All Episodes
May 19, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
01:03:04
TERMINATING ROE V. WADE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 93
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The contradictions of Dr.
Fauci. Will the Supreme Court terminate Roe v.
Wade? And inside an Israeli bomb shelter?
it. This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
The times are crazy and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Fauci is a man of many faces, by which I mean a man of contradictions, a man who says one thing at one time and then another thing soon after, the opposite thing.
And this has happened now not once, not twice, but at least three times.
And I think this is the root of why people distrust, or in some cases even detest, the man I've sometimes called the little ogre.
Now, It started off with the issue of the masks.
Fauci was, at first, you don't need a mask.
Ooh, no, masks aren't really necessary.
Masks don't do a whole lot of good.
And then shortly thereafter, you must wear a mask.
A mask is a way to protect you from COVID. Now, let's remember that the research on the efficacy of masks hasn't changed.
You can take the view that masks do no good.
They're kind of a towel over your face.
Viruses can easily penetrate the mask.
And there's a body of literature about that.
Or you can take the view that, hey, masks do some good.
They do provide an obstruction.
They do provide some blockage.
But my point is, Dr.
Fauci, which is it? You've taken both positions in the face of the same evidence.
Then if you fast forward a little bit to later last year, Fauci takes the view that public rallies are very dangerous.
He singles out kind of the Trump rally.
Very irresponsible of Trump to have these rallies because, you know, people are kind of at close quarters.
This is a virus that can be transmitted through the air.
This is the kind of behavior for which there's no excuse.
And then shortly thereafter, when there were the big Black Lives Matter rallies, the big George Floyd protests, suddenly Fauci goes silent.
What? Wait a minute.
Does the virus discriminate based on the ideological proclivity of the type of rally it is?
In both cases, you have large groups.
In both cases, you have people pressed up against each other.
So presumably, from a medical point of view, these are sort of identical events, but not for Fauci.
He was vocal against the one, and then he kind of went into a dead silence over the second.
And now the latest round.
Senator Rand Paul brings up Dr.
Fauci at one of the hearings, and he basically says, Hey, listen...
Why are you wearing two masks?
You're indoors, but you've been vaccinated.
If you've been vaccinated, you're not going to get the virus.
What's the point of the two masks?
Isn't it just for theater?
And Fauci gets kind of huffy, and he goes, Well, what do you mean?
It's not just for theater.
There's a medical purpose.
And so Fauci pushes back at Rand Paul, except that a little after that, he appears with George Stephanopoulos, and he says this.
Listen. But being a fully vaccinated person, the chances of my getting infected in an indoor setting is extremely low.
So there you go.
Now Fauci says that there's no problem with not wearing a mask, not just outdoors, but even indoors.
Why? Because he really can't get it that way.
So this is a man who doesn't seem to know quite where he's coming from.
Now, is he doing this because he's aligned with the Democrats?
So Democratic rally is okay, Republican rally is not okay.
Is he doing it because he's a little, you know...
Power-hungry, Napoleonic type of guy where he likes this idea of government control and he likes the idea that he, Dr.
Fauci, is kind of the voice of what people can do.
Yeah, don't do this. Yeah, now you can do that.
I don't know if it's psychological or if it's political, but I will say that the net effect of it is to tell reasonable people.
Watching just Fauci are going to say...
What's up with Fauci?
How come he says different things about the same thing at different times?
And so even though Fauci puts on the medical, the lab coat, he gives the sort of doctor's orders type of instruction, you get the feeling that at the end of the day, his advice, his recommendations, his orders are not only contradictory, they may even be incoherent.
I'm really happy to have my daughter, Danielle D'Souza Gill, in studio.
And you might be checking out our new setup here, which I think is pretty cool.
And of course, Dee's visit is timely in a political sense because the Supreme Court is taking up a big abortion decision.
Danielle, by the way, is the author of this book, which kind of matches my shirt.
The choice, the abortion divide in America.
Really a book that breaks a lot of new ground on this issue and thinks about it both in a very fundamental way but also in a very timely way.
V, welcome to the podcast.
This is cool. Thank you.
I'm going to read you a line from Bloomberg.
This is a little bit of, tells you how the media gets at these issues.
The Supreme Court will consider gutting the constitutional right to abortion.
And then below, Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that may slash abortion rights.
I'm really struck by those words gutting and slash.
I mean, the very language...
of the abortion procedure itself.
It's kind of like, you know, in 1945, U.S. government is trying to exterminate the concentration camps.
The concentration camps are themselves engines of extermination.
So talk about this Mississippi law.
What does it say?
What is the case the Supreme Court has agreed to take up?
The Mississippi law states that the state can regulate abortions after 15 weeks.
However, they do allow for cases of either fetal abnormality or life of the mother medical emergencies.
But other than that, after the 15 weeks, they're not allowing abortions to be performed.
And so the Supreme Court has agreed to look at that case.
Okay, so in other words, the Mississippi case would allow abortions prior to 15 weeks, pretty much as they are now.
But after 15 weeks, essentially a ban, not just regulation, but essentially a ban except for those conditions.
So kind of a pretty tough law.
Now, I'm assuming that the reason that the Supreme Court is taking this up is because they are willing to reconsider The kind of unlimited right to abortion for essentially the full nine weeks.
They wouldn't need to take up the case if they were just happy with the way.
So the left is very jittery about this.
How are you feeling about why the court might have taken this case?
I think it shows that the court is looking for some kind of middle ground between this nine-month abortion with really no regulation versus Texas, which is trying to pass the heartbeat bill.
So I think they maybe took this 15-week case because they maybe want something that falls in the second trimester like this.
I'm skeptical of whether the court would come down hard on Roe v.
Wade in one blow just because of Some of their previous actions with the election and things like that.
So I think they would be a little scared to do that.
So maybe this case reflects more of the middle ground they're looking for.
I want to circle back to what the court may or may not do and its implications, but it is worth pointing out that the U.S. abortion laws now are the most permissive in the Western world.
In fact, they are among the most permissive in the world.
They are comparable to laws in countries like Russia and China.
But if you look at European countries, and I was actually looking at kind of a pro-abortion site, Just to see what they say about them.
And they say European countries, a number of European countries, regulate abortion between 18 and 24 weeks.
They might allow it after that, but you have to show that the women's health or life is at risk.
Laws in 12 European countries require women to undergo mandatory counseling.
And this is not just, you know, countries like Armenia or Georgia, Belgium is in there, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands.
For adolescents, third-party authorization, a number of countries in Europe require permission from parents and guardians for adolescent girls to get an abortion.
A number of European countries allow medical professionals to refuse to perform abortions on grounds of conscience.
They don't force them to do it.
And some of them have specific criminal sanctions for abortions that are performed outside the scope of these The point to make is that all of this would have been in a Roe era struck down.
So the extremism of the American law and the extremism, I think I'd have to say, of the Democratic Party's position is really striking.
Talk about the way in which the Democrats have gone from, you may say, pro-choice to pro-abortion.
They used to be pro-choice.
They used to talk about how everyone has the right to make their own choices, and they really liked using the language of choice.
But now, they really are pro-abortion.
And even if you look at the language that Planned Parenthood uses, it celebrates abortion.
They have holidays called celebrating your abortion provider, things like that.
And I think that the left will see any kind of rollback of Roe v.
Wade, any kind of limitation.
As something really outrageous.
So they really don't want any restrictions whatsoever.
And of course, we've seen Governor Northam in Virginia talk about even after a baby is born, what would happen to it.
So even for them, the nine-month point and after birth is something that they They celebrate.
They want to continue those abortions and infanticide.
Not to mention that if they could, they would probably also overturn the Hyde Amendment.
And the Hyde Amendment restricts federal funds going toward abortion.
But these people seem to believe that if you want an abortion and you can't pay for it, The taxpayer can be forced to pay, right?
So they would actually take this so-called right and provide a subsidy for it.
Whereas if you think about our other rights, our First Amendment right to free speech or to religion, Second Amendment right to own a gun, those don't come with federal subsidy.
The government doesn't provide me with a newspaper.
They don't buy me an automatic weapon.
I got to put out my own cash to do it.
But in this case, it's almost like they're elevating abortion into a super right.
Exactly. And even Biden, who's supposedly a moderate, who's supposedly Catholic, as he says, he's in favor of overturning the Hyde Amendment.
And so is Harris.
So they want to force every American, even who has conscience objections, to pay for abortion.
Now, you mentioned the two, not extremes, but the two sort of bookends of the debate.
On the one hand, permissive abortion, abortion for any reason, federal subsidy for abortion.
On the other side, the heartbeat bill.
You mentioned the Texas heartbeat bill.
What do these heartbeat bills do?
The heartbeat bill passed in Texas, I think, is really a signal to say, hey, this is actually what we believe.
We believe that when the heartbeat is beating in this child on its own without even pumping the mother's blood, it's not her heartbeat, it's the child's heartbeat, that this is obviously a life.
This is obviously a human being.
And so the court hasn't chosen to take that case, but I think it does signal where the American people fall on this issue.
And when does the heart start beating?
It starts beating anywhere from five weeks to ten weeks in.
So that is the...
It's not the moment... Maybe even earlier with earlier detection.
I mean, a couple weeks in.
Interesting. So that's not...
It's not the moment of conception, but in some cases what you're saying is even before the woman may know that she's pregnant, she's conceived with the man a new human being with a beating heart.
Exactly. And just as technology has improved, we've been able to detect the heartbeat earlier and earlier.
So right now, they can detect it a couple weeks in, but it could end up being earlier.
When we come back, we're going to dive into this some more and talk about the court, what's happening on the court, what we can expect out of the court, and the implications.
For most of my life, I thought a pillow is a pillow is a pillow.
What's the big deal about pillows?
There's nothing special about them.
Well, that's until I discovered Mike Lindell's MyPillow.
What Lindell taught me is that a pillow, like a watch or a phone or a car, can be a work of art.
These pillows will not go flat.
You can wash and dry them as often as you want.
They maintain their shape.
They're made in the USA.
For a limited time, Mike is offering his premium MyPillow as a signature product for the lowest You can get a queen-size premium MyPillow for $29.98.
It's normally $69.98.
So that's a $40 savings.
KingPillow is only $5 more.
All the MyPillow products come with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
You'll get deep discounts on all the MyPillow products, the Giza Dream bed sheets, the MyPillow mattress topper, and MyPillow towel sets.
Call 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
Or you can just go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use promo code Dinesh.
I'm back with Daniel D'Souza Gill, author of the book The Choice.
It's kind of a striking opening quote here.
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off.
Welcome to my show!
A case that involves essentially prohibiting pretty much abortion after 15 weeks.
Do you want to talk about the court?
Because do you think that the court is...
You said earlier that you don't think that they're ready to sort of take a hatchet to Roe v.
Wade, to strike the tree at the root.
Why is that? I think they're worried about them...
Packing the court, the Biden-Harris administration.
So they don't want to anger the left too much.
I think that they're worried about the long-term kind of independence of the court, the long-term results of what the court will be.
Will there be a court with the same amount of justices we have now?
Or will there be 50 because the left packs the court and conservatives come in, they pack the court and so on.
And it's really never ending.
So I think that they want to protect the court, and that's why they're a little bit squeamish about acting even in line with what the Constitution says sometimes.
And so I'm a little bit skeptical of whether this will be a real hatchet to Roe v.
Wade. I mean, kind of what you're saying is that this court packing scheme of the left is already working.
Even if they haven't passed it, it exercises an intimidating influence on the court.
And you're saying not just in the abortion case, but in other cases.
Let's talk about some of those other cases, because talk about ways in which the court has, you may say, split the difference instead of going all the way in some of the other cases.
Which other cases are you referring to?
One case that comes to mind was regarding Gavin Newsom, governor of California, and how he had restricted churches and other religious institutions beyond how he was restricting restaurants and things like that.
So the court took the case and said that he can restrict them as much as he wants, but it has to be in line with how much he's restricting other types of institutions as well.
And I just read that as very much a big compromise because The Constitution states that it's not up to the governor to restrict our religious freedom.
It's not up to the governor to restrict those things.
And so they allowed him to restrict churches to 25% capacity.
Let's put this a little more, a slightly different way.
What you're saying is that the court offers a specific protection for religious freedom.
It doesn't offer a specific protection for your freedom to go to a bar or go to a salon.
And so... The Supreme Court, in basically saying to Gavin Newsom, treat all these institutions the same, is ignoring the special protection for religion in the First Amendment, right?
Exactly. And even if we look at our Second Amendment, which states it shall not be infringed, it has been infringed.
There are many liberal states that don't allow you to conceal carry.
They really don't allow you to have any kind of self-defense in any way.
And so that shows it's been infringed.
Does the Supreme Court really care?
I don't know. Are they actually acting...
By looking at the Constitution, or are they really considering politics?
So I think when it comes to this issue, I think they might try to maybe roll back a little bit Roe v.
Wade, but I don't know how big of a victory it will be considering the Supreme Court's recent actions on other issues.
So even though there's no abortion right in the Constitution, it's essentially a fiction.
Now, although it is a constitutional fiction, I think it is fair to say that abortion Has become embedded in American cultural life, right?
In other words, since Roe, Roe's now almost 50 years old.
It'll be 50 years old in a couple of years.
Abortion has become accepted.
And so when the left talks about precedent, I don't think the legal precedent matters because precedent built on a bad foundation means nothing.
But the truth of it is, it has become precedent in the sense that Americans, for most of our lives, have gotten used to this, have gotten used to abortion being there and being available.
Do you think the court might be scared about that, scared about trying to uproot a practice?
Now, admittedly, segregation was also part of American culture, at least in certain parts of America.
My question is, do you think the court will be reluctant to change Americans' habits?
In a fundamental way on this issue.
Absolutely. And I think just as with segregation, they will have to say, you know, just because the court affirmed this before doesn't mean we can't throw it in the ash heap of history, like Plessy versus Ferguson.
And they'd have to start with something like looking at, in segregation, the discrepancy between schools.
So in this situation, they've decided to look at 15 weeks And I think that that'll show a lot because 15 weeks is when they're performing suction abortions, a surgical abortion, and by the time of the end of the first trimester, the child already has every organ it needs for its entire life.
So from there, it really just continues to develop.
And so I think the technological advancement since Roe v.
Wade, all of this should be a catalyst for the Supreme Court to reconsider this.
Now, 15 weeks, interestingly to me, is fairly close to an important concept in Roe itself, which is the concept of viability, the concept of the fetus being able to live outside the womb.
And I wonder if that's going to be where the court is going to go.
Because in this way, they don't even, in a sense, have to overturn Roe.
All they have to say is, we need to go back to what Roe originally said by defining this concept of viability.
Maybe what the court will say is that the fetus is part of the woman's body until it's viable.
And after that, states do have the power to regulate.
I wonder if they will draw the line there.
What do you think? I don't think so because viability is a little bit later, so that wouldn't be as connected to this 15-week marker.
But I think the heartbeat, something like that, would be much more of a win for the pro-life side rather than viability, which can oftentimes go closer to the third trimester.
Talk about the ways in which the pro-life movement can lose by winning.
In other words, that they can get something, but it's so little that it will drain perhaps the pro-life movement in some ways and give the left the momentum on this issue.
Because you're worried that the court might actually side with the pro-life movement, but not enough to make a meaningful difference.
Right, so I think if they only roll back Roe v.
Wade a little bit, There will be some pro-lifers who celebrate that.
Of course, any life saved is worth tremendous effort.
So that is still a win, but we can't let that be an excuse to give up or to stop fighting for all the other lives that will still be lost because of these pro-abortion Supreme Court decisions.
So I think a small win is definitely a little bit of a mixed blessing.
Yeah, that's very interesting.
Now, say a word about these new justices, because Trump, we seem to have a 5-4, perhaps even a 6-3, if you count Roberts, in the mix.
Kind of, who are the justices that you think we can solidly count on to be four square against Roe, and who are the guys that you think might be doing the tap dance in the middle?
Well, I think Clarence Thomas, he will absolutely be against Roe v.
Wade because he's written about the eugenics used in abortion, how so much of Margaret Sanger's ideology, Planned Parenthood's ideology has killed a lot of black babies.
He's written about that. I think Justice Alito will probably fall in that same situation.
I think the newer justices like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett might be a little bit more wary of being more hardcore against Roe v.
Wade because they were appointed by Trump, because they're newer to the court, and because they might be more fearful of the left.
And so...
Wow. What you're saying is actually the Trump justices might be the ones who have the trepidation about going all the way.
In that sense, they would, we may say, lack the Trumpian spirit that put them in office in the first place.
Hey, Dee, thanks for coming on the podcast.
This is awesome. Very interesting discussion.
Thank you.
If you're thinking of replacing your carpets due to pet stains and odors, you must try Genesis 950.
The reviews are incredible.
This is one product that actually works with water.
It breaks down the bonds of stains and odors so they are gone for good.
Its antibacterial component removes pet odors from carpet and padding.
You can use it in a carpet cleaning machine and it's green, so it's safe for your family and pets.
Genesis 950 is made in America.
One gallon of industrial strength, Genesis 950 makes up to seven gallons of cleaner.
But Genesis 950 is also great for bathrooms, floors, upholstery, and grease stains.
Debbie uses it to clean the entire kitchen.
And when I got chocolate all over my pants on the couch.
Genesis 950 took it right off.
Genesis 950 has great customer service.
Order one gallon direct at genesis950.com to get a free spray bottle, free shipping, and a $10 coupon code using the code Dinesh.
That's genesis950.com.
Coupon only available for one gallon purchase.
Genesis 950, much cheaper than replacing your carpets or your pants or your couch.
I find it very interesting that just at a time when it's become obvious, obvious even from the FBI's own charging documents, that what happened on January 6th was not a riot, not a terrorist act, not a coup, not an insurrection.
All the left's analogies to the Oklahoma City bombing, 9-11, all of this has been shown to be just laughable, absurd.
That the left is sort of digging in on this.
Yes, it really is like 9-11.
And here's Dave Mastio in USA Today.
He's the editorial page editor of USA Today.
And he has an article basically saying Republicans prove that they are a bigger threat than the 9-11 hijackers.
Think of what he's saying. He's basically saying the main opposition party in America should be treated worse than terrorists.
What does he want the government to do?
Bomb Republicans around the country?
But evidently they're a bigger threat than the 9-11 terrorists.
Let's explore this because I want to...
I want to comment on a few of his statements.
First, he says, the January 6th body count was low.
Low. He really means non-existent because no one was intentionally killed.
Well, the body count was one.
Ashley Babbitt killed by a Capitol Police officer.
But the body count was low.
Not because of the peaceful intentions of the insurrectionists, but because of the heroism and restraint of the Capitol Police officers.
So evidently, the Capitol Police officers were so great...
That he goes, if members of the House and Senate had not successfully fled the rioters, lawmakers might well have been held hostage or killed.
So first of all, it's very interesting whenever someone tries to make their case based upon what we call counterfactual history.
Counterfactual history is, it could have happened this way.
Kind of like someone comes and, let's say, robs a...
A stereo or a VCR or TV from my house and I go, well, it's a good thing that I, you know, it's a good thing that I was home when this happened because if I wasn't home, they could have raped my wife and my children.
They could have attacked them.
They didn't, but they could have.
So, you know, let's treat them as if they're rapists and murderers, even though they didn't rape or murder anybody, they just stole a TV, but it could have gone that way.
So this is right away, you know that you're off on the wrong track.
Let's keep going. Dave Mastio continues.
He goes, all of this is based on the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen from President Trump.
Now, they like to repeat this phrase, the big lie, the big lie, the big lie.
And my question is, where's the proof that it's a lie?
Where is the actual evidence?
A lie implies an intentional untruth.
So the idea here is all these insurrections knew that they were lying and Let me ask you this.
Why would you show up in Washington and go to such lengths for something you believe to be a lie?
Why would people take these actions for something they know to be false?
They obviously wouldn't.
The point I want to make is, I know for a fact that there was fraud in the 2020 election.
I don't know how much there was.
I don't know if there was enough to tip the election.
So I'm not entirely sure who won the 2020 election.
But I'm not part of a big lie.
I'm willing to look at whatever evidence there is or isn't.
I'm willing, I'm looking, for example, with some interest right now at the Maricopa audit.
So this notion that it's sort of a known lie is itself a lie.
Now, let's move on.
Dave Mastio says that it should alarm everybody that, quote, a majority of Republicans believe our election was stolen.
Now, first of all, he himself is being a little deceitful here because if you believe the latest Rasmussen poll, it's not just that a majority of Republicans believe the election was stolen.
It's a majority of Americans.
51% of Americans, says Rasmussen, believe there was significant cheating in the election.
Those are probably all the people who voted for Trump.
Obviously, if you voted for Biden, you're less likely to think that.
You're unlikely to think that at all.
And right there, the 51% is a majority.
That's a majority of the American people right there.
Now, moving on with Mastio, he says the members of the House and Senate who voted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, well, first of all, no one voted to do that, are plotting to take over Congress so they can control the results next time.
Listen to this madness.
They're plotting to take over Congress.
How? By winning the midterms?
By persuading an electoral majority to go with them?
By appealing to the consent of the governed?
This actual exercise of democracy, campaigning, what is wrong with taking the debate over 2020 and putting it on the ballot in 2022?
That happens all the time in American politics.
That's called exercising democracy, not undermining it.
Bottom line of it, the left has gone completely deranged on January 6th, and for political purposes.
They're hoping to use it to cement a political advantage, in a sense to make the political advantage permanent, and to treat a legitimate domestic political opposition as a bunch of terrorists.
Does it make sense that the same company that controls half of online retail also passively eavesdrops on your private conversations at home?
What about the idea that a single company controls 90% of internet searches, runs your email service, and gets to track everything you do on your smartphone?
Big tech is more powerful than most countries are, and they profit by exploiting your personal data.
It's time to put a layer of protection between your online activity and these tech juggernauts.
That's why I use ExpressVPN.
Think about how much of your life is on the internet.
Sadly, every site you visit, video you watch, or message you send gets tracked and data But when you run ExpressVPN on your device, the software hides your IP address, something big tech can use to personally identify you.
So ExpressVPN makes your activity harder to trace and sell to advertisers.
ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your internet data to keep you safe from hackers and eavesdroppers on your internet.
And ExpressVPN does all of this without slowing your connection.
That's why it's rated the number one VPN service by CNET and Wired.
What I like most about ExpressVPN is how easy it is to use.
Download the app on your phone or computer, tap one button, and you're protected.
Stop handing over your personal data to the big tech monopoly that mines your activity and sells your information.
Protect yourself with the VPN I trust to keep me safe online.
Visit expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
That's expressvpn.com slash Dinesh to get three extra months free.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the 2020 election isn't just the issue of election fraud.
Was there fraud?
How much fraud? What difference did it make?
It's the fact that you can't discuss this.
You can't openly, in a democratic society, talk about the democratic process itself, the process of tabulating the results.
The reason for this is because of digital censorship.
But who's behind digital censorship?
There's a very interesting report from Judicial Watch.
This is Tom Fitton's group called Judicial Watch.
It's based upon them getting records, open records requests in California.
Here's what they found. They got 540 pages of documents and they discovered that California's Office of Election Cybersecurity has been reporting to digital media giants and telling them to take down posts that question the election.
So let's back up and pay attention to what we're saying.
What we're saying here is that the actual California office That is charged with maintaining cybersecurity has been tipping off these private companies.
So there's a collusion here between the government agency and private companies to censor posts about the election.
Now, this has a further twist.
S.K.D. Knickerbocker, which is the name of a company, this is a company that is paid by Joe Biden.
It's a part of the Biden campaign operation.
S.K.D. Knickerbocker was involved in tipping off The California Office of Election Cybersecurity.
So we have three groups involved.
We have the Biden campaign and its company called SKD Knickerbocker.
We've got the California Cybersecurity Office and we've got the digital moguls.
It turns out the Biden people are feeding information based on social media, censor this guy, censor that guy, to the California government.
And the California government is tipping off the private digital media companies that then obediently carry this out.
So, this is what's going on.
So, basically what Tom Fitton is saying is that this is not a case of private actors doing something based on their own internal guidelines.
No.
What you have is that the Biden campaign compiles what they call these misinformation briefings, a kind of a little packet, laying out what they consider to be misinformation.
Obviously this is a highly partisan fight, so they're going to consider to be misinformation anything harmful to their side.
And they feed it to the California government, who feeds it to Twitter and Facebook and the other digital companies, and then they act to censor it.
So, this is very bad stuff.
Is the exact company that developed the Biden campaign's vote-by-mail program where?
In Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in Wisconsin, in Arizona.
So let's think about this. The very people who have orchestrated the Biden campaign's mail-in campaign then begin to participate in this process of censoring posts that complain about the kind of risks of fraud that can come out of This kind of widespread mail-in campaign.
You may say the very people in a sense who are engaging in the activity then protect the activity by censoring the people who protest the activity.
So this is really what happens behind the scenes.
It is a case of collusion between partisan groups, in this case the Biden campaign, And the government, in this case the government of California, and the digital media companies all working almost like birds in a flying formation toward the same nefarious end.
As leftist pressure mounts for student debt forgiveness, more stimulus checks, expanded unemployment benefits, the $2 trillion infrastructure plan, the question comes to mind, what is the economic consequence of all this?
Who's going to pay? Clearly, the Biden administration thinks they're playing with monopoly money.
Now, for years... Decades.
I never invested in gold.
Only the stock market. But now I'm really worried about the regime we have in Washington.
No sense of fiscal responsibility.
So listen, if all your investments are tied to greenbacks, you're sitting on a bit of a ticking time bomb.
Invest a portion of your savings into gold and silver.
Now, Birch Gold Group is who I purchase from and who you can trust to convert an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and silver.
That's right, through a little-known tax loophole, you can convert your retirement savings tied to the stock market into an IRA backed by precious metals.
It's your hedge against inflation.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free information kit on precious metals IRAs or to speak with a Birch Gold representative today.
With 10,000 customers and A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless 5-star reviews, Birch Gold can help you too.
Text Dinesh to 484848 and invest in gold and precious metals before it's too late.
And I'm going to bring on in the next segment, Brooke Goldstein, who is an American Jew, but currently in Israel with her children hiding in a bomb shelter.
So we're going to look at what it feels like seeing this conflict from that vulnerable perspective.
Now, as Americans, we're very tempted to look at things that happen around the world through the lens of what's happening in America.
That's kind of a natural thing to do, but we should resist the temptation because we can misunderstand things happening abroad when you do that.
The South Africa conflict, for example, in the 1980s was almost entirely seen through the lens of the civil rights movement.
Now, in that case, there were some similarities.
Of course, America didn't have apartheid in quite the same way, but we did have segregation, at least in the American South.
And now with Israel, we have people who essentially look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and they kind of ask questions like, well, you know, are the Jews kind of more like the whites in America?
Are the Palestinians more like the blacks?
Should we be going around saying that Palestinian lives matter?
So you see a transplantation going on.
identity politics in America gets transposed onto another country.
Now, this is not to say that there isn't identity politics over there, but it's a different kind of identity politics.
And I want to talk more about this, not just today, but in the days to follow.
But I just want to introduce this topic by talking about, first of all, identity politics from the Jewish side, and then identity politics a little bit from the Palestinian side.
Now from the Jewish side, we begin with the fact, again different from America, that Israel is in fact a Jewish state.
So, it is a state founded on Judaism, on Jewishness.
Now, by Jewishness here we have to be a little careful because we don't just mean the religion of Judaism.
Of course, for religious Jews, Israel has a biblical significance.
This is the prophesied return of the Jews to the land that God gave them.
This is the chosen people coming back to their chosen land.
But for secular Jews, and let's remember Zionism as it began in the late 19th century, continued in the early 20th century, was a secular movement.
In fact, it was run basically by Jewish socialists.
And Zionism in that sense represented not so much religious Judaism as you could call it cultural or secular Judaism, which is a bit of a strange phenomenon.
I suppose there's some analogy to secular Christians who are nominally Christian, you know, Easter Sunday Christian, But secular Jews aren't religious at all, but they still have a Jewish identity.
It's important to them to be Jewish, but being Jewish doesn't necessarily mean that they're still, for example, waiting for the Messiah to come.
But the fact that Israel is a Jewish state means that we don't have, as we claim to have in America, things like pure separation of church and state.
Israel, even for secular Jews, is a country rooted in religion and rooted in history.
So there's religious freedom.
The Israelis, well, you're perfectly free to go to the Christian church.
You're perfectly free to go to the Islamic mosque.
There's religious freedom that would not, by the way, continue...
If this was an Islamic state, if Hamas took over, can you imagine?
Do you think that they would allow Christians to continue to worship and Jews?
Absolutely not.
But the point I'm trying to make is that when we think about identity politics in terms of Judaism, we're talking about something that is not black or white.
In fact, Israeli Jews span the whole spectrum.
Some of them are white. Some of them look Asian, and some of them are dark-skinned, virtually black.
Most people know that there are Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.
The Ashkenazi Jews are the European Jews that settled in Europe.
The Sephardic Jews are basically the Jews from North Africa and from Asia.
Let's turn to the Palestinian side for a moment.
Because the Palestinians, although we commonly think of them as Muslims, they're not all Muslim.
They actually are Palestinian Christians.
So where does this Palestinian identity come from?
It actually doesn't even come from, well, it comes from the fact that we all used to live in the Palestinian state.
No, there never was a Palestinian state.
Ironically, it is the formation of Israel itself.
That created, you may say, modern-day Palestinian identity.
Modern-day Palestinian identity comes out of displacement, this feeling that we have been pushed out of the land that our ancestors occupied.
So, ironically, interestingly, Palestinian identity is based on victimization.
And it's based upon this idea that the Jews are the oppressor, the Jews are the colonizer.
But here's the thing. Jews are also victims.
I don't think that in the absence of the Holocaust, there would be a State of Israel, which is to say that it was the recognition of the horrors that the Jews experienced in Europe that helped to create the political momentum on the part of Britain and the United States in forming and helping to form the State of Israel in the first place.
I think as we look at the situation now, we see a discrepancy.
The Palestinians, or at least the Palestinian leadership, still wants to throw Israel into the sea.
They refuse to recognize the right of the Jews to even have a homeland, to even exist in that way.
But that is not true of the Jews.
The Israelis recognize the Palestinians are here.
They have a right to be Palestinian.
The Jews recognize not just the humanity of the Palestinians, but the citizenship rights of the Palestinians.
The rights of the Palestinians to live in Israel under Israeli law.
But the opposite.
Is not the case. And I think that's the heart of the matter.
One side the Palestinians denies Israeli identity, perhaps even Israeli and Jewish humanity.
But the Jews recognized the rights and the humanity of the Palestinians.
My daughter Daniel and her husband are visiting us this week and they're both raving about their MyPillow slippers.
This is Mike Lindell's new product. The newest thing he's come up with.
He took almost two years to develop these slippers.
They're designed to weigh indoor or outdoor all day long.
They're made with MyPillow foam and impact gel to help prevent fatigue.
They're made with this quality leather suede.
And for a limited time, Mike Lindell is offering 40% off his new MySlippers.
The MySlippers are so comfortable, you'll want to get some for yourself and some for the whole family.
Debbie and I just love ours.
I got the moccasin, she got the slip-ons.
Go to MyPillow.com and use promo code Dinesh.
Deep discounts, by the way.
On all the MyPillow products, the Geezer Dream bed sheets, the MyPillow mattress topper, and the MyPillow towel sets.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I'm really happy to welcome Brooke Goldstein to the podcast.
She's gonna talk to us about what it feels like to be inside a bomb shelter in Israel.
Now, Brooke Goldstein is a filmmaker, an attorney, an author.
I would also call you Brooke, a civil rights activist, and you made a terrific documentary, The Making of a Martyr, in which you kind of got inside the world of Islamic radicalism.
You talked to people in Islamic Jihad, and now you're right on top of this big fight over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
So welcome to the podcast, Let's start by talking about your experience and the fact that you're in Israel, your children are in a bomb shelter.
You know, we hear a lot in the media about what's happening to the Palestinians.
We hear a lot about tear-jerking stories, but we don't hear a whole lot from the Israeli side.
In fact, we often hear about the Israeli dome that is magically protecting all the Israelis while the Palestinians are sort of nakedly vulnerable.
Talk about your experience and your children's experience and what it feels like to have rockets coming at you.
Thank you for having me on.
I'm so grateful to be on this podcast with you, I just want to say, because it is so rare to find people in the media, people with large followings, who really get what is going on and who are on the side of truth, who are on the side of peace, and so I appreciate this platform.
It has been The most terrifying six days of my life.
I have never been in a war before.
This is all-out war.
You mentioned before there are a lot of images coming from Gaza.
The images are horrific.
And they are heartbreaking.
And I'll tell you something, nobody here in Israel is celebrating that there is conflict.
Nobody is celebrating that Israeli boys and girls are risking their lives on the front line and having to go in and eliminate the terrorist threat.
And the IDF is doing everything it possibly can, above and beyond what is even required by the laws of armed conflict to extinguish the Hamas threat, and they are entitled to do that.
Being here and knowing that we are protected by the IDF, it's still just incomprehensible.
How is it that the Israelis have allowed Hamas, a terror-proxy Of the Iranian state, number one, to exist, to amass weapons, to receive hundreds of millions of dollars from Qatar, for example, and to build this arsenal that it's been building for many years now with the sole purpose of shooting at civilians like me and my children.
It is terrifying.
And even worse is to see how the mainstream media and US politicians are justifying this.
Talk about the shelters and what they're like.
Can you describe them for us so we have a feeling of what it's like on the ground?
What does it feel like to be in there and what do you hear and what do you see?
So, some houses do not have a bomb shelter.
For a lot of people who live in Jerusalem, a lot of the buildings are old.
They were not built with bomb shelters.
They have to run out on the street as rockets are firing above them.
They have I think between 45 and 65 seconds, depending on the rocket, to get to a shelter.
The shelters are crowded.
If you don't have a shelter, you have to go run inside of a stairwell or you otherwise have to seek cover and pray.
We are extremely fortunate that the house that we are renting does have a bomb shelter.
It is, in this house, the size of a really small bedroom.
Now it has two and a half mattresses in it.
We've put all of our kids' stuff in it to try and make it as welcoming as possible.
I've charged the iPads and we put the cartoons on loud volume because you can hear the blast.
The blasts are... So loud that they shake the foundation of the building.
You can feel it in the floor.
And it's very scary.
And the other thing I have to say is the sirens here are not that loud.
So anytime you hear something that kind of sounds like a siren and speeding motorcycles...
Sounds a lot like a siren.
You have this trauma thing where you're like, okay, that's it.
I have to run to the shelter.
So the whole thing is bizarre.
I caught my kids talking to each other the other day.
I have a four-year-old, a six-year-old, and a one-year-old.
The four-year-old and the six-year-old were Having a conversation outside about people shooting rockets at us.
This is, you know, something I never thought my kids would have to be traumatized by.
And obviously I feel an enormous amount of guilt having brought them here, which in and of itself is tragic that as a Jewish person in the 21st century, I have to feel guilty.
And I feel unsafe to bring my children to visit the Jewish state.
Now, there's an attempt to talk about the Israeli targeting of civilians.
What you mentioned a little bit earlier is that the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force, is not targeting civilians.
They're targeting military targets.
Now, admittedly, civilians sometimes do get harmed.
That is obviously tragic.
But the moral difference here is that Hamas is targeting civilians.
Isn't that a critical moral difference that for Hamas...
Civilians are the target.
And by the way, not just Israeli civilians.
It seems pretty clear that even on the Gaza side, Hamas wants civilians to be hit because then they have a sort of exhibit for the media.
It's been remarkable descriptions of how Hamas will put its facilities near civilian areas in order to, you may say, maximize civilian casualties for public relations impact.
It seems to us, I guess, unbelievably ruthless, almost hard to accept that anyone would do that.
But isn't this part of the Doesn't this reveal the nature of terrorism and the nature of Hamas?
Yeah, this is obvious.
It's openly advertised.
The Hamas terrorists and the Islamic Jihad, they have no qualms and they actively use their own civilians, including children, as human shields.
You mentioned I made a movie, a documentary film.
The Making of a Martyr, where I explored the use of innocent Muslim children as suicide homicide bombers, as child soldiers, as human shields.
The main character of that film, for example, was a 15-year-old physically handicapped boy That they had recruited strapped a bomb on and attempted to blow up.
This is no different.
These Islamist terrorist groups seek death.
They seek the death of the Israeli civilians, whether they're Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.
It doesn't matter to them.
These are indiscriminate attacks.
And they seek the death of their own civilians to maximize casualties.
And when the mainstream media reports That there were, for example, 200 casualties on the Gazan side without mentioning whether or not they were terrorists, without mentioning whether or not they were killed by the over 400 Hamas rockets that have fallen short in Gaza, a Gazan family of eight.
It was just released today.
A Gazan family of eight was killed by a Hamas terror rocket that fell short.
So you have to ask yourself, those who claim to be pro-Palestinian, if I can't even utter the word, stop the rockets, they can't utter the sentence, stop the rockets?
They don't care about human life.
And they are facilitating this type of Islamist suicidal tactics, and they're rewarding them by completely ignoring it.
Brooke, I want to ask you finally about what's happening in America, because one of the things that Rashida Tlaib was one of the kind of gang of four, this is the kind of emerging wing of the Democratic Party that's very pro-Palestinian and so on, has sort of equated what's happening between the Israelis and the Palestinians on the one hand.
What's happening between blacks and whites in the United States?
And the basic idea here is that the Israelis are the whites.
They are the ones who have privilege.
The Palestinians are the ones who are being occupied.
They're the ones being terrorized.
I guess the solution is for Jews to kind of acknowledge their privilege and sort of relinquish it.
I want you to talk finally about what seems to me to be a preposterous equation, but explain from Your point of view, why it is so reckless, if not absurd, to equate Jewish-Palestine conflict to the black-white conflict in America.
First of all, I'll just say this.
No self-respecting Nazi would ever call a Jew white.
The Jews have been persecuted for hundreds of years because we are the oldest, most persecuted minority community.
We are a separate ethnicity, a cultural identity, a religious identity.
And the whole attempt to To paint the Jew as the oppressor, as the colonialist, is an attempt to rewrite history when, in fact, the Middle East, and especially Israel, and then Palestine after that, has been colonized by the British, it was colonized by the Ottoman Emperor, and many other such forces and states and so forth.
And finally, the Jewish community, which is the indigenous community to the Middle East, is exercising their right to self-sovereignty.
But I want to make one more point, okay?
Many people often describe this as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I object to that.
This is a conflict between Iran and Qatar and the West.
This is a proxy war.
And just a couple months ago, Iran released a statement saying they don't have to directly attack Israel.
They use their proxies.
They use Hamas and Islamic Jihad in an effort to pressure the United States.
And what this is all about is testing the Biden administration.
To see if they are weak or not on terror, to exact concessions and create a movement with now this democratic so-called progressive left to be pro-Hamas and to be pro-Iran deal.
This is what it's about.
And a lot of those who are organizing pro-Palestinian rallies, for example, there's a group called Samidun, are connected and or work with and or support and promote Terrorist groups, designated terrorist groups.
So not only are they stirring up trouble, so to speak, in the Middle East, but now they're also doing the same thing on the streets of New York.
They're doing it in Paris, they're doing it in London, and they're creating unrest and inciting Islamist crowds towards violence, not just against Jews, but also in the West, again, to exert pressure from the United States and our allies to be soft on terror.
That is what is going on right now.
And obviously Jewish lives are being used as a political football in this war.
And just one last thing, if I may, to say that the Jewish community is privileged is so naive, just shows a total ridiculous naivety when it comes to the history of my people.
And despite the persecution and despite the history of genocide and occupation and colonization and discrimination that we face today, we still overcome.
And it's because we are successful and have overcome this narrative and do not adopt the victimization narrative that we are again targeted for this.
That is a brilliant point, Brooke.
And I want to thank you for all the work you're doing against the odds, because it seems like the media is tilted the other way, but you're pushing hard and others are, and I'm trying to do my part to get the other side of the story, to complete this narrative and let the American people, if not the people of the world, understand what's going on where you are.
Thanks, Brooke, for coming on the podcast.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you for having me.
We're seeing all kinds of craziness going on in the Middle East, a real escalation of violence, and we've seen a comparable escalation of violent rhetoric toward Israel in the United States.
It seems that radical Islam has made its footprint in America.
Now, all of this, incredibly enough, is in the movie Trump Card.
We released it late last year, but many of you haven't seen it, and you must.
Why? Because it lays out the path that the Biden administration is charting.
It lays out the path that the world is going.
Take a look at this clip from the film.
Listen. What you're saying is that there is serious Middle Eastern and specifically radical Islamic intervention into U.S. politics.
Exactly. And I think it's more dangerous than the so-called Russian collusion.
Now, here's a way that you can get trump card DVDs.
Own them at the incredible bargain price of $9.99.
It's a really great deal.
You've got to get one for yourself and get some more as gifts.
Here's how you do it. Go to SalemNowStore.com.
That's S-A-L-E-M-NowStore.com.
That's where you can order the DVDs.
You'll be really glad you did.
I talk quite a lot about history in this podcast, and here I want to appeal to the great Russian writer Tolstoy to ask the question, who makes history?
How does history get made?
How do we understand important events that are going on, either when they're going on or later?
Now, we commonly think that history is made by these sort of great figures.
Alexander the Great makes history, or General Grant, or Martin Luther King.
And this view is not wrong.
But according to Tolstoy, it is woefully incomplete.
because according to Tolstoy history is made just as much by people whose names we don't even know. And this is something that Tolstoy, this is an idea, you can almost call it a philosophy of history that Tolstoy puts forward in War and Peace. I'm not going to quote Tolstoy.
He says, And integrating them, in other words, finding the sum of all these infinitesimal units, can we hope to arrive at the laws of history.
So basically Tolstoy is calling for a shift of perspective.
Don't just focus on the kings and the generals.
When you're looking at history, especially military history, look at the ordinary guy with a bayonet or the ordinary guy with a gun and try to understand what's motivating that guy.
Now, Here's Tolstoy's point.
He goes, And then Tolstoy says, he gives a couple of examples.
He's talking about the 1812 campaign.
He talks about, you know, how historians will talk about the fact that Napoleon was tricked into stretching his supply lines by the Russian army, which was being maneuvered by the Russian generals.
And then Tolstoy goes, stop with all this nonsense.
And now I'm quoting him. All the hints at what happened.
Both from the French side, Napoleon, and from the Russian side are advanced only because they fit in with the event.
They fit in with the result. Had the event not occurred, those hints would have been forgotten, as we have forgotten the thousands and millions of hints and expectations to the contrary, which were current then, but have now been forgotten because the event falsified them.
This is something very important.
Tolstoy is saying it's only in retrospect that we go, oh, this was a brilliant maneuver.
Why? Because it worked. If it didn't work, oh, this was a stupid maneuver.
It wouldn't have worked. So what's happening is with the benefit of hindsight, we put meaning onto events that never had that meaning at the time they were going on.
I continue, quoting Tolstoy, The actions of Napoleon and Alexander, on whose words the events seemed to hang, were as little voluntary as the actions of any soldier who was drawn into the campaign by lot or conscription. It was necessary that millions of men in whose hands lay the real power, the soldiers who fired or transported provisions and guns, should carry out the will of these individuals, and should have been, he says, induced to do
so by an infinite number of diverse and complex causes.
So the ordinary guy, yeah, he might be getting some order from Napoleon, but what is he responding to?
He's responding to, I really want to get back to my wife and daughter.
Or, I'm tired of this, I'm not going to fight anymore.
So the individual has his own reasons for doing what he did.
And history, in a sense, can miss those by tending to impose a kind of interpretive lens based on...
There's a scene in one of, in fact, in War and Peace where Pierre Bezikoff is wandering around the battlefield.
And he's actually looking for these great forces that you read about in history.
He's looking for orders and patterns and meaning.
And it says that he just got lost on the battlefield.
He didn't even know what the heck was going on.
He found no order, no patterns that are discernible.
And Tolstoy goes, his perspective, confused as it may be, was actually the true one.
Why? Because this is how the battle is.
As seen from the point of view of the ordinary soldier, you can't see large movements going on.
You don't see phalanxes and platoons.
You just see a bunch of guys in front of you, and you've got to respond to what they're doing.
Your actions are motivated by that.
So I think this helps us to get a perspective on history that is sort of deeper, more individualistic.
Tolstoy isn't talking about classes.
He's talking about the actual individual on the battlefield.
And you may say, not just the battlefield, in the Civil Rights March.
The actual individual who is making history...
Export Selection