Summary
➡ The article discusses concerns about the FBI spying on American citizens without a warrant, which some believe is a violation of constitutional rights. It highlights that this surveillance has been used on both sides of the political spectrum, and argues that it’s not about the number of people being spied on, but the potential damage to the country. The article also mentions the upcoming 2024 election, with a focus on President Trump’s popularity and chances. It ends by emphasizing the importance of the Constitution and the need for the government to operate by the consent of the governed.
➡ The Durbin Marshall credit card bill could put your data at risk of being hacked, as it shifts consumer spending to less secure networks for the benefit of large corporations. In an interview, actor Kirk Cameron discusses his experiences in Hollywood, highlighting the issue of child abuse within the industry. He also talks about his new children’s TV series, which aims to provide wholesome content with biblical values, as a counter to the ‘woke’ content he believes is damaging children. He encourages listeners to take action and stand for truth and goodness.
➡ The text is a conversation between two people discussing their experiences in the entertainment industry. They talk about how they managed to avoid getting caught up in the craziness of fame and the importance of staying true to their beliefs. They also discuss the challenges of being open about their faith in Hollywood and the need for more people of integrity in the industry. They end by promoting a new children’s series and discussing the importance of supporting values-oriented content.
➡ The speaker is discussing the misconception that the wealthiest people in the country pay only an 8% tax rate. They explain that this figure is based on a hypothetical scenario where all of a person’s wealth, including unsold stocks, is liquidated and taxed. They argue that this is not a realistic or fair representation of actual tax rates, and that implementing such a tax would lead to economic collapse. They also point out that even if all the wealth of the country’s billionaires was taxed, it would only fund the government for eight months, indicating that overspending, not under-taxation, is the real issue.
➡ The article discusses the irony of left-wing policies that claim to support the middle and working class but often end up benefiting the wealthy and well-connected. It criticizes the Democrats for abandoning their supposed support for the middle class and calls on Republicans to seize the opportunity to address this issue. The article also criticizes the IRS for targeting people making under $200,000 a year for audits, arguing that this unfairly targets the middle class and small business owners. Finally, it discusses the issue of abortion, arguing that leftists often avoid stating their position on the issue, making it difficult to have a meaningful debate.
➡ This text is about a debate on abortion. The writer argues that liberals often avoid stating their position on abortion, especially in extreme cases like late-term abortions. They believe that the Democrats’ stance has shifted from keeping abortions safe, legal, and rare to having no limitations at all. The writer encourages conservatives to clearly state their position and challenge liberals to do the same, instead of letting liberals control the debate.
➡ This text discusses the author’s views on abortion and student loan cancellation. The author argues that people who support abortion often use extreme examples, like rape and incest, to justify all abortions, even though these cases are rare. The author also criticizes the idea of student loan cancellation, arguing that the debt isn’t really cancelled, but transferred to taxpayers. The author believes that these debates are skewed in favor of left-wing views due to the way the media presents them.
➡ This text is about the importance of understanding the true premise of an argument before engaging in a debate. The author argues that many left-wing arguments are based on faulty premises, and once these are dismantled, the argument falls apart. He uses examples such as student loan debt cancellation and healthcare to illustrate his point. He encourages listeners to challenge these premises and not accept them at face value.
Transcript
com any weekday. Click on station Finder to find out whether there’s a station near you. But before that, let me tell you about our first sponsor, field of greens. I take Field of greens twice a day. I love it. I had some in green tea today. Then I put a little bit in some orange juice and water afterwards. Delicious. It is a ground up, healthy, wholesome fruit and vegetable powder.
Each organic fruit and vegetable was medically chosen by their team to help support your health. I showed you my blood work at 49 from field degrees. You’d be like, this guy’s not messing around. This stuff is the real deal. I promise you’re going to love the product for any reason you don’t, they’ll give you 100% money back guarantee. Can’t beat that. Try field and greens today. Look at the back.
Look at the label. You’re going to love it. I got you 15% off your first order, plus free rush shipping. Go to brickhousenutrition. com dan. Use promo code Dan. That’s promo code dan@brickhousenutrition. com. Dan brickhousenutrition. com Dan love that stuff. Field degrees. First up is our first interview with Congressman Jim Jordan. He talked about this controversial FISA. Listen, this thing’s controversial for a reason. We have this thing called the Fourth Amendment and this other thing called the Constitution.
It’s pretty easy playbook. We should probably follow it sometime. This is a great interview where he explains the problem with this foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, where they can spy on you. Check this out. You know, folks, we have a no squish rule on the show, so it’s meant to protect you from politicians who will lie to you. But this is one of the good guys. I’ve always liked Jim Jordan.
He was very genuine to me when I was running for office, a guy who really cares about conservatism. And I enjoy having him on the show. And he’s been a real advocate for bringing back this Jim. This thing called the constant, what’s it called? The constellation, Jim says called constitution. Yeah, he’s got, he’s got a copy at his desk. Jim Jordan. Congressman Jim Jordan. Welcome back to the show.
Good to be with you. And you’re, you’re a good guy. And it was, it was good to see you a few weeks ago. I actually, I think you’re working out so hard. I think you could probably step in the ring and have at it with some of those. Yeah, I mean, you’re, you’re in shape, and I can tell you’ve been hitting the weight room and everything else. So, folks, little backstory.
I ran into the congressman at the UFC, and, you know, congressman, I did tell Dana White that he was at this scorers table right there. And I said, dana, if one of these guys gets hurt and I can get a quick license, like a rush through, I’ll jump in there. I think I could last like 30, 40 seconds and give him a bit of a show. Yeah, I appreciate that.
Thank you. By the way, you made, you made my boy’s day when you came over and said hello to our, to our son, to bragging like a dad. Now, we’re both pretty darn good on the wrestling mat and wrestle for the badgers in college, but, yeah, you made their day because they love listening to you and they’re like, yeah. And then when you come over and talk to them, that was just great.
Thank you for doing that. I appreciate that. I mean, he had the cauliflower ears, so I warned the people sitting around him. I said, when you see those things, you just run. I said, if this kid throws ice at you, which he wouldn’t do, you just thank him and move on. So we had a good time. That’s a great crowd. They love Donald Trump there. Oh, yeah. The crowd went crazy for him.
So I played your, your clip this morning defending Americans constitutional rights to not be spied on without a warrant, which should go without saying. I played it on the podcast, and I just played it again on the radio before you came on. FISA reauthorization has become very controversial. Congressman, if you could just give Americans out there the downsides to this, because some might not know what’s happened with this, how it’s been abused to spy on people.
Donald Trump. So why is this FISA reauthorization as a current stands a big problem? Well, there are two parts to it. The one part that was really abused was when they, when they actually go to the court and get a warrant to spy on Americans. That’s where they abused the system with, with President Trump and they spied on his campaign. The second part is what’s called the 702 program, which is where they go spy on foreigners and that there’s this database of information.
But when they’re spying and listening to foreigners, they inevitably pick up a bunch of Americans because you may be talking to a business person overseas who also happens to be under surveillance or whatever. And there’s this database of information, and then they search that database using your name, american name, or your phone number or your email. And what we’re saying is you can do all the stuff you want with foreigners.
In fact, we want you to. But when this comes to Americans, and you’re going to do a query which is a fancy name for a search, you’re going to search Dan Bongino’s phone number, email or name in this database, this huge haystack of information. You got to go get a warrant. And here’s why. Because 200. And this is the inspector general of the Justice Department telling us 278,000 times they searched that database and didn’t even follow their own rules, their own procedures in place.
So we’re saying, oh, new rules and procedures aren’t going to be enough. We think you should go get a warrant. And we even put some exceptions in there, Dan, which says if it’s an emergency, if you see that there’s a communication that there’s an imminent terrorist threat here, you can go ahead and search that and bypass the warrant. But we think otherwise you should get a warrant. And we’re getting pushed back on that.
But we think it’s consistent with how we always do things in this great country. You don’t have just one branch of government be able to search your stuff. You have to go to a separate and equal branch of government and get a warrant in order to do that. We think it should apply here. We’re talking to Congressman Jim Jordan about this FISA reauthorization. Congressman, it’s really, it’s kind of shocking.
We’re actually having this discussion on my radio show. There are already exceptions to warrant requirements, which you’re aware of and others. There’s an emergency exception. There’s a pursuit exception. So this isn’t anything new. So asking the federal government, like you just accurately described, to say, well, if you’re going to spy on an american cause, they’re on some call with a suspicious foreigner, okay, that may be necessary, but just ask the judge and show us the probable cause like it’s actually in the constitution.
Sir, this isn’t like something we just made up. Served this well for 200 plus years. There’s a reason, many reasons why we’re the greatest country in history. And one of them, of course, is that foundational document with the protections of liberty and freedom in there. Here’s the key question I keep asking. I did this on the floor, did it in conference. I keep asking this question. We’re told now that it’s 200,000 searches of us persons done each year, 200 queries of us persons.
Well, here’s what I want to know. How many of those searches aren’t covered by the exceptions that we have in our warrant? Cause if it’s a big number, still that aren’t emergencies. If it’s a big number, well, that should frighten us all. If it’s a small number, why are you so opposed to it? Just go to a judge and get it done for that small number of people who aren’t covered by the exceptions.
But no one will give us a number. No one will tell us how many queries, how many searches of us persons are taking place that don’t fall under the exceptions in the language in our warrant amendment. That to me, says a lot. Yeah. And, congressman, we’re talking to Congressman Jim Jordan about the FISA renewal. Here’s what I find particularly disturbing. I’ve seen a lot of talking head commentary, and shockingly, and I applaud you, the easy, swampy position for you to take because a lot of your colleagues are on tv defending this thing.
And, but this is, this is a weird symbiosis here. It’s like the swampy right and the police state left. They’re all together like, yeah, let’s just keep spying on Americans. And then there’s these lefties. But, you know, credit where credit’s due. Some Democrats have joined hands with you and said, I just don’t accept this. But here’s what annoys me about the talking heads. They’re lying. They keep saying, well, we can’t do that.
It would create an unnecessary delay. Really. I was a federal agent. I did it. They can shut their mouths. I actually did it. They didn’t. Congressman, there is always a magistrate on duty. Always. If you have, you can call them literally on the phone, lay out your pc, probable cause on the phone, and in five minutes get a warrant. Anyone telling you otherwise is absolutely, categorically lying to you.
That is a fake, fake story. Yep. Yep. No, I totally agree. And you’re right. That is, it came out of the Judiciary committee. Now, there’s not a whole lot that Congressman Nadler and I agree on, but it came out of our committee 35 to two, because you still have some people on the left, and most of the Democrats on there are pretty far left who understand that this abuse can happen to them, too.
In fact, it did that 278,000 number I told you about, the number of queries that were done that didn’t follow their existing rules. And now we’re going to say, oh, we got new rules that they’ll follow now. Well, the 278,000 times they didn’t follow their rules. It was looking at people who protested in the summer, Black Lives Matter protests around the country. It was people that protestors here on January 6.
So it was both sides. And so people understand, wow, if they can just go search your information in this database without a warrant, that’s a frightening thing. And, Congressman, one of the things I also find comical about their argument, like, oh, well, it was just a limited number of people, is it’s not the quantity, it’s the quality. I mean, they both matter. We certainly don’t want a lot of violations of the constitution, but we can, let’s be honest, some of them will be more damaging to the country.
For instance, them spying on Jim Jordan, Donald Trump and Elise Stefanik is going to be, although all abhorrent, probably more damaging to our government functioning than they say, the guy on the corner selling bagels who they think might have, you know, cheated out of $10 in taxes, that it’s not necessarily the quantity of people, it’s the fact that they did this to the president of the United states and a candidate at the time that’s really hard to get your arms around.
Yeah. And it’s, and it’s, there’s that history and then there’s the broader history. This is the FBI. Who are we saying? Oh, we put more rules and regulations and reporting requirements and we enhance penalties if you violate some of this stuff. But this is the FBI that not only spied on the presidential campaign, this is the FBI that said, if you’re a parent going to a school board meeting, we need to investigate you.
If you’re a pro life Catholic, you’re an extremist. And maybe most importantly, Dan, this is the FBI that said to the whistleblowers who came and talked to our committee and gave us information about those two situations, the parents at school board meetings and the pro life Catholics who gave us information about that stuff, they were retaliated against by the FBI. And so now we say, oh, we’ve given them new rules.
They’ll follow their new rules. They won’t search this database, that they won’t do anything against us citizens. Baloney. Go get a warrant. That’s how it works in our country. And I just want to reiterate what you said before. This is not designed for foreigners in foreign countries. They have no constitutional rights. They are not citizens. They are not here on our soil. Our intelligence agencies, who perceive a threat in the Middle east or Africa or Europe or wherever that emanates from this place, is no restrictions on their ability to do the intelligence work.
Go ahead and do it. This is for us citizens only. This is not for them. Yeah, this is for you. So what happens is they’re surveilling someone, but inevitably, Americans get caught up in this, and then what they’re doing is this giant haystack, this giant database of information. They’re saying, oh, we want to query fancy name for a search. We want to search this phone number that we know belongs to an american citizen, or we want to search this us person name, or this us person us citizen email address.
We’re saying, you want to search Ahmed, someone from the Middle east who we’re spying on, or someone in Europe we’re spying on. Fine, do that. But if you’re going to use an american citizens identifier or their name, you got to get a warrant. Congressman, I’ll let you go after this. I know you’re busy. We’re talking to Congressman Jim Jordan, one of the good guys. Congressman, we got an election coming up, obviously, 2024.
Big event. Huge event. You’ve seen the reception President Trump’s been getting around the country. We were at the UFC that night. I mean, you were there. That was electric. I’m always candid with people. They were screaming. I mean, I looked around, you know, maybe one out of every hundred people. Well, you know, wasn’t saying. Everyone else was screaming that he was at a chick fil a in Georgia today.
Everybody erupted around him. How are you feeling about this election? A lot of Americans are, are concerned that they, you know, may be impacted by other issues. The abortion issues, obviously hot. We’ve got a number of issues, like inflation as well. But you’re in a, what used to be a swing state. It’s turned kind of red now. How are you feeling about 2024 and President Trump’s chances? I feel very strong.
I mean, you know, he’s, he’s up in all seven upper, even in all seven of the swing states. Presidential election now largely comes down to Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona. And he is, he is up in all of those, up big in Michigan. So in our state, he won Ohio by eight and a half and 16, eight and a half and 20. We feel great.
And you’re right. The energy that exists when he comes out and does a route. He was in Dayton a few weeks ago helping our Senate candidate. Bernie Marino did a great job. I was in Rome, Georgia with him that same day that we came to the fight. And it’s amazing. And I always say about President Trump, he has this great line he uses. And you’ve been to these rallies before, and, you know, he will say to the audience, they’re coming after me because I’m fighting for you.
In fact, in Iowa, he changed a little bit. In Iowa, he said, they’re coming after my freedom because I’m fighting for yours. And the audience knows there’s a bond there because he truly is fighting for us and the things that make our country special and great and people sense that they feel it. And the contrast between that and Joe Biden is so strong. That’s why he’s up in all the polls.
That’s why I think he’s going to win. It’s incredible. And he talks no differently behind closed doors. You and I have seen him behind closed doors. He has. At that fundraiser in Palm beach this weekend, and it was a limited group of people, no pressure. And the gist of his speech was exactly the same, Congressman, he said four or five times, success will be my revenge. Success will be my revenge.
So anyone who thinks this is a shtick and you’ve got some dictator or something, you have totally, completely misread and mischaracterized this situation. He is, he is so american. One thing I like, you’ve been around, Dan, like I have, he hates to lose. And I tell people that is a great american quality. Americans aren’t wimpy, sissy losers. Americans are winners. And he has that attitude and you feel it every time you do.
The energy is really incredible around them. It’s, it’s something to see. Congressman Jim Jordan, please keep up this fight. This FiSa issue is a big deal. I can, I can send you a picture of our phones lighting up, talking about it. Americans are very, very concerned. You guys are absolutely on the moral, legal and constitutional side of this and America appreciates it. Thanks for coming on. Thank you, brother.
Take care. You got it. Congressman Jim Jordan. Folks, that FISA thing is a big deal, folks. The Constitution is not a suggestion. Okay? It’s, it’s not meant to be like an operating manual for a toaster. It’s not a suggestion. It’s the guidebook for how the country is supposed to run so that a government operates by consent of the governor, not the other way around. We’re not going to start making little carve outs to each one.
Well, technically, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply if the FBI says they found you in a database and. No, no, no, that’s not the way it works. Go get a warrant. There’s a process for that. It’s not hard. As Congressman Jordan just said, it’s only worked for $200. Up next, we have another great interview for you, but let’s check out our next sponsor first. With cyber attacks on the rise, protecting your data security is more important than ever.
So why is Congress considering a law that puts your data at greater risk of being hacked in a exposed to foreign networks, the Durbin Marshall credit card bill shifts billions in consumer spending to less secure payment networks, all so that corporate megastores can make bigger profits. Don’t let Durbin Marshall steal your data. Visit hands offmyrewards. com security and tell your senators, do oppose the Durbin Marshall credit card bill paid for by electronic payments coalition.
You guys remember Kirk Cameron? Well, we talked to him about a new kids series, what’s going on with kids in Hollywood? This disgusting allegation of abuse all over Hollywood. He unfortunately was in that Hollywood space, knows a little bit about this stuff. So this is a great interview. Check this out. You know him, you love him. Kirk Cameron. Kirk Cameron, welcome back to the show. How are you, my friend? Hey, bro.
I’m doing great. I’m really doing good. Thank you for having me on again. Listen, we love having you. This is one of my, you’re one of my favorite guests. We had you on last time talking about Hollywood. You obviously grew up in Hollywood, growing pains, you know, a super famous actor cover of all these magazines when we were all kids. So you got a new project coming out.
I want to get to that in a second, but I want to ask you about a couple of things. You know, you, you were, you obviously have experience in this space. We don’t have growing up in the whole entertainment community. There’s a big drama brewing about this. Quiet on set. It’s this show about kids networks and some alleged child abuse that had taken place over there. And I’m just wondering, while, you know, when you were acting in the business early on, was this the kind of thing that was kind of quietly known and, or, you know, was it just hush hush? Nobody had heard about it? Well, you bring up something that all of us are disgusted with and everything from, you know, Epstein’s island.
And we hear about kids and pedophilia, and we hear about these special trafficking rings that are enjoyed by elites within DC and Hollywood. And when I think back now on my time as a teenager on growing pains, I believe all of that stuff was going on. I couldn’t prove it cause I didn’t go to the back rooms of those parties, but there were the smarmy characters that are now being outed through the Nickelodeon documentary who actually worked on growing paints.
And so I knew it was all around me. And I thank God I got out of there unscathed. I was not a victim of, of these individuals. But I can tell you that one of the main characters in the documentary who was molesting Drake Bell, was my dialogue coach and stand in for six years on growing pains. So he worked with me and Leonardo DiCaprio when he was 14 years old, and Jeremy Miller, who played my little brother Ben on the show.
And, you know, these are the kinds of guys that ingratiate themselves into your life. They’re kind, friendly, charming. Nobody wants to accuse them of something so wicked. And then the stuff comes out decades later that they’re actually pedophiles, child molesters, and sex offenders. So it’s. It’s really awful and it’s. It’s unacceptable. And we need to root this evil out now because there are still people working in the children’s television industry who are no doubt perpetrating these kinds of things on kids today.
Kirk, we’re talking to Kirk Cameron. Kirk, do you think there are more protections in place today for, for these children in this business than there were? Because you go back and watch some of those shows now with some of these people we know, you know, the Ariana Grande’s and all of them who grew up in that children’s entertainment space. You watch some of the footage of this stuff now, and you’re like, that’s kind of cringey, you know, I think.
Yeah. You know what I’m saying? It’s, it’s, you can tell there’s kind of a double meaning to what’s going on. It’s a little bit gross. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, for sure. So this stuff was going on long before the 1990s, like I mentioned. And I think Hindsight’s always 2020. We look back and we go, wow, that guy was a little, that guy was a little handsy. You know, that’s a smarmy look on his face.
And now you see it. But often it’s difficult to detect or at least to accuse when you’re right there in the moment. And as far as working protections coming out, I don’t know. I mean, since the last election fiasco, do we have more protections now for safe and fair elections? I don’t know. You know, now that we see what’s going on with the border, is there more protection for border crossings and security or less? I don’t know.
A lot of the people that are behind these things are actually benefiting from the disaster. Right? Yeah. You know, we’re talking to Kirk Cameron. You know him, famous author, actor. Kirk, you have a new tv series for kids coming out. You’re getting a lot of media attention on it. We were happy to have you on and discuss it because we need more wholesome kids, material that focuses on values and higher order values and not superficial nonsense.
You know, it’s the tick tock era. Kids get lost in 32nd video. They need more wholesome content. Tell us about it. How’d you get to this point? What inspired you to do it? Where can people find it? So I remember growing up and watching shows like a little house on the prairie. I lost. I watched I love Lucy as a kid. My kids grew up watching all kinds of great shows, highway to heaven, the Waltons, and the Brady Bunch and all these types.
We don’t have this kind of stuff anymore. And so what I’m trying to do in the sector that I’m familiar with is uproot some evil and plant some seeds of truth and goodness. So I’m producing a brand new television program that I think is the cure to the rot of Nickelodeon and Disney. These networks have forgotten what made them successful, particularly Disney. The og of family entertainment has got identity amnesia, and they’ve been possessed with this twisted woke stuff.
I want to remind them what good, wholesome family programming is like. So we’re producing a show with brave books. It’s called the Adventures of Iggy and Mister Kirk, and we’re saying that this is our generation’s version of Mister Rogers neighborhood with wholesome biblical values and lessons. We’ve got world class legendary puppeteers from Sesame street. Also great animation. It’s hilarious. And we’ve got other actors from former Disney shows and other comedians and actors, and it’s going to be wonderful and a great contrast to the woke wickedness that we’re seeing damage all these children.
We’re talking to Kirk Cameron producing a new children’s series, Iggy and Mister Kirk. Kirk, you know, the other day, I had been the cable guy was long story short, cable guy was, we had some busted up cable stuff going on, so I’m flipping through channels. Does this work? Does that work? And I flip across one of these kids channels, and it’s so crazy. Like, you watch this kid’s stuff now, and every boy is feminized.
There’s all of this quiet messaging that you and I know what to look for. But a kid. A kid’s not conditioned to look for the signs they’re being propagandized. But you and I can see it right away. There’s the latent under the, you know what I’m talking about, under the covers kind of messaging, no pun intended, and that we’ve really, really got to get the kids away from that.
That’s agenda driven tv. 100%. 100%. And now they’re not even hiding it. You know, back in the day, it was sort of like, hey, it’s kind of COVID It’s sort of off the radar. We’re slipping it in. But now we’ve got videos of executives at Disney and Cartoon networks and other places that are saying they’re just giddy with excitement. I mean, they just look like they’re stupid, punch drunk with their own excitement about how they’re, quote, you know, throwing as much queerness into everything as they possibly can.
They’ve got little drip campaigns, and then they got the flood campaigns. And what I want to say to all of our listeners is, guys, this is all happening on our watch. These are our kids. These are our grandchildren. We’ve got to stop being whiners and complainers and have a vision to be winners and creators, and let’s be the executive producers of our children’s and grandchildren’s futures. Let’s get off the couch, stop crying in our chick fil a soup, and let’s start making the headlines that makes the left tremble and cower and begin to change up their plan, because they see how effective we are being.
We’ve got to stand for truth and goodness. If we don’t, who will? Kirk, I know I asked you this last time we talked, but, I mean, you were the guy. You were on all these covers that would Bebop magazine or whatever the hell. I remember being in St. Pancras grammar school, and the girls would come in and go, look, I got the centerfold, the curtain, all this other stuff.
I like you. No, I’m serious. Like, how do you know? I mean, you were there. You lived it. How do you escape that? And, I mean, this is a compliment, not an insult, but how do you not become a left wing lunatic. I don’t understand, like how you escaped and almost no one else did. Everyone else is still trapped in that vortex of crazy. What was it? What was the, was there some kind of road to Damascus moment or something? Well, I don’t know what’s worse, to escape the, the leftist woke ism or the 1980s mullet hairdos that we all had.
I escaped. I escaped that too. And you know, it’s funny about that is my kids now, they’re so embarrassed. They’re so, they’re so mad at me. My 18 year old kids are like, dad, these pictures in Bebop magazine of you flexing your triceps and some white suspenders is so embarrassing. You should have thought of me before you took this picture. I’m like, son, you weren’t even an idea in my mind.
How do you met your mother yet? And he’s like, well, still, it’s selfish. This is really messing up my reputation with my friends. So you know what? I did have a road to Damascus moment, so to speak. I also had protective parents who are on the set with me all the time. But at the end of the day, I came to the conclusion that this world is a beautiful place made by God, that people have screwed it up with their selfishness and pride and their twisted ideas, myself included, until I get on my knees and I say, God help me, I need your forgiveness.
I need a heart change. I need an overhaul of the way I think. Line me up with what’s right and what’s true. The places that I disagree with you, I need to change my mind. And when I began to do that, I found myself being red pilled, coming out of the matrix and seeing reality for what it really is. And God gave our kids and grandkids to moms and dads, not to Hollywood, not to governments and not even to churches.
So we need to do our job because our kids futures depend on it. We’re talking to Kirk Cameron. He has a new children’s series out called Iggy and Mister Kirk. Kirk, do you think an actor who didn’t have your level of, say, name id, a newcomer guy, maybe in a couple b roles you may have recognized his face, but you know the guy I’m talking about, no one can pinpoint his name, that kind of guy.
If a guy like that in today’s modern Hollywood ecosystem were to come out and talk like you do about God and borders and loving America and all the things these liberals seemingly can’t stand, does he practically speaking stand a chance in Hollywood. I mean, you developed your own reputation outside of that through your books and activism and your tours and the library tour. But do you think anyone else who, like I said, didn’t have your level of name id, you think they just get crushed by that system? Probably, they probably would.
But at the same time, it’s not always the case. And see, I operate a little bit differently. You know, I don’t like to go by statistics. I don’t like to go by odds. I just have this crazy belief that there is a God in heaven who shows up for those who stand for what’s right. Gosh, I could just think of 1000 people throughout history and throughout the Bible who had all the odds stacked against them, but they were the right guy for the job at the right moment.
And so I believe that the clouds can part, that the window of heaven can open up and things happen because what’s right and what’s true is ultimately unstoppable. And I want to be in that flow. So I would say we need more people of character and integrity and faith in Hollywood. We need more people who aren’t concerned about the big name id, who get into politics, who get into sports, who get into everything, because these are the places that are in desperate need of integrity and faith.
And I think that God can use you there in unexpected ways. Yeah, that’s a great perspective, Kirk. You know, Jesus picked a tax collector guy who would deny him three times, a guy who would doubt his own resurrection, a guy who would betray him, and a woman of seven demons. I mean, he didn’t come for the righteous, he came for the sinner. And, you know, you’re 100% correct.
I wish more people would stand up and, you know, look, how does God. I don’t. I don’t have an inflated ego where I think I’m some sort of asset on heaven’s team. I mean, I’m a full of myself, conceited teenage atheist actor at 17 years old, who finds himself praying to a God that he really doesn’t believe in. And I’m not even that good of an actor. And yet here I am talking to Dan Bongino, one of my favorite guys to listen to, and I’m being able to make children’s television programming to combat the evil that’s coming out of these other networks.
I’m married with six kids, and I’m thinking this is nothing but undeserved kindness from heaven. And if God can do that with me, he can do it with anybody. It’s deserved I want to get another plug for you because I got to run. Kirk Cameron, your show, where can people find it? I got about 15 seconds left. Go to watchbrave. com. Watchbrave. com and help us get this show into all the different networks.
Rumble everything else. We want to be on every platform. Go to watchbrave. com dot. It’s called adventures with Iggy and Mister Kirk. I play Mister Kirk. Kirk Cameron. Love you, man. Thanks for coming on. You welcome back anytime. All right. Appreciate you, bro. Have a great day. Got it, buddy. Kirk Cameron, folks. Watchbrave. com. Iggy and Mister Kirk. Help them out, folks. We can’t talk about producing, you know, biblical oriented, you know, values oriented content and not support it.
Support our own. It’s great seeing my family for Easter, but it reminded me that millions of adults every year over the age of 65, they start to lose their hearing. I’m actually starting to lose a bit of mine now. MD hearing is an FDA registered rechargeable hearing aid that costs a fraction of what typical hearing aids cost. MD hearings neo model costs over 90% less than clinic hearing aids.
And the NEo is MD hearing smallest hearing aid ever. It fits inside your ear. MD hearing recently cut their price in half. That means you get the high quality rechargeable digital hearing aids for only $297 a pair. MD hearing is sold over 1. 5 million hearing aids. They offer a 45 day risk free trial with a 100% money back guarantee. MD hearing was just selected to be the hearing aid supplier for top Medicare Advantage plans.
So they’re a brand, excuse me, you can trust. Go to shopmd hearing. com. Shopmd hearing. com use promo code Patriot to get their new $297 on your buy a pair offer. Plus they’re adding a free extra charging case. That’s a $100 value just for listeners in my show. That’s shopmdhearing. com. And use our promo code Patriot and get their new $297. When you buy a pair offer. Check them out.
Shopmdashearing. com. Up next, we had a first time guest on the radio show, and she really blew it out of the water. Carol Roth. If you haven’t heard of her, you’re going to love this interview. She just dissects and annihilates these stupid liberal fairy tales about who pays taxes and some of the lazy bums who don’t. Those may be my words, not hers, but it’s still a great interview.
Check this out. So I follow Carol Roth on Twitter because I really enjoy her commentary because I’m really fascinated by the liberal fairy tales, especially about the economy and taxes that liberals get away, get away with because people aren’t willing to do even a small bit of research, and it’s offensive to people who work for a living. You want to argue with me about taxes, argue with me about taxes.
But don’t you dare tell me I don’t pay my fair share when you don’t pay Jack squad as a liberal, you can shut your mouth in your pie hole. Not interested in your stupid opinion. Sorry. Let’s get, you can follow her, by the way, on Twitter. She’s at carol with a C. Carol J. S. Roth ro t h. I strongly recommend you do. And her latest book is you will own nothing, which I think I get the reference there.
Carol, welcome to the show. Dan. So great to chat with you. Great to chat with you, too. I feel like I already know you. I follow you, like I said on Twitter, and you’re, your commentary is so spot on. Because I, I feel like me and you have this, like, esp mind link going about the tax thing. I’m absolutely willing to engage with a liberal on a debate about what the most efficient tax rate is.
You, if you want me to pay more, then, then just tell me why. That’s all I ask. But one of the things I also ask, which I think offends you, is don’t lie about what I do pay. You know, I wasn’t always a 1% guy. When I got on radio, I got lucky. I got this job. I was a middle class guy. But don’t lie and insist I don’t pay my fair share.
People in that 1% pay the, by far a huge majority of the taxes out there. It’s fascinating to me. And, you know, I always wonder where this misinformation comes from because I, I’m a common sense gal. I just put the information out there and let people try and connect the dots. And like you said, there are people on the left, particularly the progressives, they cannot connect two dots, even if they are right next to each other.
And so I did some digging, and I was like, why is it, like, why do they keep saying things like, billionaires pay an 8% tax rate? Because I love you, Dan. I come from a blue collar family. I work my way up. I see the american dream, and I’m going, wow, that sounds amazing. Because I pay on a whole heck of a lot. Like, where is that coming from? And so, you know, I did the research.
And if you go right on Twitter and you put in Otis an 8%. You will see that Joe Biden repeats the lie over and over again that the wealthiest billionaires in this country, 800 billionaires, pay an 8% tax rate. So I’m trying to figure this out because I’m like, my accountant is not doing the work here. If somebody can pay, why don’t we get this rate? This is great.
How did you get. This is amazing. And you go to the White House’s website and you find the study. Ah, the internal study that they commissioned, that is not based on income. It is based on wealth. It is based on unsold stock. So they said, well, let’s just imagine we sold all of these people’s stocks today, and this is how much money they had. This is how much they, you know, should have paid and would have paid in taxes, but they didn’t pay in taxes, and that’s 8%.
And it’s like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. That’s not how any of this works. And you cannot take somebody’s fantasy wealth number and compare it to what someone else pays as income tax and then come out and not only say that the president says it, but then, as you know, the corporate press all pick it up. So if you go onto Google and you say, how much does a millionaire pay in taxes? You’re going to get an 8% fictional rate versus the table where we know the top 1% of earners pay 40, almost 46% of the taxes, and the top 10% pay almost 76% of taxes.
So are being intentionally fed to us. Speaker one, I saw that tweet you put out. I actually covered it on my podcast. And I think the most fascinating part about that absolutely fictional 8% number was the Google screenshots you put up where you would think a supposedly. I mean, we get. It’s laughable, but a supposedly nonpartisan search engine would be able to discriminate fact from fiction. It is literally a fake number in the literal, not figurative sense.
It’s made up. No billionaire is paying an 8% rate on income. It’s just stunning, the stupidity. Now, I want you to think this, this through, audience, along with what Carol just said, how they got this number, they’re saying your unsold stock equities, whatever it may be, your home value, that that’s your wealth. Even if they were to do that, Carol, let’s just say in some liberal, stupid fantasy land, they said, let’s tax tomorrow and demand payment immediately on every bit of wealth.
And some liberals will go, that’s a great idea. The stock market, Carol, would collapse instantly as everybody had to liquidate their holdings and sell homes to pay the tax bill. Like, do they ever think any of this stuff true? Through. No. I mean, economics and finance is clearly not their strong suit. Dan, as we know, since we have $34 trillion in debt, and the interest on the debt that we’re paying is starting to exceed every other budget item.
So we know that they don’t live in a reality. But just think about the implications of what you said. So I own a business, and because that business has created value, which, by the way, provides goods and services and employment, as well as tax revenue, that you want to take that business away from me and give it to the government to do God knows what worth. And then if everybody did that, like you said, it would completely crash the stock market and wipe out everybody’s wealth so they wouldn’t actually get that money.
But let’s just say. Let’s just. Let’s just take this to the logical conclusion. Let’s indulge the fantasy. Let’s say we took all of the billionaires, we took all the wealth they had, and we were able somehow, to convert it with not disrupting everything, which we know we can’t do. Do you know how long that would fund the government for? Eight months. Eight months one time. And then all of that money would be gone on an ongoing basis.
So this is clearly not the problem. The revenue issue is clearly not the problem. It is a spending issue that they refuse to acknowledge. Yeah, I was reading an article this morning on just the news, John Solomon’s website. We are now $830 billion in debt during this fiscal year. As you know, there’s seven months to go. So we’re closing in on a trillion dollars with seven months to go.
And revenue this year is up. In other words, it’s not a tax problem. And the media knows this. But I want. You just sparked something. You know, you’re right. If we liquidated every rich person’s assets, it would collapse the real estate market. It would also collapse the equities market tomorrow. The frightening thing about the media, Carol, is they know this. You’ve probably read the reports I did about true social right? Of course.
Because it’s associated with Donald Trump, they have to attack it. And they’re like, it’s a meme stock. It’s all this. Whatever they say, they say. And Donald Trump owns 54 whatever percent he owns of the company. And if he sells the stock, it would crash the value of the stock. Yeah, no kidding, Sherlock. Like a wealth tax would do the same thing. You get what I’m saying? Like, they understand this and they lie anyway.
They do. And they’re running cover because they don’t believe that it’s going to impact them. And this is what I try to explain to people, because it is hard. We have seen a government and we’ve seen a federal reserve that has transferred tons of wealth from Main street to Wall street. And it’s frustrating. And we need to get the government and the fed out of the way and create an even and fair playing field for middle and working class Americans.
So we can acknowledge that and then also acknowledge the fact that the people who are supporting the government are the billionaires. They know that. And they’re going to have fancy accountants and fancy lawyers and trusts and loopholes and whatnot. So that if you agree to say we should tax wealth, which is unconstitutional, whose money do you really think they’re coming after? Is it those 800 billionaires that are going to fund the government for eight, you know, eight months? Or is it the middle class wealth? And what happens when the house that your mom bought, you know, for a couple hundred grand, and now Zillow says one day it’s worth a million dollars? Oh, I’m sorry, you have to pay tax on that $800,000 gain.
Oh, too bad. Looks like you’re going to have to sell your house and go, oh, you can go live in one that’s owned by Wall street. This is what the plan is. This is how they’re trying to make sure you do own nothing. And we don’t want that. We want you to own everything. You need to own assets to have wealth. And this is the trick. It’s why the wealth tax was in Biden’s budget proposal.
It’s why Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have reposed this. They are trying to trick people. And as we’ve been talking about, the low information, voters who don’t do any research are going, oh, yeah, that’s a great idea. Yeah, we’re talking to Carol Roth. You can follow her on Twitter. It’s Carol with a C. Carol J. S. Roth on Twitter. She also has a book called you will own nothing.
I get the implication of that. That is the globalist World Economic Forum dystopia. They want us not to own anything. But that kind of the title of your book parlays into something you just said as well. The great irony of the, you know, coexist bumper sticker, you know, hashtag tolerance left fighting for the so called little guy is a wealth tax would probably ironically work for places like blackrock that loves the real estate business.
That would come in tomorrow, gladly scoop up a bunch of distressed properties like middle class, you know, Joey bag of donuts, who now has got to sell the home he inherited from the mom because he can’t afford the tax bill. They’d be more than happy to come scoop it up. It’ll more than make up for their, what they’d have to pay in taxes. I mean, the great irony of the left is through regulation and this new form of tax and regulatory socialism is they’ve really empowered the people with the legal ability and connections to deal with it while screwing over the middle guy.
Absolutely. We’ve seen it over and over again that their policies, all they’ve done is enrich the elite, the wealthy and well connected. And there’s a double standard. And the Democrats like to use to claim that they were the party of the middle and working class. Well, I don’t know if that’s ever been the case, but if it ever was, they have abandoned that a long time ago. And I think it is critically important for Republicans to seize this opportunity.
But they got to get out of their own way. I mean, you see what’s going, going on in Congress with these omnibus bills and the spending and the numbers that you quoted through the first several months of the year. Need to get on top of this. Yeah, we’ve been, we’ve been part of that, too. And one thing on this show, and when I was doing my show at Fox, who I remember I had a debate segment called the rebuttal, you know, when a Democrat came on and said, well, you know, Republicans have spent a lot of money, too.
And I said, 100% correct. Point stipulated. So you’re acknowledging to me that’s the problem, no matter who does it. No, that’s not what I’m saying. I said, you just said it. You know, it’s just weird how I’m not making that case to you that Republicans are innocent here. What you just said is correct. Like, we do have to get out of our own way and be honest with the american people.
One last thing, and I’ll let you go. We’re talking to Carol Roth. Her book is called you will own nothing. I read out another piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. It’s still up there now in their opinion section. It’s about the IR’s. Remember, they were going to hire these 80,000 new agents. Turns out they’ve hired like 300 or whatever. And remember what they told us, Carol, don’t worry.
We’re only going after the billionaires and those evil millionaires with the monocle and the big top hat. Well, it turns out if you read the report, that the overwhelming majority of new audits, Carol, unsurprisingly, were for people making under $200,000 a year. Why? Because. Same reason people rob banks. Because that’s where the money is. Yes. Who could have predicted this entirely unpredictable outcome? Dan, we would never guess that the people that they always target, the middle class, the small business owners, were going to be exactly who they’re going to target, because they don’t have the accountants and the lawyers to be able to fight this.
They don’t want to deal with it. They go, fine, just take my extra money. Leave me alone. I don’t care. And so, of course they’re going to do that, just like when they decided to lower the reporting threshold on Venmo and Etsy transactions to $600 and they’re. Oh, we’re doing this to go after the billionaires. Yes, all the billionaires with billionaires. Who gets a $600 venmo? If you’re a billionaire, billionaires leave that for tips in, like, Charlie Palmer’s steakhouse.
No one’s venmoing a billionaire $600 that way. You’re right. That’s another great example. I’m going to incorporate that in the repertoire. Unfortunately, I’m running out of time. Want to get one more plug in for your book? She’s Carol Roth on Twitter. Carol Js Roth. And the book is called, you will own nothing about this whole globalist push to get you to be a sucker for big business where they can rent you stuff.
So you will own absolutely nothing. Carol, we’d love to have you back. You were terrific, just like you are in your Twitter account. Thanks for coming on. We appreciate it. A sincere pleasure. Would love to be back. You got it. She’s great, right? I told you folks, we never. I find these personalities on Twitter that are just so compelling. And she tweeted that out about that. A fake 8% billionaire rate.
And if you read the tweet, there is no way, if you have a functioning neuron in your brain that you would believe Joe Biden was telling you the truth. They just made it up. They just know, yet they just made it up. There is no one paying that rate. No one. They made that up. Next, a much requested rant most of you seem to like. I got a lot of feedback on this one, so stay tuned.
Well, get to the next sponsor. Then youll hear that genucelle. Let me tell you about gen 90, the latest breakthrough in skincare from our friends at Genucelle skincare. Well, genome can also help bark on those annoying bags and puffiness under your eyes instantly. Yes, those bags under your eyes from lack of sleep, being overworked, stress, and even those seasonal allergies that come with spring weather instantly help reduce the appearance of looking older.
Anywhere you use it around the eyes look young, forehead, crows, feet, laugh lines, even the chin. It can start working in seconds. Now get Genucelle skincare’s classic under eye bags and puffiness serum. They’ll make you look old. Those bags get rid of those border and their luxurious genusell XV collagen builder moisturizer with vitamin C and hyaluronic acid appear based for stunning results day after day. Check it out.
Paula loves it. Go to jennycel. com right now for incredible packages. Over 50% off during genu sell spring sale results guaranteed or your money back. Plus, get an extra 10% off automatically applied at checkout when you go to genusell. com. Dan Genucel. com Dan order now. Get a free spa box gift and free shipping. Genucell. com Dan Genucell. com Dan thanks, Jenny. So we appreciate it. I started the show last week talking about the abortion issue from an angle that I hope helps you talk about it.
This is really important, the messaging. We’ve been losing on abortion for a long time, but life should matter. If it doesn’t, there’s no purpose to our party. Check this out, folks. Do not get into a debate with a leftist about abortion until this criteria is met. You ready? Coming out firing today. If the leftist is not willing to state what their position is, do not debate them. Don’t do it.
Why would you? You know, if we’re going to get into a debate, correct. Let’s say, let’s make it, pull the abortion issue out for a second because I get it. Emotions and antenna go up, right? All of a sudden the emotions cloud everyone’s judgment. Let me ask you a question. Divorce from the abortion topic for a moment. Say we want to debate a sports thing. Who was a better center? Hakeem Elijah David Robinson, right.
If I’m going to get into that debate with you, then you have to tell me what your position is. Who was the best center, right? If we’re going to debate who the best center was, and I tell you in advance, well, I think Hakeem Elijah was the best I’ve ever seen the debate can’t end with well. And your opinion is, oh, I don’t have one. Well, then we’re not debating over who the best center is, correct? I stated an opinion and you said absolutely nothing.
Jim, why are you laughing? It’s true. But it’s weird with abortion, how Republicans, the only reason I’m bringing this up is I want to start in a different spot, but someone sent me a Facebook message. Dan, what would you do if your daughter was raped? Oh, that’s a really awful quote, but I understand. I understand it’s a really awful thing for to send my way because I know what you’re doing, but.
Okay, fine. Let me ask. Let’s just start first. So you’ve started with, obviously, a crisis pregnancy and the most horrific example around. So let’s just turn around on you. So you’re suggesting, you’re willing to accept what, you’re willing to accept that you don’t want abortion, but you’re only, you’ll make an exception for what? Rape, incest, and life of the mother? Is that what you’re saying? I can almost guarantee you the people debating this with me will say, no, no, no.
That’s, I don’t want any limits on. Okay, well, if you don’t want any limits on abortion and you’re the radical, not me. Now to the lady who sent it to me, I don’t think that’s her position. She sounds to me like a Republican who supports basically what Trump’s position is for, exceptions. And a lot of people have those exceptions. I personally don’t. But that’s a horrible example to send my way.
It’s a crisis pregnancy, and unfortunately, there’s no easy way out of hard decisions. But if you believe in a principle, the principle should matter and life matters to me. But it’s really unfair to get into an asymmetric debate with liberals who aren’t willing to stake out a position. You know what, I may play this again later. Jim, I’m sorry, I got to go here because this is on my mind.
Now. Cut seven for me. Tarloff thing. Jessica Tarloff, who’s a leftist, she’s a liberal. She was on last night on Fox News with Bret Baier. Brett’s a journalist. He’s not an opinion guy. He has opinions, but he’s not an opinion guy. He does the news. So Brett has Jessica Tarloff on a panel, and I want you to watch again how they always frame these arguments in terms of crisis, pregnancies in the worst case scenario.
And yet when you ask them. Okay. I’m willing to discuss that. I will stake a position out on incest, rape, life of the mother. Life of the mother, I think is pretty, which is, by the way, exceedingly, exceedingly rare. But if it’s a legitimate medical case, I think a lot of people understand that a horrible decision is going to have to be made. Okay. It’s exceedingly rare. And ectopic pregnancies are not abortions.
The baby and the mother would die in an ectopic pregnancy. So don’t even bring that up. You just, that’s, that’s your, that’s a red herring. That’s not a real argument. There’s no state where an ectopic pregnancy, you’d be 40 because you can’t bird, you’d be dead. But it’s amazing to me how, again, when, when you say, okay, Walter, I’m willing to discuss that with you. I’ve already staked my position out.
And why, what is your position? Watch what happens when Tarloff is put back on her heels and asked basically to defend the position because she doesn’t have a, their position basically is abortion up until and including after birth. Some of these folks here listen to this. People are not having abortions in the 8th and the 9th month unless there are catastrophic medical circumstances. That’s a fallacy that the right is trying to push about Democrats.
And what Democrats are saying is that this is a decision between you and your doctor to make sure that you can have a safe delivery and a viable child if you are that far along in your pregnancy. So we’re going to be pushing that hard against that. The numbers just don’t support that kind of argument. And they are heroic wing stories when a woman has to have an abortion somewhere close to the end, at the nine month level, for instance.
Understood. But there should be support then for no late term abortion legislation across the board, bipartisan. Well, but the issue there is is that that could take away the rights of doctors and the woman who is carrying the fetus to make a decision that’s best for her health if she’s in a state that has a ban on late term. Again, we could go around here, Jessica, but if you have the exception life of the mother and health, you know, you could have a lot of exceptions in whatever legislation’s built.
Do you see that? You see how she doesn’t want to stake a position out because she understands the now radical Democrat position, which wasn’t always the position used to be in the Clinton era, safe, legal and rare. Make abortion safe, make it legal, but keep it rare. The position now is not that anymore. The position now, which, ironically, they’re trying to pin the radical label on you in this sick, perverse word association game.
The position with the Democrat party now, which is mainstream, is no limitations on abortion at all. But the odd thing is, this isn’t even about abortion anymore. This is about straight up killing babies that have been born. Jim cut aid, if you would remember this, back in 2019, former governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam. He was the guy either in the Ku Klux Klan hood or the blackface. We still haven’t determined which one.
I’d love for him to clear that up. You know, I was the Ku Klux Klan guy, by the way, if you think I’m making this up in some kind of sick, perverse joke, sadly, tragically, I am not. You can actually look that up yourself. Here’s Ralph Northam on a DC area radio station back in 2019 having a conversation about this. Is this really happened? In case some of you missed this, having a conversation about a fully born infant on a table and how the doctor and the woman should have a discussion about, about what? What to do with it.
What, what’s. I don’t know. What’s the discussion? You notice how they don’t want to talk about what the discussion is? Should we kill that baby? That what? What else would you be talking about? But watch how he talks about this so cavalierly, like, this is not an insane thing to be discussing. Check this out. I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable.
The infant would be resuscitated, if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. What, what exactly is that? I don’t understand what the discussion is. He’s discussing a baby on the table. It’s not a fetus. It’s not a clump of cells. It’s not a pile of hair and nails. It’s a baby on a table. What exactly is the discussion? What any you lefties in the end, by the way, I know you’re peeing in your diapers.
Lefties, clawing it your faces. I know you’re obsessed with killing babies. Like, I get it. I know that’s your thing. So I know you’re all upset right now. I know you’re scratching at your own faces, clawing at your skin, scratching yourselves, howling like Luda. I could already sense it because you’re all maniacs. I’m just, I’ve staked my position out on abortion, have I not? I believe in protecting life from conception to a natural death because I believe life is important.
That’s my clearest day. I’m not. You don’t have to agree with it. That’s the beautiful part of a constitutional. Republicans, you are absolutely free to make a political and you can even try a moral case against that. I’m willing to entertain it. I’m just asking you, what’s your position? What discussion is Ralph Northam and the Democrats talking about? What discussion are you talking about when a fully formed third trimester baby, you’re just killing the baby and like sucking them out.
Everybody. What this discussion is that. We can’t talk like that. Yeah, yeah, we can. It’s amazing how they paint us as the radicals. Right? They paint us as the radicals. Now, the republican party has a fairly broad view on certain abortion issues. Not all, which obviously, I mean, President Trump, I’m a, I’m a supporter, have been. I think he’s done more for the pro life cause than a lot of talkers.
But we do disagree on certain bedrock principles on it. We just, we don’t disagree on the end game. We just agree, disagree on the path together. But that’s okay. We’re allowed to disagree. Where is the disagreement on the Democrat side? Where are the Democrats? I’m asking folks rumble, folks, Facebook chatsters, everyone. Send me a mainstream Democrat may, I’m not talking about some Mike wackadoodle or something. Send me a mainstream Democrat up on Capitol Hill and what their reasonable limits on abortion are.
I’d love to see it. Are there any folks? Do not engage. Do not lose this debate. This is the one debate, remember back to the Senate campaigns. I’m not even going to get into. But you know what I’m talking about? Where republican candidates have been destroyed on this issue over and over again and why? It’s because they debate on leftist terms. That is a huge mistake. You are always playing an away game every single time.
You are playing like a basketball game in Duke’s arena. Like you, your chances of winning go down just because you’re playing on their court and the students are screaming. You should never do that. You don’t have to do it. When a leftist wants to debate you on abortion, your first question should be a simple one. What are we debating? I will state for you my stance. No, no, zip it.
Shut your pie hole. Sandwich holster. Shut it up. Soup cooler. So it shut. I’m going to tell you my position you tell me your position and then we can debate everything in between. The leftists never do that and we fall in the trap all the time. They start with the most horrendous example in the away field and you’re expected to then start from there and work your way back.
We’re not doing that. We’re not doing that. They start with an rape and incest example that’s going to horrify any sane human being. Keep in mind these are extremely limited cases. Your first question should be then, well, okay, what’s your position then on limits? That’s your exception. So just to be clear, you’re against abortion except for the example you just stated. You just gave me a horrible example of an incestual rape.
Horrible, horrendous, unspeakably horrible. You gave me that. I accept your example even though you haven’t put a name on it or anything. I’m not saying, but you’ve given me this example. Okay, what is your take on that? So you’re against abortion outside of that. So just to be clear, if I had agreed on that, I don’t believe in exceptions to life, but if I had agreed and said, okay, I believe in exceptions for rape and incest, a legitimate life of the mother I think is pretty, pretty standard, but it’s very, again, exceedingly rare.
So the rape and incest example, if I concede that point, do you agree with me the abortion is a bad thing? No, I don’t. You don’t? So why’d you bring up the rape and incest example? I don’t understand you. You, I don’t get. Why’d you bring that up? Oh, disturb people’s emotions. Because this really isn’t about rape. It, incest, you just want to terminate babies lives in the womb because you just said you have no limitations at all.
You see how you’re back on the home court then? Leftists know abortions and abomination. Folks. They’re not stupid. They know it. They do. Trust me, they know it. They just look for justifications. That’s why they put those examples out there. But when you turn it around on them and you say, okay, well, if I were to concede that point, and I don’t, would then you support any limits on abortion? Watch what they do.
Spitting, clawing, screaming, foaming, tearing, pulling their own hair out. What is that, trichotillomania or some, because they know you’ve got them pinned down, that they just want to terminate babies lives in the womb. The exceptions to them mean nothing. They’re just emotional examples for them. Doesn’t mean anything to them. There’s no red line for them whatsoever. We’re not going to win anything in the debate space on any issue if we’re constantly doing it on the left’s terms.
Wait, digest that a second. I’ll give you an example of what I mean. The opening segment I was talking about how this abortion debate is never discussed on a level playing field. It’s discussed on a tilted playing field where the running backs for the left are running downhill at like a 50 degree angle and you’re expected to stop them. I don’t care. It can be a running back and a 300 pound lineman.
I’m really sorry. It doesn’t matter. The running back is still going to win because it’s running downhill at a lineman who’s not going to be able to get their footing. But it’s a 300 pound lineman. It doesn’t matter. It’s not about who has more power or force. It’s the mechanic of force. Vectors on a tilted playing field. It outcome has already been determined. The only question is how far does the lineman fall over? Every single debate on an issue of prominence in America is discussed on the left’s tilted playing field, where they’re the running back.
Running downhill. Why? Because the media are goon hack garbage activists who tilt the playing field with euphemistic language that we incorporate into our debate. A perfect example, which I’m going to get to today, is the argument over canceling student loans. You see what I just did? Some of you got that Joe Biden keeps talking about canceling student loans, and I’m listening to even some conservative outlets and they’re like, Joe Biden has canceled more.
He has? Really? He’s canceled loans? That’s fast. How did he do that? Well, he told the students they don’t have to pay. Well, where do students get the money from? Well, some financial institution, a bank. So the bank wants their money back, right? Yeah, but I thought Biden canceled it. Oh, no. The bank’s gonna get their money back. How? Oh, you’re gonna pay for it. Oh, so it wasn’t canceled.
It was transferred. Oh, come on, come on. No, no. I’m, I’m asking you as a matter of reason and logic. The debt was not canceled. Correct. Somebody paid the debt off to the bank that loaned the money to the student. Right. Who paid it off? Oh, we did. The taxpayers. So it wasn’t canceled. It was transferred. But did you notice how the left and the media goon hack garbage people.
They tilt the playing field so that the lefty running back is running downhill. And it doesn’t matter if it’s a competent argument or not. The outcome is already predetermined. You ask someone if they want their student debt canceled. People are like, yeah, that sounds great. And then you say to them, or do you want your debt transferred to other people who are going to pay for you to go to school? Maybe the person who’s getting the benefits that money has, but everyone else being, oh, no, no, I don’t.
I didn’t sign up for that. What do you mean transferred to me? Oh, I thought canceled meant cancel. I got enough to pay. No, you’re paying. No, you’re going to pay for their school. You see how the abortion debate is the exact same thing? They start with a tilted playing field. Oh, what do you want? A twelve year old who’s raped by a family member. You want to force birth.
And everybody’s like, I don’t know what they said. How do I. The first words out of your mouth, one should be calm. You should say, it’s a horrible example you just gave. Unimaginable. But it’s interesting. You started there, so let’s start there. So you’re talking about rape and incest. Okay, those are horrible examples. If I were to capitulate on that. I’m not suggesting I am, but I’m just curious because we need to get a starting point where you are.
You asked me, I’m going to ask you. If I were to capitulate on. That’s an awful example. And I say I did capitulate and said, kill. You can kill that baby. Right. Would you say, okay, all other abortions are definitely not, you know, it’s not a good idea. We shouldn’t be killing babies into them. No, I wouldn’t. So why’d you bring up that example? Because it’s horrible. We agreed.
It’s hard to said. I just told you that. Unimaginably horrible. I agree with you. But why did you bring up that example if that’s not an exception? You just support abortion. I understand why you brought that up. I’m missing your point. Your point is what? Rape and incest or harp, we agree. We did. That’s not a, that’s. That’s a universally agreed upon point. I don’t see what point you think you’re making that’s not already made.
That’s horrible. Awful. Unspeakably tragic. We get it. But you brought that up in terms of abortion, but you support all abortions. Not just that. So why did you bring that up? You see how all of a sudden the look. Look. All of a sudden they’re running back down 50 degrees, 45 degrees, 40, 35, 20. Oh, all of a sudden, he’s on flat ground, folks, listen, I don’t do a lot good, okay? I want to be a doctor.
I didn’t get into medical school. I ran for office. I lost. Like, I wrote a whole book about failures. I wanted to be the center fielder for the Yankees, but didn’t even make it to a ball. There’s not a lot of things I can do well. But I’m going to tell you something after. I don’t know what it is now, 1514 years doing talk radio fill ins, talk radio podcasting, 20 plus hours a week of content, a Fox News show, Fox News guest appearances, debating people on my own show.
We had a segment on my show on Fox called the Rebuttal, where we brought lefties on unscripted. We didn’t bring them on with some script. Oh, we’re going to talk about this. This. And then we gave him the general topic, but we know they’re no unscripted. Why? Because I’m not afraid of lefties. Why? Because, folks, when you know their tricks and you understand how they do what they do, and you understand how they try to predetermine the outcome of the debate by playing word games in the beginning, when you learn to dismantle that trick, I promise you, you have my word, you will never lose a debate again.
They do it everywhere. Oh, what? You don’t want to cancel student debt? Debt? Let’s talk about that. I don’t want to cancel student debt because debts never canceled. You’re making an argument that doesn’t exist. Right. Can we agree that the money doesn’t go away? Somebody paid it. You notice how right away they’re like. But the oatmeal God took a break from sniffing kids to tell us the debt was canceled.
He may have said that. I’m sorry you’re dumb enough to have fallen for that. But what happens to the money? Student takes money from bank, pays for college to better life, makes more money. Bank gets money back. Bank gets money back from who? Oh, us. The taxpayer. So it’s not canceled. It’s transferred to us. So the word you want is transferred. Correct. Now let’s debate. Now. Here goes the battlefield.
50% inclined. 45. 40. 35. 20. Look, now we’re back to a flat plane. So we’re arguing about transferring student loans that benefit a person to other taxpayers. Correct. Now tell me your position. You’re for that. You’re for taxpayers paying for students to go to college who will benefit from said college, yet the taxpayers have to pay for it. Correct? That’s your, I’m just saying that’s your, you know, wait, tab debt.
You see how easy it is to debate the moron class folks, everything they say and do in a one on one debate scenario is based on a false premise. When you dissect the initial false premise, there is no argument going forward. I’ll give you, I mean, just throw a topic at me. The taxes, they’re always like, folks, it’s about fundamental fairness. Oh, it is here. 50 degrees, running backs running down already.
Who doesn’t? Folks, who doesn’t like fairness? Arguments over. Arguments over before it started. Because if you accept the premise this is about fairness. Who the hell argues against fairness? Jim, am I, am I crazy? No one was fair to you. I’m arguing for what? Unfairness. You cannot accept the premise. If really it’s about fairness. What’s a fair tax rate for someone who’s relatively, well, give me, give me the rate.
What do you think they should pay? No, no. Give me. We’re arguing about fair. So what do you think is fair? What do you think is fair? Then you get into the Al Sharpton John Stossel segment we’ve played a thousand times where Stossel asks them that exact question and Sharpton’s like, they should pay at least 15%. Stassel’s like, well, they already paid 35 good will. We’re talking about it.
You see how the arguments automatically, it immediately fails because no leftist argument, and I mean none, is based on logic or reason. It is based on a faulty pretextual premise that when you dismantle the premise, the entire argument falls apart. There is not a single topic. The left doesn’t do this on debate. Your leftist friends use the trick. I’m showing you. Folks, I promise you, on my reputation, you will never lose an argument.
They are morons. Everything they say is based on a faulty health care should have government run. Everybody should have health care, right? Who’s going to argue against that? Who’s going to, folks, who’s going to argue against giving sick people health care? The answer is no one. So you just ask a simple question. We’re not debating that a moral society should take care of the sick. You just made that up.
We’re debating how to do it. Correct. You’re suggesting a system of rationing and price controls while I’m suggesting a system that is health care freedom. Correct. All of a sudden rationing and say, but the government’s going to control it. So there’s no price mechanism. So when there’s no price mechanism to allocate these resources, there’s only one other mechanism to use. Rationing. Correct. You understand basic economics, right? You can either price a doctor’s time or you can ration it.
Is there a third way? Explain to us the third way so I can grant you the Nobel Prize in economics. Oh, you can. I’m sorry. You’re a lib. I get it. You’re a lib. You didn’t really think any of this through. You thought you were going to be debating an idiot today. I understand. Just a boring. You’re some dumb jock. It’s fascinating. I’ve been on the air 14 years.
I’ve never lost a debate to liberals on the air. They come in with phds and all this other stuff. Never the only debate. It was one time, Austin Goolsbee, because I made a mistake on this immigration tax thing, which no one even called, which is bizarre, but I’m always fair. It’s the only time I even made a mistake debating liberals because they’re all so dumb. And believe me, folks, it’s not because I’ve got some gift.
They’re just morons when you understand every single thing they do is built around what Jim says. Common sense is a gift that clearly by the lack of it on the left. I think you may be right, Jim, but when you understand that everything they do is based on a faulty premise and you dissect the premise before proceeding into the debate, they, they collapse. Like Tarloff did with Bret bear.
She didn’t know what to say. She was expecting Bret Baier to get in some, oh my gosh, late term rape and it’s horrible. Does he get a map? Yeah, it’s all hard. We get it. We all agree. Horrible. We want. This isn’t a debate. You are 100% correct. So take that off the table. What limits do you support? Oh, none. So it’s not about rape or incense, just to be clear, you just want abortion, whatever.
You just brought that up to emotionally rile people up. Why else would you bring it up if it’s not an exception to you? You don’t want exceptions. The student loan thing is no different. Once you accept the leftist premise that debt can be canceled when you know it is mathematically impossible to cancel debt. If I lend Jim money and Jim doesn’t pay me back, the debt wasn’t canceled.
I paid it. If I lend Jim money and he pays me back, the debt wasn’t canceled either. Jim paid it. There is no cancellation. There’s no money. Ferry, why in left and right wing media are people talking about debt cancellation? Because the media dominates the national narrative. The left wing goons, right wing media then picks it up sadly and runs with the euphemistic talk and the arguments already over.
When you talk about debt transferring to taxpayers, which is the accurate, logical, reasonable way to talk about exactly what this program is, all of a sudden it takes on a different tone. Transfer. Transfer to who? To you, the taxpayer. I don’t want to pay this guy student loans. I thought they were canceled. No, there’s no such thing. That’s, that’s not a real thing. You notice how they are paying it anyway, but the different gyms is, aren’t they paying, of course they’re paying it anyway.
But remember, they’re then paying a fraction. They’re then paying pennies on it. So it’s, it’s, mathematically works out great for them, but it doesn’t matter. What matters is that you alter the premise. And once you change the premise to logic and reason and you steal away from them the pretextual argument, they never have anywhere to go. Folks, I could just, I’m telling you, tell me a topic. Tell me a topic and I’ll tell you how the left is just owns the debate before it even starts.
The school choice thing. Steal money from public schools. What do you mean steal it? Who’s taking it? Well, they’re taking money out of public school. They are. How are they? One, the money to public schools has been relatively consistent, if not going up, since the seventies. You know that, right? You’re a liberal. You’re supposed to be a smart guy. But even assuming you’re dopey, premise was right. Who’s stealing it? But the parents who are taking their kids out of schools they paid for because the schools are failing their kids and sending them schools at work.
You call that stealing? That’s how they’re stealing their own money. I mean, I just explain, explain to me. The argument for instantly falls apart right there. Hey, thanks a lot for listening. We’re available on radio stations across the country. If you care to listen, you can check us out@bongino. com. Station finder for a station near you, or you can go to rumble. com bangino. The first 2 hours of the radio show are free there.
Third hour is available to local subscribers. Check that out. Thanks for being here. See you on Monday. You just heard the Dan Bongino show. .
See more of Dan Bongino on their Public Channel and the MPN Dan Bongino channel.
Author
