The Dan Bongino Show - Ep 475 Why Elites Hate Us

Episode Date: June 6, 2017

In this episode I discuss the real problem causing all of the "leaking" within the government's classified intelligence community.    I also address the liberal love-affair with identity politics and why this will never change.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-elites-hate-1496702030   Finally, I discuss the universal basic income proposal and its many shortcomings.  https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/allowance-all-americans-crazy-it-sounds?utm_content=buffer2d7ff&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dan Bongino. All the Sanders supporters love throwing bombs at me, and I throw them right back. I'm not here to pull any punches, right? The Dan Bongino Show. This is the great irony of conservatism. Even liberals win under conservatism. Get ready to hear the truth about America. Are you suggesting you're that stupid that other people can run your lives better than you can,

even though the cost and quality of what they buy, quote, for you doesn't even matter to them? On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino. Hi, welcome to the Renegade Republic. I'm Dan Bongino. Producer Joe, how are you today? Ready to go, Dan-o. Hey, I forgot to give you a quick update yesterday. You know, I feel like you're all part of my family out there. You know more about me than most of my family actually does in some cases. I was out in L.A. because I was at a stem cell conference.

I was giving a speech on my stem cell treatment I had done. And I get a ton of emails on this. For those of you regular listeners, you know I have horrendous arthritis from years of mixed martial arts and powerlifting and football and baseball and wrestling and you name it. The impact trauma to my joints has been really terrible. And I've had multiple surgeries, nine surgeries to be precise on my joints. And finally, I had a stem cell procedure done where they take your own stem cells out of your body and they put them in. I talked about it before. And my results, folks, were so miraculous. And I don't use that word lightly or hyperbolically that I was invited to speak at a stem cell conference of doctors out

in Los Angeles. That's why I was out there where I told my story about how insanely good the procedure was. So for those of you who asked me about it, hey, how's your shoulder doing after that stem cell thing? Here's the answer for you. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Like, I feel like a 20-year-old again. If I could only inject stem cells into my brain to get rid of this brain fog and feel like a 20-year-old again, I'd be absolutely spectacular. You know, Dan, it's funny how we do all the sports and a healthy activity, and what do we end up with? Arthritis. Arthritis. Yeah, yeah. I i mean that's the try joe i had this conversation with you while ago where i said here's the trade-off we make for all you

crossfitters mma guys out there and ladies and super active people you're not going to die of a heart attack most likely because your heart is healthy but you're going to live the rest of your life in atrocious pain because your joints are going to fall apart like that's just the way it is try the stem cell stuff it absolutely works i had had Dr. Berman out in Beverly Hills was my guy. So for those of you who would ask, he's a great guy. All right. A lot to talk about today. The leaker who was arrested.

I'm going to explain to you in today's show, having had me, having had a top secret sensitive compartmentalized information clearance, TSSCI, which is one of the highest levels of clearance you could have. which is one of the highest levels of clearance you could have, why this system is so bad and why this lady, reality winner, who was a leaker, who was arrested yesterday, who gave information from an NSA facility, what the problem is and how we can fix this. I did a hit on Fox about this, but it's really important because, folks, there's a big scam going on with this that not a lot of people are talking about, about clearances.

All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at Birch Gold. Hey, my wife and I were talking about this this morning. Right now, I really care about the safety of my retirement. I'm 42 years old. I'm not that old, you know, to be candid, but I'm old enough where I start to worry about, listen, am I going to have my money? I love it that the stock market's up, but you always have to protect against the downs. Volatility is my big enemy and so is inflation. If inflation is going up at a rapid rate and a stock market is going up at a less rapid rate, I got news for you. You're losing money even though you think you're making nominal gains. The company I trust with precious metal

purchases, which you can back your IRA with now, actual physical gold and silver, the real deal is Birch Gold. And right now, thanks to a little known IRS tax law, you can move some of your IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver. Perfect for those who want to ensure their hard-earned retirement savings are protected from the ravages of inflation and stock market volatility. Birch Gold, these guys are great. Go look them up. You think I'm making any of this up. They're A plus rated. That's very hard to do with the Better Business Bureau. And they have countless five-star reviews. Read the reviews from their actual customers. Go to birchgold.com slash Dan, B-I-R-C-H gold.com slash Dan, birchgold.com slash Dan. Request your free 16-page information guide. No commitment necessary. Go there today. See how you can take

care of your IRA or eligible 401k and insure against this volatility and the ravages of inflation. Go check it out today. All right. So on the top secret clearance thing, let me explain to you what some of the problems are with this. So a little background. This woman, her name is Reality Winner. That's her real name.

She was arrested yesterday by the FBI for leaking information to a local press outlet. Now, shockingly, Joe, and I say this dripping with sarcasm, she's a Bernie Sanders supporter who thinks she's part of the resistance. Well, newsflash knucklehead, if you're part of the resistance, air quotes, hashtag, maybe you should leave the United States government because you swear allegiance to the government, not to Bernie Sanders, you nutbag. So she's arrested yesterday and she's a contractor who works with the NSA in a facility down in Georgia. They didn't say in some of the press reports I read, they didn't say what exactly she was doing.

But my guess is, being that she had a job, and I hate guessing. I shouldn't guess. But I'll give you my professional opinion. Being that she worked for the Air Force, she was probably involved in satellite imagery before and classified satellite imagery. I'm just guessing based on my experience. And she probably took her clearance with her from the Air Force to a private contractor who the government contracts out work to look at satellite images. That's my guess. I think that may come out later. If not, I will stand corrected and give you the new information. If you have any information, you know my email.

It's on my website, Bonchino.com. Send it over. But how she got there is part of the problem. Folks, here's what happens in the United States government with top secret clearances. Some of you may know this. Some of you may not. There are people with top secret clearances in the government who have absolutely no business having them. Now, I'll give you an example because I like stories, right? We all think in narratives. We all think

in stories. We tell the movies of our own lives. We live like we're living through a movie of ourselves. When you go to work for the United States government, if you even have a tangential relationship, the classified relationship, you're most likely going to get a clearance. Here's an example from the Secret Service. We have a uniform division in the Secret Service. get a clearance. Here's an example from the Secret Service. We have a uniform division in the Secret Service. The Secret Service is a special agent side and a uniform division side. They are all under the Secret Service banner, Joe, but there are two completely separate missions. The uniform division guys are police officers. They wear uniforms. They work at the White House. The special agents are the guys in the suits and the earpieces, the ones you're used to seeing in the

movies that travel around with the president. Now, there's very little question that the agents, most of them, I would say not even all of them, but most of them are going to need a top secret clearance. Reason being, one, you're going to work criminal cases. A lot of times they're going to have a nexus to terrorism. And in order for you to read that classified information and be able to work those cases, you are going to need that clearance. You are also going to be around the President of the United States as an agent. I'm talking about agents now.

In the room with him, a lot of times when they're having very classified conversations. That usually doesn't happen in the White House. Give you a little background on how the Secret Service works. You're usually outside of the rooms in the White House when they're having these conversations,

although you can hear a lot of what's going on. But when you're in a hotel doing what they call a bilateral meeting, so if it's the President of the United States meeting with, say, the President of Afghanistan, you're getting a room there listening to what's going on. Obviously, you would need a clearance to be privy to that information. Make sense, Joe? Yeah. To the agents, I get it.

To have a top secret clearance, to have access to that information. Makes sense, Joe? Yeah. To the agents, I get it. To have a top secret clearance, to have access to that information is important. Right. But on the uniform division side, there are a lot of uniform division officers, in my opinion, that don't need it. I know this is not what they want to hear, but I want to be honest.

I feel like you guys deserve it out there, ladies. The reason uniform division officers, a lot of them are given a top secret clearance is because, well, they might be in the room too for some of this. They're around the White House. They may be privy to a presidential conversation. I'm telling you folks, the instances of that are exceedingly rare. I don't think it's necessary. I'm not saying all of them shouldn't have it. I'm saying there are probably some that maybe don't need it. The problem is we over classify both people and information. So it becomes this circuitous loop of dangerous circuitous loop. Here's what I mean, Joe.

We over classify information that doesn't need to be classified. So I'll give you a hyperbolic example just for the sake of effect for once, but it'll accentuate the point. Let's say the president likes poppy seed bagels or something. And they go, we need to classify that information. So all of a sudden, the president's eating habits are classified. I'm not saying they do that, but roll with me for a second because it'll make sense. Now, when you over classify the president's eating habits, what happens to the guy who works in the White House mess? In other words, the Navy mess where they serve the food for the people in the White House? Well, Joe, all of Navy mess where they serve the food for the people in the White House.

Well, Joe, all of a sudden they need a classification to view the president's eating habits, right? Right. So now Joey Bag of Donuts works in the White House mess. So hey, Joey. Joey Botts. Hey, cuz. You need his clearance, buddy. So we're going to give you a top secret clearance.

For what? Because you know the president eats poppy seed bagels. Oh, great. So now Joey Bagadonis gets a top secret clearance. So now what happens? Now you go on a foreign trip. The CIA is doing a briefing in a room. All of a sudden they ask, and this happens a lot on foreign trips. They're like, okay, this is going to be a sensitive briefing. Who's cleared? And Joey Bagadonis is like looking around. He goes, well, I'm cleared. All of a sudden Joey Bagadonis gets his top secret briefing. He really didn't need because he had a clearance only because he knew the president liked poppy seed bagels. And next thing you know, Joey Bagadonis goes, hey, that's an interesting piece of information I heard in that CIA briefing.

I will bet you the Washington Post would love to hear that. Boom. That's how it happens. Post would love to hear that. Boom. That's how it happens. Folks, we have an over classification of information that doesn't need to be classified. Who cares that the president needs poppy seed bagels? You don't need to classify that. Again, it's exaggeration a bit. I'm not suggesting me, but there are instances not as dramatic as that where we do classify information. It's totally unnecessary. So in order for you, Joe, to view it and to work on the renegade Republican program that would cover classifying, you have to get a clearance.

And now you can view almost anything that's top secret if someone gives you a need-to-know reason. Yeah. I mean, keep in mind, the need-to-know reason may be ridiculous. Like, oh, well, Joe was the chef on the trip overseas, so of course he had to be in that CIA briefing. Really? So now, compounding matters, and what makes matters worse is we over-classify information, step one, in order to view over-classified information that didn't need to be classified. We over-classify people who didn't

need to be classified. And then number three, even worse, folks, the classification level you have, top secret or TSSCI, is transferable when you leave the job. Oh, so this lady, Reality Winner or whatever, that's her real name, by the way. I'm not making this up. The lady's name is Reality Winner, the Bernie Sanders worker in the NSA who leaked the information to the press and just got arrested. By the way, throw the book at her. Throw away the key. Make an example out of her. Put her in jail for the maximum allowable time. She can take that and go somewhere else. So my guess is, and we'll see as the information comes out, but she worked for the Air Force. She got her classification in the Air Force. She then left the job to take a more lucrative position in the private sector,

and it was transferable. Okay. Now, now i just presented so you see the problems that i laid out for you joe over for classification of information a concurrent over classification of people now to read the over classification of information and the transferability of that clearance level you have to an outside entity that's working with, but not within the US government. Big, big problem. Okay? Because this is how you get tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people who are all cleared to view information who have no business having a clearance anymore.

So here's the fix, because anybody can whine about a problem, which I hate. I like to give you solutions. Because that's fair enough, folks. That's one of the complaints I get on the show a lot. It's like, okay, great. What's the problem? What's the solution? And usually I'll cover it a day later. We're going to get to it right now. Here's the solution. Number one, it's not transferable anymore. You're a special agent in the United States government. You're a uniformed division officer. You leave the government to work for a contractor. Too bad you have to be recared. Because now the contractors go out and get people

because they don't want to pay the money to have someone recleared. But some of those people shouldn't have that clearance in a private sector because there may not be the quality controls for information they have within the government. There may be, there may not, but it shouldn't be transferable. You got a clearance to work within the United States government that the taxpayer paid for, too bad. I know there's going to be some redundancy built in, but there's no way that clearance should remain. I'm sorry. And believe me, that affects people like me. And I had a clearance that was what, good for five, six years after I left the government. But that's fine. I gave up my salary too. You leave the government, Joe, too bad. You should have to request some special exemption or

some reason why that clearance should remain. Okay. Number two, it's going to cost a lot of money, but folks, again, are we serious about stopping the government leaks and protecting national security or not? Remember on yesterday's show, I talked about bumping up sources and surveillance, physical surveillance, even though it's going to cost a lot of money to get it done, physical surveillance of terrorists, that is. We're focusing too much on internet type stuff and email rather than actual old watching people, old fashioned watching bad guys. We have to polygraph people every six months. Folks, it's got to be done. Now, I'm going to give you a piece of information about my career that may surprise you. I was only polygraphed once when I got in the Secret Service. You know that?

No. Is that right? That's right, brother. I worked there 12 years. Now, granted, not that I have anything to hide. I wouldn't be suggesting it if I did. You work for the United States government with a TS clearance, you should get polygraphed either once a year or semi-annually. I'm sorry. I know it's a pain. I know it's going to cost money. I know it's a logistics headache. But ladies and gentlemen, there are people within the government who hold high level clearances who get polygraphed one time when they start their career. Can't happen anymore. Shut it down. There's too many leaks. There's too many people in there. Bernie Sanders supporters want to take down the government because they lost an election. You got to get polygraphed so that you make those you do those

two steps, not transferable and bang, you get polygraphed semi-annually. It'll shut that down. Remember Negan from The Walking Dead? I need to shut this down. Well, you need to shut it down. We are sacrificing our national security for a bunch of kooky looney tunes, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama supporters within the United States government who are abusing a taxpayer-paid salary, you're paying it to leak information that is damaging your national security. And by the way, this reality winner lady who leaked the information from the contractor

working with the NSA to the local press is really not that bright. Apparently what she did is she printed a document, a classified document about Russian infiltration into our voting system. She printed the document, Joe, and mailed it to the local media outlet. So when the local media outlet showed up with the document printed but folded into an envelope size, the FBI agents who were, you know, FBI is really good. These guys do a good job. The FBI agents said, oh, well, it was printed. Now we know it was printed. Well, that's really good. These guys do a good job. The FBI agents said, oh, well, it was printed. Now we know it was printed. Well, that's a good piece of investigative footprints to follow. So they went back to the facility where it was mailed from or taken from.

And they said, well, who printed this document? Well, six people. They probably put them on a polygraph, I'm guessing, or they just interviewed them and she fessed up and admitted to it. So she's really not that bright, which is probably pretty typical of Bernie Sanders supporters. But ladies and gentlemen, the classification system within the United States government, the clearance system is completely broken. It's got to change or you're going to see more of this. And my advice on my Fox hit this morning, and I'll leave it at this to these people within the government, who you really disgust me. I mean, it's a real low. You disgust me like looking at a rat eating a rotting piece of cheese. You're like, oh, one, I can't stand rats.

And even worse, eating that disgusting piece of cheese. That's kind of how the level of disgust we're talking about here. Here's what I said then this morning. Grow some freaking guts, you spineless punk piece of. You got something to say about the United States government? You don't like it? Great. Joe, our entire two years on the air here have been criticizing things the government does. We pay

for it. We're allowed to criticize it. We have a First Amendment right. Listen, round of applause for you. I appreciate that you work within the United States government and you have a criticism, but what you don't have the right to do is collect a taxpayer-funded salary while you swore an oath to defend the government, and then you don't like the government you defend, so you collect taxpayer money to leak information that could get somebody hurt or killed. You have no right to do that. And again, folks, I'm not patting myself on the back at all. I mean this. But I left. I resigned. So it's not like i'm speaking with forked tongue here okay i gave up everything to fight the fight i'm not you know i'm not looking for anybody's applause line or

i'm just telling you that no one's gonna tell me oh well you know what do you know about that what do you mean what do i know that's what i did everybody told me what are you nuts you're resigning the secret service because you want to run for office as a conservative in a blue state what are you an idiot and i look back and i'm like yeah maybe i was like that was crazy that's when i met joe even joe was like are you serious like you know remember that like you really left the secret service folks have some guts you want to be a leaker leave the u.s government you turd my wife hates when i say that. Really, you're making me sick. I can't curse on the air. You're making me sick. Leave, have some guts and leave collecting your money. It's like, I'm not going to take a chance. I want my cake and eat it too. I'm going to collect my salary and I'm going to destroy the government in the process. No, no, it doesn't work that way. Folks, by the way, I haven't said this in a while, but I rarely, rarely get an email on this.

But one guy sent me an email about two weeks ago. I didn't address it. I wanted to. And he said, oh, gosh, it was like two minutes before I got to the show content, which isn't exactly true. I always open up with a few comments about where we're going to go and some things that are going on in my life. But folks, we keep this podcast free for you. And it's paid for very generously by really good sponsors from really good companies. So I really appreciate the people who email me about BrickHouse and Birch Gold and really sending business our sponsors way. But we have to do sponsorships. It keeps the show free. It's the only way. I refuse to charge my customers for this audio product. Now, CRTV is different.

We do that for a reason. It's really, really expensive to produce and we need a revenue model and we don't want to be subjected to mass advertiser boycotts. But the podcast and audio product, it's not cheap, but it's not that expensive. The sponsors pay for it. So I really appreciate you putting up with our advertisers, patronizing their business. It means a lot. BrickHouse Nutrition, one of my favorite sponsors, my original sponsor, they have a product called Dawn to Dusk. It's an energy product. Now, one of the things they found, the problem with these energy products, whether it's coffee

or energy drinks, Joe, is you drink the damn thing and an hour later, you're crashing on the couch and you're falling apart. Foundation, I got a lot of great feedback on, but I got to tell you, Dawn to Dusk, I get explosive amounts of feedback on because people love it. I get emails from working parents, from military folks, a pilot, this guy Cliff, who emails me a lot on this. He loves it. It's a great product. Gives you a nice, smooth bump in energy throughout the day. Nice, smooth elevation. Gives you about 10 hours of energy. It's called Dawn to Dusk. Give it a shot. Send me your reviews. I promise you'll like it. It's available at brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan.

That's brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. It's called Dawn to Dust. Give it a shot. Nice bump in energy. Gets you through these tough days. So I appreciate you hanging in there with our sponsors, folks. It means a lot. I haven't said that in a while.

Sorry to take up your time, but it matters to me. This show matters and how we fund it. Okay. Let's see. I had to number the stories today because I had like seven stories I wanted to get to. Great piece today in the Wall Street Journal by William McGurn. This guy does some really terrific stuff over there. I have some beefs with the journal and how they handled Levin, who's a... I love Mark, who's been a good man to me my entire life. I think Brett Stevens, who's since left there, was unnecessarily harsh

with him. But McGurn's really terrific. And he talked about, there's this new thing, Joe, going on, this self-reflection within the Democrat liberal community. And this is hysterical. You're laughing. They're now starting to reevaluate their multi-decade long focus on identity politics. In other words, yeah, exactly. Like, I guess they got together a focus group of people and said, what's wrong with the Democrat Party? And a recurrent theme that came up amongst middle-class working voters

who have been abandoning the Democrats in droves is, it's probably not, wait a minute, it's breaking, newsflash, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. It's probably not a good idea to call people racist, homophobes, phobophobes, Islamophobes, phob-Islamophobes, phob-istaphobes. It's probably not. Newsflash. It's probably not working.

You've only lost governorships, state houses, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. Maybe we should reevaluate our approach. It's deplorable. It's deplorable. The approach is deplorable along with the deplorable Americans you call deplorable. I'm not going to say to their credit because McGurn's piece is pretty damning on it. I'll put it in the show notes today, available at conservativereview.com under the podcast tab.

But there is some attempt at self-reflection going on. The Democrats are starting to realize that this isn't working, that they're losing people in droves because, Joe, unsurprisingly to you and I and most of our listeners, you're insulting them. Are there racists in society? Of course. Are there Islamophobes? Yes, of course. Are there misogynists? Of course. But these are such a small, almost inconsequential portion of the Republican Party that damning an entire group of people in order to make a political point is probably not the path forward. And I talked about critical theory a little bit last week, and McGurn makes this piece, and this is why I want to make this point today. The point he tries to make is that it's impossible, Joe.

You can't separate the Democrats from identity politics and false charges of racism. This is all they have, Joe. And this is one of the points, remember the critical theory show last week? Sure did. And the show a couple months ago, I discussed the language wars and the left. Ladies did. And the show a couple months ago, I discussed the language wars in the left.

Ladies and gentlemen, the left a long time ago, you have to understand this, a long time ago, decades ago, right before JFK and post-JFK. I mean, you can argue about the timeline. It's inconsequential. Let's leave it for a long time ago, made a decision that they were going to stop appealing to the majority of people on common sense ideas. And what they were going to do is they were going to engage in identity politics instead. So instead of engaging Joe in an agenda that says jobs, better schools, better health care, their identity was going to be this. Republicans hate you, therefore vote for us. In order to do that, they fell in love with this

critical theory nonsense I discussed last week, which is in essence, is the idea that there's a white patriarchal power structure, a male power structure in this country. And that the way we defeat them is we discredit their ideas by saying, no, no, because they're in power, nothing they say matters. In other words, there's no such thing as truth if the truth is told to you by the people in power. Make sense, Joe? Yeah. In other words, there is no objective truth. Two plus two has an equal four if a white man in power says it, because he's saying that from his power base, and therefore it's only being done to advance his agenda. That's the essence of critical theory, that there is no objective truth because it's all

based on a subjective reality. Folks, that's obviously the dumbest thing ever said. If Reagan cut taxes and tax revenue of the government went up, that is a documented, verifiable fact that only an imbecile would ignore. But that's what critical theory relies on. It relies on making sure that you don't get people to vote for you to maintain power. You get people to vote against the other guy. And how do you do it? This is important. You do it by discrediting him. How but, but, but, but, but, but, but, this is important. Pay attention. Turn it up. Turn it up. How do you discredit the other guy if he's right? How do you discredit Dan Bongino's podcast if he says, hey, go to the treasury website and on the treasury website, you will see after Ronald Reagan cut taxes, tax revenue to the government nearly doubled. How do you

discredit that fact, Joe? Neither you or I would dispute, correct, that that's a fact? You can do it yourself, folks. Go look it up. How do you discredit? You discredit it using critical theory by saying, oh, Dan Bongino is white and he's a male and he's a conservative, part of the white patriarchal power structure. Therefore, according to critical theory, nothing he says is true because he's speaking through the lens of power, which distorts the reality. There's no real objective truth.

So therefore, he is the enemy. He is the oppressor. Discredit him right away. Now, all of a sudden, you're like, okay, well, what he says isn't true. So forget everything he said and just throw it out the window. And you understand how he started this? I said, but how do you discredit him if he's right? Do you understand, Joe, that if you take apart his ability to talk because he's a white man in power, that he's never right.

It doesn't matter. Even when he proves to you what he said is factually correct, he's never, quote, right, because he's only doing it to advance his power agenda. And he's therefore the oppressor. Right. advances power agenda, and he's therefore the oppressor. Right. When the Democrats made that turn to that type of thinking, that the oppressor should be silenced at all costs, whether it's through violence and when they embrace this critical theory,

Joe, there's no turning back now. Because now how do you go back and reverse that and actually argue on ideas? You've already discredited people. You've already said that conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans are racist, are deplorable, are Islamophobes. They hate women. How do you go back now and tell people that for 40 years you've been telling Joe Armacost and Dan Bongino are racist?

They hate Muslims and women. How do you now go back and go, hey guys, I think it's time that the supporters of Dan Bongino and Joe Armacost, let's say me and you were running for office as president, vice president, can that be a t-shirt? Producer Joe Bongino 2020, or well, actually it'd be 2024. We know what they, right? That's pretty good, right? How do you go back, Joe, now and say we should allow their support, allow, keep in mind, I'm using critical theory lens here. how do we allow their supporters a seat at the table now to discuss common sense issues with them how you've already said they were racist

and they hate people well we have to think up another lie we yes but so mcgurn i'm gonna put mcgurn and again forgive me i hate when i put wall street journal pieces in there and a subscriber only it may not it may be i'm not sure because I'm a subscriber, so I never know which ones, you know, special. I'm going to put it in the show notes. I don't know which one's special access or not, but I will put it in the show notes. But if it's just read the piece, it's really good because he talks about in the end a point I've been making for a while here, which is exactly that, that they can't turn back. There is no turning back.

And one of the other things he gets into kind of loosely, but I wanted to kind of talk about just quickly, is the way the left discredits people. One of the techniques they use, Joe, to get you to say, Dan and Joe, racist, Islamophobe, misogynist, therefore nothing they say is true, even when we're factually correct, therefore ignore them, is they engage in the language wars. And this is something I'm really, really, really strong on. I insist that if you listen to the show, you have to take to heart. One of the reasons the left keeps changing the dialogue in the United States and the appropriate and they engage in politically correct behavior.

And the example I use often is a while back, I saw this article about how when you're referring to gay people in polite conversation, people who are gay that, and forgive me, I don't even remember which one's the right one. You're not supposed to call them homosexual anymore. This was a real piece I was reading. Or maybe it was the other way around. Maybe you weren't supposed to call them gay. You were supposed to call them homosexual. Folks, I'm telling you the fact that, and the only reason I don't know the answer is because I don't remember where the piece was. But the fact that I don't remember which one was, you quote, appropriate one or not to use, should tell you how absurd it is. I don't know. And maybe if you know, email me,

which is the appropriate word that the left says is the, now, is the right one. Folks, I want you to understand that that example is epidemic among the far left, but it's done very deliberately. And think about why. The reason they change the language all the time, like, no, no, transgender's the word. And tomorrow it will be, no, no, it's not transgender. Tomorrow it'll be unigender. And if you say transgender, you're a transgenderist. You're like, I am? What do you mean? Is there a dictionary for this?

They do this for a reason. They change the language constantly because as more and more conservatives and Republicans start taking up the language that they thought was okay yesterday, according to the left standards, that's not good enough. So how do you paint people as racist and transgenderistophobes, right? If they're using the correct terminology. So if you change it and you don't really let anybody know, like you said, oh, if you refer to people like gay, you're definitely homophobic. Okay. So you're in a conversation on the air and you say, well, I was talking to this gay guy. What? Media matters right away. Look at this guy on Fox News.

He's a homophobe. He called the guy gay. You're like, I did? What did I do? You don't even know what you did. Why do they do that? They change the language. And this is an old Marxist technique because it's a way to categorize you right away

as something they want you to be, which is bad, a racist, a homophobe, whatever. Is this making sense, Joe? Yeah, you're moving the goalposts, man. You're moving, yes, that's a great way to, you are moving the language goalposts. And one of the reasons they do this, the best way I saw it summed up is there's a national review piece by this guy Ian yesterday, and it kind of sparked an interest in this. And he was quoting some folks.

He said the left figured out a long time ago that language, as we know it, Joe, is used to describe reality. Right. So when you and I talk and we're having a conversation about this chair in front of me in my office, I say it's a brown chair. It's made of wood. It's got a little like star thing in the middle. I'm telling you that to describe to you the reality I'm experiencing. Right. And I can see it. I know. And you can see in your mind. You're like, OK, like it's a brown chair. the middle i'm telling you that to describe to you the reality i'm experiencing right like right

and i can see it i know and you can see in your mind you're like okay like it's a brown chair you have the left doesn't want language to describe reality the language the left uses language to distort reality so and that was a great way to describe it because when you and i have a conversation i know joe doesn't have any hate in his heart for anybody i know joe because i know joe the man joe may have disagreements with certain lif I know Joe doesn't have any hate in his heart for anybody. I know Joe, because I know Joe, the man. Joe may have disagreements with certain lifestyles, but it doesn't mean he hates people or anything. Joe may have disagreements with his own lifestyle.

I have disagreements with my own. I'm like, I wish I could fix things, right? Yeah. But in order to get people to hate them, they have to use language and the stuff Joe says to distort reality. So Joe is not homophobic. That we know 100%. But if Joe uses the wrong word,

like gay versus homosexual, with no negative intention whatsoever, the left now uses language as a tool to distort reality. You get it, Joe? Because the reality is you're not homophobic. But the left needs people to believe that to get them to vote against you. So what do they do?

They go, oh, Joe used the wrong word. Language becomes a tool, not a wrong word. Language becomes a tool, not a descriptor. It becomes a tool. And that's what the left has done a long time ago. And that's why, again, they will never, ever get away from identity politics. They can't. When you've been using language as a tool forever to describe Republicans as racist, homophobes, Islamophobes, you can't sit back at the table with them. There is no return. You have reached the point of no return. It's not possible. Make sense, Joe? Yeah, man. I love this topic of language distortion, Dan. You know I do. I love it.

I know. I mean, we could talk about this all day. And I got an email from a guy. It was funny. Actually, not an email. It was on my Facebook page. A guy said, man, you need to start talking about critical theory. I'm like, bro, did you listen to my show last week? We're all over this stuff. Hey, one more quickie before I rock and roll today. So this universal basic income, which I'm fascinated with the idea, again, that the United States government should basically give every American an allowance. There's a great piece in Cato by Michael Tanner, and I'll put it in the show notes at Conservative Review today. It's a really fantastic piece. And he describes a problem, I'll be honest with you, I hadn't thought of. I hate the idea, just to be clear. It's the idea everybody should get a check from the government, wipe out all the assistance programs, Medicaid, Social Security, everything,

and give people like a, whatever, a $30,000 check to the government. And I said, even though I hate the idea that if you were going to do it, and it's a bad idea, the only way to do it is to give it to everyone, right? Because you create massive income cliffs otherwise. But the guy brought up another problem, Tanner, that I hadn't really thought about. He said, Joe, if the universal basic allowance basically is based on income, what do you do with people who have, let's say you want, because we can't afford it to give to everyone. That's the problem. The only way to make it work is to give it to everyone.

But you can't give it to everyone because it would cost trillions of dollars we don't have. But he said, if you were going to give it to everybody, it's not going to work. So let's say we only give it to people who make a certain amount of income and scale it down. You know, so listen to the show last week to catch up on all the nuances of it. But another point about not giving it to everyone, but people who are, say, just poor or lower middle class money-wise, is what do you do about people who don't make any income but have tremendous assets? Like, what are you going to do, a tax audit on every person? So Joe, here's a great example. Let's say, Joe, you make $15,000 a year in income. All right.

Technically, by income standards, you would be below the poverty line. You would be poor. Yes, by income standards, you would be below the poverty line. You would be poor. Yes, I would. But let's say Joe's a young guy, but Joe's getting ready to retire. Let's say Joe retires and he just enjoys doing the renegade Republican. And let's say I paid him $15,000 a year, but Joe has a home. Joe has four or five cars. He has a stock account worth a million dollars or whatever it may be.

Does Joe get it? So Joe has assets, but he doesn't have income. So Joe's not poor. He's just income poor. So now you're giving a $30,000 check to a dude who's got two, three million in assets. What do you do? Really? Do you do an audit of every single person to find out where their assets are? Folks, this thing is a disaster, this universal basic income. And the only reason I talk about it on the show a lot is because I'm telling you this thing is getting ahead of steam with conservatives too. Like, oh, it's such a great idea.

We'd save all the bureaucratic costs. It's a terrible idea. Scrap it. All right, folks. Thanks again for tuning in. I really appreciate it. I'll 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.