The Dan Bongino Show - We Own The Story Now (Ep 1048)

Episode Date: August 20, 2019

In this episode I address the stunning change in the narrative on anti-First Amendment group ANTIFA brought about by our show. I also address the disturbing firing of NYPD police officer Daniel Pantaleo. Finally, I address The NY Times stunning admission of media bias. News Picks:Elizabeth Warren says “sorry,” again.    Insanity is erupting on college campuses.    Is Russia hiding another Chernobyl?   Rep. Rashida Tlaib is a hypocrite on human rights.   The NY Times finally admitted they’re not “journalists.”   Pick up Matt Palumbo's book "Debunk This!: Shattering Liberal Lies" here.   Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved.     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

get ready to hear the truth about america on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host dan bongino all right we had a false start there on the dan bongino show but ladies and gentlemen i have i have rarely been as stoked about a show as i am about today's show. Let me just get this through everybody's skull out there now. We, you and I, we own the narrative now. Yeppers. And no, I'm not backing off one bit. We own the narrative now. Don't go anywhere if you're confused about what I'm talking about.

I promise you are going to love today's show. There's nothing better than the dipsy-do flip-a-roo when you flip the left's games on themselves and they panic. Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show, my good friend, producer Joe. How are you today? Well, I don't know if I'm as primed as you are, but we're ready to go. I'm good to go. Oh, I'm like a steam engine getting ready to blow today.

Ladies and gentlemen, we own the narrative now. All right, stay tuned. Let's get right to it. Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Boll & Branch. That's B-O-L-L. Best sheets out there hands down there is not even a second place bowl and branch bowl and branch.com use promo code bongino you get 50 off your first set of sheets you will never ever sleep on another pair of sheets again the

same way or a set of sheets i should say you don't need a pair you just need one sheet in your bed and it's like a fine wine, these sheets. They age over time and get better and softer. It is like sleeping on a cloud. These sheets are incredible. We love them. I don't know what I'd do without them. The only problem is I don't like traveling anymore because they don't have Bolin Branch sheets.

Listen, getting a good night's sleep is easier and more affordable than you think. You don't need a new expensive mattress or sleeping pills. You just need to change your sheets. Check out Boll, B-O-L-L-N, branch.com. Again, promo code Bon Genome. Everything Boll & Branch makes from bedding to blankets is made from 100% organic cotton. It means they start out super soft

and they get softer over time like a fine wine. Everyone who tries Boll & Branch sheets loves them. They have thousands of five-star reviews. Forbes, Wall Street Journal, and Fast Company are all talking about Bowling Branch. Even three U.S. presidents sleep on Bowling Branch sheets. Shipping is free. Try them for 30 nights.

If you don't love them, send them back for a refund. You won't. There's no risk and no reason not to give them a try. To get you started right now, my listeners get $50. That's a nice discount off your first set of sheets at BowlingBranch.com using promo code Bongino. That's my last name. Go to BowlingBranch.com for $50 off your first set of sheets at bowlandbranch.com using promo code Bongino. That's my last name. Go to bowlandbranch.com for $50 off your first set of sheets.

That's B-O-L-L-andbranch.com, promo code Bongino, bowlandbranch.com, promo code Bongino. Let's go. Nice. Okay. Caused a little bit of a controversy yesterday. Don't care. Joe and I, and Joe brought this up this morning, and Paul and I were kind of wondering.

Joe said to me, Dan, yesterday on the show, you referred to Antifa as anti-First Amendment. That's what they are. That's their whole purpose, suppressing free speech. Joe said to me before the show today, he said, didn't you say that a long time ago? Yeah. So I'm making a request to our audience archive. It's Judy.

If you can find the first episode I said that, I would love you to death, Judy. You're the best. Judy S. She always, she digs through, she has access to a library. I don't even think Joe and I have, I don't know if she's got some secret Dan Bagino show file or what, but she always seems to find it. But we have been calling Antifa anti-First Amendment for a long time. Listen to me.

I don't care what Antifa calls themselves. They can tell you all they want. Antifa stands for anti-fascism. I don't care. Right. You know, Joe and I were thinking of a good analogy here. Remember the weather underground? Yeah.

This is hat tip Armacost, by the way. The weatherman, Joe remembers him. The weatherman, they were a domestic terror group. They can call themselves meteorologists. They can call themselves peaceniks, whatever they want. They were a terror group. I don't care what anti-First Amendment Antifa calls themselves. It is an anti-First Amendment terror group.

Now, you may say, okay, Dan, you said this yesterday. Why bring this up today? Because, ladies and gentlemen, as producer Joe and I have said to you often, one of the things, the narrative-shifting techniques, we hate that the media does to Republicans only all the time and conservatives. They ask the infamous, when did you

start beating your wife question? Where they're not looking for an answer. Right? They're trying to establish a narrative by asking a question that doesn't have an it doesn't matter what you answer. When did you stop beating your wife?

I don't beat my wife. Headline Baltimore Sun. Dan Bongino. I don't beat my wife. Headline, Baltimore Sun. Dan Bongino. I don't beat my wife. Dan, what do people say? People start saying, was he beating his wife? Why is he saying this? He stopped beating his wife?

It's the question. Oh, thank God. Yes. Yes. You know it. The question is the narrative. That the question is, the answer is irrelevant. The question is that it's a manipulative technique the left used. Now, the left uses on us.

Yes. Folks, I'm sorry, but I'm playing by the new rules. You want to dance? Let's dance. You want to tango, babe? Let's tango. Now it's time to flip the script on the media and the left. The media was all offended yesterday

that I reset the narrative also by getting people to write, not just one, by the way, there are many. I'm just going to show you about four highlights yesterday from the media. Here's number one. Newsweek.

Kellyanne Conway from the White House falsely claims Antifa stands for anti-First Amendment on Fox and Friends. Newsweek. Here we go. Headline. Now people are starting to say, wait, is this an anti-First Amendment group?

Folks, yes. Yes, they are. Headline number two. The clowns at Media Matters, the professional s'mores roasters who rent space in Mommy's basement. Fox and Friends suggest that Antifa stands for anti first amendment. Sorry. Headline number three, inquisitor Kellyanne Conway makes false claim on Fox news that Antifa stands

for anti first, first. And my personal favorite headline number four from the conspiracy theorist blog the daily beast kellyanne conway falsely claims antifa is short for anti-first amendment dude this is if there was ever a double motley to own the libs, own the libs. Dude, we need a double Motley, a triple Motley. We need possibly a quadruple. Our first quadruple Motley ever today.

This is it. Listen, I have no sympathy at all for these media lunatics being forced to print headlines now where people are going, wait, is that really an anti-First Amendment group? Yes, it is. Too bad. Got it. Not so sad. Dude, I don't care what they call themselves. As I said to you before, the weather underground, a domestic terror could have called themselves whatever they want.

Hey, man, we prefer we are professional meteorologists in our off time and we're not bombing people. I don't care. We are now going to own the narrative. We own it. Now it's ours. And no, I am not letting the hook out of their mouths one bit. This is a known anti-First Amendment. We played a number of videos, racist, violent, domestic terror group that uses violence to attack people. I'm not backing down on that in a sliver, not an inch.

And the fact that Kellyanne Conway at the White House ran with it, she knows that they think it stands for anti-fascist. She knows that. Kellyanne Conway's not stupid. But listen, round of applause for Kellyanne to flipping the double-barreled middle finger to the media and running with the real definition of Antifa, anti-First Amendment.

Good for you. Take it. I am not claiming any proprietary interest over it, even though it's ours. That's not Muttley. That's actually Joe. We own it. We own the narrative now.

We own it. And by the way, to the Antifa losers who've been tweeting at me and the other stuff you've been doing, you know what, folks, we've been under kind of a relentless assault since we started this.

Yeah. If you think for a second, let me be serious for a moment. It's kind of been a little funny. If you think for a second you're going to intimidate moi man you pick you pick the wrong cowboy brother you pick the wrong guy because i give exactly zero about you s'mores roasting coward chumps in your basements sending your tweets your emails and you

know what else you sent to me zero zero zero you will never if anything if anything you have inspired me to continue this fight against your fascist racist anti-first amendment cause you will never intimidate me you will never intimidate joe see here's the difference between us yeah and you joe and i have lived actual lives with real people, with real troubles, who've gone through real things and real struggles. We don't live in mommy's basement. We don't roast s'mores and watch internet porn for 20 out of 24 hours a day. We don't sit there smoking our tubes, roasting our s'mores, and begging mommy for a break on the $50 rent every month. My skin is hard. It is thick.

And I've been ready for this fight for a long time. I'm with you, bro. Bring it, kids. Oh, oh, oh, do I know that. Yeah. Oh, oh, do I know. Verdict is in. Ho!

Oh, do I know. Verdict is in. Oh. And we know what that means. Yeah, I think we do. Yes, we do. We own it now. All right.

Moving on, because yesterday was a stacked news day. And like I said, I've been eager to get on the air. So we had another abomination of a decision yesterday. And another guy I thought I respected once, who has now completely disgraced himself on his position. And I'm embarrassed to say I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Many of you know I was a police officer earlier in my life. NYPD Police Commissioner James O'Neill just humiliated himself yesterday. the benefit of the doubt uh many of you know i was a police officer earlier in my life nypd police commissioner james o'neill just humiliated himself yesterday uh for those of you who i had video coming up in a second who missed what happened yesterday officer daniel pantaleo was

involved and listen we can all get at what was unquestionably a tragedy. A man, Eric Garner, lost his life. Full stop. It was tragic. It was a tragedy. There's nobody who thinks this was a good outcome. Nobody. Nobody sane or rational. But Pantaleo was involved, Officer Pantaleo, in a legitimate police exchange,

which I'm going to give you the details on in a minute. And I have one, two, three, four, five takeaways from this, showing you that Officer Pantaleo, who was fired yesterday by a cowardly police commissioner in James O'Neill, who was fired yesterday, was acting as his job mandated him to act as a police officer. And O'Neill fired him only because communist mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, and their pressure to do it and the political pressure wanted them to. O'Neill had to know as a former street cop himself that Pantaleo, if he could have gone

back and changed what happened to Garner, who tragically passed after his interaction with the police, he would do that. But blaming Pantaleo for this, blaming Pantaleo and refusing to see what actually happened and its impact long term in the police department is a sham. Let me get to this video. Here's James O'Neill. I'm going to tell you right now, I heard from a lot of cops yesterday. They are furious about this story. Here's James O'Neill explaining, listen to this. This is the police commissioner in New York who decides to fire this guy. This is him explaining that if he were still a cop, he wouldn't agree with his own

decision. Play the cut. So immediately I'm sending out my remarks and the video of this press conference so they know what you all know. And I've been a cop a long time. And if I was still a cop, I'd probably be mad at me. I would. You're not looking out for us. But I am. It's my responsibility as police commissioner to look out for the city and certainly to look out for the New York City police officers. They took this job to make a difference. And you all know the city's been transformed.

I've had a lot of help. But it's the cops out there right now and the thousands that have come before us that continue to make this city safe. Some will be angry, and I have a great executive staff. These police officers do a terrific job each and every day, and we'll have to work through this it's a resilient organization i did this based on the evidence and testimony at the trial no no no no you didn't you did it because you're a political coward who caved to political pressure that's why you did it and i'm ashamed i gave this guy the benefit of the doubt. And then he says, ridiculously, some will be.

No, no, no, not some will be angry, James. They're all angry. It's almost unanimous based on what I'm hearing from the cops in the field. I have not received one email in my inbox, phone call, text, DM on Twitter or tweet from a cop saying O'Neill did the right thing. Now, forgive me for not giving you, I'm assuming all of you know the background. I'll just lay out quickly what happened and a defense of the officer's actions, not a defense of the outcome. Let me be crystal clear on that. But a defense of the actions. Officer Pantaleo was responding to a complaint in front

of a business about a 350 pound man which is important here eric garner who was selling loose cigarettes loose cigarettes what they call lucys in new york yeah they take the cigarettes yeah they open up the pack they sell loose cigarettes because some people can't afford to buy the whole pack now he's doing this in front of stores and outlets that sell their own product and don't want Garner there. Pantaleo, the officer Pantaleo, did not just randomly stop Eric Garner on the street because he had nothing to do. Are we clear on that? He was responding to documented complaints by the business owners who did not want this intimidating guy in front of their business selling product they either had inside or intimidating their customers. Pantaleo doesn't know this guy.

A scuffle ensues after, and this is important again, many, many minutes of trying to convince Garner that he's under arrest. Garner doesn't want to get arrested. He's 350 pounds. He's a big man. He's 130 pounds heavier than I am. A scuffle ensues. Officer Pantaleo gets a hold from behind, a takedown hold, which they disingenuously call a chokehold because they don't have any experience in the arena of tactics and controlled tactics. O'Garner goes down, says he can't breathe.

He winds up dying in the ambulance and chaos ensues afterwards. Again, a tragic outcome nonetheless. Granted. Pantaleo undergoes two investigations, is cleared by both of them, and O'Neill acknowledges after he fires him that if he were a cop, that he would be upset at himself too. Now, let's go through why Pantaleo and why this is a dangerous precedent. Number one, two investigations were conducted.

The Department of Justice investigated Pantaleo and his actions, and the city of New York investigated Pantaleo. He was not indicted, and he was cleared on any criminal charges. Are we clear on that? The DOJ and New York City investigate him. Two well-funded, exhaustive investigations. No criminal wrongdoing. Second, none of these investigations concluded there was any evidence of any kind of racist or biased intent on a part of Pantaleo. Pantaleo happened to be white.

Garner happened to be black. Again, I'm only telling you that because they're painting this as some kind of story about race. There is zero, zero evidence. Do you understand? Zero evidence that race had anything to do with this

through two well-funded investigations. So you could, if your liberal friends want to go down that road, that is, they're speaking out of their cabooses. There is no evidence of that at all. None.

Second, as I said before, Pantaleo was not there of his own volition, his own free will. He was there because they were responding to formal complaints that had actually made their way to police headquarters from businesses in the area that did not want Garner there he was not there because he had nothing else to do the police were responding to a call for help what do you want

pantaleo to do and his team ignore it third they spent minutes minutes minutes, not seconds. They didn't pull up and bum rush Garner. They spent minutes trying to de-escalate the situation and get Mr. Garner to comply with lawful, lawful, lawful. For the second time, lawful. Third time, commands. He would not comply. He then resisted arrest. He's a towering man. So again, the narrative that Garner was killed because he was selling loose cigarettes.

No. Garner, number one, wasn't killed. He died in the course of a police interaction. He was not murdered. That's a legal term. Right. He died no doubt family lost their son nobody thinks that was a good outcome but garner was in complete control of the interaction not the police how do we know that because the police asked him to comply and he said no. Clearly they were not in control. I don't mean that as a knock on the cops. I'm talking about from a tactical perspective, Garner was the one controlling it. He refused to comply. If he would have complied and got handcuffed, none of this would have happened. another takeaway there was a plate glass window where garner was up against on his back he would not come away from the window and come out and get arrested

i remember being a police officer when officer vinnie gadis god rest his soul was pushed through plate glass and died severed his femoral artery. Can look up his story online. Not making it up. It's not hyperbolic. What did you want Pantolato to do? Tackle him through plate glass? They all could have died. Yeah. Another

takeaway. Folks, I'm getting tired of people who have no experience in control tactics, hand-to-hand control techniques, and when unfortunately becomes hand-to-hand combat at times in law enforcement. Okay? It is a skill set like anything else, control tactics. It's not a mystery. Learning how to control people who engage you in a physical altercation is a skill set. Pantaleo was not engaged in a choke hold. It was clearly an effort to take him down.

Now, to be fair to both sides of this, a choke hold, which would be the compression of the windpipe, not the carotid arteries on both sides. That's a carotid arteries on both sides that's a carotid that's different that's a carotid choke a choke hold by the nypd a compression of the windpipe is a banned technique if you look at the video it's clear pantaleo who's substantially shorter than garner who grabs an arm and does grab around the neck is not trying to choke garner he He's trying to take him down. How do we know that? Because when he gets on the ground, he's trying to control him, and he lets go, and then Garner says he can't breathe. The sequence of events is clear.

He's not choking him and Garner saying, I can't breathe. He lets go when they establish some control of Garner, and then Garner says, I can't breathe. Not the other way around. He was not choking him. Finally, two investigations concluded, again, that there was no criminal intent on Pantaleo's part. Now, just quickly, because I have other stories, I want to wrap this up by telling you. The outcome was tragic. Point taken.

Nobody should die in an interaction with the police. Having said that, we live in an imperfect society where people make bad decisions. Police officers are forced to respond to others' bad decisions. Pantaleo wasn't the one making the bad decisions. It was Garner. Pantaleo and his team had to respond. Garner could have de-escalated this situation immediately by simply complying with a lawful order. If you were going to, James O'Neill, NYPD police commissioner, fire men and women, police officers, for split-second decisions, engaged in what could potentially be a very violent interaction with people who outweigh them by up to 200 pounds at times, you're not going to have a police department left. Now you wonder why cops in discretionary police interactions are walking away? And what I mean by that is that police officers aren't walking away from assaults and rapes and burglaries.

When police officers have the opportunity, you see someone in an alleyway sitting there. They might be injecting drugs. You didn't really see it, but you're not sure. The cop's saying, hey, move along. Instead of maybe engaging in a lawful pat-down if they could. That guy may have been someone engaged in an assault or a burglary later on. Now he's free to roam away. Because the cops are saying, why?

What if this guy engages me in a scuffle? Am I going to lose my job like Pantaleo? Find myself in jail? Folks, we live in an imperfect world where imperfect men and women put a badge on for an imperfect salary to walk imperfect streets. James O'Neill acknowledging himself that he would have probably acted the same way

or would have been at a minimum, I don't want to paraphrase him, would have been upset at his own decision is quietly acknowledging that Panaleo didn't respond the wrong way. He responded in a split second how most people looking to preserve their butts in an interaction with a potentially very dangerous guy

would have responded to. This was a disgraceful case and an embarrassment to law enforcement. Really bad. Really, really bad precedent. All right, folks, moving on. I got a lot more to get to. I want to cover this.

There's a FOIA by Judicial Watch, which I think just blows up the whole case we've been making forever about this information back channel and this spying operation. Ladies and gentlemen, this FOIA Judicial Watch put out there shows you everything we've been telling you for two years is true.

I got that. And also, I got a college craziness story. I didn't realize how bad it was on college campuses. Shame on me. So don't miss that either. All right. Today's show brought to you by Candid. Hey, listen, your teeth move as you get older.

I know. I'm finding that out the hard way. If you want to get your teeth fixed, the last thing you want to do is wear braces. That's why I'm happy to tell you about Candid. Candid, the clear alternative to braces. Candid has an experienced orthodontist who is licensed in your state to create a treatment plan for you. They create a 3D preview of how your teeth will look after your treatments are done.

We love Candid, Candid. Once you approve your 3D preview, Candid creates custom clear aligners that will be sent directly to you. There's no hassle of going to an orthodontist's office and Candid costs 65% less than braces. Come on, you can't beat that. Fix those choppers.

And for every aligner purchase, Candid donates $25 to Smile Train, which brings safe 100% free cleft lip and palate treatment to children around the globe. Very nice of them to do that. Get straighter, brighter teeth in an average of just six months. Six months. Learn more at Candid, C-O dot com slash Bongino. That's Candid, C-A-N-D-I-D, C-O dot com slash Bongino. That's Candid, C-A-N-D-I-D, C-O dot com

slash Bongino, Candid, C-O dot com slash Bongino, and receive $75 off with promo code Bongino. Again, that's Candid,

C-O dot com slash Bongino, code Bongino for $75 off. That's a big savings. Go check them out. Straighten out those dientes, those teeth.

Okay. So Judicial Watch, which has been doing really great work, Tom Fitton and Chris and the team over there, they put in a FOIA, FOIA is short for Freedom of Information Act, request and said, hey, listen, we'd like to get a hold of correspondences

between Christopher Steele, the State Department, Jonathan Weiner, Victoria Nuland, employees of the State Department, and Clinton Acolytes, by the way, we would like to get a hold of some of the emails between them. And what they found, ladies and gentlemen, was troubling. Here's just a copy of the FOIA if you want to check out the front page of it.

Folks, as it turns out, this back channel that's been going on between Christopher Steele was the author of the dossier and the state department is looking more and more troubling by the moment. Now I'm going to offer you some questions up. Some of them we allude to in our, my new book exonerated, uh, which I want you to check out, but folks, how long was this back channel going on? So just to be clear on what the back channel was based on the information they got back, it appears Christopher Steele and his company, Orbis,

was sending intelligence reports to Jonathan Weiner, who's sending them on to Victoria Nuland. To be clear, these are two State Department employees in the Obama administration who are known Clinton fans, acolytes, big time, right? Steele is sending these reports as far back as 2014 and 2015. It appears to be an ongoing information exchange. Now, I'm not going to spend too much time on this because we did a lot of Spygate yesterday.

But this, of course, fosters a sense of questioning here where you should be asking yourself the question, was it Weiner and Newland from the State Department who may have been intermediaries to connect Steele to Simpson? Think about this. This is important in light of my whole thesis of my second book. Again, exonerated. Available pre-order now folks weiner and steel uh weiner and steel and newland remember simpson glenn simpson

who is the proprietor the uh one of the owners of fusion gps that's hired by hillary clinton to make up fake stories about donald trump basically They're hired for oppo research. What they wind up doing is making up fake stories about Trump. They need a credible face on their story because Simpson can't go to the FBI with it. They'll laugh him off. He has no backup. So they need someone who's worked with the FBI before that if he says it or she says it, it'll have some teeth to it. Now, what better person than Christopher Steeopher steel who's already working with these clinton

acolytes at the state department joe does this make sense what i'm trying to get out here i put down the cues here's the question did weiner and newland connect simpson to steel because they needed a credible front did weiner and newland suggest to glenn simpson or to clinton that they've been working with this guy for a long time he He's worked with the FBI that, hey, if Simpson's got a story to tell about Russia, we might want to pass it through this guy first because the FBI already deems him credible. He's got his foot in the door. Yeah. Yeah, exactly.

Question number two. We find out, excuse me, from this FOIA that a lot of the of the steel reports he's passing to newland and weiner as far back as 2014 this is an ongoing information exchange involve ukraine oh oh here we go again with ukraine oh remember ukraine was a hotbed for political consultants in the Obama administration. And to be fair, some man afford as well who worked for Republicans. Ukraine was in political turmoil. Tim Yashchenko, Poroshenko, all of these fights were going on. Allegations of corruption, elections, revolutions.

There was a lot of money to be made in ukraine for political consultants there are hillary and obama consultants making money over there and there's people like paul manafort making money over there too ladies and gentlemen a lot of these ukrainians are cozying up to obama insiders who are consultants now for ukrainian You dig? Now, why does this matter? Steele is also feeding Ukrainian intelligence reports on Ukraine to Weiner and Nuland. Ladies and gentlemen, again, is it possible that people like Alexandra Chalupa at the DNC, who's intimately involved with Ukrainian diplomats in the United States, Is she also helping to make the connection between Steele and Simpson? Is she involved at all? Are they the ones figuring out that,

gosh, Simpson has this story to tell, this fake story about Trump-Russia collusion? If we put our buddy Steele, who's been working with us on Ukraine, on the face of it, who's a known FBI informant, it may seem more credible. with us on Ukraine, on the face of it, who's a known FBI informant, it may seem more credible. Now, we know from Kimberly Strassel's excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal the other day, which is fantastic, that Simpson was working the inside-outside game. In other words, he understands he needs these meetings. Now, there's an interesting snippet of the Strassel piece that's worth your time here, where she talks about

how Simpson is getting all these meetings with these higher-up politicos, these political officials, and these media folks, trying to, the piece is called, by the way, Fusion, the Collusion Puppeteer by Kim Strassel.

And she talks about how Simpson's engaged in all these meetings with all these people trying to pawn off the Trump collusion hoax. Is Simpson working the inside-outside game and in the course of working that game, making connections with Chalupa, Weiner, and others, and figuring out, gosh, if I use this guy's steel, it'll seem that much more credible. Folks, this story reeks. Reeks. Can I bring up one more thing as well? Don't worry, Paul. I usually send Paul some kind of visuals for the show, but I just want to hit this and move on. As I addressed and exonerated, folks, I'm starting to seriously, seriously question the whole Sergey Milian was the source D and E element of this story. I'll get to more of that later,

but there have been some people picking up on this. We were on this a long time ago. I think Sergey Milian, who's alleged to be the source of the P-Tape story, according to a lot of people, you know, trying to keep, it's not so family friendly today, I'm sorry, but we'll have to bleep a lot of that out before Joe Ray knows.

But I'm starting to seriously question that. I can went to a little bit at my book too, and there's a reason. I'll explain more later in later episodes, but just let that kind of sit out there a minute um also by the way today is the release of my good friend uh matt palumbo's book please do not vote 2020 without reading matt's book it's called debunk this if you love matt's work on my website debunk this shattering liberalize i wrote the forward to the book uh by matt palum. Please, it's available today.

Today's his launch day. Go check it out on Amazon. It is a thorough evisceration of leftist lies. I can promise you, you'll never lose a debate to your liberal friends again by reading Matt's book. And it reads really nice and fluidly. You can go back and forth between chapters. Go check it out today.

You can see the cover on our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino. Debunk This by Matt Palumbo, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, available in those places. Really, really awesome book. You're going to love it. Okay. I want to get to the college craziness here in a second because it's so bad. I can't believe this stuff is going on. Paul and I were talking. We're like, what do we do? I think I have to send my kid to Liberty or Hillsdale. All right, finally, last sponsor there, today's show brought to you by Buddy's at NetSuite. Listen, if you don't know your numbers, you don't know your business.

The problem a lot of growing businesses have that keeps them from knowing their numbers is their hodgepodge of business systems. They don't communicate. They're not interoperable. Bad idea. They have one system for accounting, another for sales, another for inventory, so on and so on. It's a big inefficient mess, taking up too much time and too many resources. And what happens? It crushes your bottom line. You don't need that.

Efficiency matters. Introducing NetSuite by Oracle. Paula, how much you love NetSuite? Yes, she loves NetSuite by Oracle, the business management software that handles every aspect of your business in an easy to use cloud platform, giving you the visibility and control you need to grow. With NetSuite, you save time, money, and unneeded headaches by managing sales, finance, and accounting orders in HR instantly right from your desktop or phone. That's why NetSuite is the world's number one cloud business system. Get a load of this. Right now, NetSuite is going to give you these valuable insights, these valuations with a

free guide. It's a great guide. Seven key strategies to grow your profits. If you go to netsuite.com slash Bongino, netsuite.com slash Bongino, netsuite.com slash Bongino to download your free guide, seven key strategies to grow.

Spit it out. Seven key strategies to grow your business. They're free guide at netsuite.com slash Bongino, netsuite.com slash Bongino. Netsuite.com slash Bongino. Listen, there's a reason thousands of the best known brands and fastest growing businesses use Netsuite. Go check them out. Okay.

So Penny Nance has this really, really good piece at the Federalist. Folks, some of you go to my show notes. Some of you don't. Please subscribe to my email list at Bongino.com. I will send you these articles. I really only put the best ones, five to seven of the best articles on the internet I could find every day.

I put a lot of time in it. So if you subscribe to my email list, you'd be making me very happy because I really want you, it's not my website, it's the Federalist. I don't get any money from this. I just want you to read it. Here's the piece, it's excellent.

So here's the backstory. It's called My Son's Freshman Orientation at Virginia Tech was full of leftist propaganda by Penny Nance, who by first time I was ever on Hannity, by the way, gosh, seven, eight years ago was on. Remember the old Great American Panel was on with Penny Nance?

Oh, yeah. So Penny sends her son to Virginia Tech and they go to this orientation. And she's like, listen, I was just overwhelmed by the leftist propaganda. And I got to tell you, reading the article, you're going to be astonished at some of the stuff that happened at this thing. And Paul and I don't know what to do because my oldest daughter is going to be going to

college in just a few years. And after reading this, I'm seriously in a bit of a bind. So from the piece, here's takeaway number one. Again, worth your time to read. Quote from the piece. She's talking about the orientation of Virginia Tech. She said, what followed went from slightly bothersome to downright alarming. The college filled the next two hours with speaker after speaker who introduced themselves

with not just their names and titles, but also preferred pronouns, as in, hi, my name is Penny Nance, and I identify as she and her. She goes on. At first, parents were slightly surprised. By the end, they were mad. Gee, you think? You want to sit there? Folks, let's talk about the insanity. By the way, she notes that everyone who got up and spoke

gave a pronoun corresponding with what you would think the pronoun would be. Can we even allow it to say that? This is how crazy this is. This is how nutty this is. Let's get to a couple of just rational take. By the way, liberals, you can tune out at this point because this is the rational part of the show. I know you're not interested. Let's say, Joe, at an orientation.

Well, I mean, let's be joe at an orientation well i mean let's be nice and say there's only 10 speakers the reality is they're probably close to 20 maybe even more who the heck is gonna remember every single person's preferred pro can you imagine this so speaker number one hello um this is joey bag of donuts he him geez zoe and you're like This is Joey Bag of Donuts. He, him, she, zo. And you're like, oh, okay. Hold on, let me get my... Joey Bag of Donuts. He, she, zo.

And then the next thing, Janie Bag of Donuts. Hello, I'm Janie Bag of Donuts. I am she, her, they. Oh, I can't keep track. Of course you can't keep track. Then who comes up next? Then Nelson Muntz comes up next.

Nelson goes by Zizou, thou, them. You're like, okay, Muntz, Zizou, thou, them. Then finally, keep in mind, you're only four speakers in. Yeah, right. Then you get on to the next guy. The next guy comes up, I go by standard he, him, and them in plural. You're like, who? So now, again, I'm just asking you all to be rational, folks, okay?

I know my audience, I'm not trying to insult you, but I'm asking for the liberals who think this makes sense. Yeah. Do you notice what we did? Like, I was obviously, I'm not being hyperbolic. That's what happened at the thing. But now you're writing this down. You're trying to pay attention as they want you to, to someone's preferred pronouns

instead of using standard English language or referring to men as he and women as she. And notice what you're not doing, Joe. You're not exactly orientating yourself to the school in the orientation. Oh, by the way, your tuition this year is going to be $7 million. I missed that. I put Joey Bag of Donuts.

I was writing down G-Joe Day, and I missed it. How do we add $7 million? I'm getting my kid out of here. How did you miss it? They said it at the orientation. I'm sorry, Mr. Administrator. I missed the tuition bill because I was paying attention to your 30 speakers preferred pronouns and johnny bag of donuts said he wanted he jose or whatever it is i don't even know the pronouns because they don't even make sense

well folks this is absurd we have rules in the english language so people can communicate listen this is a block of wood okay okay? This is not an apple. If you say this is an apple and it's wood, it's the Jane Gavel. Ruling, block of wood. You can't just tell me it's an apple and expect us to have a conversation.

If I say to you, think about this. I'm really hungry. I'd like you to give me an apple in the deli and you hand me a piece of wood. I go, wow, that hurt. This tastes like a piece of wood. That's because it is a piece of wood. It's not a zhi zhao apple.

It's a piece of wood. Oh my gosh. You're a racist. You know, straight up. Of course. I have to be. I'm an istaphobic, but we got to, because we're just asking you for common sense.

I mean, really. And Joe, Joe, seriously, if it offends you being called, let's say you're transgender. Fine, listen, I'm not looking to, seriously, I'm not looking to rub this in on anybody. If you're talking to someone and you mistakenly say, yes, sir. And it's a transgender man or a woman and you get it wrong and they correct you. Okay, fine. I'm not looking to

hurt your feelings. Whatever. Fine. I'll call you. I'm dead serious. I'm not looking to create a big scene. You're polite to me. I'm polite to you. People make mistakes. But this thing now in public, we've got to get up and give a list as if anybody's going to remember that? At a college orientation? Are you serious? Oh, it goes on.

From the Penny Nance piece. I'm not done. I rarely do more than two screenshots. This piece was so good, it's worth your time. I'm giving the signal. Look at this. I'm giving the bat signal. This is not a joke. Penny Nance has a photo.

It's, again, youtube.com slash Bongina if you want to see it, or if you're already a listener, you can just watch the piece. This is a badge from the event you get at the orientation. It has the pronouns on it. It has a name blacked out. He, him, his, himself. This is a general engineering student. I'm not kidding.

Look at the badge. This is not a joke. This is not Photoshop. This is an actual badge that has a blacked out name and underneath it says he, him, his, his himself i would look at this honest again be like what is this an english i don't understand are we taking a pronoun class

no no these are my preferred pronoun well if you have it on the badge why do you make why do you need to make a big public proclamation when you get up to get when you get it reminds me of the socialist convention video remember we covered this two weeks ago the socialist convention where the guy gets up to make this big speech about being offended he goes guys guys guys and then some other uh transgender man or woman gets up goes we cannot use the word guys and starts freaking out folks do you understand like the tower of babel is going to ensue if we have a set of language rules that don't matter anymore again i'm not trying to blow up anybody's spot here you want to be called she just politely correct someone it's not a big

deal i don't have it in for you joe doesn't have it in for you i'm looking to make some public statement here no you are you're the ones trying to impose your rules on us. Thanks, Dan. If I see someone that looks like a man, and I say he, and you say it's she, fine. I've no problem with that. That may bother some of the listeners, too. I'm not capitulating to anything. I really don't care. You want to be referred to as a man or woman.

I don't care. It's your business. It's your world. I'm only asking you to not impose absurd, outrageous, entirely unfollowable rules of language that are no rules at all. You can't make stuff up and just expect the whole world to change. Takeaway number three. This is the most disturbing and folks if this isn't a clarion call and a warning to all of you sending your kids to college what i'm about to read better darn well be a wake-up call this is a quote from the event in the penny nance piece

the orient the people of virginia tech said to them parents don't be shocked if your kid comes home changed they intoned in the other room to hundreds of parents including myself who had saved and sacrificed to send their children to this quote top educational institution the attitude they conveyed was one of how privileged

we should all feel that they selected our children to attend such a fine and prestigious university. Lucky us. Huh. No. No. No, no.

You want, you know. No, I'm not going to, because I don't want to. You know, many may read that first line as, don't be surprised if your children come home damaged. Well said. You're darn right. I don't know how to put damaged. Well said. You're darn right. I don't know how to put it. Well said.

No, folks. Joe, I, and Paula, listen, none of us here are perfect parents. Believe me. Joe and I have had a lot of conversations. I've screwed up a lot. Me too. Okay, it's hard.

Parenting, there is no manual. None. You make bad decisions all the time, not out of malice. There's just no manual for it. But I'm telling you right now, if you think for a second, I'm sending my kid to your school for you to change them? Change them into what? Some social justice warrior, pseudo-socialist, communist,

social justice warrior, s'mores roach, I said that twice, you know, basement dwelling loser. If I want my kid changed, I'll send them in the military where they make good men great. I'm not going to send them to a college campus to learn from a bunch of professors that make good men and women awful.

You're supposed to be educating, you're supposed to be changing them. Who gave you the right to change my kid we're paying for an education not a social justice boot camp folks this article is really disturbing please go check it out

it's on my twitter it's on the show notes it's at the federalist if you want to just Google it, that's fine. Again, we don't make money off The Federalist. It's just a good piece and should be a warning for everyone. And believe me, as Paul and I were going through this this morning, we were like, no.

I'm just not having this. I'm not. Alright, this is kind of a twofer. This final story is important. I wanted to get to it yesterday, but gosh, we had so much going on. Monday's always stacked. So I had to boot it to today. Ladies and gentlemen, the New York Times got nailed.

Now, none of us listening to this show take the New York Times seriously anyway. It's become a conspiracy theory blog site like the Daily Beast. We get that. But the point isn't that we know what's going on with the New York Times. The point is that the New York Times doesn't know what's going on with itself yet. They think they're still taken seriously. Okay. It's not.

It's a reg. The Epoch Times is another wonderful piece. Be in the show notes today by Janita Khan. The piece is called Trump accuses New York Times of going on a racism witch hunt following leaked remarks from their top editor. So the editor at the New York Times, for those of you not familiar with the media industry, the editor runs the outlet. They dictate what goes in, what doesn't go in the paper. They can change things.

They're all powerful monarchs within the media industry. The editor of the New York Times apparently gave some kind of a little spiel to his staff that wound up leaking. Folks, it is devastating. I'm telling you, it's a full-blown, 100% acknowledgement by the New York Times that they are not journalists anymore. You may say, wow, that sounds hyperbolic. No, no, it's not. I'm going to read to you from the Epoch Times in a second because they have the quote. They are now all in on pandering to their audience. Folks, which is fine. I am not looking to impinge on anybody's free speech

like anti-First Amendment Antifa. I'm not looking to do that. I am not Antifa. New York Times, the New York Times, if you guys want to be a full-time opinion editorial paper magazine, like People Magazine, whatever, great. Go for it. It has clearly helped your business model. This constant conspiracy theory stuff on Trump has bumped your subscriber base.

Seriously, good for you. Do your thing, New York Times. I'm simply suggesting you need to stop telling people you do journalism. You're not journalists. From the Epoch Times piece, listen to what was leaked. Quote, our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, holy

blank, Bob Mueller's not going to do it. And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think, because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think the story changed, the editor said. He goes on. We're a little emboldened politically, I think, because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think the story changed, the editor said. He goes on. We're a little bit flat footed. I mean, that's what happened when a story looked a certain way for two years, right?

So what's happening here? They realize the collusion hoax fairy tale, a total hoax easily debunked from the beginning that they've been promoting for two years to their delusional audience is a complete hoax. The editor acknowledges they were all in on the hoax

and promoting it. He acknowledges later in that same spiel that now they have to lift and shift from the collusion hoax to another hoax. What's the hoax they're going to go to now? Donald Trump is a racist. They have no evidence of that.

They've none. Donald Trump spends his entire presidency touting unemployment numbers for African-Americans and Hispanic voters and minorities and women. Kind of strange behavior for a racist, no? I'm a racist. But we love the unemployment. I mean, for black Americans, does that make any sense? Of course, it doesn't make sense.

But the New York Times doesn't make sense because they're not journalists. Understand what's happening now, folks. The Times went all in on a hoax. The hoax is debunked. So now they're trying to retool their newsroom to advance another hoax that Donald Trump is a racist. Again, immoral, unethical, not illegal, though. If that's your business model, rock and roll with it, kids. Just stop calling yourselves reporters.

Now, I want to play a piece of video here of uh barry weiss who i believe works for the new york times on cnn now what she's talking about in this video is totally different but i want you to pay attention to this video she's talking about ilhan omar and rashida talib with their abhorrent lying press conferences and almost nothing they said was true but that's just par for the course for them um these two anti-Semitic congresswomen who constantly are bashing Israel. Bari Weiss goes on CNN to talk about the press conference, Ilhan Omar, their trip to Israel that could have happened but didn't. But notice what she says at the end of this cut, where she seems confused about how they should cover this. But there's really no confusion at all if you're just covering the facts.

Listen to this. We come back. I'll explain it better. But check this out. One of the huge stories this week was the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu decided to bar the entry of two Democratic members of Congress, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, from entering Israel based on Trump's bullying him into that position. He reversed course. Now, that's a huge story, one that I wrote a column about. But another huge story, one that has not been covered by any mainstream paper or network, is the fact that their trip to Israel, or as they called it, Palestine, was being sponsored by a group that literally published neo-Nazi blood libels and said that it supported female suicide bombers, you know, hailing them as heroes.

That's a scandal. If someone like Steve King was going to Sweden or Norway and meeting with neo-Nazi groups, that would be front page news. One of the questions I think we need to ask is, is the fact that Trump has, you know, lodged racist, horrible attacks on these women, has that made them sort of untouchable for us to cover in an accurate way? I think that's one of the problems of this moment, that it's very hard to cover sort of complicated characters and stories like them because the president, everything he touches

becomes toxic. Whoa. Yes. No single media hit by a new york times representative employee worker editor whatever will sum up the false conundrum the media has created for itself today better than what you just saw let's pick that apart for a moment yeah the new york times if let's pretend for a minute they're reporters and journalists we'll pretend You have to because they're not. What's the problem? She just laid out a series of facts, not opinion show, documented facts that Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, two Democratic congresswomen, were going to take a trip to Israel that was sponsored by a group, MIFTA, that it is a documented fact. The group had published materials from neo-Nazis and people who celebrated

female suicide bombers. That's, that's indisputable. It, nobody's questioning that set of facts. So what did journalists do? They report this. So there's no,

there's no dilemma, Joe. No, no, that's the facts you're journalists right but notice how she ends it she goes and gosh we don't know what to do because trump's a racist which she just makes up she makes up she's a nobody she doesn't know that listen to me because this is maybe one of the more important segments we've done in a while

in the media there is only one set of facts facts indisputed data points she puts out there that you can look at mifta's writing there's neo-nazi writing in support of suicide bombing and terrorism in the group that sponsored omar that is a fact then she goes on to say but i'm confused because trump is a racist that is an opinion that is not a fact. There is nothing you can say that will make that a fact. That is an opinion. You can try to back it up with evidence asserting

your opinion may be correct, but it doesn't make it anything more than an opinion. Why? Because she cannot psychoanalyze Donald Trump's neuronal connections and come to the conclusion that it's evidence of racism. Now, if Donald Trump were to come out and come to the conclusion that it's evidence of racism.

Now, if Donald Trump were to come out and say, I'm a racist, I don't like minorities, that's pretty hard evidence that what she's saying is true. That her opinion, though, is correct. But it is still an opinion. This woman is claiming to work for a journalistic outlet that claims to be having a dilemma because their known facts don't marry up with their unknown opinions. Damning. Damning stuff.

I've warned you from the beginning. The New York Times is good for lining your birdcage. That is it. Nothing more. Maybe cleaning up your dog's, you get it, what comes out of the wrong end of your dog when you take him for a walk.

Nothing else. God bless their right to a free press and free speech. I'll always defend it. But that freedom involves some responsibility. And Ms. Bari Weiss just summed up what they've done with that responsibility. They've subjugated facts to opinion journalism.

Their choice. All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in. Please subscribe to my YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino. You can also subscribe to our audio show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and SoundCloud. Those subscriptions really matter for us. Help us move up the charts. And don't forget to pick up the great Matt Palumbo's new book, Debunk This. Don't debate your liberal friends without it it is a hand basically a handheld guide to beating your

liberal friends in every debate out there it's not that hard once you get the facts they're always on your side all right thanks for tuning in i'll see you tomorrow you just heard the dan bongino show you can also get dan's podcasts on itunes or soundcloud and follow dan on twitter 24 7 at dBongino Show. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud. And follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at D-Bongino.