The Most Important Show I’ve Done in a While ~ Ep. 1304 ~ The Dan Bongino Show®

From the Dan Bongino Show's description of this episode on youtube.com/Bongino or in his Show Notes:

In this episode, I address the bold decision by President Trump yesterday which could change the election. I also address stunning new data about the real risks, or lack thereof, to teachers from children returning to school. I also address Joe Biden’s devastating plan for the suburbs.

Yep, I know, we're still behind by three episodes here.  You do not know how tempting it is for me to skip ahead and get caught up!  However, that wouldn't be a good thing, especially if any of us miss an episode that could contain valuable information.  And, from what I've learned, there is something for everyone in every episode.  That is kind of how I make my decisions on what parts to write about.  Were you aware of that?  If you have been following this blog, there is no doubt in my mind that you know that.  And you would know that there may be something in Dan's show that means more to you than to me, and vice versa.

With that being said, even after you read my posts, you should watch the whole show if you haven't already.  Heck, maybe it is even better to read what I'm thinking after you watch the whole show, whether you agree or not with what I take away from the episode.  As you probably know by now, Dan has a lot of information packed into each show, and they are broken up into segments that are easy to get to, should you have a link.  What I'm going to try doing from this point on, is give you the links to the segments that I discuss in this blog.  I know how to do that, it's really easy.  And it is even easier for you to click on the link that I provide and go right to that segment or point that I want to emphasize.  Sound cool?  There is only one thing, though, the video will continue to play from the starting point; there's no end point.  You get what I'm saying, right?  You just may watch much more of the episode (maybe again) than you had planned.  That's actually a good thing.

In this episode, there are several blocks that I want emphasize, but the big one is right at the beginning, regarding the three-year old girl that was shot.  Oh, which one?  Dan will tell you how he does a search, and gets multiple results of three year olds that have been shot.  That's right.  And then, the gangland-style shooting in broad daylight in Chicago.  And people (advisors?) were telling the President that he shouldn't send in Federal agents in to help clean up the messes that mayors and local governments have created, all on their own.  The erroneous advice is based on the "Pottery barn theory," which is, "you break it, you own it."  The trouble is, it doesn't apply here, as the cities are already broken.

Now, there's much more, really.  And this segment may be the key takeaway.  If you live in the suburbs and you are a wealthy liberal, here is what is coming your way.  Pay close attention.  What Joe Biden has planned for you may not be for your benefit.

I am really praying that you have seen this complete episode, beginning to end, or that you will.  It truly is an important show.

Be sure to see the

SHOW NOTES for Episode 1304

Looking for news? The Bongino Report brings you the top conservative and libertarian news stories of the day, aggregated in an easy to read format to assist the public in getting accurate information. https://bonginoreport.com/

Persuasion, not prohibition ~ By John Stossel

There are many people that will agree completely with John Stossel's libertarian views. There will also be many that will vehemently disagree with what he writes in this column. I have found that the ones that would disagree the most either have a view point that they are superior to people with "lower morals," or they are progressives that believe the government - (and those that run it) - knows more than people, and thus should control behavior.

In a free country, we consenting adults should be able to do whatever we want with our bodies as long as we don't hurt anyone else. People who don't like what we do have every right to complain about our behavior, to boycott, to picket, to embarrass us. Bless the critics. They make us better people by getting us to think about what's moral. Let them mock and shame. But shaming is one thing – government force is another. Prohibition means we empower the state to send out people with guns to force people to do what the majority says is moral. That's not right.


And it doesn't even work.

By John Stossel

Posted: March 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

"It's a free country."

That's a popular saying – and true in many ways. But for a free country, America does ban a lot of things that are perfectly peaceful and consensual. Why is that?

Here are some things you can't do in most states of the union: rent your body to someone for sex, sell your kidney, take recreational drugs. The list goes on. I'll discuss American prohibitions tomorrow night at 8 and 11 p.m. Eastern time (and again on Friday at 10) on my Fox Business program.

The prohibitionists say their rules are necessary for either the public's or the particular individual's own good. I'm skeptical. I think of what Albert Camus said: "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Prohibition is force. I prefer persuasion. Government force has nasty unintended consequences.

I would think that our experience with alcohol prohibition would have taught America a lesson. Nearly everyone agrees it was a disaster. It didn't stop people from drinking, but it created new and vicious strains of organized crime. Drug prohibition does that now.

The prohibitionists claim that today's drugs are far more dangerous than alcohol.

But is that true? Or is much of what you think you know ... wrong?

I believed the Drug Enforcement Administration's claim that drugs like crack and meth routinely addict people on first use.

But Jacob Sullum, who wrote "Saying Yes," says, "If you look at the government's own data about patterns of drug use, it clearly is not true."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

We've traded liberty for 'safety' ~ By John Stossel

John Stossel wrote about a subject that makes me angry, and should make all of us angry. The FDA and DEA are way too over-reaching into our lives and liberty. And, by the way, John McCain just submitted a bill proposal that gives the FDA control over supplements!

All drugs involve risk. In a free country, it should be up to individuals, once we're adults, to make our own choices about those risks. Patrick Henry didn't say, "Give me absolute safety, or give me death." He said "liberty." That is what America is supposed to be about.

By John Stossel

Posted: February 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

People suffer and die because the government "protects" us. It should protect us less and respect our liberty more.

The most basic questions are: Who owns you, and who should control what you put into your body? In what sense are you free if you can't decide what medicines you will take?

This will be the subject of my Fox Business program tomorrow night.

We'll hear from people like Bruce Tower. Tower has prostate cancer. He wanted to take a drug that showed promise against his cancer, but the Food and Drug Administration would not allow it. One bureaucrat told him the government was protecting him from dangerous side effects. Tower's outraged response was: "Side effects – who cares? Every treatment I've had I've suffered from side effects. If I'm terminal, it should be my option to endure any side effects."

Of course it should be his option. Why, in our "free" country, do Americans meekly stand aside and let the state limit our choices, even when we are dying?

Dr. Alan Chow invented a retinal implant that helps some blind people see (optobionics.com). Demonstrating that took seven years and cost $50 million dollars of FDA-approved tests. But now the FDA wants still more tests. That third stage will take another three years and cost $100 million. But Chow doesn't have $100 million. He can't raise the money from investors because the implant only helps some blind people. Potential investors fear there are too few customers to justify their $100 million risk.

So Stephen Lonegan, who has a degenerative eye disease that might be helped by the implant, can't have it. Instead, he will go blind. The bureaucrats say their restrictions are for his own safety. "There's nothing safe about going blind," he says. "I don't want to be made safe by the FDA. I want it to be up to me to go to Dr. Chow to make the decision myself."

But it's not up to Lonegan and his doctor. It's up to the autocrats of the Nanny State. Tomorrow, I will show my confrontation with Terry Toigo of the FDA about that. She calmly and quietly explained that such restrictions are necessary to protect the integrity of the government's safety review process until I shouted: "Why are you even involved? Let people try things!"

She replied, "We don't think that's the best system for patients, to enable people to just take whatever they want with little information available about a drug."

So people suffer and die when they might have lived longer, more comfortable lives.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

RELATED INFORMATION:
Health Freedom Rights

Agent accuses Sutton of cover-up in drug murders - By Jerome Corsi

Informant in case handled by prosecutor of Ramos-Compean seeks asylum By Jerome R. Corsi © 2009 WorldNetDaily A Mexican national's appeal in federal court for asylum because of his work as an American government-paid informant against the drug cartel marked another chapter in a case in which a former Drug Enforcement Agency special agent continues to allege the U.S. government – including U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton – is hiding its complicity in the cartel's murder of more than a dozen people. Guillermo Eduardo Ramirez-Peyro, better known as "Lalo," appeared in federal court earlier this week to fight extradition, arguing his life would be in jeopardy if he were forced to return to Mexico. Lalo, according to Sandy Gonzalez, a former special agent in charge at the DEA office in El Paso, Texas, wore recording devices and taped at least one of the tortures and murders of more than a dozen people between July 2003 and January 2004. The murders allegedly were orchestrated by the Santillan family, headed by Heriberto Santillan-Tabares, a top operative in the Ciudad Juarez drug cartel. Gonzalez told WND he believes Sutton was aware of the "House of Death" murders, prompting a letter in February 2004 to the prosecutor alleging possible criminal violations by U.S. government officials. "Instead of investigating my complaints, Sutton complained about me to the DEA and the Justice Department in Washington," Gonzalez told WND. "My superiors in Washington told me to leave this matter alone and to be quiet." Gonzalez asserts the mainstream media have left unreported the active role of El Paso-based U.S. Attorney Sutton, the Department of Justice, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement [ICE], the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Homeland Security in an ongoing, elaborate cover-up. Gonzalez says that although Santillan was prosecuted under drug and murder charges, Sutton allowed the drug kingpin to plead guilty to the drug charges, with the agreement the murder charges would be dropped. Sutton's office did not respond to repeated requests by WND for comment. The Department of Homeland Security also did not respond. The Drug Enforcement Administration referred WND to the Department of Justice, but the DOJ did not reply. [Continue reading]

digg story

Police Chief Tells Obama To Legalize Marijuana!

Above: Dr. Norm Stamper finished his 34-year police career as Chief of Police of Seattle, Washington. Stamper believes the drug war causes untold misery, undermines effective law enforcement, and does not begin to pass any sort of cost-benefit analysis. You see, America has been in one of the longest and most expensive wars in our history, and that is the War on Drugs, begun in 1971 by President Richard Nixon. You would think by now, the war would have been won! It hasn't been, nor will it ever be. We've spent a trillion dollars fighting this war, if not more. Millions of people are incarcerated for the non-violent crime of possession of marijuana. And yet, cigarettes and alcohol remain legal. They found out that the prohibition of alcohol didn't work. So, what makes them think that prohibiting the use of cannibas would ever work? Or, is there another motive to keep it illegal? read more | digg story, submitted by devincalloway