In this episode, I address the latest anti-Trump leak from inside the deep-state and what it really means. I also address Elizabeth Warren’s “gotcha moment” on late night TV. I address the decades of failed “climate change” predictions by liberal outlets and the latest Trump re-election news.
News Picks:There are few ideas dumber than “toxic masculinity.”
The latest Washington Post “scoop” is likely another disingenuous attack on the President. Wait at least 24 hours.
Here’s a list of all of the apocalyptic “climate change” predictions gone wrong.
Elizabeth Warren dodges this question about her insane healthcare plan.
Elizabeth Warren exaggerates the numbers on medical bankruptcies.
Is the media telling the truth about Elizabeth Warren’s crowds?
Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
The Bongino rule is in effect again.
Wait 24 hours before making judgments after hearing a story from the another Intel Community League, Joe.
Wait 24 hours before making a judgment.
At least 24 hours about the story.
I have a loaded lineup.
We're not allowed to say stacked anymore, according to a listener.
A lot of stories today, including a massive Trump fundraising haul, what it means out in California.
The Elizabeth Warren story from yesterday, I was going to get that.
She's totally lying to everybody about her Medicare for All plan, and it's important.
The dictionary being rewritten for Xi Zhao And also, excuse me, not economic, climate change catastrophes debunked by CEI.
A great piece.
You're not going to want to go anywhere.
All right.
Welcome to the Dan Bogino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Man, I'm doing okay.
We do.
We have a full plate of information today.
Full plate.
I was, you could tell by my, I was waiting for more.
And you were very sedated there.
Fine.
That's okay.
That's a-okay.
I like that part of the show.
This is what makes this show.
We crack that fourth wall all the time.
All right, Joe, let's get right to it.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at ExpressVPN.
Hey, wouldn't it be nice if search engines and social media sites were unbiased platforms that didn't choose a side politically?
That would be wonderful.
Unfortunately, that doesn't happen.
Keep dreaming, folks.
In 2016, the tech elites at Google bragged Bragged about donating millions of dollars to Hillary.
These big tech companies have pushed their political agenda and restrict the free speech rights.
The conservatives are the very same corporations we're trusting to handle our personal data online.
Ouch.
I don't want them using my web history, email metadata, or video searches against me or any of my buddies.
That's why I use ExpressVPN every time I, moi, go online.
Big tech companies can match your internet activity to your identity and location using your public IP address.
When we use ExpressVPN in a Bongino household, these tech companies can't see my IP address at all.
My identity is masked and anonymized by a secure VPN server.
Nice!
Plus, ExpressVPN has the added benefit of encrypting 100% of your data to keep you safe from hackers and internet bad guys.
Does that sound complicated?
It's not.
I use ExpressVPN.
It's easy.
ExpressVPN software just takes a minute to set up on your computer or phone.
Tap one button and you My friend are protected.
So if you're not like me and you will believe your internet data belongs to you and not to tech elites, ExpressVPN is the answer.
Special deal for you today.
Protect your online activity today.
Find out now how you can get three months free at ExpressVPN.com slash Bongino.
That's ExpressVPN.com slash Bongino for three months free with a one-year package.
Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Bongino to learn more.
Go check them out.
Definitely worth your time, folks.
ExpressVPN.com slash Bongino.
Okay, let's go!
Nice little bun.
So, story breaks on the Washington Post, Joe.
MSN had it up at Drudge 2.
I saw this yesterday, and ladies and gentlemen, if there was ever an example of the Bongino Rule, wait 24 to 72 hours, unlike the mainstream media hacks who ran with it.
Please wait on making a judgment by reading this.
Here's the story, Washington Post.
Trump's communications with a foreign leader are part of a whistleblower complaint that spurred a standoff between the spy chief and Congress, former officials say, by Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Shane Harris.
Obviously, the Washington Post, I don't even, you mean it's a conspiracy theory blog, so be very careful about anything the Washington Post reports.
Ladies and gentlemen, what's going on here?
This is now I'll get to what the core of the complaint is in a second, but before I get to this new complaint, I want to set up the pattern.
Of course, if you're a regular listener, you're probably figuring out already what's going on.
But if not, I want to play this short video, a very short video, and we may play this twice, so Joe, Paula, keep this thing handy.
Here is Chuck Schumer with a warning when he was talking to Rachel Maddow about why you don't pick fights with the intelligence community.
Check this out.
You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.
Oh, thank you, Chuck!
Chuck wasn't kidding, of course.
They were talking about, at the time, him and Roswell, Rachel Maddow, they were talking about conspiracy theories, like Trump questioning the intelligence community right around when the Spygate allegations surfaced, right?
So Schumer's warning Trump, don't go after the intel community because they will get you back six different ways from Sunday dreaded air quotes.
Now, This leak we saw yesterday in the Washington Post from an Intel official about a whistleblower complaint is now the third one in less than two weeks from the Intel community painting Trump out to be a big leaker of classified information.
Complaint number one.
Remember this one?
They had to exfiltrate the spy, the serious Russian spy, from Russia and had to get him out of the country because Trump leaked information to the Russians during this Oval Office meeting and the spy's life was in danger.
Evil Trump.
Evil Trump, Joe.
We had to go get the spy to rescue him from the dastardly Donald Trump.
We found out later, of course, if you applied the Bongino rule, you were not suckered by this nonsense, that the spy was in fact exfiltrated from Russia, removed from Russia.
The U.S., the Russians spying for the U.S.
was removed from Russia because of media leaks that could have led to him being exposed, not Donald Trump.
Again, if you waited, you were not suckered into that.
The second story, which we debunked on Monday or Tuesday show, forgive me, I don't remember,
I lose track of time easily on this show, so much going on, was the news story that
Obama kicked out the Russian diplomats because they discovered some dastardly scheme to crack
our encryption by the Russians.
It was being run out of these facilities.
So right before Trump took office, Obama, the hero, the white knight, jumped in and
he kicked out all these Russian diplomats.
Of course, if you read through the lines of the story, the encryption and the allegations of them cracking our encryption, the Russians run out of these facilities, Obama kicked these people out of.
The story was from 2010.
So again, if you applied the Bongino rule and thought this thing through and actually read the story to the end, you were not suckered by this either.
Now we see another devastating leak and the charges are serious.
Here's the first Screenshot from the piece.
I'll read it to you.
Don't worry here, but here's the allegation now This is a serious one, but this is not a joke, and I don't mean to downplay it all right But be very careful about this story quote from the piece Trump's interaction with this foreign leader, so this is a leak about a conversation Trump had with a foreign leader who we don't know who it is yet.
There's some speculation I'll get to in a second, but Trump's interaction with the foreign leader included a quote promise that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S.
intel community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intel community, said former officials.
Of course, anonymous, Joe.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Here we go again with more anonymous sources.
So do you get the core of the allegation?
I explained to you the first two.
The third one now, the new one, and the timing is convenient, I'll get to that.
The new allegation is that Trump was talking with a foreign leader and made him some promise so detrimental to U.S.
security that whistleblowers in the intel community felt the need to notify people about this, quote, urgent concern.
Now, the complaint's being taken seriously.
Now, having said that, again, if you continue to read the same story, Joe, the same story, And you get all the way to the end, because they always put this at the end.
This is never in the beginning.
This is at the end, hoping you don't make it that far.
At the end, we see this portion of the Washington Post article, which is fascinating.
I think it's like three paragraphs from the closing of the piece.
Oh my gosh, it's just like, I can't believe we have to do this every day.
Legal, and not the show, just debunking this stupidity.
Legal experts said there are scenarios in which a president's communications with a foreign leader could rise to a level of a quote, urgent concern from the intel community.
But they also noted that the president has broad authority to decide unilaterally when to classify or declassify information.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's, if you got hooked by this, this is kind of a problem for the whole story.
Now, I'm going to explain what that means in a second, but I want to get to the timing because I don't want to lose my place.
As I told you about two or three weeks ago, you can expect more of this.
Chuck Schumer was not kidding.
The Intel community will strike back at you six different ways from Sunday if you question them.
The Intel community works for the president to supply Intel Or surprise the president with intel that he can then use to negotiate with foreign governments, act as the commander-in-chief, or negotiate trade or treaty arrangements.
The president does not work for the intel community.
Does everybody understand that?
You are very smart.
But some of the liberals, unfortunately my audience, don't seem to get basic tenets of our constitution and the structure horizontally and vertically of how our government works.
The intel community is subordinate to the president.
The president does not work for them.
The president has unilateral authority to declassify what he wants in the interest of the United States.
And if the voters don't believe that's in the interest of the United States, Joe, what do they get to do?
Vote the president out!
Yeah!
It's very simple.
Man, how's he supposed to do his job?
The people elect a president.
I'm sorry, man.
Thank you!
No, that was, verdict is in, excellent point by Joe Armacost.
How the heck is a voted, elected, constitutional President of the United States supposed to negotiate treaties, engage in national security negotiations, and act as the Commander-in-Chief if he has to go back to subordinate officers in the intel community and ask them their permission to discuss these things?
That's it.
Now, if you think all of this is a bad idea, and let me just get to quickly, oh, the timing, I've got a lot to get to on this.
I didn't want to miss.
Yeah, you gotta remember sometimes, Joe, you need to keep a checklist of things I said I'm going to talk about.
I don't want to miss.
What's coming out soon, folks?
The IG report, which is going to expose massive malfeasance by the FBI and the intelligence community to nail Donald Trump.
Why this new leak?
To paint Donald Trump as such a unique danger to the republic by his careless, air quotes, handling of intelligence that the IC, even though they screwed up, the intelligence community is spying on Donald Trump because that's what the intelligence, the inspector general's report is going to say.
I hope you all understand that.
It's going to show massive malfeasance.
The IG is going to show that.
The intelligence community's comeback to that is going to be Hey, this guy was such a unique danger, and we had such serious sources overseas we had to exfiltrate, and it was such a danger from the Russians on their encryption.
They're cracking our encryption on this stuff, and there was such a danger from Trump carelessly leaking information that this was our response.
My bad.
Nelson Muntz.
But I said it here.
That's gonna be their comeback.
Do you understand what they're doing?
That's their comeback.
Yeah.
They're setting up a trifold narrative.
Trump's careless, the threat was serious, and the leaks jeopardized sources.
That's the genesis of these three leaks.
Now what I find interesting, Joe, is where were these stories when the Obama administration was negotiating behind the scenes and lying to Americans when they were negotiating with Iranian mullahs on a plan to give them 150, what was it, million, billion, quadrillion dollars of their own money back?
Was it a million, 150 million, a cash delivery of 150, I'm doing the Austin Powers thing, but 150 million in cash?
Remember that?
Where was the leak on that?
Who made that promise from the Obama administration?
Now, reversing back to where we were.
There's some media speculation, of course.
The same crew, Fusion, Ken Delaney and NBC, who's a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Natasha Bertrand, conspiracy theorist.
You know, Rachel, all the conspiracy theorists who were, you know, ginning up nonsense about Trump.
The theory here is that he may have made a promise to Kim Jong-un because he didn't agree with some intelligence operations going on there.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you think that's a bad idea, there's an election coming up.
If you don't, there's an election coming up.
Again, that's all speculation by people who've been wrong about just about everything.
I'm just putting it out because you'll see it on Twitter.
I'm not affirming it.
There's also some theory out there, it may have been some promise to the Russians.
It's all conspiracy theories at this point because nobody knows anything.
All we know are anonymous sources that are routinely debunked.
Folks, this is serious stuff, but I'm encouraging you to please, please obey the Dan Bongino rule.
Wait 24 to 72 hours before making any judgment.
But having said that, I just want to emphasize again, This is meant to paint a narrative of Trump of how careless he is, how he damaged the source in Russia, and how the threat from the Russians was so serious that only Obama could have done something.
That is how they're going to cover for the pending IG report.
Mark my words.
All right, moving on, because I've got a lot to get to today.
Another story, this is, I'm trying to get to some more election coverage, too.
2020's coming up, and I want to kind of paint the picture and frame for you what I think's going to happen, where we're going to go.
Yahoo News had an interesting story about, you know, all these doomsday stories about how Trump, you know, he's in such bad shape, he's going to lose to everybody.
The polls, he's down, it's not even possible.
He's down 100 points in the polls.
It's not even mathematically possible.
But interesting story by Andrew Romano at Yahoo News.
2020 Vision Wednesday.
Trump raised 15 million dollars in California, Joe!
California!
Not Texas!
In one day!
That should worry Democrats.
Folks, having run for office and having, um, You know, whine to Joe quite a bit and Paula and anyone who knew me when I was around.
Raising money is the worst.
It is the... They call it dialing for dollars.
We have to call people for money.
I just refused to do it at the end.
By the time my third campaign came around, I just wasn't going to do it.
It's a humiliating, horrifying, awful... I would thank people on the phone.
Many of you who listen got calls from me, even if you made $5 donations.
But I was not going to call people towards the end and ask them for money.
I just wasn't going to do it.
You know, it used to drive everyone on my campaign crazy.
Everybody does it!
I'm not doing it!
Sorry.
Raising money is really, really difficult.
But to put in context, because context matters, how much money Trump raised in one day, in California of all places, to show you how grassroots support, even in liberal states, the loyalty to this candidate, now for re-election, Donald Trump, is off the charts.
Joe Kamala Harris, the senator from California, Raised 12 million, obviously less than Trump's 15 million.
You may say, what, in one day in California?
No, no.
Nationwide.
In three months.
So Kamala Harris, the actual senator from California, raised 3 million less than Trump over the entire nation in three months.
Folks, this is a massive haul.
Why does it matter?
Folks, money obviously matters in politics.
There's nothing groundbreaking there.
But just giving you some small behind-the-scenes mechanics here.
You have to pay for GOTV.
GOTV is important.
What's GOTV?
Is it a new network?
No, it's get out the vote.
GOTV.
Getting your vote out matters.
Registering people matters.
This all costs money.
You need canvassers.
You need people to go out and sit at gun shows and register.
Now, you're not allowed to tell people what parts are legal, what party to register for.
But going to a gun show and registering voters, you can't turn people down.
There are rules to it.
But you can be pretty confident a lot of them are going to vote on Second Amendment issues, which, you know, we hope the president's going to stick to his guns on, pun intended.
That costs money.
Canvassers, door knockers cost money.
Supplying water for campaign offices that are knocking in the Florida sun costs money.
All of this stuff costs money.
If you don't have that money, you can't effectively campaign.
Ads, obviously, cost money.
Targeting costs money.
Geotargeting costs money.
Poll workers!
Money!
This stuff costs money, and President Trump is bringing in a massive, unprecedented haul of campaign funds I have not seen in my lifetime.
This all costs money.
Remember, ladies and gentlemen, it's not who's registered to vote, it's not who says they're gonna vote, it's not who whines about voting or celebrates voting.
It's who actually shows up and votes!
And it takes money to do that, so there's some good news for you.
I've, you know, I always give you both sides.
I said to you the polling is bad news now, but polling, remember, a couple things is a snippet in time.
Because, you know, Biden's winning in a poll against Trump now.
Reagan was down 11 to Jimmy Carter, I think like two months before the election, and won in an enormous landslide.
Everybody should panic.
We should always be concerned about the polls.
We shouldn't gaff them off.
It doesn't do us any good to do that.
But nobody should panic.
The grassroots support for Trump on the ground, I think, is solid, and I think the media is downplaying it.
Alright, I want to get to next is Elizabeth Warren video, but I want to get to a deeper, because she's lying.
Elizabeth Warren is lying, and if you have the facts and the data in front of you, you can debunk her major talking point on Medicare for all.
It's nonsense.
Alright.
Second sponsor of the day, today's show also brought to you by PolicyGenius.
PolicyGenius September is National Life Insurance Awareness Month.
Most people aren't aware of that.
In fact, most people aren't aware they need life insurance at all.
You do.
That's why 40% of Americans, that's amazing, don't have it.
That's a shame.
But getting life insurance doesn't need to be difficult and it doesn't need to be expensive either.
Right now prices are the lowest they've been in 20 years.
And PolicyGenius has made it easier than ever for you to get covered.
PolicyGenius is the easy way to shop for life insurance online.
In minutes, in minutes, you can compare quotes from top insurers to find your best price for you.
Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork and red tape.
You don't need to get bogged down in that.
And PolicyGenius doesn't just make life insurance easy.
They can help you find the right home insurance.
That's right.
Auto insurance and disability insurance.
If you need life insurance, If you need it, but you just haven't gotten around to it, don't procrastinate.
It's National Life Insurance Awareness Month, and this is as good a time as any to get started.
Go to policygenius.com.
Policygenius.com.
Get quotes and apply in minutes.
You can do the whole thing on your phone right now.
Policygenius.com, the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
Policygenius.com.
Check them out.
Okay, moving on.
So Elizabeth Warren, was on Stephen Colbert's show, and Colbert, who's a diehard liberal, tried to lock her down on her proposal.
Here's the genesis of this.
Warren is proposing this government-run, what she calls Medicare for All, it's really Medicare for None, but a government-run health care plan for the whole country, which will frankly bankrupt the entire country, and you personally, because you are part of this country.
And Colbert calls her out on, well, are you going to raise taxes for the middle class?
And check this out.
Here's her answer.
I'm going to debunk this nonsense in a minute.
Here's how we're going to do this.
Costs are going to go up for the wealthiest Americans, for big corporations.
Taxes?
What do you mean by cost?
Yeah.
And hardworking middle class families are going to see their costs go down.
But will their taxes go up?
Well, but here's the thing.
No, but here's the thing.
I've listened to these answers a few times before, and I just want to make a parallel suggestion for you about how you might defend the taxes that perhaps you're not mentioning in your sentence, is that isn't Medicare for all like public school?
There might be taxes for it, but you certainly save a lot of money on sending your kids to school, and do you want to live in a world where kids aren't educated?
Do you want to live in a world where your fellow citizens are dying, even if it costs a little bit of money?
I accept your point, and I believe in your point.
Healthcare is a basic human right.
We fight for basic human rights, and that's Medicare for all.
Everyone gets covered.
But here's how I look at it.
I've spent a big chunk of my career studying why families go broke.
and a big reason that families go broke is health care.
Ah!
Oh!
Oh, there's a red flag!
There's laundry on the field.
Laundry is on the field, folks.
We are going under the hood for review.
We are going to review this play.
There are a ton of nuggets in that.
I'll get to all of them.
And I promise, she keeps using that medical bankruptcy point in her study.
It's crap.
I'm going to get to that last because that's a little more nuanced and detailed, but it's still, you need to know it because Elizabeth Warren is currently now a front runner, if not the front runner.
And if she, we continue to allow her on television and her surrogates elsewhere to parrot this talking point about medical bankruptcies, we are going to lose because it's, Joe, it sounds bad.
Nobody wants to go bankrupt due to healthcare.
Nobody.
And if this is, you know, 50% of the population is going medically bankrupt, man, we better fix that.
She is exaggerating.
But there's a couple other things I want to address in there because there's serious points.
Colbert's defense of this and what he's trying to defend is he's telling Elizabeth Warren, just be honest, Liz.
What was your name for her?
You had the greatest name ever.
He forgot.
I can't even believe it.
It was so good.
But what he tells, he tells Elizabeth Warren, don't lie to the American people.
Just tell them their middle class taxes are going to go up because look, we have this model of public schools and everybody will basically love that.
Wait, wait, what?
Did he just, that's, that's your success story?
The absurd amount of money we pay on public schools.
That's your success story?
That's the example you want Liz Warren to run with?
That we currently pay exorbitant amounts of money.
400% inflation-adjusted increase in education spending across the United States, federal, state, and local level since I was born in 1974.
Joe, and an absolute flatline.
Flatline, if not decrease in education performances since I was born.
That's your model of success?
While charter schools that spend less, sometimes less than half of what you spend, have managed to increase performance on net most of the places they've been trying.
Your example of why the government should run healthcare is you're equating it to the same reason why government should run public schools.
Why?
Because they're failing at an unprecedented high cost?
Liz, please run with that.
Please run with that.
We need to do your health care just like we need to do inner city public schools, America.
They're going to be like, yeah!
The inner city people are going to be like, because they don't know what's coming next, right?
They're getting ready to cheer because liberals generally just bypass the facts and they run on emotions.
Liz Warren, we are going to do it like we do inner city schools and the people are like, yeah!
Wait, what did she just say?
Hold on.
I'm not sure I want that.
That's your example.
That's why Stephen Colbert is a comedian.
I mean, he's not running for office because he clearly hasn't thought through the ramifications of what he just said.
I wrote it down here briefly as in takeaways because I wanted to think this is this is really a profound appearance.
The takeaway is you really believe that the government can do this better, take over the healthcare system, and your example of that is how they've performed so well in our public school system?
I mean, is that a serious conversation?
The answer is you're crazy.
You're insane if that's the example you're going to use to sell government takeover, a government takeover of healthcare to the American people.
Here's the second takeaway.
Folks, insisting as Elizabeth Warren is, she makes a little bit of a comeback there.
And you can always rewind on either the YouTube or the audio and listen to it again yourself.
She makes another point there.
She kind of hints that taxes may go up.
And just so you know, the data indicates this, that your payroll taxes will triple and your income taxes will double if this Medicare for all nonsense passes.
Think about that.
What you're paying on your payroll taxes.
Your Medicare, Medicaid, FICA, Social Security stuff.
That will triple.
What you're paying in your income taxes will double to finance that.
So when she's talking about a tax increase, ladies and gentlemen, the degree matters, right?
I always use the example of what we talk about in economics as being on the margin.
What is the margin?
The margin means the degree of change, right?
I mean, we don't talk about in the winter, you know, heat or no heat in the house.
You talk about the degree of change.
I want heat.
How much?
95 degrees?
No, 71.
Okay, well, the degree matters.
It's not are your taxes going to go up or not.
That's not the argument.
Don't fall in this trap with Elizabeth.
We already know middle class taxes are going.
That's a fact.
If our Medicare for all, we know that.
Stop it.
That's not the argument.
The argument we need to make to the American people is, I get it Liz, taxes are going up.
What degree?
To what degree are taxes going up?
You're not telling them it's a tripling of their payroll taxes and a doubling of their income taxes.
So this nonsense, Elizabeth Warren's comeback was, well their costs for healthcare are going to go down, is absurd!
It's absurd!
Ladies and gentlemen, large swaths of America go years without expending anything on medical costs at all.
Think about it.
Some people who don't have insurance.
I'm not suggesting this is a good plan to do this.
I'm simply saying some people don't have insurance and have gone five and six years without spending a dime on medical care.
Maybe they get a sore throat of the flu.
One year they got to do four or five thousand out of pocket.
That's their choice in a free country.
Telling people their costs are going to go down, when a lot of Americans' costs are zero, and some are just their premiums now, which are nowhere close to what they'd pay at a double and triple payroll tax rate, telling them that their costs are going to go down is a lie!
You will be forced to pay for the healthcare of other people who may choose not to pay themselves!
Plus your own healthcare!
There is no way your costs are going down.
Do you understand that?
Your costs now are driven by your need and want.
You want healthcare insurance?
You buy it.
You agree to the premium.
You don't?
There's no longer an individual mandate.
You may say, I'm Joe Armacost, I'm healthy, I'm not paying for healthcare.
Your call!
Your costs are zero.
If Elizabeth Warren, by force, now your health expenditures, Joe, are not by your want or need.
They're done by force, by the government.
You will pay double your income tax and triple your payroll tax regardless.
Your costs do not go down.
There is no way.
This is not gonna happen.
Now, finally, I included this story again.
Rarely does a story make a double appearance in the show notes, but it was in yesterday.
It'll be in today, too.
Elizabeth Warren's final point.
So we just debunked the fact that government can do it better based on the public school model.
That's just insane.
We debunked the fact that your taxes are not going to, they are going to go up and the degree matters.
Finally, you're going to be forced to pay money for healthcare, whether you use it or not.
That is not a decrease in cost for you.
That's just complete stupidity to say that.
Her final point, she's been out there parroting repeatedly.
She's been saying how, oh, medical bankruptcies, everybody's going bankrupt.
I did that study on it.
Well, let's look at her study.
Here's an article at Forbes that I strongly encourage you to read by Aparna Mathur.
It's from last year, April 9, 2018, but it's worth your time.
Exposing the myth of widespread medical, excuse me, widespread medical bankruptcies.
She talks about Elizabeth Warren's study where she makes the absurd assertion that somewhere close to 50% of people in bankruptcy courts are there due to medical bankruptcies.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, there's a problem with that.
Think about it.
Again, this is a little nuanced, but if you have even a slight background in experimental science, you'll see the problem with that.
There's a great example in the Forbes piece, Joe, of why going to a bankruptcy court and sampling people who are already bankrupt may create the false impression of mass medical bankruptcies.
It's the equivalent, Joe, as Aparna says in the piece, of going into a restaurant on a Saturday night that's packed and asking the restaurant how many people love the food there.
And you get a number and say it's 90% and you go out and publish your headline.
90% of US citizens love the food at La Forchetta's in Stewart, Florida.
Listen, I love La Forchetta's.
It's my favorite Italian place around here, right?
It's great.
But Joe, do you get where there may be a problem with your numbers?
You took a sample of people who were already in the restaurant, just like you took a sample of people already in the bankruptcy courts.
Making matters even worse!
When this study was conducted, Joseph, it was conducted right around 2007.
What happened in 2007 that may have landed a whole lot of people in bankruptcy?
Let's think this through.
Joe and I were both alive.
The Great Recession happened!
Joe, you think...
No, I'm not.
Audience, I know you love Joe.
I'm not making fun of Joe.
It's a joke.
We mess around.
Joe, you are not an experimental psychologist or sociologist, correct?
Correct, Dan.
He is the best radio.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Do you think that may be one of those confounding variables, the recession, that may have polluted the results of a bankruptcy study?
I'm just throwing that out there, Joe.
Do you think that may have done that?
That could be quite confounding then.
Quite confounding.
Joe says, yes, that is a confounding variable.
Oh my gosh.
They conducted this right during the Great Recession.
Even worse, in some studies before, they made some tinkers to this, but some studies before, a lot of those bankruptcies, Joe, medical bankruptcies were due to gambling, drug addiction.
Folks, those are not medical bankruptcies by the definition you think they are.
A couple of things.
The study is garbage.
Her assertions of these mass... Do people go bankrupt due to medical costs?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Again, don't, because I know I'm going to get emails.
Dan, I went bankrupt.
I'm not saying it's not an issue.
I want to dial back to what I said in the beginning about the taxes.
I am not saying medical bankruptcy is problem or not.
The point is stipulated to everyone listening that medical bankruptcies in the United States are, A-R-E, an issue.
Copy?
And are troubling for anyone.
Don't mistake what I'm saying.
We are arguing the degree, not the if.
Elizabeth Warren is making a claim about the degree of the problem, saying it's a mass epidemic.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is not.
If you read the piece, you find out that when they measure it based on hospitalizations that have led to bankruptcy, Elizabeth Warren's claiming it's upward of 50%.
The number, Joe, is closer to 4%.
Less than one-tenth of that.
Still an issue!
Not nearly an issue to the degree Elizabeth Warren is trying to paint it out to be to double and triple your taxes.
Folks, this is an important story.
You know, a lot of news outlets covered the Elizabeth Warren quote and didn't do the deep dive.
And I think it was a huge mistake.
Because this was a golden moment for us to explain to America why she's lying.
She's lying about bankruptcies, about government capabilities, about the knowledge issue in the government.
They don't have the knowledge to run the healthcare system.
They can't even run the public school system.
Ironically, about education.
Finally, one final point.
Emmanuel Saez and a bunch of liberal economists have already analyzed her tax plan to pay for this, where she's saying, Joe, don't worry.
I'm going to pay for health care for everybody, but only the rich are going to pay.
Right, right, right.
It's going to cost 32 trillion over 10 years.
You know how much even liberal economists estimate her wealth tax would, if, it's not even constitutional, by the way, but if it were to pass, would raise?
2.75 trillion.
Again, less than one-tenth.
Ladies and gentlemen, she is lying.
Your costs are not going to go down.
The quality of your healthcare is going to go down.
It will be rationed.
It is a government takeover, leading to all the government problems we have with public schools you're going to see in healthcare.
She's lying about the costs.
She's lying about the bankruptcy data.
She's lying about everything.
And it's our responsibility to call it out.
People will die.
I didn't even know we had that one.
I got more.
I got more.
I got the dictionary.
We are now, I'm serious, we are peaking out at peak stupid, as I said in my debate last night on Ingram.
You're never going to believe what's happening with the dictionary.
Even they are falling into this SJW garbage.
Our last sponsor today, Bravo, got their shirt on today.
Bravo company, love their shirts.
Thanks for sending them, Bravo.
Bravo.
Bravo Company Manufacturing, ladies and gentlemen, if you're in the market for a rifle or a pistol, this is the time to go to Bravo Company Manufacturing.
The finest, finest rifles and pistols out there.
I've had this affirmed to me by many people, including a former Secret Service agent friend of mine who loves their firearms.
Bravo Company Manufacturing, you in the market for a sporting rifle?
Okay, well, don't go to Bravo.
What do you mean?
It's a commercial for Bravo.
No, no, they don't make sporting rifles.
Well, what do they make, Dan?
They make life-saving equipment.
No, I'm not messing around.
Bravo Company's not in the sporting rifle business.
They're in the life-saving rifle equipment business.
That's what they do, because they assume every single rifle, pistol that leaves their shop will wind up with an end-user.
And that end-user could be a police officer, one of our military members, or an American citizen who, God forbid, needs to use that piece of equipment to save the life of himself or his family or someone else one day.
This is not a sporting arms company.
The rifles they make are made for precision, accuracy, functionality, and they're made to work when the end user needs it most in a potentially life-saving situation.
I love these rifles.
I have two of them.
They are absolutely fantastic.
I have never, ever had a malfunction with one.
I love they are precise.
These are really fine-tuned equipment.
They're made in the United States.
Every component of a BCM rifle is hand-assembled and tested by Americans in Heartland, Wisconsin to a life-saving standard.
They know they make reliable life-saving equipment.
Folks, I can't say enough about them.
If you want to check out more of their offer, because they always put people before their products, go to Bravo Company Manufacturing.
Go to Bravo Company M.
MFG, MFG like short for manufacturing.
BravoCompanyMFG.com and discover more about their products, special offers and upcoming news.
Do not purchase a rifle till you go to BravoCompanyMFG.com.
Please, you want to see more?
Go to their YouTube channel.
YouTube.com slash Bravo Company USA.
That's YouTube.com slash Bravo Company USA.
Ladies and gentlemen, again, this is a company that makes life-saving equipment in the form of their rifles.
It's not a sporting arms company.
They make the finest ones out there.
I can personally vouch for the quality and integrity that goes into their products.
BravoCompanyMFG.com.
Thanks for being here.
Bravo!
I like that.
Thanks a lot for the shirt.
Okay.
Moving on.
So I have the story up at Bongino.com, it'll be up in the show notes again, and I encourage you to check it out.
Miriam Webster, that once did a dictionary, now is engaged apparently in social justice warrior pandering by our staff at Bongino.com.
Just in!
Miriam Webster adds the non-binary definition of they to the dictionary.
Folks, here we go again.
Epic fail by Miriam Webster.
Here we go with the pronoun wars again.
People can use the... I don't... Can we just agree on... I don't want to get ranty.
But this story has upset me and you probably have figured that out because I've covered it multiple times.
I mean, I'm being serious here for a minute.
Folks, this is not meant as some slight... I have no interest in offending people who are transgender.
What's my interest in that?
I'm not into this to hurt people.
I don't do my show to judge people or to punch you in the gut or make you feel inferior or silly.
I'm not kidding.
I mean, I know this story is absurd and ridiculous.
But if you happen to be one of the activists in that community who is lobbying For language rules that no human being is ever going to use and make no sense at all.
Have you ever considered where this is going to go and what the penalties are for this?
So now we have the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.
They, which collectively refers to a group of people.
More than one.
That does not mean he or she.
This isn't hard to understand.
They does not mean one person.
And rules of language are in place, as I've stated many times before, for a reason.
Why, Joe?
So we don't have the Tower of Babel.
So when people have conversations with other people, the words make sense.
Right.
Folks, I get it this is a politically heated topic, but remove the they, he, she, she, zhou, zo thing for a minute.
And let's talk about this.
Joe, not a trick question.
What is this?
That is a watch, Dan.
It's a watch.
It's a watch.
Joe, what is this a set of?
Glasses, Dan.
Am I right so far?
Do you understand?
You understand?
You are right.
What is this?
Can you see that?
What is that?
Some of the stuff you were saying.
That's a whistle, Dan.
That's a whistle.
It's a whistle.
Thank you.
I'm messing with Joe, but I'm really not.
Joe knows that these are glasses because that's the word in the English language we use to refer to an item that meets these characteristics.
Two lenses, stems you put around your ear, little nose guard in the middle.
That is how we refer to items that look like this.
If someone decides in the activist community that these glasses I'm holding in my hand are now called frasses instead, nobody knows what you're talking about.
Hey, can you go get me the frasses?
What the hell are the frassés?
The frassés, you idiot!
They're French classes, you don't know that?
These are the frassés!
Go get the frassés!
Everybody's looking like, what is this dude talking about?
What are the frassés?
And you have to say it with Joe's French accent.
Give me the frassés!
What are the frassés?
Ladies and gentlemen, society would collapse tomorrow.
Go get me the cabissal.
What the hell's the cabissal?
This is the cabissal.
No, that's a whistle.
It's not the cabissal.
This is not a cabissal.
It's a whistle.
And if you ask me to get you the cabissal, I won't know what you're talking about.
But the activist community is now asking us to keep internal memory lists of every single person's personal preference for what the whistle should be called.
So one person wants this called the cabissal, one person wants it called the dithissal, one person wants it called the quinissal, and another person wants it called milquetoast.
And you're like, I'm lost.
I'm lost.
Of course you're lost!
And in order for me to have a conversation with activist Joe about the frassés and the quibissel, I have to keep a list handy.
A list of Joe's terms for the whistle, quibissel, milk thistle.
Now, what if Paula wants these called The Blasés!
These are... Dan, bring the Blasés!
Are those the Frassés or the Blasés?
No, no, they're the glass... I thought they were Frassés!
They're Blasés!
What's wrong with you?
Folks, I don't have my list, Paula.
I didn't know what the Blasés were.
I thought you were talking about the Frassés because Joe calls them the Frassés.
Folks, do you understand how we are collapsing?
We have reached peak Tower of Babel.
Stupid.
When you refer to people by he or she, you want to be called he?
Fine, just tell me as I'm talking.
I'm not keeping a list.
Nobody Folks, we are not supercomputers.
Are we supposed to keep a list of every single person we meet, hear about, or elsewhere, what they want to be called, defying the rules of common sense and collective ownership of the English language?
If we don't all own it, it doesn't mean anything.
If everybody has individual... This is the one time collective ownership works, when we all own the language.
If you take ownership of the language yourself and start changing the rules, nothing makes sense.
So, two takeaways from the frassés, blasés, quinissals.
Are we all supposed to keep a list of everybody's preferred pronouns?
Second question.
If we don't keep the list, Joe, because we can't, and it's absurd to ask us to, I'm not messing with you, Joe.
What are the penalties?
Are we all istophobic, phobophobic, phobophobes?
Shunning?
Every one of us?
Shunning?
Public shunning?
Social media mobs?
Jail time?
Oh, you love jail time.
Really?
Have you checked around the globe?
We're refusing to call people by their single ownership of the English language and their claim to a preferred pronoun?
Have you checked around the globe where people are talking about criminalizing this and enacting some of this?
Folks, we're in Tower of Babel territory here.
Again, you think what you want.
I'm really- I mean it.
I may offend some people on either side.
I'm not here to offend you.
I'm not trying to poke you.
I have no interest in- I don't.
I just don't.
It's not my job.
It's not my- I get no satisfaction out of offending people.
I'm asking simple questions you should be able to provide an answer for if you want to change our collective language.
Do we all keep lists?
Where are those lists kept?
And if we don't abide by your lists, what are the penalties?
Now, I have an example.
Ironically, provided by, what's her name?
Ashley Pye or something, who is an activist who supports this stuff.
The use of a single ownership language where everybody changes the rules on a daily basis, right?
This was a tweet this activist sent out.
Get a load of this before I show you.
This is a picture, it's a screenshot from her tweet.
This is a picture, Joe, of an Associated Press, which is a left-leaning outlet.
And I'll read it to you for the audio, folks.
This is a picture of an article by the left-leaning AP about some entertainer, Sam Smith.
I have never heard of this guy.
He wants us to keep a list now.
On our list, we have to refer to him now as they.
He wants to be called they, just like Merriam-Webster.
Him.
They.
So here's the AP writing about this story.
Check this out, let me read this to you.
Sam Smith has declared his, his pronouns, they, them on social media after coming out as non-binary in what the pop star called his, his, his lifetime of being at war with my gender.
The English Too Good at Goodbye singer said Friday, he decided to embrace myself for who I am inside and out.
The announcement was met with thousands of supportive comments.
Oh my gosh.
The 27-year-old Smith said, he, he, he was excited and privileged for the support.
He added he was very nervous about the announcement because he cares too much about what people
think but decided to go for it.
The AP has now corrected that article with the "he wants to be called they"
Folks, do you understand the chaos that is right around the corner if we subscribe to this nonsense?
I refuse.
Put me in that vat with Jordan Peterson and others.
I'm not doing it.
Like I said to you, in a personal conversation between me and you, you want to be called he or she, whatever, fine.
I am not, Taking the rules of the English language and throwing them out the window, collectively, to refer to anybody by a preferred pronoun that does not subscribe to the collective rules of the English language.
I'm not doing it.
And nobody else should either.
Because it will lead to complete, utter, and total chaos.
And this war on the English language in an effort to call people, uh, you know, trans-a-phobic, is-ta-phobic phobophobes is absolutely ridiculous and absurd and totally unacceptable.
All right, here's a great piece.
I've had a lot more.
The show is always stacked.
There's Trump on the wall yesterday.
Back up.
Oh, Joe, do you have like a buzzer for that?
I'm sorry.
I should.
The show was loaded.
Now I've said loaded twice.
We got to get another word.
Please send us emails of suggested words.
But it is the show.
The news weeks have been so heavy lately.
All right, C, good one.
The CEI, Competitive Enterprise Institute, has a great article that's being cited everywhere, and I want to make sure I get to it to show you again how the left, not only trying to hoist upon our backs a ridiculous Medicare for All plan they're lying about, but ladies and gentlemen, they're also lying about one of their other big agendas, the Green New Deal, or as Sean Hannity calls it, and I hope he keeps doing this.
He calls it the New Green Deal.
I love that.
Just mess with the title.
I like that he does it.
I think he does it on purpose.
The New Green Deal.
Remember, Elizabeth Warren is setting up the Medicare for All using the lie that there's mass medical bankruptcies across the country and we have to fix this epidemic.
Again, the degree she's lying about.
Again, is the climate changing?
Yes, climate always changes.
We're not arguing that.
Just like we're not arguing do medical bankruptcies occur.
We are arguing, Joe, the degree to which the climate changes and humans' contribution to it.
Clear?
That's what we're talking about.
So CEI put out a piece, it's very long, wrong again, 50 years of failed ecopocalyptic predictions by my friend Myron Ebell and Stephen Malloy, September 18, 2018.
This is in the show notes, and this is one of those, take a screenshot, snapshot it, keep it on your phone, because this just goes to show you How the left, arguing the degree of the problem, we're gonna die!
Remember, I'm not arguing climate changes.
Climate always changes.
Right.
The left is arguing the degree, Joe.
I don't think it's a big deal.
I think capitalism is more than able to handle the problem, and I think we're gonna be fine.
Clear?
The left's case is, this is an apocalypse!
We are all gonna die.
Tomorrow.
Huh?
So Myron was bright enough to put this here.
So I just have, there's about 20 predictions leftists and environmental kooks have made over the years that have completely gone off the rails.
In the interest of time, I took screenshots of five doozies.
Before we get to number one, remember the apocalypse now, Joe, is that we're all gonna die, the globe is melting, it's heating to unsustainable levels, and we're all gonna drown or burn to death, right?
Global warming is the new... Yeah, exactly.
But that's not where this started.
So we're told now we're all gonna roast like in an oven from a hot earth, but let's go to photo number one.
This was their former prediction.
Here it is, Joe.
Scientists predict a new ice age by the 21st century.
Boston Globe, April 16, 1970.
So, we're going to melt now, but back in 1970, we were all going to be in blocks of ice, like Captain America.
Whenever Captain gets stuck in a block of ice and comes out like 50 years later, we were all going to be capped, Steve Rogers.
We're all good.
We're great.
We never age.
We come out 50 years later, Captain America's doing laps around the Washington Monument.
It was great.
So we were all going to freeze back then in 1970, but now we're not freezing.
Now we're all going to cook to death.
It goes on.
Photo number two, failed leftist economic.
Here's Paul Ehrlich, the worst, the population bomb guy, totally discredited.
Here's what's going to happen here.
This was from the Redlands Daily Facts, October 7th, 1970.
America will be subject to water rationing and food rationing by 1980.
So Joe, just to be clear, discredited legend scientist Paul Ehrlich, the population bomb, we're overpopulated.
We are going to have to ration food and water by 1980.
This was a 1970 prediction.
This was a 1970 prediction.
And again, we are all gonna die.
What's the biggest problem in America right now, health-wise?
Obesity.
We eat too much.
So clearly, food rationing is not so much.
He missed that prediction by just a tad, Joe.
A tad?
Like, the whole way around.
Just a little bit.
But don't worry, Paul Ehrlich, leftists love this guy.
He was a malthusian, the population's out of control, we're all gonna die because we can't produce enough food.
The predictions go on.
Here's another.
This is great.
New York Slimes, January 5th, 1978.
Listen to this headline.
International team of specialists show.
Whenever you hear, by the way, about specialists, run for the hills.
Finds no end in sight to 30-year cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere.
So now Now we're not in an ice age anymore.
They left that one behind.
Now, in 1978, the Slimes and the Specialists.
Run.
Run when you hear Specialists, okay?
Run.
What was it Buckley?
William F. Buckley said, I'd rather be governed by the first 50 names in the phone book than the faculty staff at Harvard.
He was right.
The Specialists.
There's a 30-year cooling trend.
I mean, I thought we were all melting.
But then we were freezing, but now it's just a cooling trend that's no longer a cooling trend.
None of this stuff has come true.
They are a big donut.
They have a batting average of zero on this.
Zero.
But we're supposed to all sell our houses on the water.
Not Obama, of course.
He just bought one.
But we're supposed to sell our houses on the water because they're predicting a massive tidal wave, like that movie with the Teo Leone scene on the beach where they all get wiped away.
What's that movie?
Paul and I, we always forget the name.
Deep Impact, yes!
Thank you, Paul.
We're all going to get deep impacted.
So stupid, folks.
Check out this one.
Another one.
Al Gore.
You can't do any more than that.
This is Al Gore, 2008.
Al Gore warns of an ice-free Arctic by 2013.
Ten years ago, Al Gore predicted the North Polar ice cap would be gone.
Inconveniently, it's not.
It's still there.
So just to be clear, ice, Al Gore, no more.
No more ice.
That is not what happened.
It's there, just like it was before.
Nothing's happened.
He just made it up.
Folks... What are you going to do?
I don't know.
Donnie Brasco doesn't even know what we're going to do.
Nothing they tell you, ladies and gentlemen, is true.
And to the guy who emailed me, thank you, and said, you know, I like the debunking, but sometimes it... No, folks, I'm sorry, but that's been the point of the show from day one.
You may have missed the memo.
And I really apologize for that.
My sole purpose for being on the air is to give you real facts, real data, and to show you how the left and the people in the media and academia have been misleading you for a long time.
And it's to give you the ammunition you need to go fight the good conservative fight out there.
That has always been the point of this show.
And it always will be.
Whether it's Spygate, the environment, taxes, or healthcare policy, I promise you, and it will never stop, that if you come here, you will find the truth.
Not the media drivel they put out there every day, hoping and praying you believe they're gaslighting.
All right, thanks again for tuning in, folks.
Please, if you don't mind, subscribe to my YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bungino.
Oh, one quick favor.
I have a friend, Rachel Campos Duffy.
You may have seen her on Fox.
She is awesome.
She is a close personal friend.
I promised her I'd mention this terrific book.
I know the light's kind of in the way.
Paloma!
This is a great book.
Paloma wants to be Lady Freedom.
It is a great kids book.
I read it to my kids.
You will love it.
She's a great friend of mine and a warrior for the conservative cause.
It's about Paloma going to the Capitol and finding out all the great secrets about our country.
Paloma wants to be Lady Freedom.
Available now on Amazon by our good friend Rachel Campos-Dovey.
There's the cover.
Please check it out.
My kids love the book.
You will too.
And it's great to read our kids' stuff, not from this media academia nonsense, but from good conservatives who know how to talk to our kids who love our country.
So thanks a lot, folks.
Again, please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
