Podcast Summary
Dan Bongino Show expands to KABC with NetSuite's help: The Dan Bongino Show uses NetSuite for financial management and grows through technology while combating misinformation on illegal driver's licenses in New York
The Dan Bongino Show is expanding to terrestrial radio on KABC in Los Angeles, and they are using NetSuite by Oracle to manage their business finances effectively. Additionally, New York's decision to issue driver's licenses to people in the country illegally is causing long lines for legal citizens and potentially raising car insurance rates for everyone. The show's host, Dan Bongino, expressed frustration over the situation and encouraged listeners to get accurate information on the issue from Bongino.com. Overall, the Dan Bongino Show is focusing on providing factual information and growing their business through the use of technology like NetSuite.
Disregard for laws leads to higher insurance rates: Ignoring laws can lead to higher insurance rates for everyone and potentially dangerous consequences, as shown by past actions of some individuals and political leaders.
Disregard for laws, whether it's entering a country illegally or avoiding car insurance payments, stems from a disrespect for the rule of law. During the discussion, it was pointed out that people who have shown disregard for laws in the past are more likely to continue doing so, even when it comes to obtaining car insurance. The speaker argued that insurance is based on probability equations, and insuring individuals who have already demonstrated a disregard for laws could lead to higher insurance rates for everyone. The speaker also shared an ironic twist, that liberal policies could end up hurting liberals themselves. Additionally, it was revealed that one of the leaders of attacks on the US embassy in Iraq was previously welcomed to the White House by then-President Barack Obama.
Comparing the U.S. embassy attack in Iraq to Benghazi: While some see similarities between the U.S. embassy attack in Iraq and Benghazi, the speaker highlights differences in U.S. response and absence of American casualties. Media downplays significance for Obama admin, but strong response needed.
The situation at the U.S. embassy in Iraq, where pro-Iran militias attacked, is being compared by some in the media to the Benghazi attack during the Obama administration. However, the speaker argues that there are significant differences between the two incidents, including the response from the U.S. government and the absence of American casualties in Iraq. The speaker also criticizes the media for trying to downplay the significance of the Iraq attack for the Obama administration, given its previous dealings with Iran. Despite the differences, the speaker emphasizes the importance of a strong and immediate response to such provocations, as demonstrated by President Trump's actions.
Media attempts to reframe Iraq protests as anti-American: Media downplays anti-Obama sentiment, conflates Iraqi protesters with mourners, and presents a unified anti-American narrative to protect Obama admin's legacy.
The media is attempting to reframe protests in Iraq against Iranian influence as anti-American protests, in an effort to downplay the anti-Obama narrative. By labeling the protesters as mourners, the media aims to conflate the two groups and present a unified anti-American narrative. This is a subtle but significant shift in the narrative, as the real story involves Iranian militia groups attacking US personnel and embassies. The media's efforts to reframe the story are an attempt to protect the Obama administration's legacy and present a more favorable narrative for the Democratic Party. Additionally, the speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding media narratives and separating fact from fiction in today's information age.
CIA Extraction Story May Not Be Accurate: The CIA's extraction of a source from Russia may not have been related to the Spygate scandal as initially reported, and it's crucial to critically evaluate news stories
The New York Times story about a CIA informant being extracted from Russia due to the Spygate scandal may not be as accurate as it initially seemed. The story, which was published in September, suggested that the CIA had a deeply connected source within Putin's inner circle who needed to be rescued due to the potential exposure of their identity. However, it has since been revealed that the sources for the dossier, which was a major part of the Spygate story, were not in fact close to Putin but were providing false information. Therefore, it is questionable whether the CIA's actions were related to the Spygate scandal at all. This serves as a reminder that it's important to critically evaluate news stories and consider multiple perspectives before forming an opinion. Additionally, Helix Sleep is offering up to $200 off all mattress orders for our listeners. Go to helixsleep.com/Dan to take advantage of this offer and get the best mattress for your needs.
Alleged Trump-Russia collusion investigators linked to Clinton dealings: Despite debunked dossier, investigators try to cover up origins, emphasizing credibility and danger of sources. Many involved had Clinton connections, likely setting up Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
Key figures involved in the investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, including a primary informant for Robert Mueller, George Nader, have themselves been linked to questionable dealings with the Clintons. Despite the dossier used to justify the investigation being debunked, those involved are trying to cover up the origins of the information by emphasizing its supposed credibility and the supposed danger of the sources. This investigation was likely a setup from the start, with many involved having connections to the Clintons. The narrative of Trump-Russia collusion was false, and these meetings with Russians were arranged to further this narrative.
Allegations of Clinton-Russia collusion setup: The Clinton team is accused of setting up the Trump team with Russians, arranging meetings and using intermediaries with past ties to the Clintons, potentially orchestrating the Trump-Russia collusion narrative
There are allegations that the Clinton team, in collaboration with the Obama administration and certain individuals, set up the Trump team with the intention of later accusing them of collusion with Russians. This was done by arranging meetings between Trump associates and Russians, some of whom had previously represented Russian interests to the Clintons. For instance, George Nader, a key figure in this setup, organized a meeting between Eric Prince, a Trump associate, and a Russian businessman, Karel Demetriev, who had previously represented the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), a fund co-founded by Vladimir Putin when he was still prime minister. Notably, two Clinton bundlers had previously represented the RDIF. Nader himself was later investigated for illegal donations to the Clintons. This allegation suggests that the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion may have been orchestrated by the opposing political campaign to discredit the Trump team.
Manipulating Public Perception through False Narratives: False narratives and accusations can be used to manipulate public perception, as seen in the Russian collusion hoax and media coverage of defensive gun use. It's crucial to practice critical thinking and fact-check to avoid being misinformed.
There have been attempts to manipulate public perception through false narratives and accusations, as exemplified by the Russian collusion hoax and the media's response to defensive gun use. The Russian collusion hoax involved setting up an opposing political party for a non-existent crime and then accusing them of being traitors. More recently, the media has tried to discredit defensive gun use by focusing on the potential dangers of armed civilians, rather than the lives saved. The USA Today op-ed, in particular, argued that what should be celebrated as heroic actions was instead something to be feared due to the presence of other armed individuals. These attempts to distort reality serve to confuse and misinform the public, highlighting the importance of critical thinking and fact-checking.
CDC Statistics on Defensive Gun Use: CDC data reveals 500,000 to 3 million annual defensive gun uses, debunking liberal claims of rarity
Defensive gun use is more common than often portrayed by the liberal media. According to statistics from the CDC under President Clinton and President Obama, Americans use guns to defend themselves from intruders anywhere from 500,000 to over 3 million times a year. Despite this, the liberal narrative pushes that defensive gun use is rare and unnecessary. This narrative is false and ignores the reality that gun ownership can save lives. The CDC's own studies contradict the liberal stance on gun control, showing that defensive gun use is at least as common as offensive uses by criminals.
Criminals disregard gun laws: Despite gun laws, criminals continue to use guns. Resources should focus on addressing crime's root causes and enabling self-defense.
Criminals don't care about gun laws. According to personal experiences shared by the speaker, who once asked arrested individuals about their thoughts on gun laws while working as a police officer, the response was consistently dismissive. The criminals saw gun laws as beneficial to law-abiding citizens who are restricted from carrying weapons, allowing them to commit crimes with impunity. The speaker also emphasized that defensive gun use is just as prevalent as offensive criminal use, and that people rely on guns to protect themselves. The speaker's message is that efforts to restrict guns based on the belief that it will reduce criminal usage are misguided. Instead, resources should be focused on addressing the root causes of crime and ensuring that law-abiding citizens are able to defend themselves.
Discussions about potential Republican candidates for 2024 election: A group of Republicans are looking ahead to the 2024 presidential election, with possible contenders including Pence, Pompeo, Haley, Cotton, Rubio, Cruz, and even Trump's sons. Meanwhile, liberal media continue to spread misinformation about hate crimes and Trump rallies.
There are several potential Republican candidates being discussed for the 2024 presidential election, including Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and even Donald Trump's sons Don and Eric. Kerry Pickett of the Washington Examiner reported on a growing Republican group looking past the current election to the next one. Meanwhile, liberal media figures continue to spread misinformation, such as the claim that counties that hosted Trump rallies in 2016 saw a significant increase in reported hate crimes. This claim, which has been debunked before, was recently resurfaced by Ezra Klein of Vox. It's important to fact-check information and not fall for these types of false narratives. Our focus should be on the current election and getting President Trump reelected.
Study claiming increase in hate crimes at Trump rallies is false: Despite liberal claims, hate crimes decreased in areas where Trump held rallies, while the economy saw significant growth due to deregulation efforts
A recent study claiming an increase in hate crimes at Trump rallies is false. The study, which resurfaced despite being debunked earlier, suggested a correlation between Trump's presence and hate crimes. However, data from 2015 and 2016 shows that hate crimes per capita actually decreased in areas where Trump held rallies. This misinformation is being spread by liberal activist sites like Vox, which are known for their inaccurate reporting. Meanwhile, the Trump economy has seen significant growth due in part to deregulation efforts, with the Trump administration setting a new record for the fewest new regulations added to the federal register for the third year in a row.
President Trump's Regulatory Reforms: A Boon for Businesses: Trump's regulatory reforms save businesses time and money, allowing them to focus on value-added activities, reinvest savings into the economy, and benefit from a record-low number of new regulations.
President Trump's efforts to reduce regulations are significant for businesses because they not only save money but also save time. The elimination of old regulations results in less red tape, allowing business owners like Joe, Drew, and Dan to focus on producing value-added activities instead of dealing with bureaucracy. This time and money saved can then be reinvested into the economy, leading to growth. While the obvious benefit is the cost savings, the less apparent advantage is the time saved, which can be crucial for businesses looking to thrive. Overall, Trump's regulatory reforms have resulted in a record-breaking reduction in new regulations, benefiting businesses and the economy as a whole.
