In this episode, I address the latest Democrat meltdown and their ridiculous impeachment push. I also discuss a troubling development in the liberal effort to confiscate firearms. Finally, I address the push to eliminate the Electoral College and why it matters. News Picks:
Did Rod Rosenstein really want to wear a wire to target the President?
Joe Biden is clearly lying about his conversations with his son.
A terrific article explaining why the Electoral College is necessary.
Knife control has arrived. Unreal.
This article shows that there’s no evidence the “Assault Weapons Ban” worked.
Socialist Bernie Sanders wants a government list of wealthy Americans.
Here’s what you’ll discover in my new book “Exonerated.”
You can purchase my new book here.
Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Keep your phone number, bring your own phone, or buy a new one.
Use your cell phone every day.
Why not use it to make a change supporting your values?
Remember this website, patriotmobile.com slash dan.
Switching to Patriot Mobile is easy and a portion of your bill will support gun rights, freedom of speech, secure borders, and the sanctity of life.
Join thousands of Americans using Patriot Mobile and get reliable nationwide coverage, keep your number, bring your own phone, or get a new one.
Feel good about unlimited talk and text and high-speed data plans that fight for your freedom.
Don't wait!
Sign up today at patriotmobile.com slash dan.
Again, that's patriotmobile.com slash dan.
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Sorry, another roadshow today.
We'll be back in studio tomorrow.
But again, I always want to get a show to you.
I don't like taking days off, especially with everything going on with Joe Biden.
The renewed absurdities with the impeachment call.
Nancy Pelosi taking another ridiculous step forward towards the impeachment of Donald Trump for winning a presidential election.
Trump will be the first president in American history to have to go through an impeachment, if they proceed forward on this, for winning an election.
This is completely outrageous, folks.
A total joke.
Before we get started, again, thank you very much for the support of my new book.
It was out yesterday.
Exonerated.
Really appreciate it.
We're still top 10 on Amazon, which is a huge accomplishment, thanks to you.
And it means the world to me.
So thank you.
Thank you very much.
I sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, want to thank you for all of your support.
You've made this such a rewarding experience.
So breaking again yesterday, Trump has authorized the declassification of his call with the Ukrainians with the whistleblower gate.
I think that's a big mistake.
We're going to get to that.
Knife control.
is now a new thing.
You may be saying, what?
Knife control?
We've moved on from gun control?
Yes.
Yes, we have.
I told you that was going to happen eventually.
Of course, that's come to fruition now.
We'll see.
I got that.
Finally, a Democrat being honest about the gun control agenda gets caught on that.
Also, I got something on the Electoral College and, of course, the Biden-Ukraine stuff that's been blowing up as of yesterday.
So today's show brought to you by our buddies at Quip.
Ladies and gentlemen, Quip, Q-U-I-P, the best toothbrush out there.
It is the finest electric toothbrush out there.
We all use them in my household.
It is like a power washing for your mouth.
I can't say enough about Quip.
We love Quip.
Quip.com slash Dan.
Get your first refill pack for free.
What makes Quip special?
Ladies and gentlemen, industrial strength power.
Claims of miraculous trendy ingredients, multiple modes.
If you ask your dentist, they'll tell you less about the brush and more about how to use it.
That's why Quip, Q-U-I-P, was created by dentists and product designers to focus on what actually matters for your oral health, healthier habits.
Quip's sensitive vibrations with a built-in timer.
It's really easy.
It tells you how long to brush your teeth for.
You can't beat it.
Guides gentle brushing for the dentist.
Recommended two minutes with 30 second pulses, ensuring an even clean.
Tells you when to switch sides too.
Quip automatically delivers brush heads to you every three months.
We get them at my house for clean, new bristles right on schedule.
The sleek, intuitive design is simple to use and comes with a travel cap that doubles as a mirror mount.
Just pull it right off your mirror, throw it in your bag.
These thoughtful features make brushing something you actually want to do twice a day, for me more.
Good habits make a healthier life, so use Quip for good oral health.
Quip starts at just $25, and you'll get your first refill pack free at getquip.com slash Dan.
That's getquip.com slash Dan.
A simple way to support our show and start brushing better, but you'll have to go to getquip.com slash Dan and get your first refill pack free.
Right now, go to getquip.com slash Dan.
They would love to have you.
Check them out.
All right, let's get to it.
Ding, ding, ding.
I promise you, poor Joe will be back tomorrow.
He misses us, but we've been selling a lot of books trying to get the story out there.
It means a lot to us.
Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Biden is lying.
This whistleblower gate thing, as is usual with the hack lunatics in the media who cannot keep their heads on straight, who can't do proper journalism, can't fact check anything, are falling for whistleblower gate and the scam.
There is No whistleblower, ladies and gentlemen.
There is a deep state swamp rat that is leaking the private conversations of Donald Trump with foreign leaders out to the media because they know the hack lunatic media that has no scruples and no bearings and is not centered in reality at all will run with these allegations, as we saw yesterday with Pelosi and the dreadful Joe Biden speech was trying to flip the script.
Sadly, some of it's working in the mainstream media, but not here.
Joe Biden is now calling for President Trump's impeachment, which is ironic.
Now, you all know the backstory.
Trump talked to the new president of Ukraine.
The allegation is a whistleblower saw a conversation where, according to the whistleblower at least, Trump made some improper promises or held back some military aid because he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Joe Biden The Joe Biden family scandal there, where his son was employed by this gas company in Ukraine for money, despite having no experience in gas, was being investigated.
And his father, Joe Biden, wanted the prosecutor investigating him and fired.
So that's the quick backstory in a nutshell.
Now, we got some new news on this, okay?
Biden, despite calling for Trump's impeachment yesterday, which is absurd, utterly ridiculous, it's Biden who should leave the race.
Biden is now, he's been caught on the record by Peter Doocy of Fox lying.
He was asked, Joe Biden, very specifically, what did you know?
Did you talk to your son, communicate to your son, Hunter, about this illicit gas deal you got to sit on the board of Burisma in Ukraine?
Did you know anything about it?
And Biden got angry and Biden said, no, I didn't know anything about it.
I want you to check out this CNN video here, and I want you to be the judge if Joe Biden's telling the truth about just how much he knew about his son's unscrupulous behavior.
Check this out.
Listen to this when Joe Biden was asked by a reporter about his son Hunter Biden and his position on the board of that Ukrainian gas company.
Listen to this.
Mr. Vice President, how many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings?
I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business.
He says never.
And then the New Yorker piece from this summer in July quotes Hunter Biden as saying, uh, talking, saying his father and he did discuss that company and said, dad said, quote, I hope you know what you're doing.
I said, I do.
Does it raise any questions for you?
Well, clearly something needs to be cleared up.
See, he's lying.
Ladies and gentlemen, he's lying.
Why would Biden be lying about this?
Because Biden clearly knew, as we already saw in this New Yorker article, which was a predicate article in the past just to get out in front of this.
The New Yorker was, you get what I'm saying?
The New Yorker was trying to do the Biden family a favor, obviously realizing Biden was going to run for president.
So the New Yorker's doing him a favor by trying to, you know, what they call in the business world, take a bath.
Just put all the bad numbers out in one quarter, let the stock take a hit and you can recover next quarter.
That's what Biden's trying to do.
That New Yorker piece was meant to flood the zone with this information and get it out and say, oh, look, it all is going to go away.
We reported on this in the past.
But now that was all those same reports are coming back to haunt Biden, because now we know that it's all a lie, because Biden has already admitted talking to his son, Hunter, about these business deals over in Ukraine.
And everybody knows that it's a scam.
I have a piece up at IJ Review.
It'll be up at the show notes today at Bongino.com.
I strongly encourage you to check it out.
Please read it.
You'll see it goes through how Biden is clearly hiding his knowledge.
The title of the piece is Biden claims he never spoke to his son about Ukraine dealings.
Forgot that the son said the exact opposite.
Folks, it's a scam.
You are being misled here.
This is Russian collusion part two here.
This is a total scam.
This whistleblower thing is a total fraud.
Donald Trump is free as the Commander-in-Chief to conduct foreign policy as he sees fit.
There is no allegation of criminality here at all.
This is an effort to subvert and destroy the presidency, again, after the collusion hoax, because the collusion hoax completely fell apart and collapsed.
That's all this is.
And the sycophantic, boot-licking, butt-kissing media is falling right in line doing what they do every single time.
Taking their talking points from Joe Biden.
That was the whole purpose of his press conference yesterday.
For Joe Biden to give the media their talking points going forward.
I'm warning you, this is going to get worse before it gets better.
I promise you, this is going to get a whole lot worse.
This impeachment thing is gathering steam with these lunatic Democrats because it's all they've got.
And they are genuinely worried about a Donald Trump re-elect in 2020.
They are terrified of it.
Alright, moving on.
I've got a lot to get to today.
So I saw this article in Legal Insurrection, deeply disturbing.
You know, of course, the gun grabbers on the left that want to take away your big R, God-given right to defend yourself, they never let up because they are, of course, you know, they're in the...
They feel like they, you know, big are God-given rights or really small are state-given rights.
They are not.
So I saw this piece in Legal Insurrection by Kimberly Kay.
UK.
Church leaders ask the government to ban pointed knives.
Knife control has arrived.
Folks, I warned you about this a long time ago.
This is the problem with the left and why People I think who feel like me, who've got thick skin, you know, chopped up fingernails and are ready for a fight.
This is why we need a warrior like Trump in there.
Because the left is not looking to...
Slowly, Alka-Seltzer, dissolve away tablet.
They're looking to take them in one fell swoop.
Take away your rights.
I've warned about this.
This is why we're in this battlefield mentality right now, where we need a warrior like Trump, who is not going to back down, who's going to sharpen his knuckles and move forward, move that battlefront, and not back away and constantly apologize.
The old way of doing things in the past with the Republican Party was to constantly apologize for being wrong, acquiesce to all the Democrats' points, and then hope and beg you got re-elected.
Trump's not interested in any of that.
I had told you that the gun control thing was not going to end.
Now we're at the point where they want to get rid of actual pointed knives.
This is so ridiculous, I can't believe we're reporting on this.
Now, from the piece, there's an interesting, um...
Take away from the piece.
So there are some British MPs, political figures, parliamentarians, they want to move forward with church officials on this point because they're having, of course, after gun control was implemented in the UK, what do they have?
They have knife control.
All right, as you see in the piece, it says, Church of England leaders and the Diocese of Rochester have joined forces with leading crime experts as well as MPs and community leaders in a letter asking the government to consider banning pointed kitchen knives.
Folks, you know, again, every time we make a slippery slope argument to the left, what do they say?
It's happened on social issues, it happens with gun control.
What are you guys gonna do next?
Come after pointed knives?
And what do liberals say to you?
Oh, that's ridiculous.
No one's coming after knives.
Come on, we just wanna stop gun violence in the country.
You're not looking to stop gun violence.
By the way, I got an excellent email from a reader.
She said, you know, it's people violence.
The gun is a tool in the hands of people, and you're right.
You're absolutely right.
But this is the leftist talking point here.
I told you this was gonna happen.
And all of this stuff eventually filters over to the United States if we were to do this stuff too.
You know, the UK and...
Parts of Europe have become testing grounds for far-left radicalism.
Now, I wanted you to read that just to, again, so you understand that this stuff is not some kind of chimerical fairytale, that this is actually happening.
There are people in power and foreign governments and elsewhere who are pushing for this kind of stuff.
But moving on on the gun control debate, because this is going to be a hot one for the 2020 election.
It was a clip from CNN yesterday.
Ironically, it's the same interview with the same person.
But was it Poppy Harlow?
She's asking the same Democrat lawmaker who was on before about the Biden stuff.
She asks him about his take on gun control, and he hasn't one honest moment here, which is shocking, where Poppy Harlow asks him, well, is gun control gonna, and these confiscation of firearms and the assault weapon bans, is it actually gonna save a life?
And I want you to pay attention to his answer, because we have data to back this up, and it seems to be ignored by the liberal left, who are immune, of course, to facts and data.
Check this out.
I don't know that taking everyone's guns and buying everyone's guns back is going to cure the national massacres that we've had in recent history.
Would it save lives?
I'm not sure.
That's why I'm saying we don't know.
It may be a social issue that needs to be addressed that hasn't been.
Maybe an intense social study of what's happened in America in the last two decades that has brought us to this point in history where we're having mass shootings almost every single month.
Clearly, if buying guns back, I mean, I think that should be like the last resort.
We need to start with a path of least resistance and see what changes can be made that would cure the problem that we're having in this country.
Well, folks, we've already tried an assault weapons ban, of course, under the Bill Clinton administration, and we've seen exhaustive studies done on the assault weapons ban and what, in fact, it may have done to reduce violence, to reduce crime.
We've already seen that.
And the evidence, and then this lawmaker, this Democrat, why, I don't know why he said he's probably in a swing district and he needs to get reelected and doesn't want to be on the record as a gun grabber.
That's the only thing I can possibly imagine why he would give an honest answer, because Democrats are rarely, if ever, honest.
But you know on this show we do facts and data, unlike the left that does, you know, highly toxic opinion and screams a bunch of epithets at us all the time at every opportunity.
Did the assault weapons ban that they're now proposing to reinstitute again the Democrats, many of them running for president, including that bateau Robert Francis O'Rourke, did it actually work?
So I thought I'd do you the favor and pull this stuff up.
So here's an article by ProPublica, okay?
ProPublica is not a right-leaning outlet at all, obviously, anyone who knows what they do over there.
So it's gonna be in the show notes, it's worth your time.
Now, it's back from 2014, but it's fact-checking Feinstein on the assault weapons ban, talking about, of course, Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, who had made some ridiculous claims about the assault weapons ban.
One of them saying, The evidence is clear, folks.
The ban worked.
Well, did it?
So, the sub-headline says, except there's no evidence it saved lives, and the researcher behind the key statistic Feinstein Cites says it's an outdated figure that was based on a false assumption.
Kind of a problem, no?
Am I reading that wrong?
Again, this is ProPublica, this isn't like Conservative Review or Breitbart, none of those are great outlets, I love them, but this isn't a right-leaning outlet.
There is no evidence the assault weapons ban worked.
Now, you'll see down later in the piece, there's this portion of it which clearly lays out that that is not the case.
I want to read this to you because this is important.
Again with this, I know you'll all love when I say this is important, but it's true.
That is not the case.
The assault weapons ban, there's no evidence it did a darn thing to curb violence from the piece, and I quote.
But gun violence experts say the exact opposite.
Quote, there is no compelling evidence that it saved lives, Duke University public policy experts Philip Cook and Kristen Goss wrote in their book, The Gun Debate, what everybody needs to know.
It goes on.
A definitive study of the 1994 law, which prohibited the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic guns with, quote, military-style firearms such as pistol grips or bayonet mounts, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, found no evidence, let me repeat that, found no evidence that it had reduced overall gun crime or made shootings less lethal.
We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence.
The DOJ-funded study concluded in 2004.
Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for a liable measurement.
Ladies and gentlemen, in other words, it didn't do a damn thing, the assault weapons ban, except keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding people who could no longer buy them.
I'm just citing to you the research.
What you do with facts and data, of course, is entirely up to you.
I'm not trying to push you in any direction other than to give sane, sentient beings and thinking adults who care about their kids and their own lives the material to go forward and form their own intelligent opinions.
That's not what liberals do.
They vote and they talk entirely on emotion.
We need to ban guns.
They're dangerous.
Listen, hammers are dangerous, too.
We don't ban hammers.
Alcohol can be dangerous, too.
We don't ban alcohol.
We let people make decisions in their real lives, and we try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and bad guys, which we have rules for.
Rules criminals break all the time.
The assault weapons ban was worthless, and the Democrats want to reinstitute worthless because they want to get people on a list.
The Democrats love lists.
I got that.
By the way, don't go anywhere, please.
I'm going to end the show today with a story that's really going to bother you.
Think I'm making this up about lists?
I showed this story to Paula before we put it in the show.
She's like, is this a joke?
I'm like, no, it's not.
That's why they want universal background checks, because they want everybody on a list.
That way when they institute an assault weapons ban, they know exactly where to go to get your firearm.
And the only way they'll know who has them is if they institute a universal background check, which is really a list.
They want another list too.
I promise you.
It's the last story today.
I'm not trying to like tease it to keep you.
I'm just, cause I got a lot to get to, but my last story today is going to blow your mind.
The Democrats love lists.
And I don't mean that in a good way.
I mean it in a really, really bad way.
All right, moving on.
Today's show also brought to you by my buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are one of my original sponsors.
We love BrickHouse Nutrition.
They have the finest nutrition supplement on the market, Foundation.
Foundation is a creatine ATP blend.
It's like having two extra gas tanks in the gym.
Before you try Foundation, because I'm so confident in this product, I've used it forever.
My wife uses it, my whole family uses it, producer Joe uses it.
It is really a wonderful product.
I encourage you to do this.
Take a little mental snapshot, look in the mirror, check out how you look, right?
Seven days later after you got to take foundation, it's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
After seven days, go look in the mirror again.
Take another mental snapshot of what you look like.
You're gonna be like, darn, that stuff works pretty good, because it does.
It is the real deal.
Foundation makes you look better, makes you feel better, makes you perform better.
The performance side, go in the gym, write down how many pushups, bench press, squat, whatever, lat pulldowns you do.
Come back seven days later.
You're absolutely gonna love it.
It's the finest nutrition supplement out there.
It's called Foundation.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Check him out.
I really appreciate it.
It's a great product.
Okay.
Great article by the Daily Signal.
I get a lot of questions on this, surprisingly, because it's, I guess it could be perceived as kind of a wonky issue.
It's really not, but sometimes people will email me and say, Dan, you really need to talk about why the Democrats want to get rid of the electoral college.
So, why am I bringing this up?
How is this relevant to today's news?
Why is it on my video show here?
Well, folks, the 2020 Democrats were seeing increased calls, as you can see in this Daily Signal piece I'm going to quote from, you're seeing increased calls for an elimination of the Electoral College.
What is the Electoral College?
The Electoral College is the way we elect presidents.
Each state gets a number of electors determined by its number of congressmen and women,
House of Representatives members, in other words, and senators.
So in Florida, we have 27 members of Congress, we have two senators, so Florida gets 29 electors.
Now, of course, you have to get to 270, that's how it works.
You have to get to, and then once those 270 electors choose a president, that's how we, we don't choose based on the popular vote.
I've said repeatedly, the election for the President of the United States is not a national election.
It's a national result.
But it's a series of 50 state elections.
So, and my sincere apologies, I'm not trying to talk down to anyone, it's a very intelligent audience, but there are some people who are busy and may not remember how exactly it works.
So the way Florida's 29 electoral votes are obtained by a candidate for president is you win the popular vote in Florida.
That's how it works.
Florida does not choose its electors for president based on the national vote.
It makes sense?
You dig what I'm saying, right?
So in other words, it's like Trump's running for individual states and those electors will be allocated towards the person who wins.
That specific state.
What happens outside of Florida is absolutely irrelevant for the allocation of Florida's electors in the electoral college for president.
It's irrelevant.
Now, why do the Democrats want to make that go away?
Think this through.
The Democrats want a national popular vote election.
Why?
Because they want the next president to effectively be chosen by New York, Chicago, California, San Francisco in California, L.A.
in California, New York City, and basically big cities that tend to vote traditionally Democrat.
They want the population centers to pick the president because the population centers are dominated by far-left ideology.
There are a lot of reasons behind that, by the way.
That would actually make Paul an interesting, maybe in a one-hour episode one day.
I did a speech on this one time.
You know, people just take it for granted that big cities—Baltimore, New York, L.A.—vote Democrat.
But a lot of people don't—I don't want to say a lot—but you don't see a lot of articles on why that is.
And I gave a speech on this once, having researched it a little bit, and there are some theories out there that say a reliance on public services, public services obviously being associated more with Democrats and big government, whether it be public transportation.
You know, think about it.
Manhattan residents typically don't drive unless you're really wealthy.
The parking spot here is like a million dollars just to buy a spot.
So, you know, there's an assumption there's the reliance on public services, policing.
You know, sometimes if you live out in the country by yourself, you're not calling the police that often.
Even garbage pickups and things.
People who live in densely populated areas tend to rely more on government.
There's also a crowd effect.
You know, when you're around people who rely on government and tend to be fans of the Democrat Party, you know, you don't want to be the outlier yourself.
If you live in a rural area and you got one or two neighbors who are Trump supporters, you know, you don't feel any pressure to vote like them.
You do your own thing.
So, that's a whole other story.
Having said that though, sorry I got off on a tangent, but I love that topic.
The Democrats want to make the Electoral College go away because they want New York and California to pick the president.
Simple as that.
Now, the Daily Signal piece I just showed you breaks this down beautifully.
And there are three key takeaways why the Electoral College is not a perfect system, no system is.
But it is a better system than our other choice.
So there's the Electoral College, right?
Choice one.
Choice two would be the popular vote.
So, let's go to the first takeaway from the Daily Signal piece.
Up at the show notes, again, absolutely worth your time.
One of the best pieces I've seen.
But explains why this is.
I mean, obviously, the real reason we don't want populations is, you know, we want people across the United States to pick the president.
But they get into some bigger issues here, and this is a good one.
Quote from the piece, the question is not whether it is better for presidents and presidential candidates to care about and travel to the entire country or just a portion of it.
The question is whether it is better for presidential hopefuls to focus on winning over swing states Or winning over big cities as they would if a nationwide popular election was instituted.
Given these two realistic alternatives, the electoral college system is far healthier for the country as a whole.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
Well said.
So, assuming we have these two choices, right?
One being the electoral college, two being a popular vote, and I explain how the electoral college works.
If you had a national popular vote election, ladies and gentlemen, who would pick the president?
The big cities, obviously, that's where all the people live.
New York, California, Chicago, Miami, Baltimore, Jacksonville, they would pick the president of the United States because the popular vote obviously hinges on population with more people.
People in rural areas of the United States and their preferences and needs would largely be left out.
So the question is, in an election that's based on the electoral college, where, granted, again, it's not a perfect system and I'm not suggesting it is, candidates tend to focus on swing states.
Why?
Because you have to win the popular vote in Florida in the electoral college system to get Florida's 29 electors to get to your 270 number of electors to be the president.
So you're not gonna spend a lot of time in California.
Or New York.
Why?
Well, it's simple.
If you're a Democrat, you're not going to spend time in California, because you know the state's voting Democrat.
It's 100% certain.
Why would you waste your time there?
If you're a Republican, you're not going to California.
Often, that is.
You'll go there to raise some money, maybe.
But you're not going to California because you have a 0% chance of winning.
Zero.
Goose egg.
You have none.
So again, not a perfect system.
There are good conservatives in California, and liberals too, who deserve to see their candidates.
So I'm not suggesting the Electoral College is perfect.
Having said that, if it was a popular vote election, given the alternative, California and New York and Baltimore and big, densely populated cities, Miami, Chicago, and elsewhere, are the only places that would see these candidates.
So the question becomes again, do you want candidates only in big cities, or do you want them in swing states?
Now, I'm going to get to more in a second.
The piece goes on.
It's very well done.
I give it five stars.
In swing states, ladies and gentlemen, they are swing states for a reason.
Florida is a swing state because it has a near equal portion of Democrats and Independents.
If the state goes, when people win in Florida elections, they win by a sliver.
An equal portion of voters will show up, generally, on each side of the political aisle.
There are big cities in Florida.
We have Miami, we have Jacksonville, we have Orlando, we have Tampa, St.
Pete.
You have big cities all over in Florida.
So, do you want people visiting swing states where there are big cities, yet there are rural voters, suburban voters, ex-urban voters, or do you want candidates only going to big cities?
The answer is, again, given two imperfect systems, I want the system where the candidates are going to big cities and talking to people outside of big cities, too.
Hence, the Electoral College being a superior system to the disastrous popular vote system.
Interesting takeaways.
Alright, takeaway number two.
This, again, really fine piece.
I can't encourage you enough to check it out and send it to your liberal friends who are convinced the popular vote's the way to go.
They use the Andrew Cuomo example.
Who's Andrew Cuomo, you ask?
Andrew Cuomo is the governor of New York, of course.
Now, given that I just told you the Electoral College is not a national election, it's a series of statewide elections, Right?
So if it's a series of statewide elections, the Electoral College, and we switch it over to a popular vote, well, what would happen where we actually have that kind of system, a popular vote system?
So, from the piece, quote, like all states, New York selects its governor by popular vote, statewide.
Governor Andrew Cuomo has governed the state for eight years, listen to this, and still has not visited three of its rural counties.
Ten other counties have seen the governor only once.
By contrast, Cuomo has made 601 trips to New York City, and another 223 trips to the three suburban counties surrounding the Big Apple, one of which I lived in growing up.
Going back to the piece, if the Electoral College were done away with, that's a national popular vote election of course that we'd go through, presidential candidates like New York governors would home in on big cities and rarely set foot anywhere else.
Gentlemen, we already have an example of how the popular vote works.
They have popular votes within states for governor.
We've already seen it.
And what happens, as you see in the New York example, rural folks, suburban folks, ex-urban folks who live in the exurbs as well, they don't see the governor.
He pops in once in a while, eh, gives you a little salute, maybe a pat on the back, thanks, see you later.
Hey, gov, we have some problems over here, farmland, all this other stuff.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, tell it to the administrative assistant here, I'm outta here.
Back in the suburban, head me back to New York City where I can go get some votes.
That's gonna happen on the national level.
And your interests, even if you're a Democrat, living in a rural state, generally open area, kind of a bucolic place, you can forget it.
You will never see or hear from your presidential candidates again.
Good luck with that.
All right.
You like the piece, right?
I told you.
I know you're nodding in the car.
Third takeaway from the piece.
This is a good one.
Swing states change, ladies and gentlemen.
Swing states change all the time.
The swing states now are not necessarily going to be the swing states in the future.
So if some of you are saying, Logically, and I understand, you may be saying like, well listen, if there's only a few swing states, and there are, you have Florida, you have Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, aren't that many swing states?
Maybe Colorado, Virginia, although it's kind of being lost to the Democrats.
Those states were not always swing states.
Let me quote the piece and then I'll explain a little more.
Partisan fault lines will move.
The demographics of swing states will shift.
Eventually, other states will become the battlegrounds of presidential contestation.
So in time, Mississippi may well get its chance to host the quadrennial maelstrom just as deep blue California and dark red Arkansas once did.
Folks, Arizona is becoming a swing state, much to the chagrin of the Republican Party.
It wasn't in the past.
It was not a swing state.
So if your point and if your counterpoint and you, in other words, you're a liberal, you want the popular vote and your counterpoint is, well, you know what, then you're only going to visit swing states.
Well, the swing states aren't necessarily going to be the swing states in the next cycle.
You don't even know what they are.
Texas, many of you will find it hard to believe, I heard Karl Rove give a speech once when I was running for office in Maryland.
Did you know Texas has something like 20 plus statewide elected offices that a couple decades ago all of them were occupied by Democrats?
But now everything's changed.
Again, who would have thought that Colorado would become a swing state or Arizona would become a swing state?
Folks, who thought Pennsylvania was a swing state?
We hadn't won Pennsylvania since what, George H.W.
Bush, the Republican Party?
You don't know what the swing states are.
So this BS talking point that, well, you're only gonna go to swing states, okay, list them.
You have no idea, and let me see that list again in two election cycles.
You have no idea what they are.
These candidates would never leave California and New York otherwise.
It's a disastrous system.
All right, moving on.
Last sponsor of the day, but a new one.
I wanna welcome him on board, ladies and gentlemen, Wesley Financial.
Happy to have you here.
Today's show is sponsored by our friends at Wesley Financial Group, the company that's helping a lot of people out there who believed I hope this isn't you.
Those timeshare lies.
If you bought a timeshare, you know the pitch.
I know.
My, let's just say a family member, yeah, was not happy with this timeshare pitch he got.
I'll leave that out.
I don't want to embarrass him.
They'll tell you it's a great investment.
It's a legacy for the kids.
You can stay wherever you want, whenever you want.
Guess what, folks?
None of that's true.
The ugly truth is with a timeshare, you can never tell how much it's really going to cost or when it's going to end.
Many owners trying to sell their timeshares online find out the hard way it's not an investment when they can't get a dollar for it.
Ouch.
And with those rising annual maintenance and assessment fees, buying a timeshare is like giving the timeshare company a blank check for life.
No good.
M-N-G, not M-G, N-G.
Even when you die, your family gets stuck with the burden.
Stop the insanity today.
There is a way out.
If you're stuck in a timeshare nightmare, go to iCancelTimeshare.com and tell them Dan Bongino sent you.
Wesley Financial Group guarantees they will legally get you out of your timeshare contract permanently or you will pay nothing.
Nada.
Zero.
To get your free information kit telling you all about how it works, go to iCanceltimeshare.com.
That's iCanceltimeshare.com.
Tell them the Dan Bongino Show sent you.
Happy to have them on board.
Sorry, getting text during the show.
That's Producer Joe.
Producer Joe wants to come back.
He's a little upset.
I like totally numbered this wrong.
I keep these little notes.
I have 1, 2, 3, 4, 6.
Like, I didn't have eight stories.
No, you didn't, you had sevens, because you numbered it wrong.
Okay, I wanted to play this cut because it's important.
It's a little over a minute and a half, but it's worth your time.
This was Donald Trump yesterday at the United Nations giving his speech.
Sorry, it's late.
We're on an odd recording cycle.
Back to normal again tomorrow, so no sweat.
Don't you worry.
Again, I just don't like to skip shows, so I appreciate your patience with me and Paula and trying to get out content for you.
So Trump was at the UN and gave what I think is one of his finer speeches.
When he's on prompters, teleprompter, he's speaking off the teleprompter, he can sound a little scripted at times, but yesterday was very good.
I think it was a great moment for him to be scripted, especially with all the hilarity going on with these ridiculous charges from whistleblowergate.
But a portion of his speech is important, because I'm getting tired, and I think you are too, with a virtue-signaling phony left talking about open borders as if it's some kind of gift to the United States, allowing people into the country unchecked.
We have no idea who they are.
To the chagrin of people who entered the country via the legal immigration system.
So notice how Donald Trump, in this, again, slightly more than a minute and a half clip, reframes the open borders argument in front of the entire world, and does it just beautifully.
This is a great job by President Trump.
Check this out.
The migrants themselves are exploited, assaulted and abused by vicious coyotes.
Nearly one third of women who make the journey north to our border are sexually assaulted along the way.
Yet here in the United States and around the world, There is a growing cottage industry of radical activists and non-governmental organizations that promote human smuggling.
These groups encourage illegal migration and demand the erasure of national borders.
Today I have a message for those open border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice Your policies are not just.
Your policies are cruel and evil.
You are empowering criminal organizations that prey on innocent men, women, and children.
You put your own false sense of virtue before the lives, well-being, and countless innocent people.
When you undermine border security, you are undermining human rights and human dignity.
Many of the countries here today are coping with the challenges of uncontrolled migration.
Each of you has the absolute right to protect your borders.
And so, of course, does our country.
Today, we must resolve to work together to end human smuggling, end human trafficking, and put these criminal networks out of business for good.
Folks, now I can rail about open borders all day and rant and rave over how awful of a policy it is, but I think what Trump did there, he did beautifully.
He laid out the why.
You know, I say often the why matters.
Why are open borders a bad idea?
Sometimes, sadly, we have to explain this to people who legitimately can't figure it out.
Most of them can and are just playing, you know, liberal silly facts vaccine games.
But some people can't figure it out.
Some people are impressionable, they hear things, and they think, well, why shouldn't we be the most welcoming country in the world?
Well, we are.
We've let millions of people in.
Like, would you even know the data?
What are you talking about?
Nobody is as generous to people emigrating to the United States as we are.
Nobody.
But...
There are two big practical reasons why open borders are obviously a bad idea.
Number one, I'll just double down on what President Donald Trump just said, which is right.
There's a basic security issue here, folks.
The reason we have controlled borders and a vetting system is because access control matters.
You know, we don't let people into a football game without a ticket.
Why?
You have to want to know who's coming in there, you have to go through security first, and they have to make sure the people that come in should be there at the game.
Ladies and gentlemen, a country doesn't operate any different.
Access control matters.
The United States is very welcoming.
It always has been welcoming.
We give out visas, we give out green cards, we give out immigration citizenship status to people who've earned it in this country.
That's not a mystery.
But we have to know who you are.
It's not complicated.
We have to know who you are to prevent people who may be involved in illicit criminal activity, people who may be involved in terror activities.
This isn't really hard to comprehend.
I mean, this is what I like.
Trump gets the opportunity to do this in front of the UN, and he doesn't pull punches.
He talks about open borders in terms of the legitimate danger they present, and then gives real-world examples of what's going on in Europe right now.
But secondly, and I appreciate his reframing it there, he has the bully pulpit.
He should use it.
That's why, by the way, I mean, not to get off on a tangent, but this decision to declassify this Ukrainian call with the Ukrainian leader was not, I'm sorry, it was a really bad one.
This is setting such a bad precedent.
This is going to do nothing to appease the lunatic left.
Now, let me just get back to what I'm talking about.
I'm just really fired up about it.
There's so much news going, it's hard to keep it all straight.
Secondly, on the open borders issue, as Milton Friedman, a late-grade economist, has stated many times, you cannot have as a pure mathematical problem open borders and a welfare state, meaning a state that supplies taxpayer money to people to provide benefits, healthcare, food stamps, rent, whatever.
You can't have a social safety net, to use the leftist term, sadly, that encompasses the entire world.
That's not a safety net.
That's a hammock.
That's like a, you know, that's a double-layered mattress made out of latex.
That is not a safety net.
That is mathematically not feasible.
There are too many people in the world to be supported by the U.S.
tax base.
As a practical matter, if anybody coming into the United States can lay claim to the taxpayer finance dollars and benefits of citizens of the United States, what would stop the whole world from coming in?
Well, that's not gonna happen.
Yeah, you told us knife control wasn't gonna happen, too.
We've already seen it happening.
You open the borders to the United States without some kind of immigration control, you are inviting a security and economic disaster.
It's basic common sense.
Alright, speaking of that speech yesterday, Aaron Rupar, who is... This guy appears on the show often, and it's always for a ridiculous reason, because he's just so silly.
What does he write for?
Vox?
With a V, not Fox.
Vox, he's a leftist.
He always tweets really stupid, dumb stuff.
He's a liar, he's a fraud, conspiracy theory hoaxer.
He was a big Russian collusion hoaxer, too.
But at that same speech yesterday, and I just want to put this up quickly, I don't want to dwell on it, but it's important because I want to show you how the left again manipulates what's going on and impressionable people, you know, just buy it.
So Rupar tweeted this utter absurdity about the president's speech, how it was dog whistles or were dog whistles of anti-Semitism.
Now, what's the problem with this?
I'll read the tweet for you.
At AT Rupar, again, noted liar, conspiracy theorist, and fraud, he says Trump uses an anti-Semitic dog whistle during his UN speech.
The future does not belong to globalists.
The future belongs to patriots, Aaron Rupar said.
Interesting.
So he's using anti-semitic dog whistles in his speech, Trump.
If Aaron Ruppar, who's a clown and a conspiracy theorist, again, had just listened to the rest of the speech, Trump dedicated an entire subportion of the speech to calling out anti-semitism precisely.
So you think like if Trump's speech writer was like, hey, let's use a few dog whistles
for the anti-Semites out there, but then later on, let's call out the anti-Semites
in the same speech.
Like that only makes sense if you write for Vox with a V, okay?
These people are lunatics, they're liars.
I just want to be sure to call that out because I saw it on Twitter yesterday.
Hat tip Amber Athey at the Daily Caller, who I saw nailed it too.
He didn't listen to the speech, or he did listen to the speech and he's a liar.
So he's either dopey, silly, or he's just a manipulative liar.
There really is no other option there.
And I'm sorry to have to say that about these guys, but it's true.
They're just lying to people.
All right.
The worst story of the day.
We need like a little, like a bell or a whistle.
Actually, I'm afraid to do those.
It's a whole other story.
This is by far the worst story I've read in a long time.
Paula's laughing.
She knows what I'm talking about.
Folks, The Democrats love lists.
That's the whole genesis of why they want universal background checks.
It has nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, okay?
Criminals don't buy their guns through background checks ever.
They buy them on the street.
Sane people know that.
Liberals don't, or they just pretend they don't because they're lying.
Universal background checks is a measure to get everybody in a computer system.
Therefore, the Democrats will have a convenient list for confiscation later when they need to go remove guns from people's homes.
They love lists because they're planners.
And when I say planners, I don't mean that like wedding planners, I mean planners like in the Marxist tone, they like to plan society.
I'm not talking about like Jennifer Lopez in that movie.
Central planners, which is a really awful thing, meaning your freedom dissipates as government bureaucrats in a socialist system make decisions for you that you can make for yourself.
Having lists of people like they do in the surveillance state in China right now makes that very convenient.
Why?
Because when you want to dictate to people what to do, it has a... Let me give you an example.
I used the gun issue before, which is obvious.
If you want to confiscate guns because you want to centralize power and the monopoly on the use of force, of course, then you have to take away the firearms from people, but you won't know where to get them if you don't have a list.
But think about it.
From an economic perspective, too.
Let's say you want to institute a socialist system, which of course is a Bernie Sanders dream.
I mean, this is all Bernie ever talks about, the confiscation of others' wealth.
He obsesses over others' wealth, even though this fraud Bernie's a millionaire himself.
Well, what better way to be able to confiscate people's money than to have a list, a handy-dandy list of wealthy people so you know exactly where to go.
Oh my gosh, Dan, that sounds hyperbolic like your knife control thing.
That wasn't hyperbolic either.
Really, check this out.
National Review piece be up in the show notes today.
I'm not making this up.
Read the article yourself.
It's not, you know, me dramatizing for effect here.
This is an absolute doozy.
Bernie Sanders calls for a National Wealth Registry to enforce new tax by Myred McArdle, September 24th, 2019.
You thought I was kidding?
I'm not.
Ladies and gentlemen, these people are dangerous.
I'm not kidding.
These are dangerous people who, in order to whittle away every individual right you have, and every individual liberty you have, your choice to make and earn your own money, your choice to keep a firearm to protect yourself and your family, to make your own healthcare decisions, to send your kid to the school of your choice, are all going to be whittled away.
And the simplest way to whittle away individual freedoms is to have lists of people who are non-compliant.
This is how they do it.
Now, in that piece also, Bernie's proposing a massive wealth tax, which wouldn't be a tax on income, it'd be a tax on your accumulated assets.
So if you happen to be wealthy, by Bernie's measure, which will change, it'll wind up being people who make $30,000 a year or more by the time it's over, there will be a wealth tax, meaning no matter what you earn, everything you've saved and already paid taxes on, you know, your income, you put your money in a bank, in an asset, Bernie wants to tax you again on that as well.
And what better way to do it than to aggregate an enormous wealth database to go and target people, just like your universal background check gun database.
Folks, be very, very careful of this.
All right, gonna wrap it up today.
I really, really appreciate your patience over the last few days.
I love doing my show, and I don't like to miss it on the road, even though the visuals obviously can be a little troubling.
I think the audio is pretty solid, though.
Joey's does a good job, so does Paula, keeping the audio tight.
We have some book signings coming up as well.
You can check that out on my website in Florida.
We still have a few left.
I think we have one on Thursday, is it, in Vero, Paula?
Oh, you have it up on the screen.
Look at you.
Paula's awesome.
We have on Thursday, September 26th, 6 p.m., Vero Beach Book Center.
Saturday, September 28th, Barnes & Noble, Palm Beach Gardens.
That's at 2 p.m.
on Saturday, September 28th.
I heard that one's gonna be packed.
We'll see.
And Friday, October 4th at 4 p.m., Barnes & Noble in The Villages.
Folks, I'd really appreciate it if I saw you there.
Come up, say hello.
We take the selfies and all that other stuff.
I'm always happy spending time around people.
And if you haven't yet, please pick up my new book, Exonerated.
