The Dan Bongino Show - Ep 470 The Washington Post Slammed Again

Episode Date: May 30, 2017

In this episode I discuss the Washington Post's continued failure to adhere to basic journalistic ethics.   I also address the Trump immigration Executive Order and the federal courts' failure to adhere to precedent.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fourth-circuit-joins-the-resistance-1496071859   Finally, I discuss the war on drugs and the new DOJ policy.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dan Bongino. You want the truth, come to this podcast. You want someone to BS you and be full of crap, go to a political rally. The Dan Bongino Show. We have to call it what it is and we have to stop being delicate about it. Get ready to hear the truth about America. We're not like the leftists. The conservatives don't need safe spaces.

They don't need lollipops and coloring books and teddy bears. I'm good, okay? On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino. All right, welcome to the Renegade Republic. I'm Dan Bongino, producer Joe. How are you today? Good morning, Dan. Doing well, doing well. Yeah. Oh, boy. I tell you, every morning I wake up, I'm so eager to do the show because I don't... Like, gosh, when are we going to get out in 35 minutes? So again, let's get right into it. No more messing around. Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Birch Gold. Listen, you know I'm into stability. Stability, protection, protect your assets, protect your food supply. There's a reason we use the sponsors we do. But with Birch Gold,

folks, I can't encourage you in strong enough terms to go check these guys out. Birch Gold, these guys will protect you against the volatility in the stock market right now. Listen, stock market's hitting new highs, but you got to worry about inflation. If inflation outpaces the growth in the market, I got news for you. You're losing money. Plus, the Federal Reserve's promoting its ultra-loose monetary policy, so you want to be careful. Get that hedge against inflation. The company I trust with precious metals are my buddies at Birch Gold. They have actual physical precious metals. I have silver five ounces right in front of me. They sent to me.

You can touch it. You can feel it. You do whatever you want with it. Just keep it clean, folks. And right now, thanks to a little known IRS tax law, you can move your IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver. Perfect for those of you who want to ensure your hard-earned retirement savings are protected from the ravages of inflation in the stock market. Go check them out. They have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews. Go to birchgold.com slash Dan. That's B-I-R-C-H gold.com slash Dan. Check them out today, birchgold.com slash Dan.

Request your free information kit today, 16-page guide, no commitments whatsoever, request your free information kit today 16 page guide no commitments whatsoever birchgold.com okay so the uh trump russia case again folks is falling apart in front of our very eyes you know and joe what is with john mccain oh i was going to mention him to you what the hell is going on with him man i don't i don't know i just don't get it i'm listen i i get that trump insult i i don't want to i want to give the guy almost a fair shake but as i tweeted today i don't get it. Listen, I get that Trump insults. I don't want to. I want to give the guy almost a fair shake. But as I tweeted today, I don't know any other way to explain it. But the guy just continues to embarrass himself. So his latest is he's overseas in some conference in Australia and against just about every rule of diplomatic protocol whatsoever.

He's bashing the president United States overseas, even though he's a member of his protocol whatsoever. He's bashing the president of the United States overseas, even though he's a member of his own party. I mean, even opposition party members try not to do that. Well, the reason I'm bringing this up about McCain and how he continues to just humiliate himself is, again, he comes out

against this Trump-Russia story and the story we brought up yesterday about Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, allegedly having requested a back channel of communication with the Russians. Well, we thoroughly debunked that yesterday. Number one, back channels happen all the time. As I have up on my Facebook page today, you will see that President Obama not only requested,

but followed through with a back channel before he was president in 2008 with the Iranians, which is a hostile terrorist regime. So what I don't get is McCain. I don't know. I have to look this up, but I don't recall McCain as vociferous in his criticism of Obama as he is with Trump. I think he's just turning into a bitter old man. Well, couple of things on that story from yesterday, some developments, because this is important. Number one, the story has been thoroughly now debunked. As I said to from yesterday, some developments, because this is important. Number one, the story has been thoroughly now debunked. As I said to you yesterday, if you go back and listen to the show, multiple sources are now confirming that Kushner did, Jared Kushner, the son-in-law, did not

request the SPAC channel with the Russians. The Russians requested it with Kushner and it never happened. So let me just get this straight. Let this be crystal clear on this for the Democrats who have six foot thick skulls of a really tough time understanding this. Your golden boy, your Messiah Obama requests a back channel before he's president with a terrorist organization, follows through by sending the former ambassador of the Ukraine, William Miller over there to talk to a terrorist regime when he's not even the president, telling them basically that, don't worry, when I'm in town, we're going to help you guys out. So it's okay, number one, using the Democrats. We're going to try this slowly, okay? This is called logic, okay? Pay attention. Number one, using your own logic, back channels are okay because Obama did it.

You never said anything was wrong when Obama did it. So using your own logic, it's okay. Back channels with terrorist regimes are okay because you never said anything when Obama followed through with a back channel with Iranian terrorists. Third, back channels are okay. Back channels with terrorist regimes are okay. And back channels with terrorist regimes are okay before you're even the president of the United States and you're just the president elect. So using all of those standards, who's worse, Joe?

Now that the story, again, has been debunked. And when I say debunked, let me be crystal clear what I mean by this. The Russians requested this, not Kushner. So as I said to my wife this morning when I was trying to explain to her how dumb this story is, if a guy were to knock on the door of my house, like a total rando, and he shows up and he's like, hey, dude, my name is Joey Boombatz, and I've got this idea that we should whack a few of your neighbors tonight. No, I think that's a really bad idea what's the breaking news story dan bongino proposed the story to whack his neighbors no dude i didn't some guy some rando showed up at my house some

psychotic maniac and i had no idea what he was even talking about do you understand joe how the the washington post who broke this story kushner requested a backshot, has been humiliated so repeatedly. You have to wonder how any credible thought leader in this community, blogger, journalist, whatever, credible, I'm not talking about the Washington Post, any credible takes these people seriously anymore. This is like the third or fourth story right now where the Washington Post has been thoroughly rebuked. Remember their story about them in the New York Times with the Trump spying scandal where the wiretaps of the tower? Yeah. And then they referred back to the Times and the Post's own coverage of this stuff.

I mean, they have been thoroughly debunked. Folks, it should be clear to you right now that the Washington Post has two goals. As I said yesterday, clickbait, number one, and number two, to take down Trump. Notice, I never said anywhere in there journalism or the truth, because that's not what they care about. So again, just going back, the story's been debunked. Kushner did not request a back channel with the Russians. The Russians did. So, using their own standards, ladies and gentlemen, that I i just told you back channels are okay back

channels with terrorists are okay and back channels are okay before you're even the president undermining the current president who at the time was george w bush how is the trump story a scandal by the liberals own standards joe we're just trying to use reason here i'm really trying to make a problem number one yeah that is problem that is problem. Number one. You're absolutely correct. So if back channels are OK, why is it a story? The back channel, the back channel story is not a story at all. If you go by number one, number two, back channels with terrorists are OK. OK, well, you know, the Russians are a major world actor and no question a geopolitical adversary. But, you know,. But are they as bad

as the Iranians? I don't know. That's up for grabs. So I'll leave that one an open question. But third, Obama created the back channel with the terrorist regime in Iran before he was the president. So again, if your story is that back channels are bad, that you're making it up because you didn't care when Obama did it. And if your stories are back channels are bad before you're president, your story is nonsense too, because Obama did that too. The difference is this Trump Kushner back channel never actually happened. Now, I don't want to beat this story to death over two days for no reason, folks. The reason I'm trying to tell you this and get this all across to you is one, you need the ammunition to argue with your liberal idiot friends who have no idea what

they're talking about ever. They are living off sensational Washington Post headlines. And I think I've pinned down the Washington Post strategy outside of the two bullet points I just gave you, that they're in it for clicks and they're in it to take down Trump. I'm hesitant to say this, but I think the Washington Post knows a lot of their stories are crap. I do. Maybe they don't know, but they strongly the Washington Post knows a lot of their stories are crap. I do. Maybe they don't know, but they strongly suspect that these stories could be crap. And I think, Joe, the idea is that they are so polluted with anti-Trump

venom that their take is like, alright, so what? The story's crap. Just put it out there and once the story spreads, what did I say? A lie travels around the world before the truth is even told? You know, I probably got that wrong, but something like that. Lie travels around the world before the truth gets out the door. That's one I've heard.

Out the door. Yeah. I never get those sayings right. Well, I heard a cool one yesterday. I'm reading a terrific book, by the way, folks. I know some of you like book recommendations. Famous historian David McCullough, whose book Founding Fathers was one of my favorite books ever. I love it. It has a collection of his speeches called The American Spirit. And it's really fascinating. It's great because it's just short speeches. So you can read

the book in four or five page increments if you're busy. And it's just amazing. And he has a quote in there from Winston Churchill. It says, talking about how we got here, like the UK and basically the United States as well, saying, hey, we didn't get here by being made of sugar candy. We're a tough people. I'm very proud of it. But this is it, folks. The Washington Post is trying to take these people down. They are trying to annihilate the Trump administration. They're just making things up at this point. So I can't encourage you in strong enough terms to double, triple, and quadruple check anything you hear from the Washington Post. And when your liberal friends bring up Washington Post stories, you should just laugh. Wait, where did you get that?

Oh, the Washington Post. Wait, wait. No, we're talking about credible outlets. Do you have any actual news source right now? Because they just, they're not. The Washington Post and New York Times should be immediately, you should scoff and laugh every time they open their mouths. Okay, got a lot to get to. So let's move along, as they say.

So there's a great piece in the Wall Street Journal today I will put in the show notes. And forgive me if it's a subscriber-only thing. And I know a few of you had questions about the show notes since the redesign of the Conservative Review website. For those of you out there, this has been a long source of consternation for me. I'll leave the details off the show. But go to conservativereview.com, and there's a podcast tab. That's where my show is, along with the other podcasts at Conservative Review. The show notes are there under the podcast tab. Okay. Great piece today.

I don't dig heavily into legal stuff in Supreme Court cases because some of it can get really wonky. But this was a really great article. This was a really great article, and it had a couple points in there, again, that you need to just knock back your liberal friends rhetorically when it comes to this just silliness they're putting out there about the Trump executive order on immigration. Here's the crux of it, Joe. There's a 1972 Supreme Court case. Now, if I say this wrong, Kleindienst versus Mandel. Now, this is the case that establishes who has, I shouldn't say establishes, the Constitution does that, but reaffirmed the president's role in determining who can come into and not into the country.

Now, how is this related to current events and why should you care? Well, the Trump executive order on immigration, which banned people from the six terrorist, the six states that have basically failing governments and significant problems with terrorism. You know the executive order I'm talking about. It was shut down by a Maryland federal judge, and the stop, the stay put on the executive order, was just reaffirmed by the Fourth Circuit. And the Fourth Circuit ruled 10 to 3.

Now, there's a significant problem with this stay in the executive order in that the president has almost exclusive power to determine who comes into and not into the country himself, as long as it's for a legitimate and bona fide reason. What is it? The immigration section 1182, the immigration rules, 1182, clearly lays it out. I read this in a prior podcast.

I read it to you that the president has almost exclusive power here. So there's no question in my mind that the courts are usurping power that doesn't belong to them. But the reason I bring up this case is because this is the case that's been used to determine who can and cannot come into the country when it comes down to presidential and executive authority. And it's determined three things, Joe. And these are the three critical takeaways you need to take from this.

Here's number one. That aliens have no constitutional right to enter the United States. Now, this shouldn't be surprising to anyone, but apparently it is surprising to the people in the Fourth Circuit. In other words, if you are not a citizen of the United States and you petition to come here from wherever, Brazil, Mexico, Iran, Libya, it doesn't matter. You have no constitutional right to enter the country at all.

None. This is the Supreme Court case that has been used as a template for going forward on judicial action here when it comes to this kind of stuff. So keep this in mind. Aliens, no constitutional right to enter the United States. Number two, important. American citizens have no constitutional right to demand the United States. Number two, important. American citizens have no constitutional right to demand entry for aliens. Apparently, there was a case where a couple academics demanded entry into the country. They had some associations with the Communist Party,

and these academics were aliens. And some American citizens tried to petition for them to get them to come into the country, and the court shut that down to saying, Joe, not only do the aliens have no right to come here, but American citizens have no right to petition for them to come here. There is no constitutional right for them to petition for them to come here. I mean, they can they can sue in court, but they have no right, I should say, to demand entry. OK, don't zero. OK, number should say, to demand entry. Okay? Don't. Zero. Okay, number three. This is important again.

This book I have for notes is like super thick now. I got to get a thinner notebook. Denying admission must be upheld. So a denying admission to these aliens must be upheld if it is based on a facially legitimate and bona fide reason. Now, notice it doesn't say anywhere in there. Number three, denying the admission of aliens must be upheld by the courts. If it's a facially legitimate bona fide reason, except for campaign statements. It doesn't say that.

So the left and the liberals on the court, the politicians, because they're not really judges. They're not acting like judges. So they're not judges. I mean, you can say whatever you want. You're not a legitimate judge if you're not acting in the interest of a judge according to your constitutional role and duties. I'm sorry. They're saying that, oh, no, you know what? It may be a facially legitimate and bona fide reason. In other words, Trump did give a legitimate reason in the executive order that these six countries have a problem with terrorism, Joe, don't have functioning essential governments that can keep people out of the country who are terrorists, and we have no way to vet them appropriately. I don't think any

reasonable person would question that that's a facially legitimate bona fide reason, right, Joe? We don't have a way to vet them, and they're not terrorists. The courts at the Fourth Circuit, in an amazing kind of turn of events, it's just shocking, even for the way our court system's falling apart today, said, yeah, that may be facially legitimate and bona fide, but the fact that Trump said during the campaign that he wanted a Muslim ban, that overrides all of that. It doesn't say that. The Supreme Court precedent doesn't say that anywhere.

All it has to be is facially legitimate bona fide. It doesn't matter what Trump said in the campaign. Now, they have this test for the courts, the four corners. In other words, all that matters is the bill in front of them and the four corners of the bill, Joe. In other words, what's on the paper. Campaign statements are not supposed to matter here. Joe, think about this, right? If all of that mattered, statements why do obama's

campaign statements not matter and it folks this is a critical point i brought i said this on a prior show but i want to tie it into this executive order again so you understand how liberals are total complete phonies and hypocrites when obamacare went to the supreme court obama's solicitor general or in arguing for Obamacare, folks, argued that the individual mandate was a tax or else the bill would not have been constitutional. Now, you may say, what the heck does this have to do with executive orders? Oh, no, no, no, no. Pay attention. This is very important. Obama, while he was president, not even on the campaign, he was the president at the time, obviously, was giving an interview.

And on the interview, it's still out there on YouTube, folks. Maybe I'll play the clip tomorrow. In the interview, he said that the individual mandate, he argued, was not a tax. So I don't understand. If the four corners of the bill, Obamacare, don't matter because they don't matter for Trump, for Trump's executive order, Joe.

In other words, you get what I'm saying, right? Yeah. The court's arguing now that even though Trump's executive order in that four corners, the piece of paper is totally legitimate. They're arguing that it's not legitimate because he said different on the campaign trail, even though none of that language is in the bill. They argued the exact opposite, the Supreme Court and liberals, by the way, when it came to Obamacare, because the four corners of the bill they argued said in the court, the

Obama administration argued that the four corners of the bill said, no, the individual mandate is a tax, therefore it's constitutional. But Obama's on tape saying it's not a tax. So again, folks, this is what I'm talking about. The problem I have with where we are right now, with immigration, that when Arizona instituted a local bill, a state bill, it's not exactly local. It was SB 271 in Arizona that mandated that people who were here legally carry their registration paperwork with them. And if they were pulled over, they could be asked to produce it, by the way, totally compliant with federal law. Liberals argued against it and said, no, no, immigration is a federal issue,

not a state issue. And they won in court. Yet now, when it becomes a federal issue and Trump institutes an immigration executive order that nobody argues is legitimate. Both liberals and the illegal immigrant community argue, no, no, no, that's not true. It's a state issue now and states can ignore it in sanctuary cities as well, just like we did under Obamacare when we said one thing and did another. Folks, you know, the problem with living in a discretionary society where the courts can be counted on every time to rule against people of a specific political ideology, regardless of the facts, is when you have discretionary government, you walk down that road to serfdom, as Hayek would say. Because you can be counted on to never have your constitutional rights protected, depending on the label in front of your name. Proving as much,

multiple liberal scholars have said that if the same executive order that Trump passed, that Trump put out there, just to say passed, the same executive order Trump put out there in immigration, if it was signed by Obama, it would have passed no problem. You bet your... Now, what does that tell you? Joe, what does that tell you? That we are not ruling based on objective justices blind. We are ruling justices blind standards that federal courts are now ruling strictly based on the label in front of your name. If Obama did it, it was okay. If Trump did it, it wasn't. Folks, we can't continue. It can't continue like this. And this

is why the Supreme Court absolutely has to shut this down. The Supreme Court has to shut this down. This case has to go to the Supreme Court, this executive order case. They have to rule the executive orders legitimate and shut these guys, these courts down, these appellate courts down for good. We've gotten away from the rule of law to the rule of- Because I can. Because I can. That's it. Because I said so. You're absolutely right. Hey, by the way, quick note on yesterday's show, a couple of things. I was explaining marginal tax rates and I was explaining how marginal tax rate

applies. Let's say a marginal tax rate of 50% applies to those making $250,000 or above. That only applies to the dollars made over $250,000. But I didn't mean to imply, because I got an email on this, that you're not taxed on the $250,000 in income and below, you're just taxed at a lower rate. Right. So let's make it simple. Let's say there were two marginal tax rates in the United States, 10% and 50%, and the 50% rate applies to $250,000 of income or above.

That, if you make $251,000, you're taxed at the 50% rate only on that $1,000, but you're still taxed at the 10% rate on $250,000. I was listening to yesterday's show, and I'm like, I don't think only on that $1,000, but you're still taxed at the 10% rate on 250,000. I was listening to yesterday's show and I'm like, I don't think I made that clear enough. So I don't want to leave anybody in that like fugue state. Like, do we get it or do we not? I just want to be clear on that. In the United States, we ordinarily don't even tax people up to a certain amount of money. I mean, if you make like three, $4,000, you're not going to pay federal taxes at all. The marginal tax rate is zero. But once you get to a certain amount, you're going to pay at marginal tax rate and it goes

up. It's a progressive tax system. The tax rates go up as you make more and more money, but you're only taxed on the last dollar. Hey, one more thing about yesterday's show. I'm sorry for those who listened early and there was a hiccup in the production of yesterday's show. There were, I think at the six minute mark and the 15 minute mark, there were some skips. In 500 episodes, I am proud to say producer Joe and I

have had very, very few technical problems. We kind of figured out what happened. It was, I got a nice email yesterday from someone who pointed out we fixed it. Joe was kind enough to go back in and remix the whole show. And you won't notice it now in yesterday's show, but it was when I read the headline from the New York Times about Kushner. So a couple of people thought the show was censored. It was not censored. It was just the technical hiccup on the times, but we fixed it. So thank you for your patience. And

we always apologize for that. We like to present to you a sound quality show like no other. You know it. Joe does a very good job. That's what I, me and Joe have been together from the beginning. Yeah, man. All right. So yesterday we talked about the universal basic income and interestingly enough,

today in the Wall Street Journal piece comes out talking about social security disability insurance, USSDI. And folks, what did I say to you yesterday? That this universal basic income idea that everybody should get a check from the government for say $30,000. and i explained the details of it and i explained to you yesterday why some conservatives shockingly actually support this thing and today in the journal

there's an interesting piece uh it's not supportive of the ubi the universal basic income but it brings up a component of it joe and that I argued yesterday that the conservatives make, an argument conservatives make. There's already a universal basic income. It put out some staggering numbers. Here's one I wanted to throw out there for you folks about the disability insurance program. And just to be clear what this is, there are a multitude of disabilities you can claim

from back pain to whatever, you know, the limbs that are broken and don't function the right way. You can claim federal disability and get on disability insurance and then not work and get a check from the government. Now, conservatives have this crazy idea, and I'm being sarcastic, that if you're going to claim disability insurance, you should be disabled.

This is not hard, okay? Okay? I like to be a little bit of a happy warrior sometimes. Now, this is a very sensitive issue for me. I don't want to get over emotional here. I've had a couple days of emotional shows, but there are family members of mine who have abused this system

for a long time. I feel like you're entitled to spend kindly 35 minutes of your day with me every day. You're entitled to know things about me that maybe other people don't listen are. There are family members of mine who have abused this system. I've watched it.

And it's really a disgrace to see what happened because it incentivizes people to do nothing, to sit home and collect money for disabilities that frankly are ailments, not disabilities. There's a big difference. Now here's some numbers for you. Joe, we're a country of about 300 million people. There are currently 9 million people claiming disability insurance under Social Security.

Oh, the dough. Folks, I'm sorry, but that just can't be right. The math does not add up. You want to know the number? You want to talk about a staggering number here? does not add up. You want to know the number? You want to talk about a staggering number here? $150 billion is spent every year of your money to support the 9 million people claiming disability. Now, let me be crystal clear on this because you know liberals. Oh, he hates disabled people. Let's throw him off a cliff. You're idiots, so you can tune out now. This is for reasonable people. Again,

moving on. I have absolutely no doubt that there are people who've broken their backs, broken their necks. They've shattered a spine. They've broken a hip. They can't walk. They can't function anymore. And they've paid into a system. I have no doubt.

I'm not saying that system is efficient. I'm not saying there aren't free market ways to do it better. But I'm not arguing that there aren't disabled people out there. I'm not arguing as a proud proponent of the Christian religion, but a sinner myself, that we shouldn't take care of those that are less advantaged than us. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying to you that in a system designed to protect people who are disabled, you cannot make a reasonable argument to me that 9 million people are completely incapable of getting any job whatsoever, including non-manual labor jobs and need to be supported by $150 billion of money from other people who, Joe, ironically, some of who may be legitimately disabled,

but are still working to support people, many of who aren't. Now, this is the problem, ladies and gentlemen. This is why some people are arguing for this UBI. Again, I'm not. I don't think it's a good idea because it creates massive marginal tax rates if you don't give it to everybody. And I can't see giving $30,000 to people who make a billion dollars a year. I don't know. It doesn't make any sense. The whole system doesn't make sense. But we are already spending voluminous amounts of money to support people and creating incentives not to work. If you can make $15,000 a year on disability, as the article points out, and you can get food stamps, and you can make $15,000 a year on disability, as the article points out, and you can get food stamps, and you can get Obama phones, and you can get Section 8 insurance, and you can get

other forms of government assistance as well, you know, S-CHIP for the kids, Medicaid, Medicare, whatever it may be. If you can get all these programs, you have to understand, Joe, you're making like $30,000 a year. Therefore, in order for you to get a job that would incentivize you to come back in the workforce, you're going to have to get a job that pays 40 or 50, where you see it as being worthwhile, because why would you work if you don't have to? Folks, this is really dangerous stuff. And you have to remember that $150 billion is $150 billion taken out of the economy. And this is the one argument for compassion that I think Mick Mulvaney, the budget director, OMB director for

Trump has been doing a great job in making. That 150 billion paid to people on social security disability, which by the way, is already bankrupt. Unlike the larger social security fund, you understand this right now, social security disability is already taking money from the general fund, which is supposed to pay your social security retirement benefits. It's bankrupt. taking money from the general fund, which is supposed to pay your social security retirement benefits. It's bankrupt. Bankrupt with a B. Listen to me. It's bankrupt. Now, that $150 billion comes out of the economy in the form of your tax dollars. Even worse, out of your social security funds in the future. Folks, that $150 billion, you have no idea what that $150 billion would have done. Remember the term opportunity cost. I bring it up all the time. What is the cost of

the next best opportunity with that money? How do you know that money wouldn't have started the next Facebook? That is twice of the entire budget of Florida, the state of Florida, the third biggest state of the union. Do you imagine all of the businesses that could have been started in Florida or Texas or anywhere else with $150 billion back in the economy that's been sucked out? Folks, never forget opportunity costs. That $150 billion back in the economy that's been sucked out. Folks, never forget opportunity costs. That $150 billion, the next best opportunity could have been the next Facebook, the next Google, the next IBM. And instead, it was sucked out of the economy.

And the opportunity costs are extremely high for this. The cost of the foregoing, the next best opportunity. It's an economic term, but the best way to explain it to you is, I've used this example before. My wife is a really talented web designer. She's one of the best. My wife, let's, I'm not going to tell you what she makes. She'd be upset, but let's just say for round numbers,

she made 50,000 a year, whatever. My wife's really talented. If she decided to go work in a fast food industry, maybe she likes it. I mean, there's nothing wrong with labor matters, right? Let's say she wanted to work for minimum wage food industry. Maybe she likes it. I mean, there's nothing wrong with labor matters, right? Let's say she wanted to work for minimum wage and made $15,000 a year. The accounting benefit to her is $15,000 a year because she earned $15,000 a year, say, working in McDonald's or whatever it may be, Joe.

Okay. But there's an economic loss there, and that economic loss is the opportunity cost. And what's the economic loss? $35,000. loss there and that economic loss is the opportunity cost and what's the economic loss thirty five thousand dollars because the cost of the next best opportunity to her was fifty thousand dollars in foregone income because she doesn't want to be a web designer anymore you get what i'm saying yeah and this is where democrats again you can stop thinking now democrats this is where conservatives have to do kind of complicated mental gymnastics to figure things out the Democrats think strictly in accounting terms. Republicans think in economic terms. The Democrats see themselves as making $15,000 by taking that job in McDonald's, while the Republicans see the opportunity costs. And

we understand that we actually lost $35,000 because we gave up another opportunity. That's the point I'm trying to make with SSDI and $150 billion show. The Democrats see the $150 billion spent. Oh, look, people needed help. We spent $150 billion on them. What Republicans are forced to think about because we're more intellectually complicated and rigorous than Democrats is, well, where did the $150 billion come from? Well, it came from the economy. Well, where would it have went in the economy?

Oh, to create businesses and multiply the economy? Oh, okay. Well, that's the opportunity cost, which is a fortune to us. You get what I'm saying? Does that make sense? Okay. Hey, also, today's show is also brought to you by our buddies at Brickhouse Nutrition. Hey, if you tried Dawn to Dusk, I've been telling this story to people to get a kick out of it. So I did a hit on Fox News in studio recently and had a terrible night sleeping. I stayed in an awful hotel. It would have been quieter if I slept on the street. The hotel, I think, had sound amplifying windows. So I'm up all night and I got to do a Fox and Friends hit at 6.30 and 8. I get up in the morning

and there's no coffee. I wouldn't have had it in this hotel anyway. It was terrible. But I'm like, oh gosh, this is a man. I don't know what I'm going to do. You want to be on the air. You want to be energetic. And I'm like, gosh, I can't get up. So luckily, Brickhouse Nutrition sends me all kinds of free supplements. So I love those guys. And they had sent me a few bottles of Dawn to Dusk, one of which I had thrown in my bag. Put it in my bag. I'm like, let me pop a Dawn to Dusk here. Folks, greatest stuff ever. Perks you right up. No jitters. You feel great. You get a nice elevation in mood and energy. Great for pre-workout if you choose it for that. Great for CrossFitters, great for cops, great for firemen.

Frankly, great for working moms. My wife loves it. She loves it because she's always driving the kids around and she goes to her yoga class. Go give it a shot. Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Pick up Dawn to Dust today. All right. One final piece I've been teasing for a couple days now, and I hate when I do that and I don't get to them. So this is important. Heather McDonald, who does great work on crime and inner city, largely black communities. She's done some really unbelievable work on the war on police, too. Had a piece in the journal last week, and there were just some numbers on this.

I want to put this in perspective. Had a piece in the journal last week, and there were just some numbers on this. I want to put this in perspective. As a former police officer and a diehard conservatarian, I believe in some components of criminal justice reform. I believe some of them are a very good idea. I think criminalizing recreational use in some cases of marijuana is just a silly idea. Now, I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be some kind of a penalty. As I said to you before, Joe, maybe you make it a parking ticket. Now, I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be some kind of a penalty.

As I said to you before, Joe, maybe you make it a parking ticket. I mean, really, frankly, rather than getting a DAT, desk appearance ticket, which is what happens for a lot of these people caught smoking weed, I think it would be a bigger deterrent if you just charge them a $250 ticket and use the money to fund whatever, some drug rehab programs. I mean, there are a number of different ways to entertain criminal justice reform without criminalizing every simple act of possession. But if we're going to have a reasonable argument about this and about Jeff Sessions' new focus on putting maximum penalties on for people in the justice system, which overrides the Obama penalty. Remember I talked about this, Joe? Yep.

The Obama administration had a policy in place where if they arrested people for possession of drugs and potential trafficking, they told the assistant United States attorneys to leave the amount out when they went to court. Well, why is that? Because the amounts, if it was over a certain amount, triggered mandatory minimum sentences. So the Obama administration, in order to cater to criminals, ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake, I don't know why they think they're doing this to get votes. It's just absurd. To cater to criminals said to the United States attorneys, do not put the amount in. Therefore, people who are dealing in drugs could be let out earlier. And the idea was, oh, there's an over-criminalization problem in the country. Okay, fine, but let's deal with real numbers.

So McDonald debunks all of this this and in the premise she's debunking to be clear i'd like to leave you a crystal clear point is that oh the federal drug enforcement system is just locking up people for possession now that may be happening at the local level at the mypd level at the state police level that may there may be people in jail for possession and you know for smoke for basically smoking and not trafficking. That's not happening in the federal system, folks. And I want to have a reasonable argument before you knock Sessions' policy. And Jeff Sessions' policy, the new attorney general, was to throw the old policy out, Joe, and to include the amounts again.

Are we clear? And, of course, the liberals are attacking, going, oh, look, look at this. You guys are all racist. Well, you're just idiots. Again, we do reason here here she gives some numbers here she said if you were to let everyone out of prison in the population who was a minority accused of these drug crimes the prison population of of uh of black americans would decrease from 37.4 to 37.2 percent but you're not exactly emptying out the jails in other words joe there's not's not that many minority Americans in jail on these possession type crimes.

You're just making the numbers up. She points out another number. Only 198 in federal prison for possession. And here's the kicker, Joe, talking about minorities now, because that's the argument that it's racist. Like black people are being put in federal prison for smoking joints. You're just making it up. She said, ironically, a lot of those were pled down. These people were really dealing, some of them, and they pled the charge down to possession.

So the possession charge isn't even really accurate. OK, and also to trigger a charge for for for trafficking. This is why the amounts matter. a charge for trafficking, this is why the amounts matter. Heroin? You have to be in possession of 10,000 doses of heroin to get put in federal

prison as a trafficker. What? Folks, I think it's kind of important you include the amount if you lock people up for trafficking and a dude in your neighborhood has 10,000 doses of heroin. Newsflash, that's not for personal use. Unless you're like a total prepper

who wants to be a heroin addict the rest of your life and you think the zombie apocalypse is going to happen tomorrow, I better get my heroin doses. Nobody's stacking 10,000 doses of heroin for personal use. You're a trafficker looking to whack kids. End of story. So stop making up numbers. Those dose amounts are important because they

determine who the savages among us are and who the recreational users are. So stop making silly arguments to defend people who are drug dealers. It's idiotic. We can have a reasonable argument on criminal justice reform, but stop making up your own inconvenient set of facts because they're just not true. All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in. I really appreciate it. Make sure to go to CRTV.com too and sign up for my new show coming soon. Use promo code Bongino. You get $10 off. All right, folks.

See you all tomorrow. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud. And follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.