In this episode, I set the record straight about what happened with Parler. I also address how Saul Alinsky’s rules are coming back to haunt liberals.
News Picks:
Here’s the real story behind the firing of the Parler CEO. Pay special attention to my comments.
AOC doesn’t like getting fact-checked.
Hypocrite John Kerry took a private jet to Iceland to get a “climate award.”
There’s a new documentary out about the great Thomas Sowell.
The side effects of the second coronavirus vaccinations can be worse than the first, according to this media report.
Copyright Bongino Inc 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.
Folks, rarely in my life have I felt more betrayed and sold out than yesterday.
You may ask, you know, what are you talking about?
What's going on?
Well, there was a story about Parler, which you know I am, of course, an investor in and have had a role in some of the operations and management of the company.
Well, there's a story about the parlor CEO being terminated and he decided to give a couple interviews to the press that were entirely inaccurate.
It's unfortunate we don't have time for these fights right now.
This is about free speech, tech tyranny, and more, and this internal fighting is totally unnecessary.
And let me just say in advance, I recognize that.
But the record needs to be corrected, and the truth matters, and none of this was ever going to be easy.
And no, I'm not giving up.
So I'll correct the record today and give you the real story about what's happening behind the scenes at Parler and why I've been noticeably silent about it for a month, unlike our former CEO.
This'll be interesting.
Today's show brought to you by ExpressVPN.
Why don't you have a VPN yet?
Protect your online activity from those prying eyeballs.
Get a VPN, go to expressvpn.com slash bungino.
Welcome to the Dan Bungino Show.
So we've got that, I've got the real parlor story and the absolute betrayal.
I'm telling you, I've never felt this screwed over, pardon me, I can't think of a cuter term to take the edge off it.
than I did yesterday, screwed over by the former CEO.
I've got that.
I've also got some terrific Thomas Sowell, you okay over there?
Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman video.
What?
Oh, gosh, that's interesting.
Yeah, all right.
Sorry, Paula's giving me the, I thought she was clearing her throat, but I'm on TV right now defending Parler.
You see, I had a flow going.
I've got that.
I've got some Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman video that's going to entirely knock down this nonsense about Joe Biden's push for identity politics.
You're not going to want to miss that.
All right, let's get to it.
Today's show brought to you by iTarget.
Many state and local governments have used the coronavirus to trample on the constitutional rights of millions, simultaneously defending law enforcement while the mob and dangerous criminals roam free.
That's why I, EyeTarget was invented.
It gives you, law-abiding citizens, a cost-effective way to train in the safety and privacy of your own home.
No more inconvenient trips to the range, no more expensive practice ammo.
Just download the EyeTarget's proprietary app, load the laser round into your firearm, and start training.
It's really that simple.
I get a bunch of really positive emails about this product.
People love it.
It allows you to train with your firearm safely and develop your proficiency at home.
Work on your sight alignment, sight picture, your grip, all in the safety and security of your own home.
home, no manipulation to your firearm necessary.
iTarget Pro comes in all the major calibers, including 223 for your AR,
so you can stay sharp with almost any firearm.
Today you can save 10% plus free shipping with the offer code DAN at checkout.
Here's how you do that.
You go to itargetpro.com.
It's the smartest way for you to practice.
It pays for itself in one day.
Develop all of those skills for better proficiency.
It's the letter I, targetpro.com, the letter I, itargetpro.com, itargetpro.com, use offer code Dan, itargetpro.com, use offer code Dan.
All right, let's go, let's get right into it.
So, yesterday you may have heard via the media and elsewhere Surprising story, at least surprising to me, not surprising in the core of it, but surprising in the way it was framed, that the CEO of Parler, Mr. John Matsy, was in fact terminated by the board of the company.
That story is accurate.
That is 100% true.
Well, Mr. Matsy decided it would be a good idea to go out and give a bunch of media interviews.
And unfortunately, in those media interviews, he decided to spin a yarn, a fairy tale that is 100% inaccurate.
Folks, Have I ever spun your wheels on this show?
Have I ever BS'd you?
Have I ever lied to you?
Why do you think I'm involved with Parler?
Seriously, I want to throw that out there for, you know, people who are regular listeners and liberals who will plug into my show today for the first time, trying to get the real scoop on why the Parler CEO was fired.
Why do you think I'm involved with Parler?
How much money do you think I've taken from Parler in the year I've been involved?
It's a question.
The answer is zero.
Not a dime.
How much money have I invested to be involved with Parler?
A lot.
So I'm negative a lot of money.
Have made nothing from the company yet.
I invested in it.
Why?
Because if you're a regular listener to the show, for the six, seven years we've been in the digital space with the Dan Bongino Show, you know that what I've fought for and advocated for always has been a parallel economy where conservatives, libertarians, and anyone who loves liberty and freedom can go free of cancel culture.
And I felt from basically January on, when I thought I could help Parler, that Parler would be one of those vehicles for you to escape the censorship of Twitter.
Now, someone should ask Mr. Matsy how much money he's made from Parler, because I'd be interested in knowing that.
So what I'm gonna do today is I'm gonna give you the real story, and then I'm gonna provide a handy media guide to actual reporters, again, not the liberal media fake news, but actual reporters who, if they interview Mr. Matsy, may be some questions you'd like to ask, considering he seems to be like Teddy Ruxpin lately, and put a quarter in him, he'll tell you any story you want.
I busted my butt for a year, despite a lot of personal challenges in my life, not just me, but my wife as well, to take this company in January, Parler, when I got on board with them, to take it from 500,000 users And being a relatively anonymous company, very few people knew about, to 21 million users and the number one spot in the App Store before we were brutally attacked by the leftist tyrants.
That's not me patting myself on the back.
I'm not interested in that.
That's me telling you the truth.
That was the result of my hard work along with the hard work of many others.
So John, the former CEO, decided to give a bunch of interviews where he claimed two conflicting things.
He said he was terminated yesterday, today's Thursday when you're hearing this show.
So yesterday and Wednesday, he told a bunch of people, I believe it was a Fox and other outlets, that he was fired because he had a free speech vision for Parler.
And that he was meeting resistance at every turn.
He had a free speech vision.
That's fascinating.
Because if we do facts, which is what I do on this show, and again, I have no motivation.
I even made a dollar from this company, not a dollar.
If he had a free speech vision for the company and met resistance, and by the way, there were only four owners of Parler.
John, me, Jeff, and Rebecca Mercer.
Those are the four owners.
That's really weird because his story today, Thursday morning, in an interview with the New York Times, is the exact opposite!
Yesterday he said he was some big free speech advocate insinuating he wanted light moderation for the site, which was the right way to handle Parler, by the way.
We are a free speech site.
But today he said something different.
He said that in the New York Times, which is really weird, in an interview today, that he got fired because he wanted to moderate basically heavily and get rid of QAnon and terrorists and all that stuff.
Which, by the way, nobody allows terrorists on their site, so it's kind of a stupid thing to say.
Is there a terrorist site out there?
I'm not really sure.
That may be other social media platforms.
That wasn't us.
So it's weird.
Yesterday he was anti-moderation, but this morning he was pro-moderation.
Why do you think he changed his story if he's telling you the truth?
Because I'm getting a lot of emails from listeners.
We leave our email out there because I love my audience and I actually want to hear from you, not through filters, so we get your emails.
John emailed me yesterday, another John, JG, even a guy who doesn't like us, this guy Chris, sends me nasty emails all the time.
It's okay.
I enjoy hearing what you're thinking.
And they said, gosh, this guy John sounds so sincere.
It sounds like the big guys ganged up on him.
Did they?
Did they really?
So why isn't his story consistent from one day to the next?
Yesterday, he wanted parlor to be a free speech site.
Today, he's saying he got fired because he didn't want it to be a free speech site.
Gosh, what story is true?
Well, why did he change his mind?
About his story, which seems to change as he licks his finger and sees which direction the winds are blowing.
Well, because yesterday I did a Facebook Live, which in the beginning of the show was appearing on Fox News.
That's why Paula was doing the... I thought she was clearing her throat.
She's trying to get me to watch the TV.
They covered the Facebook Live.
I did a Facebook Live yesterday, Wednesday evening, to correct the record about John's termination as the parlor CEO, where I addressed the facts.
And the facts are this.
John's story about wanting to be some free speech advocate for Parler is inaccurate, and is absolutely false.
So I'll give you the media guide in a second, maybe some questions you should ask John if you're in the media, just to challenge him on his story yesterday, because it's changed today, that he was advocating for a free speech site.
And let me get this straight, folks.
You've known me now for, what, six, seven years, many of you?
And I was the advocate to make Parler, what, an anti-free speech site?
Does that make sense to you?
Does that make any sense to you?
As listeners of mine who've been involved with me forever, since the book one genesis of this show, you really believe it was me saying, no, no, let's make this site more like Twitter.
That make sense?
And John Matsey was on the side of free speech while I wasn't.
That makes sense.
This is not the show.
If you actually believe that, trust me, this is not the show for you.
The reason he changed his story is because last night during my Facebook Live that went viral, I had to do an emergency press conference about it.
I laid down a bunch of facts and I told you that when, because of some legal reasons, we have to be careful, but when the real story comes out about who was committed to free speech and who wasn't, I promise you, Mr. Mazzi was not on the right side of that argument.
So he changed his story today.
To kiss up to the Silicon Valley people and others, I don't know what his motivations are, I don't care to get in his head, but to try to say, no, no, I was against those, those free QAnon folks and everything, I was against them the whole time.
Weird how his story changed from one day to the next.
You doubt me?
Fair enough, you should, you should doubt everything.
Fact check me too.
You doubt my story that me and the two other owners were absolutely on the side of free speech for the site?
And Mr. Matsy's story about him being the free speech advocate is entirely inaccurate, you doubt me?
Go back and look at some of Mr. Matsy's own interviews.
Maybe you'll understand why we had a problem with him.
His own words.
Just go look at some of his interviews with the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.
His own words, not mine.
His own words, he's quoted.
Look at some of his own words.
And you tell me again, who was the real advocate for free speech?
Not asking you to do it.
I have nothing personal against Mr. Matsy.
As a matter of fact, why do I feel betrayed?
You know, when they went after John and his wife for being Russian, just for being Russian, John is, uh, his spouse is Russian.
It's the United States.
It doesn't matter where your spouse is from.
If your spouse is not a criminal or some foreign agent acting nefariously, then she has the absolute right to be treated like a dignified human being like anyone else.
And when they went after John's wife, the liberals that is, because he was associated with Parler at one point, and tried to create some nonsense Russian conspiracy, which was absurd, which was laughable on its face.
It was worse than the pee-pee tape.
Who defended him on my show?
Yeah, me.
Who else defended him?
The entire leadership team of Parler, where if you go to parler.com now, there's a landing page up, not a fully functional site.
We will be back.
You'll see the entire Parler team defend John Matsi.
So we defended him, and when it came time for John to defend us and tell the truth, John decided to spin a fairy tale about why he was let go.
So you may be asking right now, especially if you're a liberal reporter looking to attack me and Parler, because that's what you do.
You're not looking for the truth.
But for actual reporters, you may be asking, okay, so what happened?
You haven't gotten to that yet.
Yeah, that's fine.
Fair enough.
I had to set it up.
I'm gonna give you a handy dandy media guide here for actual reporters on how to fix this.
That's coming up.
Let me just get to my second sponsor today for the show.
Then I'll provide you the questions maybe you should ask so you have the full story because the facts matter.
Disappointing.
Listen, I don't know about you, but I feel like I'm always looking at a screen, and whether you're an avid news watcher or in serious need of a distraction, unplugging yourself is easier said than done.
One of my favorite ways to rest my eyes and still get the content I'm itching for is to put in my Raycon wireless earbuds.
They're the only ones, by the way.
They stay in my ears, the only ones.
And listening to something great.
I like listening to podcasts too, even though I produce them.
Whether you're catching up on your favorite podcast, you're binging on audiobooks, or powering through your workout with some really pumped up music to get through it, a pair of Raycon earbuds in your ears can make all the difference.
I use them for my conference calls.
I'm on them all day.
I go through Probably a battery a day in these where you, you know, you just got to plug them into your thing.
I burn them out because I do.
I just, I'm on them all day.
There's no dangling wires or stems to get in your way here.
Raycons come in a wide range of stylish colorways, but always with a comfortable in-ear fit for a more discreet look.
Raycons are built to perform with water and sweat-resistant construction and Bluetooth that pairs quickly and seamlessly.
And with enough battery life for six hours of playtime, you put them in your ear, they stay in your ear.
For me, I get sometimes more than six hours, you just put them back in the case.
They recharge, plug it in, you're good to go in a little bit, right back again.
I've gone entire flights, really long ones, cross country, with no problem with the batteries on these Raycons at all.
You can unplug for a while, the best part, Raycon makes great sound, accessible to everyone, with wireless earbuds starting at half the price of other premium audio brands.
Don't overpay, don't waste your money.
Raycon's offering 15% off all their products for my listeners.
Here's what you've got to do to get it.
Go to buyraycon.com slash Bongino.
That's buyraycon.com slash Bongino.
That's it.
You'll get 15% off your entire Raycon order.
So feel free to grab a pair and a spare.
That's a 15% off deal at buyraycon.com slash Bongino.
Buyraycon.com slash Bongino.
Check them out.
Alright, thanks Raycon.
So here's a handy media guide for actual reporters out there interested in doing their homework and not accepting at hand John Mazzi's story that he was some free speech advocate and wanted product stability.
Really?
Here's a few questions I would ask.
Well, Mr. John, what exactly was your so-called free speech vision?
Because you've changed your story now twice.
On Wednesday, you said you were an advocate for light moderation and free speech, and that was the resistance you were meeting.
Really?
From who?
Because the record the company has doesn't exactly say that.
And then Thursday, you said you were an advocate for more moderation to get rid of those QAnon folks or whatever.
It's interesting.
Your story seems different.
So what was it?
What exactly was your free speech vision?
Can you clear that up?
What companies were you recommending to moderate the platform?
Who recommended them to you?
Who stopped you from implementing some of those companies that wanted heavy Twitter-like moderation?
Who stopped you from doing that?
These are just questions, you know, I'd ask.
Let's see how he answers, and remember that'll all become record later on.
So I would strongly caution you to press him on those answers and what evidence he actually has.
Again, I'm sorry these internal fights had to happen.
They were not brought on by me.
I'd ask him another question.
If there were accounts being deleted in Parler, well, who was doing it?
Wasn't Dan Bongino, was it?
I'd ask that question.
Who was that?
Who was deleting accounts there?
What happened there?
You're a free speech guy, right?
You said that on Wednesday, although you changed your story on Thursday.
Who was doing that?
Can you actually provide some evidence?
I mean, you're making a lot of allegations here that you were some free speech advocate.
Were you really, or was it the other owners who were free speech advocates?
Because there's a pretty clear record, you know, I'd ask him again, you know, make any money from parlor?
CEO should have been paid, right?
How much did I make?
Just asking legitimate questions, right?
I'd ask him another question too, because he was a product.
He says he was all for product stability.
It was.
I would ask this if I was in the media.
I'd say, well, whose decision ultimately was it to go with some of the providers that canceled us later?
Whose decision was that?
Who was it in the company who was warning that doing business with left-leaning companies like Amazon was a bad idea?
Who was it exactly who was warning against that?
You were all for product stability.
Really?
You weren't warned about that?
Are you sure?
I'm just asking questions, right?
The truth will come out, right, if you're not afraid of it?
If you're not afraid to ask real questions of John?
Remember, this will all be on the record later.
Who was it who warned repeatedly that doing business with left-leaning companies was a really bad idea?
Who was that exactly?
Just remember, whatever interview you give is public record.
You can answer that.
Someone's willing to ask.
Whose decision was that?
You weren't warned repeatedly?
Weren't asked for plan B?
You sure about that?
Let me wrap this segment up here because we got a lot more to cover.
It's more in the news, but it's important because I'm getting emails from my listeners Understandably so, saying, Dan, did you have anything to do with this?
I'm not on the board, folks.
I'm an investor in Parler.
I don't have the power to terminate anyone from the company.
But if you're asking me personally, and as an investor, do I support the decision?
Abso-freaking-lutely.
Because I've never steered you wrong, and we built something, finally.
And every company, as my wife said this morning, the biggest companies in the world have always had some turmoil in the beginning.
There's vision issues.
This is not new to Parler, and no one should get lost in this and say, oh my gosh, this is too much turmoil, Parler, whatever.
Every company has issues, every company.
But the vision issue, or what they call in business school the BHAG, the big, hairy, audacious goal of the company, That vision should never ever change.
The vision of what you're doing for the company should never change.
We were a free speech alternative to Twitter and the first one to really blow through.
And get some real solid backing, 20 million plus users.
And we were brutally attacked, and this infighting is a waste of time, and it was not my call.
But I'm not gonna let anyone lie about this company, and I'm not gonna let anyone get us off this freedom train.
We are rolling in the right direction towards a parallel economy that works.
And I'm not gonna let John or anyone else stop it.
I worked tirelessly for a year on this company for not a dollar.
I don't expect anyone out to, don't cry for me, Argentina, all right?
That's not what this is about.
It's about the truth.
Others got paid to do this.
I didn't because I believed in this vision and building this.
And I don't want it sidetracked.
And I'm hoping today is the last time I have to address this ridiculousity.
The vision for the company was ours.
Mine and the two other owners.
Ours.
The record is crystal clear that we wanted a free speech platform that always did our best to preserve our vision there.
That you could go there free of political censorship.
All right.
Speaking of which... You know what?
I know we can't jump around, right?
Can we jump around?
Because we're in the hotel room, so I don't want to cause Paul any drama.
Can we go to the racial division article with the journal and the soul and that section right there?
Can we do that?
All right, thank you.
I'm sorry, I was going to cover some of this stuff next about Section 230, but I don't know, I'm kind of teched out for a minute.
Tech industry, forgive me, but I just am.
I want to cover something a little different for a minute because it's important.
So folks, we've been dealing with the disaster of the new Biden administration for, what is it, three weeks now, and it's already an abomination.
Between the executive orders, the open borders advocacy, the Attacks on everything from our economy to basic stability and the fostering of racial division in this country.
It's just incredible how much damage someone can do in three weeks.
No, not that one.
That's the other.
Oh, okay.
Sorry.
So I wanted to cover this because the Biden administration yesterday decided it would be a good idea, again, to start committing to racial equity.
Not equality, they've changed the word to equity now.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, they do this all the time.
They throw out a term like racial equity because they know no one's going to be on the other side of that.
Like, who doesn't want equity and equality?
That's not exactly what they're doing again.
They're actually promoting racial division in the country.
And I want to show you some video by Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, and how when government tries to enforce equity, air quotes, or equality, what they're actually doing is treating people unequally with the force of government behind it.
I know it doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'll explain it.
Here's the article first by Jason Reilly.
Progressives put the racial equity squeeze on Biden.
The left wants a spoil system on steroids.
If the president gives it to them, heaven help us, by the great Jason Reilly, who has a documentary out about the great Thomas Sowell, I might add.
There'll be an article about it in the show notes today from Legal Insurrection.
Anything you can watch from Thomas Sowell is terrific.
Here's Jason Reilly from The Peace.
It's a great one, again, about how government, especially Biden, pushing for racial equity and equality is really pushing for racial inequality and more division.
Quote, Reilly says, similarly, blacks were joining the middle class professions at a much faster pace in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s than they would have after affirmative action programs were implemented in the 1970s.
In fact, we now have evidence that suggests racial preferences have not only been ineffective in helping the Black poor, but also counterproductive.
After the University of California system ended race-conscious admissions policies in 1996, Black and Hispanic graduation rates rose dramatically.
So Riley's premise, and what I like about this article, is that Biden's move back From the Martin Luther King vision of a society blind to race and judging people on character, the Biden vision, where we judge people on race and ignore their character, will actually lead to more division and more damage, more damage in the minority community.
Now, this is not an easy idea to digest.
One, because liberals live in a bubble.
And secondly, because they use soundbites like, hey, we're for racial equality.
Who's not?
Who is not?
The question is, how do we get there?
You saying it, putting a label on it, doesn't mean that's what you're actually doing by government processes, which are actually creating more division.
What do I mean?
Watch this brilliant clip by a living legend in every sense of the word today, Mr. Thomas Sowell.
Here's a clip from him.
I think this is back in the 70s.
He's on a panel with Milton Friedman and other great intellects of the time, and also with Francis Fox Piven, not one of the great intellects of our time from the Cloward-Piven destruction model.
He's challenging Francis Fox Piven on the idea that government processes can somehow make everyone equal.
Well, that's really weird because there's always going to be inequality of effort, regardless of race.
You can have some people who want to work harder, some people don't want to work at all.
So how do you make them all equal without treating them unequally?
You'd have to take from the guy who works hard and give to the guy, regardless of race, who doesn't work hard.
So he divides, he makes the point here that government processes and the results you want, which we all want, racial equality, of course we all want that.
The processes, though, are different.
And maybe they're counterproductive.
Check this out.
i think we're talking across purposes on the one hand we're talking about results
that we're hoping for on the other hand we're talking about processes that we're
setting in motion uh... you're saying
should we hope for certain kinds of lessening of inequality and so on
uh... the real question the political question is shall we set in motion
certain processes because we hope for that
and do those processes enhance or reduce freedom and i think the argument that Milton is making and the
argument that i would make is that the attempt at doing these things and it doesn't
really matter it's a complete storm and we're talking about absolute inequality
If you, if, no, no, no, no.
Absolutely, throughout the film, this is the straw man he brings up
in order to say how ridiculous to have absolute equality.
And then he goes on to say how ridiculous to have absolute democratization as well.
As a result, you see, that you set up processes who's end result may not be any more
or less inequality than exists now.
But the question is, those processes may indeed reduce freedom greatly.
Demands, one of the greatest intellects of our time.
You know me, I don't, I really, I don't get starstruck by anyone.
I just don't, I just don't care.
There's probably two people who I'd get starstruck by.
Don Mattingly, the old first baseman for the Yankees, who I just adored growing up, the hit man, Don Mattingly, and Thomas Sowell.
Talk about two totally different, first baseman for the Yankees and Thomas Sowell.
Really, I probably wouldn't know what to say because my life has been changed by Thomas Sowell.
His books, Vision of the Anointed, Conflict of Visions, Wealth, poverty, and politics, they're life-changing books.
You can't read them and still be a liberal.
Not that I ever was a liberal, but you know, I was more of an independent in college.
You know, you buy the liberal line, you tow left in college.
And then as I get out and started to educate myself with Thomas Sowell's books and Milton Friedman's works, I started to realize everything I believed about leftism was a myth.
It's a farce, backed up by real data and evidence in the real world.
Like government efforts to force inequality have actually made minority groups more unequal.
That's a fact.
So what Sowell's talking about here, and the point he makes, which is absolutely brilliant, is claiming you want a goal that we all believe in, right?
Racial equality, hopefully, right?
We all believe in that, I know I do.
We don't like to see equality.
It's a great thing to try to achieve, a society where everybody can get to some point of prosperity.
That's a terrific goal.
That that is not the same thing as advocating for processes that are causing the opposite effect.
Rewind the tape and you'll hear him again say the same thing.
I'll give you an example of it.
I saw it in today's Wall Street Journal of exactly, because sometimes you got to like put your eyes on something to make it real using analogies and stories.
An article from today's Wall Street Journal that shows exactly what he's talking about.
How you can claim you're a liberal, you want racial equality, and then try to enact policies which do the exact opposite.
Wall Street Journal opinion today.
Equity for Asian Americans in practice?
Biden bars the phrase Wuhan virus, but favors racial preferences at Yale.
Isn't that weird, folks?
So weird, right?
Obviously dripping with sarcasm from every pore in my body.
So liberals, again, claim they want racial equity and racial equality.
But what's weird is there was a very solid legal case against Yale University That our United States government was behind, by the way, that Yale was discriminating.
Allegations, of course.
Yale's free to defend itself.
I am an advocate for both, you know, for people's say in court.
But that Yale was alleged to be discriminating against Asians, and the evidence was there.
That Asian Americans had to score on their SATs and college entrance exams substantially higher than both white and black Americans to get into Yale and other sorts of allegations like that.
The numbers were pretty devastating.
Biden dropped that case.
I wonder why.
I'm just asking you from common sense terms, right?
In a race-neutral society where we judge people based on character, which is what I thought we wanted, it's certainly what I want.
In a race-neutral society, why is it that Asian Americans have to work substantially harder to get the same opportunities as black and white Americans?
Why is that?
Well, the only real answer when you get through all the focus point tested talking points at these universities throughout there to try and logic this out.
Logic.
The only real answer is, well, we have too many Asians.
I have too many Asians.
That sounds awfully racist and discriminatory.
That's because it is.
So in your efforts to use government policy Affirmative action and others.
To promote minority groups, Black and Hispanic Americans, to get into colleges, you're actually treating Asian Americans, another minority group, in a discriminatory, unequal fashion.
Does that sound fair to you?
Does that sound fair to you?
That's what Seoul is talking about.
How Biden's pushed now for this equity agenda, and it's going to be everywhere.
They're going to measure the number of black and Hispanic Americans, and housing, and middle class communities, and colleges.
All going to be about disparate impact.
All a numbers game.
As if anybody was randomly assigned to a neighborhood, and a neighborhood must be racist if enough Hispanic Americans don't live there.
Maybe they just don't want to live there.
Have you ever asked them?
No, no, we don't want to ask him because it would refute our point.
Because discrimination in housing, thankfully, is already illegal based on race, ethnicity, country of origin.
It's already illegal!
So why aren't there mass complaints about discrimination?
Because they can't find mass discrimination, so they have to make it up.
Well, we're doing a math calculation.
There are not enough black residents in this community, not enough Hispanic residents in this community, too many Asians in this college.
Based on what?
And what's interesting is when you get actual complaints, like by Asian Americans, that they can't get into good schools because there's a de facto Asian quota, all of a sudden Biden wants to ignore it.
Really weird.
How the processes Biden is pushing now, as Sowell would have said, in that, was alluding to, in that, oh, that's from decades ago.
The processes are actually pushing discrimination and unequal treatment.
Milton Friedman addresses this too.
This is the same cut, by the way.
Same cut.
This is later on, after Frances Fox Piven tries to defend government processes which treat people in a discriminatory fashion while trying to simultaneously fight discrimination.
Here's Frances Fox Piven, here's Milton Friedman addressing her afterwards, but addressing the same thing.
How government trying to force equality on people actually creates a situation where government has to treat people unequally.
That'll never make sense to liberals.
My smart listeners get it right away.
Check this out.
There's no question about what equality of results, if it comes about through a framework of freedom, is a desirable result.
Number two, I argue in the film, I have argued here, that in point of fact, you get greater equality of actual results By a system under which people are free to achieve unequal results.
That for the poor people of the world that Francis Fox Piven was talking about, the most effective mechanism for enabling them to improve their status is not a governmental program which seeks to ascribe to them certain positions, which seeks to provide them with certain goods and services, but a governmental program which tries to eliminate Arbitrary barriers to advancement.
I would say that in this world, the greatest source of inequality has been special privileges granted by government.
That government, you may talk a great deal, there may be a lot of talk about how we're going to eliminate inequality.
But if you look at, go back to your case of Britain, is there any doubt That one of the effects of governmental intervention in Britain has been to create new opportunities for special classes.
That the way to get wealthy in a society that supposedly is aiming at equality, that the way to get wealthy is to get a special government permit to import, to get foreign exchange, or to import goods, or to, in this country, to set up a television station.
Brilliant.
Milton Friedman is long past Another one of the great minds of my generation.
Brilliant.
That when you petition government for special privileges, whatever, as a class, as a business, as a race, or whatever, you create incentives for people to try to gain their prosperity through government and not through hard work.
Which creates division and anger amongst people out there who don't get those special privileges and then have to work harder like Asian Americans to get the same access to society that other special interest groups and categories be treated differently by the government don't have to get because they get special privileges.
The way to create a fair and just society is to focus like a laser On eliminating obstacles to people's success regardless of their race or country of origin.
I thought that was obvious.
Just go and listen to the words of King and others.
I thought that was obvious to the civil rights advocates of the 60s.
Where did that go?
That now we're advocating for a more divided society?
Where we discriminate actively against Asian Americans?
No, I don't accept that.
All right, I'm gonna get to this, and then I'm gonna get back on track here, Paula, sorry.
We're gonna go back to this Wall Street Journal article about the realities are, the left wants the realities are.
Then I've got Olinsky's rules, Olinsky's rules making a comeback, and then an NPR story, so.
I'm talking out loud.
So Paul, did you get the trick I was doing there?
You know what this reminds me of?
Wait, quick story, quick story.
I'm sorry.
I know some of you like my story, some of you don't, but back in my prior line of work, when I was on the Bush detail, when George W. Bush was out at the ranch in Waco, right?
You know, sometimes talking to the agents, he didn't want to distract you.
So he wouldn't talk.
It wasn't like he was being rude.
I want to be clear.
He just didn't want to talk to the agents because he knew you had a job to do.
So he'd be out at the ranch and he'd want to go fishing on his ranch and he'd come out in his golf cart, right?
So rather than distracting yourself, he would talk out loud to the dog, Barney.
So you could, it was a great move.
I always respected what he was doing.
He didn't want to distract you.
So he would talk really loud to the dog.
So you knew where he was going.
So that you could pass it on to the command post.
So he'd be like in the golf cart, he'd pull up and you'd be at a post and he'd be like, Hey, Barney, Barney, we're going to go fish in the lake, Barney.
Like the dog was going to answer him.
And then you'd be like, command post from Bongino, a trailblazer is going to go fish in the lake.
It was the funniest thing ever.
That's what I was just doing to Paula.
Talking out loud so she knows, because I'm confusing her today, jumping all around.
But she's good.
She's good.
She picks it up fast.
You like that story, Valfoy?
True story.
Hey, Barney.
Barney, we're going to go fishing.
Like Barney was going to be, thanks, boss.
Oh man, the good old days.
All right, OMAX.
OMAX.
Living with chronic pain is the worst.
Believe me.
I know.
It's more than discomfort.
It affects your whole life.
You can't sleep.
You can't work out.
Nothing.
You can't even relax.
You're always like squirming around in a chair.
Listen, you had it for a few weeks, pain.
You had it for a few years.
You've been trying things.
They're not working.
I've got the solution for you.
Get rid of muscle pain, enjoy pain immediately.
Get long-lasting recovery you need by trying the natural breakthrough pain relief solution, CryoFreeze CBD Roll-On by Omax Health.
This is a non-prescription, triple action pain relief roll-on.
I mean, icy cold when you roll it on.
Paula and I use it.
Paula uses it on her neck.
I use it everywhere.
I've practically coated my body in this stuff at some points.
It blocks pain receptors, reduces inflammation, and improves muscle and joint flexibility.
I could personally vouch for this, having pretty severe arthritis.
Here's the best part.
It's 100% natural, CBD-powered, works its magic within 10 minutes of application, and relief lasts up to 8 hours, much longer than over-the-counter products.
This stuff just straight up works.
Omax Health is offering my listeners 20% off a full bottle of cryo-free CBD pain relief roll-on.
The discount also applies towards any product site-wide.
Just go to omaxhealth.com today.
We all love promo codes.
Enter promo code Bongino.
B-O-N-G-I-N-O.
That's omaxhealth.com.
Enter code Bongino.
Get 20% off cryo-freeze and sitewide.
Pro athletes use cryo-freeze CBD to recover both on and off the course.
They've got 95%.
That's hard to get.
Five star reviews.
No messy creams or terrible fragrances like some of those others.
Go to omaxhealth.com, enter code BONGINO, get 20% off cryo-freeze and site-wide, rolling on them joints.
Omaxhealth.com, enter code BONGINO to get 20% off and site-wide.
All right, let me take a little agua here, my mouth's a little dry.
My Marco Rubio water drinking moment.
All right, so getting back on track.
You know, we're going into a dangerous place here.
Obviously, I covered that article before, even though it was a little out of order, about Joe Biden again pushing for racial discrimination in government, because that's what it is.
When you give certain groups preferences over other groups, you're treating those groups unequally.
So we're in another dangerous spot, too.
Not only are we moving to an openly discriminatory U.S.
government that's supposed to treat people justly and fairly, we're also moving towards a totalitarian society of spying.
I've got an NPR article I'd like to get to today or tomorrow.
It'll come up later here.
Where we actually have people who used to work in the government and the CIA calling for domestic spying on people they label domestic extremism.
You understand the weaponization of language, right?
How the left loves that.
How they'll now call anyone who's on the opposite side of their bizarre, crazy, discriminatory ideas, domestic extremists, and they'll use that to get you spied on.
That's their thing.
So there's a fascinating article in the journal today.
How do you feel about calls for a government?
Realities are a de facto ministry of truth.
Here's an article by their editorial board.
Liberals' ministry of truth.
Academics and the progressive press mull state media controls.
State media controls?
I thought liberals were all about the side of inequality and the ACLU and freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
That's hilarious!
You believe that?
What kind of a knucklehead are you if you believe that?
Now, I know my audience didn't believe it because you listen to my show and I've been warning you, but this is not a joke.
These are people in the press who are unironically, people in the press and elsewhere, calling for regulatory agencies for the media And reality's ours.
These are press people and government officials calling for this.
You don't believe me?
From the piece.
This political suppression, or neutral government-backed content policy, as they say, could be enforced by a new digital regulatory agency.
The DRA.
So the DRA is going to police what you say online.
You believe this?
Since we're devising new entities for speech control, the New York Times offers another idea.
This is a media guy.
Experts recommend that the Biden administration put together a cross-agency task force to tackle
disinformation and domestic extremism. That'd be you. Which would be led by something like a
"reality czar," the beacon of progressive tolerance of hers.
So we...
We're living in an era now where people who are allegedly reporters and media folks are actively calling for a government-run DRA, the Digital Regulatory Agency, to monitor what you post online for disinformation, and to what point a reality czar, to make sure that, what, there's a government-coordinated effort to suppress anyone who challenges their narrative?
This is not a joke, folks.
This is not the Babylon Bee.
This is not The Onion.
This is not satire.
This is really real.
Sorry, used the same word, reiteration of it twice.
This is actually happening.
Again, because I know liberals have a tough time thinking in the abstract, so we'll have to put a hard narrative or analogy to it so they can understand it in a story format.
You know, they like stories.
What would have happened to the Russian collusion hoax we now know is entirely, does anybody still take that seriously?
I mean, outside of the lunatics at CNN, I mean, serious people.
Does anyone still believe that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to win the 2016 election?
What would have happened to that story if it wasn't for people in the conservative media format, Fox and me and John Solomon and Sarah Carter and Molly Hemingway and Chuck Ross, Jeff Carlson and others?
What would have happened if we were subjected to the reality and the realities are the DRA and the government ministry of truth for disinformation as they were trying to promote the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia?
The answer is people would still believe it and President Trump might be in jail for treason he never committed.
Here's the best line of the piece at the end.
It's worth reading.
Intellectuals don't merely want the Biden administration to promote progressive policies.
Flush with power, they're now suggesting that the government should produce the flow of ideas and assume the authority to define reality itself.
So bring on the truth commissions!
And if any political minority group complains that the Ministry of Truth is biased, worry not.
The reality czar will come in and make quick work of such disinformation.
Folks, we're in a really, really, really dangerous spot right now.
I'm going to give you a way to fight back though.
Complaining about it is not going to do us much good.
We have to fight back using tools that the leftists have taught us themselves.
You know, it's going to be an interesting section.
Before we get, let me get to my last sponsor and I'm going to get this.
I'm going to show you how we turn the liberals' rules, Alinsky's rules and others that they've used to get to this point, to get to the realities are in the DRA and the ministry of truth to combat our misinformation.
I'm going to show you how to turn the tides on them using their own rules.
Our final sponsor today, our friends at Personal Defense Network.
2020 has brought unforeseen upheaval to our society.
Many people realize the police may not always be there and the ability to defend yourself and your family has never been more critical.
You need to be prepared to defend yourself and your family.
Personal Defense Network has the world's largest collection of high-quality educational self-defense material on the internet.
From firearms to self-defense to home defense training, Personal Defense Network will come to your rescue, quite literally.
PDN is an educational community built by patriots like you.
They provide vitally.
Easy to understand, real-world tips, techniques, and tactics.
The videos are tremendous.
Having been an instructor in a law enforcement academy myself, the videos are top-notch.
The PDN team is the world's best instructors.
They've been delivering life-saving information to people like you for over 15 years.
Learn how to keep yourself and your loved ones safe with high-quality video instructional material.
Go to myrightsmyhome.com and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout.
Their gold membership will be just $3 for the first full year.
$3.
This is their highest level of membership.
It's only $3 whereas it normally sells for $135.
That's a 98% discount off.
You'll get access to everything from the premium membership plus nine free full-length video downloads, exclusive gold live streaming events with their trainers and experts, ask the expert program, two free personal defense classes, two free skill development presentations, 60% off video downloads.
This is some great Great stuff.
20% off all classes in the PDN shop and 10% off all other PDN shop products.
It's never too soon to be prepared.
Go today.
Go to MyRightsMyHome.com.
Got that?
MyRightsMyHome.com.
And the discount will automatically apply at checkout.
MyRightsMyHome.com.
Okay.
So we got to fight back.
Complaining about all this stuff all the time isn't going to get us anything without an established framework and rules we know to win.
So I thought today, you know, I've seen a lot of these hypocritical politicians trying to enact a ministry of truth and their media friends trying to propose a reality czar to crush conservative thought.
So how do the leftists fight back when this stuff happens?
Well, they use Saul Alinsky's progressive rules for radicals.
Saul Alinsky, an organizer back, I believe, in Chicago, he had a bunch of rules for small groups of people who don't have maybe political power or money, and that probably, there's a lot of you out there.
A lot of you aren't billionaires or millionaires and you're not elected to office, so you're probably wondering, Well, how do we organize and fight back?
Well, we had a number of rules.
I don't have time today to go through all of them, but I'll go through one and an example of how you can fight back today, because this rule is particularly effective.
Liberals have used it against politicians forever.
Rule number four of Saul Alinsky's rules, make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters.
You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
This was at a website, Sliwa Insights.
They say, this is a serious rule.
The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake.
Because if activists catch the entity lying or not living up to their commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.
It's on the book of rules.
Make people live up to their own rules.
So how do we fight back against the leftist totalitarian tyrants?
Well, let's watch this video first of John Kerry, former Democrat nominee for president and current czar, environment czar for the Obama administration, who's going to try to impose upon the energy industry and people making good quality livings, high upper-end middle-class jobs in the energy industry.
God forbid you're allowed to do that, right?
This is John Kerry in 2019 accepting an award over in Iceland for his environmental activism.
And he's asked by a reporter who does a shocking act of journalism who says, hey, didn't you fly over here to get this award on a private jet, which would spew a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere when you could have flown commercial?
I fly private sometimes, folks.
I'm a capitalist.
I don't care.
That's not the point.
The point is John Kerry is an advocate for you not doing any of that stuff.
Why he does it himself.
Check this out.
On that issue, pollution, I understand that you came here with a private jet.
Is that an environmental way to travel?
If you offset your carbon, it's the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle.
I negotiated the Paris Accords for the United States.
I've been involved in this fight for years.
I negotiated with President Xi to bring President Xi to the table so we could get Paris.
And I believe The time it takes me to get somewhere.
I can't sail across the ocean.
I have to fly to meet with people and get things done.
But what I'm doing, almost full time, is working to win the battle of climate change.
And in the end, if I offset and contribute my life to do this, I'm not going to be put on the defensive.
So did you get it?
So John Kerry's point is that he's really important You, the smellies, the great unwashed, you know, the deplorable crowd.
You know, the people who actually built America and make it work every day on a very serious note.
The carpenters, the bricklayers, the electricians, the truck drivers, the architects, the pilots, the flight attendants, you know, the people who actually make America work.
You should have to abide by all these carbon rules and don't even breathe out, you expel carbon dioxide, hold your breath as long as you can, we gotta get rid of farting cows if you're a farmer.
You should abide by the rules, but he shouldn't because in case you didn't get Or pick up what he was laying down.
He's really important and you're not.
And because of his profound importance, he should fly around the world.
What's in his head is so valuable that he can't accept an award by Zoom or just accept the award over email and in some press conference or whatever it may be.
He can't do any of that.
He has to fly there to get it because he's so important.
That he has to be there in person.
But God forbid you did it, you are definitely an anti-environmental advocate.
So you get how going back to Olinsky's rules, make them live by their own rules.
And watch how it makes them squirm.
Well, here's another one.
You know, AOC is a big advocate for totalitarianism, government control of the media, anti-free speech advocate.
She is, just listen to her tweets.
She was the one personally involved in incentivizing Amazon to attack Parler.
And just read her tweets, you don't have to take my word for it.
She's talking about, what was it, a truth commission for media?
This is all AOC's own words about combating disinformation campaigns, and by disinformation she means anyone who challenges her.
This is a government representative with immense power, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calling for truth commissions and government control of the media.
Because she doesn't want disinformation.
So what happens when we hold AOC to her own rules and we call her out on disinformation?
Oh, she gets very, very uncomfortable.
So Jack Posobiec, who is a host of his own show and who gets pretty vocal on Twitter, Jack Posobiec put out a tweet yesterday And he was like, you know, AOC keeps putting out these videos about how she was under attack in her office during the dreadful events of January 6th, and she was terrified for her life.
And Jack put out a tweet saying, you could see it up on the screen right here, if you're watching our video here on Rumble.
"AOC wasn't in the Capitol building during her 'near-death experience.'"
Hmm. Well, AOC didn't like that at all.
I mean, she's all for the disinformation war, right?
She wants to combat disinformation.
So you would think she would try to correct the record, right?
And give an honest take of what happened that day?
Well, here was AOC's response.
Quote, this is the latest manipulative take on the right.
They are manipulating the fact that most people don't know the layout of the Capitol complex.
We were all on the Capitol complex.
Oh, so now it's about the complex, not the Capitol building.
Interesting.
The attack wasn't just on the dome.
The bombs Trump supporters planted surrounded our offices too.
Interesting how she gets called and all of a sudden gets so defensive.
I thought she didn't like this information.
You know what's even weirder?
When she gets confrontational and gets upset that Jack Posobiec called her out on the fact that she was not the fact that she was not in the Capitol building.
Whether she thought her life was in danger or not, I don't know.
I can't get in her head.
But the fact is she was not in the Capitol building.
That's just a fact.
This is a government representative now.
She doesn't like that little old Jack Posobiec sent this tweet out and was really bothered by it.
So she sends an email list to her email, uh, an email to her email list.
I have to guess is what Paula, Paula, probably three, 4 million people.
She probably has a pretty substantial email list.
This is a representative of the United States government urging them to quote, we need your help.
Here's what you can do.
Help us combat this campaign, a campaign of disinformation and others in the future.
She urges them to scan social media, Facebook, and Twitter.
They have built in tools for reporting these posts and tweets that break the rules.
Notice how she does exactly what she did with Parler, when she was uncomfortable with the fact that Parler was allowed to speak, people on Parler were not sanctioned by Twitter for proposing alternate political views.
Notice what she does right away.
She goes to her friends, Facebook and Twitter, because they are left-leaning companies, and she urges her list, her probably three, four million people on her email list, she urges them to go to her friends in Twitter and Facebook and report these people who dare state the fact, the fact, that she was not in the Capitol building.
I'm not in her head.
I don't know what she was thinking.
But that does not change the fact that she was not in the Capitol building.
We're not allowed to question government officials anymore?
No, apparently she says no.
If you do, report them to Facebook and Twitter immediately.
Well, that's backfiring substantially because look what's trending on Twitter as of yesterday and this morning.
First was AOC Smollett.
[laughs]
[sniffs]
[laughs]
Justice for Juicy.
Remember that Dave Chappelle episode?
Remember Juicy Smollett?
He said he was attacked by MAGA supporters in Chicago while coming back from Subway in the middle of the night.
Turned out that story wasn't exactly true.
So AOC Smollett was trending, and look what's also trending.
Number one, AOC lied.
Notice how when you hold John Kerry and AOC to their own rules, Their own rules being, hey, we don't like disinformation.
And I believe the environmental rules should stop people from spewing CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2, a naturally occurring gas you expel every time you breathe, by the way.
But I don't think those CO2 rules should apply to me.
I'll fly around the earth in a private jet because I'm just talking about you little great unwashed people, not me.
Notice how when you apply the rules to them, the rules about disinformation and others, how they get so uncomfortable.
Here's another great one.
So one of our channels on YouTube, they fell right in this trap, but this isn't one of those times where you say you put them in a trap too, by the way.
You know, people do that when they get wrecked by someone, they go, oh, you fall right in the trap to kind of save face.
No, no, we already said this was the trap for YouTube if you watch our shows.
So as you know, I am an investor in the parallel economy.
And one of the other companies I'm involved with is Rumble, where we actually don't discriminate against people's video content.
So I said, we're going to leave our YouTube channel up for a little while.
A lot of people wondered why, because I knew it was only a matter of time before YouTube and their AOC friends and others like that declared my conservative, liberty-loving content harmful.
There you go.
Yesterday it happened.
Ding, ding, ding.
I'm sitting here with Paula in the hotel room, right?
She looks at me, she goes, here we go.
Right in the trap.
Not that smart.
YouTube declared our channel harmful content and said, you can't monetize the Dan Bongino clips channel on YouTube.
Okay.
So you should probably use the reporting system on YouTube and Twitter too.
Why don't we use their own rules against them?
You see content that you think is harmful on YouTube and Twitter and Facebook.
If you're still on those platforms, maybe you should report that too.
No, no, no.
That's only for leftists to do like AOC recommended.
Oh, okay.
Maybe you should try the system too, see how it works.
By the way, YouTube is in a mass discriminatory event right now, purging conservative content, so I can't emphasize to you enough, go to Rumble now if you are a content producer who believes in liberty and freedom.
I don't care what your political ideology is.
And go to Rumble and set up your account today.
Don't wait.
It's only a matter of time before YouTube comes after you, comes after you too.
Yeah, we're running out of time.
All right, let me get to this last story, and then I want to play for you a pretty awesome trailer.
It's good stuff, speaking of the parallel economy.
Here's where this is going.
NPR, former CIA officer, treat domestic extremism as an insurgency.
Again, they use terminology in the weaponization of language.
Because they know that anyone who opposes them, they can deem a domestic extremist or a racist.
I mean, if the liberals and Joe Biden say they're for racial equality, and you start asking questions like, how exactly are we going to do that without treating people unequally?
What do they say?
Oh, you must be a racist.
They're going to say, I think we should be spying on people who are domestic extremists.
And when you start to say, I'm not sure domestic spying is a good idea without probable cause that someone committed a crime, they're going to say, what are you, a domestic extremist?
It's what the left does every time.
It's up to you to put a halt to that and to ask real questions.
Remember, the totalitarian dream, by totalitarians we mean John Kerry, AOC, and others who want totalitarian government control.
Their utopian dream has always been to break down the difference between the private and public self.
They want nothing private anymore.
They don't want you to be able to be in your house posting on Parler or posting on Rumble or commenting on a YouTube video or tweeting or anything without them and their Twitter and Facebook and YouTube friends monitoring everything you say.
That's what they want.
They're totalitarians by nature.
They don't want a private self.
They want all of your selves to be public so they can monitor it at all times.
So if you get out of line and start talking conservatism, God forbid, they can de-platform you, get you taken off everything.
Your Facebook page, your Twitter page, call you a racist.
In a free society, there's a private and a public self.
There's that private you when you're home and you can do what you want to do as long as you're not breaking the law and the government doesn't get to judge you.
The government doesn't get to watch you or spy on you.
That's what happens in communist authoritarian regimes.
Why is it that AOC and others are fighting for an authoritarian regime where they can watch you everywhere with reality czars?
And what is it?
What was the name of it?
The Digital Regulatory Agencies and Ministries of Truth.
Why do they want that?
Maybe because they've never been on the side of freedom and liberty?
Ever think about that?
They want everything you do to be public so they can watch it.
And you have a former CIA officer apparently on the same side there.
They want to monitor domestic extremists.
We already have laws for that.
What are you promoting exactly?
I'm curious.
Spying?
You promoting government spying?
On political enemies?
What exactly are you promoting?
All right, folks, that was a loaded show today.
Hey, on Rumble, by the way, do us a favor.
Go subscribe to Mark Levin's channel as well as mine.
Mark's got almost 500,000 subscribers.
The great one's up there at Rumble.com.
Ton of people up there.
Sebastian Gorka, others.
My channel's up there.
Subscribe to them all.
Rumble.com slash Bongino is my channel.
I really appreciate you subscribing.
Check out Bonginoreport.com every morning for the best conservative news of the day.
It's your alternative to the Drudge Report.
We really appreciate it.
I just want to end the show today.
We covered Run Hide Fight the other day.
It's a new movie from the folks at The Daily Wire who, the parallel economy, they're trying to give us good, wholesome entertainment and get away from the destructive forces of Hollywood.
The Hollywood elites didn't want you to see this movie.
It's a story of Zoey Hall, a high school senior whose school comes under siege by four gun-toting students.
Get down on the ground!
Any more friends back there?
Is it safe to say that this might be our guardian angel?
You have no idea who you're dealing with.
Isn't it ironic that after all your hard work, people aren't gonna remember you?
No.
They're gonna remember me.
It's a great film.
Daily Wire subscribers, you can stream Run Hide Fight today at dailywire.com for free.
You're not a member?
Just use promo code Dan and save 25%.
Run Hide Fight, it's rated TVMA, viewer discretion advised.
