The Must See Video That Destroys the Impeachment Hoax (Ep 1453)
In this episode, I discuss the devastating video that decimates this ridiculous impeachment hoax. I also address the liberal’s indefensible push for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
News Picks:
The liberal tax hike that should scare the hell out you.
A new app blocks The NY Times in order to prevent the spread of misinformation.
A new CBO report states the obvious - the minimum wage hike will cost over a million jobs.
Liberals are lying about the destructive economic effects of a minimum wage hike.
Biden asks for the resignations of Trump-era US Attorneys.
The war on privacy.
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, I'm really sorry to tell you, but this is how you play ball.
But what does this mean?
The microphone?
The book?
No, no, this.
This being what the Democrats did and Joe Biden yesterday.
They play for keeps and what are, you know, Republican rhinos do?
They play to be cutesy and nicey and to, you know, grease up and kiss the collective arses of the Washington Post editorial column and the New York Times, hoping they'll be liked.
Oh, like, what is that, the Sally Field?
You like me.
You really, really like me.
Maybe we should start emulating their tactics.
I'll get to the this in a minute, what that means.
I also want to talk about that Red State article I teased yesterday about why Time Magazine wrote an article Exposing the Democrats' conspiracy to mess with the 2020 election.
Their words!
In the article.
Today's show brought to you by ExpressVPN.
Thousands of my listeners have secured their online privacy using a VPN.
Do it today.
Get a VPN.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Let's get right to it.
I got that also, the demographic destiny argument the Democrats had years ago, and a little piece of good news, is absolutely falling apart.
That demographics were gonna determine the Democrats' power base forever, collapsing.
And one more, and a video of Pete Buttigieg.
Again, there's no human being on the planet who says less by saying more than Pete Buttigieg.
All right, today's show brought to you by PCmatic.
Foreign hackers are constantly trying to break into our devices and steal the data on them.
It's time we protect ourselves with an American-made antivirus and stop relying on foreign-made solutions.
PCmatic is a whitelist.
Next-generation antivirus research developed and supported right here in the United States.
With their proactive approach, PCmatic is able to detect today's cyber threats like ransomware before it runs on your device.
PCmatic blocks annoying and malicious ads for hassle-free web browsing and makes your computers faster and more reliable even after years of use.
PCmatic protects Windows computers, Windows servers, Macs, MacBooks, Android phones, and tablets.
Keeps your devices secure.
Keep them developed with their antivirus PCmatic programs.
It's only $50 a year.
You can protect five devices.
There is zero risk, zero, with PCMatic's 30-day money-back guarantee.
PCMatic has also offered my listeners a free month of security protection with the purchase of an annual license.
Don't wait.
Get protected today.
To access this offer, go to PCMatic.com slash Dan.
Get that URL right.
Again, to get American security that keeps your devices safe and running great, Go to pcmatic.com slash Dan.
All right, producer Joe, let's go.
Nice to have that bell.
Yes, sir.
Gosh, it feels good to be back home.
Sorry, my voice is a little scratchy today, folks, that radiation last week.
And my neck is caught in a little bit of... But I feel great, don't worry.
I always told you I'd never do a show if I didn't feel good.
You know the story, for you old listeners.
Heh, told it a million times.
Alright, take note.
This, with a capital T-H-I-S, is how you play ball.
Maybe we should start emulating the Democrat strategy once in a while.
What do you think, folks?
Here, NBC News.
Biden's Justice Department to ask nearly all Trump-era U.S.
attorneys to resign.
With the exception of the special counsel and the one U.S.
attorney leading the Hunter Biden probe.
I thought that was a huge scandal when Republicans did it.
For those of you with short memories, and that's probably all of the liberals listening, but very few of the conservatives or libertarians, do you remember Joe back in 2006 and 2017?
When George W. Bush fired the U.S.
Attorneys, who are political appointees by the way.
Yes, yes I do.
Do you remember?
Joe was in Talk Radio back then.
What a huge, dreaded air quotes here folks.
Scandal that was.
Oh my gosh.
George W. Bush is asking for the resignations of Clinton-era United States attorneys who are political appointees.
Scandalous!
Scandalous!
The media lost their minds!
Remember when Trump did it in 2017?
Yep.
Preet Bharara, that hapless buffoon up in the Southern District of New York, the U.S.
Attorney there, Who was kissing Trump's butt before he realized he wasn't going to be Attorney General or something.
Preet Bharara said, I'm not resigning and made a big political stink about it.
So notice now, NBC, there's a reason I put the NBC article up.
So now Biden does the exact same thing to a greater degree.
There were actually more AUSAs pushed out than when Bush did it.
I believe Bush pushed out seven of them.
Seven.
I was giving you Joe Biden number seven.
Pushed out seven of them.
Biden, it's a multiple of like eight times that.
But notice how NBC just reports like it's no big deal.
Why?
Because it isn't.
Because United States Attorneys, the government appointed prosecutors that prosecute federal crimes, and they're AUSAs, Assistant United States Attorneys, the United States Attorneys are political appointees.
Therefore, when politically elected leaders change, it is not uncommon at all to ask them to leave to put in people you trust to enforce the law.
Yep.
But it's a big scandal when Republicans do it.
This is why I'm begging the Reino class, the Liz Cheney class, the failure, the Romney class, the Adam Kinzinger class, these hapless sellout politicians with no guts and no cojones at all.
None.
No political guts whatsoever.
I'm asking you, please, to put aside your nonsense and finally start to fight back using the tactics the Democrats use.
Forget the media!
Stop trying to kiss their butts!
They don't care about you!
They will make a story out of anything!
When Trump asks United States attorneys to leave if he wins again in 2024, and he asks them all to resign, just ignore the media because they're frauds!
And remember this day, this story right now, where when Biden did the same thing, it was reported as what?
Straight news.
Biden asks United States attorneys to resign.
That's what a straight news outlet would do.
But I can guarantee you if Trump wins again in 2024, when Trump says to do it, they'll be like, in a potentially politically motivated move, President Trump asks appointees from the Biden administration.
You see how that's editorializing?
I just wanted to bring that up in the beginning.
Take note.
This is how you win.
You plow right through the dumb media narratives and you do it anyway.
Because when the Democrats do it, the media doesn't even bat an eyelash.
It's ridiculous.
Alright, moving on.
I covered this yesterday, this Red State story.
It's important.
It's a Red State story about the Time Magazine article I addressed last week, where Time wrote a piece Basically admitting that the Democrats, liberal groups, big money, social media companies, and big business conspired in a conspiracy, their words, not mine, their words, to manipulate the 2020 election.
This Red State piece addresses this, like, why did they do this?
Everybody's got a lot of questions now.
Like, I thought addressing election conspiracies was a big no-go.
So when Time writes a piece about an actual conspiracy, all of a sudden nobody seems to care about conservatives.
Here's the piece in Red State by the famous Banshee.
I don't know who that is, but they always have, like, names, nom de plumes up at Red State.
Time claims a secret cabal manipulated the 2020 election to stop Trump.
And people have questions.
You think?
There are two things in the Time piece, not some bastion of right-wing values, by the way, Time, Time magazine.
This is a left-leaning, far-left-leaning rag.
They admit two things in the Time piece that any normal person would be like, wait, what?
They admit to manipulating social media and pushing to change election laws to benefit the Democrats.
God forbid.
And that is not using the Lord's name in vain.
This was a Republican.
It would be... Hades would break loose.
So, from the Red State piece.
Quote, Time wrote a very interesting piece making some very alarming claims.
Namely, that a secret cabal banded together across the country to stop Donald Trump from winning re-election.
This included everything from manipulating media coverage to getting election laws changed, at least according to Time's account.
Folks, this is not my account.
It's not Dan Bongino's opinion.
Time wrote it in the piece.
Two things.
So we keep this conversation on track.
They admit to manipulating social media to manipulate the coverage of the news coverage of the 2020 election.
And second, that they pushed to change election laws that would favor the Democrats.
Again, this would be an enormous scandal of generational proportions in the media if a Republican admitted to this.
Why am I covering this right now, after the United States Attorney story?
Because it proves my point, again, to ignore the media hacks.
They are not serious people.
They are activist propaganda, Soviet Union-style Pravda goons.
Just ignore them.
You will never win a debate with them.
They have no standards at all.
What happens under Democrats, election manipulation and manipulation of immediate coverage, is celebrated as, I'll get to this in a second, strategic brilliance, But when Republicans, and you see companies like, you know, when Donald Trump was using Facebook to go out and get votes, it was a huge scandal.
But when Obama did it, it was strategic brilliance.
The second screenshot from this Red State piece about the time now admitting the left had a conspiracy to mess with the 2020 election, admitting it, their article, their words.
Red State, no matter, the secret cabal isn't made up of imaginary Russians, so it's all good.
The left truly only care about election interference and manipulation when they deem it the threat to their own preferred outcomes.
Otherwise, they are all for it.
You won't see the mainstream media decry this.
You won't see a tearful lament from Nancy Pelosi about the dangers it poses to our republic.
Rather, this will all be ignored.
Heck, it'll be celebrated as a brilliant political strategy.
Bingo Banshee.
Donald Trump pays for some Facebook ads and some analytics in the 2016 election to win the election?
Oh, you can't have that.
You can't have that.
God forbid.
That was social media manipulation.
We need to get these social media companies under control.
Remember that?
Remember that debate?
Yeah, you know what was weird?
I remember when I was running for office, I ran in Maryland Congressional District 6 for Congress.
It's a rather large district.
It encompasses Western Mountain, Maryland, and the more suburban Montgomery County portions of the state.
It's an enormous district.
To ride from end to end is about a four-hour drive, depending on what kind of traffic you hit.
So one night I was coming back from Allegheny, or maybe Garrett County, which is way, way in the Mountain, Maryland.
And I was really getting tired, and I used to listen sometimes to C-SPAN on the radio.
Because we couldn't afford, remember that Sirius XM back then, where you can listen to Fox or something?
So I used to turn on C-SPAN.
And I will never forget listening to, I think it was Jim Messina, if I'm correct, who was one of Obama's strategic guys, right?
One of his campaign guys.
And it was Messina on C-SPAN.
Folks, I'm not kidding.
Bragging about how Facebook gave them access to this treasure trove of back-end information in a dashboard that they then used to get people through their Facebook accounts to get their friends in the Facebook account to vote.
I remember it like it was yesterday.
It's still out there.
I forget the name of the project they had.
But it was ten times as intrusive as what the Trump campaign worked with Facebook to do to get votes in the 2016 election.
But amazingly, Facebook and others, and even rhino Republicans with no guts, fell for this and were like, oh my gosh.
This is a big scandal.
Donald Trump used Facebook to get votes.
Really?
Because Messina and the Obama administration did it times a factor of 22,000 to do the same thing.
But weird how it's only a scandal when Republicans do it and when Democrats do it.
It was celebrated.
They were on C-SPAN bragging about it.
There you go.
I remember it, Joe, like it was yesterday.
Because you know why I remember it too?
I don't remember it for the reasons you may think in my audience.
I remember because I was running or thinking about running again at the time.
I remember exactly when I heard this, but I was probably involved in my election in six, uh, congressional district six at the time.
And I remember thinking to myself, gosh, how do, how do we get that dashboard access?
Oh my gosh, Dan, you wanted to use Facebook to, uh, to, uh, you leverage it to win an election.
Yeah, exactly.
Like Obama did.
Why you'd be stupid not to.
That's why I remember that.
Because at the time, folks, I remember thinking to myself, wow, that is pretty clever.
Facebook allows access to the dashboard?
Why can't Republicans do that too?
I remember it like it was yesterday, thinking, gosh, these Democrats, they really nailed us on that.
And then when Trump did in 2016, to a lesser degree, because they stopped, they didn't allow that back-end access anymore.
But they did allow some data mining on there.
When Trump did it, it was a huge scandal.
What a scam!
So what's the solution to this?
The Democrats now admit it.
They didn't.
Well, why did they admit it?
Why is Time Magazine now admitting to a secret cabal that manipulated the 2020 election for the Democrats?
I told you why last week.
I just want to quickly get to it again because there is a solution for this.
First, they're doing it because they know the information's going to get out.
So this is their opportunity now to get ahead of it and reframe it, exactly as I said to you before.
And as Banshee suggested in that second screenshot from the red state piece, that they're going to reframe the debate now before it gets out and leads to an argument about, oh my gosh, the Democrat, there was a conspiracy to manipulate the 2020 election.
They're going to reframe it in advance, which is what the media will do for them.
As Banshee's right, strategic brilliance.
And the media will all take their talking points, only discuss this not as election manipulation, discuss it as strategic brilliance.
That'll be their talking points going forward.
Bank on it, take it to the bank, cash that check.
What's the solution to this?
What I told you before, ignore media narratives and plow straight ahead with two things.
Number one, This election, most of you think, I'm getting a lot of these emails and folks, I have to tell you, they're getting increasingly disturbing and I'm getting very worried about some of the folks in my audience giving up here.
I can't emphasize to you in strong enough terms how important it is that we continue this fight going forward, no matter how insurmountable the odds are.
You don't ever forget, tattoo it on your brain, that line, that quote I repeatedly say on this show, that an enemy is not vanquished until he considers himself so.
If you consider yourself defeated and you act defeated, you are in fact defeated.
Why you would want to be defeated, I don't know.
But I keep getting these emails from a small minority of viewers and listeners, but it's enough that it's starting to disturb me.
These I'm done emails.
There is no done.
There's no done.
Do not embrace quitting as this form of strategy.
I don't understand.
That's not a strategy.
There are ways to fight back against this conspiracy and cabal of big business types, Democrats, social media companies, and others.
Number one, get swing states to fortify election laws.
Some of you are with a wink and a nod and see what I did there.
Because when the Democrats were quizzed about this Time Magazine piece about the conspiracy to shut down social media traffic that hurt the Democrats and changing election laws that would benefit Democrats, basically a conspiracy to mess with the 2020 election.
When some of the Democrats were confronted on that, they said, no, no, it wasn't a conspiracy to manipulate the election.
It was a conspiracy to, quote, fortify the election.
Notice the OrwellianDictionary.com shift in language there?
So we can fortify elections too, right?
Why not?
We can fortify elections by going to swing states, because remember, the presidential election If New York doesn't want to have any election laws whatsoever, and wants to elect people through elections that have no free and fair component to them at all, and there's no voter or file integrity or anything like that, then let New York do its thing.
But national elections are decided by probably less than 10 states.
If we can get enough Republicans elected in those states, some of those states we have enough Republicans elected now, like Florida, we need to change election laws to fortify elections ourselves.
Voter ID, Signature verification, driver's licenses for absentee voting.
These are all things we can do to fortify elections too.
Why are we giving up?
Why?
We're giving up because why?
Because it's easier to give up?
I don't do easy.
I'm sorry.
I'm not interested in easy.
I'm interested in right.
So that'd combat the second component of what they did in that Time Magazine article.
They admit to changing election laws to benefit Democrats.
To take away the fairness in elections.
To benefit their own guys.
But second, they admit to manipulating social media.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have to grow our own social media and information ecosystem.
I've said it over and over again.
I'm involved in it now.
Parler, Rumble, there's others out there too.
Doing the same thing.
We have to fortify our own information ecosystem.
All right, let me get to my second sponsor, and then I want to get to this other article, which is excellent.
I teased it yesterday.
See, usually I tease articles on Monday, and right, Paula, I don't get to them until, like, next Monday or Friday.
These were so good, these two pieces.
I wanted to make sure the Red State and this Wall Street Journal piece coming up next, how the demographic—I want to give you some good news—demographic destiny argument is falling apart completely.
All right, let me get to my second sponsor today, Pearl Source.
Jewelry's one of the most popular gifts you can get for Valentine's Day, and there's a good reason for it.
They're classics.
You can rarely go wrong.
Go with the classics.
And there's nothing more classic and timeless than fine pearl jewelry, which doesn't need to break your budget.
At The Pearl Source, you get the highest quality pearl jewelry at up to 70% off retail prices.
Well, why is that?
Because The Pearl Source cuts out the middleman and eliminates the traditional five-time markups by jewelry stores.
They sell directly to you, the consumer.
Not sure if she'll love your gift?
Ah, no worries!
The Pearl Source comes with a no-hassle, 60-day money-back guarantee, so it is risk-free.
Plus, with more than 20 years in the pearl business and nearly 12,000 five-star reviews, you can be sure you're shopping from a trusted retailer.
Paula has some beauties from the Pearl Source, right?
You're wearing them now.
Look at that.
Like most people, it's probably been a tough year for that special someone in your life.
Tell them you love them and appreciate them with beautiful pearl jewelry from The Pearl Source, a gift she will remember for years to come.
You see those pictures right there?
Valentine's Day sale.
Look at that.
Look at that.
Don't overpay for jewelry.
Go to The Pearl Source and save up to 70% off retail prices.
And for a limited time, listeners to my show, take 20% off your entire order for Valentine's Day.
Go to thepearlsource.com slash Dan.
Get that right.
Enter promo code Dan at checkout for 20% off your entire order.
You want fine pearl jewelry at the best prices online?
Go straight to The Source.
The Pearl Source.
Go to thepearlsource.com slash Dan.
Enter promo code Dan at checkout today.
All right, thanks Pearl Source.
Appreciate it.
Remember that demographic destiny argument we heard after the Obama era?
It went a little bit like this, folks.
The Democrats were cautioning people all over the country, saying, hey, if you're a conservative or libertarian or republican, I want you to know you're finished.
Joe, you're wiped out.
Don't even bother.
The demographic destiny is going to take over.
The Democrats will be the party in power forever because there'll be this consortium of young voters, Hispanic voters, I had to write this down, minorities, white upper class voters, and women, and let me tell you something, let me tell you, they won't ever vote for a Republican again.
It's going to be a majority-minority America, and you Republicans are finished, so you might as well surrender now.
I remember hearing that.
No, I remember, again, I have a pretty good memory of the Obama era for all the wrong reasons.
I remember hearing that argument and at the time being troubled by it.
Like, oh my gosh, you're telling me there's nothing we can do as Republicans to fight for liberty and freedom that we're going to lose no matter what we do?
But then a strange thing happened, Joe.
We had the Tea Party revolution in Congress where, you know, what was it?
Upwards of, what is it?
40 to 60 members on the Democrat side lost their seats.
We had local governors, city councils, mayors.
We had a historic loss of Democrats at the local and state level.
And Obama left office with the weakest Democrat party we'd seen in almost 50 years outside of the presidency he held.
Remember one thing, the golden rule of the Obama era was this.
Obama was great for one thing.
Obama.
The rest of the country turned dramatically red.
So what happened?
What they were saying, the demographic destiny arguers, was not inaccurate.
There has been an influx of a lot of Hispanic folks into the United States, a growing minority vote.
White upper class voters are increasingly voting Democrat.
The young as well.
So how did that fall apart and lead to not only the Donald Trump presidency, but after the argument was made with the Obama victory in 2008, How did it lead to an era of, outside of I think what's going to be a blip in this Joe Biden victory, lead into an era of a Republican renaissance that had the opposite effect?
Well, this Wall Street Journal article nails it down pretty good.
It's worth your time.
By a John J. Miller.
Every time I see John J., I think of Rambo.
Rambo, John J. Remember Richard Crenna in First Blood?
Rambo, John J. Rambo always used that middle initial.
It was important.
He's got this article, John J. Miller, not John J. Rambo.
Majority-minority America?
Don't bet on it.
How a Census Bureau error led the Democrats to assume they were on the right side of an inexorable demographic trend.
Joe, I know you remember every show we've ever done.
It's like a catalog in your head.
We actually covered this.
Why this argument?
So just to be clear, the premise we're trying to make.
If there's an increasingly number of young voters voting Hispanic, women voters, you get it, minorities and other groups, why is it that the Democrats were having trouble getting extra votes?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, the math wasn't that simple because the Republicans, who are smart, realized that the Democrats were classifying people in boxes that were not necessarily the boxes people were classifying themselves.
Stated quite simply, we're going to win because of the growing number of Hispanics.
Fascinating, because a lot of people didn't classify themselves as Hispanic.
Well, what happened?
This is a personal topic to me.
I'll explain in a minute.
Let's get to the screenshot first from this piece.
Why this theory of a growing Hispanic vote was going to lead to a permanent Democrat majority totally fell apart.
Well, they quote this Mr. Alba, who's a professor at the CUNY, City University in New York.
I went there.
He says, the surge in mixing across ethno-racial lines is one of the most important and unheralded developments of our time.
Alba rattles off facts and figures.
Today, more than 10% of US-born babies have one parent who is non-white or Hispanic, and one who is white and not Hispanic.
Sounds, sounds, sounds for those of you watching the rumble, you can, uh, That proportion is larger than the number of babies born to two Asian parents and not far behind the number of babies born to two black parents.
Alba says, we're entering a new era of mixed backgrounds.
Folks, I talked about this a while ago.
I don't remember the show exactly, but I remember it happened.
The problem with the Democrats' theory that a growing number of Hispanic voters Was going to mean a demographic destiny, an increased power for the Democrats that was never going to be taken away by Republicans, is that these kids are not classifying themselves as Hispanic.
They don't put themselves in these boxes.
Now, why is this personal to me?
Because my wife is Colombian.
Not 98%, 100% Colombian.
Not from South Carolina.
South America.
Columbia.
You know the country.
That's where she's from.
A hundred percent.
Ciento por ciento for our Spanish listeners.
Is that right?
Thank you.
My daughter is, by default, Half Colombian, because my wife is 100% Colombian.
I am a mix of Italian, German, Irish, English.
What is it?
French.
North African.
Not a joke.
I am.
All that stuff.
My daughter doesn't identify as anything but an American.
So when Democrats go out and pitch policies directed to the Hispanic vote, they're talking to people they think they're talking to who don't see them as talking to them.
You get it?
Is that making sense?
It's like devising policies to appeal to a union vote for people who aren't in unions.
They're like, well, that doesn't apply to me.
It's not that my daughters in any way reject my wife being from Colombia.
It's that we don't raise them in our house as in boxes.
You're to think like a Hispanic woman.
No, you're to think like an American.
I thought the whole melting pot thing, Joe, crazy.
I thought that's what we were doing in America.
I thought that's what we were about.
Yeah.
Just a crazy idea, I know, but I thought that's a... But you understand how the box theory works for them?
They're trying to keep people in boxes who don't think they're in boxes.
That's the problem.
That's why this whole majority-minority demographic destiny for the Democrats theory totally fell apart.
Because they're talking to people in a box who don't have themselves in the box.
So what led them to believe that there was this mass influx of Hispanic voters that were categorizing themselves as Hispanic?
Why else would they make a marketing pitch?
They want to talk to people, right, who are Hispanic.
They better be talking to people who consider themselves Hispanic or it's a waste of time.
Is any of this going over anybody's head?
Easy peasy.
Okay, thanks.
I'm just, you know, there are liberals who have a tough time with this.
Well, here's your answer.
This was fascinating.
I really enjoyed this piece.
It was from this weekend.
Well, the difficulty started as the federal government prepared for the 2000 census and sought to recognize the small but growing number of multiracial Americans.
The Census Bureau decided to let people like Mr. Woods, they talk about this guy, talk about Tiger Woods, by the way, who's multiracial, check off more than one racial box on their forms.
Well, leaders of liberal civil rights groups lobbied against the change.
They feared a recognition of multiracialism would dilute the numerical strength of minorities and make it harder to enforce anti-discrimination laws.
Hmm.
Well, the Office of Management and Budget devised an ironic solution to the dilemma.
The OMB, whose responsibilities include maintaining the consistency of data across federal departments, revived an old version of the one-drop rule from the Jim Crow era.
Not sure we want to emulate the Jim Crow era, Joe.
Probably not a good idea.
Nah.
In effect, a very bad idea.
According to which, a single African ancestor made a person entirely black.
The OMB decided that Americans who designated themselves as white and something else on their census forms would be classified as non-white.
There you go, folks!
That's exactly what happened.
If you happen to be an individual like my daughter, who has a Hispanic mother and a white father, And you were on a census form and you checked off white and Hispanic.
The census form classified you as non-white, which led the Democrats to believe that there were a bunch of people out there classifying themselves as Hispanic, so gosh, we better keep this marketing pitch going that we're the hero for the Hispanic vote out there, when in fact the people they were pitching to were not classifying themselves in the boxes Democrats wanted them to be put in.
Kind of a big tactical error, no, Joe?
Yeah, daddy.
Yeah, mammy.
Well, why did that benefit the Democrats?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Why continue to strategically tailor a message to a group of people who don't consider themselves in that group of people?
Because the Democrats never have a message.
Their message is garbage.
Give us more of your money.
Let us take your kids' school choice away.
Turn your health care over to the government that can't even manage a DMV.
Defund the police.
That argument, the Democrats' core arguments don't sell anywhere.
So the Democrats decided decades ago that their only argument would be, don't vote for our policies because they're crap, but vote for us because we'll protect you against the racist Republicans.
And in order to claim that the Republicans were racist and the Democrats were going to protect you if you voted for them, they had to make sure your race was the primary thing you identified by.
That's why they continue to push to have people identify as Hispanic first rather than Americans.
Because it doesn't benefit their argument that the Republicans are all racist against you.
Simple.
All right, I'm going to get to this minimum wage block next.
Let me get to my third sponsor here.
This is important.
I thought the Democrats believed in science.
That's what we were told, right?
Well, what about the science of economics on the minimum wage?
There's probably fewer areas anywhere in economics where there's more mass agreement that the minimum wage is a disaster than this particular topic.
But again, the Democrats believe in science only when it benefits them.
Throat thing.
Let me get to my third sponsor.
Listen, this past year saw many cybersecurity attacks, including data breaches, network infiltrations, bulk data theft, fail and sale, identity theft, and ransomware outbreaks.
The large shift of employees working remotely has coincided, sadly, with an increase in these attacks.
A recent study suggests that remote workers have become the source of up to 20% of cybersecurity incidents that occurred in 2020.
Folks, bad news.
It's important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives.
It affected mine.
I had my identity stolen.
It was a disaster.
It took me a year to clean up.
Every day we put our information at risk on the internet.
You can miss certain identity threats by only monitoring your credit.
Good news.
There's LifeLock.
LifeLock is a leader in identity theft protection.
I have it for me, my daughter, my mother-in-law, my whole family.
My daughters, I should say.
LifeLock detects a wide range of identity threats, like your social security number for sale on dark web.
If they detect your information has been potentially compromised, they will send you an alert.
I get texts on my phone.
No one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses.
But LifeLock can see threats you might miss on your own.
Join now.
Save up to 25% off your first year.
Don't wait.
Go to LifeLock.com slash Bongino.
That's LifeLock.com slash Bongino.
Get 25% off.
Don't mess with your identity.
You'll regret it later.
LifeLock.com slash Bongino for 25% off.
All right, let's get back to the show.
You know, the Democrats, again, claim to be the party of science.
That's always laughable.
That's a joke.
The Democrats don't believe in science at all.
When the science disagrees with them, the Democrats disagree with the science.
Remember when the science said that there's very little risk to students from going back to school?
The Democrats just ignored that one.
Well, there's a lot of science about the minimum wage.
Why?
Because it's relatively easy to study, and the arguments against a wage floor are pretty simple to understand.
And as the great Thomas Sowell says often, Joe, what do you think the real minimum wage is?
Well, Thomas Sowell has an interesting statement to say about that, let's say.
The real minimum wage, Joe, is zero.
If you get fired from your job because of minimum wage law, you are making zero, which is in fact the minimum wage you can make, which is nothing because you have no job.
Minimum wage is quite easy to explain, folks.
For the liberals listening who have a hard time understanding why demanding employers pay more to employees Money they may not have, or money that those employees, given their skill level, may not add to the person's business.
I will give you for the umpteenth time, the very simple example of a lemonade stand, because liberals listening have a tough time with economics, math, you know, basic things like that.
So if you were to own a lemonade stand, liberals listening, this is a very easy example.
And at that lemonade stand, you're making roughly $20 an hour selling lemonade with one employee.
Well, let's say you had to turn some people away because there's a long line because you have one employee.
So you say, well, I think I'm going to hire a second employee to serve lemonade at my lemonade stand.
You do the math and you say, well, we've been turning away about five customers an hour due to long lines.
The lemonade's a dollar.
So forgetting your expenses for a minute to make the math simple for the liberals listening.
So that would mean if I hired a second employee, I'd make roughly $5 extra an hour.
So if the government sets a minimum wage, and I'm trying to keep the numbers even though they're low and feed into the Democrats' absurd arguments, I'm keeping the numbers low because liberals listening don't do math very well.
So if the government mandates a $15 an hour minimum wage for your lemonade stand, then what happens?
Well, now let's say your one employee makes $10 an hour, has to make $15.
So now you're only making roughly $20 an hour, right?
From your clients who are coming in.
You were turning away five.
So now they want you to hire a second employee, which would cost you $30 an hour in labor for $25 an hour in revenue.
labor for $25 an hour in revenue.
Joe, I'm just checking.
If you're, if, if, if, if there's $25 an hour in revenue coming in,
forget your other costs, sugar, lemons. I'm trying to do simple math here.
Okay.
But it's costing you $30 an hour just to be in business.
My very simple math, check me if I'm wrong, Paula, you too, would mean you'd be losing $5 an hour selling lemonade.
That's right, Dan, yeah.
Is my math accurate?
Yes, it's accurate.
Okay, I'm not crazy.
The verdict is in.
I haven't hit the gavel in a while.
Armacost is right.
You would lose five dollars an hour to stay in business by having to hire someone else.
So what do you do?
Well, again, I know liberals have a tough time with this math.
Very complicated algorithms like that.
Mathematical, that was some high-level calculus we just did there.
You just don't hire that other employee that you would hire to grow your business.
There you go.
Because you would go out of business.
It's not hard.
Doink.
Jeez.
I mean, it's just, it's complicated.
Washington Times.
Biden pushes to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
CBO study determines it would kill 1.4 million jobs by Steven Dinan.
Now, the Democrats love the CBO, of course.
That's their, oh, that is their golden cap.
They're, they're on their knees.
We love you, CBO.
Worshipping, they're chanting, they have like almost religious fanatical type chants to the CBO.
Now it's funny, I'm not hearing a lot in the liberal media about this one.
The CBO put out a study that said, okay, let me read to you what it said.
It says raising the fed- this is from the Washington Times piece.
Be in the show notes today.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
My newsletter is the show notes.
Subscribe today.
It's free, please.
We're almost at 500,000 subscribers there.
We appreciate it.
They say raising the federal minimum wage $15 an hour would lift nearly 1 million people out of poverty.
Wow, that sounds really great, Joe.
But would leave even more people without any job at all, the CBO said.
In an analysis that deals another blow to Biden's demand for a wage hike in the next coronavirus relief bill.
Not only would it cost jobs, a higher federal standard would also raise costs for Americans and for the federal government itself, as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare pay more to lower-wage health workers, CBO said.
Though fewer people would be on welfare, the deficit would take a 54 billion dollar hit over the next decade.
Um, so again, I'm just doing simple math.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
So the report says the workers who get the raise, who are still hired, to $15 an hour from whatever they're making now, $7.25, the current minimum wage in a lot of states, $10 an hour, yeah, they may do okay.
The problem is that's about 900,000 to a million people.
1.4 million would in fact lose their jobs.
Again, just checking here.
So saying on the high end, a million people would be better off at the cost of 1.4 million people who would not only be worse off, but dramatically worse off because they would lose their jobs.
I'm not sure that's sound economic policy.
Do the math.
1.41.
Hold on.
That means 400k.
That's a thousand for liberals.
That means 400k, that's a thousand for liberals, 400,000 people, 400,000 people, even if you
zeroed out and said, well, a million, a million here, 400,000 people.
400,000 people who would be dramatically worse off on that, even if you zeroed it out.
1.4 million who'd be better off.
That's being nice and cutesy for the liberals.
But again, Democrats don't care.
Science doesn't mean... You still are falling for this?
If you're a left-leaning younger Democrat in college and your roommate has my show on and you're listening, are you still falling for this scam?
You know forcing employers to pay more than their employees' skills or worse probably doesn't make sense.
You know the economic science of the minimum wage is conclusive.
Conclusive that at a minimum, there'll be adverse costs.
When looked at sanely, there'll be serious adverse costs.
And you support it anyway.
Why?
Because you fell for the fight for 15.
Fight for 15!
Fight for 15!
Fight for what?
Unemployment for 1.4 million people?
You ever hear of Pareto Optimization or Pareto Efficiency?
Look it up.
P-A-R-E-T-O.
The whole idea that government policy should be dictated by the idea that any policy should serve to make some people better off while making no one else worse?
This policy supposedly makes a million people better off while making 1.4 million people unemployed with a wage of zero!
What is that?
Playing voicemails over there on speakerphone.
They're really loud.
Who was that?
Oh.
Anything important?
You need to take that?
Should we interrupt the show?
You need to go outside?
How you feeling about that?
Let's go to more!
This is a great piece by David Hirsani.
He was really, really a good writer.
National Review.
This will be in the show notes.
Please read this.
Again, Bongino.com slash newsletter.
Subscribe today.
You'll get these great articles every morning.
Remember Paul Krugman?
Paul Krugman, scion of the left.
Yeah, Paul Krugman, Joe, won a Nobel Prize for economics.
He should return that prize immediately.
This is an interesting piece about Joe Biden and Paul Krugman who are misleading the public about the minimum wage.
David Harsanyi.
Here's the first screenshot from this piece where Biden's trying to claim that yes, basically all the economics on this are good on the minimum wage.
All.
All.
Meaning there's no counter perspective on that.
He says, well, it's not true then, it's not true now that, quote, all the economics of the minimum wage or much else is settled.
As Paul Krugman once noted, any... This is Paul Krugman, noted leftist.
When he was still a sane economist, he once said this.
This is a quote, meaning he said this.
Any Econ 101 student can tell you that, quote, higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded and hence leads to unemployment.
Indeed, for a long time, there was a strong consensus on the matter.
Paul Krugman, noted leftist, who once said the truth, that higher wage floors lead to less demand for labor, because companies can't afford to pay the higher wages demanded if the employees' skills aren't worth that much.
Krugman once said that.
Ah, he changed his mind now, now that he's a politician, or a de facto politician.
And no, Krugman doesn't mention his own expedient partisan conversion on the issue.
He notes, quote, this is now his conversion.
Now Krugman's gone full politician mode.
He says, it's true that once upon a time, there was a near consensus among economists that minimum wage substantially reduced employment, but that was long ago.
These days, only a minority of economists think raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would have large employment costs, and a strong plurality believe that a significant rise, although maybe not all the way to 15, would be a good idea.
Interesting, because he links to a study, and I don't think anyone actually clicked on that study, because Arsani did, and this is what he found out.
Krugman fails to mention that in the 2015 survey he hyperlinks, 26% of economists believe a flat $15 an hour federal minimum wage would lower employment for low-wage workers.
24% said otherwise and 38% weren't sure.
As for whether doing so would substantially increase aggregate output in the economy, just 2% agreed.
Again, Paul Krugman in his piece hoping you don't actually click on the hyperlink, where the majority of, excuse me, a plurality of economists said the exact opposite.
That the minimum wage would lower employment and it wouldn't increase economic output.
Just 2% said that.
But he's hoping you don't click on it because you're a liberal and liberals don't do things like reading and stuff like that.
Convenient, by the way, Washington Examiner.
Amazon's swampy lobbying for a $15 an hour minimum wage proves the little guy really loses.
Of course Amazon in cahoots.
Because Amazon doesn't care about a $15 an hour minimum wage because they're a trillion dollar company and it actually benefits them.
Why?
Because their small business competitors get put out of business.
Double win for them.
And they get the benefit of kissing the collective caboose of the Democrat Party.
Look, Amazon's in our corner.
Better help them out.
Good luck with that.
Ooh, flip to pay, that was dramatic.
You know what, let me get to my last sponsor and I wanna get to some video here.
This is important.
We got this impeachment hoax starting today.
Got a piece on that, Dershowitz video, and I definitely want to get to Buttigieg.
No human being says less while saying more than Pete Buttigieg.
Our final sponsor, my first sponsor ever, fact, BrickHouse Nutrition.
This is fielder greens.
They're wild berry flavored.
This is empty.
This is empty because I used it all.
Need some more, Miles, if you have some?
And I refuse, if I get new ones, to bring a full one up here because I use it!
Empty.
Field of greens.
Look at that.
There's actually a little left in there.
Life's about habits.
This year we've been more focused than ever on our health.
What happens after?
How do you plan to ensure your body's immune system is ready for winter and beyond?
I'll tell you what I do.
Take field of greens.
I recommend you try it every day.
I drink it twice a day.
It's loaded with antioxidants.
Field of greens is packed with 18 clinically researched, fresh essential fruits and vegetables, but green tea, ginger, turmeric, and beets.
It's a powerful combination.
It supports health, metabolism, blood pressure, and digestion.
It's complete with pre and probiotics.
Field of greens is not only good for you, it's good for the entire family.
Just put a scoop in a glass of water, stir, you're done.
I put it in green tea, sometimes tomato juice.
It's really good in orange juice too.
I take it twice a day.
It is my now go-to, given my health conditions.
Always been.
Paula loves it.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Notice on the back too, it says Nutrition Facts, not Supplement Facts.
Why?
This is wholesome, ground-up fruits and vegetables.
This is real food here in this.
Real food.
Wholesome, ground-up, fresh fruits and vegetables.
It's not some cheap extract.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Get 15% off your first order with the promo code DAN at checkout.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Use the promo code Dan.
It's available in multiple flavors.
It is my go-to.
Check out Field of Greens today.
Field of Greens.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Okay.
Folks, the impeachment farce hoax is starting today.
Interesting article by McClatchy about the Democrats panicking right now.
Now, if you read the piece, this is one of the few times I put the screenshots out of order because there's an interesting portion of the article at the end that explains something they say in the beginning of the piece.
The Democrats are already quietly panicking about this impeachment hoax that's going to start today.
Why?
Because they're going to lose.
They don't have the Republican votes and it's not even close.
They are going to lose and lose badly.
President Trump will not be convicted in this impeachment trial, just like he beat the first one.
So they're panicking and they're considering option number two.
Here's the article by McClatchy.
Democrats have a backup plan in case the Senate doesn't convict Trump on impeachment.
Michael Wilner.
They will not convict.
There is almost zero chance of that.
Almost zero chance.
So they have a backup plan.
These sleazeballs never, ever give up.
Well, what is the backup plan?
Let's go to the McClatchy piece here.
Well, the Democrats' attention is now focused on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a rarely cited Civil War-era provision, which allows Congress to bar individuals from holding office if they've engaged in an insurrection.
A resolution to censure Trump would require a simple majority vote to pass in the House and Senate.
Ladies and gentlemen, that sounds awfully undemocratic to me.
So President Trump will not be convicted in this Senate trial.
The Democrats are considering a backup plan that would only require a majority vote in the House and Senate.
Majority meaning 51 in the Senate for the liberals listening.
And they could in turn censure Trump and invoke this 14th Amendment provision stating he engaged in an insurrection and can't run for office again.
That sounds awfully totalitarian to me.
What are they afraid of?
That's what I've been telling you for the last month or so.
They're afraid of President Trump running again.
They know there were 70 million plus Americans who still support him.
They're seeing the failures of the Biden era right now, just in a month.
And they're terrified of him running again.
They fear Trump.
They fear he's going to flip the script.
Here's another screenshot from the McClatchy piece.
Some of the scholars who are helping draft this resolution are engaging in late-night calls with congressional staff from the offices of Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Tim Kaine, as well as Reps Stephen Cohen of Tennessee and Wasserman Schultz and others.
Folks, they are terrified Trump is going to win.
He is not going to be convicted in this trial.
There's no chance.
And then Trump is going to do what I said he's going to do.
He's going to come back and use this.
Hey, I had it.
Hold on.
I got to read this to you.
I put this up.
I was on a plane the other day and I was bored.
So I put this up.
I suggested what, what did I tell you?
That the Democrats are only going to fortify Trump with any effort to impeach and then convict in this trial because Trump is going to win and he's going to come back even stronger.
So I was on a plane coming back from Houston and I put this on Instagram.
I said, the Democrats are only fortifying Trump with their gratuitous impeachment farce.
President Trump should absolutely run in 2024 and double down on his renegade approach.
I said, he should announce and say this.
I was spied on, falsely accused of the worst of crimes, impeached twice on fairy tales and hoaxes, attacked by the media, the swamp, the Democrats, the swamp Republicans, big tech, China, and the socialists, and I'm still standing.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
I can't tell you what I wrote at the end.
You'll have to see on Instagram.
Some people were not happy with me.
I understand.
Damn, my language.
I get it.
I'm from Queensland.
It's not a curse word.
And I'm still standing you.
I can't even say what rhymes with that.
Sometimes I'll say it rhymes with hit for other things.
I can't even say it, but I think that's what he should do.
And the Democrats know that's what he's going to do.
And they know they're in deep trouble.
Here's a quick video, Alan Dershowitz.
Just demolishing, demolishing this absurd post-presidential impeachment trial in the Senate.
He makes some key points.
Here's about a minute.
Here he was on Newsmax with Sean Spicer.
Check this out.
Number one, the Senate has no jurisdiction over a former president.
If they had jurisdiction over a former officeholder, they could impeach Nikki Haley tomorrow if
they think that she poses a threat, possibly in 2024 to Biden.
After all, she held office three years ago.
They could impeach Bill Clinton now without any statute of limitations.
So that's number one argument.
Number two argument, the speech was protected by the Constitution.
Number three, the Senate can't violate the First Amendment in its impeachment.
Give you an example.
You know, the House managers say the First Amendment isn't applicable.
Impeachment stands on its own.
Let's assume a Muslim American gets elected president and the Democrat House decides, or the Republican House decides, to impeach that person because he's Muslim.
But the Constitution says no religious test shall ever be required.
But the House managers would say that's not relevant.
Brilliant.
Two takeaways, he's right.
impeachment is political.
But of course they're bound by the Constitution.
And the First Amendment says Congress, Congress, shall make no law, no law, abridging the freedom of speech,
and no law has been interpreted to mean, take no action that has consequences.
It doesn't matter if it's a law or administrative action.
So those are the three arguments I would make.
Brilliant.
Two takeaways, he's right.
Why not just impeach Nikki Haley?
Why not impeach, let's see, Mike Pompeo?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Why not impeach, let's give someone who maybe it'll appeal more to the liberal lunatics and totalitarians, maybe a more centrist, but why not impeach Marco Rubio?
You think he's going to run for president?
Why not do that?
Because it was designed to impeach a sitting president.
Don't be absurd.
You know, on your, you know, on its face, this argument is dumb liberals, but you do it anyway.
Again, why not impeach Bill Clinton again?
Second, his First Amendment argument is brilliant.
Congress can't take an action that violates the Constitution.
The President asking people to march, quote, peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol breaks no known U.S.
law, and prosecuting him for it, even if it's from, granted, a political trial, not a criminal one, it still violates his First Amendment rights and violates the tenets of the Constitution.
No good!
Brilliant by Dershowitz.
All right, this is amazing.
We're gonna get to a show for the first time ever, the whole show.
All right, here, quick video at the end.
No human being on planet Earth, or maybe in the cosmos, if there are other beings out there, says less while saying more than Pete Buttigieg.
Listen to this, where Pete Buttigieg makes the point, but again, he always does it so eloquently, you think he's actually saying something of substance.
Here's Pete Buttigieg making the absolutely absurd point that after he's done saying it eloquently, like, oh my gosh, that may make sense, that don't worry folks, roads are not just for cars, they're for people too.
Please, please, I'm not kidding.
Young kids listening and liberals who can't quite process information right.
Please do not walk in the road And take this advice that roads are for people to... They're for cars!
If you walk in those roads, bad things will happen.
I got hit by a car once.
Don't do it.
It's not fun.
So did my brother.
But listen to Pete Buttigieg explain how not.
Roads aren't just for cars, they're for everyone.
Check this out.
What's the biggest way that transportation has been permanently changed by the pandemic?
It's too soon to know for sure, but I think it's safe to say that our old patterns of life, the 9 to 5, Monday through Friday commuting patterns, are not going to be exactly the same.
Yeah, and so how might that change what your stuff does?
You know, we think trains, planes, and automobiles, but what about bikes, scooters, wheelchairs for that matter?
Those are things you plan to pay more attention to?
Absolutely, yeah.
Look, roads aren't only for vehicles.
We got to make sure that pedestrians and individuals and bicyclists and businesses can all coexist on the same roadway.
I swear to you, before the show, Paul is like, I can't, I can't take this guy.
Please, if you own a business, Joe, is this sound advice?
I just want to make sure because we're going to put out a Dan Bongino service announcement here.
One of our de facto kind of PSAs.
Just check me.
This is good advice.
If you're a business, please do not build your business in the middle of the road.
I'm just checking.
Is that, Joe, is that sound?
That's good advice.
Because Buttigieg said roads are for businesses, too.
Roads are, and please, do not walk in the road.
Cross the street, go to the corner, walk on the green, not in between.
Walk on the green, not in between.
Remember that public service announcement back in the day?
Do not take Buttigieg's advice.
Again, there's not a person on the planet who says less by saying more than Pete Buttigieg.
I swear this morning she said to me, I can't take this guy.
He doesn't say anything ever.
All right.
Remarkably, we're going to get through all this.
Ladies and gentlemen, PolitiFact strikes again.
You know, the fact check.
They're checking facts, Joe.
PolitiFact.
Well, they did it again.
They got us now, Joe.
PolitiFact—by the way, fact-checkers are intergalactic laughingstock these days.
You almost can be guaranteed when PolitiFact so-called checks a fact and says it's not true, you can be almost guaranteed it is true by them saying it's not true.
This was on their Twitter feed, which is really a source of good comedy for my show.
This is not a joke.
It's not the Babylon Bee.
PolitiFact says no.
Rep Maxine Waters did not say Trump supporters are not welcome here.
She didn't... Now Joe, who cuts video for the show...
Joe's probably thinking it's really funny because I've actually cut video for the show of Maxine Waters saying exactly that.
So just to make sure I'm not crazy, I had to go back and check the video.
Maybe she didn't say, you're not welcome here.
You're not welcome!
She didn't.
PolitiFact says that's not true and they fact checked it.
So let's replay the video just to be sure we're not all bonkers here and it's not like we're not all going bananas.
Check this out.
If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd!
And you push back on them!
And you tell them they're not welcome!
Joe!
Why did you do that?
Joe editing the tape again!
Someone sent me a Muttley doll.
That's like a quadruple Muttley.
We caught Joe manipulating Maxine Ward.
Throw that back.
Can you throw that back to me?
Remember Hannity used to throw the football?
See if you can throw that back.
Yes, Paula, like Dan Marino back in the day.
By the way, hold on.
Thank you to the dude or woman who sent me... Joe, Gaslight.
We got the movie now.
Perfect timing for this.
This is gaslighting.
This is what it's based off the original movie Gaslight.
This is gaslighting at its worst.
An actual video of Maxine Waters telling Trump supporters they're not welcome here and Trump personnel and in PolitiFact saying, no, no, no, that didn't actually happen.
OK, OK, sure.
Whatever.
We're in a dangerous time, folks.
Who was who?
Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotton, Charles Boyer.
Who directed this movie?
Angela Lansbury was in this?
Directed by George Cukor?
Gaslight.
That's what's happening right now.
Thanks to the man or woman who sent that.
Sorry, we get so much mail these days.
And by the way, you're all sending it to the wrong, the poor guy who lives there is like going crazy.
Thank you again for tuning in.
We really appreciate it.
Please subscribe to my show on Rumble.
Rumble, it is free.
You can watch the video version of this program, see all our sound effects, see Paula's terrific throwing arm, Dan Marino style, just threw me the Mutley back.
Thank you very much for doing that.
Rumble.com slash Bongino.
We're almost at 1.5 million subscribers and make BonginoReport.com your new alternative to the Drudge Report.
We give you the best conservative news of the day.
It's like your morning newspaper.
Just make it your bookmark go-to website in the morning.
