Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino. Folks, I'm really sorry to tell you, but this is how you play ball. But what does this mean, a microphone to poke? No, no. This this being what the Democrats did and Joe Biden yesterday, they play for keeps.

And what are the Republican rhinos? Do they play to be cutesy and icy and to grease up and kiss the collective arses. The Washington Post editorial column and The New York Times hoping they'll be like, oh, like, what does that does? Sally Field? You like me? You really, really like me. Maybe we should start emulating their tactics. I'll get to this in a minute what that means. I just want to talk about that Red State article yesterday about why TIME magazine wrote an article exposing the Democrats conspiracy to mess with the 2020 election.

Their words there in your in the article Today show Batebi Express VPN. Thousands of my listeners have secured their online privacy using a VPN. Do it today, get a VPN, go to express VPN, dotcom bungeni. Welcome to the Dan Bongino show. Let's get right to it. I got that. Also, the demographic destiny argument the Democrats had years ago on a little piece of good news is absolutely falling apart, that demographics are going to determine the Democrat's power base forever collapsing.

And one more and a video of people to judge. Again, there's no human being on the planet. Who says less by saying more than Boudjellal. All right. Today's show brought to you by PC Mattick. Foreign hackers are constantly trying to break into our devices and steal the data on them. It's time we protect ourselves with an American made antivirus and stop relying on foreign made solutions. P.C. Mattick is a whitelist next generation antivirus research developed and supported right here in the United States.

With their proactive approach, PC Madoc is able to detect today's cyber threats like ransomware before it runs on your device. PC Mattick blocks annoying and malicious ads for hassle free web browsing and makes your computers faster and more reliable. Even after years of use. PC Mattick protects Windows, computers, windows servers, Max Mac books, Android phones and tablets keeps your devices secure, keeping with their antivirus PC Mattick programs. It's only fifty dollars a year. You can protect five devices.

There is zero risk. A zero with PC matics, 30 day money back guarantee. PC is also offered my listeners a free month of security protection with the purchase of an annual license. Don't wait. Get protected today to access the software. Go to P.c Madoc that day and get that you are right again to get American security to keep your devices safe and running. Great. Go to P.c Mattick. Com Dan.

All right, producer Joe, let's go. Nice to have that bell.

Gosh, it feels good to be back. I'm sorry. My voice is a little scratchy today, folks. That radiation last week and my neck has gotten a little bit of a threat, but I feel great. Don't worry. I always told you I'd never do a show if I didn't feel good. You know the story for you. Old listeners act all the time and that's all right. Take note this with a capital T. This is how you play ball.

Maybe we should start emulating the Democrats strategy once in a while. What do you think, folks here, NBC News, Biden's Justice Department, to ask nearly all Trump era US attorneys to resign. With the exception of the special counsel and the one U.S. attorney leading the Hunter Biden probe. I thought that was a huge scandal when Republicans did it, for those of you with short memories, and that's probably all of the liberals listening, but very few of the conservatives are libertarians.

Do you remember, Joe, back in twenty six and twenty twenty seventeen when George W. Bush fired the US attorneys who are political appointees, by the way. Yes. Yes, I do remember that there was absolutely. Do you remember Joe was in talk radio back then. What a huge dreaded air quotes here folks. Scandal that was. Oh my gosh. George W. Bush is asking for the resignations of Clinton era United States attorneys who are political appointees, scandalous scandals.

The media lost their minds. Remember when Trump did in twenty seventeen? Preet Bharara, that hapless buffoon up in the air was that southern district of New York, the US attorney there who was kissing Trump's butt before he realized he wasn't going to be attorney general or something. Preet Bharara said, I'm not resigning and made a big political stink about it. So notice now NBC, there's a reason I put the NBC article up, so now Biden does the exact same thing to a greater degree.

They're actually more a USA he's pushed out than when Bush did it. I believe Bush pushed out seven of them. Seven I was given you Joe Biden. Number seven, push that seven of them. Biden. It's a it's a multiple of like eight times that. But notice how NBC just reports like it's no big deal. Why? Because it isn't. Because United States attorneys, the government appointed prosecutors that prosecute federal crimes and their AUSA is assistant United States attorneys, the United States attorneys are political appointees.

Therefore, when politically elected leaders change, it is not uncommon at all to ask them to leave, to put in people you trust to enforce the law. Yep, but it's a big scandal when Republicans do it. This is why I'm begging the Rhino class, the Liz Cheney class, the failure to Romney class. The Adam Kinzinger class. These hapless sell out politicians with no guts and no cojones at all, none, no political guts whatsoever, I'm asking you, please, to put aside your nonsense and finally start to fight back using the tactics the Democrats used.

Forget the media. Stop trying to kiss their butts. They don't care about you. They will make a story out of anything when Trump asks United States attorneys to leave if he wins again in twenty twenty four and he asked them all to resign, just ignore the media because they're frauds. And remember this day, this story right now where when Biden did the same thing, it was reported is what? Straighteners. Biden asks United States attorneys to resign.

That's what a straight news outlet would do. But I can guarantee you if Trump wins again in twenty twenty four, when Trump says to do it, they'll be like in a potentially politically motivated move. President Trump asks appointees from the Biden administration. You see how that's editorializing. I just wanted to bring that up in the beginning. Take note. This is how you win. You plow right through the dumb media narratives and you do it anyway, because when the Democrats do it, the media doesn't even bat an eyelash.

It's ridiculous. All right. Moving on. I covered this yesterday, this is a red state story, it's important to red states story about the Time magazine or the Time magazine article I address last week where Time wrote a piece. Basically admitting that the Democrats, liberal groups, big money, social media companies and big business conspired in a conspiracy, their words, not mine, their words. To manipulate the twenty twenty election. This red state piece addresses this like, why did they do this?

Everybody's got a lot of questions. Like I thought addressing election conspiracies was a big no go. So when time writes a piece about an actual conspiracy. All of a sudden nobody seems to care about conservatives. Here's the piece in Red State by the famous poncey. I don't know who that is, but they always have like names nom de plumes up at Red State Time claims a secret cabal manipulated the twenty twenty election to stop Trump. And people have questions.

You think? There are two things in the time piece, not some bastion of right wing values, by the way, Time Time magazine is a left leaning, far left leaning rag. They admit to things in the piece. That any normal person would be like, wait, what? They admit to manipulating social media and pushing to change election laws to benefit the Democrats, God forbid. And that is not using the Lord's name in vain. This was a Republican that would be Haiti's would break loose.

So from the red state, peace. Quote, Time wrote a very interesting piece making some very alarming claims. Namely, that a secret cabal banded together across the country to stop Donald Trump from winning re-election. This included everything from manipulating media coverage to getting election laws changed, at least according to Time's account. Folks, this is not my account. It's not. Dan Bongino is opinion time wrote it in the piece, two things. So we keep this conversation on track.

They admit to manipulating social media to manipulate the coverage of the news coverage of the 2012 election. And second, that they push to change election laws that would favor the Democrats. Again, this would be an enormous scandal of generational proportions in the media. If a Republican Republican admitted to this, why do I why am I covering this right now after the United States attorney's story? Because it proves my point again to ignore the media hacks. They are not serious people.

They are activists, propaganda, Soviet Union style Provida goons. Just ignore them. You will never win a debate with them. They have no standards at all. What happens under Democrats? Election manipulation and manipulation of a media coverage is celebrated as I'll get to this in a second. Strategic brilliance. But when Republicans and you see companies like Rob, you know that when Donald Trump was using Facebook to go out and get votes, it was a huge scandal.

But when Obama did it, it was strategic brilliance. The second screenshot from this red state piece about the time now admitting. The left, the left had a conspiracy to mess with the 20 20 admitting it, their article, their words. Red state, no matter the secret cabal, isn't made up of imaginary Russians. So it's all good. The left truly only care about election interference and manipulation when they deem it the threat to their own preferred outcomes.

Otherwise, they are all foreign. You won't see the mainstream media decry this, you won't see a tearful comment from Nancy Pelosi about the dangers it poses to our republic. Rather, this will all be ignored. Heck, it will be celebrated as a brilliant political strategy. Bingo, Bonsey. Donald Trump pays for some Facebook ads and some analytics in the 2016 election to win the election. Oh, you can't have that. You can't have that. God forbid that was social media manipulation.

We need to get these social media companies under control. Remember that? Remember that debate? You know what was weird? I remember when I was running for office, I ran in Maryland Congressional District six for Congress, it's a rather large district and encompasses Western Mountain, Maryland, and the more suburban Montgomery County portions of the state. It's an enormous district to ride from. End to end is about a four hour drive. Depending on what kind of traffic you hit.

So one night I was coming back from Allegheny or maybe Garrett County, which is way, way in the mountain, Maryland. And I was really getting tired and I used to listen sometimes to C-SPAN on the radio. Because we couldn't afford a permanent Sirius XM back then, but you can listen to Fox. So I used to turn on C-SPAN and I will never forget listening to I think it was Jim Messina, if I'm correct, who was one of Obama's strategic guys.

Right. His one of his campaign guys. And it was Masina on C-SPAN. Folks, I'm not kidding. Bragging about how Facebook gave them access to this treasure trove of backend information in a dashboard that they then used to get people through their Facebook accounts to get their friends in the Facebook account to vote. I remember it like it was yesterday. It's still out there. I forget the name of the project they had. But it was 10 times as intrusive as what the Trump campaign worked with Facebook to do to get votes in the 2016 election, but amazingly, a Facebook in others and even RINO Republicans with no guts fell for this and are like, oh, my gosh, this is a big scandal.

Donald Trump used Facebook to get votes really because Messina and the Obama administration did it. Time's a factor of twenty two thousand to do the same thing. But weird how it's only a scandal when Republicans do it and when Democrats do it. It was celebrated. They were on C-SPAN bragging about Yaeko.

I remember it like it was yesterday, because you know you know why I remember it, too. I don't remember it for the reasons you may think in my audience. I remember because I was running or thinking about running again at the time, I remember exactly when I heard this, but I was probably involved in my election in six congressional district six at the time. And I remember thinking to myself, gosh, how how do we get that dashboard access?

Oh, my gosh darn, you wanted to use Facebook to to leverage it to win an election? Yeah, exactly like Obama did. Why you'd be stupid not to. That's why I remember that. Because at the time, folks, I remember thinking to myself, wow, that is pretty clever, Facebook allows access to the dashboard. Why can't Republicans do that, too? I remember it like it was yesterday, thinking, gosh, these Democrats, they really nailed us on that.

And then when Trump did in twenty sixteen to a lesser degree, because they stopped, they didn't allow that back and access anymore. But they did allow some data mining on there when Trump stated it was a huge scandal. What a scam. So what's the solution to this? The Democrats now admitting. They did it well, why did they admit it? Why is Time magazine now admitting to a secret cabal that manipulated the twenty twenty election for the Democrats?

I told you why last week. I just want to quickly get to it again because there is a solution for this. First, they're doing it because they know the information is going to get out. So this is their opportunity now to get ahead of it and reframe it. Exactly as I said to you before, and as Banshee suggested in that second screenshot from the red stapes, that they're going to reframe the debate now before it gets out and leads to an argument about, oh, my gosh, the Democrat, there was a conspiracy to manipulate the twenty twenty election.

They're going to reframe it in advance, which is what the media will do for them as Banshee's. Right. Strategic brilliance. And the media will all take their talking points, only discuss this not as election manipulation, discussing the strategic brilliance that'll be their talking points going forward, bank on it, take it to the bank. Cash that check. What's the solution to this? When I told you before, ignore media narratives and plow straight ahead with two things, No.

One. This election, for most of you think is I've got I'm getting a lot of these emails and folks, I have to tell you, they're getting increasingly disturbing and I'm getting very worried about some of the folks in my audience giving up here. I can't emphasize to you in strong enough terms how important it is that we continue this fight going forward, no matter how insurmountable the outs, the excuse me, the odds are you don't ever forget tattoo it on your brain.

That line that quote I repeatedly say on this show that an enemy is not vanquished until he considers himself. So if you consider yourself defeated and you act defeated, you are in fact defeated. Why you would want to be defeated? I don't know. But I keep getting these estimates from a small minority of viewers and listeners, but it's enough that it's starting to disturb me. These I'm done emails. There is no done. There's no done. Do not embrace quitting as this form of shredding.

I don't understand. That's not a strategy. There are ways to fight back against this conspiracy and cabal of big business types, Democrats, social media companies and others. No one gets swing states to four to five election laws. Some of you with a wink and a nod, see what I did there. Because when the Democrats were quizzed about this Time magazine piece about the conspiracy to shut down social media traffic that hurt the Democrats and changing election laws that would benefit Democrats, basically a conspiracy to mess with the 2020 election.

When some of the Democrats were confronted on that, they said, no, no, it wasn't a conspiracy to manipulate the election, it was a conspiracy to, quote, fortify the election. Notice the Orwellian dictionary com shift in language there so we can fortify elections to write. Why not? We can fortify elections by going to swing states because remember the presidential election. The president, if New York doesn't want to have any election laws whatsoever and wants to elect people through elections that have no free and fair component to him at all, there's no voter file integrity or anything like that, then let New York do its thing.

But national elections are decided by probably less than 10 states. If we can get enough Republicans elected in those states, some of those states, we have enough Republicans elected now like Florida, we need to change election laws to fortify elections ourselves, voter I.D.. Signature verification, driver's licenses for absentee voting. These are all things we can do to fortify elections to why are we giving up what we're giving up? Because why? Because it's easier to give up.

I don't I don't do easy. I'm sorry. I'm not interested in easy. I'm interested in. Right. So that had combat, the second component of what they did in that Time magazine article, they admit to changing election laws to benefit Democrats, to take away the fairness in elections, to benefit their own guys. But second, they admit to manipulating social media. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to grow our own social media and information ecosystem, I've said it over and over again.

I'm involved in it now. Parler, rumble, there's others out there, too, doing the same thing. We have to fortify our own information ecosystem. All right, let me get to my second sponsor and then I want to get to this other article, which is excellent. It's that yesterday. So usually it's articles on Monday and. Right, Paula, I don't get them till next Monday or Friday. These were so good, these two pieces.

I wanted to make sure the red state and this Wall Street Journal piece. Coming up next, how the demographic I want to give you some good news. Demographic destiny argument is falling apart completely. All right, let me get to my second sponsor today, Purlie source jewelry's one of the most popular gifts you can get for Valentine's Day, and there's a good reason for the classics. You can rarely go wrong, go with the classics. And there's nothing more classic and timeless than fine pearl jewelry, which doesn't need to break your budget.

At the pearl sauce, you get the highest quality pearl jewelry, add up to 70 percent of retail prices. Well, why is that? Because the pearl sauce cuts out. The middleman eliminates the traditional five time markups by jewelry stores. They sell directly to you, the consumer. Not sure if you love your show, love your gift. No worries. The pearl sauce comes with a no hassle 60 day money back guarantee, so it is risk free.

Plus, more than 20 years in the Pearl business and nearly 12000, five star reviews. You can be sure you're shopping from a trusted retailer. Paula has some beauties from the pearl sauce. Right. You know, you wearing them out. Look at them. Like most people, it's probably been a tough year for that special someone in your life. Tell them you love them and appreciate them with beautiful pearl jewelry from the pearl sauce. A gift you remember she will remember for years to come.

You see those pictures right there, Valentine's Day sale. Look at that. Look at that. Don't overpay for jewelry. Go to the pearl sauce to save up to 70 percent off retail prices for a limited time. Listeners to my show take 20 percent off your entire order for Valentine's Day. Go to the pearl sauce, dot com slash. Dan, get that right. And a promo codes and a check out for 20 percent off your entire order.

You won't find pearl jewelry. The best prices online go straight to the source. The Pearl stores go to the pearl sauce, dot com slash Dan and a promo code and a check out today. All right. Thanks, Pearl Sauce. Appreciate it. Remember that demographic destiny argument we heard from the year after the Obama era, it went a little bit like this, folks.

The Democrats were cautioning people all over the country saying, hey, if you're a conservative or a libertarian or Republican, I want you to know you're finished. Joe, you're wiped out. Don't even bother. The demographic destiny is going to take over. The Democrats will be the party in power forever because they'll be this consortium of young voters. Hispanic voters know how to write this down, minorities, white, upper class voters and women. And let me tell you something.

Let me tell you, they won't ever vote for a Republican again. It's going to be a majority minority America. And you Republicans are finished, so you might as well surrender. Now, I remember here in. No, I remember again, I have a pretty good memory of these the Obama era for all the wrong reasons. I remember hearing that argument and at the time. Being troubled by it like, oh, my gosh, you're telling me there's nothing we can do as Republicans to fight for liberty and freedom that we're going to lose no matter what we do?

But then a strange thing happened, Joe. We had the Tea Party revolution in Congress where you know, what was in upwards of, what is it, 40 to 60 members on the Democrat side lost their seats. We had local governors, city councils, mayors, we had a historic. Lots of Democrats at the local and state level. And Obama left office with the weakest Democrat party we'd seen in almost 50 years outside of the presidency, he held.

Remember one thing the golden rule of the Obama era was this. Obama was great, for one thing, Obama. The rest of the country turned dramatically red. So what happened? What they were saying, the demographic destiny arguers was not inaccurate, there has been an influx of a lot of Hispanic folks into the United States, a growing minority vote. White upper class voters are increasingly voting Democrat, the young as well. So how did that fall apart and lead to not only the Donald Trump presidency, but after the argument was made with the Obama victory in 2008?

How did it lead to an era of outside of, I think, what's going to be a blip in this Joe Biden victory leading to an era of a Republican renaissance that had the opposite effect? Well, this Wall Street Journal article nails it down pretty good. It's worth your time by a John J. Miller Every time I see John J. Ethical Rambo, Rambo, John J. Remember Richard Crenna and First Blood Rambo, John J. John Rambo, who always used that middle initial of his import.

He's got this article, John Miller, not George Rambo, Majority Minority America. Don't bet on it. How a Census Bureau error led the Democrats to assume they were on the right side of an inexorable demographic trend. Joe, I know you remember every show we've ever done, it's like a catalog in your head. We actually covered this. Why this argument? So just to be clear, the premise we're trying to be. If there's an increase in the number of young voters voting Hispanic women voters, you get it minorities and else and and other groups, why is it that the Democrats are having trouble getting extra votes?

Well, ladies and gentlemen, the math wasn't that simple because the Republicans who are smart realize that the Democrats were classifying people in boxes that were not necessarily the boxes. People were classifying themselves stated quite simply. We're going to win because of the growing number of Hispanics. Fascinating because a lot of people didn't classify themselves as Hispanic. Well, what what happened? This is a personal topic to me. I'll explain in a minute. Let's get to the screen shot first from this piece, why this theory of a growing Hispanic vote was going to lead to a permanent Democrat majority?

Totally fell apart. Well, they quote this Mr. Albar, who's a professor at the CUNY City University in New York, I went there, says the surge in mixing across ethno racial lines is one of the most important and unheralded developments of our time. Alba rattles off facts and figures today, more than 10 percent of U.S. born babies have one parent who is not white or Hispanic and one who is white and not Hispanic. Sounds says sounds because you watching the rumble, you can hear that proportion is larger than the number of babies born to two Asian parents and not far behind the number of babies born to two black parents.

Alba says we're entering a new era of mixed backgrounds. Folks, I talked about this a while ago, I don't remember the show exactly, but I remember it happened. The problem with the Democrats theory that a growing number of Hispanic voters was going to mean a demographic destiny and increased power for the Democrats, it was never going to be taken away by Republicans. Is that. These kids are not classifying themselves as Hispanic. They don't put themselves in these boxes.

Now, why is this personal to me? Because my wife is Colombian, not ninety eight percent, 100 percent Colombian, not from South Carolina, South America, Colombia. Do you know the country? That's where she's from. A hundred percent. Siento poor. Siento for our Spanish listeners. Is that right? Thank you. My daughter is. By default, half Colombian, because my wife is one hundred percent Colombian, I am a mix of Italian, German, Irish, English, what is it, French?

North African, not a joke. I am all that stuff. My daughter doesn't identify as anything but an American, so when Democrats go out and pitch policies directed to the Hispanic vote, they're talking to people they think they're talking to who don't see them as talking to them, you get it. Is that making sense? It's like devising policies to appeal to a union vote for people who aren't in unions. They're like, well, it doesn't apply to me.

It's not that my daughter's in any way reject my wife being from Columbia, it's that we don't raise them in our house as in boxes. You're going to think like a Hispanic woman. No, you're to think like an American. I thought the whole melting pot thing, Joe crazy. I thought that's what we were doing in America. I thought that's what we were about. Yeah. I just got a crazy idea. I know, but I thought that's were.

But you understand how the box theory works for them. They're trying to keep people in boxes who don't think they're in boxes. That's the problem. That's why this whole majority minority demographic destiny for the Democrats theory totally fell apart. Because they're talking to people in a box who don't have themselves in the box. So what led them to believe that there was this mass influx of Hispanic voters that were categorizing themselves as Hispanic? Why else would they make a marketing pitch?

They want to talk to people who are Hispanic. They better be talking to people who consider themselves Hispanic or it's a waste of time. Is is any of this going over anybody's head? Easy peasy. OK, thanks. I'm just you know, there are liberals who say they have a tough time with this. Well, here's your answer. This was fascinating. I really enjoyed this piece. It was from this weekend. From the Journal piece. Well, the difficulty started is the federal government prepared for the 2000 census and sought to recognize the small but growing number of multiracial Americans, the Census Bureau decided to let people like Mr.

Woods. They talk about this guy talking about Tiger Woods, by the way, who's multiracial, check off more than one racial box on their forms. Well, leaders of liberal civil rights groups lobbied against the change, they feared a recognition of multiracialism would dilute the numerical strength of minorities and make it harder to enforce anti-discrimination laws.

Well, the Office of Management and Budget devised an ironic solution to the dilemma. The OMB, whose responsibilities include maintaining the consistency of data across federal departments, revived an old version of the one drop rule from the Jim Crow era. Not sure we want to emulate the Jim Crow era. Probably not a good idea and in fact, a very bad idea, according to which a single African ancestor made a person entirely black.

The OMB decided that Americans who designated themselves as white and something else on their census forms would be classified as non-white. There you go, folks. That's exactly what happened. If you happen to be an individual like my daughter who has a Hispanic mother and a white father. And you were on a census form and you checked off white and Hispanic, the census form classified you as non-white, which led the Democrats to believe that there were a bunch of people out there classifying themselves as Hispanic.

So, gosh, we better keep this marketing pitch going that where the hero for the Hispanic vote out there, when, in fact, the people they were pitching to, we're not classifying themselves in the boxes. Democrats wanted them to be put in kind of a big tactical error. No, Joe.

Yeah, Daddy. And many. Well, why did that benefit the Democrats? Why continue to strategically tailor a message to a group of people who don't consider themselves in that group of people? Because the Democrats never have a message, their message is garbage. Give us more of your money. Let us take your kids school choice away, turn your health care over to the government that can't even manage a DMV, defund the police. That argument, the Democrats core arguments don't sell anywhere, so the Democrats decided decades ago that their only argument would be don't vote for our policies because they're crap, but vote for us because will protect you against the racist Republicans.

And in order to claim that the Republicans were racist and the Democrats were going to protect you if you voted for them, they had to make sure your race was the primary thing you identified by.

That's why they continued to push to have people identify as Hispanic first rather than Americans, because it doesn't benefit their argument that the Republicans are racist against you. All right, I'm going to get to this minimum wage block next, let me get to my third spot here. This is important. I thought the Democrats believed in science. That's what we were told. Right. Well, what about the science of economics on the minimum wage? There's probably fewer areas anywhere in economics where there's more mass agreement that the minimum wage is a disaster than this particular topic.

But again, the Democrats believe in science only when it benefits them. Throating. Let me get to my third sponsor. Listen, this past year, so many cyber security attacks, including data breaches, network infiltrations, bulk data theft and sale, identity theft and ransomware break outbreaks, the large shift of employees working remotely has coincided, sadly, with an increase in these attacks. A recent study suggests that remote workers have become the source of up to 20 percent of cyber security incidents that occurred in twenty 20 folks.

Bad news. It's important to understand how cyber crime and identity theft are affecting our lives that affected mine. I had my identity stolen. It was a disaster, took me a year to clean up. Every day we put our information at risk on the Internet. You can miss certain identity threats by only monitoring your credit. Good news, there's LifeLock, LifeLock is a leader in identity theft protection. I have it for me, my daughter, my mother in law, my whole family, my daughters, I should say.

LifeLock detects a wide range of identity threats, like your Social Security name for sale on dark web. If they detect your information has been potentially compromised, they will send you an alert. I get tax on my phone. No one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses. But LifeLock can see threats you might miss on your own. Join now. Save up to twenty five percent of your first year. Don't wait. Go to LifeLock dotcom slash Bongino.

That's LifeLock dot com slash Bongino get twenty five percent off. Don't mess with your identity. You'll regret it later. LifeLock Dotcom Bongino for twenty five percent off. All right, let's get back to the show. So you know the Democrats again claim to be the party of science. That's always laughable. That's a joke. The Democrats don't believe in science at all when the science disagrees with them. The Democrats disagree with the science. No, when the science said that there's very little risk to students from going back to school, the Democrats just ignored that one.

Well, there's a lot of science about the minimum wage, why? Because it's relatively easy to study and the arguments against a wage floor are pretty simple to understand. And it's the great Thomas Sowell says often. Joe, what do you think the real minimum wage is? Well, Thomas Sowell has an interesting. Statement to say about that, let's say. The real minimum wage, Joe, is zero if you get fired from your job because of minimum wage law, you are making zero, which is in fact the minimum wage you can make, which is nothing because you have no job.

Minimum wage is quite easy to explain, folks, for the liberals listening, who have a hard time understanding why demanding employers pay more to employees money they may not have or money that those employees, given their skill level skill level, may not add to the person's business. I will give you for the umpteenth time the very simple example of a lemonade stand, because liberals listening have a tough time with economics, math, you know, basic things like that.

So if you were to own a lemonade stand. Liberals, listen, this is a very easy example. And at that lemonade stand, you're making roughly 20 dollars an hour selling lemonade with one employee. Well, let's say you had to turn some people away because there's a long line because you have one employee, so you say, well, I think I'm going to hire a second employee to serve lemonade at my lemonade stand.

You do the math and you say, well, we've been turning away about five customers an hour due to long lines, the lemonade's a dollar. So forgetting your expenses for a minute to make the math simple for the liberals listening. So that would mean if I hired a second employee, I'd make roughly five dollars extra an hour. So if the government sets a minimum wage and I'm trying to keep the numbers even though they're low and feed into the Democrats absurd argument, I'm keeping the numbers low because liberals listening don't do math very well.

So if the government mandates a fifteen dollars an hour minimum wage for your lemonade stand, then what happens? Well, now, let's say you're one employee makes ten dollars an hour, has to make 15. So now you're only making roughly 20 dollars an hour, right, from your your clients who are coming in, you were turning away five. So now they want you to hire a second employee, which would cost you 30 dollars an hour in labor.

For twenty five dollars an hour in revenue. Joe, I'm just checking if you're if if there's twenty five dollars an hour in revenue coming in. Yes, forget your other costs. Sugar lemons. I'm trying to do simple math, OK, but it's costing you thirty dollars an hour just to be in business. My very simple math. TeleCheck me if I'm wrong. Paula utils would mean you'd be losing five dollars an hour selling lemonade. That's right.

Yeah. Is my math accurate. It's accurate. OK, I'm not sure it is. The verdict is in. I haven't hit the gavel in a while. Armacost is right. But you would lose five dollars an hour to stay in business by having to hire someone else. So what do you do? Well, again, I know liberals have a tough time with this math, very complicated algorithms like that mathematical equation with some high level calculus we just did that.

You just don't hire that other employee that you would hire to grow your business, go, because you would go out of business. It's not hard to think it's I mean, The Washington Times Biden pushes to raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour, CBO study determines it would kill one point four million jobs by Stephen Dinham.

Now, the Democrats love the CBO, of course, that's there oh, that is their golden cap, their. The running needs of U.S. worshipping there, chanting there they have like almost religious fanatical type chants to the CBA. I'm. Now, it's funny, I'm not hearing a lot in the liberal media about this one, the CBO put out a study that said, OK, I'll let me read to you what it said. It says raising the this is from the Washington Times piece in the show notes today, Bongino dot com newsletter, my newsletter is the show notes subscribe today.

It's free, please. We're almost at hundred 500000 subscribers that we appreciate it. They say raising the federal minimum wage fifteen dollars an hour would lift nearly one million people out of poverty. Wow, that sounds really great, Joe. But we believe even more people without any job at all, the CBO said. In an analysis that deals another blow to Biden's demand for a wage hike in the next coronavirus relief bill. Not only would it cost jobs, they hire higher fire federal standard would also raise costs for Americans and for the federal government itself as Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare pay more to lower wage health workers, CBO said.

Though fewer people would be on welfare, the deficit would take a fifty four billion dollar hit over the next decade. So, again, I'm just doing simple math. So the report says the workers who get the raise, who are still hired to fifteen dollars an hour from whatever they're making now, seven twenty five, the current minimum wage, a lot of states. Ten dollars an hour, yeah, they may be they may do OK. The problem is that's about nine hundred thousand to a million people.

One point four million would, in fact, lose their jobs. Again, just checking here. So staying on the high end, a million people would be better off at the cost of one point four million people who would not only be worse off, but dramatically worse off because they would lose their jobs. I'm not sure that sound economic policy.

Do the math one point one.

Hold on for that means four hundred K. That's a thousand for liberals. Four hundred thousand people. Four hundred thousand people, even if you zeroed out and said, well, a million, a million here, four hundred thousand people who would be dramatically worse off on that, even if you zeroed it out one point four million, who'd be better off? That's being nice. And cutesie for the liberals. But again, Democrats don't care science, science doesn't mean you fault, you still are falling for this.

If you're a left leaning younger Democrat in college and your roommate has my show on and you're listening. Are you still falling for this scam? You know, forcing employers to pay more than their employee skills are worse probably doesn't make sense. You know, this economic science of the minimum wage is conclusive, conclusive that at a minimum there'll be adverse costs. When looked at sanely, there'll be serious adverse because and you support it anyway, why? Because you fell for the fight for 15.

So fight for 15. Fight for 50. Fight for what? Unemployment for one point four million people. If you hear a Parado optimization or Parado efficiency, look it up Paretta. The whole idea that government policy should be dictated by the idea that any policy should serve to make some people better off while making no one else worse, this policy supposedly makes a million people better off while making one point four million people unemployed with a wage of zero. What is that?

Playing voicemail's over there on speakerphone really loud. Who was a. Anything important in to take that should be enough to show you need to go outside how you feel about that. Let's go tomorrow. Is a great piece by David Harsanyi, who's really, really a good writer. National Review. This will be in the show notes. Please read this again. Bunshiro dot com slash newsletter. Subscribe today. You'll get these great articles every morning. Remember Paul Krugman, Paul Krugman, Shion, on the left.

Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize for economics. He should return that prize immediately. It's an interesting piece about Joe Biden and Paul Krugman, who are misleading the public about the minimum wage. David Harsanyi. Here's the first screenshot from this piece where Biden is trying to claim that, yes, basically all the economics on this are good on the minimum wage, all all meaning there's. No counter perspective on that. He says, well, it's not true, that it's not true now that, quote, all the economics of the minimum wage or much else is settled.

As Paul Krugman once noted. And this is Paul Krugman noted leftist when he was still a sane economist. He once said this. This is a quote, meaning he said this. Any icon, one on one student, can tell you that, quote, higher wage, higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demand and hence leads to unemployment. Indeed, for a long time, there was a strong consensus on the matter. Paul Krugman noted leftist who once said the truth, that higher wage floors lead to less demand for labor because companies can't afford to pay the higher wages demand that if the employee skills aren't worth that much.

Krupin once said that. He changed his mind now, now that he's a politician or a de facto politician, and now Krugman doesn't mention his own expedient partisan partisan conversion on the issue. He notes, quote, This is from his Lissa's now his conversion. Now Krugman has gone full politician mode. He says it's true that once upon a time, there was a near consensus among economists that minimum wage substantially reduced and reduced employment, but that was long ago.

These days, only a minority of economists think raising the minimum wage fifteen dollars an hour would have large employment costs. And a strong plurality believe that a significant rise, although maybe not all the way to 15, would be a good idea. Interesting, because he links to a study that I don't think anyone actually clicked on that study because Arseny did. And this is what he found out. Krugman fails to mention that in the 2015 survey he hyperlinks twenty six percent of economists believe a flat fifteen dollars an hour federal minimum wage would lower employment for low wage workers.

Twenty four percent said otherwise and thirty eight percent weren't sure. As for whether doing so would substantially increase aggregate output in the economy, just two percent agreed. Again, Paul Krugman is hoping you don't actually click on the hyperlink where the majority of the poor excuse me, a plurality of economists that study said the exact opposite, that the minimum wage would lower employment and it wouldn't increase economic output. Just two percent said that. But he's hoping you don't click on it because you're a liberal and liberals don't do things like reading stuff like that.

Convenient, by the way, Washington Examiner, Amazon swampy lobbying for a lobbying for a fifteen dollars an hour minimum wage proves the little guy really loses. Of course, Amazon in cahoots because Amazon doesn't care about a fifteen dollars an hour minimum wage because they're a trillion dollar company and it actually benefits them. Why? Because they're small business competitors. Get put out of business, double win for them. And they get the benefit of kissing the collective caboose of the Democrat Party, look, Amazons in our corner better help them out.

Good luck with that. Well, that was dramatic. You know, let me get to my last sponsor and I want to get to some video here. This is important. We got this impeachment hoax starting today, got a piece on that Dershowitz video, and I definitely want to get the boot. A judge, no human being says less while saying more than people to get a final sponsor. My first sponsor ever fact. Brickhouse Nutrition, this is field of greens or wild berry flavor, this is empty, does empty because I use that all.

Need some more miles if you have some. And I refuse if I get new ones to bring a full one up here because I use it empty field, the Greens look at that, it's actually a little left in. Life's about habits. This year, we've been more focused than ever on our health. What happens after? How do you plan to ensure your body's immune system is ready for winter and beyond? I'll tell you what I do. Take field trips.

I recommend you try it every day. I drink it twice a day. It's loaded with antioxidants. Feel the Greens is packed with clinical research, fresh, essential fruits and vegetables. But green tea, ginger to American beets. It's a powerful combination. Sports, health, metabolism, blood pressure and digestion is complete with pre probiotics. Feel the Greens is not only good for you, it's good for the entire family. Just put a scoop in a glass of water after you're done.

I put in green tea sometimes tomato juice. It's really good answers too. I take it twice a day. It is my now go to given my health conditions always been. Paula loves it. Go to breakfast nutrition that calms down. I notice on the back to it says nutrition facts not supplement facts. Why this is wholesome. Ground up fruits and vegetables is real food here in this real food, wholesome ground up, fresh fruits and vegetables. It's not some cheap extract.

Go to breakfast attrition that costs less than 15 percent if your first order with the promo code. Dan, a checkout. Go to Brickhouse Nutrition dot com slash Dan, that's Brickhouse Nutrition dot com slash, then use a promo code that is available multiple flavors. It is my goal to check out Field of Greens today. Field of Greens, Brighouse Nutrition dot com slash Dan. Folks, the impeachment force hoax is starting today. Interesting article by McClatchy about the Democrats panicking right now.

Now, if you read the piece, this is one of the few times I put the screenshots out of order because there's a interesting portion of the article at the end that explains something they say in the beginning of the piece. The Democrats are already quietly panicking about this impeachment hoax that's going to start today. Why? Because they're going to lose. They don't have the Republican votes and it's not even close. They are going to lose and lose badly.

President Trump will not be convicted in this impeachment trial, just like he beat the first one. So they're panicking and they're considering option number two, here's your article by McClatchy Democrats have a backup plan in case the Senate doesn't convict Trump on impeachment. Michael Wilner, they will not convict. There is almost zero chance of that. Almost zero chance. So they have a backup plan. These sleazeballs never, ever give up. Well, what is the backup plan?

Go to the McClatchey here. Well, the Democrats attention is now focused on Section three of the 14th Amendment, a rarely cited civil war era provision which allows Congress to bar individuals from holding office if they've engaged in an insurrection. A resolution to censure Trump would require a simple majority vote to pass in the House and Senate. Ladies and gentlemen, that sounds awfully undemocratic to me, so President Trump will not be convicted in this Senate trial, the Democrats are considering a backup plan that would only require a majority vote in the House and Senate majority, meaning 51 in the Senate for the liberals listening.

And they could, in turn, censure Trump and invoke this 14th Amendment provision stating he engaged in an insurrection and can't run for office again. That sounds awfully totalitarian to me. What are they afraid of? It's what I've been telling you for the last month or so. They're afraid of President Trump running again. They know there were 70 million plus Americans who still support him. They're seeing the failures of the Biden era right now just in a month, and they're terrified of him running again.

They fear Trump. They fear he's going to flip the script. Here's another piece from this, another screenshot from the McClatchy piece. Some of the scholars who have been here helping draft this resolution are engaging in late night calls with congressional staff from the offices of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Tim Kaine, as well as Rep.. Stephen Cohen of Tennessee and Wasserman Schultz and others. Folks, they are terrified Trump is going to win.

He is not going to be convicted in this trial. There's no chance. And then Trump is going to do what I said he's going to do. He's going to come back and use this. Hey, I had to hold on. I got to read this. I put this up. I was on a plane the other day and I was bored. So I put this up. I suggested what what did I tell you? That the Democrats are only going to fortify Trump with any effort to impeach and convict in this trial because Trump is going to win and he's going to come back even stronger.

So I was on a plane coming back from Houston. And I put this on Instagram. I said the Democrats are only fortifying Trump with their gratuitous impeachment farce, President Trump should absolutely run in twenty, twenty four and double down on his renegade approach. I said he should announce and say this I was spied on, falsely accused of the worst of crimes, impeach twice on fairy tales and hoaxes, attacked by the media, the swamp, the Democrats, the swamp, Republicans, big tech China and the Socialists.

And I'm still standing. Mm hmm. I can't tell you what I wrote at the end, you'll have to see on Instagram, some people were not happy with me. I understand them, the language. I get it. I'm from Queens. It's not a curse word. And I'm still standing you. I can't even say what rhymes with that. Sometimes I'll say it rhymes with head for other things, I can't even say it. But I think that's what he should do and the Democrats know that's what he's going to do and they know they're in deep trouble.

Here's a quick video. Alan Dershowitz just demolishing, demolishing this absurd post presidential impeachment trial in the Senate. He makes some key points. About a minute here he was on Newsmax with Sean Spicer. Check this out.

Number one, the Senate has no jurisdiction over a former president if they had jurisdiction over a former officeholder. They could impeach Nikki Haley tomorrow if they think that she poses a threat, possibly in two thousand and twenty four to Biden in the role she held office three years ago, they could impeach Bill Clinton now without any statute of limitations. So that's number one. Argument number two argument. The speech was protected by the Constitution. Number three, the Senate can't violate the First Amendment in its impeachment.

Give you an example. You know, the House managers say the First Amendment isn't applicable. Impeachment is stands on its own. Let's assume a Muslim American gets elected president and the Democrat House decides or the Republican House decides to impeach that person because he's Muslim. But the Constitution says no religious test shall ever be required. But the House managers would say that's not relevant to impeachment, is impeachment is political. But, of course, they're bound by the Constitution.

And the First Amendment says Congress, Congress shall make no law, no law abridging the freedom of speech. And no law has been interpreted to mean take no action that has consequences, doesn't matter if it's a law or administrative act. And so those are the three arguments I would make. Brilliant. Two takeaways is right, why not just impeach Nikki Haley? Why not impeach, let's say, Mike Pompeo? Why not impeach? Let's give someone who maybe it'll appeal more to the liberal lunatics and totalitarians, maybe a more centrist group, but why not impeach Marco Rubio?

You think he's going to run for president? Why not do that? Because it was designed to impeach a sitting president. Don't be absurd, you know, on you know, on its face, this argument is dumb liberals, but you do it anyway. Again, why not Bill Clinton again? Second, his First Amendment argument is brilliant. Congress can't take an action that violates the Constitution, the president asking people to mark March, quote, peacefully and patriotic patriotically, the Capitol breaks no known US law and prosecuting him for it, even if it's from a grant at a political trial, not a criminal one.

It still violates his First Amendment amendment rights and violates the tenets of the Constitution. No good. Brilliant by Dershowitz. All right, we're going to this is amazing, we're going to get to a show for the first time ever, the whole show. Are you quick video at the end? No human being on planet Earth or maybe in the cosmos, if there are other beings out there says less while saying more than people to judge. Listen to this where people to judge makes the point.

But he again, he always does it so eloquently. You think he's actually saying something of substance, his people to judge making the absolutely absurd point that after he's done saying eloquently, like, oh, my gosh, that may make sense that don't worry, folks, roads are not just for cars, they're for people to. Please, please. I'm not kidding. Young kids listening and liberals who can't quite process information, right, please do not walk in the road and take this advice that roads are for people to their for cars.

If you walk in those roads, bad things will happen. I got hit by a car once. Don't do it. It's not fun. So did my brother. But listen to people to judge explain on the roads aren't just for cars, they're for everyone. Check this out.

What's the biggest way the transportation has been permanently changed by the pandemic?

It's too soon to know for sure, but I think it's safe to say that our old patterns of life, the nine to five Monday through Friday commuting patterns are not going to be exactly the same. And so how might that change what your stuff does? You know, we think trains, planes and automobiles, but what about bikes, scooters, wheelchairs, for that matter? Those are things you plan to pay more attention to. Absolutely. Yeah. Look, roads aren't only for vehicles.

We got to make sure that pedestrians and individuals, bicyclists and businesses can all coexist on the same roadway.

But I swear to you, before the show, Paul is like, I can't I can't take this guy. Please. If you own a business, Joe, is this sound advice? I just want to make sure because we're going to put out a Dan Bongino service announcement here at one of our de facto kind of just check me. This is good advice. If you're a business, please do not build your business in the middle of the road. I'm just checking.

Is that Joe is that sounds good because Boota just said roads are for business as Joe Rozsa roads. And please do not walk in the road, cross the street, go to the corner, walk on the green, not in between. Walk on the green, not in between. Remember that public service announcement back in the day? Do not take Budha judge's advice again. There's not a person on the planet who says less by saying more than people to judge.

I swear this morning she said, I can't take this guy. He doesn't say anything ever. All right, remarkably, we're going to get to all this. Ladies and gentlemen, PolitiFact strikes again, you know, the fact check, they're checking facts, Joe PolitiFact. Well, they did it again. They got us now. Joe PolitiFact, by the way, fact checkers are intergalactic laughingstock these days. You almost can be guaranteed when PolitiFact so-called checks a fact and says it's not true, you can be almost guaranteed.

It is true by them saying it's not true. This was on their Twitter feed, which is really a source of good comedy for my show. This is not a joke. It's not the Babylon. B PolitiFact says no. Rep. Maxine Waters did not say Trump supporters are not welcome here. She didn't. Now, Joe, who cuts video for the show. Just probably thinking it's really funny, because I've actually cut video for the show off Maxine Waters saying exactly that.

So just to make sure I'm not crazy, I had to go back and check the video. Maybe she didn't say you're not welcome here. You're not welcome. She didn't. PolitiFact says that's not true and they fact checked it. So let's replay the video just to be sure, we're not all bonkers here. And it's not like we're not all going bananas. Check this out.

If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you go there and you tell them, the little guy, Joe, ding, ding, ding. Why did you do that, Joe? Editing the tape again? Someone sent me a monthly bill that's like a that's like a quadruple mottley record. Joe manipulating Maxine Waters out back. And he thought up never had. And he used to throw the football up.

Yes, Paula, like Dan Marino back in the day, by the way, thank you to the dude or woman who sent me, Joe Gaslight. We got the movie now. Perfect timing for this. This is gaslights and this is what it's based off, the original movie gasline. This is gaslighting at its worst. An actual video of Maxine Waters telling Trump supporters they're not welcome here. And Trump personnel at PolitiFact saying, no, no, no, that didn't actually happen.

OK, OK, sure, whatever.

We're in a dangerous time, folks, who was Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten, Charles Boyer, who directed this movie. Angela Lansbury was in this. Directed by George Cukor. Gaslights, it's what's happening right now, thanks to the man or woman who sent that, sorry, I don't we get so much mail these days. And by the way, you're all sending it to the wrong and poor guy who lives there is like going crazy. Thank you again for tune in and we really appreciate it.

Please subscribe to my show on Rumball Rumble. It is free. You can watch the video version this program, see all our sound effects. See, Paul is terrific. Throwing arm Dan Marino style. Just throw me the motley back. Thank you very much for doing that rumble. Dotcom Bongino. We're almost at one point five million subscribers and make Bongino Report.com your new alternative to the Drudge Report. We give you the best conservative news of the day.

It's like your morning newspaper. Just make it your bookmark. Go to website in the morning. Thanks for tuning in, folks. See automobiles.

You just heard Dan Bongino.