The Dan Bongino Show - China Is Desperate To Erase The Evidence (Ep 1549)

Episode Date: June 24, 2021

The coronavirus cover-up is getting uglier. In this episode, I discuss the stunning new revelation that China deleted key information that could’ve uncovered the mystery of the origins of COVID.  News Picks: Top scientist claims that Covid gene sequences were deleted from a database, possibly hiding the origins of the virus. Did the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton, know about China’s Wuhan Lab? One of the best pieces I’ve seen, debunking liberal talking points on guns. Did the “assault weapons” ban actually work? The mysterious death of this Chinese scientist adds to the questions about the origins of covid. An interesting article about UFOs.  Does the Navy have high tech spoofing technology designed to fool enemy sensors? Copyright Bongino Inc All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Metrolinx and Crosslinx are reminding everyone to be careful as Eglinton Crosstown LRT train testing is in progress. Please be alert, as trains can pass at any time on the tracks. Remember to follow all traffic signals, be careful along our tracks, and only make left turns where it's safe to do so. Be alert, be aware, and stay safe. Get ready to hear the truth about America

on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino. Folks, this coronavirus cover-up from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, I've heard it compared recently by many to Chernobyl. Of course, the Soviet Union's nuclear disaster and the tragic cover-up that occurred afterwards. No, I don't accept that.

I know what you're saying, but this is far, far worse than Chernobyl. We've got some new evidence that broke yesterday about a potentially explosive new angle on this story about that gene sequence thing and the efforts to hide it and what it could have told us about the coronavirus broke yesterday in the wall street journal, the daily caller and elsewhere. I'm going to get to that today. Also another humiliating speech by Joe Biden. I want to start off today where he just gets again, everything wrong. And please, Joe Biden, stop quoting the founding fathers. You

keep screwing it up. My gosh. Hey, thousands of my listeners are securing their internet today with a VPN. You should do it too. Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino. Welcome to the Dan Bongino show. Let's get right to it. I've got that. I've got Joy Reid getting wrecked on her own show by someone who actually knows what they're talking about with critical race theory and general millie um you know a man i i once respected i can't believe just humiliated himself yesterday on capitol hill i i'm really i'm genuinely stunned loaded show today i'm disappointed i mean really disappointed he probably doesn't care but i do hey the summer this summer soak up the sun, not the sweat. Tommy John underwear is your solution to not feeling sticky

because its cool cotton fabric is two to three times cooler than regular cotton. I was a huge fan of Tommy John. He was a big supporter. So was producer Joe before they were even a sponsor of my show. Get a pair of new Tommy John underwear and let them breathe downstairs. Keep your cheeks chilled and ice the cubes all summer long. I love these. These are the best spots ever.

With dozens of comfort innovations like breathable, lightweight, moisture-wicking fabric, with four times the stretch of competing brands, once you try Tommy John underwear, you're never going back. That's why Tommy John doesn't have customers. They have fanatics. Hundreds of thousands of them who, after 13 years and tens of thousands of five-star reviews, call Tommy John the most comfortable underwear ever i got him on right now look right now tjs there you go right there with over 15 million pairs sold men across america love tommy john underwear no one

keeps you cool this summer like tommy john in fact if your tommy john underwear is the best pair you ever wear you'll get your money back no questions. There's nothing to lose but the swamp butt. Ooh, that's nasty. Right now, get 20% off your first order at TommyJohn.com slash Dan. Go to TommyJohn.com slash Dan for 20% off. TommyJohn.com slash Dan. Go today.

See site for details. All right, Joe, let's go. No swamp butt on this show. You see, Matt, maybe it is that we've had this audio issue on the radio show, but that's the first time I've heard a little bit during the podcast. We've got to get

a new wire. That's what that is. Hey, just a quick promo note. Thank you for making us number one again in the demo, my new Fox show, Unfiltered. Saturday night, 10 p.m. Eastern Time. Please set your DVR. This week, I've got, again, this coronavirus breakdown and the cover-up and some information on this and a mini monologue.

It's going to blow your mind. And we're going to do something different this week. Got former UFC champ Matt Serra coming on the show. We're going to talk a little Brazilian jiu-jitsu, UFC, the evolution of ultimate fighting, you know, this whole Logan Paul thing. That should be an interesting segment. I got that and a lot more, including a pretty explosive opening monologue on the dignity of work and how liberals need to get their cabooses to work. Don't miss the show.

Unfiltered, 10 p.m. Eastern, Saturday night. All right. The speech by Joe Biden yesterday was a humiliating mess. This guy reminds me of mumbles from the Dick Tracy thing. Remember mumble? What is he even saying? He's like, he's not even Charlie Brown's teacher was more understandable than this guy. What was he even saying? I watched the speech I'm eating yesterday. It's a speech on, I don't even know what it was supposed to be. Gun control was supposed to be about crime. It was all over the place. It was such a disaster. And I'm eating. I had sushi yesterday. I had a bad

sushi incident. Not like that. I was like, whoa, what the heck is that? And so kind of freaked me out a little bit. But I'm trying to listen to the Biden speech. And I had the volume on like 50 because I couldn't understand what the guy was saying. What does he have rocks in his mouth? So here's part one of the speech where Biden just lies, outright lies. We'll debunk it right here because that's what I do for you. That's my job. And proposes new, you know, quote, solutions for the crime problem exploding in liberal cities across the United States.

Here's cut one. Democracy to keep each other safe enough. That means Congress packs the sensible gun prevention, violence prevention initiatives is worried. It makes sense. Background checks, ban on assault weapons, repeal of liability for gunmen. So Biden proposes two solutions there. You heard it. His words again, not mine. If you can make them out and you have a Charlie Brown's teacher translator, good for you. I don't. He says, listen, we need to ban assault weapons again. Look back at the assault weapons ban and we need more background checks clearly because, you know, he's suggesting that criminals

somehow are going in and not being background check when they go to buy their guns from gun dealers. And I was like, that's happening. That's strange. So, you know, we do facts and data on the show because I never, ever want to waste your time. This is the president of the United States now proposing two solutions he's suggesting will stop people from being killed in cities. Those solutions, we should be able to fact check them, correct? Right, folks? If we believe in data and facts, we should be able to do that. I correct? Right, folks? If we believe in data and facts, we should be able to do that. I'm not crazy, right? So let's check that out.

Did the assault weapons ban, because he's proposing to roll forth with another one, did it actually work? Because we had an assault weapons ban in the country, folks. So there's data on it on what it did. Again, for the liberals listening, I don't want to mess around. I don't want to be a jerk here. You know, Sometimes it's hard for me because I really think you guys are dense sometimes and ladies out there, but we have data on this, right? We have it. So it's pretty clear that if we had an assault weapons ban and it reduced crime, we would know about it

because there was one. Is any of this hard? Let's go to the Wall Street Journal. America's failed attempt to ban assault weapons. Cameron McWhirter and Zusha Ellenson. Well, what happened when we had an assault weapons ban, which was passed in 1994? What actually happened? Well, here's a report from the Justice Department.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Justice Department, the government the left claims to believe in and trust when it comes to gun control. They want the government to be able to ban your guns, right? So the Justice Department did a report and looked at what Biden is suggesting, that, hey, we need an assault weapons ban. And what did they find out? They found out that, quote, a 2004 report the Justice Department put out there found that the assault weapons assault weapons bans effects on gun violence are likely to be quote small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement in other words it didn't work the year congress let the ban lapse without much debate since then sales of weapons prohibited under the ban of sword spurred by periodic calls to ban them again and in the past year by fears over the pandemic and rioting.

Before the 94 gun ban, Americans owned approximately 400,000 AR-15s, according to government estimates. Today, there are approximately 20 million AR-15-style rifles or similar weapons in private hands. So just to be clear, because Biden's proposing a testable hypothesis correct we all do facts and data we need to go back to the assault weapons ban at work okay when we look back did it ban assault weapons no they're actually 20 million almost exponentially more than there were before the assault weapons ban right not only are there more assault weapons, but it did nothing, nothing the assault weapons ban

that was measurable to stop violent crime or gun crime. So what he's saying is factually incorrect because you can just look at the data. You understand that, right, Libs? You can actually look at the data. The Department of Justice did that and determined it didn't work.

So what's the second part of what he said? The second part, he says, oh, we need more background checks. We definitely need background checks. Background checks are where it's at. Well, do we? The criminals go through background checks because that's pretty testable too. Because if criminals went through the background check process, which everyone has to go to when buying a firearm at a licensed firearm deal, does everyone understand that? Because if we don't have basic knowledge, and you conservatives do, again, I don't want to waste your time,

but liberals listening and Democrats listening don't. They think you can just, oh, we can go buy at a gun show. There's no background check. False, false, false. Anywhere you buy a gun, a gun show, anywhere else, from a federal firearms dealer, you will have to go do no background check. False, false, false. Anywhere you buy a gun, a gun show, anywhere else from a federal firearms dealer, you will have to go to a background check. Private sales? No. Gun dealers? Yes.

So he's proposing to expand background checks. So you would think that, gosh, criminals must not be buying these guns from illegal dealers. They're not. gosh, criminals must not be buying these guns from illegal dealers. They're not. They're buying Saturday night specials through the millions of illegal guns that are on the street. They don't care about gun dealers. Background checks aren't going to do a damn thing. The point I'm trying to make, to make it very simple, again,

for the dense people, the libs listening, is criminals looking to commit homicides and gun crimes are not going to a background check when they buy it from Joey Bag of Donuts, the Saturday night special on the corner. Do you not know this? Are you dense? Here, one of the best pieces you'll read. By the way, both of these pieces will be in my newsletter, Bongino.com slash newsletter, if you'd like to read them yourself. A great piece by David Harsanyi, who's terrific on this subject.

Detroit News, opinion piece. Chicago can't blame other states for guns or murder. This was written in August of 2020. Showing to you again that legal gun buyers are not the problem. In other words, legal gun buyers, people who go through a background check, are not the problem.

It's people buying them off the street who will never, ever, listen to me, ever go through a background check are not the problem. It's people buying them off the street who will never, ever, listen to me, ever go through a background check, ever. They're the problem. They don't care about a background check. He's making this up, Biden. Quote from the Detroit News piece, Harsanyi. The vast majority of Americans obtain their guns in this legal manner,

and they rarely commit crimes. Around 7% of criminals in prison bought weapons using their real names. Fewer than 1% obtain them at gun shows. As the Heritage Foundation's Amy Swearer points out, there have been about 18 million concealed carry permit holders over the past 15 years. They've committed a grand total, folks, of 801 firearm related homicides over that span, or somewhere around 0.7% of all firearm related murders. Concealed carry holders not only are more law abiding than the general population as a group, they're more law abiding than law enforcement. In other words, cops statistically commit more crimes than concealed carry criminals who go through the background check process.

I understand liberals are saying, Dan, you're making our argument, not yours. No, I'm not. You're missing the point. I was a police officer.

Criminals laugh at gun control laws. They don't take these things seriously, folks. They are never, ever going to go do a background officer. Criminals laugh at gun control laws. They don't take these things seriously, folks. They are never, ever going to go do a background check. They're going to get a Saturday night special on the street. They're never, you think that most of them have criminal records.

Why would they go to a background check? You think they don't know they have a problem with a background check because they have a criminal record that they weren't there when they were arrested? Oh, my gosh, this is frustrating. So the two things he's proposing, ladies and gentlemen, are garbage. The assault weapons ban didn't work. We have the data.

And criminals don't go through background checks because they don't care about gun laws. What part of this is actually hard? unlaws. What part of this is actually hard? Now, there was a second part to this speech where Biden just continued the litany and the cornucopia of lies and mistruths. This guy can never mumbles here, can never tell the truth when he even when he gets the rocks out of his mouth. Here's part two of his speech where he says something so absurd, I'm surprised like the press in the background was didn't seriously didn't start cackling when he said this because it's this ridiculous. Here, play part two of this where he suggests that, oh, yeah, you know, the cities with the highest gun crime rate run by liberals,

they don't have the strictest gun laws. This is absurd on its face. Check this out. We discussed disrupting illegal gun trafficking. Now the gun lobby wants you to believe that cities that are the toughest gun had the toughest gun laws still have the highest rates of gun violence. As was pointed out by the group we had today in our roundtable, the violence is so they argue. Why do you need those gun laws if they don't work in cities that have tough laws? Don't believe it. Here's the truth. Yeah, here is the truth. Then he goes on to suggest a completely unrelated point. That's why I cut it out, suggesting that, oh, yeah, these guns are coming from out of state.

Number one, that's not true. Most of the guns that are used in gun crime in Chicago come from Illinois. Chicago liberals is in Illinois, just so you understand. So I know some of you don't know that you're learning this for the first time, but you can go look at the data. I know that's hard for you. That's an unrelated point. That's not what he said in the beginning. In the beginning, he said cities with the toughest gun laws that are run by liberals don't have the worst problem with gun violence. That's not true. And I know liberal outlets try to back this up. Folks, you already know Chicago, New York, LA, St. Louis, New Orleans. These are all liberal cities that have the worst

problem of gun violence. We all know that. So you're like, wait, wait, wait, why wouldn't liberals fact check them? They try. And even in their fact checks, they embarrass themselves. This was back in 2017, the Washington Post, when this whole incident happened and Steve Scalise, that tragic incident was out there talking about the faux arguments on gun control. And Steve Scalise made the same point that the toughest gun laws end up with the worst gun violence. In other words, liberal cities that have tough gun laws, shockingly, have the worst gun violence problems, seemingly counterintuitive, right? So Nicole Lewis in 2017 at the Washington Post tries to fact check Scalise and winds up proving his point. Check this out down from,

from, uh, down later in the piece. She says the stats don't tell us much without reference points from other cities. Data on violent crimes from 63 us cities combined by whatever shows that 20 in 2016, Chicago had the highest number of homicides in non-fatal shooting incidents.

Oh, okay. She goes, wait, wait, wait. Hold on here. This is hilarious, the fact check. She goes, but the absolute numbers are misleading because they don't account for differences in population size. Okay. All right, we're going to do the per capita thing.

She says Chicago is home to roughly 2.7 million people. Watch St. Louis' population hovers around 315,000. Don't tell the author. St. Louis is also run by liberals. Don't tell her. She goes on. When the numbers are analyzed on a per capita basis, Chicago does not top the list. In 2016, St. Louis had the highest number of non-fatal shootings with 660 per 100,000. Chicago, in contrast, had just 89. Oh, just 89. No worries. And what was the next?

New Orleans had the highest rate of homicides in 2016 with 47 per 100,000. Chicago had 16. This is a fact check? Steve Scalise was trying to make the point that liberal cities with tough gun laws have the most dramatic problems with gun violence and gun crime. She says, no, no, no, no, no. When you measure it per capita, liberal cities actually have the toughest problem with gun crime and gun violence. Is she trying to prove Scalise correct?

Do you understand what she just did there? She's changing the absolute to the relative numbers and still makes his point under the guise of a fact check. They're all run by liberals. They're all run by liberals. Here was another one we put on the show before from September of 2020 when they hilariously tried to fact check Trump on the same claim that crime is rampant and tough gun control Democrat run cities. Here's Christopher Giles, again, a dunce like you wouldn't believe in this BBC article, again, trying to debunk Trump's point. While trying to debunk the point, he makes Trump's point. Here, look at this chart on the screen. FBI unifying crime report statistics,

the top 10 cities for violent crime. What do they all have in common, folks? Think this through. New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philly, Memphis, Detroit, Dallas, Phoenix, Baltimore. Note, underneath, the top 10 cities for overall violent crime, which include major urban areas, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, are all run by Democrats. How is that a fact check on Trump?

How is that? fact check on trump how is that you understand again nothing liberals tell you is ever ever true ever we need a new assault weapons ban didn't work we need more background checks criminals don't go through background checks democrat-run cities don't have a problem with gun crime actually the top 10 all don't have a problem with gun crime. Actually, the top 10 all have the top 10 problem with gun crime. Did you look at the data? Either on absolute numbers, relative numbers, per capita? It doesn't matter. You can't parse the data.

You know why? Dead people are dead people. We can measure them. They're dead. They show up in crime statistics. These are fact checks by these idiots in the media. Fact checks and liberals believe it. All right, I want to get to my second sponsor. And the other side is I want to get to just a couple more things. A hilarious piece of video by an MSNBC contributor, the one who was disturbed by American flags on trucks and who thinks two plus two equals

seven. Remember the one who couldn't do math live on the air? She's back. Another example of stupid smart people. And then Reagan really tearing it up in a speech he gave a while ago on gun control. You're not going to want to miss that. Hey, today's show also brought to you by Xchair. Can your office chair give you a massage while you're sitting at your desk? Mine can right here.

Xchair. It's fantastic. Can your office chair warm your back on cold mornings or cool you off on hot days? Mine can. It's the X chair. You see it behind me? I had to take the top off because of the Fox appearances,

but it's the best. That's because, listen, I don't have just any old office no-name chair. I have an X chair. We love it here. Got a couple of them. I've never had an office chair that looks or feels so amazing in my entire life.

It's really comfortable. I sit here for hours doing the radio show. I don't want a crap chair. This is the best in the business. What's their secret? They have this patented dynamic variable lumbar support. It offers unbelievable lumbar support for my lower back. And now they're introducing Elemax featuring cooling, heat, and massage therapy all in the chair right here. It feels amazing. Imagine regulating your body temperature and getting massage therapy while sitting at your desk. X-Chair LMAX Cooling delivers heat and massage technology directly to your core,

helping increase blood flow, muscle recovery, and energy, all perks that make working from home or the office a joy. Don't sit down in some garbage chair. Get the best of the best. LMAX even offers four different massage models and fast-warming heat technology for therapy for your lower back. You won't believe the X-Chair difference until you feel it. Feel it for yourself. Trade in that old junkie chair and get up to a trade up to the X chair today. Don't wait. X chair prices are going up on July 11th for the first time in two years. So beat the price increase today. How do you do it? Go to xchairbongino.com now. That's the letter X,

chair, B-O-N-G-I-N-O.com, or call 1-844-4X-CHAIR for $100 off your order. X-Chair has a 30-day guarantee of complete comfort. You can finance your purchase for as little as $30 a month. Go to xchairbongino.com now and use code XWHEELS for free XWHEELS blade casters. xchairbongino.com. Go today. All right. So here is Mara Gay. Mara Gay is a New York Times op-ed columnist, I believe.

Again, she's one of more evidence of the biggest problem we have in the world, which is stupid, smart people. They're people who are very book smart, but have no common sense. And the most dangerous people in the world are stupid, smart people, because stupid, stupid people understand their limitations. Stupid, smart people don't. They comment on things they don't understand, don't know, will never understand. And other stupid, smart people believe them because they think the other stupid, smart people are smart. So here's Mara Gay. She couldn't do basic math with Brian Williams on MSNBC and the hilarious Michael Bloomberg segment we've played often.

She's also very disturbed by American flags on trucks. As she said, when she drives around Long Island, here's her making the dumbest comment I've ever seen based on no data whatsoever. Not ever seen, ever seen in the last five minutes because there's other liberal stuff coming up.

That's even dumber. So it's hard to triage the dumb stuff. Here is Mara Gay suggesting that the street crime wave in liberal cities across America since they started attacking the police after the George Floyd incident, no, no, it's all due to the coronavirus stuff, which apparently only happened in America. Because it's weird how there's no crime spikes around the world where I'm pretty sure coronavirus spread. Fellas, right? It wasn't limited to, but it but it did okay I'm getting a head nod from everyone it only happened here right thanks Joe where we attacked the police and tried to defund the police that

only happened here but Mara Gay doesn't know that but she can't do basic math either so check this out we should just recognize that people who study violence and crime will tell you right now that it is too soon to know and understand exactly why we are seeing the crime spike across the country that we are. But those who have worked on this issue for a very long time know that what they will tell you is that this is not surprising given the level of disruption, trauma, grief, joblessness, homelessness and just general upheaval that the United States has gone through, particularly communities of color and people living in poverty across the United States. So, OK, none of that is true. None of that. Do you understand? Like you can you can run a correlation that she did. You don't understand how stupid, smart people are correlation does she you understand how stupid smart people

are ruining this country and other stupid smart people believe them if that is in fact true that the coronavirus pandemic and the liberal lockdowns it's amazing how liberals cause all these problems and then try to blame all their problems on other people liberals wanted lockdowns she's blaming it on lockdowns that's a liberal policy too and she has zero evidence whatsoever that that's true these lockdowns happened all over the globe yet the crime wave is happening here and only in liberal cities she doesn't understand even basic correlations or she does and she's a liar in In liberal cities across the United States specifically, where they attacked and tried to defund the police, either or, crime went up because you had less aggressive policing.

This is not hard. Only idiots like these commentators can't figure this out. Man, being a liberal must be painful. My gosh, how do you wake up every morning saying to yourself, I'm really stupid, I get it, and I enjoy, I relish the bath of stupidity, I wash myself in every day. Nothing you ever say is true. Nothing.

Here, to leave you on a good note, because I don't want you to drop IQ points listening to Mara Gay, who can't even do basic math, here to leave you on a good note, because I don't want you to drop IQ points. Listen to tomorrow. Gay can't even do basic math. We can give every American $10 trillion on Bloomberg. Do you even do math ever? You ever taken a math course? Here's Ronald Reagan. He gave this speech decades ago, but it's still a good one talking about,

he was talking to, and I believe in an NRA convention, he mentions the NRA in the, in between. And it's interesting here because he says something in the beginning i've said to you often you can propose all the background checks you want the gun laws criminals laugh at gun laws they don't care matter of fact i would make the case to you given my experience in law enforcement and having been out there in the street criminals love gun laws because they get to prey on a bunch of sheep and the sheep dogs are unarmed.

Criminals love gun law. They will never go to a background check and they don't give a damn about your gun laws. You got it? That's a fact. Here's Ronald Reagan lighting it up. You pointed out that police would be so busy arresting handgun owners that they would be unable to protect the people against criminals. It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not phased by gun control laws. I happen to know this from personal experience.

You know, I've always felt a special bond with the members of your group. You live by Lincoln's words. Important principles may and must be inflexible. Your philosophy put its trust in people. So you insist on individuals be held responsible for their actions. The NRA believes that America is made to be obeyed and that our constitutional liberties are just as important today as 200 years ago. And by the way, the Constitution does not say that government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You know, I was a young man when Ronald Reagan was president.

Candidly, he's the first president I really remember. I mean, I vaguely remember Carter, but not much. I mean, I was born in 1974. But I do vividly remember Reagan. And thinking at the time, even as a kid, I was not political as a kid at all. All I cared about was Bucky Dent and the Yankees and baseball. I didn't care about anything.

I don't want to pretend like back then. You know, these people who run for president, they're like, oh, when I was a kid, I was so inspired. No, I wasn't inspired by any of that. All I cared about was if Bucky Denton was going to get up because I love Bucky Denton, the shortstop for the Yankees. Russell Earl Denton. That's all I cared about. But I remember watching Reagan and thinking,

that's a pretty cool cat right there. I miss him. You know what I respected about Reagan most? He went to what, Eureka College, never pretended to be some stupid smart person like Mara Gay and others. He always told people, listen, you know, I'm just your average guy. He did his homework. He read up on Friedman, understood Hayek. He'd have a claim to have 160 IQ or something. But Reagan was a smart, smart person. He knew his limitations,

and to circumvent his limitations, he read up and educated himself and turned himself from an actor to, I believe, the greatest president we've had in modern U.S. history. Hands down, one of the greatest communicators we've ever had. Missed the man.

Would have been nice to see him before he passed. A lot of Secret Service agents got to see him before he passed and pay their respects. I didn't. Great regret in my life. Okay, you know what? Let me get to my third sponsor because this story is the one I teased

in the beginning of the show and it's important. I just wanted to get to this stuff first because it's obviously acute. It's a crisis happening right now. Biden trying to attack your right to protect yourself. But this coronavirus cover-up is far worse than Chernobyl. Makes Chernobyl look like a romper room paint spilling accident. This is serious. Folks, the summer season's upon us. Barbecues, beaches beaches and fun in the sun like the good old days but what about taking care of your skin our friends at chamonix have the perfect solution for the summer sun genucell sunspot corrector uses breakthrough ingredients to get rid of dark

blemishes and sunspots from long days in the sun it's packed with cutting edge ingredients and a nourishing hydrating base which delivers results you can see right before your eyes here's stephanie from Fresno, California. She says, I have skin damage from using the sun. I love this product. It reduces the appearance of sunspots and it leaves my skin looking younger. Great product for my age. Chamonix promises results in as little as 12 hours guaranteed or your money back.

My wife uses the product. My mother-in-law is a huge fan. The Florida sun is very hot. They use it every day. Order today and get GenuCell Sunspot Corrector free, plus the legendary GenuCell XV Anti-Wrinkle Moisturizer, also free when you order GenuCell for under-eye bags and puffiness. Go to GenuCell.com and enter my special promo code DAN40.

That's Dan, D-A-N-4-0 for an extra discount. Order now. Shipping is also free. How do you get it again? Use code DAN40 at Genucel.com. Genucel.com. That's G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com. Go today.

Thank you, folks. Again, I always appreciate your patience. Our sponsors are good companies. They like to be here and talk to you, and they keep the show free, which we always appreciate. So let's get to the story du jour, because this is important. I'm sitting there putting together my Fox show this weekend with producer Sabrina. We got producer

Joe, producer Gabe, producer Jim, producer Mike, producer Sabrina. We got a collection of producers here that are the best of the business. Big thanks to them for putting together a fine show every day. I just talk a lot. They do most of the show behind the scenes here. So as I was talking to Sabrina yesterday, this story, I mean, literally popped on my phone breaking news as i saw it and i thought ah here's what we're going to talk about this weekend because i got another angle on the fox show wall street journal chinese covid19 gene data that could have aided pandemic research was removed from an nih database a researcher said he recovered gene sequences after a Chinese scientist asked that they be removed from the government archive.

Oh, boy. Viral gene sequences. Don't you remember if you're a listener to the show, even for the past two weeks, don't you remember us talking about a story even on my Fox show in the last week and the week before, about how viruses have gene coding like you do in your DNA? Code for genes. Genes use a series of bases. We don't need to get into the science.

The five prime, three prime, DNA, all fancy stuff. Some of you scientists out there get it. It's not particularly complicated, but genes use bases. These genes are basically the fingerprints fingerprints left behind about what a virus is and how it evolved it's like a computer code is probably a good analogy when you go into a computer code if you do an autopsy on it you've been hacked you can find out if you get a good researcher where the hacking occurred because there's malicious code because you you know what you say? Well, I didn't put that code in there.

So someone else did. Viruses are no different. They have a code. That code leaves a breadcrumb trail about how that virus got to be as potent and infectious and deadly. Did it get that way through nature, through evolving? Or did it get that way because someone made it that way? And why? Folks, the gene sequence is the code. Why would someone from China try to delete

the sequence of the COVID-19 virus in a database so no one else could see it? First, let's talk about the story. Two screenshots from the piece. Number one, why were the sequences deleted and who the hell deleted them? From the journal piece, Chinese researchers directed the U.S. National Institutes of Health to delete gene sequences of early COVID-19 cases from a key scientific database, raising concerns that scientists studying the origin of the pandemic may lack access to key pieces of information. The NIH confirmed it deleted the sequences after receiving a request from a Chinese researcher who submitted them three months earlier. Question number one, check the box, answered. Who deleted the sequences?

A researcher from China. Why did they delete them? Let's go to screenshot number two, and maybe we'll have our answer. The removal of the sequences yielded, quote, a somewhat skewed picture of viruses circulating in Wuhan early on, Dr. Bloom said. This is the researcher who figured this out. There'll be a story in my newsletter about it today. It suggests possibly one reason why we haven't seen more of these sequences. It's perhaps that there hasn't been a wholehearted effort to get them out there.

Why were they deleted? It's odd, ladies and gentlemen, and I use the word odd, oddly for a reason. Odd that Chinese researchers would want gene sequences from early infections in Wuhan to mysteriously just go away. Why would that be? Maybe if you found patient zero and patient zero, the first known infection with COVID-19, had a gene sequence in there that had been created in a laboratory, that would be the silver bullet answering the question, did the Chinese create a potential bioweapon with our tax dollars?

And did it run wild across the United States and around the world? Someone wants breadcrumbs to disappear, folks. Remember, the later cases, this is important in understanding this. Someone in China wants the earliest cases of COVID-19 gene sequences to go away. Why? Because the later ones, you have evolution and mutation within human beings that are explainable by the rampant spreading of coronavirus rapidly around the globe. The more it spreads, the quicker it can mutate. spreading of coronavirus rapidly around the globe. The more it spreads, the quicker it can mutate.

But the first infection and the first few infections, patient zero. No, that's the first time we've seen it. That would indicate where it came from. Someone wants to make that go away. Why would they want to make gene sequences go away? Oh, remember this piece we discussed a couple weeks ago? Wall Street Journal opinion. The science suggests a Wuhan lab leak. COVID-19 has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus. Wouldn't that be weird if patient zero had a coronavirus infection with a gene sequence never before observed in nature, but observed often in the lab, wouldn't that be really devastating?

Well, what is the gene sequence and why would gene sequences be disappearing from a database? What is the gene sequence in COVID-19 that has never before been seen in nature? Doesn't mean it doesn't exist in nature. Precision matters. We're not fake news people here. It only means coronavirus researchers doing research on coronavirus around the world have never seen it. But they have seen a gene sequence called the double CGG somewhere else. Where? Well, let's go back to that journal piece. It says, in fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that include SARS-CoV-2 yeah the coronavirus now the cgg cgg combination has never never been found naturally

that means the common method of viruses picking up new skills called recombination cannot operate here a virus can't pick up a sequence from another virus if the sequence isn't present in another virus. Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in lab work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That's because it's readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience

inserting it into viruses. Folks, I don't know about you. If I'm reading my audience wrong, I'm sorry. I never have. We built the second biggest podcast in the country. Really, I believe catering to your information needs. I don't think I'm reading you wrong. I find this to be the, what do you think, guys?

I'd like an audience opinion here. Do you like this story? Justin, Guy, Joe, seriously. Yeah, it's kind of like a mystery, you know? Right? Isn't it? I'm not kidding. I find this story.

Maybe it's because I was a criminal investigator and I like, you know, puzzles. That's why I love Spygate so much. I find this story fascinating that so many footprints and breadcrumbs are there. And yet you have liberals in the media entirely uninterested. So we have a coronavirus infection that's killed millions of people around the world. We know what originated in China. We know there's a gene sequence never found in nature. We know gene sequences are now being deleted from the NIH database from early patients

that would tell you if it came from nature or not. And nobody else seems skeptical about this. But did the Bongino show and others? from nature or not. And nobody else seems skeptical about this, but did the Bongino show and others? Brian Paul said it on my show this weekend. They have yet to find a bat with this specific COVID-19 infection.

And if we were eating bat soup, then where's the bat with the coronavirus? Why do I think this story is interesting? Well, obviously, because I think the Chinese government created a bioweapon, but I think the evidence is piling up by the day. And oh, do I got some additions for that right now? Remember this angle, the New York Post, put this,

sorry, this will be in my newsletter again today. Please read this article in the newsletter. It's very important. This is what I think China's hiding. Say, Dan, yeah, they're hiding that they created the coronavirus in the lab. No, no, no. Yeah, they're hiding that, but that's not the point. That's not what they're really hiding. Ladies and gentlemen, what they're hiding is the coronavirus they created in the lab, which has killed millions of people, which they likely created in the lab.

Overwhelming amount of evidence. I want to be precise. I believe may have been done using bioweapons research. That's what they're really hiding. Well, what makes me think that? New York Post. U.S.-linked Chinese military scientists filed a patent for COVID vaccine just after contagion emerged, says a report. This is a Lee Brown story from June 1st of 2021. It's not that they created the virus in a lab. That's the scandal. That's a scandal,

but that's not the real scandal. The real scandal is I believe they created a bioweapon. And if you are going to create a bioweapon like a coronavirus to wipe out millions of people, the first thing you need is what? You need a vaccine or it's going to kill your people too. They were doing bioweapons research. I don't believe they released the coronavirus, the COVID-19 virus intentionally. I don't believe that because they weren't prepared either. Intentionally, I don't believe that because they weren't prepared either. But I believe that the Corona, the COVID-19 SARS COVID two virus that killed millions of people was in fact a research bioweapon.

Why? Because if you're going to have a bioweapon, you need a vaccine. Look at this. A Chinese Communist Party military scientist who got funding from our NIH filed a patent for a COVID-19 vaccine in February of last year, raising fears that the shot was being studied even before the pandemic became public. Remember this name, Zhu Yuzhen, a decorated military scientist for the People's Liberation Army of China. He worked alongside the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as well as U.S. scientists filing a patent in February of 2020, according to documents obtained by The Australian. Folks, why were they working with the Chinese military on a vaccine for a virus that had never been seen in humans before. Maybe because it was bioweapons research and you don't want to see it in your humans.

So you vaccinate them. Here, this researcher, Nikolai Petrovsky from Flinders University, said, hey, this is something we've never seen achieved before. Raising the question of whether this work on the vaccine may have started much earlier. Adding to the intrigue, you know, we could just ask Zhu Yuzhen, right? Let's just ask him, were you doing research on a vaccine because this was a bioweapon? We can. Zhu later died under mysterious circumstances in May of last year, which is something being looked into as part of an international investigation. So the researcher creating the vaccine we think they were working on

before coronavirus was even seen in humans all of a sudden turns up dead? Here's where the story gets even more fascinating. So we know, again, New York Post's Zhu Yuzhen worked with the Wuhan lab and the Bat Lady involved in this research on coronaviruses. Well, that's interesting. The close working relationship between the pair

supports declassified intelligence released in January that the Wuhan lab was conducting, quote, secret military activity, the Australian said. Despite the Wuhan Institute presenting itself as a civilian institution, the U.S. has determined that the Wuhan Institute has collaborated on publications and secret projects with China's military. Media folks, where are you? Anyone? Hello? McFly? Anybody? Bueller? Anybody out there? Is anybody curious about this? So a dude working on a vaccine for a potential bioweapon with a woman who works on coronavirus

research in a lab and people that have asked to delete the gene sequence that can indicate it was lab created and works with the Chinese military on bioweapons research, turns up dead, and you're not even remotely curious. Hat tip Jack Posobiec at Human Events for this piece, BMI show notes again. Leaked cable. Hillary Clinton warned back during the Obama administration, warned France that the Wuhan lab may lead to bioweapons research. Breadcrumbs, breadcrumbs everywhere.

Here from Posobics Peace. In a leaked State Department cable from 2009, Secretary of State Clinton warned that the Wuhan Institute of Virology could lead to, quote, biological weapons proliferation concerns. Are we the only ones talking about this? Anyone interested? Anyone? All right, let me get to my last sponsor because i i i i i why do you think china's trying to delete the gene sequence from the database why because critical race theory advocates

told them to or something why do you think they're doing that? Why do you think Hillary Clinton back in the day in the Obama administration had this secret cable warning about bioweapons proliferation? Why? All right, I'll get some video coming up next. Joy Reid getting absolutely wrecked on her own show on critical race theory. This was a joy to watch. And people are like, oh, I credit her for having this guy. And I don't credit her for anything. I have liberals on all the time.

We actually leave a line open on my radio show. By the way, Jay Christian Adams will be a guest. We're talking about voting and elections today on the radio show. If you want to join, please tune in. But we leave a line open for liberals all the time. They never call. We're supposed to celebrate Joy Reid for having a

guy on who she personally attacked and who just wrecked her. They're like, oh, man, I celebrate Joy Reid. I don't. I don't. Not at all. I'll play that video in a second. Hey, growing up, cereal was one of the best parts of being a kid. I gave it up because it's full of a lot of junk.

I mean, just read the back. Tons of sugar. Just garbage. It's just not healthy, which is terrible because it tastes really good. Well, I've got the solution for you. Magic Spoon. which is terrible because it tastes really good. Well, I've got the solution for you, Magic Spoon.

Magic Spoon has zero grams of sugar, 13 to 14 grams of protein, and only four net grams of carbs in each serving. It has only 140 calories a serving. It's keto-friendly, gluten-free, grain-free, soy-free, low-carb, and GMO-free, but it's not free of flavor. It's delicious.

You can build your own box. The available flavors to build your own custom bundle are cocoa, fruity, frosted, peanut butter, blueberry, and cinnamon. Honestly, I'm forgetting which one is Isabel's favorite because she eats them all and leaves me with the empty boxes. But I'm reasonably confident based on the empty blueberry boxes, she goes for those bad boys first. That's my daughter. She loves it.

So does my wife. It's delicious. It's like the regular childhood cereal you had, but it's actually super nutritious. It's delicious, super healthy cereal that really brings joy to your mornings or afternoons. How do you get this great cereal? Go to magicspoon.com slash Bongino. Grab a custom bundle of cereal and try it today. You won't want to put the, you'll eat the whole box. And be sure to use our promo code Bongino at checkout to save $5 off your order. Magic Spoon, so confident in their product. It's back with 100% happiness guarantee. If you don't like it for any reason, they'll refund your

money. No questions asked. Remember, get your next delicious bowl of guilt-free cereal at magicspoon.com slash Bongino and use the code Bongino to save $5 off. Thank you, Magic Spoon. Appreciate you sponsoring the episode. Thanks a lot. Okay, getting to it. Here is the hapless Joy Reid, the bronze medal winner in the dopey cable news commentator Olympics, only after Brian Stelter and Chuck Todd. Joy Reid decided it would be a good idea to insult a person of superior intelligence to her, Christopher Ruffo from the Manhattan Institute, who actually does research on critical race theory, which is racist, which if you support it makes you a racist, too. So Joy decides to have Christopher Ruffo on the show.

May have to cut out the beginning where she just banters uselessly. But here is Joy getting absolutely wrecked by Ruffo on her on her own show, which was just a joy to watch. Pun intended. Check this out. Let's start out. It did the elephant in the room. So so we knew when I started off on a little bit of a Twitter beef. start out and do the elephant in the room. So, so we knew when I started off on a little bit of a Twitter beef, um, I talked about you, I quoted you, um, in an article, um, that one of our, uh, great journalists here, uh, at NBC had quoted you in a piece and I quoted that on TV. Uh, and then you tweeted, um, that you wanted to come on the show and said, you know, I didn't have the courage to put you on. Now I will just note that Twitter is a four as a hyperbole zone. So, you know, I,

whatever, it's all water under the bridge, but I just want to just get to a couple of little factual things. Why would I need courage to have you on? Are you like an expert in race or racial history? Are you a lawyer? Are you a legal scholar? Is that part of your background? Yeah, I'm a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute where I'm running their initiative on critical race theory. And the reason that I reached out on Twitter to you and I appreciate you having me on. I enjoy this kind of cross partisan dialogue. But the reason is not just because you were attacking me on air, which I think is fine. It's politics. One second. Just I'm sorry. I wasn't attacking.

I was reading your quote. So that's what I did. I read your quote. But you were reading it with the framing, calling me a political operative, which I'm not. I'm actually a think tank scholar. But let's put all that aside. The problem that I have is that you've really spread four, I think, key false pieces of information about critical race theory. You've claimed in recent weeks that critical race theory isn't being taught in schools.

You've claimed that most American public school students learn what you call Confederate race theory and are taught that slavery was, quote, not so bad. You've claimed that state legislation will prevent schools from teaching about the history of racism. And finally, you've claimed that critical race theory isn't rooted in the philosophical tradition of Marxism. And I think that all four of those claims are wrong. And I'd love to discuss them tonight.

Rarely do you see a wrecking like you just saw right there. That's Joy's own show. And the guy just completely dismantles her and the beginning is quite hilarious the beginning when she says are you a legal scholar and authority on this keep in mind joy's not an authority on anything the only thing joy's an authority on is homophobic blogs and requesting fbi investigations afterwards under the ridiculous premise that it was hacked which she's provided no evidence for whatsoever. She's an expert on that and double masking while she runs outside around Central Park, despite being vaccinated.

So she's also of extremely low IQ, as she's demonstrated before. But piece by piece, just wrecks and annihilates everything she has to say on her own show. What a train wreck, Joy Reid. Now, I had a caller yesterday because I warned you, called into my radio show. I warned you that because people like Joy Reid are increasingly embarrassed that we've exposed critical racism theory for what it is,

which is racist. It's a racist doctrine, a racist set of ideological principles, teaching people to judge people and act in a racist manner towards them because of their skin color. They're going to change the name of it, just like they changed the name. You know, as producer Jim pointed out yesterday, how global warming became climate change. Liberals became progressives. Now they're back to liberals again. They changed their name

when people find out what the message really is. And the message of critical race theory is be a racist. That's what it is. It teaches people to be racist. So I had a caller call in yesterday, Lisa, one of our better callers. She calls in quite a bit. It's the second time she's been on the show in just five weeks we've been on the air. And she said, be very careful.

They're about to change the name of critical race theory. Here's what they're going to change it to. Listen to this. Lisa, you're on with Dan Bongino. What do you got for us? Well, I've done some digging and I can tell you exactly what name they're changing critical race theory to

in order to sneak it into the schools. Okay, I'm writing this down. Hold on, hold on. I got to write this down. What is it? Transformative social emotional learning. And everywhere, she'll look this term up. Transformative emotional learning?

Social emotional learning. Folks, are you paying attention to lisa lisa is a vetted guest on mike's uh callers we love list lisa has called before and it's so good we put her on the whiteboard she's saying this because lisa listens to my show and she knows the left loves to play name games she's telling us now everyone pay attention lisa is going to change the national argument this is going to be the new name for critical race theory, just like illegal immigrants became undocumented residents and all this stuff. Lisa, am I getting this right?

Transformative social emotional learning. Everybody got it, is that right? That's correct. That's correct. So I looked it up after the show, and she's correct. It's out there. Here's a report out there measuring SEL towards transformative social and emotional learning. Using, there's that word again, equity.

Using an equity lens. There we go. Folks, we got to stay ahead of them. We have to stay ahead of them. We have to stay ahead of them. Remember, illegal immigrants became undocumented residents and visitors, whatever. We have to stay ahead of them on the vocabulary. We'll never know what they're talking about. They're going to change it again. I promise.

Listen, on a very serious note, here's one of the most disturbing things I've seen in a very long time on this same topic of critical racism theory. Here is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley. A man again I had respected before yesterday. And it pains me to say that. I hold our military in the highest of regard. If you believe otherwise you don't listen to this show. And therefore I disregard your opinion because you're an idiot. I've said often our military and police.

They're the thin crust on the volcano that separates chaos from civilization. I will continue to stick by that. I love our men and women in uniform. They're the most noble among us, but that doesn't mean they're not above scrutiny. And what General Milley did yesterday on Capitol Hill is a disgrace, and I think worthy of a resignation. I'm serious. He was up on Capitol Hill, and in this audio video soundbite here, proceeds to explain why he believes it's important to teach components of critical race theory, but acknowledges opening up that he doesn't even know what it is.

And then he makes the ridiculous claim at the end that, well, he studied Marxist thought too, because he wants to know the enemy. Yeah, but that's not what he's doing with critical race theory. We're not teaching people in our military that critical race theory is the enemy. They're teaching them this as a fundamental component of how our military officers should think and organize their thoughts. Milley might have missed that. That his logic train failed here. Check this out.

First of all, on the issue of critical race theory, et cetera, I'll obviously have to get much smarter on whatever the theory is. etc. I'll obviously have to get much smarter on whatever the theory is. But I do think it's important, actually, for those of us in uniform to be open-minded and be widely read. And the United States Military Academy is a university. And it is important that we train and we understand. And I want to understand white rage. And I'm white. And I want to understand it. So what is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America? What caused that? I want to find that out.

Interesting how he makes that conclusion there. White rage on January 6th. What evidence does he have of that? You see how he kind of draws parallels between the two? While interestingly enough claiming he doesn't know enough about critical race theory. Claims also in that same appearance that, oh, he learns about Marxism too because he wants to know the enemy. But that's not what he's doing. We're teaching our men and women in the military critical race theory for a reason.

Why do you think that is? Why do you think leftists want critical race theory taught to our military and our police departments? Think about it. What institutions do people like me and most conservatives and good, strong Republicans, who do we have the most reverence for, right? I just told you, military and our police officers. We do because we agree with the obvious.

It takes a lot of bravery to put a badge on your chest, go out there every day and put your butt on the line or put on a military uniform, go overseas and say, I'm going to defend freedom today for other people I've never even met. That sounds pretty brave to me. And I'll stand by that. Liberals hate the military. They always have.

They can't stand the cops either. We know that. Just listen to their own language. Don't listen to mine. Listen to theirs. So what better way to dismantle the military or police department than get the only people out there who are ever going to support them, conservatives and Republicans, to turn on them too. And Mark Milley fell right into that trap. This is deliberate, folks.

The reason they want critical race theory taught in police departments and the military is to separate us from our military and police department. Leaving them out there on their own will summarily dismantle them. They'll cut military funding tomorrow morning. Given the guns and butter approach, they'll go with butter every single time. I just wish enemies of the United States felt the same way, because they pick the guns.

They don't give a damn about the butter. North Korea starved every one of its people to build a nuclear weapon. Not sure Mark Milley feels the same anymore. Sad. Sad to watch. All right, I'm going to end on this. Maybe I'll talk about this in a little more detail tomorrow, but on a lighter note.

Folks, the UFO story, I know the audience, you're 50-50 split on it. I'm just going with my instincts on this. So there's an article that appeared this morning. I saw it was in thebyte.com or futurism.com, whatever it was. It says this Harvard professor, he feels like this alien spacecraft may have dropped sensors. And that's what we're seeing on all these UFO videos. These are sensors flying around the earth gathering information.

It's an interesting article. I'll get to why in a second, but from the piece, this guy Loeb, he says, listen, you know, what if this, this object, Omamu or whatever it was called, which was a strange object. I don't know if you heard about it, which was, which was kind of a pass by earth. They couldn't explain it. Like it had a flat surface. They were like, what is this? Is this some kind of alien beacon? Like nobody knew. He's like, what if that thing was some kind of a sensor reader meant to read the sensors

that aliens had sent to Earth before? He says, what if they have a connection? I'm always saying this thing wrong. Omamu, whatever it was. What if it has a connection to this interstellar object that entered our solar system in 2017? People don't know what it was.

It was this weird object that floated by our solar system. No one can explain what it was. This guy thinks maybe it was. It was this weird object that floated by our solar system. No one can explain what it was. This guy thinks maybe it was some reader reading sensors aliens sent here a long time ago. I say that because there's a number of theories out there on what these UFO things are. There's two theories that are plausible. One, they're alien. And two, there are domestic technology here we don't have. I said on the show, either little green men or Russia or China, right? That's probably it. And a guy emailed me a while ago. You all are genius. This is why I love leaving my email out

there. It's on our website because you all are genius. The audience crowdsourcing is the best source of information. A very learned, smart man sent me an email. He said, no, Dan, doesn't necessarily mean it's Russia or China or aliens. There's a third possibility. This is his email. I'm not going to say his name. He said the third possibility is a spoofing system. The creation of false targets via sonar and radar to fool people in targeting systems that have been around for decades.

that have been around for decades. These UFOs seen by radar and visually, therefore, the new spoofing elements could be spot-oriented, control shape, and make radar see false targets and new visual targets, keeping them aligned. I'm going to go into more of this tomorrow because I'm out of time today. But I got that email and I thought, that's genius. What if we created a way to fool radar

and we were telling, we were kind of signaling to the chinese hey look what we can do and that's what the ufo wink and a nod story is and then look at this article i saw today sandbox this sandbox article popped this morning i thought the guy's a genius alex hollings again there's more in the email i'll talk about tomorrow can this navy patent explain away many uAP sightings? Talking about these UFO sightings, right? Go down from the piece. This new Navy technology aims to use lasers to fool air defense systems and missiles

into thinking they see an aircraft or a UAP, UFO for that matter, but the plan wasn't to trick the world into thinking they were being visited by aliens. Listeners, you all are the best. Option three, he's probably right. These UFOs are probably spoofed radar or other visual technologies, making our enemies believe they're seeing things or not. And it's us signaling to China, hey, look what we could do. Incredible. All right, folks. Thanks again for tuning in. And thanks to all the listeners who sent great emails. Don't

forget my show Fox show. You made us number one now, three weeks in a row. I really appreciate it. You're the most loyal audience in the business. It's actually very touching. Unfiltered Dan Bongino, Saturday night, 10 o'clock Eastern time. Don't forget Fox news channel. I will see you all tomorrow. You just heard Dan Bongino, Saturday night, 10 o'clock Eastern time. Don't forget, Fox News Channel. I will see you all tomorrow.