All Episodes
Previous Next
July 1, 2022 - The Dan Bongino Show
51:22
Biden Crosses The Redline Overseas (Ep 1802)

In this episode, I address the most troubling statement yet from the Biden administration.  News Picks: Hutchinson Fabricated Testimony About Conversation with WH Counsel. Do mask mandates work? Bay Area COVID data says no. Libs sound a lot like the Iranian terrorists when they call for censorship.  Copyright Bongino Inc All Rights Reserved Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host Dan Bongino
It's a big day today fellas. I don't know if you know what day it is Joe
You guys know what day it is today?
No, what day is it?
Friday.
He says Friday.
Yeah, thank you.
It's Friday.
Well, Friday's always a big day.
It's Bobby Bonilla Day!
If you haven't looked it up, you all need to look that up, you too.
I'm giving you some homework for the long break.
Bobby Bonilla was a Mets baseball player, signed the greatest contract perhaps in the history of sports.
He has not played baseball in over a decade.
He's still getting paid millions, a million plus every single year because his agents were super smart.
So happy Bobby Bonilla day.
The contract doesn't run out till 2035.
Don't laugh.
Greatest contract in the history of sports.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
As I said, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
We got a Friday News Roundup today.
Huge Supreme Court case yesterday.
If it wasn't for Roe, abortion, and guns, and your right to self-protection, it would be the biggest decision out of the Supreme Court in years.
In years.
The EPA, it's huge.
It's huge for reasons people in the media are not telling you and some in the left are whining about.
I got that and a whole lot more, including Cassidy Smollett strikes again.
Cassidy Smollett, Juicy Hutchinson strikes again.
I don't know which one's better.
Someone put out a Twitter poll or something like that.
If you're in the market for a rifle, shotgun, or revolver, you want to go with the best in the business, and as far as I'm concerned, that's Henry Repeating Arms.
You'll be amazed by their quality craftsmanship and buttery smooth action that makes them a pleasure to shoot.
Mine were accurate right out of the box, and they've been reliable ever since.
The best way to learn about Henry Repeating Arms 200 models is to go to HenryUSA.com and order their free catalog.
The catalog is a great guide to showcasing their Made in America firearms, plus you'll get free decals, a list of dealers in your area, and a great newsletter.
Henry's are backed with a lifetime warranty for 100% satisfaction.
They're made in America or they won't be made at all.
And if you have questions, you can call the reward winning customer service department to speak with an expert who can help you.
Make sure you go to henryusa.com to order their free catalog and decals.
The best way to learn about Henry Repeating Arms 200 models is to go to henryusa.com and order their free catalog.
That's henryusa.com to order a free catalog and decals and to learn more about this great American company.
Let's go.
It's Friday!
Gave you a little bunt there.
Yes, it is.
Thank you, sir.
Folks, just so you know, a little programming note, a well-deserved vacation for Joe and Guy, who worked very hard on this show.
And me, I don't deserve it as much, but this is a great job.
It's not really work for me, but for them, it's a tough job.
So we're going to be taking off Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, I believe.
But, but, He's a big butt.
Bart Simpson joke style, the big butt, right?
We will have content for you.
Guy is putting together some of my best radio rants you probably haven't heard.
We, along with Jim and Mike from the radio show, and we're going to load them to the podcast channel.
Trust me.
Some of them, right Guy?
Some of them are pretty epic.
So Guy's laughing.
He actually listened to them, even though he doesn't have to because they're that good.
I'm sorry.
So praise things, but check them out.
We will have content here for you next week.
Don't miss it.
All right, let's get to this Friday news roundup.
So much happened.
As I said, if it wasn't for Roe.
On abortion, and the major Second Amendment decision in the New York State case that made it to the Supreme Court.
This would be one of the biggest decisions in the Supreme Court we've seen in years, West Virginia versus the EPA.
Oh my god, what do I want to hear about West Virginia versus the EPA for?
Only because the federal bureaucracy, which has destroyed your life, Through the CDC, vaccine mandates, mask mandates.
That's the bureaucracy.
You understand that.
I know you do.
You're a lot smarter than me, folks.
You all are very smart.
OSHA.
All of these federal bureaucracies were the ones that ruined your life over the past few years.
Price of gas going up, why?
EPA.
EPA.
You name me a problem, I'll name you an entity in the federal bureaucracy causing that problem.
Stock market issues, SEC, pushing ESG stuff.
Name me a problem, I will tell you where the federal bureaucracy, not politicians, not the president, not Congress, not the Senate, Not the courts.
Bureaucrats are ruining your life.
Well, finally, West Virginia said, double-barreled, family-friendly middle finger, we're suing the EPA over this bid to shut down coal power plants because you're going to put most of our state out of work or Well, I'm going to exaggerate.
A lot of our state out of work, but you're going to cause most of our state higher energy prices and we're not doing it.
So West Virginia sued the EPA about this rule that would have effectively shut down a lot of coal power plants and they won in an enormous case.
Stick with me.
It's huge.
It is going to put a Kimora armlock on the federal bureaucracy for ruining your life going forward.
I got video coming up with this moron Trevor Noah, too, and showing you how they don't understand what really happened yesterday.
But of course, that's why they're comedians.
Here, Wall Street Journal kind of sums it up in this piece, the Supreme Court restores a constitutional climate.
The majority decision, it was 6-3.
It diminishes Chevron deference.
I talked about this often.
You got to understand this term.
I don't mean to get too wonky.
I don't want to bore you.
Chevron deference is one of the most important things you can understand.
It was this decision involving the energy company Chevron.
And the gist of it was if Congress writes a law that empowers a bureaucracy, the EPA, the CDC, whatever it may be, tell me if this makes sense, Joe.
And the law is written in kind of an opaque way.
The Supreme Court had kind of ruled in the past that we're going to defer to the regulators to interpret what that law means.
All right.
Well, now this decision yesterday diminishes Chevron, which is hugely important.
And it instructs lower courts to first consider whether these bureaucracies and regulators are seizing unheralded powers that Congress hasn't authorized.
Why would Congress write opaque laws?
I'll get to that.
Don't go anywhere.
Chief Justice cites the CDC, their eviction ban.
Remember that?
You can't evict anyone.
The CDC said so.
Is there a law that says that?
No, Joe, no law.
Well, the landlords are like, Joe, this crazy thing.
Landlords are like, yeah, I got to pay my bills too.
So if they're not paying their bills, I'm not paying them.
What do you call it?
The CDC was like, double-barreled, family-friendly, double-barreled.
And everybody was like, so let me get this straight.
I live in A constitutional republic where I have the right to property, correct?
Like one of the key components of capitalism, constitutional republic.
And the CDC says I don't have the right to my own property.
Yes, that's what they said.
Chief Justice Roberts also cited OSHA and their vaccine mandate, both of which the court overturned.
And he was like, listen, you guys gotta do this thing, like, Joe, this is crazy, like, write laws and stuff in the legislative branch.
Yeah.
Like, let, let, Joe, that's a lot for you, I know, in one day.
Joe's overwhelmed.
This is a lot of, I know, I get it.
Legislation.
You're the legislative branch.
You have to write it.
Congress is like, oh my gosh.
Now, why would they write a bunch of opaque laws?
You know, laws that don't really specify.
I'll get to that in a second.
Why is this a problem?
Well, they write a bunch of opaque laws.
I'll get to this other journal article where Kim Strassel sums this up beautifully in a second.
But the founding, this is the one weakness in our constitution.
The founding fathers were geniuses, folks, but they never anticipated this problem.
They didn't, or they would have wrote the constitution differently.
The founding fathers, for you students of history, you'll attest to this for me, you know it's true.
They assume that each branch of government, the Article 1, Article 2, and Article 3 branches of government, that they would all jealously guard their power.
The House, the Senate, the House with the power on the purse, the Senate with their unquestionable power.
I mean, they have two reps, just two reps in every state.
They assume the presidency would guard their power and the courts would guard theirs.
That's not what happened, ladies and gentlemen.
The Founding Fathers were not used to these kinds of cowards.
Now, why would the Founding Fathers believe that each branch of government, separate but co-equal branches of government, why would they believe that these branches would guard their power?
Think of where the Founding Fathers came from.
They escaped the King of England, where the monarch, the King of England, not only jealously guarded his powers, Joe, but acted like a damn tyrant.
So they said, well, if we split that monarchical power up into three co-equal branches, there's no way they're going to let this happen again.
And each branch is going to guard their power.
Does that make sense?
They didn't anticipate that the legislative branch would be a bunch of wuss bags and that they would care more about keeping their seats than keeping their power.
Think about the benefit to this.
To voting on laws that are intentionally written, vaguely.
So that you don't have to take responsibility for anything.
Kim Strassel sums this up beautifully.
Nice job, Kim, in a piece called The Justices Send a Message to Congress.
She said, conservative Republican legislators report that this cynicism has now reached new heights.
The cynicism where they write vague laws.
She notes, they note their Democratic counterparts routinely write legislation that's deliberately vague.
So as to give the administrative state bureaucracy their maximum flexibility to impose programs, Congress won't take responsibility for passing.
Joe, you want an eviction ban, but you don't want to piss off landlords?
Just write something vaguely that empowers the CDC and let them interpret it that way.
You get it?
Right.
She notes, here's another key component.
Here's another key component.
So write it vaguely so you don't have to take responsibility.
Oh, I didn't write eviction ban.
The CDC interpreted that way.
Here's the second part.
Vague laws, they also ensure that the federal bureaucracy, which largely shares the left's political ideology, right?
They love their power and big government.
This is genius.
Can continue to work even under Republican presidencies and congresses.
So you get a Republican president, they want to repeal a law.
Well, what's to repeal?
The law is written so vaguely.
No one even knows.
All they're going to say is they're just going to reinterpret another focus.
They want to empower the bureaucracy so they don't have to take responsibility and they can reinterpret as they see fit, even with Republicans in charge.
Bingo.
Brilliant piece.
We did a lot of shows on subjectivity, Dan.
A load of them.
Way back though.
We did this Chevron deference thing I've been talking about for eight years.
It fascinates me how we got from this government that just, you give them power and they go, I don't want it.
I don't want it, Joe.
Give it to bureaucrats.
I don't want the power.
How would we elect such chumps and cowards?
Now, Strassel, the second part of Strassel's piece is terrific too.
She quotes Ben Sasse, Senator Ben Sasse, who I'm not a huge fan of, but he's right on this, and you know, I don't, it's not personal.
Ben Sasse said this, here's why they write these vague laws too.
He knows politicians on the left are happy to let the bureaucrats run everything and not to have to own it.
And politicians of the right are happy to blame someone else and not actually do the work.
If this opinion forces Congress to step up, he adds, people will have more power and Washington will be a little healthier.
Here is the bizarre part about this whole thing and the liberal meltdown yesterday over the EPA thing.
I'll show you the liberal meltdown coming up in a minute, including this hack, Senator Markey and Trevor Noahs.
He's a comedian, goofball, but people listen to him.
He has cultural power.
The meltdown's hilarious because what the decision says, and I want to be clear, fellas, like this is where the decision is, why they're melting down is bizarre.
The justices basically said, Congress, you have this power.
You can do what you want in this legislative front and the bounds of the constitution, but you can't give that power to someone else.
So they gave the power or recognized the power sits with them and they're upset about it.
I'm not kidding.
Chuck Schumer, Ed Markey, these lefties, they're AOC.
They're furious.
They're furious that someone said to him, Joe, hey, you guys have power to institute change through legislation.
We don't want it.
We don't want it.
We don't want that.
Now.
You listen to the moron class out there, and they are, they're really dunces.
But they have cultural power, like Trevor Noah, who hilariously was poking fun at our show when he has like one one thousandth of the ratings we do.
Our commercials rate better than his show's cumulative ratings during the week.
So that was, I'm not joking, like that was hilarious.
Here's Trevor Noah.
Again, whereas I'll tell you the truth always, even if it reflects poorly on us or the party, Trevor Noah is a comedian, but people take this clown seriously.
Here he is saying the exact opposite.
The exact opposite of what this law does.
Excuse me, this decision of the Supreme Court does.
He's claiming it's going to make it harder for these bureaucracies to regulate anything.
That is completely, absolutely false.
The court was clear.
You want to delegate specific powers to bureaucracies.
You understand, folks, you can still do that.
You just have to be clear.
You have to write, if you want the CDC to have the power, To do an eviction ban, then you have to write a law delegating that power.
It doesn't stop anyone from doing anything.
Trevor Noah's just upset because why?
Why do you think he's upset?
He's upset because now these people will be accountable to voters who don't want this crap.
The bureaucracy stays, no matter who's in charge.
And Trevor Noah loves that.
I'm not even sure he actually knows.
He's really not that bright.
But check this out.
This meltdown's pretty good.
A lot of experts believe the logic of today's ruling makes it harder for the government to regulate Anything, unless Congress specifically passes a law to do it.
Because you see, right now, a lot of regulations are made by agencies, like the FDA, they will handle like food, you know?
The CDC with public health, the BRB with ignoring text messages.
And I know these agencies aren't perfect, don't get me wrong, but could you imagine if Congress had to approve like vaccines?
Imagine if you had to wait for them.
It would have never happened.
We'd still all be locked in our houses, clapping out of our windows.
Because Congress couldn't convince Marjorie Taylor Greene that needles weren't actually a space alien conspiracy.
Then where did they come from?
The one thing that's clear is that from environmental regulations to abortion, to guns, to school prayer, to voter rights, this is one of the most radical Supreme Courts in American history.
Guy just said it.
What he said makes no sense.
He says two completely contradictory things.
First, he says, quote, it's going to make it harder to regulate anything.
And then he goes on to say how Congress has the power to regulate stuff.
I don't know.
He probably doesn't even get that.
What he's saying in the second part of that, it's harder to regulate things, is that it's harder to move public opinion on regulations Trevor Noah wants instituted to a federal bureaucracy.
He doesn't know that.
I don't even want to waste time.
Why'd I even put that in there?
This guy's just an idiot.
He just said the exact opposite thing.
It's harder to regulate things.
Now Congress has the power to regulate things.
Okay, of course that makes sense to him.
Here, this one's even better.
Because this guy, Trevor Noah likely doesn't know better.
This is Senator Ed Markey, who is a far-left radical.
Now Markey's really upset.
Because Markey, back in around 2009, had drawn up this cap-and-trade environmental plan.
This cap-and-trade plan was called Waxman-Markey, right?
Waxman-Markey, even though the Democrats back then, right around 2009, had super majorities in both chambers, they could have passed this.
They didn't.
Markey's been bitter ever since.
So now the court comes back, even though Markey's environmental thing got thrown out, now the EPA's plan to shut down coal power plants, do what they call these best system emissions, best system emission reductions, these BSERs.
That's what the Clean Air Act included.
And that was the interpretation.
They took that to mean the Democrats, they can regulate emissions throughout the whole country.
That's ridiculous.
The EPA didn't have that power.
Markey's bitter about this.
Here's Markey melting down, suggesting again, like Trevor Noah did, that you should attack the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court codified in the law, in the ruling, that Markey has the power.
He doesn't want the power!
He had the power and the voters flipped him off!
He wants the bureaucracy empowered.
Here, check this out.
The West Virginia versus EPA decision which slashed the EPA's longstanding life-saving ability to regulate greenhouse gases from fossil fuels was made by a far-right, stolen, illegitimate Supreme Court.
Decades of precedent about how we protect public health and limit air pollution have been upended and undermined by partisan judges in one single decision.
You can always measure the magnitude of a decision by the magnitude of the meltdown on the left.
Folks, I'm telling you, without Roe, And the second amendment decision this week, this is the biggest thing we've seen in eons.
This is going to dramatically reduce the power of unelected bureaucrats over your life, and it's going to make people you actually vote for, like Markey and previously Waxman, it's going to make these people accountable.
To you.
Stunner!
By the way, that's not a radical idea.
It's only radical to Democrats.
They don't want that.
They want the bureaucratic state to be able to crap all over your civil liberties and to not be accountable to voters or elections at all.
That's why Markey's melting down.
His power was actually increased and codified in the law yesterday and he's upset about it.
Because he failed.
They tried to push through a radical Green New Deal agenda and it didn't work because the voters don't want it, ladies and gentlemen.
Voters want a clean environment, no doubt about it.
Voters do not want $72 a gallon gas at the expense of radical AOC Tesla driving leftists who have no idea what environmental policy looks like.
All right, let me get to my next sponsor.
And I want to get to that article I teased yesterday at the Reload about your Second Amendment rights.
This is huge, huge, huge.
They are looking at a list for boycotts and other stuff.
Pay very close attention to this article coming up.
If you're looking for a firearm, I wholeheartedly recommend Henry Repeating Arms.
They make 200 models of rifles, shotguns, and revolvers in a wide variety of calibers and finishes.
Plus, they have new releases throughout the year.
And trust me, folks, you just can't beat their quality.
The best way to learn about Henry Firearms is to order their free catalog to check out their line at home.
Plus, you'll get two free decals, a list of dealers in your area, and a great newsletter.
Just go to HenryUSA.com and click on the free catalog button in the top right corner.
Henry Repeating Arms uses old-world craftsmanship combined with cutting-edge technology to deliver reliability and accuracy you can trust.
They're easy to use and maintain, making them an excellent choice for personal and property defense, hunting and the shooting sports, and beginners.
And they're made in America, or they won't be made at all.
Remember to order their free catalog and decals at HenryUSA.com.
Just go to henryusa.com and click on the free catalog button in the top right corner.
That's henryusa.com and click on the free catalog button in the top right corner.
You're going to love this company.
Okay.
This is one of the most troubling articles I read in a long time.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have been warning you about the less intentions on the second amendment for years have been to get a list, a national list of gun owners.
Now, they are prohibited from doing that, from keeping a list for the purpose of identifying gun owners.
They are prohibited from doing that.
So what they do is they've been looking for backdoor ways to accumulate.
This is why I think we need to go constitutional carry.
There is one, the constitution is your carry permit, number one.
And number two, enacting these concealed carry laws, where you have to get some kind of license to exercise your constitutional right, That's a list that you can reasonably assume, wouldn't you Joe, that CCW, Concealed Carry Weapons, probably have firearms.
Yeah.
The left wants a list.
Really, it doesn't always mean.
Some people have a, you know, a carry license and don't have one, but it's very rare, right?
They have always wanted a list.
Why?
They want the list for boycott purposes so they can leak it one day.
Oh, look at this.
Uh, the CEO of Joe Armacost Inc has a firearm in his house.
Be a real shame if people stop shopping at his store.
Know what I mean?
I mean, I've, I've hinted, nodded in the past as Joe's heard a thousand times that the reason they want the list is when they do a national ban on firearms, which is what they want.
They want to know where to go to get the firearms, right?
But that's not it.
It's more than that.
It's boycotts.
It's leaks.
As if on cue, Steven Gutkowski, who writes really terrific stuff on the Second Amendment, has a piece at the Reload.
It's in the newsletter.
Please read it.
Massive trove of gun owners' private information leaked by California Attorney General.
This is just a stunning story.
The leak comes over a year after California moved to provide detailed personal information of all gun owners in the state to educational institutions across the country.
Right.
Despite objections over concerns about data security and individual privacy.
It also comes as a similar policy to California's restrictive gun carry law was invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Perfect timing, which will likely result in many more Californians being added to the same database the state just leaked.
Folks, the leaks are for boycott purposes.
The leaks are for to draw attention to leftist groups to say, Hey, listen, this guy, John Smith, who works over at whatever John Smith steel company, Maybe we should put out on social media and among our Twitter followers that this guy's a gun owner.
That's the purpose.
They need the list to do it.
The leaks, you're going to see more of this stuff going forward.
Now, now do you understand why in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, we had awful, horrific Firearm legislation signed by Biden and signed on to by 14 sellout Republican senators.
Now do you see why this thing was so dangerous?
Here's a component.
They want the list.
Boycotts?
Take your guns.
Here.
Section 12002921 sub A is amended to say this.
Biden already signed this.
This is now the law.
It strikes with the principal objective of livelihood and profit and inserting to predominantly earn a profit.
What does that mean?
It redefines a federal firearms licensee.
Follow me here.
Someone federally licensed to sell firearms from someone whose principal objective is livelihood and profit to someone who predominantly earns a profit.
Kind of ties in with the first story.
Now you see why I put these stories back to back?
You see how it's written, Joe, in a more opaque manner?
See, principal objective of livelihood and profit and selling firearms is very clear.
That's your business.
Joe is a radio digital podcast producer.
If Joe sells a firearm, right, and makes a few bucks on it, legally, of course, Joe's principal objective is not firearms.
It's this show.
He can prove it.
I made $10 selling firearms, and I'm not going to give you Joe's salary, but you get the point.
It's more than $10.
I promise.
We're not paying them like what, you know, a quarter of a cent an hour.
It's Joe more than 10 bucks.
Can we at least go there?
Uh, yeah, it's more than 10 bucks.
Yes.
A little bit.
Just a tad.
It's a little bit.
You, you, you see, is this not the perfect example?
So they want us, they changed it now and they made it more opaque to have Joe sells a gun to predominantly earn a profit.
So let's say Joe sells two guns, one for 10, one for $20 profit.
Is that to predominantly earn a profit?
I don't know.
Either do you.
Either does Joe.
But you know who knows?
The lefties.
Who want to make sure then Joe has to classify himself as a federal firearms licensee so he appears on a list somewhere so we know where all his firearms went.
All of them.
That way when they show up at Joe's house or try to boycott him one day Joe can't say, oh I got rid of those guns, I sold them.
Oh no no, you're supposed to be an FFL.
You didn't document that?
I mean, you did this to predominantly earn a profit.
No, I didn't.
What are you talking about?
I'm a radio producer.
No, no, no.
We think it's predominantly.
That's what we think.
You see what's happening here?
Folks, I said it on Fox and Friends.
I said it on my show.
I said it over and over.
You're not wasting your time here.
I love and respect the audience so much.
The stories I pick sometimes may not have the sexiest titles.
EPA, you know, Federal Firearms Licensee.
They are enormous in their impact on your life.
They want your guns and they want to humiliate you.
And to do it, they need a list of who has the damn guns.
And because they can't create, by law, a national list of gun owners, they can't, they're doing it backdoor methods.
Concealed carry weapons holders, classifying people as FFLs, universal background checks, so you can't sell a gun to someone legally without the government knowing about it.
That's why.
None of this is by accident.
None of it.
It's not a mistake.
They changed it from principal objective to predominantly earn a profit precisely because of the last story I discussed.
The more opaque, the better.
That way, when someone finds out Joe produces the second most popular digital conservative podcast in the country, they can say, Oh no, no, Joe sold a gun seven years ago.
It was predominantly to earn a profit.
All right, moving on.
I want to beat this thing to death.
Okay.
Biden was overseas yesterday in another debacle.
This guy cannot give a press conference.
Wouldn't you guys agree without like, I mean, foot, mouth, it is, no, it's not foot and mouth disease.
It's he inserts foot in his mouth all the time.
The guy's just a humiliating mess.
So there was that old adage, which is now gone.
I mean, listen, at this point, Republicans do it too.
I don't want to be ridiculous, but the old adage, Joe, kind of in the post Reagan, George H.W.
Bush era, Even the Clinton era was politics ends at the water's edge.
That's right.
Meaning when the president's overseas, you don't attack him in front of foreign audiences.
You try not to crap on the United States because it makes us look bad to an overseas audience and a perception overseas matters.
Perceptions matter.
We don't want other countries thinking we're weak and there's a bunch of internal infighting, right?
You just don't want that.
That's gone.
Again, I'm not just blaming Democrats, but Biden is now taking it to a new level.
Now he's not only crapping on the United States overseas, he's trashing a co-equal branch of government overseas in front of a foreign audience.
This is a stunning, stunning clip yesterday.
This is a new low for this guy.
But again, there's an hour before this airs, so maybe surpass today.
Here's Biden trashing the court yesterday overseas.
The one thing that has been destabilizing is the outrageous behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States.
an overruling not only Roe v. Wade, but essentially challenging the right to privacy.
We've been a leader in the world in terms of personal rights and privacy rights,
and it is a mistake in my view for the Supreme Court to do what it did.
Questioning the legitimacy of a co-equal branch of the United States government on foreign soil
in front of the world. I'm not going to tell you it's not going to happen again.
A new precedent has been set.
I'm not going to tell you now.
Republicans may not do it in the future.
I'm not here to spin your wheels, folks.
I'm just here to tell you that is most certainly a new low.
Now the bizarre thing is, again, I'm very careful to use my language delicately and carefully, because unlike Trevor Noah, I don't want to make a buffoon out of myself.
Trump has trashed the courts too.
Yeah, it's happened.
That have made really awful decisions.
That's why I tell you, let's not pretend this is a unipartisan thing.
The problem I have now...
Or unipolar on the partisan scale thing.
The problem I have is the media celebrated the Biden's trashing of the court by trashing the court themselves.
This is a compilation.
Is this News Busters?
Media Research Center.
Yeah, great outlet over there.
You're going to hear, you can see it on video too.
The video is a little better, but the audio is great too.
It's about a minute plus here.
It's a back and forth about media trashing the Supreme Court over the road decision and the Second Amendment decision this week.
And in the same media, some of the same talking heads complaining when Trump attacked the court for decisions he didn't like.
Again, showing you these people are totally full of crap.
Check this out.
Roberts defended an independent judiciary to the Associated Press saying, we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.
And then he had that rebuke of President Trump saying there are no Obama judges, there are no Trump judges.
We have the three Trump judges and two different Bush judges in this majority here.
There is no way you can argue that the Supreme Court is now not just another partisan player.
Trump accusing the judges of being biased, despite the fact that the Ninth Circuit judges were appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents.
Once you do this, this fast, with a bunch of new Trump appointees, the court's legitimacy is, quote, in question.
Given President Trump's behavior, has tried to undermine and delegitimize the court, a judge may say, you know, this president is different than other presidents.
The unintended consequence, or maybe it's the intended consequence, is to undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary.
There you go.
Trump has a problem with the Supreme Court ruling.
It's all about Trump.
The Democrats have a problem with the Supreme Court ruling.
It's all about the courts.
You get the point.
It's a double standard.
No, it's not.
It's not a double standard.
I can't say that enough.
Dressed this on the radio show yesterday.
It's a hierarchy.
I dressed it here too.
It's a hierarchy.
Liberals say we're in charge.
It's our government, bureaucracy and all of it.
You're not double-barreled.
It's a hierarchy.
It's not a double standard.
There's one standard.
We have the power, we'll take the power, and you don't.
They have the power of the microphone, they have the power of the bureaucracy.
It is one standard.
It got worse yesterday.
Biden was overflowing with BS overseas yesterday.
This is a short clip, but it's important.
The lies that come out of this administration just never stop.
And that the media celebrates the lies, and we have a supposed fact-checker apparatus in the United States that can never seem to check even basic facts, like the inflation rate here versus overseas.
That the fact-checkers can't seem to do this, but seem to be focused on fact-checking predictions.
Don't laugh.
You can't fact check a prediction, but fact checkers do.
Shows you how these are the same ridiculous people who we just showed you in that montage.
There's one standard.
We're in charge.
We have a microphone to fact checking and power.
We're going to use that to abuse that power and opinion check.
Here's what I mean.
Play Biden yesterday about inflation overseas.
Our inflation rates are lower than other nations in the world.
They are?
Our inflation rate is lower than other nations in the world.
Now, Joe, that's a fact, a data point, correct?
It's not a prediction, it's a fact.
We have what our inflation rate is and we have other places around the world organized economies.
So we could look into that.
So we did.
Here's the chart of the week, inflation around the world based on April data.
It's the latest where a comparison can be made.
So Biden says the United States has a lower inflation rate than one of the lowest inflation rates in the world.
Well, here are organized comparable economies in GDP per person, per capita.
Our inflation rate, 8.3.
So clearly the UK would be higher if Biden's right, right?
We have a lower one.
Uh, it's 7.8.
Joe, can you check that?
8.3, 7.8.
UK's, uh, you need a minute?
Is that lower or higher?
Oh, that's lower.
Okay.
That's lower.
Okay.
Thank you.
Guy, can you, yes, Guy, thumbs up.
Joe's math is accurate.
Uh, Germany, comparable economy again, GDP per capita.
We're 8.3%.
Their inflation rate is 7.4%.
Again, lower.
Canada, 6.8%.
Again, lower.
Italy, 6%.
Lower.
France, 4.8%.
Lower.
Japan, 2.5%.
Lower.
So Biden's just making that up.
Again, lower.
Italy, 6%, lower.
France, 4.8, lower.
Japan, 2.5, lower.
So Biden's just making that up.
Now, two points here.
Again, my only purpose here is to guide you and give you kind of the truth
because this isn't a job for me.
It's fun and I enjoy doing this.
Yes, inflation is bad around the world.
We saw some of the UK rates, they could get worse too.
Point number one is, inflation is bad around the world because they're doing some of the same things we're doing here.
The UK is spending a bunch of money they don't have.
So because Biden is replicating a problem overseas, doesn't make the problem any less severe for you.
You would think it would be an example.
Hey, they did that in the UK.
That didn't work out.
It led to inflation.
Let's not do it.
Biden's doing the opposite.
It's like suggesting crime isn't a problem here in the United States because crime is bad in Zimbabwe.
Crime's a problem.
You're in charge here, not Zimbabwe.
Which leads to my second point.
He's President of the United States.
He's not President of the UK.
So what does he care about what inflation is in the UK?
Obviously it's going to affect global markets, but the only thing he can do is affect inflation here.
This is typical Joe Biden.
The media had a golden opportunity, a bunt, for a fact check, and they couldn't do it.
They just couldn't do it.
The inflation data is so troubling.
You know, there's a great piece in the Journal today, too, another one.
Economic growth, not austerity, is the answer to inflation.
The Democrats are going to tell you we need to impart a massive recession on the economy to shrink up demand.
Folks, it's not true.
They go over how this was all predicted in the Reagan era, too.
They said, oh, you know, these soaring deficits, these tax cuts are going to cause more inflation.
Well, they were wrong.
When Reagan's tax cuts took effect, U.S.
GDP grew at an average of 8% and inflation collapsed.
Why, folks?
This is why we need tax cuts now.
Big ones to juice the economy.
Money will flow back into businesses, which will produce more stuff.
More stuff will absorb a lot of that money.
It's not hard, ladies and gentlemen.
The piece goes into the 1920s too, all the way back then.
We've seen this over and over.
Juice the supply production side of the economy, you get more stuff.
It's not complicated.
None of this is hard.
All right.
I got questions for Dan coming up.
And then, uh, I got, uh, this, I hate to do this again, the juicy, uh, Hutchinson, Cassidy, small a segment, but the story is now completely fallen apart.
As I said to you in the last segment, everybody lies to you all the time on the left, including the media.
The media wanted you to believe that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was the most damaging thing you've heard in years.
I would say they're correct.
That is damaging to Cassidy Hutchinson.
I don't know the woman.
It's not personal.
I'm sure she's a lovely human being.
I don't know her.
I don't care.
I don't want to know Cassidy Hutchinson, but Cassidy Smalley strikes again.
Pretty much every single thing she has said of major consequence in this hearing has been either debunked or is being challenged or people are starting to go, ah, I didn't say that or didn't do that.
Even more came out yesterday.
You can listen to my shows over the last few days for the other stuff.
We don't need to go into that again.
The secret service stuff.
Breitbart has a piece out.
So they're saying, report, Cassidy Hutchinson fabricated testimony about conversation with former White House counsel Pat Cipollone.
The Breitbart piece is in the newsletter.
So Hutchinson testified that Pat Cipollone, one of Trump's White House counsels, the White House counsel, said, we're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if Trump went to the Capitol.
Cheney doubled down on her calls to get Cipollone to testify saying, gosh, you know, basically these conversations on January 6th that Hutchinson's testifying to folks that happened in the White House.
We got to get him on the record.
And, and Joe, you'd be like, wow, the White House council really thought that they were going to be charged with crimes.
And you're Liz Cheney, the lead inquisitor on the inquisition January 6th.
I mean, it's a big deal, right, Joe?
Yeah.
You want to get them up there.
Hell yeah.
Hells to the, yeah.
Well, what's the problem, folks?
Well, Jack Posobiec's noting in the next screenshot here, Posobiec's noting that she's saying he wasn't at the White House.
Human events senior editor Jack Posobiec is saying that multiple sources including one at the White House on
January 6th Tell me Cipollone was not there in the morning when Hutchinson
testified. She spoke with him Folks both of these stories can't be true
Notice I'm not jumping to conclusions.
I know Jack.
Jack's a good, decent guy.
Has good sources.
But notice how I'm not jumping to conclusions.
Maybe Cipollone was there.
Maybe he wasn't.
But Joe, I think we can both be clear that if Cipollone wasn't at the White House, Cassidy Hutchinson couldn't have heard a conversation with Cipollone at the White House if he wasn't there.
Now, how do we handle this stuff, fellas, in a constitutional republic?
We have Cassidy Hutchinson testify, swearing under oath.
We have Pat Cipollone in a court proceeding, testifying under oath.
We have lawyers cross-examine them both.
And a jury gets to determine who's telling the truth and who isn't.
That's not what's happening here.
That's not what's happening here at all.
You got Cassidy Hutchinson, the media runs with it, and then by the time Cipollone comes in later on, the story's already set that President Trump's lead White House counsel believes they were going to be investigated for crimes and everybody fell for it.
Folks, the Cassidy Smalle story gets even worse.
Hat tip Mike Davis, who put this on his Twitter account.
Cassidy Hutchinson also said, you can see her testimony right here, on March 7, 2022.
This is a while back when she gave this testimony.
That she believes Jeff Clark from the DOJ came to meetings that Mr. Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani, was also in.
And they met with Mark, Mr. Meadows, and they remembered Jeff Clark's frequent presence and outreach and communications.
Bottom line, Hutchinson, apparently back in March, testified that there was a meeting with Jeff Clark and Rudy Giuliani.
This meeting.
Well, what's the problem with that?
Well, as you can see from this email between the Washington Post and a representative for Rudy Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani doesn't believe he ever met Jeff Clark.
Giuliani's been at the White House with Justin Clark, which may explain the confusion.
How do we handle this?
For the freakin' 25th time, you have cross-examination, and you have the ability to confront your accuser.
I never met Jeff Clark.
I met a Justin Clark.
Cassidy Smallay strikes again.
Wajahat Ali, a noted misinformation specialist on Twitter, the guy just specializes in making stuff up on social media.
He said, do I abort this ectopic pregnancy?
Just to be clear, that's a pregnancy where the baby grows in the fallopian tube, which is, it's not viable.
You know, the mother and the infant could die.
So typically they have to, that has to be medically, it's a life-saving procedure to terminate that life.
So Wajahat Ali said, do I abort this ectopic pregnancy to literally save my life or do I go to jail?
This is a question women in America now have to ask to be precise.
It is?
That's interesting, because John McCormick, who's a very good writer at National Review, I told you, they have some good people over there, right?
That's fascinating that he said that.
We're the fact-checkers on this.
Because he notes, in fact, no abortion law in any state in America prevents life-saving treatment for women with ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening conditions.
None.
None.
That was true in 1972, and it's true now in 2022.
Again, the left lies to you.
They lie all the time, just like Biden lied to you about inflation, and it appears Cassidy Smalley is telling tall tales, too.
Here you get the truth.
All right, I don't have time for that last video, because I want to get to your questions.
So it's time for a good Wednesday.
Questions for Dan.
These are good.
Good job picking these out, Keith.
Very, very good.
Question number one.
Poor guy.
Yeah, I know he does miss Justin.
Don't cut that out.
But Justin used to flip over.
He's now multitasking.
We need Justin back.
He's on a little vacation.
Hey Dan, maybe I missed it, but what's going on with your right bicep?
It looks bruised.
You okay?
Guy told me there are a bunch of theories out there on the internet.
What, what am I, what were some of them Guy?
I'm doing a masonic ritual or something.
And I know folks, I had fatty tumors removed.
Um, you see the scars, but these are the cuts.
I have lipoma, some fatty tumors, not a lot, but enough.
And they were, they're not cancerous at all.
I'm going to be clear.
They're lipoma.
They're just fat tissue that migrates around the body and the embryonic stage and gets caught in muscles and stuff.
Yeah.
It, but I had them cut out and they bled a lot because, so that's what that is.
I'm fine though.
I don't, I don't feel any pain at all.
I said that the other day, but I should have said it again.
A lot of people, I think you got, I got beat up or something like that in a jitsu match.
Hey Dan, Ad Hossman, this is from Ad Hossman.
At what age do you remember becoming a right-leaning American?
Who was a great influential person you respected and was responsible for forming your beliefs?
This is an easy one.
Joe knows his story well.
It was Rush Limbaugh, which ironically, I'm in his time slot and a lot of the radio stations he was on, which I never saw happening.
I was in a pharmacy picking up antibiotics one day for, I had an infection that had developed.
And I was about, I don't know, 19 or something, 18, 19.
And I picked up Rush Limbaugh's paperback book while I was waiting for the prescription.
And he had this chapter about overpopulation and how it's all a leftist myth.
And I was, I went home and I did some homework on it.
I said, my gosh, this guy's right.
And ironically, one of my leftist professors in school had just the week before been telling me how bad of a problem overpopulation was.
And I thought, have I been lied to?
And that's what started it.
That's what started it.
I credit Levin too.
I started listening to Levin's show after a couple of years later when he went national and he's been just a transformative figure.
This is from at Lesko Brandon.
Lesko Brandon.
We love Lesko Brandon.
He's got a question before.
Hey Dan, do you remember your first on camera experience?
Did you have coaching or did you just wing it?
Were you nervous or did you feel natural?
Um, I had no coaching.
It was Fox news national.
I had some, I'd done some local stuff, but it wasn't a big deal, but national was on Fox news with Neil Cavuto.
It was 2011.
Some of you may be able to find it.
Was I nervous?
No, not at all.
I'm not trying to chest puff on you.
You know, I just left the Secret Service where you're briefing like, you know, the members of the Chief of Staff's Division on foreign advances and terrorists.
I was like, this is a cakewalk.
It was not, no, I wasn't there.
Watch the clip.
It's with Neil Cavuto.
I mentioned Thomas Sowell and some other things.
I have a screenshot from it.
I wish I would've included it.
Maybe I'll include it next week.
Remind me, Guy.
But I look a lot different back then.
This is from at snapginger0630.
Why can't those secret service men in a vehicle with Trump on January 6th just come out and say Hutchinson was lying?
Well, I believe they plan on.
Uh, the problem folks is they are not civilians.
There is a process in the secret service.
There's a government and public affairs office.
I don't know what they call themselves now.
It was GPA when I was there.
All of that has to be done and vetted.
They can't just go to their administrative processes and things like that.
That's why.
So, uh, believe they will come out and say that.
I hope, I hope the secret service lets them at the B butler.
Hey Dan, we trends towards early retirement, declining birth rates.
How will our country keep itself sustainable?
I'm your age and I worried about my golden years of retirement.
Am I seeing something that isn't there?
No, you're not.
Folks, there were, you know, what, eight to ten plus people paying for social security beneficiaries, retiree money, you know, just decades ago.
Now it's down to a fraction of that.
Folks, it's not enough money.
You're right to be worried.
Now, I think we can still take care of you through the current tax income base, but people 55 and younger, you better start making different plans for your retirement because there ain't gonna be any money there to pay for you.
I'm telling you right now.
You can listen to me.
You can yell at me all you want.
I paid into it.
I paid into it, too.
They wasted it.
It's not your fault.
You better start making plans.
There's no money there.
That thing is going bankrupt, that trust fund, the Social Security trust fund.
At Tim Jensen, hey damn, my second deployment in 2011 shook my faith in America, led me to question my service.
You speak proudly of your service with the Secret Service.
Can you please share a story?
Thank you for everything.
You fight the good fight with the same honor, vigor, and gallantry my Marines did.
Well, Tim Jensen, that is an honor you would say that, but if I may humbly and respectfully object to that, I could not hold your deodorant while you get out of the shower to put it on.
I don't deserve any of that.
I'll just tell you a quick story.
I may make it really fast.
The night Bush gave the speech, the national speech about the surge, I was working at the White House and I was stationed at a post inside the White House, outside the Oval.
And I was sitting there watching this live time.
And it was one of those surge speeches.
I forget which one, but it was definitely a national address.
And I got to tell you, I said to myself, whether you agreed or disagreed with that policy, I certainly didn't.
I couldn't believe like i was there for this part was a historic speech and i really couldn't believe little old me from glendale queens was there sitting outside of the oval watching this thing it was watching and preparing everything was.
Gosh it was one of those like pinch me moment.
All right.
Uh, freedom junkie.
Hey Dan, I've heard you talk about the immigration process being difficult that when you went through it with your wife, I'm curious as to why, because folks, we got a woman who is clearly, um, one of those government employees and I was one.
So I think I have a fair body of evidence to critique people who don't want to be there, who didn't want to be there.
She was there.
It appeared to me for a paycheck and just gave my wife a hard time accusing her of absurd.
My wife, my wife, keep in mind who was a, Vice president and one of the largest operations in DC and New York in terms of the financial industry.
She was a VP, she was a genius web designer, a college graduate, super smart, made incredible money.
At one point, I don't know if I ever told you this Joe, the lady implied that this was like an arranged marriage.
My wife was like, what?
My wife was like, One, if I was going to arrange a marriage, I'd arrange it with someone richer than this guy.
I'm kidding.
She didn't say that.
But the lady implied, my wife was like, you must be kidding me.
Is this a joke?
We actually had to call the local congressman to be like, this is ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
He was a Democrat too.
Joe, remember Johnny Sarbanes?
Oh yeah.
He was our congressman.
You know Johnny Sarbanes, I was still up in Maryland.
And I'll tell you, his office was actually very helpful.
I wasn't, you know, in the political process back then, but we couldn't believe it.
It was a nightmare.
We spent like $10,000 in lawyers, which believe me, now it's a lot of money.
Back then, it was a ridiculous amount of money.
It left me so bitter about the process, but thanks for asking.
At R. Dotson, excuse me, Roy Dotson's a friend of mine.
He says, R. Dotson, could be right.
I really enjoy the short videos you put up on Locals.
Thank you.
I love doing them.
You have a lovely family.
At what age do you feel it's appropriate for a young lady to start dating?
I can only tell you my daughter started dating at 15 and a half, 16.
I mean, she told me.
How would I know?
I'm not spying on her all the time.
I'm not some weirdo following her around with a drone or something.
But thank you with the Locals videos.
If you download the Locals app, I'm at D Bongino.
I put a lot of subscriber content on there, where Paula and Mimi, it's stuff that you're not going to hear on the podcast.
I do a lot of Lucy videos.
I enjoy doing them.
I do like three, four minute short videos, you know, four or five times a week.
And people seem to really, I do them from the gym.
I'm sweating like a dog.
Is that it, Keith?
Is that the last one?
All right, thanks.
Those are great questions this week.
But yeah, if you want to subscribe, we try to keep it cheap.
It's Locals.com, a Locals app.
I'm at the bunch, you know, you see some stuff in there.
Yeah, a lot of people love the videos because I just do them at random times.
Like it was yesterday, which is a quick example before we go.
I was really furious about the air traffic problem, how people can't get on flights because I'm flying a couple of different places.
And I just like went on this two minute rant about how air traffic control and Lucy jumped in and it's crazy.
Check it out.
Yeah, well, here's Lucy.
Yeah, okay, come on, Lucy.
I'm scratching Lucy's back.
That's the videos of locals.
You can see those.
Please don't miss my show, Saturday night.
I'm very proud of it.
I got an unbelievable guest lineup, unfiltered, 9 p.m.
Check it out.
Fox News Channel.
Set your DVR if you can't make it live.
See you all on Monday for radio best ofs you're gonna love.
Thanks for tuning in.
Good day, sir!
▲
Export Selection