Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 17, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza

01:04:17

AN INSIDE JOB? Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 113

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Joe Biden gets into the ring with Vladimir Putin and the result is predictable.
	And Darren Beatty, the publisher of that bombshell Revolver article about did the feds organize January 6th?
	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.
	Many years ago, an aging Joe Louis got into the ring with Muhammad Ali, and the result was...
	Lewis went on the canvas and Ali was dancing jubilantly around the ring.
	He had knocked out the aging dotard.
	Lewis, of course, was something in his prime, but not when he took on Ali.
	And this was kind of what came to mind when I contemplate this summit, so-called summit, between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin.
	Putin was kind of like one of these prize fighters, maybe even more like an MMA fighter, prancing around the ring, chuckling, you know, scoring points, kind of fooling around with Biden.
	And there was Biden kind of walking around.
	He had these huge note cards, you know, probably written in large font so he could read them.
	The whole thing was an embarrassing spectacle.
	And Putin, in fact, you know, the American press kind of tried to go to bat for Biden.
	At one point, an ABC news reporter kind of confronts Putin and says something like, what do you make about the fact that you are suppressing critics who have political grievances against you?
	And Putin, without missing a beat, goes, well, didn't a Capitol Hill police officer shoot a Trump supporter who came to air political grievances?
	Touche. Touche.
	Now, CNN, of course, has been doing this comical post-summit coverage trying to make Biden seem tough.
	They can't make him seem tough against Putin, so they're trying to make him seem tough against the press.
	Wait, what? Isn't the press in Biden's own camp?
	Here's CNN, quote, He certainly seemed confident taking off his jacket and taking questions from some of the top reporters.
	Ha! This is like me going to my staff.
	Take off my jacket.
	Come at me, guys!
	Or, you know...
	My staff, me?
	Or, you know, Jeff Bezos goes into the Amazon, takes off his jacket, and he goes, I'm ready for you guys.
	Have at it! Ridiculous.
	Embarrassing. CNN is a complete joke.
	Now, having said that, I sort of have to come slightly to the difference.
	Expensive CNN. Unbelievable.
	This has never happened before, perhaps.
	However, I want to say a word on behalf of Caitlin Collins.
	This is the CNN reporter.
	She is the best of that lot.
	It's a sorry lot. I mean, think of the competition.
	I mean, of course. You know, stetler, I should say.
	The 35-year-old, 75-year-old looking man.
	But Caitlin Collins can put a tough question, and she put a somewhat tough question to Biden, and Biden erupted.
	Listen. Why are you so confident he'll change his behavior, Mr.
	President? Yeah, I'm not confident he'll change his behavior.
	What the hell, what do you do all the time?
	When did I say I was confident?
	I said, I said, what I said was, let's get it straight, I said what will change their behavior is that the rest of the world reacts to them and it diminishes their standing in the world.
	I'm not confident of anything.
	I'm just stating a fact. But given his past behavior has not changed, and in that press conference, after sitting down with you for several hours, he denied any involvement in cyber attacks, he downplayed human rights abuses, he even refused to say Alexei Navalny's name.
	So how does that account to a constructive meeting as President Putin?
	If you don't understand that, you're in a wrong way.
	You know, this stuff to me is so simultaneously sad and entertaining.
	I mean, what a combination.
	Here's Biden, and some of the time he, like, stares into the distance.
	His eyes are vacant.
	You know, he's like, what's your middle name, Joe?
	Joe. Other times, kind of Tourette style, he has these staccato outbursts of rage and peak war.
	What a combination.
	Now, let's think about what the CNN reporter Caitlin Collins is getting at.
	She's getting at the fact that Biden, just a little while ago, calls Putin a killer.
	He's a killer. He's a murderer.
	He's a mass murderer. And then, a little bit later, when he's asked, do you trust Putin?
	Biden goes, yeah.
	So, I mean, I realize for Biden, it's hard to put things together.
	But think, Biden, think.
	Just put together your thoughts.
	A, the guy's a killer.
	He's a mass murderer. B, I trust him.
	Ergo C, I trust a mass murderer.
	Really, is this U.S. foreign policy?
	For me, the whole summit was kind of summed up by this kind of image.
	I don't know if you saw it on social media.
	Here you have Biden sitting there, you know, with his legs tightly crossed.
	And you have Putin sitting there with his legs wide open.
	I mean, there was almost something slightly suggestive about the picture, I hate to say, but true.
	And I'm thinking, you know, one is the man and the other one is sort of the woman.
	How else are you supposed to read it except in that kind of metaphorical way?
	And then at the end of the summit, Biden gives Putin apparently a list of 16 things and says, please, if you do cyber attacks against America, don't attack these 16 things.
	Which again, I can only read in a somewhat of a sexual way.
	I don't know if this is my like Rorschach test, you know, shows that you're really a pervert.
	But no, I think what Biden is basically saying is, you know, don't rip off my nuts.
	I mean, you can pull off my fingers, you can pull off my toes, but, you know, my nuts are really important to me.
	They may not be that important to Jill these days, but they're really important to me.
	Here's Debbie groaning.
	I think she's threatening to walk out on me.
	But bottom line, the summit was a complete disgrace.
	And you know who I blame? I don't even blame Biden.
	I blame the stupid people who voted for him.
	There is a bombshell article in Revolver News, which is becoming a very important investigative journalism site.
	And in this article, we get for the first time a case, an argument for why January 6th might have been, might have been An FBI setup might have been, in fact, a sort of deep state operation.
	And I'm delighted to have Dr.
	Darren Beattie, the founder of Revolver News, join me on the podcast to talk about it.
	Darren, welcome and thank you for coming on board.
	In this article, you begin with a question that Amy Klobuchar put to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
	And the question, as I understand it, was something to the effect of, don't you wish that you had infiltrated these January 6 groups?
	And by groups here you mean groups like the Proud Boys and others.
	Don't you wish that you were already in on these groups and had information about what they were about to do?
	But what your article suggests is that it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the FBI did in fact infiltrate these groups and did in fact have information And not only that, might have actually been among the instigators of the whole operation.
	Say a word about that.
	Well, yes, you're precisely right about that.
	And the opening scene of this Revolver.News bombshell is quite something, because as you suggest, it is Amy Klobuchar asking a question about infiltration, but begging the entire question by simply saying, oh, don't you wish you had...
	Wouldn't it have been better if she just asked, did you?
	She just sets it up for him to evade the question, which he probably would have done anyway.
	But Revolver.News is neither as presumptuous nor as accommodating as Senator Klobuchar, and so we pose the questions directly.
	And I'm happy to report here that This has gained steam at the congressional level.
	In fact, the questions that we pose in the Revolver.News article, Representative Matt Gaetz has written those questions in a formal letter to Christopher Wray and has gotten multiple congressional signatories onto this letter.
	So this is already, it's blowing up in the media.
	It's probably the biggest story in the country.
	And now it's being taken up in Congress.
	Well, I can see that the left is already starting to freak out and they're trying to come up with objections and explanations.
	But before we get to those, let's just keep going here because right after January 6th, there was a kind of public acknowledgement through the government that this was a kind of a failed intelligence operation.
	And we have... All kinds of statements to the effect I'm now going to read.
	This is from your article about the intelligence failure.
	A bipartisan Senate investigation found security and intelligence failures at every level, failing to warn of a potential of violence, a failure of leadership.
	So the narrative here is that the FBI was taken by surprise.
	The Capitol Police was taken by surprise.
	None of them knew this was coming.
	So in a sense, that's bad.
	But what you say in the article is what would be even worse is if these guys not only knew about it, but were cooking it up.
	In other words, if they were actively involved in fomenting January 6th, at which point they could then turn around and get the political targets that they had actually set up in the first place.
	Yeah, precisely. There are three possibilities to consider.
	One is the official story, which is a fairly unbelievable story, but they've converged on this pretty Pretty strongly.
	And that is the intelligence failure narrative.
	That, oh, we had no idea that there could be violence leading up to January 6th.
	We just completely dropped the ball.
	We had no intelligence along these lines.
	That's why the Capitol basically had worse security on January 6th than any other day.
	It's like Sitting at Passover, why is this night different than all other nights?
	Well, why is January 6th different than all other days where it has uniquely bad security on that day?
	That's a question unto itself.
	So there's the intelligence failure thesis, which is, of course, convenient for them because...
	It detracts from the more the sinister possibilities that we explore.
	But also the solution to that is more surveillance capabilities.
	Basically, it tees them up for their next ask, which is we need more funding for Patriot Act 2.0.
	Which means this time we're going after patriots.
	So that narrative serves them well along a number of dimensions.
	The second possibility is that they did infiltrate these groups, they knew there was possibility for violence, and they just sit back and let it happen for their own purposes.
	And the third possibility is that Even worse than sitting back and let it happen, that there are key members at senior positions within these so-called militia groups associated with January 6th, namely the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys,
	and Three Percenters, key senior figures in here who are listed as Person X, Person Y, and individual in the charging documents, Who are actually federal operatives in some capacity, either as informants or undercover agents.
	And so I think those second and third possibilities are the most damning and by far the most likely.
	Now let's turn to what I think is a very kind of telling clue as to how to referee among these different possibilities.
	And this is the phenomenon of the unindicted co-conspirator.
	You point out in your article that there appear to be 20, but there could be more, Who unindicted co-conspirators in this operation.
	So by unindicted co-conspirator, we of course mean people who participated in the operation.
	They did bad stuff.
	They would normally be criminally charged.
	And by the way, this is against the backdrop of Merrick Garland and other people saying, we're going to leave no stone unturned.
	We're going to go after everybody.
	This is a shock and awe operation.
	We're going to hold these people accountable.
	We're going to send a message. But you're saying the presence of all these unindicted co-conspirators is highly suspicious, even more so because some of these guys, this is not a case where these are the small fish reporting on the big fish.
	In many cases, these are the guys who did some of the worst stuff.
	They were actively involved in some of the most, in the planning, the booking of the hotel rooms, the organizing, and in the violence itself.
	Exactly. And so, yes, that's precisely how the argument is structured.
	And to give a better sense of how it's all teed up, I think we should start with the so-called shock and awe standard of prosecution.
	We talk about that in the Revolver.News article.
	A gentleman by the name of Michael Sherwin, who is taking the lead on prosecutions, he is interviewed, I think, on Dateline, maybe some other show, where he outlines, we're doing a shock and awe standard of prosecution, invoking a phraseology from the Iraq War, which is interesting, given that The connections with the Patriot Act and all these other things that they're trying to push.
	Shock and awe standard.
	To give you a sense of what the shock and awe standard means in practice.
	I would offer an example of this individual called George Tanios, who is this just, you know, I don't want to say anything disparaging, but he's not a mastermind.
	Let's put it that way. He's the owner of a sandwich shop.
	His great offense was he was at the Capitol.
	He didn't go inside. He was out there at the Capitol.
	He had bear spray.
	His companion was Wanted to reach for his bear spray to possibly spray officers in the melee.
	He said, are we ready to do it?
	George Tanyo says, no, no, not yet.
	On the basis of him saying no, no, not yet, the government is charging him with conspiracy to assault officer and he's facing 60 years in prison.
	So for saying no, no, not yet to his companion's attempt to get his bear spray to possibly spray an officer.
	He's facing 60 years.
	And just as a side point, the whole reason the bear spray was important was it was related to the death of Officer Sicknick in the media narrative.
	And that's a whole other media narrative that Revolver.News absolutely destroyed.
	First, they said this Officer Sicknick who died was bludgeoned to death by a fire extinguisher.
	We reported on that.
	That turned out to be untrue.
	New York Times corrected it. The second narrative that they landed upon was that he died of bear spray. We did a very sophisticated analysis at revolver.news, a comparative image analysis showing that officer Siknik was not sprayed by bear spray because there's a different spray register that comes out in the image.
	We turned out to be right on that.
	We were the only people who did that.
	Now the official story of Sicknick is that he died of natural causes.
	So this whole, the reason the bear spray was important in relation to Tanios is totally moot now because Sicknick didn't even die from the bear spray.
	Well, I found it really telling that Biden, as late as yesterday, was still repeating the sick Nick lie.
	And in this case, I can't attribute it to his senility.
	I think this is actually malicious.
	I want to zoom back in, though, to some of these unindicted co-conspirators.
	Would you talk for a moment about the person who's called Person 2, because here's a guy who is accused of working with the Oath Keepers, Thomas Caldwell.
	And you point out that Caldwell, they're going after Caldwell on a whole slew of charges, but this Person 2 guy was alongside Caldwell from the very beginning.
	He planned logistics with Caldwell.
	He stayed in the same hotel room.
	Caldwell is accused of storming the barricades.
	This guy was right next to Caldwell, and yet only Caldwell is charged, and Person 2, for some mysterious reason, is not named, is not charged at all.
	And what you're getting at is, why is that?
	Why is it the case that Person 2 has somehow escaped prosecution when his culpability would appear to be the same?
	Right.
	So, let me just kind of finish explaining how this is teed up.
	So we have the shock and awe standard.
	The reason these other people, person X, person Y, person 1, 2, 3, 4, so forth, and individual, the reason those people, these unindicted persons are important because...
	Our investigative team recognized that compared to this shock and awe standard applied to this poor sandwich shop owner facing 60 years, it's very bizarre that there are all of these unindicted persons in the charging documents.
	Who have not been indicted for whatever reason, who seem to have done as bad, if not worse, than the people who are actually charged.
	And we are exploring the possibility that some of those people may be unindicted as a result of a prior relationship with the federal government.
	I think there's two very important sort of caveats to emphasize while I'm here on your show.
	One caveat is I'm not making the claim, Revolver.News is not making the claim that every single person who is unindicted, who is referenced in the charging documents, is some federal agent.
	That's not what we're saying.
	Secondly, we are not calling for the prosecution of these people.
	If it turns out, and it very well may turn out, that the unindicted people are not involved with the federal government, and many may not be, I am not saying the government should go after them.
	I think the shock and awe standard of prosecution itself is an outrage.
	I'm merely pointing to the discrepancy in standards by saying, if certain people are charged according to that standard, why are the others not?
	And using that as an entry point to explore the possibility that there could be federal infiltration.
	When we come back, we're going to dive more deeply into a key piece of evidence, which is to say the FBI seems to have done this before, which points to a potential FBI culpability here.
	We'll be right back. Yesterday, you might have seen me signing books as part of my Dinesh MyPillow giveaway.
	I call it the Dinesh book and movie deal.
	And I'm working with the folks at MyPillow to pull it off.
	Now, here's the deal. You go all out and buy $250 or $500 or $1,000 of MyPillow merchandise.
	Why? Because it's great merchandise and because we also want to really support Mike Lindell.
	Now, Spending this kind of money, it's not a small amount of money, but it's not hard to do.
	Why? Because Lindell's got a lot of great products.
	More than 100 of them from his classic premium pillows to the Giza Dream sheets to the MyPillow robes, the MyPillow mattress topper, the MyPillow dog beds.
	The list goes on.
	Now here's the fun part. If you spend $250, I'll send you a copy of one of my recent books, one of my favorites, personally autographed to you.
	If you spend $500, you get two signed books plus two of my movies.
	And if you go... Call out.
	You spend $1,000 or more.
	You'll get all this great merchandise.
	You'll also get four signed books and four movies, a kind of mini Dinesh collection.
	Call 800-876-0227 or go to mypillow.com and use promo code Dinesh.
	Now, what else do you have to do to get these books and movies?
	Nothing. I'll get the info from the My...
	MyPillow people and send the books to the same address that you use for your merchandise.
	Offer ends July 4th, so act now.
	Again, that number is 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
	Don't forget to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
	I'm back with Dr.
	Darren Beattie, the publisher of Revolver News.
	We're talking about whether January 6th was a deep state FBI setup.
	Darren, I think your article caught people by surprise because there have been these rival narratives.
	Maybe there was some Antifa infiltration of the Trump contingent, or maybe this was just a kind of tourist taking selfies.
	You're suggesting a much darker possibility of Which is that this whole thing was orchestrated as an ideological hit by a corrupted FBI or by a corrupted deep state.
	And let's explore for a moment.
	Let's just let the implications of that sink in.
	What you say is this is why the left is freaking out so much about this article?
	Is it because they realize that this whole narrative that they've tried to exploit is now sort of, well, if what you say is true, boomeranging right back on them?
	Precisely. And I think it's important, as dark as this possibility is, the American people need to know the truth about 1-6, because what's at stake in this truth is not just Ashley Babbitt, who was shot in cold blood.
	It's not just the hundreds of people that we've learned from Julie Kelly's amazing reporting who are being held in In prison, as political prisons, as a violation of human rights in a disgraceful fashion.
	It's not just about them, but it's about you, Dinesh.
	It's about me. It's about over 70 million Americans who are Trump supporters, conservatives, who have been declared by our own government as de facto domestic terrorists.
	Because, make no mistake, This new Patriot Act, this new weaponization of the national security state against MAGA adjacent movements, which is the most important political development of the past decade.
	They're using January 6th and this possibly false narrative of January 6th as a pretext to affect this development, as a pretext to declare all of us domestic terrorists and to We weaponize politically our entire national security infrastructure against us.
	That's what's at stake in here.
	And that's why they're freaking out that we're striking to the heart of the issue.
	Was this an intelligence failure or was this an intelligence setup?
	Now, one of the strong indicators that it was the latter, an intelligence setup, is the fact that the FBI seems to have done this before.
	A few months ago, as we both know, the FBI arrested 14 people for attempting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
	Now, once that case began to unravel, began to be exposed, and we began to look into it, how many of those 14 people were in fact undercover FBI operatives or agents?
	It's remarkable. At least five.
	Five that we know of.
	And the fifth one revealed himself in a spectacular and actually quite amusing fashion, which we go into a little bit in the Revolver.News piece.
	But just to drive home the parallels of the Michigan case, you know, we could go all the way back to J. Edgar Hoover to get people a sense of what the FBI actually is, but we don't need to go that far.
	We just need to go a few months before the so-called storming of the Capitol to another plot that involved, conveniently, the storming of the Michigan State Capitol and a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan.
	This involved one of the same big three militia groups that the government imputes 216, the three percenters in this case.
	So we have the same plot, the same militia group, We have the same guy.
	In this case, what's really just shocking is that the FBI agent in charge of the Michigan infiltration operation The head of the Detroit field office, his name is Steven D'Antuono, just days after they arrested these so-called Michigan plotters, Christopher Wray quietly and suspiciously promotes this guy to top position in the DC field office, where he went on to oversee, shockingly, the 1-6 investigation.
	So it's a hell of a coincidence to see all of these parallels between Michigan and This in itself doesn't say anything about 1-6, but it certainly charges up our intuition and reinforces our sense of pressing plausibility as to, yes, absolutely, the government does this, and they did it just months before involving a similar plot, basically the same plot, with the same militia groups.
	And let's look at some of the things that the FBI did that we now know about in the Michigan case.
	Number one, they organized and paid for the hotel rooms during the key planning that was going on leading up to this kidnapping.
	Right? And what else do they do in Michigan?
	I'm quoting from your article.
	An undercover FBI operative was the recipient of hand-drawn maps from the so-called plotters during the reconnaissance mission.
	And in the van driving up to look at Whitmer's vacation house to kind of check it out, three out of the five people in the van, which is 60% of the plot's leaders, were undercover FBI agents and operatives.
	At the initial June 6, 2020 meeting in Dublin, Ohio, where supposedly the Michigan plot was organized, the FBI is setting up the meeting and paying for the hotel rooms.
	And then, I think this is the kind of the cherry on the cake, that the FBI used a kind of similar language that you now find in the January 6 documents to hide the identity and to hide the extent of the fact that the FBI was in on this.
	From the beginning, the FBI was sort of fomenting the operation.
	Right. Right. Absolutely.
	And again, it's remarkable.
	Same people, same groups, same plot.
	The similarities are striking.
	And it's remarkable to me that just this case, like until this Revolver.News bombshell came out...
	No one was talking about 1-6 in relation to the Michigan plot, which in a way is just very troubling because it shows just how easily controlled we are by the fact that we have zero attention span.
	We forget things the next day.
	And so something this big just months before, no one was able to make that connection between the Michigan case and the 1-6 case, even though the parallels are absolutely striking.
	Darren, let's look at a couple of objections that have been made to this article and to your theory.
	I'm actually looking at an article in The Bulwark, which is a sort of Never Trump publication.
	And they make the point, which I think in a way Twitter does also, where they say, Federal law doesn't permit cooperating witnesses or informants to be charged with conspiracy, despite a baseless suggestion by Tucker Carlson that some of the co-conspirators...
	We're not charged because they were undercover FBI agents.
	So I guess what they're saying here is that they can't charge them if they were that no cooperating witnesses or informants can be charged.
	What's your response? Well, that is false along a number of dimensions.
	I'll take the first dimension, which is simply the matter of basic logic.
	No, and it's actually amazing to me.
	I consider it an insult to have Opposition that is this mediocre and low class and low status.
	I want an opposition that's at least close to my level intellectually, and I'm not getting that.
	And quite frankly, that's frustrating.
	Because in this case, their argument is, you know, what would these people get on the LSAT and the logic games?
	This is a basic logic game.
	I'm saying it's highly suspicious that all of these people listed in the charging documents who seem to be more egregious and more culpable than those charged, it's weird that they're not charged, and one possible even likely explanation is some of those people are undercover federal operatives.
	And they're coming back and saying, well, the government doesn't charge its own informants?
	Well, that's precisely what I'm pointing out to.
	That's precisely why it's suspicious.
	That's precisely why I'm saying the fact that these people aren't charged is suspicious and may suggest they're actually agents.
	But there's a sense in which they're not only wrong as a kind of logical matter, they're wrong as an empirical and practical matter.
	Government actually does charge its own agents.
	In fact, again, we can go back to the Michigan plot where I mentioned the fifth government agent and informant.
	Again, we can get into technical distinction about agent and informant.
	I'm using those in the kind of colloquial, non-technical sense.
	The fifth agent or informant, he's really an informant, in the Michigan plot, this guy Steve Robeson, he kept his cover for a long time.
	He was working with the government for a long time.
	All of the Michigan plotters got together and said, we have a rat in our ranks.
	This is disturbing. They went on this live stream to sort of adjudicate the question and to kind of interrogate him.
	And it basically broke down interrogation and said, yes, in the charging documents, I am the individual from Wisconsin, basically giving it up.
	And by the way, the government went to great lengths to conceal his identity and confuse things in the charging documents, referring to him as an individual from Wisconsin, individual here and there.
	And we also note parallels in that kind of language in the charging documents related to 1-6.
	But after he revealed himself, That created problems for the government and they presumably got pissed off that our guy outed himself and this compromises our investigation because now people understand the degree to which it's a big scam, a big infiltration scam.
	So after he outed himself, they go along to charge him.
	Not for this specific case, but they find an excuse to charge him on a gun charge.
	If I recall correctly, he was convicted of some kind of sex crime and not allowed to have guns, and they gave him a gun charge right after.
	So they do actually go after their own informants when they step out of line.
	And it's very possible.
	People need to understand this isn't a static crime.
	This situation. This is a chess game.
	This Revolver.News piece laid it out on the table and now there's going to be a lot of conversations within the Bureau, within saying, what do we got to do?
	There might be some of these people we need to charge now, now that people are talking about it.
	And so they need to negotiate with the people of charge saying, look, we got to charge you with something, otherwise it looks bad.
	And they have to make sure that they can convince these informants to say, We're going to charge you, but don't worry about it.
	It's not going to be that bad because the last thing they want is for the person to squeal and say, hey, you guys are charging me.
	I was working for you, which is something that's happened as well.
	So this is a very interesting chess game that's been set into motion now that's an iterative process.
	It's a dynamic process.
	Here's, to me, what was perhaps the most telling line in this Bulwark article, is after laying out these objections, it's almost as if the writer realizes how weak they are, because essentially what is said at the end is this, even if it were true, it's not exculpatory.
	So what she's basically saying is, she's basically saying is, okay, listen, you know, this could have been a setup.
	Yeah, maybe the feds did it.
	But after all, the other guys obviously went along, they participated, they worked hand in hand with these guys.
	So even if this was an engineered operation by the feds, Nevertheless, the full blame falls on the Trumpsters.
	It doesn't fall on the feds because the feds obviously didn't intend to break the law.
	They were merely setting these people up to bring out the lawless tendencies presumably in them.
	What do you make of this kind of...
	I mean, what does it mean for a free society where we essentially authorize the federal government to unleash these kinds of fake operatives to engineer operations and then go, aha, we gotcha!
	We got you. You participated in the bank robbery that we ourselves orchestrated and helped you set up.
	Excellent point, Dinesh.
	And I'm willing to predict right here the narrative development that will ensue as a result of this bombshell Revolver.News piece.
	We're at step one, which is the Feds didn't infiltrate the very MAGA militia groups they blamed for 1.6.
	Step two, yeah, maybe there was some infiltration, but that's not such a big deal.
	Step three, there was infiltration, and that's a good thing, actually.
	Step four, the people freaking out about the infiltration are the real problem.
	And so we're at step one.
	Maybe Bulwark is kind of- Moving into two and three.
	Hedging their bets here.
	But look, this is why this is so important.
	And I think, look, I basically think this.
	Our politics in this country are going to be fake and performative until we bring the intelligence national security apparatus to heal.
	We are not going to have a real country, a free country, Until that problem is solved in some fashion.
	And any conversation politically that is not about how do we get our national security apparatus back in line is fake and performative.
	What we really need is a Church Committee 2.0.
	We need a Church Committee 2.0.
	And we need people both from the left and the right to get on board with this because they pull these same tricks on the left.
	In fact, there's an article in a left-wing, even communist, I think, magazine called Jacobin, and they were the only ones to really call suspicion on the Whitmer plot.
	They didn't connect it to 1-6, but they called suspicion on Whitmer and said, what they're doing to this so-called mastermind of the Whitmer plot, who's this homeless guy living in a basement, It's very similar to what they were doing to a lot of Muslims in the wake of 9-11.
	And so we need to get serious principled people on the left, serious principled people on the right to understand we do not have a free country in America until the intelligence apparatus, including the FBI, is put in its proper place.
	Couldn't agree more. And Darren, you're to be congratulated.
	We need a lot more of this kind of investigative reporting because at the end of the day, what gets people to take notice isn't just punditry, isn't just interpretation.
	It's the new revelation of facts.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you, sir.
	Inflation is a kind of silent tax and it's also a form of theft, the government in a sense devaluing your money.
	Now in May, the inflation rate hit 5%, the highest in 13 years and we're seeing higher fuel prices, higher food prices, higher new and used car prices, construction costs, housing prices, the list goes on.
	So inflation isn't just kind of on the way, it's here.
	Have you protected your savings, your investments, if you haven't yet diversified a portion of the precious metals, the answer unfortunately is no.
	Now for decades, I never invested in gold, just the stock market.
	But now I'm seriously worried as many economists are about the regime we have in Washington Absolutely no sense of fiscal responsibility.
	So listen, if all your investments are tied to greenbacks, you're sitting on a ticking time bomb.
	It's time to invest a portion of your savings into gold and silver.
	Birch Gold Group is who I purchased from and who you can trust to convert an IRA, 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, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and countless five-star reviews, Birch Gold can help you too.
	Text Dinesh to 484848 and invest in gold like I did before it's too late.
	In a decision that just came down yesterday, a Colorado court in Denver has fined baker Jack Phillips $500 for the offense, for the crime of not baking a cake, celebrating transgender, quote, transitioning on the part of a Denver attorney.
	The attorney, a woman named Skardinia, filed this lawsuit against Jack Phillips.
	Now, let's review for a moment here.
	Jack Phillips had been sued for not baking a cake with a pro-gay wedding message for a gay wedding.
	Phillips' point of view is that, hey, I've got Masterpiece Cake Shop, and anybody can shop here, and anybody can buy cakes.
	But I should not be compelled to say something, to communicate a message that I not only disagree with, but goes against my conscience, goes against my faith.
	So this, in that sense, was a religious freedom case.
	But you can also look at it as a free speech case, because free speech means not only the ability to say what you think, but it also means not being forced to say something that you don't think, that you don't believe.
	And in this case, the gay wedding case, if you will, went all the way up to the Supreme Court, and Jack Phillips won.
	And you would think that that was that.
	After this tremendous ordeal, this poor guy can get back to his bake shop, but no.
	The very day that the Supreme Court said it would take Phillips' appeal...
	And Scardinia, who's transgender, filed a second complaint, a second case against him, saying, listen, you might get away with the gay wedding issue.
	I'm going to hit him now with the transgender issue.
	And you can see here what the left does.
	Their strategy is nothing less than a form of terrorism.
	They want to beat this guy down.
	They want to destroy him.
	And they want to destroy him, ultimately, not just to humiliate him, Now, what's really interesting here is that the judge, this is Judge Bruce Jones in Denver, he goes, wait, what?
	How is it not a free speech case when a man is being compelled to put out a message that he doesn't want to put out?
	The free speech implications would seem obvious.
	But the judge says, no, this is a discrimination case.
	I'm now quoting him. The anti-discrimination laws are intended to ensure that members of our society who have historically been treated unfairly, who have been deprived of even the everyday right to access businesses to buy products, are no longer treated as others.
	Now, let's grant it.
	Let's say that this is, in fact, what the anti-discrimination law says.
	How does that law get to trump the Constitution?
	If the Constitution has a freedom of speech clause and a freedom of religion clause that says Congress shall make no law, and Congress here refers to government in general, that governments can make no laws restricting freedom of speech or freedom of religion, how is it the case that any...
	Local anti-discrimination ordinance, or even a federal one, can trump the Constitution itself.
	It can't. But these are left-wing judges that are, in a sense, imposing their own policy preferences on the Constitution.
	They don't really like the First Amendment.
	They like the anti-discrimination law.
	And so they're using that to curtail this man, Jack Phillips's defense.
	Fortunately, the alliance defense, the ADF, is on the case.
	They're going to represent Phillips, so Phillips is not going to have these disabling legal fees.
	He's going to be able to take it up and appeal it.
	And appeal it all the way, I guess, up to the Supreme Court again, if necessary.
	These battles, it's only a $500 verdict.
	But remember, there's a sort of important precedent in these cases.
	The left knows this.
	That's why they fight these cases.
	That's why it's important for us to fight them on the other side.
	So we've got to become a lot more activists than we have been.
	Why? Because the times, the situation, and the necessity of our moment demand it.
	If you are considering replacing your carpets due to pet stains and odors, you gotta try Genesis 950. The reviews are incredible. This is one product that actually works. Now 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. It can be used 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 is great customer service. Order one gallon direct at Genesis950.com to receive 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.
	Genesis950. It is much cheaper than replacing your carpets, or your pants, or your couch.
	Dr. Fauci now says that he never really took the position that COVID-19 came from a wet market in Wuhan.
	He claims that he always was in kind of two minds about it.
	In fact, he claims that that was the general position inside the U.S. government.
	So let's listen to Fauci talk about this situation.
	Listen. Even though you lean towards feeling that this is more likely a natural occurrence, we always felt that you've got to keep an open mind.
	All of us. We didn't get up and start announcing it, but we've always said keep an open mind and continue to look.
	So I think it's a bit of a distortion to say that we deliberately suppress that.
	I don't think it is a distortion, and here's why.
	Let's say, let's take Fauci at his word.
	He never thought that there was a single explanation, even though his public comments strongly suggested there was.
	But in the aftermath of those public comments, the media went crazy.
	They began to label any suggestion by whether Tom Cotton, senator, or others, that the virus may have come from the lab as being debunked.
	Debunked, which means disproven.
	Disproven. And a conspiracy theory.
	And digital media, following suit, unleashed its bogus fact-checkers.
	Fact-checking nothing.
	All they were doing is basically taking a cue from Fauci and maybe from the WHO. And they deplatformed people.
	They took down millions of posts.
	Labeling them disinformation, although they were not disinformation.
	They were, in fact, information.
	And they were advancing theories that were not debunked.
	So, Fauci could see all this.
	He could see this happening right in front of him.
	So, let's say it was his position that somehow he had been misunderstood and there was a legitimate rival explanation.
	Why didn't he say something? Why didn't he come out and say, listen, guys, do not label these theories as debunkers.
	They're not. Do not take down posts that advance these ideas because they are open for debate.
	He did none of this.
	He remained silent. Now, why did he remain silent?
	I think more and more interesting facts are coming out.
	Here's a very interesting report in the National Pulse.
	It shows that Fauci in 2017 headlined a conference.
	Who was at that conference?
	Peter Daszak, the main gain-of-function research guy, a big funder of gain-of-function research.
	This is a guy, by the way, who tried to engineer a bogus letter in the Lancet to create a fake impression of a scientific consensus.
	Who else was at the conference?
	Batlady! Yes, this is in fact the Chinese virologist who's leading the gain-of-function research.
	And so you've got all these characters.
	Here's another character who was there, Dr.
	Linfa Wang of the Duke Medical School.
	Now, by the way, she is one of those people, part of this cabal, who signed that Lancet letter, making it sound like this was her objective point of view, that no, the virus obviously came from a wet market.
	So... What you see here is the way in which the health industry has been corrupted and corrupted from the top.
	Corrupted not just ideologically, there's an element of that, but also that these are guys who were doing this research and now they wanted to sort of throw the scent off of them.
	Now, here's Jon Stewart, the comedian, in an exchange with Colbert, basically stating the obvious, but in a kind of nice comedic way, about the origins of COVID. I don't know if you've seen Stewart's routine on social media.
	You should look it up. But basically, it's like, gee, we've got this...
	The Wuhan virus.
	It got unleashed in Wuhan.
	It caused a global epidemic.
	And then right next door across the street is the Wuhan lab where they make deadly viruses.
	Ergo, we might want to check that out.
	I mean, now here's the point.
	I mean, I'm really pleased.
	Because comedy is a vehicle for getting out information.
	A lot of people will see a comedic routine who might not see it if it came from a political pundit.
	So Jon Stewart, in that sense, is getting the word out.
	And you could see, you know, Colbert was a little discombobulated.
	Jon Stewart, are you spouting right-wing conspiracy theories?
	But see, here's my point.
	You know, comedy, ultimately, the best type of comedy is courageous.
	It goes against the grain.
	It shows a certain kind of bravery.
	And And one might be tempted to credit Jon Stewart with this kind of bravery, but no, you can't do it.
	You know why? Because Jon Stewart's only doing it now when it's safe to do it.
	Think about it. All the facts about where this virus came from, the proximity to Wuhan, if that's true now, it was true three months ago.
	It was true six months ago.
	It was true a year ago.
	And yet John Stewart all that time was dead silent.
	Why? Because he didn't want to be labeled a right-wing nut.
	He didn't want to be thrown off social media.
	He didn't want the left to turn against him.
	And so what did he do? He basically was tubing under the table.
	He didn't do anything. He kept quiet.
	Now that the press has turned on this, now that Fauci has come out, now that they're investigating it, here comes Jon Stewart stating the obvious.
	Except the obvious was obvious before, and we got not a word from Jon Stewart.
	So I'm glad he's doing it now, but eh, I don't consider this to be an act of great heroic bravery.
	It's quite frankly a little too late.
	Here's a movie that you need to see.
	It's called The Streets Were My Father.
	Now, for many Americans, Father's Day is a day to celebrate.
	But for many others, it's a day to get through.
	Why? Because Father's Day hurts if you don't have a father.
	Now, the facts are clear.
	Fatherlessness drives many horrible outcomes in America, from teen pregnancy to incarceration.
	And astounding, 85% of youths in prison come from fatherless homes.
	That's 20 times the national average.
	But there is a path forward from the grim statistics, and this is why I urge you to watch this powerful new film, The Streets Were My Father.
	It features the journey of three inner-city Chicago men from fatherlessness to gangs, and from life in prison to prison ministry programs that set them on the road to redemption and lives as productive members of society.
	Now here's a short clip.
	Listen.
	I wanted, I desired to have a father who would tell me that what I did was wrong.
	I'm in the movie business.
	This movie is authentic.
	It's moving. It's inspirational.
	Here's how you get the streaming version or DVDs.
	You've got to go to SalemNow.com and buy a copy or copies for anyone you know who doesn't have a father or who doesn't believe in the power of God to change lives.
	Go to SalemNow.com.
	That's S-A-L-E-M-N-O-W.com and order the movie, The Streets for My Father.
	One of the most striking features of the modern left is its deep and abiding hatred of Christianity.
	Hatred of, you might say, the Christian God.
	Not the hatred of God per se, because at least God as he is understood in Eastern religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, the left seems to have no real problem with that.
	You never see them attack those religions, that God.
	Interestingly, they don't even attack the Muslim God, Allah.
	Allah is off limits. In fact, if anybody says anything critical about Allah, we hear right away about Islamophobia.
	So the left rushes to the defense of Islam when Islam is blamed, for example, for Islamic radicalism, even though that's what the Islamic radicals attribute their actions to.
	So what I want to get at here is we're living in an age of radical secularism from the left.
	And what is it about the Christian God?
	That they hate so much.
	This is, I think, a profound question, and it's answered in a way in an important book.
	The book is not trying to answer this question, but it answers it sort of, by the way, en passant, if you will.
	This is R.C. Sproul's book called The Holiness of God.
	It's not a new book. It's been around for a while, but it's written with a lot of theological insight and power, and I want to get into this book now in a little bit.
	So, R.C. Sproul begins by talking about the fact that God's holiness is one of his defining, in fact, the defining quality of God.
	If God is one thing, he's holy.
	Now, it's kind of funny because on the left, they'll often talk, well, you know, God is a God of love.
	But R.C. Sproul says that when the Bible talks about the holiness of God, it kind of goes into overdrive.
	In fact, at more than one point, the Bible says essentially that God is holy, holy, holy.
	A kind of triple repetition of the word holy.
	And then R.C. Sproul makes this observation.
	He goes, the Bible never says that God is love, love, love.
	The Bible never says that God is mercy, mercy, mercy.
	So God is those things, but holiness is sort of God's own thing.
	Now, what does that actually mean, holiness?
	Well, first of all, R.C. Sproul makes the observation that holiness makes God sort of the holy other.
	He says,"...the scriptures warn that no person can see God and live." And even when we think back to Moses and the burning bush, I mean, Moses saw the burning bush, but he didn't see God.
	Abraham sort of talked to God, but didn't see him.
	So God, in that sense, his holiness puts him, you may say, outside the bounds.
	And yet, of course, R.C. Sproul makes this poignant observation.
	He goes, yet the final goal of every Christian is to be allowed to see God.
	What was denied to Moses.
	So when we come face to face with God, we will actually see him at some point, but not in this world and not in that sense in this life.
	Now... What the holiness of God creates in us, says Sproul, is the sense of the sublime, the sense of mystery and awe.
	But awe here is not in the sense of awesome.
	Awesome itself is a debasement of the original word awe, which suggests a certain kind of mystical, well, dread.
	It's the kind of feeling when you see that the whole sky turns purple and black and there are bolts of thunder and something very ominous is occurring.
	That's the feeling of the sublime.
	A scholar, Rudolf Otto, called it the mysterium tremendum.
	It's a tremendous mystery that kind of makes you quake in your boots.
	You're attracted to it, but there's a little part of you that's repelled by it.
	And then R.C. Sproul makes this observation.
	He says, there's a kind of phobia that seems embedded in humanity.
	It's xenophobia, right?
	And xenophobia, the word, xenia, in the ancient Greek means hospitality.
	So xenophobia means fear of strangers.
	And... In a sense, what R.C. Sproul says about God is that God is the ultimate object of xenophobia.
	Why? Because, quote, He is the ultimate stranger.
	He is the ultimate foreigner.
	Why? Because He is holy and we are not.
	So there's something about God's holiness, I'm suggesting, that is anathema to our secular age.
	There's something about God's holiness that makes people angry, rebellious, and they don't like a God who is like this.
	Why they don't like such a God, I'm about to tell you in the next segment.
	The Dinesh MyPillow special rolls on, but it's kind of coming toward its last phase.
	It ends July 4th, so just a couple more weeks left.
	I really would like to sign some books and movies for you.
	Now, for that to happen, you need to go to MyPillow.com.
	You need to spend $250 or $500 or $1,000, whatever you can manage.
	And there's a tremendous amount of great products.
	I want to talk to you now about Michael and Del's Father's Day special.
	The Father's Day special is on the king size pillows for the lowest price ever.
	You can get a king size premium my pillow for $29.99.
	Now regularly $99.99.
	So that's a $70 savings.
	That's what I call a discount.
	Now, all the MyPillow products come with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
	Deep discounts, by the way, on all the products, the Geezer Dream bed sheets, the MyPillow mattress topper, and MyPillow towel sets.
	Call 800-876-0227 or just go to MyPillow.com.
	Don't forget to use promo code Dinesh.
	I'm talking about the left's hatred for God, and specifically the Christian God.
	And I'm doing it in the context of R.C. Sproul's important book, The Holiness of God.
	And we're discussing what that holiness means.
	Now, I want to do this by raising the topic of a famous sermon that Jonathan Edwards gave.
	This was part of the Great Awakening.
	And Jonathan Edwards' sermon was called, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.
	It's a very chilling sermon to read today.
	It's so out of sync with the kind of pablum language we hear very often in the pews.
	Because it's filled with graphic images of God's fury, God's wrath, human sorrow.
	And Edwards' point is that God is this way because he is a God of holiness and of justice.
	This is, in fact, the just way or the holy way to respond, if you will, to human sin.
	But nevertheless, Edwards lays it on thick.
	I'm just going to read a few lines.
	The god that holds you over the pit of hell much as one holds a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire?
	His wrath towards you burns like fire.
	He looks upon you as worthy of nothing else but to be cast into the fire.
	And it goes on and on like this.
	It's a relentless sermon.
	Essentially, it says that we human beings are walking across the pit of hell on a kind of wooden bridge.
	And this bridge is supported by rotten planks that can break at every second.
	And the only thing that's keeping us from falling headlong into the flames is God.
	And yet the God that is holding us this way, supporting us, is also a God that is filled with wrath and rage.
	The severity of God's wrath.
	Here we go. A little bit more from Edwards.
	All your righteousness would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock.
	Now, this kind of rhetoric we never hear today, but R.C. Sproul says that, of course God is like this.
	Why? Because he's holy.
	And he goes, of course we don't like it, and of course we rebel.
	And by here, by us, he means secular culture, and this is especially true of the secular left.
	He goes, the reason that we hate God...
	It's because we hate His holiness.
	And the vehemence of our reaction, our discomfort when we read passages like this, is only a sign of our apostasy, about how we don't want to have anything to do with a God like this.
	And here's R.C. Sproul in his very best mode.
	God is our mortal enemy.
	We despise His very existence and would do everything in our power to rid the universe of His holy presence.
	I go on. Now,
	basically what Sproul is saying is, we want to live the way we want.
	We want to live in an unholy fashion.
	Our nature is such that we turn away from God.
	We are incompatible with His holiness.
	And then the punchline.
	How can we love a holy God?
	And Sproul answers, kind of surprisingly, the simple answer is...
	We can't. We can't.
	He goes, And what Sproul is saying is that our attitude should be one of receptivity to God's grace.
	But this is really where I think the secular left sort of jumps off the wagon.
	In other words, they don't want to do that.
	Why?
	Because they want to continue to operate in this kind of sinful mode.
	And by sinful, I mean, look at the disgusting extremes to which they go.
	They've taken abortion and it's gone from a kind of difficult necessity to now being something to actually celebrate.
	You have people talking about, look at the people who celebrate pedophilia, celebrate all kinds of sexual debaucheries and indecencies.
	And deep down they know it.
	But they want to keep doing it. They don't want to stop.
	They don't want to be under judgment.
	And that is really what God represents. God represents the ultimate karma, the ultimate accountability, the fact that yes, there is a Jesus who died for your sins, but you know what?
	You have to accept him in order to benefit from that sacrifice.
	The sacrifice is a gift.
	You've got to take it.
	And remember that Jesus is not just our Lord, not just our Savior.
	He's also our Lord, Lord and Savior.
	So it doesn't really make sense to say, oh yeah, you know, I kind of want Jesus to be my Savior, but no, I really don't want Him to be the Lord of my life.
	It's a package. They go together.
	If you want salvation, that means embracing the holiness of God.
	While God's holiness is such that our natures recoil from it, not just the The nature of the atheist, not just the nature of the secular guy, even our natures, the nature of the believer too.
	But nevertheless, what distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever is an acknowledgement of your own sin and a willingness to accept the unmerited, free gift of salvation that enables us to partake in the astonishing, frightening, sublime, and terrifying holiness of God.

▲