup.
A volume 11.
I didn't know there was a volume 11 of The Muller, but I may have to go back and rewrite my second book, et cetera.
Hey, Mark, don't launch that Life Liberty event.
I got to update it.
There's a volume 11 of The Muller Report we all miss.
Stop the show!
Stop the presses!
I gotta fly back to Virginia to recut Mark's show for this weekend.
We missed volume 11 of the Mueller Report, otherwise known as volume 2.
All right, don't go anywhere.
I've got video Beto doubling down on gun control.
I'm getting tired of this Australia stuff.
I gotta do what Australia did.
I even heard it last night on Fox, which is disappointing.
And I got Omar's stuff and the vaping thing.
So really, this show is loaded.
I can't say stacked.
Someone didn't like that.
I didn't say stacked too much.
All right, Harry's razors, Harry's razors.
Humans have been shaving, this is mine, have been shaving for over 5,000 years.
From flint tools to shark teeth to the first copper razor, we always knew that a great shave comes down to some very simple things.
Sharp, durable blades that last.
The ancient Greeks didn't need flexi balls, time machines, heated handles, and you don't need any of those fluffy, overpriced extras either.
You need a sharp blade that's durable and cleanly shaves your face every single time.
Harry's doesn't add overpriced gimmicks.
They focus on what actually matters for a close, comfortable shave.
This is mine with the travel covering on it.
They don't upcharge you.
Join the 10 million who've tried Harry's razors.
Claim your special trial offer today.
Folks, go to Harry's.
Harry's.
H-A-R-R-Y-S dot com slash Bongino.
Harry's.
Harry's, best razors out there.
This is the closest shave out there.
I don't have to shave twice ever since I started using Harry's.
One time, clean, close, comfortable, durable, price-effective razors.
I love it, and an added bonus is I don't cut myself, because it's such a nice razor, and it's so clean when it shaves you.
It doesn't get that crappy feel from these garbage razors.
This is a durable, clean-shaving razor, the best one on the market.
Harry's returns to the essential.
Quality, durable blades at a fair price, just $2 per blade.
They cut out the middleman.
They own a world-class blade factory in Germany.
They make the best razors now for 99 years.
They can provide great quality at factory direct prices.
It's a brand you can be proud of.
1% of sales are donated to organizations that provide access to mental health care for men.
There's no risk for trying them out.
You don't like it?
You can get a full refund.
You'll love it though.
So don't worry about any of that.
Listeners of my show can redeem their Harry's trial set.
Harry's trial set at harrys.com slash Bongino.
Here's what you'll get.
Weighted ergonomic handle.
There you go.
For a firm grip, a five blade razor with a lubricating strip and a trimmer blade, rich lathering shave gel with aloe to keep your skin hydrated and a travel blade cover to keep your razor dry.
Keep it free from any nicks too.
Keep, shave that thing.
Go to harrys.com slash Bongino to start shaving better today.
harrys.com slash Bongino.
Check them out.
My favorite razor by far.
Joe uses it too.
Love you.
Right, Joe?
Yeah, man.
Yes, I do.
Yeah, man.
Okay, Bateau.
Robert Francis Bateau O'Rourke has now doubled and tripled down on his gun confiscation plan.
So he was asked, by the way, the hat tip to the woman on this, what was her name?
I think we have it on the screen.
But this is a video from my local reporter getting Bateau on the record saying, hey, what are you going to do when you implement your mandatory gun confiscation?
Folks, I know I say this sometimes and even I've made this mistake, but please stop referring to Bateau's plan.
As a gun buyback.
It is not a buyback.
You cannot buy back what you never bought in the first place and don't own.
My guns are not for sale, number one.
Number two, I did not buy them from the government.
I bought them from a free market manufacturer that manufactures quality firearms.
I don't owe the government anything.
A mandatory buyback is a confiscation program.
Do not let the left monopolize the language.
This is a confiscation program, period.
You can't buy back what you don't own.
So a reporter asked Beto, well, what are you going to do if people don't, you know, sell you the guns back?
Here was his answer.
I begin by saying that we expect our fellow Americans to follow the law.
If they do not, there would be a fine imposed.
To compel them to follow the law.
We've seen this implemented successfully in Australia, where you've seen a near 50% reduction in gun violence deaths in that country.
No, thank you.
The liar buzzer, that is not true.
Captain Bateau, that is not true.
He's making that up.
The Australia stuff, I'm going to get to that in a second, the Australia stuff.
But on the first part, do you hear what he said?
You're going to be fine.
So find what?
I mean, how is that going to work?
It's going to be... Now, ladies and gentlemen, there are tens of millions of AR-15 platform rifles in the country right now.
Do you have any idea?
I said this to Paula last night, we were chatting about this.
Do you have any idea the complicated, dangerous logistics behind a mass confiscation of tens of millions of AR platforms across the country?
Ooh, daddy.
I'm not even going on how, because this is, folks, nobody's turning them in.
There will be civil disobedience on a mass scale like I promise you have never seen before.
I would estimate less than 5% of, and I'm being generous at 5%, less than 5% of the population is going to turn over their ARs.
That is why they want universal background checks, Joe.
The Democrats.
Put two and two together.
We discussed this on yesterday's show.
The Democrats want universal background checks to keep a list, a registry.
That's the registry they will cross-reference with IRS records or whatever, and they'll use the IRS to fine you if you have an AR and don't turn it in.
Don't turn it in.
Don't underestimate these people.
That's the first part of his nonsense.
He now wants to fine you, this clown, who's at, what, 4% in the polls?
He keeps talking about, I heard this on Fox last night too, the effectiveness of the Australian National Firearms Register, where they confiscated people's firearms.
It's called the NFA.
Ladies and gentlemen, now we've discussed this on the show before, but sometimes topics tend to become evergreen, and now that this is creeping up again, and I'm hearing it in debates, I even heard a couple liberals on Fox talk about it the other day, the Australian gun confiscation did not do what Beto said and what liberals tell you it did.
In the show notes today, which I can't recommend enough, please subscribe to my email list, Matt Palumbo's article, now he wrote this last year, November 2018, The Truth About Australian Gun Control, up on Geno.com.
This is an excellent, excellent piece.
He also covers this, I believe, in Debunk This, his book.
Folks, number one, on the gun control topic from the piece on Australia, he says the smoking gun, pun intended, proving that Australia's disappearance and mass shootings.
So just to be clear, the liberals want you to believe that mass shootings in Australia took a dramatic decline because they confiscated the guns.
So Matt correctly says this decline is not due to gun control and that most of Australia's mass public shootings were committed with guns not banned by the gun confiscation, the NFA, and are still legal.
In a study by criminologist Gary Kleck, he has the sources in there too, found that just two of Australia's mass shootings in the 18 years preceding the confiscation were committed by firearms banned by the NFA.
So in other words, there are no laws in effect that could have possibly prevented all but two of Australia's mass shootings from happening again.
The guns used in those shootings were largely not taken by the Australian gun confiscation.
Alright.
So saying the gun confiscation stopped the mass shootings that didn't confiscate those guns is pure idiocy.
But Beto doesn't know that.
Now, I started with the most nuanced point.
Not a complicated one.
You're all very bright.
You'll figure that out.
That's a bit of a nuanced point.
Well, you're saying that you're making a causal inference.
The cause of the decrease in Australia's mass shootings, you're saying the cause of it was a gun ban.
The problem is the firearms used in those mass shootings were not banned by the actual law.
So your causal inference is dopey.
It's just a fabrication.
The second point, before I get back to Matt's piece, I want to put, this is from the Sydney Morning Herald.
Ladies and gentlemen, by Bianca Hall, March 27, 2019.
This is in the show notes too.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is one of those articles I strongly encourage you to screenshot and keep up on your phone for debating your liberal friends who cite Australia as successful models for gun control.
Sydney Morning Herald.
More guns in Australia now than before the Port Arthur massacre.
New report.
Folks.
I don't know what else to tell you.
If your assertion that the Australian gun confiscation led to X, the Australian gun confiscation led to Y, you fill in what that Y is.
Less gun homicides, less mass shootings.
And the reason I say the XY thing is not to, you know, introduce Algebra 101 and make this over complicated.
It's because every time I hear liberals debate and use Australia, the Y is different.
You get what I'm saying, Joe?
X, the Australian gun control, led to decreased violence, decreased shootings, decreased mass homicides, decreased mass shootings.
The Y changes all the time.
That's why I'm using variables here, because liberals will say make up anything.
So the problem with their gun confiscation led to Y theory is that there are more guns now.
So whatever the why is, you're actually making the opposite point.
If your point is gun confiscation led to less gun violence, your point is the opposite one because there are more guns now.
So what you're saying is more guns?
Here it is from the piece.
The number of firearms in Australia is dramatically higher than before the Port Arthur massacre that killed 35 people.
Raising fears that the gun lobby's efforts to relax national restrictions are bearing fruit.
There are more guns now!
So whatever point you think you made, the point is that more guns Equal.
This is, by the way, I'm not making a causal inference.
I'm using their logic.
You're saying gun confiscation equals less gun homicides.
I'm telling you by your own logic, if there are more guns now, that means more guns equals less gun crime.
They're making X caused Y inferences that are not true.
I'm telling you that the X, gun confiscation, there are more guns now.
So if there's an equals in between those two things, whatever you're saying it equals is the exact opposite argument.
Gun confiscation leads to less crime.
Well, there are more guns now.
So you're saying more guns leads to less crime?
That's not what I'm saying.
How are you not saying that?
There are more guns in Australia now.
No, there aren't.
Yes, there are.
Do you not know the data?
When I said this, I did an interview with 60 Minutes Australia.
You all can find it on the internet if you want.
Remember that.
The guy here, they were nice people, but they were libs.
There's no doubt about it.
By our standards, liberal, you know, overseas liberals means different things sometimes.
And a traditional liberalism, of course, something totally different in America too.
The guy was stunned, the interviewer, when I told him that.
He said, no, there aren't more guns now in Australia.
I said, sir, do you want to Google it?
And I'm telling you at the end of the interview, he said, I'm glad you told me that because I didn't know that either.
I'm not making that up.
I'm not like revealing behind the scenes secrets to embarrass the guy.
He told me after the interview, he didn't know that.
So whatever point you're making on Australia, it's the opposite one of what you think you're making.
Finally, on Australia, going back to Matt's piece, Debunking their entire thesis is this.
So Matt asked, did gun violence really decline in Australia from the peace?
Well, gun violence did fall like a rock in Australia following gun control.
All right, you may be saying, oh my gosh, Dan, argument over.
Ah, no.
Now we do the hard thinking.
This is where the liberals stop.
Fell by roughly half in the two decades following it.
And, Joe, it also happened to fall like a rock in America, too.
Okay.
Everything is relative.
And Australia's gun violence decline post-gun control occurred at a time when crime was declining globally.
A 2016, this is the kicker, a 2016 American Medical Association study, not some big conservative group, the AMA folks, examined trends in firearm homicides and suicides before and after the adaptation of gun control in Australia from the 1996 confiscation.
And found no evidence, let me repeat, no evidence of a statistically significant effect of gun control on the pre-existing downward trend of the firearm homicide rate.
Climate change.
Climate change was happening!
You should put that on a t-shirt.
Climate change was happening globally.
Crime was going down.
The climate change effect was going down.
You making a causal.
Again, I know Libs, I'm sorry you have to think this through.
Causation and correlation are different things.
I use this example all the time.
You see more head colds in the winter.
It's not because cold weather causes head colds.
It has nothing to do with it.
Cold weather causes you to secrete more mucus, which is completely independent, which makes you do what?
Rub your nose more, where you transfer rhinoviruses up your nose.
Cold weather does not cause you to be sick.
There is a correlation.
Yes, these are completely different things.
So the fact that Australia passed a gun confiscation measure, and after that gun confiscation measure, gun crime continued to go down, has nothing to do with cause, according to the AMA's own study.
They were correlated.
Why, Joe?
Because, as Joe said, climate change was happening around the globe.
That's great, by the way.
It was happening around the globe and everywhere, gun control, gun confiscation or not, gun crime, suicides, homicides were going down.
What was the cause?
It wasn't the gun control, because there are more guns now.
The causes could be a multitude of different things, Joe.
More effective policing.
The implementation of broken windows type policing in different parts of the world.
Better technology for tracking criminality.
None of this has anything to do with confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens in Australia or elsewhere.
Stop making it up.
And conservatives, I gotta tell you, this is a little bit of a It's a little bit of a tick in my skin, it bothers me.
If you're gonna go on TV and argue this, please have this stuff handy in the front of your mind immediately.
Liberals will bring up Australia every single time with their XY comparison.
Australian gun confiscation led to Y. You have to be able to rebut it instantly.
There's no causal evidence at all that that caused this decrease in gun crime.
None.
AMA's own study proves it.
Secondly, there are more guns in Australia now, so whatever point you're making, you're making the opposite.
Have this stuff on the tip of your tongue.
Third, gun crime was going down globally before anything was done to confiscate people's guns anyway.
You're making a correlation, not a causal, you're making a correlational inference, not a causal one.
Important.
Have it at the tip of your head.
Always.
Because libs are really sneaky with this stuff.
Alright, our last sponsor of the day, but a great one, Helix Sleep.
I needed Helix Sleep last night.
I was really, really exhausted.
I had a long day yesterday.
Helix Sleep is a quiz that takes just two minutes to complete and matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you!
Not for Joey Bag of Donuts!
You need a mattress for you, not for some generic guy who walks in a mattress store.
Are you a side sleeper?
Hot sleeper?
You like a plush or firm bed?
With Helix, there's no more guesswork, there's no more confusion, and there's no more compromising on quality for you.
Helix Sleep is rated number one.
The number one mattress by GQ and Wired Magazine.
It's the most comfortable mattress I've ever slept on.
We have two.
One for my daughter, one for us, and the story behind it is really terrific.
My wife was sleeping on my daughter's bed reading her books and Helix was like,
we'll just send you guys one too.
Go to helixsleep.com/dan, take their two minute sleep quiz.
They'll match you to a customized mattress for you.
They can even split it down the middle if you have different support preferences for you
and whoever's in that bed with you.
I 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.
You will.
We love it.
Most comfortable mattress out there for the money.
Helix is offering up to $125 off all mattress orders for our listeners.
I know some of my listeners need a new mattress.
Support our, I humbly and respectfully ask that you support our sponsors.
They're great companies.
I wouldn't have them here.
If you need a new mattress, please check out Helix.
You'll get $125 off for the best mattress out there.
I have one I can personally vouch for at helixsleep.com slash Dan.
Please check them out if you're in the market for a mattress or if your mattress is getting old.
We really appreciate it.
Okay, moving on.
The Ilhan Omar story has just exploded, folks, again.
What I find outlandish, I don't want to say unbelievable because it is believable given how awful the mainstream media is, Joe.
Is how you can continue to scrutinize the background of Donald Trump while finding no evidence of illegal behavior at all.
And yet the evidence that Ilhan Omar may have married her brother.
This is a Democrat congressman with a heavy following.
The evidence is now overwhelming, and the media is entirely, completely uninterested in this story.
And you know you're onto something when the conspiracy theory blogs, the Daily Beast, Media Matters, you know, the wackos, right?
When they start picking up on the story, Joe, as I've said before, and they start warning conservatives, Don't go near this story, you conservatives!
And we just give them the double-barreled middle finger because I don't deal with blogs with like 10 or 12 readers without humiliating them.
They're really worried about this Ilhan Omar story.
So what happened?
Daily Caller piece.
Again, in the show notes today.
Great articles in the show notes.
You will be much more informed when you're done.
Daily Caller piece.
Check this out.
Totally worth your time.
There's a tweet that Ilhan Omar deleted.
Ilhan Omar, it was an older tweet.
Why did she delete this tweet?
Let's check out the tweet first.
This is the tweet.
So this was back in 2013, 6-16-2013.
This is her verified account.
She said, Happy Father's Day to my Abu, I'm sorry, but I don't know what that means, Noor Saeed.
I am forever grateful to Allah for giving me the best father, and it goes on, it links to an Instagram.
So just to be clear, And I'm going to tell you how this relates to her allegedly marrying her brother, which is really deeply disturbing, obviously.
Omar deleted that tweet and has been trying to hide the identity of her father for a long time now to give both sides that there are side.
But again, I'll do what the New York Times won't do for conservatives.
Her staff put out a statement today saying, well, you know, Noor Saeed means something like happy light, and it's just something we said and whatever.
And she's still trying to hide the fact that there's a relationship, obviously, with this guy, Noor Saeed.
Now, why does this matter?
Okay.
Because Omar is alleged to have married her brother, Ahmed Noor Saeed Elmi, in 2009.
She denies, of course, this is her brother.
While she's married to Ahmed Nawar Saeed, by the way, she's in a relationship with another guy, I think his name is Hersey, his last name Hersey, who she has a child with.
Ilhan Omar then formally divorces what's allegedly her brother, Ahmed Nawar Saeed, divorces him and says, I've never seen him again.
She divorces him in 2012.
So you track him?
2009, marries the alleged brother, Ahmed Nawar Saeed.
So the son of Nawar Saeed, who she wishes happy Father's Day.
She divorces him in 2012, says, I don't know where he is, I've never seen him, and of course ignores the fact that this could be her brother, right?
Leaves that out of the whole divorce thing, right?
She's then married to another guy, Hersey, who she has a child with.
Well, here's a fascinating photo of the guy she claims to not know and not be the brother anymore who left her.
Remember, there's no question she married this guy.
The question is, when's the last time she's seen him?
She says 2012, and I've never seen him again, and he's not my brother.
So you get her take on this?
Her take is, he's not my brother, Ahmed Nour Said, and I haven't seen him since 2012.
Well, hat tip power line blog, here's a fascinating picture, this is all on the Daily Caller story today too, you can check this out.
Of the brother, Ahmed Nelmi.
Ahmed Nour Said Elmi, right?
Well, I'm going to leave this kind of family-friendly, but for those watching on YouTube, you can see it is a picture of the same guy, she's saying it's not her brother, who she hasn't seen again in 2012, holding a baby.
This is her former husband.
And he says, quote, nieces, fresh out of the female anatomy.
I'll leave it at that.
That picture was taken a day after Ilhan Omar gave birth.
Hmm. Um...
Okay.
So Ilhan Omar gives birth to a child.
The guy she's saying is not her brother, but was an ex-husband she's never seen before.
She hasn't seen him after 2012.
Then appears in a photo on Instagram, in a 2012 photo, saying that his niece was just born after Ilhan Omar gave birth.
This is the guy she's married to.
The verdict is in, folks.
Playoffs!
Wait, here's the playoff coin.
Here it is.
I forget who said this.
Playoffs!
The Jim Mora playoffs cut.
You can't see it, but it says playoffs.
No playoffs!
It gets worse, Joe.
So remember, she's saying, okay, this guy wasn't my brother and I haven't seen him since 2012.
Well, here's another photo from the Daily Caller piece, which is, there's multiple hat tips and all that stuff.
I think it's David Steinberg, his photo, but you can see them all.
I want to make sure to get proper attribution.
Here is a photo taken well after 2012 of Ilhan Omar and the brother, the exact same guy.
Remember, she's telling the court after she divorced this guy, alleged to be the brother, That she's never seen him again.
But this is a picture well after 2012 of her with the brother.
Saying fun night with the ATM crew.
Hashtag London trip.
Making matters even worse.
Here is another photo.
Of Ilhan Omar's sister's marriage certificate.
Now, this is going to be tough to read, but I'll just wrap this story up with this one again.
This is in the Daily Caller piece.
In the marriage certificate, Ilhan Omar's sister lists the father.
The father is listed, and this may be a David Steinberg photo too, so hat tip there.
I want to make sure I give attribution.
The sister lists the father as Noor Saeed, the same guy Ilhan Omar in her now-deleted tweet is wishing happy Father's Day to in the beginning.
Same guy who is the father to the brother who she allegedly married.
Folks.
Again, I know the media doesn't care about these stories.
I know evidence doesn't matter anymore.
But what's fascinating is you ran for two years on a hoax, a collusion hoax easily discredited by a first grader with two or three functioning neurons.
And you have overwhelming evidence of an enormous scandal amongst a member of the U.S.
Congress and a potential marriage fraud, and you ignore this story completely?
This is unbe- The breaking news, by the way, because I've discussed a lot of that stuff in the past, the breaking news in the Daily Caller piece was that Omar has now deleted that tweet about the 2013- Why would you delete that?
Why?
What are you trying to hide?
But of course, the mainstream media will cover for it because that's just what they do.
It's really pathetic.
All right, I've been teasing it all week, and I'm sorry I didn't get the vaping story early, but there was just a lot going on.
The Kavanaugh stuff was just all over the place, so I had to cover that.
I owed it to you.
But for a few days now, I've been working on the way to best sum up what's going on with this vaping story.
The story is this, just to be clear.
There is not a vaping ban.
Okay, the president gave a press avail in the White House.
In there he mentioned that him and his FDA were looking into a new regulatory structure for flavored vaping products under the allegation that they target kids.
I want to be clear on where I stand because I owe that to you.
You spend time with me, I owe you my honest opinion.
I support the president.
You know that.
I do not on this.
I think this is a bad move.
I think it's a mistake.
Having said that, I understand, respect, and read your emails.
Many of you don't like that.
That's okay.
That's why my email's out there.
Okay?
Some of you've emailed me.
I have kids.
They're targeting this, the kids.
I don't like it.
The government needs to get involved.
I get it.
I'm not disrespecting your, that's the great part about the United States of America and my show.
I listen to your emails.
Most hosts dump them.
Right, Joe?
You were on radio.
Most hosts don't even read them.
I'm simply suggesting to you that my opinion, my opinion, you don't have to embrace it, is I'm a parent and that's my job.
The war on drugs was a failure.
Prohibition was a failure.
This stuff has all been an abysmal failure.
It is a cultural problem, and I believe we as parents, that's our job.
Now, some of you may say, it is, but we need some help by the government.
Fine, that's not my opinion.
I don't think the government should be getting involved in the vaping industry outside of preventing a public threat.
In other words, like, let's say these vaping things were contaminated with cyanide.
That's different.
Right.
But if people want to make bad decisions, then those people should be free to make really bad decisions.
And those bad decisions, those people should suffer the consequences of those decisions.
Big boy rules, I call it.
Now, vaping, though, does have a legitimate purpose.
There are people who are addicted to traditional cigarettes, and most of the studies have shown that vaping, in contrast to traditional smoking, is safer.
I'm not suggesting to you it's healthy, I'm just suggesting to you on a continuum of bad choices, smoking cigarettes is the worst when it comes to tobacco.
One of the worst.
Having said that, in order to give you a factual analysis of what's going on with the vaping industry, because a lot of us, this is new to a lot of us, folks, I don't vape, I've never smoked.
I know people who do.
I wanted to find the best article that sums it up, and my friend Liz Sheld, who's really wonderful, she has this piece up, what is it, American Spectator, Paul?
American Greatness, forgive me.
Again, in the show notes today, please, I can't say it enough, please check them out.
Eleven things you need to know about vaping.
Liz Scheldt, September 16, 2019 at American Greatness.
Worth your time.
Now, I'm not going to go through screenshots of each, I'm kind of running out of time, but I'm just going to address a couple of the things that I think people are generally unaware of about vaping.
Number one, vaping is a process, not a product, as she indicates.
Vaping is a process.
It doesn't refer to one specific product.
It's like smoking in contrast to cigarettes.
Smoking is a process.
You can smoke a lot of things, as some people figured out.
Cigarettes are a different thing.
Vaping is a process, not a product.
It's important to point out.
It uses apparently what they're called carts or pods.
These cartridges or pods can be flavored.
Again, I don't vape, so I'm not pretending to be an expert.
Sheld apparently knows more about it than I do, but I'm just bringing up the highlights for some of the parents out there unsure of what this is.
Some of these cartridges can be flavored.
They come in various degrees of potency, nicotine.
Some of the devices that use the pods can actually heat this stuff.
Now, so that's just kind of a primer on what we're talking about.
We're talking about a process in vaping and the product are these different things, are these devices and the carts or the pods they use in them.
Now, one of the things that, the problems with the vaping industry that Donald Trump pointed out, and I'm not suggesting, remember, we're talking about a process again, not a specific product's problems.
One of the problems we've had, Joe, is some people are mixing this stuff with THC, cannabinoids, and one of the active ingredients in marijuana-based products, and making an oil out of it.
Now, again, this is me from the piece, reading the piece.
Liz goes into detail.
What's the problem with that, folks?
The problem is, some of that oil, if it coats some of the structures in your lungs, you can get kind of a pneumonia effect out of it, and some people have died.
But ladies and gentlemen, a lot of the products used, matter of fact, Liz quotes a piece in the Journal of the American Medical Association, They did a study of 53 patients that were suffering from problems after vaping, and up to 80% of them, Joe, those patients, had mixed some kind of a THC product in there.
In other words, they were abusing the process by abusing the product.
Which does not necessarily mean it's the vaping industry's fault.
People can cut open cigarettes and slice the filters off, too.
I mean, that's not the way the product was designed to work.
And I think we need to keep that in mind.
One last point on this.
Vaping has been around, ladies and gentlemen, and this was new to me, again, in Liz's piece, it's been around since 2003.
These recent health scares are relatively new, which should say to us all that something recently happened here.
THC, the mix of it, counterfeit products, Again, I'm not suggesting this is a great decision to start to vape or any of that stuff.
I'm simply suggesting to you that we live in a society where big boy rules should matter.
Sometimes people want to do things that aren't really good for their health.
You may say, no Dan, that's not true.
Really?
Is alcohol illegal?
You're suggesting that's good for your health?
Now listen, in moderation, a glass of wine may be.
But there are people who choose to drink a bottle every night.
Not a good decision for your health, folks.
I'm not your daddy.
You make your own rules.
I drink some Patron on the weekends.
With the date night.
Is it healthy?
No.
I enjoy it!
One night a week, have a few drinks.
Big boy rules.
All right, let me just tease tomorrow, because it's going to be an important show.
Joe, keep this stuff for tomorrow, too.
Paula, too.
It's great stuff.
I want to discuss a change in the dictionary.
Basically, that sounds like a boring show.
No, no.
No, no, no, it's not.
If you want to get ahead of it, go to Bongino.com.
The dictionary now is full social justice work.
And secondly, I want to get through tomorrow.
Elizabeth Warren appeared on the Stephen Colbert show of all places.
And Colbert, who's a flaming liberal, one of those late night shows, just kind of nails her to the wall on this Medicare thing.
And Elizabeth Warren keeps touting these nonsense statistics.
I'll debunk tomorrow on this Medicare for All thing.
It's important.
Don't miss tomorrow's show.
That and a lot more.
Thanks for tuning in.
Please subscribe to the YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
We'd really appreciate it.
And please set your DVRs now, 10 p.m.
this Sunday, Life, Liberty & Levin, me and Mark, for what I promise you.
I am not over-teasing this.
It's going to be an eye-opening interview on the whole Russia probe, summed up in an hour.
