All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 28, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
55:20
HERE TO STAY Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 184
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Who's responsible for orchestrating the Haitian crisis on the Del Rio border?
Is it the Biden administration, the Democrats, the Haitians?
Could it be the cartels in Mexico?
Also, Senator Rand Paul joins me.
We're going to talk about General Milley.
We're going to talk about Afghanistan and also the infrastructure bill.
And I'm going to begin an examination of perhaps the leading American founder, Thomas Jefferson.
This is part of my Prager University new series.
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.
It's very clear, and the Biden administration has now admitted it, that the Haitians are here to stay.
They are being dispersed throughout America, and they're not going anywhere, at least not for quite a long time.
In some cases, I think it's pretty clear.
They're going to stay permanently.
Why? Because they're getting these notices to appear in court, typically in 12 months, 24 months, 36 months.
And it's a kind of, you know, show up if you show up.
And if you don't show up, we're not really going to come looking for you.
But we hope you will show up.
But in the meantime, of course, you can be here guest of the United States of America.
Wow. It's hard for me to watch this and, in fact, to believe that I went through this immigration process, you know, very methodically, step by step.
In some ways, looking back, I almost feel like a sucker because I had no money, but I scrounged around some money to get an immigration lawyer.
We had to go through the labor department, take out ads in the newspaper, go in for multiple interviews.
The whole process took years.
Eventually, I got a green card, and then it was a slow march To citizenship.
Now, think of all these guys who are laughing their heads off because they've just been able to circumvent the process.
Now, you might say, well, wait a minute, Dinesh.
These are people who are experiencing horrendous violence in their own country.
These are people who are refugees.
They're fleeing for their lives.
First of all, this is not true.
The Haitians aren't even coming directly from Haiti.
There's been a lot of reporting on this and it's now a little more clear what's been going on.
Some of these people were in fact refugees.
They were refugees years ago.
And what do they do? They fled from Haiti to other countries, notably Chile and Brazil.
They went to Chile and Brazil where they were accepted as refugees. They've been living in those countries for years. But now, under Biden, they see an opportunity. In fact, one of them even said kind of boldly, Biden invited us. And so they see a chance to upgrade their life from a Haitian in Chile or a Haitian in Brazil to a Haitian in America.
And so what these guys are doing now is that they are moving from those places.
This is kind of, this resolves the mystery of did the Haitians walk across the ocean?
How did they really get to the Mexican border?
Well, the answer is they got to the Mexican border and they got to the Texas border from South America.
They didn't actually come from Haiti.
And these guys are smart.
They realize that the Americans are going to ask for their refugee cards.
And so what are they doing? They're cutting them up.
In fact, people who have taken a peek on the other side of the border, they're just littered with refugee cards from Chile, refugee cards from Brazil.
And I can see pictures of them all over social media.
They're just tossed aside.
Why? Because if you show up with a refugee card, You're going to have to be sent back because you are now seen as an inhabitant, a resident of this country that has taken you as a refugee.
In fact, under immigration law, individuals are not eligible to even apply for refugee status in the U.S. if they're, quote, settled in a third country, which is the case of these Haitians.
Now, the reason that they can pull off this scam, the reason that they can cut up their card and show up, I don't have my card, is because the Biden administration is letting them.
The Biden administration knows full well what's going on, and yet they have said, kind of look the other way.
Let's all engage in a pretense that these are genuine refugees.
Let's treat them like refugees.
Now, once we began to see all those, I mean, third world type images of Haitians, you know, bathing in the river and, you know, going to the bathroom under the bridge, it was just this absolute slumdog millionaire type of images, the Biden administration became nervous.
Not because it was going on, not because they cared about the people who are all sandwiched together, not because of any of that.
It was the optics.
They were worried about, well, this is not going to look good.
And so they began to try to restrict coverage of how this could be seen by the Americans.
They want to prevent the American people from seeing what they're doing.
And then they tried to switch the narrative.
Oh, the racist horses!
The Border Patrol are using whips on the Haitians.
Now again, if they didn't know this was a lie, they found out like five minutes later.
Why? Because tons of people posted on social media, Wait a minute.
Haven't you ever heard of riding with the long reins?
Haven't you heard of reins that are not attached to each other, but attached only to the bit?
Don't you know that the Border Patrol uses horses?
Border Patrol doesn't carry whips?
They aren't whipping anybody? So even though they knew all that, Jan Saki kind of putting on her kind of most straightest face, she goes, well, those images are highly disturbing.
I guess what she's saying is they look like they're being whipped, even though nobody is in fact being whipped.
Now, at one point, Mayorkas, you know, chronic liar, by the way, this guy tried to give the impression, we're sending the Haitians back.
And of course, cooperative media types, yeah, there's a flight leaving here, there's a flight leaving there.
And yes, a small number of the Haitians, possibly 15, possibly 20%, did go back, were sent back.
But... Mayorkas has now admitted in an interview with Chris Wallace that, quote, 10,000 to 12,000 Haitians, and he says, quote, it could be even higher, are here.
They're not being sent back.
And what this means is that the Biden administration is still doing catch and release.
They're not doing remain in Mexico.
They're not doing apply from some other country.
They're basically acting as if this is a situation in which their interpretive discretion of the law allows them to, in effect, skirt the law.
This is kind of the way the left approaches the Constitution.
Yes, we're going to interpret the Constitution in a way that to make the Constitution say something completely different from what it, in fact, says.
And let's remember also that these Haitians...
Are now in America.
No COVID tests.
No vaccine mandates.
So the same rules being applied to Americans in all kinds of contexts are not applying to the Haitians.
And Jan Psaki says that's because they're not planning to be here for long.
What? This is not naivete.
I mean, intelligent people don't say things like this unless they intend to deceive.
And so you have here a plot that only works because the Biden administration is in on it.
They're allowing the Haitians to lie.
They're lying.
Their officials, Mayorkas and Jan Psaki, are lying.
The press is cooperatively lying.
And what they're hoping is that the American people, sitting in front of their television sets and looking at what's going on or watching it on social media, will not figure out the cynical motives behind this orchestrated scheme.
Cool thing about Mike Lindell is that his new products are just as creative, just as fantastic as his existing products.
And he's now introduced MySlippers.
Mike has taken over two years to develop these MySlippers.
They're designed to wear indoor or outdoor all day long.
They're made with MyPillow foam and impact gel to help prevent fatigue.
They're made with quality leather suede.
And for a limited time, Mike is offering 50% off the new MySlippers.
The MySlippers, by the way, is so comfortable, you're going to want to get some for the whole family.
We actually did. Here's Danielle with her moccasins.
Of course, Debbie and I just love ours.
I got the moccasins. Debbie got the slip-ons.
Go to MyPillow.com and use promo code Dinesh.
By the way, you're going to get deep discounts there on all the MyPillow products, the Giza Dream bed sheets, the MyPillow mattress topper, the robes, the MyPillow towel sets, and so on.
Call 800-876-0227.
That number again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Make sure to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
Who benefits from the border crisis in Del Rio?
Well... The Haitians benefit.
Why? They get to skirt the law.
They get to practice a kind of deceit in which they pretend to be refugees, even though they have been, for the most part, for months, if not years, settled in countries like Chile, like Brazil.
So they benefit.
They now claim their share of the American dream, having jumped ahead of everybody else waiting in the long line.
The Biden administration presumably benefits politically.
Why? Because it earns the gratitude of all these people.
Listen, we've given you special treatment.
We've allowed you into America.
Who's done this?
We've done this. You need to be eternally grateful to us.
And long-term, the Biden administration, I think, sees this kind of demographic shift in which the country is flooded with illegals as being politically beneficial.
More votes for the Democratic Party.
I think this is what they care about.
They don't care about the Haitians.
They're looking to the political gains that might come out of this.
But is there another party that benefits?
I didn't really think about this until I read an article by this guy Josh Trevino, who's at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
The article is in American Mind.
And here's a guy who goes down to the border, and he's standing at the border.
Now, he's not standing at the border in Del Rio.
He's standing actually at the border crossing from Mexico, where the Mexicans are coming across.
And he's noticing this train of cars and trucks and migrants coming over.
And he's standing on what is sometimes called Border Hill.
It's called Border Hill because it's a kind of a high point where you can really get a panoramic view of what's coming toward the border from the other side.
And he says the one thing missing on Border Hill are border patrol agents.
There's no one from our side, no officials who are monitoring the situation.
And so all those people heading our way are confident that they're going to be able to get across.
And this causes him to raise an interesting question.
Of course, the Border Patrol has been dealing with the processing of the Haitians in Del Rio.
Governor Abbott in Texas dispatched Texas National Guard.
And so there's plenty of agents now in Del Rio.
And the Del Rio situation has been kind of cleared up.
But kind of at the expense of the longer border.
And this is, I think, Joshua Trevino's point, is that while everyone is focused on Haiti, oh, the Haitians are coming across on this one point del Rio, what you have is essentially an open border at many other points.
And so the question being raised by Josh Trevino is, could it be that one of the other beneficiaries are noticed Are the Mexicans, the cartels, the traffickers, the criminals, all the people who want to come over and have had to face at least some blockage, some processing, but now that the processes are all diverted to Del Rio, hey, this is a great time to skip over and make our way into the interior of the country where we never may be heard from again.
Josh Trevino talks to ranchers and people who are seeing this going on.
They're absolutely disgusted.
They will scream things like, listen, get off my property.
If you come back, I'll kill you, and so on.
But this is nothing more than an expression of helplessness.
Helplessness, why? Because these are Americans.
Who own property down there.
Who have been let down.
Let down not by the Haitians.
Let down not by the Mexicans.
Not even let down by the cartels.
Because the cartels don't owe them anything.
But they've really been let down by their own country.
They've been let down by their own government.
And so, what's going on here is, and this is Josh Trevino's point, is he says that, you know, I can't be angry at these other people.
I understand why the Haitians are doing it.
They're being rational about it.
I also understand why the cartels are doing it.
They're being rational about it either.
Also, and then he says, and here's the only part where I disagree with him, he goes, the only irrational actors in the system are us.
Now, he's assuming that the Biden administration is irrational because it's looking out for the national interest.
And by that criterion, yes, they are irrational.
But what if they're not looking out for the national interest?
What if they're looking out for their own partisan political interest?
What if they want the remaking of America?
What if they want to swamp the Republicans, particularly in closed states, where they have to fight for elections when they can otherwise engineer a demographic shift where they've got basically a built-in advantage?
In that case, the Biden administration is no less rational, which is to say no less cynical than any of the others.
Debbie and I are really excited about the home security system called Vivint.
We showed it to my stepson, Justin, who just bought a home, and he said, I want that!
He has it now and loves it.
For over 20 years, Vivint has put home security first.
You can find peace of mind with a Vivint smart home security system that's custom built for your unique home.
With outdoor security cameras, a doorbell camera, smart locks, lighting, security sensors, thermostat controls, and much more.
Don't take our word for it.
Both USA Today and US News picked Vivint as 2021's best overall home security system.
And TechCrunch says, don't do it yourself.
Your smart home security system, the pros at Vivint are totally worth the cost.
Vivint's renowned doorbell camera pro not only notifies you when packages arrive, when it spots someone trying to take a package, it activates an LED ring and speaker letting potential thieves know they've been caught on camera That's V-I-V-I-N-T dot com slash Dinesh.
Or you can even call them at 1-855-VIVINT-0 and use our promo code Dinesh.
Once again, that's 1-855-VIVINT-0.
Use promo code Dinesh.
Remember how the January 6th protesters were called terrorists?
They were called terrorists even by some people who should know better on our side.
Now, these guys didn't do any terrorism.
They didn't advocate any terrorism.
Their motives were completely different.
But amazingly, there is terrorism coming from the left.
We see it with Antifa.
We see it with some of these other groups.
We also see an increasing respectability for the advocacy of terrorism, even in other areas.
And I noticed this recently from two places, one the New Yorker and the other the New York Times, both featuring interviews or commentary on a book by a Swedish climate activist.
This guy's name is Andreas Malm, M-A-L-M, and he is the author of a book with a rather surprising title, How to Blow Up a Pipeline.
Now this guy was recently interviewed by the New Yorker, and he basically says, yeah, there's this climate meeting coming up in Glasgow at the end of October.
But he goes, we can't really rely on these sorts of conversations, discussions, resolutions, agreements.
He goes, we need to start blowing some stuff up.
Now, he's careful to say I'm not talking about blowing people up.
He wants to blow up only property.
But he says, by and large, anything that emits carbon can and should be blown up.
I'm in favor of destroying machines, property, not harming people.
Now, let's quote him.
Damage and destroy new CO2-emitting devices.
Put them out of commission. Pick them apart.
Demolish them. Burn them.
Blow them up. Let the capitalists who keep on investing in the fire know that their properties will be trashed.
And then he says, if people in the region...
In other words, in the region where oil is made, were to attack the construction equipment or blow up the pipeline before it's completed, I would be all in favor of that.
I don't see how that property damage could be considered morally illegitimate given what we know of the consequences of such projects.
Now, This is very bad stuff.
And, you know, very interestingly, the same type of social media censors who normally say, you know, we're against hate, we're against violence, we're trying to prevent eruptions of violence.
But there's no indication that they're going to take this guy down, Andrea's mom.
There's no indication that they're going to take the New Yorker down, take the New York Times down.
Here's New York Times columnist Ezra Klein reviewing Andreas Momm's book, and he makes some very strange remarks.
First of all, he has a comment recently on his Twitter where he says, I spent the weekend reading a book I wasn't entirely comfortable being seen with in public.
Again, let's translate.
He doesn't mind reading a book about blowing up pipelines.
He's not uncomfortable about reading the book.
He's uncomfortable being seen reading the book in public.
Because people might think he's a terrorist of some sort himself.
He doesn't want to give that impression.
He's a respectable journalist.
But he's a respectable journalist who is, by and large, promoting, in this case, eco-terrorism.
In fact, he surprises not more of it.
This is now Ezra Klein quoted referring to the book.
He goes, So what you have here is these climate activists have worked themselves up into a frenzy.
And they believe that the ordinary public, people like me, just can't see the same evidence that they see.
Perhaps we're not as intelligent, even though we have more degrees and went to better colleges.
We can't see the evidence that's so obvious to them.
And therefore, they've kind of got to force it.
They've got to force the issue, not just by doing civil disobedience, not just by doing nonviolence, but by blowing things up.
Well, it seems to me that if these things do happen, if someone takes this guy's advice and goes and blows up a pipeline, it's going to be important to make sure that we arrest not just the guy who did it, but also the guy who inspired it, who motivate it, and perhaps also some of the media guys who have also become cheerleaders and advocates for it.
Have you ever considered adding gold and precious metals to your portfolio?
You really should.
Now in the recent budget proposal, the White House Budget Office forecast inflation for this year at 2.1%.
The real rate, of course, is much higher, over 5%.
And the point is, inflation's here, it's coming faster than our government is prepared for, and their solution is to stick their heads in the sand.
Well, don't stick your head in the sand.
Hedge your savings against inflation by diversifying into gold and silver with Birch Gold Group.
Now if you haven't reached out to Birch Gold to diversify part of your IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA, do it today.
I buy my gold from Birch Gold.
They have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of happy customers.
Talk to them.
Have them help you safeguard your investments.
Text Dinesh to 484848 to claim your free information kit and to speak with a precious metals expert on holding gold and silver in a tax-sheltered account.
Again, text Dinesh to 484848 and protect your savings today.
I'm really happy once again to welcome Kentucky Senator Rand Paul to the podcast.
Rand, thanks for joining me.
I really appreciate it.
Let me dive right into General Milley's testimony today, because we had gotten the impression from the Woodward book that Milley regarded Trump as being out of control, and therefore he took two actions.
One, essentially established a chain of command in which any nuclear decisions would have to go through him, and two, he called his counterpart in China, General Li, and essentially said to him, listen, if there's any attack coming, I'm gonna give you the heads up, and I'm also gonna give you the heads up in the future.
Now today, General Milley kind of sung, if I may say so, a different tune, as I heard it, in which he was saying basically, no, this is just a routine clarification of who's in charge, and I know that Trump isn't gonna attack China.
I was merely conveying that intention, the president's own intention, to my counterpart in China.
Now, what do you make of this apparently new framing of the Milley story?
You know, I think to get to the truth of the matter is difficult.
Do we take him at face value, what he's saying now, or do we accept what the Woodward book is reporting as his point of view?
Now, obviously, Woodward is, you know, very good at gossip.
So there's a lot of gossip in Washington.
He wasn't privy to any of this.
He's hearing it all secondhand.
So I think you do have to take with a grain of salt the things that are in the Woodward book because they are basically glorified gossip.
But they're worrisome enough that Milley should be asked.
And if Milley was working for me and I was president.
I would have brought him in and I would have asked him to respond to questions under a polygraph because I think the idea that he would actually go outside the chain of command and warn the Chinese that, oh, I'm going to prevent anything like a nuclear launch that might happen from President Trump.
By saying things like that, you could actually cause an accidental nuclear war because you could have the Chinese then so jumpy that a civilian launch of a satellite or Some sort of launch into space might be misinterpreted because the general is saying, wow, our president is such a loose cannon, he might attack you, but I'll try to stop him.
That would be actually putting the Chinese into a position where they think, oh my goodness, anything launched into space might be an attack.
It actually might set off an accidental nuclear war.
Not to mention that in our country, it's very important that we have civilian control of our army and our military.
So I was very worried by that report.
deserves the chance to defend themselves.
I guess unless you're a Lieutenant Colonel and the military says you cannot question the chain of command with regard to the withdrawal in Afghanistan that was so catastrophic.
So it seems to be sort of a different standard for General Milley than it is for the Lieutenant Colonel, who's being drummed out of the military now.
Let's turn to Afghanistan for a moment because it seems now that General Milley, General McKenzie, it was the view of the top generals that the United States needed to manage this differently, that they did not agree with Biden's kind of precipitous, let's get out of there kind of overnight decision.
Biden had said a little earlier that he had not He was not aware of anybody at the top brass giving him advice counter to what he in fact did.
Do you think this is just a case where Biden's neurons are not on full firing and he just forgot that he had gotten this advice?
Or do you think that maybe he didn't get the advice somehow?
I think many of the generals at this level are very much political animals, and I do think that they're covering up for maybe one of the worst military decisions to come down in a lifetime.
Evacuating Bagram Air Force Base before everyone had gotten out of the country was a terrible military blunder.
I doubt that originated with civilians or with Biden.
I'm thinking the decision to leave Bagram Air Force Base prematurely was purely a military one.
And in the end, it may have cost the 13 lives because they were trying to defend a municipal airport instead of trying to defend a military airport.
The military airport had reinforced concrete at the entryways, had a big, huge line of sight.
You could keep people away.
Guarding the municipal airport was a really, really rotten, bad decision.
That, I think, was made primarily by the military.
And then in their haste, this may have come from Biden himself, But in their haste to save face over losing the 13 soldiers after making the terrible decision to leave the Air Force Base, they then launched a deadly missile strike on civilians.
And I think that was done in haste to save face, and they acted in a rash manner without fully looking at the details.
But I have a suspicion that may come from all the way up to Biden, because during the Obama days, the drone strikes, he authorized every one of them individually.
So it's not out of the question for the media to be asking Biden, did you specifically and personally approve the strike?
I have a feeling he may well have.
What do you make grand of this Marine Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Shaler?
This guy, you know, apparently maybe a little rashly says, you know, I'm demanding accountability from my superiors.
Maybe he spoke out of turn.
But apparently this guy is now in the brig.
He's locked up awaiting trial.
Meanwhile, all the top guys who managed this sort of absolute disaster as you describe it...
Don't seem to be having any accountability.
Are you disturbed by the fact that we're seeing accountability at the micro level for a guy who goes, what's going on?
And no accountability for the very guys who blew it?
You know, I think questioning the chain of command and questioning the wisdom of something is something you would want your junior officers to do.
If we're going to put them in prison or dismiss them or court-martial them for questioning the decision making, boy, I think we'll have a lot less of people trying to get to the right solution and just being quiet because they're afraid of what will happen.
Putting him in a brig, though, or putting him in a jail cell is an incredibly bad form, I think incredibly detrimental to morale in the military, and I think the wrong thing to do.
If you say that you cannot say that in the military...
My understanding is that you might resign your commission.
You might leave the military because you're, you know, unable to accept that that was good advice and you want to be able to criticize that.
But putting somebody in jail for that or a court-martialing somebody I think is inappropriate and I think is going to lead to a lot of loss of morale throughout the ranks of the military.
I mean, it seems there's a key difference between a guy countermanding a command and saying, I won't carry it out.
That's not what this guy was doing.
It was after the fact that I think he realized that the whole country can see this is an abject disaster.
And he was just saying, who made these decisions?
Who's accountable for it?
And you're basically saying that in this circumstance, let's at least let the guy speak his mind and don't necessarily penalize him in this way for it.
Yeah, and it's an over-the-top kind of response, theatrical and bad theatrics, as far as I'm concerned, to actually put him in the brig.
That is beyond the pale.
A guy who served 17 years, a guy by all accounts and by all those who know him well, is a great patriot and loves his country, and did this at his own peril to his career, to speak out.
But I think he was so affected by 13 young men and women dying based on really, really terrible, rotten military decisions at the top.
And there are complaints by a lot of officers in that level, lieutenant colonel, colonel, people who are saying the people rising to the top are not rising to the top because of skill.
They're rising to the top because of political wokeness, because of left-wing politics.
Because, you know, by not having an original thought in their head the entire time they're there and not offending anyone, they rise to the top.
But they may not be the best people to be making decisions when we have to actually be in a military or a warlike situation.
When we come back, I want to ask Senator Rand Paul about domestic politics and focus on the infrastructure bill.
When Debbie and I talked to Dr. Douglas Howard, the founder of Balance of Nature, he said, hey guys, you're a long way from being healthy if you aren't eating enough fruits and veggies in your diet.
He said, try Balance of Nature just to see how it's going to make you feel.
Well, not only do we feel like we're in our 20s, hey, we have kids in their 20s, but we know we're getting what we need.
We take 10 daily servings of fruits and veggies, all in six small capsules.
There are absolutely no trouble swallowing, always fresh, nothing artificial, and smell great.
And Debbie swears by the fiber and spice.
She says she's never been more regular.
Invest in your health, invest in your life.
Join me and experience the Balance of Nature difference for yourself for years to come.
For a limited time, all new preferred customers get an additional 35% discount and free shipping on your first Balance of Nature order.
Use discount code America Call 800-246-8751.
That number again, 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com and use discount code AMERICA. I'm back with Senator Rand Paul.
We've been talking about foreign policy, but I want to pivot to domestic policy.
Rand, you've got these two gigantic infrastructure bills, kind of one the small elephant or maybe the big elephant and the bigger elephant, the $1.5 trillion bill, and then the amorphous $3.5 trillion bill.
Tell me what's happening with these two bills.
It appears that Pelosi has now pivoted to a stance in which instead of hitching the two bills together, she's moving just the smaller elephant, if you will, forward, recognizing perhaps she doesn't have the votes for the bigger one.
What's your take on where all this is going?
I think it's sort of a sign of the times, but a bad sign that we now consider $1.5 trillion to be a smaller, more reasonable bill.
All of this is borrowed.
We're borrowing money at an alarming clip.
We're borrowing more money as a percentage of our GDP than we've ever borrowed in the history of our country.
So there will be ramifications to this.
And what we're looking at now is maybe $5 trillion worth of debt this year.
Nancy Pelosi said all along it's sort of two for one.
You know, you get both or you get none.
She's tried to play that gambit.
It's still going to play out, and I think there will be two bills, but there will be some less spending than what they expected.
I think the $3.5 trillion bill will be smaller, but I think the smallest it could possibly be would be $1.5 trillion.
So you add the two together.
One and a half trillion for infrastructure, another trillion and a half for fake infrastructure, but you also had about two trillion earlier in the year for COVID. And so really we are looking at four to five trillion more than we normally spend.
People have to realize that our normal spending is a trillion dollars short.
So we have an institutional every year sort of there for basic things that government does of a trillion dollars.
Now we're adding another four trillion that we don't normally have in the budget, so that's Getting up to five, maybe more than five trillion dollar deficit.
There will be ramifications.
The number one and key ramifications inflation.
So it's sort of a bait and switch.
The Democrats are going to offer free stuff to everyone.
free college, free daycare, free cars, free electricity.
And yet in the end, it's not free because the prices will rise and you'll pay for it through inflation.
Some people will pay for it through higher taxes.
Some people will pay for it through unemployment as the economy weakens under the burden of the new taxes and the inflation.
So there's a lot of ways people are gonna pay for this and it won't be free.
And in the end, people will look back and say, boy, why am I not any better off than I was before even though I supposedly have all this free stuff.
So I think we need to fight this tooth and nail, and we need to make sure we remind people there really is nothing that's free in life.
You only get things through hard work, and the government offering you free things in the end is a bait and switch.
What about the Biden administration's overall spending strategy here?
When you listen to them, they seem to essentially have set economics to the side.
And I say that because you'll hear phrases where even Pelosi will say things like, well, I don't really want to talk about the numbers.
We're kind of talking about people.
Or this idea that this doesn't really cost any money because, after all, we've got a tax plan to raise taxes to pay for it.
So somehow, if you're paying for it through tax increases, that this is a net zero.
We don't need to worry about the impact on the debt.
What do you make of this kind of almost uprooting of the public debate from the kind of normal types of economic conversations that I at least am familiar with having in this country over the past several decades?
It's completely dishonest.
They're just lying to the American public.
What they do to have any semblance of saying that this is paid for is they'll institute a program like Free Community College.
And they'll say, oh, we're only instituting it for two years.
Well, the history of government is when you institute an entitlement, it never goes away.
But if you say, oh, we're only paying for it for two years and it's paid for by raising the corporate income tax, it looks like it's true.
But what about the next 30 years that we have free community college?
Because it's never going away and they don't want it to go away.
But they play funny games with the budget to say, oh, it's paid for.
When in reality, it becomes an entitlement never paid for, never is removed.
Part of that's because it's easier to give people free stuff than it is to take it away.
Once people get used to free community college, who's going to be the big bad, you know, Republican that says, I'm going to get rid of free college.
So we need to have this bigger debate, have it up front, that nothing in life is really free.
You cannot give something to someone without first taking it from someone else.
And that's what's going to happen.
We'll take it from other people.
We'll pay for it through rising prices.
But ultimately, we could pay for it in a big way by destroying the currency of this country.
And there are times in which you create so much currency, you create so much debt, that you actually destroy the currency.
That's what's going on in Venezuela.
Now, people say, oh, we're not Venezuela.
But even great countries can destroy their currency.
And I do worry about printing so much money, borrowing so much money in such a short period of time that we actually could threaten our currency.
Do you think that the Biden people are worried that there are storm clouds on the horizon for next year, the midterm?
And so their idea is, look, we've got a little window of opportunity here over the next few months.
Let's kind of go all out.
Because you get the feeling that from the border policy and across the board, these guys don't seem to be worried about offending the American people.
They seem, you know, COVID requirements for all of you, but we're going to let the Haitians in without even so much as a COVID test.
There's a brazenness to what they're doing that appears to be politically indifferent to the kind of backlash that you might normally expect from this.
Do you agree? Yeah, and I think they've gone so far to the left and they have people pulling and tugging them that are so far to the left that they've lost tune of what middle America is like at all.
So I would say that most people in our country, and this includes even suburban voters that have been trending Democrat, if you ask them, do you think we should defund the police department?
I think that polls at about 15 percent of the public for that.
And yet that's been at the tip of the tongue, the tip of the spear for the left for the last year that we don't need any police.
If you ask middle America or even suburban America, do you think a six foot four boy should get to play girls sports and run in the girls track meet?
I think that's going to poll at about 10 or 15 percent, too.
So what you're finding and I think what the Democrats will find in 2022 is they think they control the suburbs.
But there's going to be people in the suburbs who actually still think having police is a reasonable notion and that having girls sports and boys sports be separate to be fair is something that is a reasonable notion and that maybe it's a crazy, out there, wacko idea to believe in the things that the progressive left is pushing.
Add to that bankrupting of America.
And I think you might find that a lot of Americans who somehow got caught up in maybe anti-Trump fear are going to say in 2022, my goodness, these people are more nuts than I thought they are and they're bankrupt in the country.
Maybe we need to get some of the other people back in power.
So I think you're going to see a big shift back in 2022.
The big danger is they're voting in so many entitlements.
Are they going to vote in so many expenditures that are going to be dragging us down for decades?
So we are paying a penalty right now, and we have to try to stop them as much as we can until there can be an intervening election and more sense brought back to our Congress.
Rand Paul, thank you very much.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you. Thanks for having me.
If you're thinking of replacing your carpets due to pet stains and odors, you've got to try Genesis 950. The reviews are amazing. 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 everything, and when I got one of our white chairs kind of dirty, Debbie sprayed Genesis 950, and it took it Genesis 950 has great customer service.
Order one gallon direct at Genesis950.com.
You'll get a free spray bottle, free shipping, and a $10 coupon using the code Dinesh.
That's Genesis950.com.
Coupon only available for one gallon purchase.
Genesis 950. It's much cheaper than replacing your carpets or your furniture.
A January 6th defendant has died.
This is John Anderson, 61 years old, died in the hospital.
And his attorney, Marina Medvin, By the way, an immigrant to America, a feisty lawyer, someone who's been representing very ably some of these January 6th defendants.
You know, normally when you're representing someone, you can't talk about the situation.
You can't describe publicly the facts of the case.
Why? Because you're under this kind of upcoming trial and you have to kind of keep everything under wraps.
But with John Henderson having passed away, Marina Medvin is able to spell out the story of John Anderson, which is really eye-opening because it shows you the deep cynicism, and I would say even wickedness, of the prosecutorial forces of the Biden administration.
This would be the Attorney General.
And this would be the goon squad that is going after these guys.
In a sense, I will say indiscriminately.
And you'll see what I mean by that in a minute.
So this guy, John Anderson, is a former Marine.
He's owned small businesses for most of his life.
A mechanic shop, a foam spray insulation service.
He's a church-going guy.
And basically a good guy, a right-winger, a Trumpster.
He went to Washington, D.C. not to storm the Capitol.
He went there to basically, he thought this was kind of a historic protest and he wanted to be there.
So there he is on January 6th and he takes out his phone and he's recording everything that's going on.
Now he sees a crowd pushing toward the Capitol and he goes with them and he's filming.
And while he's filming, he finds himself at the Capitol Hill tunnel entrance.
And he has no intention of going into the Capitol, but he's pushed a little bit by the crowd.
In other words, you know how crowds have a certain kind of momentum, so they begin to push him toward the Capitol, but not in the Capitol.
He doesn't go in the Capitol. Now, while he's there, a kind of, you would almost call it a spray fight, It erupts between some of the protesters and some of the cops.
They start whipping out spray, chemical spray, and spraying at each other.
And this is going back and forth.
Now this guy, John Anderson, isn't all that well.
He's a guy who has a heart condition, he has allergies, he has asthma.
And so the spray basically fills up his lungs, he can't breathe, and he falls to the ground.
He falls to the ground at which point the officers come to help him.
And John Anderson says, I'm eternally grateful that the officers did that.
They pull him up and they take him into the Capitol.
In other words, they draw this guy into the Capitol to pull him away from the crowd.
Now, they check him out.
He seems to be better.
He seems to be okay. And so they release him.
And it would normally have been the end of the matter.
But amazingly, as part of the great crackdown, shock and awe, we're going to arrest everybody, they come back to his house, hunt him down at 5 a.m., surround him, throw him down on the pavement and arrest him.
And when he's locked up, Marina Medvin notices they suddenly produce all these charges against him.
They say that, quote, he was stealing two police shields.
They say that he was assaulting and resisting or impeding officers, and he was also guilty of, quote, civil disorder, quite apart from the normal crime of being illegally in the Capitol, even though they brought him there.
He didn't go there of his own accord.
Now, Marina Medvin has looked at this video of him supposedly assaulting officers and, quote, stealing police shields.
A, all you see in the video is the crowd is passing a police shield over his head as he is down, being held by the officers.
In other words, he's getting aid from the officers.
He doesn't... He, at one point, touches the shield, but he doesn't have the shield.
It's not his shield.
And, of course, since the police had him in their custody, you think that they would have let him walk off and go, oh yeah, you can go.
You can keep the two police shields.
No, this makes absolutely no sense.
So, the video evidence, far from showing that he resisted the cops, he couldn't resist the cops, they were helping him.
He was on the ground.
So, Marina Medvin says that far from the video evidence, which she's now been able to obtain as part of a grudgingly given discovery, far from convicting him, it exonerates him.
But the government doesn't work like this.
Their idea is to throw charges on you, know that you're facing the danger of a left-wing judge, you're facing the danger of a judge who basically is all in with the government, and so they try to extract a plea out of you.
And that's what they were trying to do with this guy.
They were basically, listen, we'll drop some of the charges, but you've got to plead guilty to a felony, and you're going to face some prison time.
Prison time for what? So, I think this is the tragedy of John Anderson.
He is survived by his wife, Beth, and there's going to be a celebration of life for him Monday, October 4th.
It's at the 11 a.m.
at the First Conservative Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida.
This is a guy who loved his country, and his country treated him very badly.
And unfortunately, in the end, he...
lost his life in the not-so-loving arms of the US government.
Just a few weeks ago, one of America's leading non-profit law firms, First Liberty Institute, asked patriots like you to sign their letter to help stop President Biden's radical scheme to pack the US Supreme Court.
Since then, a quarter of a million people have signed, with tens of thousands joining their coalition every day.
Franklin Graham, former US Attorney General Ed Meese, Dr.
James Dobson, the Family Policy Alliance, the Heritage Foundation, they're all on board.
But we only have until September 29th.
To include your name before this goes to the Biden Commission.
Look, if we don't stop the radical left from installing four more justices so they can rig the system in their favor, it will end the rule of law as we know it in America.
Please sign your name now like Debbie and I have.
Go to SupremeCoup, that's C-O-U-P. Go to SupremeCoup.com to sign First Liberty's letter.
Once again, that's SupremeCoup.com and may God bless America.
My Prager University series of five videos on the leading American founders is out.
And all the videos have been released.
And you can watch them individually.
They're five minutes apiece.
Or you can sort of do a little mini-marathon and in 25 minutes you'll get a pretty comprehensive picture of the ideas and the leading personalities.
I want to talk a little bit today about Thomas Jefferson, and I'm not going to cover the material I do in the video.
The video itself is an exploration of this question, namely, what did Jefferson mean by equality?
What is the meaning of the equality clause of the Declaration of Independence?
All men are created And I look at this in the specific context of slavery because the argument from the left is that Jefferson obviously didn't believe it.
The left, by the way, isn't the only people who think this.
Roger Taney, who wrote the Dred Scott decision in the 1850s, a Democrat, a former slave owner, and someone who affirmed The right to take slaves into the territories.
This same Roger Taney, in reflecting on Jefferson and the Declaration, said, well, obviously a guy who had 200-plus slaves could not possibly have honestly believed.
He must have meant something else when he said all men are created equal.
He clearly didn't mean all men.
Now, I focus on this issue in the video, but I thought I would speak today a little bit about Jefferson the man, because I'm going to talk about Jefferson's views on race, Jefferson's views on slavery, but before I do that, I'll give you a sense of who Jefferson was.
First of all, he was, not just in my view, but in Abraham Lincoln's view, the leading figure in the American Revolution.
I think Lincoln would have admitted that Washington led the revolution in a military sense.
But in terms of speaking for the revolution, articulating the American Revolution, saying what it means, nobody did that more than Jefferson.
Madison was responsible for the political maneuvering that got the Constitution through.
Franklin was a kind of elder statesman.
Of course, Adams was the president who succeeded Washington, Jefferson not becoming president until he was elected in 1800 for two terms.
And yet Jefferson is the kind of figure who embodies the revolution.
I will say for my own, speaking for myself, that if I could meet only one of these five or even six, counting Washington, founders, and let's say have dinner with him, I would choose Jefferson.
The most interesting, the most varied, in some ways the most mysterious, but also the most profound of the American founders.
Although he had a learned, he was a renaissance man, a varied talent, a man of impeccable education and taste.
And he was a southern planter.
That was his profession.
He was a farmer with a plantation, Monticello, with at varying times fairly large numbers of slaves on it.
And yet, by temperament, he was a Democrat with a small d.
And by that I mean he hated the idea of countries composed of two classes of people.
You may say the ruling class and the subordinate class.
I'm going to read from Jefferson's letter to Roger Whiteman.
This was sent from Monticello in 1826.
He goes... He is denouncing the view that I'm about to describe.
What is that view? He's denouncing the view that the mass of mankind is born with saddles on their backs, with a favored few, booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of God.
So Jefferson goes, this to Jefferson is a hateful idea.
He's saying the mass of mankind are not born with saddles on their backs.
Now, this is not to say that Jefferson believed that all people are kind of equal in every sense.
Not at all. In fact, Jefferson, and this is coming now from one of his letters, he talks about the concept of a natural nature.
And right away here, it may seem that Jefferson's defending aristocracy, but what Jefferson is saying is that there are really two types of aristocracy.
There is the conventional aristocracy, which means you're born a count, or you're born a marquee, or you're born a member of the royal family.
That's a conventional aristocracy, as opposed to, what's a natural?
Who's a natural aristocrat?
Well, I think Jefferson would say somebody like Shakespeare.
An aristocrat in taste, because remember, aristocracy, the name itself, is ruled not by the well-born, but ruled by the good.
And Jefferson is saying that there is a meritocracy Of talent that he does support.
He does want capable people to rule the country.
Jefferson's a great believer in religious freedom, a religious freedom that he recognized at the time would be extended not only to different Christian sects, but also to Jews.
But in principle, he supported even for others.
In the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, Jefferson's statute, He's very clear.
He says that this is meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination.
So, in other words, the kind of religious freedom that we have, we think about today in its broadest sense, Jefferson is on board.
Jefferson also believed that farmers...
We're special people.
Special, not special in the sense they're born special.
But he believed that the farming life, hard work, industry, a certain dependency on the seasons, a recognition that there's scarcity that comes out of the ground.
He thought farmers, in a sense, are the best people in America.
He was suspicious of city slickers.
I'm quoting from Jefferson...
He says that you're not likely to find corruption in people who cultivate the ground.
He goes, what you're getting from them most likely is a spirit of fierce independence.
And now I want to just quote a line here before I close.
Dependency, he says, begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for For the designs of ambition.
What he's saying is that he wants in America to have self-reliant people who are not easily reduced to servitude and to slavery.
So you see here that Jefferson is well aware that the great enemy of freedom is slavery.
And so the question I take up in the Prager video, which please watch, and I'm going to be discussing more about Jefferson in the next couple of days.
Jefferson is saying, I who oppose the political slavery being imposed by the British cannot possibly be in favor of the race-based slavery that's going on in America.
And as you will see, he was in fact not.
▲
Export Selection