The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 568 Is This the Biggest Political Blunder in Modern Times?

Episode Date: October 13, 2017

In this episode - Why are the Democrats arguing for bailouts and fewer healthcare choices? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-to-end-obamacare-insurer-subsidies-putting-pressure-on-congress-to-act/article/2637381   The bipartisan “Bump Stock” bill is a scam. Please read about the troubling details. http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/new-bipartisan-bump-stock-bill-would-actually-ban-all-semi-automatic-weapons/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=92a95a12c2-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-92a95a12c2-83971621   There is a real and growing danger from this type of attack which could wipe out 90 percent of the US population. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/congress-warned-north-korean-emp-attack-would-kill-90-of-all-americans/article/2637349   Despite claims of “climate change” risk investors are pouring into Houston. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-12/investors-head-to-houston-to-buy-from-panicked-homeowners   Is this Trump’s biggest accomplishment thus far? https://www.wsj.com/articles/scalias-all-the-way-down-1507847435   Sponsor links: www.PrepareWithDan.com www.CRTV.com Promo Code “Bongino” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dan Bongino. They've been tweeting to me, Bongino's a nut, Bongino's a blanker, blanker. The Dan Bongino Show. Everywhere big government gets bigger, corruption grows bigger, and these liberals just keep going on and on and on about how great big government is,

and they can't prove to you any examples of how wonderful big government is almost anywhere. Get ready to hear the truth about America. Young kids, you are too stupid to figure out your health insurance needs, so we're gonna hammer your cabooses to death until you figure out that the government knows what's best and you're an idiot. On a show that's not immune to the facts, with your host, Dan Bongino. Welcome to the Renegade Republic with Dan Bongino.

Producer Joe, how are you today? I'm fine. Happy Friday. Yeah, man. Friday the 13th. fine. Happy Friday. Yeah, man. Friday the 13th. What a news day. Man, I've got so many notes here. I'm afraid that I'm going to miss something.

So right to the point. Hey, first an explanation, because I was on Tucker last night on Fox, and I went on to talk about the Las Vegas attack again. And I got a lot of feedback on that first one. Remember, I said the thing about I was not precise in my description of the body armor and I cleared that up. It was totally my fault. I told NRA TV yesterday during my regular one o'clock hit there,

I said, it is my job to be absolutely precise with you. There's no excuses for speaking and over in generalizations at all. But I went on last night and I'm getting, I always get a lot of feedback. Always. Every time I speak about this Las Vegas attack. And a lot of it is from people who say, you know, did you see this?

And it's a YouTube video. And there was a shooter on the fourth floor. And there was a second shooter. Folks, I get it. I'm not, as I said on Tucker last night, I don't blame people for wanting answers at all. But I feel like I owe you an explanation because I think some of you think I'm dismissive. And one thing I'm definitely not of my listeners ever is dismissive and i'm absolutely not in any way intending this to be condescending but i think i owe you an explanation

as to why because someone said to me the genesis of this or a little background as someone said to me yesterday i know you don't like conspiracy theories but and i feel like i owe you an explanation as to why that is why i it's not that i don't like them i just i'm an evidence-based guy and until i see evidence that i find convincing i'm an independent thinker just like you i choose not to put it out on my show and let me just give you a quick explanation why so you understand where i'm coming from i feel like i owe it to you and maybe it'll make sense it is not me in any way being dismissive because people get insulted yeah i'm serious joe like i get emails like i can't believe you don't believe this theory and i'm like well here's number one i've worked in the obama white

house uh many of you know that is a secret service agent i was one of his lead advance agents and i remember dealing with staffers on lead advances who loved, loved when people brought up the Obama birth certificate controversy. They loved it. The Obama staffers. But I am pretty convinced that when your political ideological opponents, just like in, say, wartime, are doing something you want them to do, your opponent's probably doing the wrong thing for them. I'm just saying, folks, they absolutely loved it. And I used to ask people who would tell me about it. I get it. I totally understand that people have questions about everything.

Question everything you want. I'm just telling you that, again, when insiders in the Obama White House, I saw this up close and personal, are saying to you, and this is one example of why I have a real problem with, I think, a lot of these things. Here's my, you want to hear a conspiracy theory, Joe? Here's my conspiracy theory. And I don't mean that in a negative way.

I think Democrats set us up a lot with this stuff to make us look like idiots. I heard it. I was there. I'm telling you. Joe, you get where I'm going with this? Is this making sense? Yeah. This is a this is a bait and switch not all of it I mean listen I would if you know someone I had some information

I that when I said that tweet Obamagate was going to blow wide open yeah I did heard some things and it turned out it wasn't a conspiracy theory the Obama administration really did unmask Trump administration officials that's real It's not a theory. That actually happened. But there are some things, like the Obama birth certificate thing, where I'm telling you behind the scenes, I can't tell you anything with 100% certainty. All I know is Descartes, I think, therefore I am. That's the only thing I can tell you with absolute certainty, okay? But I can tell you this with near certainty that I was there listening to these people and there's nothing they liked more than when Republicans brought up the birth certificate.

Nothing. And I'm telling you, I think it was a scam. Secondly, self-perpetuating disinformation campaigns. Yes, they loved it. It was good. It was the greatest thing ever. And again, as a rule of strategy, when your opponent's doing something you want them to do, you're probably not doing something right. Secondly, working for the government and having had one of the highest clearance levels you can have, a top secret sensitive compartmentalized information clearance level when I was on the Presidential Protection Division protecting the president and access to some very privy conversations. Folks, I'm telling you in my experience, the government, not the people within the government, I'm talking about the collective IQ here, the collective IQ of a government of fallible people and sinners, which we all are, they're not smart enough to do the things you're giving them credit for doing.

I'm just telling you, they are not smart enough to pull these things off. I don't know why as conservatives and some libertarians, we argue on one end that the government's too dumb to manage healthcare, but on the other end, we propagate a theory that they were somehow able to blow up the World Trade Center. Folks, does that make any sense? I'm sorry. I was there, okay? I worked in Seven World Trade Center. It just doesn't make sense. I know you're going to send me emails. I get it. Listen, I respect these people. I understand you're naturally inquisitive. And I'm not trying to be condescending at all.

I'm just giving you my explanation of why I believe why I believe. I understand why you believe what you believe. And I really debated even talking about this because people, they go, I mean, really, the only reason I brought up is because after the Tucker hit on Las Vegas, I probably got 50 or 60 emails from one person who swears i'm covering up for the cia that it was like a cia hit and i'm like guys you realize i work out of a home office in palm city florida right joe you've been here correct yeah my student i you think i have cia

operatives visiting my home planting planting stories on my podcast? Guys, come on. Is that even realistic? You know, there's a principle I strongly encourage you all, if you would allow me, to live your lives by. It's a very simple one. You know, Occam's razor, right? Some people say, you know, keep it simple, stupid, right?

That Occam's razor. It's a little more complicated than that. The more, I guess, you know, pseudo sophisticated version of people who want to sound really intelligent unnecessarily, by the way, because keep it simple, stupid really sums it up. But Occam's razor would say something like, given all possible explanations for a scenario, except the one that's the most parsimodious or requires the least amount of explanations, right? That's a great way to live your life. Accept the one. I'm not talking about accept it blind to any future evidence. I'm just saying always accept the explanation, barring any other evidence, that requires the least amount of additional explanations.

You want to know why I don't believe the World Trade Center was taken down as an inside job? Because I worked there. And the evidence, I saw with my own eyes absolutely no evidence at all that someone was hauling explosives into Seven World Trade Center on the OEM floor. We were on the ninth and tenth floor

to blow up the building. None. on the OEM floor. We were on the ninth and 10th floor to blow up the building. None. I was there all hours. We had a vehicle security facility down there. We worked there all hours. We were there at two and three in the morning. We had a duty desk at midnight. Not one person in the 12 years I was in the Secret Service

ever reported to the desk that they ever, well, it wouldn't be 12 because the buildings went down in 2001. I got in 1999 but you get my point that those two you know no one ever reported anything unusual ever it's just for for me to believe a conspiracy theory requires me to assume a lot and requires me to explain away things that make no sense like well why did no one report it what It just doesn't make sense. Gosh, I went on way too long about this. This is why I didn't want to talk

about this. My apologies, folks. I don't want to waste your time, but I did get a voluminous amount of email and I feel like if you're nice enough to tune into my podcast, I should be fair enough to give you an explanation. As far as you're going on like that,

you know, what are you going to do? What are you going to do? Son's a junkie. What are you going to do? My son's, I don't have a son. If you got to listen to the show,

you'll get the jokes. Just like Jay Zabacus. Yes. Someone actually posted on my Facebook yesterday, who is this infamous Jay Zabacus making a joke? Yeah, of course.

But again, folks, inside joke, if you're a regular listener, you'll get it. If not, you'll figure it out over time. I promise you. All right. So yesterday, Trump thankfully put out an EO, an executive, you didn't like Obamacare's executive orders, and now they're okay with Trump. Folks, I always hate this.

Just to be clear on this, it's not that we did, it's not about what I like or dislike. My beef with the Obamacare executive order was about specific executive orders that were not executive orders. They were legislating from the executive branch of government, which is not constitutional.

We have a legislative branch of government. It's called the Congress. Most of you know that. The executive branch is there to enforce the laws. It is not there to make the laws. What Obama did with the DACA, the DACA program, Deferred Amnesty for Childhood Arrivals, the basically amnesty

program for kids who were brought into the country illegally, which was a penumbra from the Obama administration. Why people and good conservatives had a problem with this was not because it was an executive order. There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about executive orders. nothing illegal or unconstitutional about executive orders. What it did was it rewrote the law based on a really tortured definition of prosecutorial discretion. It basically said, you know, it's the equivalent of the example I was using. It was the equivalent of the DACA executive order and why we had a beef with it of a highway cop who shows up to work in the NYPD,

of a highway cop who shows up to work in the NYPD, Highway 2, shout out to those Highway 2 guys, and says, listen, I'm not writing any more tickets ever for anybody with a Hispanic last name who was brought here illegally. You can't do that. Now, they're not prosecutors or cops, but you get my point? A cop has discretion in individual cases.

A cop on the highway, most of you know this, is under no obligation to write you a ticket, none. But he can't go to work and say, I am not going to write tickets for anyone who has the last name Brown or Jones or Ramirez or whatever it may be. You can't do that. That is not what the discretion was meant to entail. Prosecutors and the executive can't do that either. What not what the discretion was meant to entail. Prosecutors

and the executive can't do that either. What Obama did is he didn't say, hey, we're going to look at individual cases of children who were brought here illegally. What he said is we're going to let everybody go. That's not prosecutorial discretion. That's rewriting the law. That's my beef with the EO. Now, is this Trump executive order on Obamacare going to be challenging court? Sure. Are there things they may have issues with? Yes. And I'm going to get into this in a second. One specifically, though, is subjecting some plans to the Obamacare

law, however bad it may be written, and it is, and not subjecting other plans. They may have an issue. For me to ignore that because Obamacare sucks would make me just as bad as the liberals. You get what I'm saying, Joe? Yeah.

At some point, we're going to have to legislatively change Obamacare. We can't just say, well, listen, Obamacare sucks, but I'm a believer in the Constitutional Republic. It was passed in a tortured manner. It's one of the worst healthcare laws, if not the worst in American history. if not the worst in American history, but we can't profess a fidelity to the constitutional republic and then throw the republic out the window when it's our turn, because then we just lead the Democrats to do more of it. Now, a couple of things about this. Number one, I find it kind of almost amusing that the Democrats, due to this executive order and the breaking news today, by the way, because I want to cover two Obamacare topics, the executive order and the breaking news today, by the way, because I want to cover two Obamacare topics,

the executive order, what it does, and secondly, the stopping of the CSR payments. These CSR payments were bailout payments. Trump put out a tweet this morning and HHS put out a tweet and Jeff Sessions did a hit this morning, the Attorney General, and said we're stopping. These are the bailout payments.

That's what these are. I'll put a a um an article a really good article from the Washington Examiner in the show notes at bongino.com if you subscribe to my email list at bongino.com I will send you uh the show notes right to your your mailbox but let's get to the exist so again two things I want to cover is stopping the bailout payments to health insurers and secondly the executive order expanding healthcare associations, what it means for you and the atrocious position the Democrats are in right now. Folks, they are. They don't know what to do. Their heads are spinning.

You can tell by the way Chuck Schumer reacted. Okay, number one, what did the executive order do? It basically expanded the ability of small businesses to form health associations across state lines um so i guess the best way to say that is joe works for a radio company the radio company uh can get into the if they have enough employees they can get into the bigger insurance markets they can get group rates and but as a subject they'll be subjected to obamacare rules and regulations because of that what the trump executive order does is it allows some of those regulations about what those plans have to buy, Joe.

That's making them super expensive, but Joe doesn't need maternity care. Right? Am I crazy? Yeah, that's for sure. Joe does not... Dude. What are you going to do? What are you going to do? What are you going to do?

Joe doesn't need maternity care. The regulations that force Joe's company to purchase maternity care for Joseph Armacost, who has zero need for it, inflate the prices of Joe's healthcare. What this executive order is going to do is it's going to allow a bunch of smaller companies, maybe three, four, five employees,

a bunch of them to get together and get access to some of the similar rates that the bigger companies can get through group plans. Because what's the benefit of group plans, Joe? If you were, I never want to use my wife's company as an example, but let's say I had another wife just because I don't want to get their company aggravated. I had another wife and she worked for IBM, right? Right.

And that other wife in this fictitious life works for IBM and IBM gets group rates. Meaning if I joined with IBM and I have, let's say a diabetes condition, the group rates will not charge me a different amount than it would charge another healthy employee for IBM. Now you may say, well, how does that work? Well, it works because IBM has so many employees that the contract is still profitable, Joe, for the health insurer because they get whatever, 4,000 or 5,000 employees. And of course, in there are going to be some people who are sick. But you get what I'm saying? How it's worth it for them because there's going to be a ton of healthy people.

They're going to pay. Now, small insurers don't really have that benefit. So now with this executive order, I'm trying to make this really simple. It's obviously a little more complicated, but this is the essence of it. It's going to allow smaller employers, three, four, five employees, let's say they're all sick. That's not a really profitable contract. It's going to allow them to band together, spread the risk amongst a bigger health association of say 10 and 20 companies with two or three employees each Joe. And all of a sudden get access to lower group rates where the risk is pooled, not just in your small business, but amongst,

say, 10 or 20 small businesses joining together in the association. Make sense? Sure. Yeah. So it's pretty simple stuff. It's a great idea. I think it's a fantastic idea. I applaud Rand Paul also for pushing for this for a long time.

Is it a panacea? Is it going to fix the markets overnight? No, and there's a very simple reason. There's going to be massive lawsuits by the left to stop this stuff. Now, part number two of this. This morning, it was announced that they're going to stop these CSR payments.

These CSR payments are this. They're basically cost-sharing payments. That's what it stands for, cost-sharing. And what they do is they were payments from insurance companies to other insurance companies, from winning insurance companies that were supposed to win under Obamacare, profit-wise, of course. It's not an Olympic sport. Who were going to share some of that with companies that were losing as a way to get these companies past the initial stages of Obamacare. Well, what happened with this? Well,

sadly, I'm not laughing. I mean, it's just, it goes to show you the futility of the Democrats, how dopey this party's become. There were almost no winners in this. So everybody lost money. So what happened? Obama and the Democrats in Congress, when Obama's in office, authorized payments basically from the U.S. taxpayer because there was no money to pay off the losers. So they took it in essence from the u.s taxpayer because there was no money to pay off the losers so they took it in essence from the taxpayer the money was never paid back what happened uh after that the republicans sued went to court on it and they won the case because why joe the president cannot appropriate money like that the appropriation has to come from the legislative branch, the Congress. And it didn't.

That was never in the bill that they could do that. So they lost in court. These cost-sharing payments continued, though, because Obamacare is so bad, folks, that if the taxpayer payments were not there, you follow where I'm going with this? These companies don't have other companies to rely on to bail them out. They only have the taxpayer because Obamacare sucks so bad. So now let's rewind the tape. Go back to the beginning. Here's the awkward position

the Democrats are now in. They're trying to claim now, oh, this is sabotage. Trump is sabotaging Obamacare. No, Obamacare sabotaged itself they're in the awkward position now of now arguing for two things on the association front where the executive order allowing small companies to form associations the democrats are now arguing for fewer choices folks don't let your liberal friends do one of these dipsy-do flip-a-roo on you routines.

Don't let them do the shell game in New York City. Find a bean under the shell. There's no bean. You're going to lose that all the time. It's a scam. They are arguing now that no, no, there should be no associations and no choice of associations for small business. associations and no choice of associations for small business, you all should be forced into the massive voluminous black hole of suck known as the Obamacare, known as Obamacare exchanges. Folks, that's it. That is not hyperbolic. That is not me exaggerating for effect.

That is exactly what the Democrats are arguing. And you should be making that case to your liberal friends who are fighting the Trump executive order. You should be saying them, so basically you're arguing for me to have fewer choices. No, no, what we're saying is this is going to undercut the exchanges. How is it going to undercut the Obamacare exchanges? Because what's it going to do?

This is what the Democrats are actually saying, Joe. I'm not kidding. I'll put the articles in the show notes. Look at them yourself. It's going to, it's going to, this is what the Democrats are actually saying, Joe. I'm not kidding. I'll put the articles in the show notes. Look at them yourself. It's going to undercut the exchanges. Well, how's it going to do that? It's going to offer low cost alternatives. And what's going to happen?

This is me arguing with myself as a fictitious Democrat. And what's going to happen with lower cost alternatives? Well, people are going to take them. What are you going to do? This is where we need Johnny Depp and Al Pacino on the couch and Donnie Bresco. What are you gonna do this is where we need johnny depp and al pacino on the couch and donnie what are you gonna do people are gonna leave the exchanges what are you gonna do folks do you understand the argument they're making that people don't want crappy obamacare exchange insurance they would rather low cost alternatives like small business association backed insurance that once that's

offered through the Trump EO, people will leave the crappy Obamacare and the Democrats will say, no, no, no, no. You need to stay. You need to stay. You definitely need to stay. For those of you listening to yesterday's show, you pretentious vocal fried buffoons, the Democrats, I mean, do you need to stay? That's your argument. That's the best you can do that there's no other argument to be made if these programs were such a terrible

option these health association programs where small businesses can get together and offer low cost alternatives if they are so bad what are you worried about what's bad, what are you worried about? Seriously, what are you worried about? If they stink so bad and nobody wants them, why do you care? The answer is because Democrats hate choice. In case I missed the EO angle, the executive order angle, folks, the reason I believe this one is going to withstand the rigor of review on this, unlike the DACA executive order Obama did, because I don't think I was clear on that. So let me just rewind that, too. Is because most of Obamacare was written with the stipulation that the HHS secretary, Health and Human Services, at the discretion of appears endless amounts of times. Well, remember, that was at the discretion of the

obama hhs secretary at the time kathleen sabelius but now under there's an acting but it was tom price but now an acting trump administration official they're gonna have a tough time with this the democrats beating this up in court the law written for immigration that i challenged obama's eo on daca joe just to be clear was not written at the discretion of you know and for enforce this law at your own discretion it didn't say that that's why i think the dems are going to have serious problems in court and for those who asked that question about well how are trump ceo is different fair enough good question i appreciate it now the dems now so they're going to argue for fewer choices, which is ironic.

But here's the second thing where the Democrats are really on their heels, Joe. They're now forced in the position of defending these cost sharing payments, forced into the position of defending health insurance company bailouts by the taxpayer. That is. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Man, this is when we need a video podcast. Yeah. I'm like struggling in my chair here to play. What?

For 50 years, you've been beating up health insurance companies, talking about how they are torturing the American people with their awfully devised health insurance plans, pricing us out of our own health care. Now you want us to pay them with tax dollars, our money to bail them out? This isn't mildly ironic to you? Folks, I'm telling you right now,

the only people who are buying this tremendous line of horse crap, I'm serious, and I'm just going to sound rough, I'm sorry, but you are really dopey people with limited IQs. I'm serious. I'm just going to sound rough. I'm sorry. But you are really dopey people with limited IQs. I'm sorry. If you are a leftist who is buying this, you have done no homework at all. In other words, buying the idea that not bailing out insurance companies with taxpayer dollars is sabotage. You seriously have done no homework on this issue at all. And I strongly encourage you to stay off of television

you are only going to humiliate yourself and the country and your party it's embarrassing you don't know what you're talking about all right i gotta be honest i've had a lot of fun with these first two segments i know i'm gonna get a lot of email on both of them too but probably the first one more but just to sum that up the democrats are now the party of insurance company bailouts and limited choices in healthcare. That's it. There's no other way to explain it. Folks, huge news yesterday.

I hope you caught it. We got some major, major league PR from this over at CRTV where I'm proud to work. I put a post up on my Facebook page about it. Yesterday, we introduced a new show, Phil Robertson. Really proud to say that. Phil from formerly of Duck Dynasty. So, you know, we'd been working on this for a long time.

I'd heard about it a while ago. It was kind of biting my tongue because I wanted to say it. I have a tough time not sharing secrets with my audience. I knew about it a while ago and it's really, it was just blowing up our network and we're my audience. I knew about it a while ago, and it's really, it was just blown up our network, and we're really excited. Now, I have a promo code if you're interested in signing up for me.

My promo code. Sign up for CRTV. You'll get Phil Robertson's show, Steve Crowder's show, Mark Levin's show, Michelle Malkin's show, Steve Dacen's show. You'll get the Capitol Hill brief,

the White House brief. The network is blowing up. You can watch it on your computer. You can watch it on your smartphone. You can watch it on your smartphone. There's ways to sling it to your TV. I love what we're doing here. Now, this is tough for me because I get a financial incentive to give you my promo code, which is my last name, Bongito, which will give you $10 off.

I'm being serious here, folks. I'm just a guy like everyone else. I work for a living. It's nice to make a little extra money. I give a financial incentive if you sign up using promo code Bongino. But I love my audience, and it wouldn't be right. Not that my promo code is wrong. It still works.

But right now, at least, there's another promo code, which is not going to benefit me. It'll benefit someone else. And I always appreciate people who sign up using Bongino. You'll get $10 off with that. The point I'm trying to make is if you use promo code Ducks, D-U-C-K-S, Ducks, like quack, quack, plural, Ducks, you'll get $20 off. So I love my audience.

It would be really disingenuous for me not to give you an alternative that would save you $10 more. So although I always appreciate people who use mine, there's a promo code now, Ducks, that will benefit someone else, but nonetheless, you guys are great, ladies, so you'll get an extra $10 off, $20 off there's a promo code now, Ducks, that will benefit someone else. But nonetheless, you guys are great and ladies. So you'll get an extra $10 off, $20 off if you use promo code Ducks at CRTV. So please go sign up today. We really appreciate all the support we've gotten. Okay. I saw a story today that I've addressed on the show repeatedly, and I think is of great

concern to you. It kind of plays into one of the live reads I do, but that's not why I'm doing it today. Washington Examiner is a piece, again, I'll put it in the show notes, about a congressional hearing about the threat, the growing threat, and folks, the very serious and potentially existential threat for many of a North Korean nuclear detonation in the atmosphere. I know this kind of stuff sounds, we started the show about conspiracy theories. This is not one. I cannot be clearer on this. This is a very real, credible, real-world threat

that the potential for it happening, albeit very low, thankfully, is not zero. And as we talked about on my show where we addressed the black swan scenario and gun control, and I addressed on Levin, any scenario that result, even if it's low probability, but is super high risk,

meaning death, meaning the risk is like you no longer exist, is worth you thinking about and preparing for. Now, that's why I like my Patriot Supply as a sponsor. I have to read from them later, but not, but that's why I'm into preparedness, folks. The North Korean threat, it's a Paul Bedard article at Washington Examiner. There's Paul Bedard's Washington Secrets, which I really

like. I promoted that a couple of times. He does great work. I'll put the piece in the show notes. Please read it. Here's the gist of it. If the North Koreans managed to pull this off, basically a detonation in the atmosphere of a nuclear weapon. It would generate an electromagnetic pulse which would fry our electric grid. Now you may say, well, what's the problem?

You know, we have blackouts and we get the power back to homes in a week or two. Folks, no, no, no, no. This is not that threat. This would blow out the transformers.

It would overload all the electric lines. We don't have the capacity right now to reconstruct our entire electric grid ironically without electric we would have to rebuild the transformers the entire infrastructure would have to be rebuilt the problem with that is as this this is a congressional hearing folks this isn't like some joke some crazy blog site this is the real deal the guy at the congressional hearing said that if this were to happen, there is a potential that within a year, 90% of the population of the United States could be wiped out. That's not a joke.

Again, it's not something we should all sit up at night and be worried about. I'm not suggesting that. I'm just telling you that be prepared. Ask your legislators legislators your congressional representatives and candidly speaking your local representatives too if they've thought about this there are ways to do this to harden up the grid i believe uh what do they call them faraday cages or things like that where you can put them around transformers folks this is a very serious threat now you may ask yourself oh gosh why haven't we done anything? Well, one of the

experts on the issue I spoke to in the past said that there's this big beef going on between basically power companies and the government about whose responsibility it is because it's going to be a billion dollars. Folks, I get it. It's all understandable. I'm not blind to the business effects. But again, this is an existential threat. Someone better figure it out. You know what I'm saying? Like right away right away all right let me move on but that's 90 of the population i mean joe even if he's off by by 50 60 you're still talking about tens of millions of people potentially starving to death because there's no electricity no way to get food it's a very serious threat i can't emphasize enough the importance of our officials

doing that all right on that note believe me, it was unintentional. I just liked the story. Please be prepared. I appreciate everyone who supports our friends at My Patriot Supply. Someone asked me in an email, do they have gluten-free food? I thought, wow, that's interesting. If you were in a survival mode, you can't eat gluten. It's a pretty reasonable request.

I sent that on to Patriot Supply. I'll let you know the answer when I get it. But their food is amazing. It lasts for 25 years. My humble opinion, it's the best survival food out there. I say this all the time. It's better to have the food and not need it than to need it and not have it. Folks, for $99, they'll give you a one-month supply of emergency food. I have a couple boxes to feed me and my family and get me through at least a month. They have a lot of other emergency stuff there too on their website. But if you go to

preparewithdan.com, that's preparewithdan.com, this is our offer. They'll give you a $99 box, one month supply of emergency food that lasts 25 years.

The best day of your life is you crack it open in 24 and a half years or so, you eat it, and you go buy some more. Okay? But let's hope, let's hope that happens.

Because if it doesn't't or something like these atmospheric detonation of a nuclear weapon, God forbid would have happened. You'd be in really bad shape. Go prepare. It's a nice insurance policy for your food supply. I encourage you to pick up a few boxes. I did. I don't speak with forked tongue.

I didn't ask them for a hookup. I didn't ask them for a favor. I only got a box in the beginning to take a picture for Instagram. The rest I bought. I bought my own stuff. I have the records a hookup. I didn't ask them for a favor. I only got a box in the beginning to take a picture for Instagram. The rest I bought. I bought my own stuff. I have the records to prove it. Go to preparewithdan.com. Do what I did.

Pick up a couple boxes while you're at it. Preparewithdan.com. Okay. Sheesh, there's so much. I hate to leave you for the weekend. Let me just get to this one because it's uh this is a great story you know harry reed former senator harry reed his 2013 decision to uh to nuke the filibuster the judicial filibuster for federal appointees for those of you don't know what that was in 2013 democratic senator harry reed when the Democrats controlled the Senate under Obama, decided

that they were going to throw out a Senate rule that required basically 60 senators to vote for any nominee of the federal courts. Make sense, Joe? Mm-hmm. Reid threw it out for everything but the Supreme Court. The Republicans subsequently wiped that clean, too. But he said, no more filibuster. We're going to go majority now.

And basically, 51 votes is enough to confirm uh a nominee to the federal courts you may say well what's the problem folks this will go down i am telling you in history as one of the biggest political blunders in american political strategy why is that an article in the wall street journal today it's a pretty good one by kim strassel it's a very good one by Kim Strassel. It's a very good article. She does some good work over there. And she tries to make two points. The first is, you know, there's a lot of Trump bashing going on and, you know, people don't like his tweets and stuff. And she's not a big Trump defender or anything. repeatedly and we've talked about it here is this guy the trump administration is doing amazing a plus plus work on transforming the federal judiciary back to actual judges and not legislators

on the bench now she makes a couple points i wanted to talk about here no and you may say well how does that relate to the strategic blunder by Harry Reid? Because it should be obvious. The Republicans have 52 votes. Well, you know what? 50. Susan Collins really isn't a Republican. Frankly, she's a McCain.

But they have a tiebreaker with the vice president. They have enough votes right now because the Democrats wiped clean the filibuster rule, Joe, to get all these judges appointed. So this is the biggest political blunder of all time and let me just add to that you may say well i mean is it because when the democrats take control the and you'd be right the same rules apply to them they only need 50

votes in the senate but you're assuming something there you're assuming the democrats are ever going to take control again folks the democrats do you understand that they have been wiped out outside of the coasts and basically Illinois? Even in Maryland and Massachusetts, you have a Republican governor. You have three bases of power for Democrats right now. You have California, New York, and Illinois. Really, we could actually micro that even further. You have Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City Illinois really we could actually micro that even further you have Los Angeles San Francisco New York City and Chicago that's it so I'm going to dispute the premise at all

that you're ever going to get power back in at least maybe in the I could be wrong but in the next few election cycles by that time Joe the federal judiciary has already been replaced with a bunch of 40 and 50 year olds who newsflash are going to be in office for probably 40 years or excuse me on the bench i should say gotta speak clearly on the bench you get what i'm saying we now strassel's like hey you may not like trump whatever man but this is a real accomplishment now here are some of the numbers. He's already got 60 nominations for the federal bench out there, and there are 160 more openings.

That 60 right now are more than Obama had in the entire first year. We're not even done with the first year yet. Now, he's been doing a spectacular job, folks, because the circuits, as she points out in the piece the circuit courts you have circuit appellate and the supreme court the lowest level federal courts the circuit courts joe where 99 where federal legal disputes are settled 99 trump is transforming it back to an actual judicial branch and not a bunch of legislators and black robes advancing the liberal agenda and how's he doing it? Because for all the knocks about,

and listen, I had some beefs with some of the policies too in the primary with Trump. For all the knocks about how he's not a conservative, like I said, I don't care what he talks, I care what he does. His administration's been working with the Federalist Society, folks,

which is a diehard textualist organization that believes in the text of the law should matter, which is a diehard textualist organization that believes in the text of the law should matter, which is what judges should be reading. And they are appointing a plus people to the bench. Folks, I'm telling you, this decision is going to go down by Harry Reid as a colossal apocalyptic blunder for the Democrats, because you are going to see when Trump after this four years hopefully eight if he transforms the judiciary and has these people these conservatives on the bench for 40 50 years all the stuff they've managed to change through the courts on the

social front on the immigration front that's all going to go out the window they are in a world of trouble a world of trouble just want to bring that it's a really good piece in the journal today all right uh where do we go next they teased something yesterday i don't want to leave behind but this is okay another one this reminds me of joe pesci lethal okay okay remember that lethal weapon okay because i got really so much juicy stuff out there and i know i'm not going to have you tomorrow so i don't want to uh i don't want to miss it uh interesting article i think it was in bloomberg it'll be in the show notes you can check it out yourself but uh i'll just cover it

quick yeah you know i always find fascinating liberal hypocrisy and how liberals rarely put their money where their mouth is you know i bring up all the time how when you ask them how much they voluntarily give in higher taxes it's's the number zero. Matter of fact, they hire accountants to avoid paying higher taxes, but they want you to pay more. Well, I'm always interested in that because where people put their money is typically not where they put money where your mouth is.

You've heard that line. And something's going on right now in Houston that should make you think twice about the whole liberal narrative about climate change. Well, what is it? Article in Bloomberg about investors right now piling into where Hurricane Harvey happened, Joe, piling into real estate over there and making people basically lowball offers on their homes. I'm not suggesting that that's morally or ethically great or not great or whatever it may be, folks. I'm simply suggesting to you that there are people out there, investors with real money,

who are trying to buy homes that are ravaged by those floods. Now, you may say, well, what's your point? Folks, what's my point? You think these people are all conservatives? The amount of money flowing in there is not from conservative think tanks. It's from the market. There are tons of liberals and Democrats who probably have a lot of money in real estate funds

and REITs and other things that are pouring money into Harvey. But Joe, these are the very same people telling us, climate change, it's going to destroy Houston and Florida. Really, it's going to destroy Houston and Florida? How come money's piling into these areas right now? It doesn't make sense. And I only bring it up because in the Bloomberg piece,

the author hits on that, but doesn't sense the irony. Read the piece. You'll see what I mean. They're like, wow, you know, the effects of climate change in the future could be dramatic. I mean, the next sentence

should have been, but it's not so dramatic that it keeps people from buying a property in the very same areas they say are going to be destroyed by climate change. Does that make any sense?

It doesn't. And it just, again, speaks to this liberal hypocrisy. You need to pay higher taxes. Well, do you? No, I don't. But I want you to. Climate change is going to destroy Hurricane Harvey. Well, why are you making lowball offers then to homeowners to buy their homes?

Because I think I can make some money? I mean, what's your answer to that? You're just making it up, all this stuff. It just upsets me. All right, moving on. This bump stock bill, folks, I got an article up from The Federalist, from Sean Davis.

If you're ever going to read an article I put up at Bongino.com, read this one. It's short, it's sweet, it's to the point. This quote bump stock bill has almost nothing to do with bump stocks there's a bill out there by a republican he should be ashamed of himself carlos cabello out there he i don't know listen i don't know this guy personally but he had the responsibility to read this bill before he put it out that's his job you have one job as a legislator that's to

legislate and write bills that will help your constituents. This is a bill, the bump stock bill, that supposedly bans bump stocks that conveniently hardly even mentions a bump stock. You know what? Let me read this to you to be absolutely clear and precise on this. Okay, hold on one second. Okay, here's what the bill says. It shall be unlawful for any person. Pay attention, folks, to the details here. This is critical.

It shall be unlawful for any person. Pay attention, folks, to the details here. This is critical. Shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle. Wait, what? Where's the bump stock in there? Yeah. Any part or combination of parts designed to increase the rate of fire of a

semi-automatic rifle davis makes a terrific terrific pointless piece he goes nowhere in the bill does it describe the base the base point they're going to judge the rate of fire increase from so he makes the point which is not a conspiracy theory, that it doesn't say like increase the rate of fire from 20 rounds per whatever, per second. It says nothing about it. So he makes the point that that could ban any semi-automatic rifle because if the rate of fire you're using

as your baseline is zero, any semi-automatic rifle that increases the rate of fire from zero to one could be banned. You may say, oh, that's stupid. Are you sure about that? You want to take that chance? What are we talking about? Are we talking about lightening the trigger load now?

So let me get this straight. You own a, I have a Smith & Wesson M&P 15. You bring it to the gun dealer. You go, hey, I don't like this trigger pull. Can you lighten it up a little bit? Are you a federal felon now? Folks, I got news for you. may be read the piece this is why never ever trust the democrats and rhinos like corbello never with firearm legislation ever there is always joe always a trojan horse in there

read the just read the bill folks it's linked in the piece you think i'm making any of this up any piece of equipment it increases the rate of fire what does that what does that mean what what what are you talking about are you talking about what is it you know a forward pistol grip because if i hold it and i press it for my shoulder i my finger i can get better mechanics on my finger that case could be made in court against you never trust these guys ever joey had one job one job that's it you only had one job to write legislation this is what you put out there never never let a crisis go to waste right the democrats and weak republicans do it all the time all right last story because i teased it yesterday i'm not going to beat it to death but it was just an interesting kind of it's a

little wonky story but about what's going on right now with the debt but i find it interesting you may not we're in a little bit of a pickle right now with interest rates we have kept the federal reserve has suppressed interest rates for for a very long time now there's a lot of arguments about is what the natural rate of interest would be. Is there just not a lot of demand for money? I don't want to get into a lot of that today. I'm just telling you interest rates are low right now. That's the premise of where we're going with this because I don't have a lot of time to get into the other stuff.

Interest rates are very low. There's a battle going on right now between what they would call doves and hawks. There's a piece in the journal that covers this yesterday, which is fascinating. Do we raise the interest rates? Do we lower the interest rates? And in essence, folks,

raising our interest rates nationally through the Federal Reserve or trying to do that, because there's no way to directly really do it. You have to do it through secondary means. There's an argument right now, do we need to do that? And the reason they're talking about that

is the economy getting hot enough under the Trump administration and at the tail end of the Obama is, is the economy getting hot enough under the Trump administration and at the tail end of the Obama administration? Is the economy growing enough that we have to make sure we don't over-inflate the money supply, Joe, and get a bubble burst like we had in housing? Okay. So they want to raise interest rates. So pretty simple stuff. But the conundrum we're in is we've had interest rates so low for so long.

And here's a number for you. What is it? The Bank of International Settlements reports that borrowing outside of the United States, there's $10.7 trillion in borrowing in the first quarter alone outside of the United States because low interest rates make borrowing easier, right? Sure. You want a loan, Joe, for your coffee cup factory, whatever it may be. You want a low interest rate loan.

So borrowing is increased. But here's the problem, folks, and here's kind of the pickle we're in. A third of that money is owed by borrowers in emerging markets. Who cares? What the hell does that mean? Well, emerging markets, their currencies can fluctuate a lot because they're not as stable as places like Japan or China. But emerging markets have hot and cold economies.

You have hot and cold governments at times. The problem with this is if you borrow it at a low interest rate, eventually you had to convert those dollars you borrowed into the local currency. So let's say the currency is whatever it may be. We used to call them chits. So you say, whatever, you convert it into your local currency, which is chits. And when you converted your,

CH, by the way, when you converted your dollar into a chit and interest rates was low, it was $1 for one chit. But now the interest rates in the United States go up, which dries up a bit of the money supply, making the money more valuable, right?

I mean, you dry up the supply of anything, it makes it more valuable. Everybody wants bagels. You get few bagels. Everybody starts bidding on the price of the bagel. The bagel goes up. Money's no different. So if we raise interest rates and start to dry up the supply of money, the value of that money goes up. But folks, the value of that money goes up for people who took loans in it as well. So now these emerging markets that borrowed US dollars but have to pay it back in chits because you had to convert it to spend it locally are now going to be screwed because you thought you owed a dollar per chit and now you need five or six chits to pay back one dollar.

Now you're in a pickle. This happened in Mexico. It happened with some of the East Asian countries. Folks, this could be a really big problem. I only say that because I think we do have to raise interest rates to get ahead of it. I think I'm a big believer in sound money. But the journal author brings up an interesting point, that this may bring on some kind of a global recession if we don't handle this carefully, because all these other countries may go bankrupt trying to pay us back in basically stronger dollars. Make sense? Sounds pretty shitty to me.

I knew. Dude. You knew that was coming, didn't you? I knew. I kind of set myself up. I should have called him Scoots. Sometimes we call them Scoots. You did it.

But chits, CH, it's a family-friendly show. All right, folks. Thanks again for tuning in. I really appreciate it. Please go check us out at CRTV. You're going to love that new show by Phil Robertson. Check out the trailer, by the way. It's on my Facebook page. It kicks butt, man. Go check it out. All right. See you going to love that new show by Phil Robertson. Check out the trailer, by the way. It's on my Facebook page.

It kicks butt, man. Go check it out. All right. See you all next week. Thanks a lot. 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.